Out Of The Fog

In Need Of A Better Steward

2012-02-11T11:34:00.001-05:00

   I read an article on FoxNews.com yesterday that had me shaking my head. It proves once again how inept politicians are at anything that has to do with business.

   The Fox article reported on a White House-commissioned study carried out in the wake of Solyndra LLC's bankruptcy. The study concluded that the government could lose $2.7 billion as a result of the loans and loan guarantees it offered to clean-energy companies.

   But as bad as that sounds, that alone is not what had me shaking my head. It was the Obama administrations defense of those losses that really made me sit up and take notice. They said the estimate was in line with its own projections. Really? So they backed these energy companies expecting to lose 2.7 billion dollars of tax payer dollars? Who put that deal together?

   Now don't stop shaking your head yet, because in light of losing all that money, the Obama administration then decided they needed to pay out even more money by ordering an independent analysis by Herb Allison, a former Merrill Lynch & Co. president who had served in the Bush and Obama administrations.

   According to the Fox article, Allison's review, which was released on Friday, depicted the Energy Department's process of making and monitoring loans as sometimes poorly organized and lacking in oversight. It said, to improve the odds that taxpayers get paid back, the department should create a new position of chief risk officer and make sure that individual managers, not committees, are held accountable for decisions, the report said.

   The Energy Department has committed to provide more than $23 billion in loans or loan guarantees to companies in solar, wind and other clean-energy areas, but it has dispersed only $8.3 billion so far. A loss of nearly $3 billion would represent 12 percent of the total program at the department.

    Here's a better idea. Before we go spending one more dollar of that money, before we go creating another high-level government position, or panel, or committee, or agency to tell us what we did wrong after the fact, why don't we do what private investors do first and conduct an in-depth analysis of the business we want to invest in to guarantee they are worthy of our tax dollars.

Instead, it has been shown time and time again that these green companies receiving tax dollars heavily donated to Obama's election campaign, and that the investments probably had more to do with that than with the viability of the company.

   I understand that in the vast scope of 15 trillion dollar deficits a couple billion dollars is a mere drop in the bucket, but here's the point no one ever makes. With few exceptions, politicians are not good business people. It's because of their mistakes, their small miscalculations, and their losses of a billion here and a billion there over the years, which never get paid back, that we have such high deficits to begin with.

   Based on those kind of losses, I would think that our green energy program is in need of a better steward. Maybe we do need a private sector businessman like Mitt Romney in the White House. Perhaps with his experience, he would be a better steward of our tax dollars. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

An Uncompromising Compromise

2012-02-10T10:10:00.008-05:00

I love it when the American people stand up for what they believe in, especially when they are standing up against an intrusive and uncompromising government.

President Obama is fighting a war with the Catholics that he can't win. His attempt to force churches and religious organizations to offer contraceptives at no co-pay to their female employees has caused a huge backlash in the last week, not only from religious leaders, but from Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress.

The backlash has been so strong that the President is expected to make a compromise of sorts to resolve the issue. But the resolution is as bad as the original plan. ABC News reports that President Barack Obama's compromise would involve a third-party health company helping to provide contraception coverage. Just what we need, another third party entity getting involved at the tax payers expense.

Under the current rule, only churches and other houses of worship are exempt from having to cover contraception at no co-pay for the women they employ. Although the compromise does broaden the conscience clause to exempt any organization who opposes birth control based on religious beliefs, the Catholic bishops have already rejected the Hawaii model as a viable alternative because Catholic organizations don't even want to refer women to contraception coverage.

   At this point, I'm sure that Obama is just trying to get out of this gracefully now and still be able to point to some measure of success, but I think he's bitten off more than he can chew and eventually he's going to have to give it up.

   Here's the point. Even woman of faith use contraception. It would be silly and irresponsible not too if you are sexually active. That's not the question in play here. The question in play is whether or not religuous institutions should be forced to provide it, or to tell you where you can go to get it., and overhwhelmingly they are saying no, nor do I think any comnpromise will make them back down.

   Faith is not something you can compromise or legislate. It is a guideline by which you live your life.   You can't on the one hand claim as a religious institution that you object to contraception, and then on the other hand set up an outside source to provide it.  You can't wash your hands of it like Pontious Pilot. That's the kind of compromise Obama is offering, and it's not going to work. People of faith aren't having it, nor should they. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Make The Cuts

2012-02-09T07:56:00.000-05:00

One legislative idea that I've always supported, and that shares occasional bi-partisan appeal, is the line item veto, a constitutionally questionable power over the purse that long has been sought by Presidents of both parties and that allows the President to pick out specific items in spending bills for elimination. Currently, the chief executive must sign or veto spending bills in their entirety if he objects to certain items, which is kind of like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

An article on the Huffington Post reported that the House, along with a minority of Democrats, voted yesterday to give the President and his successors, the line-item veto. Under the proposal, the President has 45 days within the enactment of a spending bill to send a special message to Congress proposing cuts to any amount of discretionary, or non-entitlement, spending. Legislation to consider the proposed cuts would move quickly to the House and Senate floors for automatic up-or-down votes with no amendments.

The main opposition came from members of the Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for putting together the annual spending bills. They argued that the bill upsets the constitutional separation of powers balance in favor of the executive branch, and that recent efforts to curtail so-called earmarks in spending bills make the line-item veto unnecessary.

Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., said he opposed the measure because it would weaken the authority of Congress and give the president "a power that our founding fathers did not see fit to give to him." He added that a president can use the line-item veto to give preferences to his own spending priorities.

I would concede Chairman Roger's point were it not for that fact that Congress does not always act responsibly themselves, which is exactly why a line item veto is required if you ask me. It's not just the questionable earmarks that are the problem. Often times, politicians on both sides of the aisle use spending bills as political tools and a weapon to make their opponents look bad.

For example, Democrats attaching the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" legislation to a Defense Funding Bill was done to force Republicans to vote on it or be seen as not supporting the troops. Who does the checks and balances on that kind nonsense? A line item veto would halt forever that kind of political game playing and force bills to be passed on their own merits.

The House Bill also stipulates that all savings from eliminated programs go to deficit reduction, but as we have seen time and time again, Congress is better at spending money than they are at saving it. I fear that any savings would just be diverted to some other program, but at least we would be eliminating worthless and useless spending in the process. Think of how useful a line item veto would have been in Obama's 2500 page health care fiasco, not that the President would have used it, and that's exactly what opponents see as part of the problem.

The White House, in a statement, said it "strongly supports" passage of the bill, praising it for "helping to eliminate unnecessary spending and discouraging waste." But the Senate, traditionally more protective of its constitutional powers, has not always been receptive to the line-item veto idea. It's now in the hands of Harry Reid's Senate, which has been far from receptive of anything coming from the House.

Used responsibly and with discretion, the line item veto could reduce our deficit by billions of dollars. It would also eliminate the need to veto entire bills because of one controversial amendment. Is it perfect? No. Can it be used to stifle legislation on the opposing side? Yes, but any veto proposal made by the President can be over-ridden in Congress.

Perhaps just knowing that would force both parties to create more bipartisan legislation, because whats good for the goose will be good for the gander when parties change, so I say make the cuts. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

I Want Out

2012-02-08T07:18:00.002-05:00

This is an interesting story. In a rare case of someone suing to get out of a government entitlement, a federal appeals court ruled that American seniors who receive Social Security cannot reject their legal right to Medicare benefits.

An article on FoxNews.com reports that Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey is among five senior citizens who sued to stop their automatic eligibility for Medicare. But the appeals court ruled in a split decision that the law gives them no way to opt out of their eligibility if they want to keep their Social Security benefits.

Armey and his co-plaintiffs say their private insurers limit their coverage because they are eligible for Medicare, but they would prefer the coverage from their private insurers.

It boggled my mind when I read this because the ruling is basically saying tha even if you have health insurance paid for out of your own pocket, you will still be forced to accept a government entitlement at the tax payers expense when you turn 65.

Another article on the Chicago Tribune website offered some more background to the story. The case is being funded by a group called The Fund For Personal Liberty, which says its purpose is to take on burdensome government regulations. Attorney Kent Brown, who argued the case for the plaintiffs, say they want to keep their Social Security because they believe they earned it, but none of them want Medicare Part A.

"To say that you can't decline Medicare Part A and not opt out of Social Security is outrageous," Brown said in a telephone interview from his office in Lexington, Ky. He said Congress never intended that and vowed to appeal the ruling.

I agree that they should appeal, but they also need to lobby to change the law. This is insanity. Entitlement spending is the biggest drain on our society, and with millions of baby boomers set to retire over the next 18 years, the costs are going to be astronomical. Furthermore, for decades, politics has stifled Congress at legislating any kind of serious entitlement reform, regardless of which party is in office.

At a time when government revenues are at their lowest, when political partisanship is at its highest, and when the American tax payer is carrying more and more of the burden, it seems ludicrous to me that the courts would rule to force an American citizen to take a government entitlement that they neither want or need, but then I didn't agree with the health care mandate either, and that decision is heading for the supreme court.

Just because it's law doesn't mean that it's good law, and in the end these are matters of interpretation of the law based on ideology. If such a law can be interpreted two different ways in a split decision, then it needs to be changed, if only to clarify the language.

Perhaps by reforming this law, our Congress may be inspired to reform the entire system, if they can ever get the politics out of it. Or maybe we just need more people like Former Speaker Dick Armey to stand up and say, "I want out!" before true change can come about. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

The New Normal

2012-02-07T07:23:00.000-05:00

   I read an interesting article on FoxNews.com that put a different, if not new, perspective on the state of the economy from the Obama Administration. Slow growth and stagnant incomes are the new normal.

   The article was commenting on how Democrats were rejoicing at last weeks economic numbers as a confirmation that President Obama will take then to victory in November, even though the President himself greeted the numbers with caution.

   According to the article, the reason that Obama errs on the side of caution is because in truth, most of the progress that the Democrats are rejoicing about has been statistical, not real.

For instance:

= Jobs creation has barely kept up with population growth—the same percentage of adults is employed today as when unemployment peaked. Three-quarters of the reduction in joblessness is attributable to fewer adults employed or seeking work.

= The most effective Obama jobs program has been to convince more Americans they don’t want a job—without that, the unemployment rate would still be at least 9.5 percent.

= Many of the jobs created in recent months don’t pay well, and too many well educated Americans are relegated to low skilled and part-time work for lack of opportunities.

= Gains are concentrated in areas such as restaurants, health care and education, and business services categories—lots of waiters, and more nurse’s aids than nurses, record keepers than teachers, and clerical workers than architects and lawyers.

= Manufacturing, a bright spot, historically pays quite well; however, many of the new jobs created don’t pay terribly high wages.

= These last several months, stronger jobs reflected stronger fourth quarter GDP growth. Economists see that as a spike rather than a trend.

= Recent reports indicate slower consumer spending, and gasoline prices rising to levels that will choke off any rebound.

= Existing home prices continue to plummet, and alarming numbers of home purchase contracts have been canceled.

= An economy growing at two percent a year, as economists expect, simply won’t generate enough jobs to pull down unemployment any further, and arrest downward pressure on wages.

   And yet, even faced with all those negatives, Obama's approval numbers seem to be rising. Why? The Fox article suggests that the President has convinced too many Americans to accept slow growth and stagnant incomes as the best they can expect if they wish to avoid financial instability and another crisis and he could actually win with that platform if the Republican nominee fails to make a better argument for American exceptionalism.

   Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, has much of the problem scoped—leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses and workers competing with China, producing more and importing less oil, addressing dysfunctions on Wall Street, and curbing skyrocketing health care costs. All issues Mr. Obama admits but either has not addressed or made worse.

   Yet, primary voters gravitate to Mr. Romney, not because they are persuaded he can beat Mr. Obama, but rather because he is a more plausible candidate than his baggage laden and eccentric rivals. He should use this period to explain to Americans why creating enough decent paying jobs requires fixing trade with China, revving up domestic oil production, and fixing problems in financial regulation and health care—how he’s going to get those things done.

   Settling for the status quo has never been an American trait, and trading "hope and change" for "it could be a lot worse" is not a winning slogan. But if the Republicans can't sell their "Shining City on the Hill" vision, then settling for less may very well become the new normal, at least for the next four years. That's my opinion. What do you think?

Leftovers

2012-02-06T05:47:00.000-05:00

This story reminded me of just how incompetent Federal and State governments can be when it comes to taking care of the truly needy. This is pathetic.

According to an article on FoxNews.com, ailing Ground Zero responders are finally getting their last checks from a settlement with the city, but many are crestfallen that the payments are less than touted when they took the deal.

One main reason for the lower-than-expected payouts -- the dollar value of each point awarded workers for the type and severity of their illnesses was just recently set at $7.36, a figure based on the money to be divvied up. That is below the $7.50 to $9.19 range first estimated.

The article reports that more than a year ago, 95 percent of 10,000 cops, firefighters, hard hats and other Ground Zero workers accepted the city's $680 million offer. The sickest are now getting the final 60 percent of their payments.

Adding to the disappointment, the payments have been slashed by tens of thousands of dollars in unexplained legal expenses deducted from the awards, in addition to a 25 percent attorneys' fee. The expenses are listed in lump sums, with no itemized list.

In one case, a former NYPD detective with asthma and other ailments signed on to the settlement in September 2010 after the main law firms in the litigation, Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, estimated his city payout at $532,826 to $650,267.

His city award came to $115,480 -- but after fees, he received $79,292. The huge reduction stemmed from a rejected claim filed on his behalf, while more than $9,750 in legal costs, in addition to the 25 percent fee, ate into his entitlement.

I'm reminded of the government deal made with Solyndra. After the government invested billions of dollars of tax payer money into the company, it filed bankruptcy. But instead of the unsuspecting tax payer getting their tax dollars reimbursed, the deal was that the bankers got their money back first. The tax payers get whatever is leftover.

It's bad enough that the American tax payer gets the short end when it comes to those kind of deals, but it should never include of apply to our national heroes. It's been ten years settling this thing. I say let the lawyers and the city take the left overs this time and give our heroes the deal they were promised. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Believing The Numbers

2012-02-05T10:12:00.000-05:00

Another big win for Mitt Romney in the Nevada caucus last night, and by a double digit margin again. Romney, who was expected to win in Nevada because of its large Mormon population, did so easily with 48 percent of the vote, a double digit lead over his closest competitor, Newt Gingrich, who took 23 percent of the vote.

Coupled with his win in Florida last week, it would seem that the momentum in the race to be the Republican nominee is securely on Romney's side. However, when you look at the percentage of votes taken by the other three candidates, it tells the same story as was told in Florida. More people are voting against Romney than voting for him, but since that vote is split between three candidates, no one of them can beat him.

Between Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul, the total number of votes came to 53 percent, which handily beat Romney's numbers, but since it was split three ways, Romney won again by default. This will continue to be the pattern as long as all four candidates stay in the race.

I find it especially selfish for Santorum and Paul to stay in the race when they continue to make such poor showings. They should drop out, let Gingrich draw their supporters, and then have a really good two man race and let the American people decide which candidate they like better. The longer they stay in, the more the advantage goes to Romney, who may not be the true front runner if you believe the numbers. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Stormy Weather

2012-02-04T07:08:00.001-05:00

   Yesterday we got the good news. January created 243,000 new jobs, and the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%. However, as the day went on and the numbers were analyzed further, that drop may have only been a silver lining on an otherwise dark cloud. So here's the bad news.

   While the January jobs numbers are a good indicator of an improving economy, everyone knows (or at least I hope they know) that the unemployment numbers are skewed. In fact, the unemployment number we are given every month only represents about half of the real picture as it doesn't include those who have given up looking for work and dropped out of the work force.

   Four million people have quit looking for work, and another eight million are forced to take part time employment while they seek full time jobs. If the government included those numbers every month, the unemployment rate would be closer to 15%.

   In addition, there are still six million fewer jobs today that when the recession started. The total workforce sits at 63.7%, the lowest it has been since 1983. It's estimated that even if we could maintain 350 new jobs a month, it would still take two years to replace all those jobs.

   However, that's probably not likely as the CBO is predicting that the unemployment rate will probably return to 8.9% by the end of 2012, and increase to 9.2% for moat of 2013. Some analyst even predict it could go higher if those who have given up looking suddenly see the improved jobs numbers and start looking for work again.

   So though the forecast is still stormy, try not to be gloomy. There are silver linings on the clouds and patches of sunshine are beginning to break through here and there. 243,000 people landed a new job last month. That's something to feel good about, isn't it? At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Great News!

2012-02-03T09:53:00.001-05:00

   There was some good news today from the labor department, or at least some promising news for the people who are struggling to find a job. For the fifth straight month in a row, the unemployment rate has come down. It fell to 8.3% and 243,000 new jobs were added in January. Those numbers suggest that the recovery is starting to gain steam.

   This morning's labor numbers were much better than analysts expected, especially the "jobs added" number. The Labor Department was only expecting 150,000 new jobs in January, so it was a pleasant surprise.  Economists across the board agree that we need to create around 250,000 jobs or more each month to really put a sizable dent in the unemployment rate and get people back to work.  At least for this week, the numbers are exceptionally good.

   The numbers are also good for the Obama administration, who want to show that the President's policies are working, especially in this highly charged and partisan election year.  That might be easier said than done. It's one thing to say that your policies are working, but it's a far different task to point to the policies that are allegedly working. Of course the liberal media will never ask him that question, so it's a moot point.

   However, in the past month, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and the Congressional Budget Committee have both released reports that challenge whether the President's policies are working.  They expect the economy to remain sluggish through at least 2013 with minimal growth, stagnant hiring, and a possible rise in the unemployment numbers again, so Obama has to be careful that he doesn't overplay his hand.

   While today's report certainly indicates that the economy seems to be heading in the right direction, it's important that we take them with a grain of salt.  In the end, the monthly numbers will be adjusted up or down, and Democrats and Republicans will spin each rise or drop to their political advantage.  As I've said before, I personally think that what we are seeing is just the free market adjusting itself despite the best efforts of Congress.

   But regardless of all the spin and the politics, you can't deny that adding 250,000 new jobs last month has to be a good thing for the unemployed. It's good reason to cheer, especially of it continues. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

I Don't Like It

2012-02-02T08:16:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I mentioned that one of the advantages Mitt Romney has in his bid to be the Republican nominee for President is broad conservative media support. It may sound like sour grapes on my part since I am a Gingrich supporter --- and maybe it is --- but I don't like what's happening in the conservative media when it comes to the way they cover Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

More and more I'm sensing a definite bias against Gingrich while Romney is largely given a pass. Not that Romney doesn't get his fair share of criticism. It just seems to me that the media digs much deeper into the criticisms against Newt Gingrich than they do Mitt Romney, and I believe their bias played an integral part in shaping the race in Florida.

Let me give you a couple examples. Both candidates run negative ads against each other, but Gingrich seems to catch more criticism for his ads than Romney does. Romney either arrogantly shrugs off the accusation or deflects any questions from the media by spinning his way out of it. Now compare that to the media's intense scrutiny of Newt's marriages, his years as Speaker of the House, his eventual resignation, and his private enterprises, and then tell me the coverage has been fair both ways.

And then came the latest attack against Gingrich on Tuesday. His campaign ran a Robo-Call accusing Romney of vetoing a bill when he was Governor that would provide funding for kosher meals to Jewish seniors in nursing homes. Right away the media was all over Gingrich for making the accusation and Romney laughingly shrugged it off, claiming that people will say anything when they are desperate.

Now comes the amusing part. As Romney spun his explanation of what happened with the "kosher meal" legislation, he said the accusation was false. The kosher meal program was never halted, he said. He said the state legislature overrode his veto and passed the bill anyway. But that explanation only validates the point that Gingrich was making.

Whether or not the program was continued isn't the point. The point is that Romney did try to veto the legislation, and the only reason he didn't succeed was because the state legislature overrode him. So the accusation Gingrich made was true, and yet he was vilified in the media for saying it.

Did anybody in the media point out that hypocrisy? Did anyone in the media press Romney for an explanation of why he wanted to veto the program? I researched it myself and discovered that he wanted to kill the program because he thought it would drive up the costs of nursing homes, but you wouldn't know that because the media was too busy trying to convince you of how unfair it was for Gingrich to even bring up the subject.

This is the kind of double-talk that Mitt Romney gets away with day after day as he successfully shrugs off every accusation thrown at him, and the only people calling him out for it are the other candidates. But what good are their objections when the media continues to give him a pass. Nobody in the media holds him accountable. Nobody is doing any in-depth investigation, and anyone who tries is demonized. It's media bias aimed at directing this election to a certain outcome, and it worked in Florida.

Romney is an attractive candidate. He is also an articulate and artful speaker. He uses all the right platitudes. He knows what the public wants to hear and he gives it to them, and unlike the other candidates who records are scrutinized thoroughly, he escapes a lot of the media vetting of his own record. Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?

Maybe I'm exaggerating, and part of me feels like I'm just whining because Newt is so unpredictable and his message has suffered as a result, but that doesn't negate the fact that he when he sticks to his message he draws people to his ideas. His mistake was getting drawn into a mud fight.

All the same, it seems that the conservative media and the established Republicans in Washington have decided on Mitt as their candidate. Mitt is safe and he's not going to rock the boat too hard. On the other hand, Newt Gingrich would certainly shake up the established order and challenge both the Republicans and the Democrats alike to stop playing these partisan games and do what they were elected to do, and maybe that's what they are really afraid of.

We say that we want and need bold changes to get this country working again, but like Barack Obama, I think we talk big and deliver little. I didn't like it when the left wing media gave Obama a pass in 2008, and I certainly don't like the conservative media doing it with Mitt Romney now. On the other hand, I'm still very cognizant that the bias here may be my own, although I'm leaning less and less in that direction. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

The Romney Advantage

2012-02-01T09:08:00.000-05:00

It probably came as no surprise to anyone that Mitt Romney won the state of Florida last night and picked up all 50 of the state's electoral candidates. But did he actually win, or did he just hold an advantage over his nearest competitor, Newt Gingrich? Allow me to explain.

Romney has several advantages over his competitors that allow him to keep winning. The first advantage is money. Romney has built a sizable war chest for himself. When it comes to raising campaign donations, Romney out performs the other three five to one. Therefore, he was literally able to flood the Florida media market with campaign ads, mostly attacking Newt Gingrich.

The second is organization. Romney has an excellent ground team. Their inside Intel on Gingrich gave Romney the decided edge in the last debate and caught Newt totally by surprise.

The third is media support. It's clear to me that a large portion of the conservative media is behind Mitt 100%. The news pundits on television, radio, and in print, as well as many of the establishment Republican politicians are relentless in their attacks on Gingrich while Romney suffers only mild criticisms at best. I'll have more on this media bias tomorrow.

Lastly, the biggest advantage that Romney holds over Gingrich is simply time. An interesting statistic came out of last night's exit polling that clearly reflects that fact. When asked which candidate was more likely to beat Barack Obama, Romney won hands down. But when asked which candidate was the most conservative, Romney came in dead last behind the other three. This polling is significant for several reasons.

While Romney keeps winning at the state level, nationally Newt still holds a slight lead over him. One of the reasons why Newt keeps losing to Romney is because Newt, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul are all splitting the conservative vote.

Both Santorum and Paul left Florida early because they knew they couldn't win there. So if Newt Gingrich had received the 13% of Santorum's votes last night, and the 7% of Ron Paul's vote, none of which were ever going to go to Mitt Romney, he would have won the race by four percentage points.

As long as Santorum and Paul split the vote by staying in the race with their minimal scores, the more races Mitt Romney will win simply by attrition. The more races he wins, the more electoral candidates he picks up. If he picks up enough candidates before Santorum and Paul drop out, it will be virtually impossible for Newt to catch him, and we will have elected a nominee who won the race by default. That's quite an advantage to have, wouldn't you agree? At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Eliminating The Income Tax

2012-01-31T08:44:00.001-05:00

Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to pay any state income tax? Did you know that nine states already get by without collecting state income tax?

According to an article on FoxNews.com, a year after Republicans swept into office across the country, many have trained their sights on what has long been a fiscal conservatives dream: the steep reduction or even outright elimination of state income taxes. But it's not clear how all those states would make up for the lost revenue.

As the article explains, the nine states that already get by without an income tax, mostly do so by tapping other sources of revenue. Nevada and Florida rely on sales taxes that target the tourism industry. Alaska has taxes on natural resources, and Texas imposes substantial property taxes. The other five states are: New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming.

In addition to finding alternative means of collecting revenue, the thinking is that by eliminating the state income tax, it would make that state more attractive to businesses. Conservatives say the lost revenue will be made up by increased economic activity — more businesses paying corporate taxes and more employees paying property taxes and spending money. But economists warn those predictions are unrealistic.

While I'm not ready to say that it would be unrealistic, as that would entirely depend upon the state and it's individual needs, I do believe that such changes should be made with caution. States depend on tax revenue to function. Perhaps that revenue can be made up in other areas, but by shifting the burden from the total work force to say the tourist industry, or cigarette taxes, or property taxes, we are placing more of a burden on select groups.

Suppose that I don't go to the tourist areas. Suppose that I don't smoke. Suppose that I don't own property. Am I then exempt from contributing to the state coffers? Is it fair that I benefit from state services without having paid into them?

I think that replacing the income tax with a flat consumption tax is the better idea. That way no one group is unfairly targeted, the state will still be attractive to new businesses, and everyone contributes their fair share. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

C.Y.A.

2012-01-30T06:39:00.001-05:00

All of us, Democrat, Republican, and Independent alike, have felt the frustration of waiting on Congress to fix our nation's problems. We have sat impatiently on the sidelines while our politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to engage in highly partisan delay tactics, wondering if there is even a remote possibility that anything or anyone can break the gridlock.

Not even the hope of a new administration come November offers us much comfort as the current group of Republican challengers seem more interested in fighting with each other than with the failures of the Obama administration. And yet, when it comes to Congress saving their own hides, it's s amazing how fast things get done.

Late last year, there was some speculation that certain members of Congress were engaging in insider trading because of their access to information and legislation that affects the country’s finances. The insinuation is that when legislation is near completion, which would either help or hinder a particular business, politicians could bet on the outcome and make huge profits.

But while most of us were probably not shocked to hear that our politicians were lining their purses on the job, we were shocked to discover that they had legislated themselves immune from prosecution for those activities. These are the same people that brought Newt Gingrich up on ethics charges. What a bunch of hypocrites. At any rate, while their activities may not have been technically illegal in Congress, most honest Americans saw it as highly unethical.

And so, not wanting to be seen as "above the law" in the eyes of their constituents (i.e. they got caught with their hands in the till) Congress immediately jumped into action to cover their combined asses across those highly partisan party lines.

Today, the Senate will test vote a measure called the Stock Act (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) to prevent insider trading among members of Congress. The co-sponsors, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) are hopeful that the bill will "set a legislative speed record" to become public law. The legislation was was introduced on Nov. 15, passed committee on Dec. 14 and will be voted on today. Amazing!

Hardly anything productive got done for the American people in all of last year. Senate Leader Harry Reid has a table full of Republican legislation that he refuses to even bring up for a vote. It took most of last year just for Congress to get beyond their partisan bickering and come to an agreement to pass a two month extension of the payroll tax cut. And yet when faced with the embarrassment of their own unethical behavior, they move quickly to sweep the solution through Congress and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Is that pathetic, or what?

If only they cared as much about covering the American people as they do about covering their own asses we would all be a lot better off. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

An Equal Playing Field

2012-01-29T09:14:00.000-05:00

According to an article on FoxNews.com, one of the proposals from the President's State of the Union address is already stirring lots of controversy and alarming college Presidents. Obama warned them that colleges would face losing federal dollars if they don't find ways of containing costs.

The reality, said Illinois State's Al Bowman, is that simple changes cannot easily overcome deficits at many public schools. He said he was happy to hear Obama, in a speech Friday at the University of Michigan, urge state-level support of public universities. But, Bowman said, given the decreases in state aid, tying federal support to tuition prices is a product of fuzzy math.

The article said that Illinois has lowered public support for higher education by about one-third over the past decade when adjusted for inflation. Illinois State, with 21,000 students, has raised tuition almost 47 percent since 2007, from $6,150 a year for an in-state undergraduate student to $9,030.

"Most people, including the president, assume if universities were simply more efficient they would be able to operate with much smaller state subsidies, and I believe there are certainly efficiency gains that can be realized," Bowman said. "But they pale in comparison to the loss in state support."

At Washington, President Mike Young said Obama showed he did not understand how the budgets of public universities work. Young said the total cost to educate college students in his state, which is paid for by both tuition and state government dollars, has gone down because of efficiencies on campus. While universities are tightening costs, the state is cutting their subsidies and authorizing tuition increases to make up for the loss.

While I'm sure that all of these excuses are valid, I have to think that state aid or better efficiency is really not the problem. The problem is thinking that an education from one school is better than another. What we need is an equal playing field.

Wouldn't it be great if we had the same standards state to state for the quality of education so that graduating from the University of Maryland for instance would be no different than graduating from Harvard. Maybe if students could go to schools they can afford and get the same quality education, it would help lower costs across the board. Wouldn't it be great if our state and federal dollars were spent education students instead of paying the salaries of high cost administrations, college professors, and staff?

Such a system would reduce the burden put on poorer families who go deep into debt to get their kids into one of the top ten schools because that's where big corporations choose their people from. We are creating one-sided competition between a handful of schools and everyone is scrambling for those few and very expensive positions.

A graduate's worth in the business world should be based upon the completion of a certified course of study, not by which school he or she attended. Taking the brightest student's from any school should be equally tempting. More students could afford to go without the stigma of not having attended a top ten school. It sounds fair to me, At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Amy Is Back Home

2012-01-28T07:41:00.000-05:00

Today, my publishing contract with Publish America to print and distribute my novel Amy's Home came to an end. Publish America has held the distribution rights for the last seven years, and while I can't deny that it was a profitable partnership, I have since started to self-publish my novels to give me greater freedom and control over how my work is sold and distributed. So far I have not regretted that decision.

Rachel and Amy's Home were my first two novels, both published by Publish America, and the only ones available in paperback. My contract for Rachel ended last year and is now available as an E-Book on the Amazon and Barnes and Noble web sites. Now that Amy's Home is back in my control, I will be adding a freshly edited version to my on-line library of E-Books. Look for it in the next few weeks.

I'm sorry to all the paperback fans, and I hope they understand how difficult it is for a writer to give up control of his or her work to a publishing house in return for minimal promotion and whose interest lie only in their profits. By self publishing, I promote myself and keep most of my profits, and my success or failure is based solely on my ingenuity and resourcefulness.

To those of you who did buy a paperback copy, thank you for your interest and support. I eventually hope to find a printer for my E-Books and offer them on-line as an alternative to the digital format, as long as I can do that without driving the cost of the novel up too high. To those of you who are new to my books, please check out my web site, DavidARollins.com

So welcome back home Amy. I've missed you. It's good to have you and Rachel back in the fold where you belong, and where I can take much better care of you. And thank you to my fans for sticking with me, one reader at a time, and passing the word. I appreciate your support and I look forward to scaring you.

All my best,

David A. Rollins

What A Tangled Web We Weave

2012-01-27T05:23:00.001-05:00

   It is a universal truth that the longer we try to deceive someone the harder it becomes because of things that are out of our control. As situations change, so must the deception, until contradiction becomes a real threat. Let me put it into context for you.

   At the State of the Union Address, President Obama said that the state of the union was getting stronger. He backed up that statement by taking credit for the improved economic numbers, owing that credit to the policies his administration has put in place.

   The President obviously thought that it was a good political move to make such a dubious claim, but I thought at the time that he was taking a big gamble spinning the numbers in his favor while still facing a highly unstable economic future, because his boast depends entirely on an economy that continues to improve.

   Move ahead two days. The weekly unemployment numbers shot up again, the housing market fell over two percent, and Ben Bernanke downgraded his projections for the next two years, saying that full economic recovery is still years away, and admitting that his policies have largely been a failure. Maybe he should have just asked the American people. They could have told him that months ago.

   According to an article on the Tampa Bay Times web site, the central bank's latest forecast released Wednesday predicts that the economy will grow no more than 1.7 percent for all of 2011. For 2012, growth will range between 2.5 percent and 2.9 percent. Both forecasts are roughly a full percentage point lower than the Fed's projections from June.

   The article went on to say that the unemployment rate has been stuck near 9 percent for more than two years. The Fed doesn't see that changing this year. And it predicts it won't fall below 8.5 percent next year. In June, the Fed had predicted unemployment would drop to as low as 7.8 percent in 2011.

   And to top all of that off, yesterday the Senate under Harry Reid voted once again to give the President the option to raise the debt ceiling 1.2 trillion dollars, which would bring our national debt to over 16 trillion. If the economy is getting stronger, why do we need to raise the debt ceiling again?

   Does that sound like the economy is getting better? Is this the result that Obama was boasting about? How many months do we have to see the economic numbers come out only to be downgraded two weeks later to know that someone is spinning numbers.

   At least the Fed is admitting their failures, which makes it harder for the President to keep up the deception. Obama may be boasting now, but contradiction is barking at his heels. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Shame On You

2012-01-26T08:19:00.001-05:00

I hate spin. You know what I mean, those little "half truths" that get told by politicians and media pundits to sway public opinion during campaign cycles, major policy decisions, or any other issue for which they want to mislead the public. To me, a half truth is the same as a whole lie, because both are meant to advance false information. Let me give you an example.

At the last GOP debate, Mitt Romney said that Newt Gingrich was forced to resign his position of Speaker of the House in shame because of his ethics violations. That is pure unadulterated spin. I expect this kind of misleading rhetoric from the left, but Romney should know better. The accusation actually melds together two separate facts in a misleading way, so let me give you the facts.

While it's true that in 1994 Gingrich was sanctioned for ethics violations, the sanction was not imposed on him for violating federal tax laws --- which is what the panel was trying to charge him with. They found no evidence of tax violations. Instead, the $300,000 sanction imposed on Gingrich was described as a "cost assessment" and not a fine. The fine was designed to reimburse the committee after they concluded that Newt intentionally prolonged the investigation.

So if Gingrich was going to be forced out of his Speaker seat in shame, that would have been the time. But he wasn't forced out. In fact, he was reelected as Speaker and kept his seat for another three years. Gingrich did not resign until 1997 when Republicans unexpectedly lost seats in the House in the mid terms and Gingrich faced a revolt against his leadership. The “disgrace” was not over ethics but GOP electoral losses.

So why is Mitt Romney spinning this issue? Maybe he doesn't know what really happened, in which case he shouldn't be speaking to things he knows nothing about. Or maybe he just sees Gingrich moving ahead of him in some polls and he doesn't like it, so he's going on the attack.

If that's true then I say shame on you, and I have to ask myself, do I want a President who is more worried about his nomination than he is about telling the truth? It seems to me we already have a spin President like that in office now, don't we?

I'm not saying that Newt Gingrich doesn't have issues, but so does Mitt Romney, and Newt probably spins his attacks on Mitt as well. Both men have questionable pasts. The difference is, Gingrich was a public servant, so his record is a matter of public record. Mitt mostly worked in the private sector, so checking facts on him is a little harder, and he tends to keeps his past close to the vest.

For instance, Romney's dealings with his investment firm still leaves many unanswered questions, and he refused to release his tax returns until public outcry forced him to do so, and even then he did so reluctantly. It appears that he doesn't like to divulge too much information about himself.

What it all boils down to is this. Maybe Mitt Romney got a little too comfortable thinking he had the nomination tied up, and he still may, but not if he continues to spin the truth or act as if he's above reproach. Winning is not an entitlement. You have to earn it. Perhaps instead he needs to be more honest about his own past before he starts spinning the truth about others. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

On The State Of The Campaign Address

2012-01-25T08:05:00.003-05:00

Depending upon which side of the political fence you happen to fall on, the President either gave a rousing visionary speech last night, or a tactful campaign speech aimed at firing up his base. I found it to be the same old rhetoric I've been hearing for four years.

The State of the Union is getting stronger, the President said during his State Of The Union Address. But other than that claim, which one must certainly take with a grain of salt, I didn't hear anything that sounded new or different.

It was the same old blame game and the same broad, non-specific proposals that we have come to expect from Obama out on the campaign trail --- spend more, regulate more, and blame someone else for your failures. There were some good ideas too, like using the money we save by getting out of Iraq to pay for infrastructure and lowering the debt, but he was also contradictory at times. For example:

= He said that we can't keep keep bailing out companies and banks, and then proposed a huge stimulus bailout of the housing market.

= He talked about creating thousands of new energy jobs, and yet he killed a perfectly safe pipeline idea that would have created tens of thousands of jobs.

The new tag line was "building an economy that can last". We also heard the old tag lines repeated, "shared responsibility" and "pay your fair share". There was also much talk about tweaking the tax code here and there, adding even more regulations, and spending on a variety of programs without specificity.

What he didn't talk about was his failed trillion dollar stimulus plan that fell far short of expectations, his problematic trillion dollar health care bill that fell far short of expectations, how to lower our 15 trillion dollar debt, the unemployment rate, what to do about social security or medicare, or how to restore our downgraded credit rating.

Instead, he did as what he always does. He stands above the fray, painting himself as the great centrist equalizer, talking in broad generalities, spinning numbers, taking credit for dubious successes while deflecting any blame from himself for his obvious failures. The failures he blames on Congress, specifically the Republicans, which is also politically based spin. Republicans don't disagree on the policies, they disagree on borrowing more money and raising the debt to pay for them.

All of this was adequately topped off with multiple platitudes of Americanism, teamwork, and how our best days are still ahead of us. Typical political fare for the State of the Union Address. But as I said at the beginning, your ultimate opinion of the speech will depend on which side of the political fence you will fall on.

The rest of the week will be consumed with endless analysis of the President's proposals, and in the long run, with a divided Congress, there's little hope that anything positive will come of it. If you're asking me, I've already heard these arguments time and time again. When are we going to hear something new?

You can't move forward by proposing the same failed policies over and over again, and you can't keep rewriting speeches and tag lines to make those policies sound fresh and new again. That may work for your base out on the campaign trail, but the rest of us are smarter than that. At least that's my opinion. What do you think

Forcing The Issue

2012-01-24T06:58:00.001-05:00

Okay, this is one of those rare occasions when I can sympathize with both sides of an issue. You can decide if you agree or not.

   According to an article on the Huffington Post, lawmakers in California are considering legislation that would make them the second state (New Jersey being the first) in the nation to ban "hiring discrimination" against the unemployed. The bill, introduced by Democratic Assemblyman Michael Allen, wouldn't allow the unemployed job-seekers to sue for discrimination, but companies that violate the law would face investigation and fines of up to $10,000.

   The article went on to say that discrimination against the unemployed makes it even harder for the laid off to re-enter the workforce, The National Employment Law Project found. In a one-month study last year, the group found more than 125 online job postings that required candidates to be "currently employed".

   Supporters and opponents of the bill both make valid arguments for their side.  Employers want to know about experience, work history, that sort of thing. But if they start dwelling on the fact that the applicant is currently unemployed, that's when a red flag would go up. On the other hand, some business groups oppose a blanket ban on ruling out the unemployed, saying it's important that employers can look for workers with up-to-date experience and ask about gaps on an applicant's resume without fearing retribution.

   As I said at the beginning, I can sympathize with both sides. We certainly don't want to discriminate against people who have lost their job due to the bad economy. But, there are people who are unemployed simply because they are unemployable, and I believe that an employer deserves to ask about their work history.

   Unfortunately, resolving the issue is not going to be easy because of an added, and I believe unnecessary, provision in the bill. Unlike the New Jersey ban, the California bill goes further by making the unemployed a "protected class" under anti-discrimination law, and this is where I draw the line.

   Why is it that government is always trying to divide us into classes by wealth, health, gender, race, and age? If the legislation creating the law is written properly, we don't need "protected classes" dividing us. But this law isn't interested in justice, it merely wants to force the issue.

   By making them a protected class, it makes it easier for potential hirees to claim discrimination, and more difficult for companies not to hire them for fear of facing discrimination charges. And while no company should deny hiring solely because the applicant has been unemployed for a long period of time, neither should they be forced to hire someone out of fear. Forcing the issue will only hurt both sides. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Who Will We Turn To

2012-01-23T06:32:00.002-05:00

This is a follow-up to a post I did after the New Hampshire primary.

Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary on Saturday, and by a substantial margin over Mitt Romney. In and of itself, the win doesn't mean a whole lot. Santorum made a good show in Iowa, Romney had his best showing in New Hampshire, so maybe it was just Newt's turn.

Newt was expected to show well in South Carolina anyway, and he will probably benefit from an increase in campaign donations as a result, which will allow him to stay in the race even longer. But in the end, I think that the South Carolina primary was worse for Romney than it was good for Gingrich. Allow me to explain.

Once again, as in the debates and the other primaries (except for New Hampshire) Romney squeaked by with his usual average of 25%. Granted, in most cases that 25% was more than the other candidates received, but it was a much wider field then.

Now that Bachman, Huntsman, and Perry have dropped out, their supporters are looking for someone else to back, and there aren't as many choices available to them now. In the case of South Carolina, those supporters seemed to have backed Gingrich over Romney, Santorum, and Paul.

It may just be a fluke. Maybe Gingrich was just a favorite in the state. Or maybe they liked how he performed in the debate when he took on the media for it's partisan reporting. It will be hard to tell until a few more races are run. If Romney stays in that 25% percentile while Gingrich grabs the votes of the candidates who have dropped out, it could spell trouble for him, and I think Romney is feeling the pressure. He's starting to lose his cool.

After several weeks of insisting that he wouldn't succumb to pressure to release his tax records (which I care nothing about) he finally agreed to release some of his returns this week after getting booed at the last debate for refusing to do so, and being unapologetic for it. Public opinion has a way of changing even the most stubborn mind.

I also see frustration from Romney while trying to explain away Newt's constant attacks concerning his dealings with the Bain Capital Investment Firm (which I care nothing about). In return, Romney is desperately trying to paint Gingrich as an anti-capitalist Democratic sympathizer for criticizing him.

I say good luck on either of those tactics. Even Newt's most serious detractors would never paint him as anti-capitalism or pro-democrat. That's just silly. But then Romney probably isn't the heartless predatory investor that Newt is painting him as either. They both need to get back to the issues.

Going forward, I expect Rick Santorum to drop out next. Except for Iowa, his numbers have been unimpressive, and his performance in the debates hasn't been that much better. It will be interesting to see where his supporters turn if he leaves the race. That's when we're really going to see which direction this race takes, and who has the momentum.

I mentioned back when Bachman dropped out that our nominee in this race will be decided not by the remaining candidates, but by the supporters of the candidates who drop out, and so far, they don't seem to be favoring Romney above 25%.

Of course, if this race has shown us anything it's that nothing is set in stone. One bad remark, one gaffe, one poor showing, and loyalties can change on a dime, and then it's a whole new ballgame. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Alternate Worlds

2012-01-22T07:39:00.001-05:00

   My computer crashed last week, and for five days I was left to my own devices to deal with the everyday realities of twenty-first century life, and I must say, I didn't like it. I missed my alternate world.

   You Internet junkies know what I mean. We exist in two separate realities. Our actual life and our Internet life. And whereas a mere fourteen years ago I was totally unaware of this alternate Internet reality, it is now intricately entwined in nearly every aspect of my existence.

   My first reaction after my computer crashed was a feeling of isolation. I was Tom Hanks, castaway. The mysterious portal that allowed me access from one reality to another had been temporarily closed. My blog went dark, my Twitter account was tweetless, and I was completely faceless on Facebook. How could this happen? I am DavidARollins.com! I need to be online.

   Furthermore, I couldn't access my music files (do I even have a radio anymore), nor could I access the files to work on my novels (do they still make typewriters). I was just another non-entity, another old man blocking the aisle in the supermarket, crossing the street too slow, and trying to remember what time McDonald's stops serving breakfast.

   This technology that allows me to step beyond my existence into an alternate global community of people, voices, and opinions, a world of unlimited information and resources, which grants us possibilities that were never before achievable on an individual level, is a fragile connection at best, subject to failure at any moment, and it has become my addiction, my "drug of choice" as it were.

   To my family friends and neighbors, I am simply good ole Dave. But in the world of the Internet, I am a successful self-published author, writing thrilling novels of supernatural suspense, as well as a Blogger and Twitterist (how do you like that word) adding my voice and opinions to the major issues of the day.

   I am a online personality, with followers, comfortable in my online skin with my many online "personality" friends, each of us probably suffering from our own dual personality disorder.  We are a global community of people who have never met, but enjoy each other's company just the same. I can't imagine my life without them.

   Sometimes when I encounter an impatient shopper tying to get by me in the grocery aisle, or when someone is honking his horn at me because I'm crossing the street too slow, I don't get upset. Instead I smile and feel sorry for my abusers. If they only knew who I really was.

   Of course I'm jesting, but it is good to be back in the fold. I very much like it here. Maybe too much. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Site is Temporarily Down

2012-01-18T18:39:00.000-05:00

Site is down temporarily due to mechanical problems.

And Then There Were Five

2012-01-17T06:43:00.001-05:00

I watched the Republican Debate on Fox News last night. I like the Fox debates because the conservative moderators ask pertinent questions on the relevant issues of the days, unlike the last debate on ABC where the mostly liberal moderators asked long, drawn out, carefully structured "gotcha" questions and George Stephanopoulos spent an exhausting amount of time discussing birth control. Not that birth control isn't an important issue that deserves debate, but it's certainly not the issue driving this election cycle, not by a long shot.

Last night's debate was also one candidate short. John Huntsman ended his bid for the presidency yesterday morning. If you ask me, his exit from the dwindling field of candidates won't make much of a difference in the long run. His performance at the debates and his platform as a whole didn't seem to garner much public support, and none of the other candidates will benefit much from picking up the backing of his small amount of supporters.

Rick Santorum was the surprise of the night. He seems to have been invigorated by his second place showing in Iowa. He was very confident and very aggressive going after the records of the other candidates. Unfortunately, I think it may be too little too late. He should have been that aggressive from the beginning. He may have fared better over the long haul.

Ron Paul really gets on my nerves, but usually not as much as he did last night. He's just a bit too condescending at times for me, and last night he really angered me when he said that if we're going to bomb other countries, we shouldn't be surprised when they bomb us back. He lost any chance, however slim, of getting my vote on that one, and yet he keeps polling well. For the life of me, I don't get it.

On the other hand, Newt was his usual bold self, and offered the best solutions on every issue of anyone else on the stage as far as I'm concerned. He always wins these debates, and yet the media keeps saying that Romney would be the best to debate Obama. Newt polls badly and has been trailing a distant fourth in the primaries. For the life of me, I don't get it.

Romney, the obvious media favorite, stayed in the safe zone all night as usual, strategically deflecting any and all criticisms thrown his way. He smiled the right smile, he had the right middle-of.the-road answers, and if he turned out to be a complex computerized robot, it wouldn't surprise me. You just plug him in and watch him go.

The media has certainly decided that Romney is their guy. They spent all last week blasting Newt Gingrich for the inaccuracies in the ads he ran against Mitt Romney, and yet there was very little of the same criticism launched at Romney for the inaccuracies in the ads he ran against Newt. Newt basically had to defend himself. The media should be careful that they don't give a pass to Romey like the left wing media gave to Obama in 2008.

Lastly, there's Rick Perry. Rick should just go home.

So there's my analysis. The field is slowly dwindling. The South Carolina primary is this Saturday and the field is set to change again. It's been pretty predictable so far, but as more candidates drop out, it's going to be interesting to see where those votes go. One thing is for certain. The conservative media is hoping they go to Mitt Romney, and they're hoping you think so too. And you know what? They may be right. Only time will tell. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Keeping Your Word

2012-01-16T07:26:00.000-05:00

According to an article on FoxNews.com, A video, now running on the website of House Speaker John Boehner, asks the following question:

"If you were president in a struggling economy, burdened with excessive regulation and debt, and you had the chance to help create thousands of new jobs, all you had to do was approve a jobs project funded entirely with private investment, proposed more than three years ago, passed environmental reviews, preferred by your own State Department, strong bipartisan support in Congress, what would you do?"

The video was posted in response to President Obama's hesitation to keep the promise that he made in December to make a definite decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline by February 21. He made the promise in return for extending the payroll tax cut, but now Obama is saying the decision needs more time. What a surprise. And he accuses the Republicans of being obstructionists.

According to the Fox article, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the deadline didn't allow the State Department the kind of reviews that are necessary. The State Department has the final say in approval of the pipeline because it crosses international borders. It has been reviewing the proposal for three years. They could have had the thing built in that amount of time.

Pipeline supporters say that several environmental reviews of the proposed pipeline have already been conducted and that the White House is stonewalling under competing pressures from big labor, which naturally wants a piece of the thousands of jobs the pipeline would bring, and environmentalists, who abhor the further reliance on fossil fuels that the pipeline would bring.

So what would you do? Isn't a deal a deal? Would you keep your word as promised, or would you bend to the demands of outside political forces? Wasn't one of Obama's campaign promises not to bend to Lobbyists? Looks like he didn't keep that promise either. Does a promise even mean anything in the world of politics anymore, or is it just a means to an end? Is anyone worth their word in Washington?

I think I would consider this. Every attempt that Obama has made to create jobs has been to throw federal money at it in the form of tax breaks for small businesses, tax increases on the wealthy, or budget busting stimulus plans that cost billions of dollars, and we have seen the dismal result of that philosophy.

But with the right decision, and pressuring the State Department to follow along, Obama can actually create thousands of real jobs right now. So Mr. President, here's the question that conservatives and many in your own party are asking. Are you a man of your word, or just a puppet to the demands the left wing environmental lobbyists? We hope that you are a man of your word. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Inventing A Crises

2012-01-15T07:55:00.001-05:00

   If you ask me, I  think we have enough problems in this country without journalists inventing even more. Allow me to explain.

  Yesterday, I read an article posted on Greta Wire, which is Greta Van Susteren's blog site. The article featured a story from the New York Times by journalist Charlie Savage in which Savage claims that in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security paid an outside contractor to monitor social networking sites - like Facebook, blogs, and readers comments on news articles - to see how the residents of Standish, Michigan were reacting to a proposal to move detainees from Guantanamo Bay to a local prison there.

   Now I'm not a big fan of Homeland Security under the tutelage of Janet Napolitano. Like Eric holder over in Justice, I believe that they are merely mouthpieces for the Obama administration and owe their loyalties more to him that to the country they are sworn to protect.

   Having said that though, the GretaWire post exclaims in bold print that our government is spying on us and we should be outraged, but the Savage article never said that. It merely hinted at it. Savage quotes Ginger McCall, director of the group's Open Government Program, as saying that it was appropriate for the department to use the Internet to search for emerging threats to public safety, but she said that monitoring what people are saying about government policies went too far and could chill free speech.

   Really? I'm not so sure I agree in this case. First of all, while I would never condone spying on the private postings of any person, that doesn't seem to me to be what the DHS was doing. It sounds to me like they were monitoring information that was already open to the public domain. Their actions were certainly unethical as this is not the kind of thing the DHS was created for, but I think it's a long stretch to say that they were spying

   How does monitoring blogs and comments on news articles which are posted to the Internet for anyone to see equate to an invasion of privacy? The same holds true for Facebook or Twitter postings that are open for anyone to see, so I don't understand what Mr. Savage or Ms. Susteren is so concerned about.

   Unless the DHS was somehow monitoring private posts that aren't open to the public on these sites - which the article didn't accuse them of doing - then they have just as much right to look at them as I do.  In fact, I commend the DHS for wanting to hear public opinion before going forward with the decision, although they could have just as easily accomplished that with a national poll or survey. Furthermore, if monitoring the comments of the citizens of Standish helped the DHS decide to keep the detainees in Guantanamo instead of bringing them here, all the better as far as I'm concerned.

  What upsets me more than the DHS monitoring postings is the fact that they used an outside contractor to do it and charged the American tax payer the bill at a cost of $11.3 million. That's the real outrage here. We have a right to know where our tax dollars are going.

   So between the articles by Mr. Savage and Ms. Van Susteren, they seemed to be creating a crises where none exists. Like I said, it may have been unethical, so it deserved to be brought to our attention, but claims of spying is going a bit to far.  At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Cry Wolf

2012-01-14T07:34:00.000-05:00

When I was child, I loved reading Aesop's Fables. The stories were pure fantasy, but they always had a basis in reality and a message that we could apply to our own lives. One such story was The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

The tale concerns a shepherd boy who repeatedly tricks nearby villagers into thinking a wolf is attacking his flock. When a wolf actually does appear, the villagers do not believe the boy's cries for help, and the flock is destroyed. The moral at the end of the story shows that this is how liars are not rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them

So what's my point? Well, yesterday I read an article on the Daily Caller website about how President Obama wants to reorganize the government to make it leaner and more efficient by combining duplicate departments that serve the same purpose.

I actually think that this is good idea. I would like to see it come to fruition - along with a line item veto - but though every President in the past 40 years (maybe longer) has promised to eliminate duplicate agencies, it never gets done. So just like the villagers in Aesop's fable, I have stopped listening to those who cry wolf.

But with Obama, there is more to it than that. I mentioned yesterday that I have stopped listening to President Obama. His message has nothing to say to conservatives like me, who he constantly demonizes and degrades. His progressive beliefs share very little commonality with my own beliefs, and I sincerely believe that everything he does has some purpose in progessivism.

I have seen this progressive streak in President Obama too many times to be able to deny it, even though he tries to mask it with a middle-of-the-road-message. We see it in his economic policies, his health care program, his green energy decisions, and his social agenda. You can;t keep standing on the left and proclaiming you speak from the middle. Eventually people will get wise to you and stop listening.

And so when I hear that he wants to change government to make it leaner and more efficient, I would like to believe that, but I no longer take that claim verbatim. Instead I get suspicious and ask myself if he's crying wolf again, and I wonder what new progressive agenda is behind the rhetoric.

Aesop's fables may have been fun to read when we were children, but those stories take on a whole new meaning when you grow up and start applying them to real life. Who knew then that they were preparing us for adulthood. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Reading The Signs

2012-01-13T06:20:00.000-05:00

Here's a surprise that everyone who has any intelligence knew was coming. The holidays are over, stores are laying off again, and two weeks later the unemployment numbers shoot back up to nearly 400,000. It was as predictable as rain.

You saw it coming, didn't you? I mean you really didn't believe the spin coming out of the White House? You didn't actually believe that Obama's economic policies were the reason for the recent drop in our unemployment numbers, did you? You didn't actually believe that hiring was starting to boom again in America? Of course you didn't.

And even if somewhere in the back of your mind you hoped that things were getting better, you can still read the signs. You read about the companies who are continuing to lay off. You see our debt still growing out of control. You see inflation affecting the cost of goods and services everywhere. You see the housing market still searching for a bottom. You know that taxes are going up this year as more of the Obama Care legislation kicks in.

So what in the world was the White House talking about when they said we are seeing signs of growth? Yes we have growth, but it's growth of the most minimal amount, and not nearly enough to move of out of the rut we're in, much less enough to lower our national debt. And that's after three years of Obamanomics.

And yes we are creating jobs, but we are still a long way from replacing the jobs we lost. Even if the minimal growth we are experiencing gives hope to all those who have dropped out of the work force and brings them back, that's just going to drive the unemployment number even higher as the true number of the unemployed gets counted, not the spin number you are handed each week, and add even more competition to the small amount of jobs available.

Americans are a hopeful, resilient people, and they are desperate to hope again, to be inspired, but hope doesn't come from spin. People can read the signs and they know when they are being hosed. After his win in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney gave what I thought was the first inspiring speech I've heard in awhile. He said that President Obama tries to inspire us by saying that things could be worse and then telling us who to blame, but Americans know that things could be better, a lot better, and they already know who to blame.

President Obama's inspiring message of hope and change isn't even recognizable anymore. It has dissolved into a partisan political game of negativity, blame, and spin, a game which supposes that most of us aren't smart enough to know the difference. He should guess again. I don't even listen to him anymore. He fooled us once, but now the Emperor has no clothes.

Americans will not vote twice for someone who doesn't inspire them, especially not if they can find someone who does. The question is, can we find someone who does? At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Lightness Of Being

2012-01-12T06:29:00.000-05:00

Today is my birthday, and a bit of a milestone. I'm 59, the last year of my fifties, which means I'm only one year away from the big 60.

If I could offer up any words of wisdom after six decades, I would only say this to you. Strive for lightness of being. Eliminate all the garbage from your life that weighs you down, and then find the things and the people that make you happy and embrace them. Love unconditionally. And most important of all, trust in and rely upon yourself.

Here are some thoughts on life from some folks more notable than myself:

= Age wrinkles the body, quitting wrinkles the soul ~ Douglas MacArthur

= Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm sixty-four ~ Paul McCartney

= Old age is no place for sissies ~ Betty Davis

= Middle age is when you're sitting at home on a Saturday night and the telephone rings and you hope it isn't for you ~ Ogden Nash

= I look forward to growing old, and wise, and audacious ~ Glenda Jackson

= Most of us would be upset if we were accused of being "silly." But the word "silly" comes from the old English word "selig," and its literal definition is "to be blessed, happy, healthy and prosperous ~ Zig Ziglar

= I cannot believe that the purpose of life is to be "happy." I think the purpose of life is to be useful, to be responsible, to be compassionate. It is, above all, to matter and to count, to stand for something, to have made some difference that you lived at all ~ Leo C. Rosten

= When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us ~ Helen Keller

= What a long strange trip it's been ~ The Grateful Dead

Thank you all for sharing a little bit of my life with me. I enjoy every minute of it.

David A. Rollins

What Did We Learn From New Hampshire?

2012-01-11T09:51:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the citizens of New Hampshire went to the polls to vote for their choice of who they want to run against President Obama in the general election. There were few surprises.

Mitt Romney won the night, as expected, and with a larger lead than he has enjoyed in previous challenges. He also made history by winning Ohio and New Hampshire. However, even though he won by a considerable lead, Romney might have taken an even higher percentage of the vote had it not been for the surprising showing of Jon Huntsman, who received 17% of the vote after a devastating loss in Iowa.

And yet, I'm still not convinced that Romney is the decisive front runner. With each race favoring different candidates, we may need to get through South Carolina and Florida before we know for certain who the actual nominee is going to be.

Romney is certainly not running away with it. He only beat Rick Santorum by a handful of votes in Iowa. Furthermore, if you look only at the Independent vote in New Hampshire, the race was a lot tighter, with Romney only beating Ron Paul by 2 percentage points, and South Carolina is expected to be up for grabs by anyone.

The only consistency seems to be with Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, both of whom showed poorly in both races. However, both Gingrich and Perry are polling well in South Carolina, and I expect them to stay in the race until the South Carolina primary. If they fail to perform there, I expect them both to drop out.

And that's how I expect this race to be won, not by attrition, with Romney taking out his challengers decisively one by one, but by a process of elimination in a tight race between all candidates with the last man standing only because the candidates with the least votes start dropping out one by one. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Inflation: The Unspoken Issue

2012-01-10T06:10:00.001-05:00

I've watched almost every Republican debate since the race for the White House began, an one issue that never seems to get discussed by either party is inflation.

Inflation is largely an unspoken issue, or else it is only mentioned briefly as a consequence of other economic policies, but as anyone who is struggling to support themselves or a family knows, prices are up everywhere, and economic analysts are predicting that they will rise even more in 2012.

An article on FoxBusiness.com listed eight items that consumers can expect to pay more for in 2012 according to DealNews.com. They are as follows:

Airfare: Greater demand and less capacity is expected to drive airfare prices soaring this year 3% to 10%.

Food: The consumer price index for all food is projected to increase from 2.5% to 3.5% percent over 2011 levels.

Mobile Data Plans: This is bad news for all those who access the Internet from their mobile devices, especially since that mode of access is growing in popularity, as I mentioned here on this blog just yesterday. These increases will come as carriers move away from unlimited plans to build up 4G and LTE services.

City Enforced Fees: Look for increases in city-imposed fees such as parking rates and vehicle registration fees as state municipalities struggle to close growing budget deficits.

Tap Water: As another means to help close growing budget deficits, look for increases in water rates this year.

Gas: Gas prices are projected to increase six cents higher than the 2011 average, and possibly more with Iran threatening to close the Straits of Harmuz to shipping. More than any other increase, an increase in gasoline - and thus transportation prices - will negatively impact nearly every other segment of business.

Shipping: Shipping costs are projected to rise 4% in 2012. That's sure to put a hurt on all those couriers hired in December.

Desk Top Computers: Integration and touch screen monitors will send the selling price of desktop computer soaring as much as 30% this year.

   In addition to these higher costs, include the increases already in place from 2011 in many sectors of the economy caused by businesses and state governments raising prices and fees ahead of new federal taxes stemming from Obama Care and higher deficits. Now tell me, after adding all that up, how does that measly 20 dollar a week tax cut that Obama is proposing look to you now? (the 40 dollar dollar tax cut he always mentions is based on a two week pay period).

   With all the partisan spin about lower unemployment rates and improved economic numbers coming out of the White House, I can fully understand why the President doesn't want to discuss the issue of inflation. But even the media refuses to cover it. When was the last time you heard about rising inflation on your local news station?

   So why then aren't the Republican candidates screaming about the inflationary cost increases as part of their campaign ads and their arguments against Obama's oppressive economic policies? Perhaps they have been far too busy fretting over each other's faults to be worried about Obama, and I'm really getting sick of hearing that.

   If you ask me, they need to refocus on the real issues affecting working and non-working families and stop all this petty bickering back and forth among themselves. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Which Internet Do You Prefer?

2012-01-09T08:25:00.000-05:00

   I read an interesting article yesterday on FoxNews.com. The story concerned what is being referred to as the "splitting" of the Internet.

   According to the article, in one corner, we have the traditional web, the one you've known and loved since the 90s. In the other corner, there's the “app” or mobile Internet. It's the one ushered in by the iPhone, and it grew to record levels last year with help from Android, iPads, and tablets. And increasingly, there's different stuff on them. These apps frequently contain exclusive information that is not available on the free web.

   The article then goes on to suggest that five to then years ago, Internet users were all excited about new websites. Now it's all about new apps, and that software developers are content producers are splitting their workload between one platform or the other, but not always both.

   The article finishes up by predicting that apps and mobile browsing will easily displace the desktop web browser, and that in five years, mobile devices are going to be the primary way most of us interact with the web throughout the day. This is where I tend to disagree.

   Maybe I'm biased because I have always accessed the Internet via my personal computer, and I have yet to embrace the mobile phone technology beyond using it for phone calls and texting, but I can't see the advantage to mobile access to the Internet beyond a quick jump on and off searching for fast information.

   I enjoy spending time on my PC. It's not a "quick jump" for me. I set time aside out of my day to be on line. I write my novels and do research for them from my laptop. I also write my blogs from my laptop. I correspond with friends and family through email. I interact through Facebook and Twitter. I have blogs and articles that I follow daily, and I can't imagine doing any of that as comfortably from a mobile device, nor do I always need to be "connected".

   On the other hand, if I wanted to send a quick text, or make a quick fact check, a mobile device would work just fine. Therefore, I have no worries that mobile devices will replace personal computers.

   Whatever Internet you prefer is fine. I'm not making judgements for one or the other, and it all depends on what your needs are. But for me, my PC is like a lengthy visit with a good friend, while the mobile device is more like a quick chat with a casual acquaintance. There's just no comparison. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

The All American Store

2012-01-08T07:37:00.000-05:00

   Is it time for Americans to expect quality again? Last month I posted a story about how the iconic Sears brand is losing its appeal. Much of the reason for Sears decline is the quality of the product they sell, which over the years has moved away from American manufactured goods to lower priced, lower quality, foreign made goods, especially since their merger with Kmart.

   The next question then becomes, if that's true, then why do the Walmart superstores, and other retailers like them, which also deal in low cost, low quality goods, do so well?  The answer to that is simple.  We know what to expect from those stores, but we expect better quality from an iconic brand such as Sears., and well we should, but we haven't been getting it.

   An article on DailyFinance.com suggests that the success of stores like Walmart embodies a decades-long drive toward the lowest common denominator. It's a trend by companies to cut costs and maximize profits, and they often end up reducing quality in the process. But is it a trend we can reverse?

   According to the article, folks in Brookville, Ohio, think so. That's where, two years ago (several months after the Great Recession officially ended), an intrepid group of entrepreneurs pooled their capital to set up a new kind of retailer by the name of "The All American Store."

   The All American Store is exactly what the name implies. It's a corner retailer. A hardware store. An echo of the old general stores that used to be the mainstay of retailing in so many small towns across the land. And AAS sells American-made goods -- much like the goods that Sears used to sell. And while AAS caters more to the "outdoorsy" types, there are many other stores that specialize in American made goods of every sort.

   The downside, as everyone knows, is that American manufactured goods cost more that their foreign competitors, but that notion has largely been exaggerated over the years. The truth is, that while American goods may cost more, they don't cost so much more that they should be dismissed by the consumer who is looking for better quality merchandise.

   The Daily Finance article uses a shovel as an example.  It costs $22 at AAS. You can buy a similar spade at Lowe's or Home Depot for $8 or $9. Often, the lower priced shovel requires cutting corners on quality. They'll frequently use lower-quality steel, for example. Or they'll skimp on quality assembly. Lower quality means shorter life span for the product and another 8 or 9 dollars to replace it.

   It's not that American products cost more, it's just that we have been programmed to trade quality for price.   We've been buying lower quality, lower priced merchandise for so long, we've come to think of it as the norm. That's why American made products look expensive by contrast.

   So the real question is, are Americans ready to return to quality merchandise. Are we as a nation ready to once again expect the higher standards that come with the "Made In America" label. You may say, "American Made" has lost it's brand.  The retailers at the All American Store wish to change your mind. Consider this. Last year, Sears profits were off by 1%. AAS profits were up 15%.

   But don't just take my word for it.  Feel free to click on the AAS link above and browse around. Give them a look see.  And if you can't find what you want there, just search the web for the product you're looking for and add "Made In America" to your search. You may be pleasantly surprised to discover that the "Made In America" label hasn't lost it's brand at all.  We've just had "Cheap" sold to us for so long that we forgot what real quality is.   At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Playing The Odds

2012-01-07T08:06:00.000-05:00

On the surface, the economic numbers looked good yesterday, and in essence they were. The unemployment rate dropped to a three year low of 8.5%, the economy added 200,000 new net jobs , the most since last April and double the number added in November, and hours of work in the private sector ticked higher last month, and average hourly earnings also went up slightly, though it's unclear how many of those positions will last.

This is all good news politically for President Obama, who is already playing the odds by touting his middle class tax cuts as the reason for the improved numbers. It's a smart move, because even if the numbers go sour again, he can simply blame the Republicans for holding up legislation, even though the Senate is holding up 30 pieces of job creating legislation passed by the House.

However, in all of the analysis I read yesterday, there was nothing written that definitively credited Obama's economic policies as the reason for the surge in hiring, or Republican policies for that matter. It would seem that the free market is simply trying in earnest to correct itself despite the best efforts of government to hold them back.

In fact, an article by the Los Angeles Times, which I found to be the most fair analysis, reports that analysts suggest the big drop in joblessness in recent months overstates the actual improvement in the labor market. They say that although layoffs at companies have receded, hiring has remained generally tepid and many people have dropped out of the labor force altogether; thus, they aren’t counted as among the unemployed.

For all of last year, the economy created about 1.6 million net new jobs, up from 940,000 added to payrolls in 2010.

Still, total U.S. payrolls are down about 6.1 million from December 2007 at the start of the Great Recession. And last month, a full 2 1/2 years after the recovery technically began, more than 13 million people remained jobless, and an additional 8.1 million part-time workers said they could not get full-time hours.

Even if the economy created 200,000 jobs every month from now on, it's estimated that it wouldn’t be until 2019 that the economy got back to its pre-recession unemployment rate of 5%, given the workforce population increases.

Nevertheless, regardless of the facts, the White House will claim that it was their policies that are digging us out of the hole, and the House Republicans will argue if only the Senate would pass their job bills, we would be even farther along, though neither party will be able to back their claims with facts.

In the end though, most people walk around with blinders on. They only see the posted unemployment number every week and they see that it's dropping. Furthermore, they don't much care why it's dropping as long as it continues to drop. Therefore, they will believe whatever they are told, and if the numbers keeps improving in the weeks ahead, it is advantage Obama going into an election year.

I'm sure that the President is comfortable playing those odds. In the meantime, businesses will struggle to improve despite the spin from Washington. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Does It Matter?

2012-01-06T06:43:00.003-05:00

There is a story coming out of Iowa that Mitt Romney won the Iowa Caucus because of an error which mistakenly gave him 20 additional votes.

According to an article on FoxNews.com, a Des Moines TV station KCCI reported that a Ron Paul backer attending his first precinct caucuses in Appanoose County, in southern Iowa, said the vote from his precinct was inaccurately reported and gave Romney 20 more votes than he actually received.

The Paul supporter, Edward True of Moulton, told The Associated Press that he helped count the ballots cast at his precinct caucuses and that Romney received two votes. True said he was shocked to see the official results on the Republican Party website showed Romney with 22 votes in the precinct.

"I assume somebody made a typographical error," he said in a telephone interview.

True said that when he contacted local Republican officials, "They said they would sort it out in the next couple of weeks, but how many primaries will have happened by that time?"

So the question I have is, does any of this matter. Well, yes and no. As far as the result is concerned, I would say yes. Every vote should be counted accurately in any election, and Mr. True was right to report the discrepancy, though I'm not sure why they had to point out that he was a Ron Paul backer? What did that have to do with anything? Were they implying something?

As to whether Romney or Santorum benefit or lose from the error, I really doubt it. Whether Romney won by eight votes or lost by twelve votes isn't going to sway voters minds one way or the other. I believe that either way, Santorum was largely seen as winner on Tuesday night simply by virtue of his amazing come-from-behind surge. It has already helped his fund raising capabilities while the Romney camp remains pretty much the same. I doubt if twelve more votes would have made a difference.

More importantly, it probably doesn't matter that much for Santorum outside of Iowa either. So far, unless the polls change this weekend, Santorum's numbers in New Hampshire are far from what he needs to win the state caucus, unless he pulls off another miraculous come-from-behind surge again. On the other had, Mitt Romney is enjoying a comfortable lead there. Would twelve less votes in Iowa have changed that? Probably not. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Move Forward Or Walk Away

2012-01-05T08:27:00.000-05:00

The Iowa Caucus is over, and the Republican stage of Presidential hopefuls has one less contender today. Michele Bachman has ended her run for President after securing only 5% of the Iowa vote. Only Ron Huntsman performed worse at 1%.

Still, it had to be a heart breaking loss. Iowa is her birth state, and she just recently won the Iowa Straw Poll there. But such a loss takes a lot of steam out of a campaign and makes it harder to raise the funds needed to move and run your operation state to state. To her credit, she didn't whine, she didn't complain, and she didn't place blame on anyone. She simply said that she walked away for the good of the party. Now that's a class act. Rick Perry should be so classy.

I'll say this about Michele. No one can take anything away from her. The many accomplishments in her life and in her career speak volumes about the woman. She is the epitome of the conservative wife-mother-career woman, strong, confident, intelligent, dedicated, loyal, patriotic, and unswerving in her convictions. She suffered the press well I thought, despite their occasional gender bias, and competed admirably as the only woman in a male dominated field. I admire her for that.

Unfortunately, she was defeated by the very thing that stood her out from the crowd. Her ideology. Michele Bachman mirrors her conservatism on the ideology of the Tea Party, especially the hard right faction of the Tea Party who want no compromise when it comes to their convictions. They are not unlike the Progressive Democrats on the hard left. You can't deal with them.

Michele Bachman fell into the web of saying no to everything that didn't meet her conservative standards. Not that I would want her to compromise her principles, far from it, but when you are in the minority party, you have to learn to compromise if you want to get any of your agenda passed. It is better to compromise and get most of what you want than to hold out for everything and get none of what you want.

We are all Americans, but America is not a one party nation. Each side wants their due deserts, and deserves to have their voices and concerns heard. "None" gets you nowhere. At least "some" moves you forward. The mistake Michele made was not moving forward and Iowa made her pay for it. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

What Did We Learn From The Iowa Caucus

2012-01-04T06:26:00.006-05:00

So what did we learn from the Iowa Caucus? Well, keeping in mind that this is just one of many caucuses, and that the results in the next caucus in New Hampshire will probably be far different, there were some interesting tidbits that came out of last nights vote.

First and most telling, no one jumped the shark, except maybe Rick Santorum, who came out of nowhere and led the pack nearly all night. Romey squeaked out a victory in the end by a thin margin of 8 votes. But just as in the debates, there was no clear front runner, and none of the candidates managed to secure more than 25% of the electorate.

Romney and Santorum split 50% of the votes with 25% each. Ron Paul, who was thought to have a good chance at winning, came in third with 21%. Gingrich came in at a distant fourth with 13%, while Perry, Bachman and Huntsmen hardly placed at all. But it was the "not so obvious" numbers that really caught my attention.

For example, entrance polls taken across the state revealed some surprising statistics. When Iowans were asked who they thought was the most conservative candidate, neither Romney nor Gingrich made the list. Instead, they chose Paul, Santorum, Perry, and Bachman as the most conservative candidates.

Those late deciders, who I blogged about yesterday, broke for Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney 32% to 22%. Gingrich came in third among them at 18%.

Iowans favored candidates with a business background over those with a government background 52% to 38%.

But for me, the most surprising, and perhaps disturbing numbers of the night came from the Iowa Independents, who voted overwhelmingly for Ron Paul. Paul got 48% of their vote. In contrast, Romney came in a distant second, with only 16% of the Independent vote.

     Why do I find that disturbing?  Well, it depends on whether that trend continues among Independents. Mitt Romney is thought by many to be the most electable candidate, but no candidate is going to win the Presidency without the backing of Independents, and this first vote indicates that they don't support him, not in Iowa anyway.

   If that trend continues and the Independents won't back him, if Romney can't break away from the other candidates as he has struggled to do, if Gingrich's numbers remain in the low teens, and if Perry and Bachman drop out, will this election turn out to be a race between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, or will the votes of the candidates who drop out benefit one of the remaining candidates and create a new contender?

   Granted, it's long been known that Americans are less than happy with the line-up of candidates we have to choose from this election year. I liken the choices in this race to a one-armed bandit in some Vegas casino. Like an addicted gambler, we keep pulling down the lever, looking for a different combination, but we just can't seem to hit the jackpot.

   Luckily it's way to early to predict outcomes. There are still many caucuses to play out in many different states, each of which has its favorite candidate. Numbers and positions will change. I just hope that someone can break away from the pack and we don't pick a nominee who just managed to squeak by with a razor thin margin.  At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Caucus Raucous

2012-01-03T08:09:00.000-05:00

After watching the "ups and downs" and the "ins and outs" of the Republican candidates in the lead up to tonight's Iowa Caucus, one thing remains painfully clear. No one has a clue who will win.

As I mentioned yesterday, 50 percent of Iowans still don't know who they favor in the race, which got me thinking. What happens if there is no clear front runner? Or worse, what happens if the front runner turns out to be the least favorite candidate? Personally, I'm hoping that some of the less competitive candidates drop out after tomorrow, but what happens if they win instead?

This is my fear as we go from Caucus to Caucus, that like Iowa, people in other states won't know who they want to vote for. They will wait till that last minute to make a spur of the moment decision, and then pull a lever and hope for the best. I shudder at the thought of sending our candidates to the conventions to vote for a spur of the moment choice, but that may well happen, and it's any one's guess who that will be.

Every candidate in the Iowa Caucus has lagged behind or been a front runner at one date or another, sometimes both within the same week. Romney has probably been the most consistent of all the candidates, although from the way this race is going, inconsistency seems more likely to rule the day. The polls may show Romney ahead, but with 50 percent of the electorate undecided, we could be in for some shocking surprises come tomorrow.

I'm sure that by the time that all the states have voted and the National Convention rolls around, a clear front runner will have emerged. But will that candidate be the best of the rest, chosen for their national appeal, or will that candidate be a spur of the moment choice made at the last minute by a frustrated and discouraged electorate. We may get an indication of that tonight when Iowa goes to the ballot boxes. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Same Old Song

2012-01-02T08:25:00.001-05:00

The holidays are over. I had a great Christmas and New Year, as I hope everyone did, and yesterday the Baltimore Ravens secured the AFC North Division in their playoff run for the Superbowl. All is well, so now I've started perusing the news sites for something to rant about. And guess what? It didn't take long.

An article on FoxBusiness.com caught my attention. It was a look at where we are today by looking back at where we were one year ago. The conclusion is that after a very tumultuous year, we are right back where we started from. The article begins by saying that the year now ending could well be characterized as one in which a whole lot happened -- but not a lot got done.

You can click on the link provided and read the analysis if you like, but I think that we all know the story by now. The article reviews specific areas of the economy like the stock market, jobs and the unemployment rate, and Congressional gridlock over the deficit, none of which showed much improvement in 2011. Add to that all of the apocalyptic visions for the year by the "doomsday" theorists, and it makes for a pretty grim picture.

Ignoring the doomsday scenarios, this being an election year, I don't expect much to change. The first caucus to pick a challenger from the Republican contenders takes place in Iowa tomorrow, but even that is fraught with indecision. The recent polls in Iowa show that 50% of the citizenry there still haven't decided which Republican candidate they favor, even at this late date. That seems to reflect the national mood as well.

My wish is that once the caucuses are over, and a candidate is chosen, the mood of the country will begin to change for the better and that people will start feeling hopeful again. We need that hope, and if we can't inspire it, we may be doomed to four more years of stagnation.

For what it's worth, whatever happens, I'll be here arguing the conservative side, agreeing with them when they are right, and ranting at them when they are wrong. I don't write the news, I'm not a journalist, I'm a blogger, and people like me and my fellow bloggers merely comment on what we see, hear, and read as we strive to make sense of the world we live in. Feel free to add your own voice if you choose.

It's a new year. I look forward to it with optimism. Let's hope it's a better year for all Americans. I'm ready to sing a new song. I'm rather sick of the old one, aren't you? It doesn't play as well as it once did. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Resolutions

2012-01-01T07:54:00.001-05:00

So here it is, the first day of the New Year again, and everyone is making resolutions that they probably won't keep, even with the best of intentions.

I am no different than the rest. I can't count all of the New Year resolutions I've made in earnest, only to lose all interest within a matter of days, until last year that is.

Last year, I made a resolution to quit smoking after 43 years. I have tried numerous times to stop, but never successfully. Today I am pleased to announce that I have gone exactly one year without a cigarette. I kept my resolution, and I'm very proud of that fact.

Resolutions are hard, because they usually concern something that we want to change about ourselves. They make us face our flaws or our inadequacies, which is why we fail to keep them, because it's hard facing our devils day after day.

Quitting smoking was not easy. I had to get through that first day, then the first week, and the first month. Every single day was a new goal to meet, and even now I still get cravings, but they are easier to ignore.

If you have a resolution, I'm not here to preach to you about keeping it. Heaven knows I failed keeping mine year after year. But when the time comes that you seriously resolve to make your change, take it a day at a time. Understand that small goals are the secret. Get through today first and let tomorrow take care of itself, and remember to congratulate yourself for keeping your goals.

I have a new resolution this year, and that's to make it through till next New Year without a cigarette. And though this year will be easier than last year, I still do it one day at a time.

So Happy New Year and good luck to you. May all of your resolutions come to fruition, and may you be a better person for them.

David A. Rollins

Happy New Year!

2011-12-31T07:34:00.000-05:00

I'd like to wish you all a happy and prosperous new year with some thoughts from years past for the year ahead.

In the New Year, may your right hand always be stretched out in friendship, but never in want. ~ Traditional Irish toast

Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let each New Year find you a better man. ~ Benjamin Franklin

Ring out the old, ring in the new, Ring, happy bells, across the snow: The year is going, let him go; Ring out the false, ring in the true. ~ Lord Alfred Tennyson

For last year's words belong to last year's language And next year's words await another voice. And to make an end is to make a beginning. ~ T.S. Eliot

Happy New Year my friends.

David A. Rollins

Typical!

2011-12-30T06:51:00.002-05:00

Considering the year of Congressional gridlock we just had, where almost everything that got done was done piecemeal or not at all, I'm not surprised to hear that our politicians left town for New Years with unfinished business on the table.

According to an article on FoxBusiness.com, energy companies, commuters and even rum distillers were looking to Congress to prevent their taxes from increasing.

The taxes they are referring to included such things as increased tax-free commuter benefits for parking and mass transit, deductions for paying state and local sales taxes, research and development credits, an exemption for millions of Americans from a special and antiquated income tax, and more than 60 other tax credits and benefits disappear with 2011.

In recent years, it's not unusual for Congress to miss the deadline on these annual tax benefit extensions, known as “extenders”, causing them to expire.

"It’s very upsetting to businesses because they can’t plan,” said Kurt Sturn, a principal with the Reznick Group, a Baltimore-based accounting, tax and business advisory group. “Our clients there are very frustrated. They can’t make any decisions.”

Lawmakers can, and have, retroactively renew these tax credits, but the Fox article suggests that the "missed deadline" may be intentional to hide the true, long-term costs of sustaining current law. Whether it is these “extenders”, a measure to shield doctors treating Medicare patients from a sizable pay cut, or income tax rates, budget policy has taken an increasingly piecemeal approach over the past decade on Capitol Hill. In other words, It's easier to hide the costs of all these tax breaks if they pass them piecemeal instead of all at once.

Isn't that typical of Congress? Always looking to cover their own butts even if it means leaving the rest of us dangling. Now granted, the article doesn't offer any proof that Congress is doing this on purpose, this is all just speculation, but I think we can all agree that the one thing Congress does best is to hide what it's doing from the public, so in this case, the speculation fits.

Call me crazy, but it seems to me they could save themselves a lot of headaches by just making these annual tax credits permanent, but then that would be common sense, and common sense isn't typical for Congress, is it?

So as we close another year out, we find that it is typically ending in much the same way it began, with a frustrated American public staring wearily at our members of Congress and asking, how can you be so inept? If nothing else, I guess there's something to be said for consistency. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Made In America

2011-12-29T06:53:00.000-05:00

With the Obama administration literally throwing billions of tax dollars at foreign based green energy companies to have them open up factories here in the states, often with disastrous results, this story should leave you feeling encouraged, or at least hopeful.

According to an article on FoxNews.com, hundreds of factory workers in Newton, Iowa (population 16,000) found themselves facing unemployment in 2007 when a corporate merger shuttered the Maytag plant, the town’s primary employer for generations. But there is a second chapter to this story. The town rose from the ashes of despair and opened a wind energy manufacturing company instead.

The company has created 700 new jobs in Newton, and a second wind energy company now employs over 100 people. They opened a $56 million, 316,000 square-foot wind blade manufacturing plant in Newton three years ago. Many of the workers formerly worked for Maytag. And down the road, a fellow wind manufacturing company is rolling steel towers for wind turbines out of the actual plant where Maytag used to make washers and dryers.

What is happening in Newton is happening all across the country, although many people don’t realize it. Wind energy is a market that the U.S. is winning. We are actually creating a whole new manufacturing sector right here at home, and tens of thousands of good, old-fashioned American manufacturing jobs. But it's going to require help from Congress.

A recent study found that with stable tax policy, the wind industry can grow to nearly 100,000 American jobs in the next four years – including an increase in the wind manufacturing sector by a third, to 46,000 American manufacturing jobs. This will keep the wind sector on track to support 500,000 jobs by 2030, as projected by the U.S. Department of Energy during the Bush administration.

All that is needed is Congressional action to keep the tax rate stable and low on this homegrown American energy source. That is why extending wind’s federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) is so important. If Congress raises taxes on wind energy by letting this tax rate expire in 2012, many of the good U.S. manufacturing jobs we’ve been able to create will evaporate. American wind energy jobs overall will be cut in half, according to a new study by Navigant Consulting.

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich had this to say on the matter:

“One of the major problems we have with renewable policies is that the time horizon on the tax credits is too short, and the degree to which they get caught up in congressional politics leads to a sort of an up-and-down effect so you can't get capital investment over time.

“If you are going to have tax credits that are designed to create investment,” Gingrich continued, “they have to have a long enough time horizon that people who invest believe they will be there. Otherwise, if you are trying to build a new factory, if you are trying to create a new technology, you get halfway there and suddenly it expires and all of your calculations were wrong. So I favor having a ten-year-time horizon."

Throwing billions of tax dollars at failing foreign companies and over taxing U.S. manufacturers may sound like sound energy policy to the Obama administration, but I'm betting that Republicans like Newt Gingrich, the town of Newton, and job hungry Governors across the country share a far different view.

Let's do what the people of Newton, Iowa have already done and create green manufacturing jobs right here at home. But let's do it right. If we're going to make that transition, then the "Made In America" lable should go hand-in-glove with it. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

A Fading Icon Or Just A Bad Economy?

2011-12-28T07:00:00.001-05:00

I saw two separate headlines yesterday on the Fox News website that at first glance seemed to contradict each other, and yet they are probably more related than they appear to be.

The first headline concerned a decision by Sears Holdings to close up to 120 of it's Sears and Kmart stores due to sluggish holiday sales. Right below that headline, a second headline claimed that consumer confidence jumped to an 8 month high. They don't seem to support each other do they? Or do they?

Let's start with the easy headline - consumer confidence. First of all, consumer confidence has been so low under this administration that even the most minor increase would amount to an all time high, so there's that.

But the Sears headline is far more serious, and disturbing news if the closings come to pass. 120 stores employ a lot of people, and one does not expect to hear such dire news from such a trusted and iconic brand name whose history dates back to 1886. The Sears and Kmart stores have been losing money every year since their merger in 2005.

The owners say that the decline in sales at Sears were driven by slumping demand for consumer electronics and home appliance products, while Kmart was hurt by lower sales of consumer electronics, apparel and layaway. Still others say that Sears has lost it's brand, and is considered old fashioned in today;s market place.

That may all be true, but I believe that there is another reason why sales are down at these stores, and neither of the Fox News articles mentioned it. The reason - on line shopping. More people are shopping on line than ever before. If you add in the popularity of the gift card, that number increases even more. Online sales on Christmas day from gift cards were up 16.4% from last year. That equates to a lot of sales that aren't being made in store.

When a consumer makes a purchase on line from Sears, or Kmart, or any other business, and has it shipped to their home, the product is shipped from a central warehouse, not a store, so no store gets credit for the sale. If enough people shop on lime instead of visiting a store in person, that store's sales are going to decline. And even gift cards can be use to make online purchases.

So while Sears can certainly blame a sluggish economy for their revenue woes, I would venture to say that digital sales and gift cards probably played a major part in their decline, and maybe, just maybe, they might also have a slight image problem. Their brand is getting old and showing its age. Perhaps it could use a makeover in the way of an updated advertising campaign. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Reversing The Trend

2011-12-27T06:51:00.000-05:00

Last week, I heard that the home mortgage rates have hit all time lows, again! That's great news if you can get a loan. The down side is that the year-end housing news is sobering -- U.S. homes are expected to lose more than $681 billion in value in 2011.

However, according to an article on the Daily Finance website, there is an upside -- the $681 billion figure is 35% less than the $1.1 trillion lost in 2010.

Zillow Chief Economist Stan Humphries had this to say in the article:

"While homeowners suffered through another year of steep losses, the good news is that homes are losing value at a substantially slower pace as the market works its way towards the bottom,. Compared to last year, when we saw sharp declines following the expiration of the home buyer tax credits, this year we saw some organic improvement in home values, in terms of a slowed depreciation rate which resulted in a smaller total value loss for the year."

Here's what I think. Is it just me, or have we been hearing this same old song and dance for three years? We keep hearing over and over that certain sectors of the economy are improving, just not fast enough, and yet we just can't seem to find the bottom that everyone keeps saying we need to hit.

This "improvement" rhetoric seems to be a common thread from the White House when describing the state of the economy. For example, they tell us that the job market is improving, just not fast enough. They tell us that the unemployment rate is trending down, just not fast enough, and now the housing market is supposedly improving, just not fast enough.

The truth is, nothing is improving. The home buyer tax credit program was a disaster. The tarp program that was supposed to help banks rid themselves of their toxic assets was a disaster, and banks are still timid to lend. And the only reason that the unemployment rate is dropping is because more and more Americans have simply quit looking for work,

We may have certainly slowed the rate of decline, but we are still declining. The economy has been in free fall for three years. All the Obama administration did was pull the rip cord and release the parachute to slow our descent, but we are still plummeting.

In my mind, improvement comes when you stop the negative trend and reverse it. Until then, no matter how you spin it, you are in decline. Many businessmen and economists feel that it is the policies of this White House that are keeping us from reversing the trend. This is what Obama will have to defend over the next 11 months.

Right now, Republicans are busy trying to pick a candidate to go up against the President, one who can hopefully contrast the policies of this administration with alternative common sense free market solutions. While conservatives argue amongst ourselves who is best suited for that job, Obama can sit back and enjoy the circus, at least until the candidate is chosen.

Obama has been out on the campaign trail blaming Republicans for our woes and tossing around a lot of personal attacks. That's easy to do when there's no opponent standing there challenging your attacks and holding you accountable for your own policies. Personal attacks aren't going to help in that situation.

But while Obama may be enjoying the ups and downs of the debates for now, the voters may have the last laugh. The time will come when he has to stand on his record, and to defend it. If all he has to offer for his policies is a slower decline in the economy than when he took office - the same argument we've been hearing for the last three years - the voters may reverse the trend for him. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Umm . . . Gee. . . Thanks

2011-12-26T07:18:00.001-05:00

I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday weekend and can enjoy the extra day off today. Hopefully you won't be spending the day returning gifts, which brings me to my subject of the day,

Yesterday, I read an article on the Daily Finance website in which they offered some alternatives to gift cards as Christmas gift. I must admit that the article had me chuckling unintentionally. Not that the article was humorous in any way. To the contrary, it was actually quite sensible and informative, from a strictly financial point of view that is.

The article said that cash in plastic form is shaping up to be a favorite stocking stuffer. The National Retail Federation says shoppers are spending more than $155 on gift cards this season, the highest total since 2007. Forbes puts the total giving on gift cards at $27 billion.

I fully understand the popularity of the gift card. I find that gift cards serve all occasions quite well, especially for totally inept gifters like myself who have spent years buying family and friends gifts that they neither needed or wanted, only to watch their faces contort in agonized pain as they struggled for a gracious response to my failed offering, a response that usually came back as, "Umm . . . gee . . . thanks." The gift card saves us both that pain.

But Daily Finance has offered a different perspective on the gift card. They suggest that instead of getting a loved one some green to spend now, how about investing that money on their behalf so they have a lot more green for holidays yet to come? It's a lot easier to set up than you think. Uh huh. This is where I started to chuckle.

Now, let me be clear. I'm not here to promote investing. If you want to know which investments the Daily Finance is suggesting, you can read the article for yourself. I just couldn't help laughing at this idea as a Christmas gift. Investments are fine as part of your personal economic portfolio for planning for you future, and at any other time of the year, such a gift would be fine, but as a Christmas gift, it sucks. It's that simple.

So here's a helpful hint for all you financial advisers, and also for all you parents who might actually consider investments as a viable gift idea. Your kids don't want investments under the tree, they want goodies - something they can wear, something they can play with, something fun, something distinctively personal, or just a gift card that allows them to choose for themselves. And furthermore, adults want the same things.

From a financial website point of view, an investment gift is a great suggestion and a worthwhile gift idea, and if you agree with them, by all means, follow your heart. Just understand that you risk that contorted facial look from your loved one as they struggle for an appropriate response, a response that will most likely come out, "Um . . . gee . . . thanks." At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Merry Christmas!

2011-12-25T07:02:00.004-05:00

I can't say it any better than this:

Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas
Music composed by Hugh Martin, lyrics by Ralph Blane

Have yourself a merry little Christmas
Let your heart be light
From now on our troubles will be out of sight

Have yourself a merry little Christmas
Make the Yuletide gay
From now on our troubles will be miles away

Here we are as in olden days
Happy golden days of Yore
Faithful friends who are dear to us
Gather near to us once more

Through the years we all will be together
If the fates allow
Hang a shining star upon the highest bough
And have yourself a merry little Christmas now

Merry Christmas all. God bless us, everyone.
David

Peace On Earth, Good Will To All

2011-12-24T06:56:00.001-05:00

   I'm taking a little break from ranting for the holiday weekend to celebrate Christmas with family and friends, and to engage in a little peace on Earth and good will to all. I hope you do the same in your holiday celebrations, whatever they are.

    If you have kids, or if you are a just big kid yourself like me, you can track Santa's journey to your area tonight with the Official Norad Santa Tracker. (Hint: He usually hits the east coast of America around 11 pm).

http://www.google.com/landing/noradsanta/index.html

    So Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you all, and best wishes for a happy and prosperous New Year. Thank you kindly for hanging out with me through the year. It's been a pleasure.

David A. Rollins

Bad Policy Wins Again

2011-12-23T07:04:00.003-05:00

   Sit up nice America and take your bone. You've won your payday, at least for the next 60 days.  Those heartless, evil, middle-class hating, Republicans finally caved to the class warfare being waged against them by the progressive Democratic left and their sympathetic media counterparts and agreed to the 60 day payroll tax cut extension. There was just no way for the Republicans to come out ahead, even with logic and reason on their side.

   The Democrats, with the help of the President, the news media, and the entertainment industry, were quite successful at using the same old  tired stereotypes that we've been hearing for years to paint the Republicans as pro-big business and anti-middle class. Pardon me for sounding cynical, but I find it hard to believe that in this age of instant information, we're still falling for those false images, but obviously a majority of Americans fell for it.

   Poll after poll shows that Americans support the Democrats on the payroll tax cut issue over the Republicans. And why not, the Democrats have most of the media on their side to get their message out.   So congratulations America. You could have had a one year extension of your tax cut, but instead you got a whole 60 days. You must be ecstatic!

   Does it matter if President Obama also wanted the one year extension, but settled for the 60 days for political points when the polls changed? Who was he looking out for with that move. You?

   Does it matter if President Obama was engaging in class warfare out on the campaign trail, while blaming it all on Congress to make himself look like the middle-of-the-road negotiator?

   Does it matter if Democrats are claiming that the 1000 dollar tax cut would mean an extra 40 dollars a week for most American families, when anyone with a calculator knows that 1000 divided by 52 weeks is just under 20 dollars a week? That's Obama math if I ever saw it, but you bought it America.

   And as long we are discussing Obama math, does it matter if the White is saying that the tax cuts will affect 160 million people, when according to PolitiFact, only 122 million American workers will be affected because of the stalled economy — not 160 million   Still, White House officials continue to push the 160 million number. Why inflate the number?

   Does it matter if Democrats are saying that Republicans wanted to pay for their plan by increasing medicare premiums on the elderly, but fail to mention that the increase was for elderly millionaires who can afford to pay a little more? Isn't that the very platform of the Democrats, having millionaires pay more? Why would they object?

   I could go on and on, but hey, don't concern yourself with the minor details, America. The Democrats teased you with a juicy bone, they gave you a villain to hate, and they promised you more money than they will deliver, and most of you sat up pretty for it. Maybe next time the Democrats can teach you to roll over too. So enjoy your 60 day tax cut. After all, you supported it and gave the Democrats the ammo they needed to defeat the Republican one year extension plan.

   The agreement still needs to be voted on today, but both sides expect it to pass with unanimous consent, so Democrats have a lot to gloat about today.  Consider this though.  If class warfare worked so well for them this time, why should they come back to the negotiating table with anything different for the next 60 days? The question is, how long can they keep kicking the can down the road before the polls change again? How long can they continue to win with bad policy?

   By the way, your cut for the 60 day extension comes to about 160 dollars.  Spend it wisely, because Nancy Pelosi says that spending it will create millions of new jobs. Sounds like she bought into that Obama math too, doesn't it? At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Bah! Humbug!

2011-12-22T08:35:00.014-05:00

   Of all the Christmas stories offered during the holiday season, my favorite has always been A Christmas Carol, the tale of Ebeneezer Scrooge. The classic novella authored by Charles Dickens in 1843 has not only survived the ages, but also numerous film incarnations as well, and all have remained true to the original. Until now that is, and this story really got my ire.

   According to an article posted on the Huffington Post website, a New York Journalist named Jesse Kornbluth has magnanimously taken it upon his shoulders to revamp the beloved and timeless Christmas classic to "bring children suspense, heartbreak, and joy, instead of... well, boredom."

   Boredom? Are you kidding me? First of all, anyone who thinks that the story of Scrooge is boring has rocks (I'm being kind) for brains. Secondly, where does this "journalist" get off thinking that he can take a piece of classic literature and make it better?  But one only needs to examine Kornbluth's motives a little closer to understand the answer to that question.

   Kornbluth said he decided to revamp the story after attempting to read it to his 8 year old daughter. He wanted her to hear the Dickens version instead of the "dumb-downed" (as he refers to it) Disney version.  But to his dismay, his daughter found the Dickens version "boring" and hard to understand.

    Here's your first red flag, Mr. Kornbluth. The Dickens version of A Christmas Carol was not written for an 8 year old. The concepts and language discussed in the tale are much too sophisticated for one so young, which is probably why the Disney people made an age appropriate version that is easier for young children to understand until they can grow intellectually into the original.

   Furthermore, your argument is hypocritical at best. You complain about Disney "dumbing down" the story, when you're doing the exact same thing with your revision. It doesn't sound like you thought this out too well, does it?

    But Mr. Kornbluth's ravings don't end there. He also made same other disturbing claims. He said that, "thick, word-drenched "classics" need to be shorter for today's readers --- especially today's kids." He also said that "classics" will, in our lifetime, go extinct." So he published his revised version of "A Christmas Carol" as an Ebook, and he says he's convinced from the feedback he's getting that he should do more. He said, "I think I'll call the series "Modern Classics." I dare to hope that readers, young and old, build a virtual 5-foot shelf of them."

Can you believe the arrogance of this guy?

Charles Dickens is one of the most beloved authors of all time. His stories have survived the ages in telling after telling quite well without the revisions of the arrogant Mr. Kornbluth. If Kornbluth thinks for one minute that his "revisions" of Dickens are going to become Modern Classics, all I can say is Bah! Humbug!

For Kornbluth to even attempt such a madcap endeavor seems a bit delusional to me, and shows an extreme overblown sense of his own importance and talents, but it also does a terrible disservice to the cultural enlightenment of the children who unfotunately will happen upon his Frankenstein creations.

   Mr. Kornbluth, literature is meant to broaden ones experience, to educate, to open up worlds of wonder and imagination through the written word.  Don't deny your daughter that future by thinking that "today's kids" are not patient enough to learn. Don't lower their expectations to your own discouraging opinion of them.

   I'm so tired of people like Kornbluth and those who think like him expecting less from our young people. To expect less is to get less. Or maybe he's just out to make a fast buck on the Ebook market by butchering the classics for the sake of our "attention deficit" children. How lucky for them that we have him to keep them down.

   Instead of expecting less from them though, maybe we should insist that our children reach the appropriate reading skills at each grade level before we just shuffle them through the school system.  Maybe then they will not only be able to read the classics exactly as they were written and intended, but will want to actively seek them out.

   The mistake that Jesse Kornbluth makes is not that Dickens needs to be rewritten.  The mistake is that he tried to read an adult story to and 8 year old that was beyond her comprehension skills at that age. Of course she was bored.

   So here's my suggestion, Jesse. As soon as you can drag yourself away from bastardizing the timeless works of a brilliant author like Charles Dickens for your own self aggrandisement and financial gain, go rent your daughter the Disney version of A Christmas Carol and spend a quiet evening watching it with her. Trust me, regardless of what you may think of the folks at Disney, they really do know what kids like.  She'll love it.

   And who knows, maybe you will love it too, Jesse. And maybe in the process you will find a new appreciation for the classics just as they were written. Even old Ebeneezer Scrooge had a change of heart.  At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Sitting Down With Bill

2011-12-21T06:35:00.001-05:00

I have a feeling that conservatives are going to hate me for this one. Last night, Bill O'Reilly interviewed former President Bill Clinton on the O'Reilly Factor. The interview was well worth the watch and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Even as a conservative, I have always liked President Clinton politically, though I didn't always agree with him. His affair and the resulting impeachment was another matter, which doesn't warrant anymore more comment from me. It's all been said.

Clinton was never too much of a left wing party partisan to move to the center when he had too, as long as it was moving the conversation forward and it was good for the American people. And from what he had to say last night, he still thinks that way.

O'Reilly is a good interviewer. He's respectful, but he doesn't throw softball questions. Nor does he let his guest filibuster by babbling pre-rehearsed talking points, which is why many hard-left liberals won't sit down with him. He asks the tough questions that few in the media are asking these days. And to President's Clinton's credit, he didn't try to dodge the answers. But then, why should he?

On the economy, Clinton said that he favors the Erskine-Bowles solutions. When O'Reilly asked him why President Obama hadn't embraced those solutions, Clinton said he didn't know. I don't believe that Clinton was dodging the question just to save President Obama embarrassment, because he didn't dodge answering any of the other questions on issues where he and the President disagree.

For example, Clinton said he would have preferred holding enemy combatants in America instead of Guantanamo Bay, but he would have attempted to change the law so they weren't granted the same rights as Americans just because they were on American soil. Obama and Holder would never consider that.

Clinton agreed that a fence is the only absolute way to secure the border, though he seemed indifferent about it. He said he didn't build the fence when he was President because there wasn't any desire from either side of the aisle to get it done.

On health care, Clinton said he agrees with the Republicans that opening the states to competition is the best way to bring costs down and get people covered, although he supports implementing the federal mandate.

He and Bill talked a little about the current line-up of Republican candidates, but Clinton said that he would vote for Obama because Obama's views on green energy reflected his own views more than the Republicans.

Those were just a few of the issues that O'Reilly covered with him, but at no time during the conversation, on any issue, did Clinton show the kind of unswerving, stick-in-the-mud, partisan stubbornness that is so rampant in Washington now. He is a liberal, without doubt, but he's more of a centrist I think than a hard-left unflinching progressive like Obama, and he's a much better leader than Obama.

In fact, he seemed to instinctively know which ideas would work and which ideas wouldn't. And if it works, it doesn't matter what side of the aisle the idea came from, as long as it moves the country forward, and that got me thinking. Ir's not enough to be a leader. A leader can still be partisan. You have to be instinctive, and you have to be knowledgeable and open to all points of view if you hope to succeed. Sometimes, if you can't get all of what you want, getting most of what you want is enough.

This is the kind of leader that both parties desperately lack right now. Obama certainly doesn't fit the mold, nor does our current Congress. And while I don't support everything that Bill Clinton stands for, he was never too partisan to let a great idea go unfulfilled. Our current leaders could certainly take a lesson or two from him. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Strange Bedfellows

2011-12-20T07:27:00.011-05:00

I saw a report on Fox News yesterday that had me chuckling and shaking my head at the same time. The report was about an oil field in California using solar energy to help drill for oil. Yes, you heard me right, using green technology to drill for fossil fuels. Now if that's not a case of strange bedfellows, I don't know what is.

The oil field, located in Coalinga, is one of California's oldest oil fields. It is nearly depleted, sitting at about 25% of it's original oil supply. What's left is a thick crude that's almost impossible to drill out without heating it first with steam. The steam is produced by boiling water in massive boilers, but the boilers themselves are heated with fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas.

In an effort to eliminate the need for fossil fuels in the heating process, an experimental green energy solution was developed. A massive array of 8000 solar mirrors was erected on a field adjacent to the oil field. The combined energy of all 8000 panels is then focused as a single beam onto one solar receiver atop the boiler which then heats the water and creates the steam.

The report didn't mention how much acreage was needed for the solar panels, but the accompanying video viewed the array from 33 stories up and it still looked massive. All that just to create steam for one boiler. And anyway, wasn't the whole idea of creating solar energy in the first place to replace fossil fuels? What's next, using wind turbines to push natural gas through the pipelines?

Now, if you're thinking that a mirror array that large could create a huge amount of heat, you would be right. 8000 of anything is a lot by any estimation. Did you ever use a magnifying glass to burn a piece of wood or a leaf when you were a kid. Well, imagine 8000 magnifying glasses all focused to create your beam. It gets scary thinking about it like that, doesn't it?

When the mirrors are all focused onto the boiler, the array can create temperatures of 1000 degrees, enough to melt gauges on the boiler, or fry a human being. That my friends is a dangerous beam of light, and far from the reason why solar panels were developed. They were developed to collect the sun's rays and convert them to energy, not to create 1000 degree heat beams.

    Being a cautious person where all new technology is concerned, I automatically worry that there could be unintentional consequences to such experimentation. I shudder to think where an idea like that can take us, even though I know it's probably inevitable.

   I remember seeing a movie when I was a kid, a fantasy set back in the time of Atlantis. The scholars of Atlantis, who were thought to be the most learned men of the age, discovered how to harness the energy of the sun. As men of peace often do, they then took that knowledge and built a solar weapon to protect them from their enemies, But in the end, their inventiveness grew beyond their control, and the resulting chaos destroyed them and their island paradise.

   Granted, that was just a Hollywood movie, and I'm not suggesting that solar energy use will lead to solar weaponry (or am I). But in this frightening age of atomic energy, nuclear power plants, particle accelerators, and solar experimentation, is there a moral or even a lesson to be learned here? I think probably yes.

   Unfortunately, if the past is any indicator, then we won't heed it, in which case we will likely pay for our bold arrogance somewhere down the road. But you don't have to take my word for it. Just ask the ancestors of Atlantis, if you can find any. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Close But No Cigar

2011-12-19T06:46:00.000-05:00

   We almost did it. We almost had a deal on the payroll tax cuts over the weekend. Granted, as I posted on Saturday and Sunday, the deal was far from perfect, but at least it had the distinction of gaining approval from Republicans and Democrats alike on 90% of the proposals.

   The snag came in the Senate under Harry Reid's preview. To his credit, in an effort to reach a compromise with Republicans before the Dec. 31 deadline, Senate Leader Reid reluctantly eliminated the millionaire surcharge as part of the overall plan to pay for the tax cuts. The surcharge was very popular among Democrats, but a non-starter for Republicans. However, the snag came over the length of the agreement.

   The Republicans wanted to extend the cuts for a year and finish up all unsettled business of 2011. Unfortunately, the Senate Bill only extends the cuts for two months, which means that in 60 days, Congress would have to take up the debate all over again. Of course the House, under John Boehner's preview, voted against it.

   Almost immediately, hard core partisans like Chuck Shummer and Nancy Pelosi, who want to use this issue as a political weapon to paint Republicans as the evil foes of the middle class (yawn), began putting out statements proclaiming with fire and brimstone that the Republicans broke their word and that the wrath of the American people would befall them if they refused the Senate compromise.

   Well, I'm a conservative Independent, and I happen to agree with the Republicans on this issue. And if your read my blog often enough, you'll know that I am not always automatically in lock-step with the Republican Party. But enough is enough already, wouldn't you agree? We have the compromise, and we've agreed on how to pay for it. So quit playing politics and pass the damn thing so we don't have to go through this again in two months.

   There are only 12 days till the end of the year, and Americans still don't know if they will get their tax cuts or unemployment benefits in 2012. I'm sure that they want to see more than a two month extension and avoid another debate. There is still a chance that Congress will get this done, but even if they do succeed, I'm betting that most Americans view both parties as the evil foes of the middle class, simply by means of their combined incompetence. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Better Look Again

2011-12-18T08:01:00.001-05:00

   There's an adage that says, "the proof is in the pudding". Never has this been more true than when dealing with Congress and their legislation.

   As I posted on Saturday, the payroll tax compromise was really not a compromise at all. Congress just kicked the can down the road so they could go home for Christmas.  The worst of it is, as I read more and more analysis on the compromise, it became even less appealing.

   An article on FoxNews.com reported that in exchange for a two-month tax cut, the Senate approved a permanent increase in fees attached to mortgages backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

   The fee hike would apply to new mortgages and new refinances, and would last for the life of the loans. The increase is meant to pay for the roughly $33 billion package the Senate approved Saturday to extend a 2 percentage point payroll tax cut for another two months. The Obama administration says 160 million people benefit from that tax cut.

   But the mortgage fee provision would have widespread long-term impact, considering nine out of 10 mortgages go through one of the three government-sponsored finance organizations affected. The idea behind the fee is to encourage more homeowners to get into the private market, as opposed to seeking loans backed by troubled entities like Fannie and Freddie.

   Okay, I'll bite my lip on this one and just say that even though it's still another tax, it's meant to keep innocent people away from a predator like Fanny and Freddie. But let's be honest here. If the Congress was really serious about holding F&F accountable, they would have included them in their financial reform legislation, so I have my doubts about this solution.

   Now here's the bad news. Congress is stretching the truth a bit when they say that the compromise is paid for, like that's a surprise. According to the Fox article, while lawmakers say that the mortgage fee hike means the payroll tax cut is fully paid for, the timetables for the tax cut itself and the revenue from the fee are very different.

   The Congressional Budget Office estimates that while the tax cut lasts two months, it will take 10 years for the associated fee hike to drum up an estimated $35.7 billion and replenish the lost revenue. That rhetorical tactic is common on Capitol Hill -- lawmakers frequently say bills are "paid for" when in fact it takes a decade for that to be the case.

   Did you get that? They enacted a ten year tax increase to pay for a two month extension of a temporary tax cut. Is it any wonder this country is in debt up to its eyeballs? And while it's good to keep homeowners away from financial predators, the other banks are so scared of lending now that only those with excellent credit can even get a mortgage, or refinance an existing one.

   So there it is. Not only did Congress kick can down the road for two months after claiming to have a compromise, but now we find out that it's not really paid for either.  Pardon my cynicism, but it's hard to be trusting with people who consistently mislead you. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Kick The Can

2011-12-17T07:40:00.001-05:00

    Contrary to what may have been reported in the media yesterday, Congress has not agreed to a bi-partisan compromise on the payroll tax cut debate, or on the unemployment benefits, or the Keystone pipeline.

   What they agreed on was a funding bill to kick the problem down the road for two months so everyone can go home for the Christmas holidays. But since the short term compromise still needs to be voted on sometime this weekend, even that is not written in stone.

   Nor are the provisions of the new compromise set in stone. The payroll tax breaks and the unemployment benefits are only good for two months, during which we must all suffer the additional and seemingly endless rounds of debate on a subject that should have been fixed months ago, debates that we are all already far too weary of.

   Neither is the much touted Keystone Pipeline project set in stone. For all the Republican fanfare of getting it into the debate, the new compromise doesn't even guarantee its implementation. It merely gives the President two months to decide if he wants to approve it. Didn't he already make that decision?

   Furthermore, much was made about the removal of the millionaire surcharge, which was the method that the Democrats proposed to pay for the tax cuts and unemployment benefits. But the removal of the surcharge was just to get the two month extension through before the Christmas break. I can almost guarantee that debate is coming back after the holidays.

   So there you have it. How encouraging, huh? Congress is like Scrooge heading home on Christmas Eve, content in his greed and miserly ways. I only hope that the Spirits of Christmas visit each of them, because the incompetence of this highly partisan Congress has grown beyond pathetic.

   Without redemption in their hearts, my suggestion is that they all go home and stay home until we can vote them out next year. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

SOPA

2011-12-16T08:40:00.001-05:00

I am always leery of any politician, agency, group, or individual who wants to regulate the Internet. However, there are exceptions, but in my opinion, the solutions are often worse than the problems. Let's just take Internet piracy as an example.

There is a piece of legislation making its way through Congress called SOPA, the "Stop On-Line Piracy Act". The bill is an attempt to deal with the on-line piracy of copyrighted material, a practice that costs copyright holders billions of dollars in lost royalties each year.

   As an independent self-published author and a copyright holder myself, I support legislation that would hold these rogue sites accountable.  But instead of going directly after pirate sites, the bill, in very broad language, holds all Internet websites responsible for the content they stream. But what defines that content, and who decides?

   This is a wrong solution. What we needed were targeted laws that hold criminals accountable and make it harder for them to operate freely on the web, not grandiose Big Brother type solutions that do nothing to stop criminal activity and probably stifle free expression by honest web sites for fear of being "policed".

   The legislation has drawn harsh criticism from some of the web's biggest and most popular sites such as You Tube, Wikipedia, and even Google, who would all be held responsible for content users post to their sites. In a letter to Congress,  co-signed by the creators of more than a dozen blue-chip websites including PayPal, Yahoo, Google and more and developers as AOL, eBay, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Mozilla, Twitter, Yahoo and Zynga, they said:

"We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry's continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation's cybersecurity, We cannot support these bills as written and ask that you consider more targeted ways to combat foreign 'rogue' websites dedicated to copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting, while preserving the innovation and dynamism that has made the Internet such an important driver of economic growth and job creation."

I agree with them. I view the Internet in much the same way as people of old must have originally viewed the printing press. The invention and spread of the printing press are widely regarded as the most influential events in the second millennium AD, not only revolutionizing the way people conceive and describe the world they live in, and ushering in the period of modernity, but also mass producing that information for the public.

Isn't that exactly what the Internet does? It has ushered in a new period of modernity, which in my opinion takes the idea of the printing press to a whole other level by allowing anyone, not just professional media people or published authors, access to add their voice and their ideas to the global conversation. This digital bastion of freedom of expression has radically changed societies all over the world.

So go ahead and hold criminal sites accountable. We should all be protected from infringement and fraud, but please don't make the language so broad that you stifle free expression. It's the last real freedom we still have. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Counting Beans

2011-12-15T06:40:00.005-05:00

Have you noticed how each month the economic numbers from the month before seem to quietly get revised down? Economic growth numbers, job creation numbers, unemployment numbers, and housing market numbers, all seem to suffer the same fate a few weeks after they are released.

Now I know that the numbers are fine-tuned after they come out, which is why they are revised, but while the media and the White House loudly tout the initial numbers, the lower revised numbers hardly ever get more than a blurb. My feeling is, why not just wait until the revised numbers come in and post those, unless your goal is to mislead the public.

We already know that the government misleads the public about the unemployment numbers each month. Even the U.S. Department of Labor lists the skewed rate on their home page. The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists the real number, called the U6 number on their website, that is if you have the patience or the know how to search around their site and find it. I didn't.

But another reason that economic numbers get revised down is because they were fraudulently listed in the first place. A few days ago I told you about a report citing how housing appraisers were falsifying home value prices. And now there is another report out claiming that data on sales of previously owned U.S. homes from 2007 through October this year will be revised down next week because of double counting, indicating a much weaker housing market than previously thought.

That's five years! Nobody caught it. In the report, the National Association of Realtors revealed that some housing properties were listed more than once and in some instances new home sales were also captured.

The report went on to say that earlier this year, the Realtors group was accused of over counting existing homes sales, with California-based real estate analysis firm CoreLogic claiming sales could have been overstated by as much as 20 percent. Did the media report that with as much gusto?

Most economists agree that the depressed housing market is one of the key obstacles to strong economic growth and an oversupply of unsold homes on the market continues to stifle the sector. Fudging the numbers on this or any other segment of the economy does nothing to overcome that obstacle. If anything, it only discourages Americans more when the numbers are revised down.

So here's my suggestion to government. Do us all a favor please. Wait until all the beans have been counted and revised before you release your numbers, because it really pisses us off to think that things are getting better, only to find out a few weeks later that they are much worse than we thought. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Halt! Who Goes There?

2011-12-14T06:57:00.000-05:00

   Since I have been ranting about Congress all week, and their lack of oversight when passing legislation and regulations, let me offer another jewel of wisdom coming out of the halls of Washington, a plan that calls for an unmanned port of entry along the Texas and Mexico border that allows people on the Mexican side to come and go in our country as they please on the honor system.

   With calls for tighter border security growing louder every year, this hardly seems a time that the U.S. would be willing to allow people to cross the border legally from Mexico without a customs officer in sight. But according to an article on FoxNews.com, federal authorities are touting a proposal to open an unmanned port of entry as a security upgrade.

Really? An upgrade?

   By the spring, kiosks could open up in Big Bend National Park allowing people from the tiny Mexican town of Boquillas del Carmen to scan their identity documents and talk to a customs officer in another location, at least 100 miles away.

   So tell me, how does this officer 100 miles away stop people from crossing who don't scan any documents? Wait till you hear this!

   Supporters of the plan say that the area where the kiosk will be is very remote, and the thought is that it would be easier for "law abiding" townspeople on the Mexico side to cross at Big Bend rather than make them drive 240 miles to the nearest manned port of entry.

   As for the "unlawful" ones, William Wellman, Big Bend National Park's superintendent, said "People that want to be engaged in illegal activities along the border are still going to do it,  But you'd have to be a real idiot to pick the only place with security in 300 miles of the border to try to sneak across."

   In other words, why worry about this one unmanned station when illegals can cross anywhere. And he forgot one small item, it's unmanned, so there is no security.

   They argue that people who cross at the kiosk would still be under the supervision of a handful of roaming security agents and the park rangers who have checkpoints on the roads leading away from the park. Okay, but what if these unlawful people don't use the roads to leave the park? Can you begin to see how this plan has the potential for disaster?

   So once again, our law makers are taking the long way, or rather the wrong way, around the barn to fix a simple problem. Here's the solution. If the nearest manned port of entry is 240 miles away, and you want to make it easier for honest people to go back and forth, then open a new manned port of entry at the park. Problems solved, no one is getting through unnoticed, and it creates jobs in the process. Now that's a plan!

   I have no problem with honest people crossing the border back and forth to shop or conduct business. Americans cross back and forth into Mexico everyday to do the same thing, but why make it unmanned? We have enough unmanned border as it is where all kinds of people of ill intent can cross at will, so why add to our problems? It's insanity to even consider it. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Reversing The Trend

2011-12-13T06:27:00.000-05:00

The crash of the housing market, which was the number one factor in causing the current recession when the bubble burst, has been slow to recover. Some economists fear that even now, the market may not have bottomed out.

A recent article posted on FoxBusiness.com seems to confirm that opinion, and amazingly, the same kind of shifty business dealings that led to the crash may be to blame for the slow recovery.

   The Fox article reports that a recent nationwide survey conducted by the National Association of Home Builders revealed that bank appraisers are at fault for the slow housing recovery by wrongfully using foreclosed homes as comparable houses to asses values in home sales.

   Just as the initial crash of the market was caused by financial institutions artificially inflating home prices, the slow recovery is being caused by artificially lowering home prices. It's the same problem, only in reverse.

   One out of three builders now report to the NAHB that they have literally lost signed sales contracts during the prior six months because appraisals on their homes are less than the contract sales price, or even the cost of constructing the entire house.

   “This is not only unfair and unreasonable, but it perpetuates the cycle of declining home values, drives more home owners underwater, harms local economic activity and acts as an obstacle to the recovery of the housing market,” said Bob Nielsen, a home builder from Reno, Nevada.

   New-home construction stands ready to serve as an engine for economic recovery. Building 100 single-family homes creates more than 300 full-time jobs and provides $8.9 million in federal, state and local tax revenues.

   “Resolving inappropriate appraisal practices and restoring the flow of credit to home builders will not only help to put America back to work, it will provide badly needed tax revenues that is essential for local governments to support schools, police and firefighters in communities across the land,” said Nielsen.

   So who is overseeing the recovery of the housing market, and why are these unfair practices allowed to go on. Didn't we learn anything from the crash? This is another prime example of government intruding on the private sector and then walking away without establishing any oversight.

   It was bad legislation passed in Congress that allowed for the low rate loans which caused the housing crises in the first place. Our politicians weren't paying attention then to the consequences of their actions, and they obviosuly aren't paying attention now. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Allow Me To Intrude

2011-12-12T07:32:00.002-05:00

Government imposed regulations seems to be a contentious area of debate between Democrats and Republicans these days. The left favors more government oversight and regulation, while the right favors less regulation, especially when it comes to regulations that stifle growth or are too intrusive on the private sector.

A good example of what I mean is highlighted in an article on the DailyFinance.com website. The article suggests that Washington's efforts at Wall Street reform and consumer protection keep having strange and unintended consequences for Main Street businesses and customers.

The Durbin Amendment - proposed by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) as part of the Dodd-Frank Act - set a cap on the amount financial institutions can charge merchants to process credit card transactions. Previously, the average "interchange" fee was 44 to 45 cents per transaction. As of Oct. 1, the maximum swipe fee was cut to 21 cents. The intent was to keep the cost of doing business down, but that goal is reportedly being thwarted by the credit card companies' response.

According to The Wall Street Journal, because of the amendment, credit card companies have since eliminated the discounts that they previously offered on interchange for small transactions. those under roughly $10. Instead, the credit card companies now charge many small businesses the maximum fee allowed by the law. As a result, small merchants face a conundrum: How to convince their customers to pay in cash, after several years of marketing designed to encourage debit card use?

The problem is especially acute for those businesses that deal for the most part in sales under $10 dollars. Over the course of the year, those fees can amount to thousands of dollars, and even more now that credit card companies are no longer offering discounts. I'm sure that Senator Durbin never considered that.

In my opinion, this problem is two fold. First of all – and this has been a complaint of mine for some time now – politicians are infamous for passing laws and regulations without ever thinking of the far reaching consequences. One just has to look at Obama Care to understand that.

On the other side of the coin are financial institutions who are infamous for finding their way around such regulations and those solutions usually come at the expense of the consumer.

But while I'm sure Durbin's intention was to help the middle class merchant and consumer, he failed to understand that the merchant is no better than the bank when it comes to raising fees. Merchants have in the past, and continue to raise prices on their goods and services to cover their expenses. Senator Durbin probably never considered that either.

So what are the real consequences of Senator Durbin's debit fee amendment? The banks didn't get hurt by it. They just eliminated their transaction discounts to cover the loss in revenue. The merchants didn't get hurt by it, they'll just raise their prices to cover the added expense. The consumer is the one who gets hurt by this ammendment because they have to foot the bill, so thank you Senator Durbin for once again sticking it to the working man (and woman).

Here's the question I have to ask myself. Why was this regulation imposed in the first place? Was there a problem with transaction fees between banks and merchants? Were merchants around the country complaining about these fees to their Congressmen and Senators, begging them for help on this issue? Or is this just another case of government intruding on the private sector financial markets in the name of social engineering, another chance to demonize the wealthy bankers to gain favor with the working class. Well it didn't work, did it?

Not surprisingly, Senator Durbin has declined to comment on the consequences of the law. But you can rest assured that he isn't taking any responsibility for failing to fully think the problem through. Instead, he will most likely continue to blame the banks on whom he carelessly imposed his ammendment.

These kind of mindless regulations are common place in Washington, rules and regulations that do more harm than they do good. So when you hear Republicans saying they want less regulations, it's not that they are against oversight as the left would have you believe, they are just against the stupidity and intrusion that results from bad legislation. At last that's my opinion. What do you think?

Round Two

2011-12-11T08:34:00.001-05:00

Get ready for another round of partisan politics this week as the Republicans send their second payroll tax cut compromise to the Senate, where Harry Reid and President Obama have already said they will reject it. But would that be wise on their part?

Like the first comprise that the House offered, this new compromise is fully paid for with a variety of measures. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats don't seem to care about that. Never mind that the House bill doesn't raise taxes or increase the deficit. The Senate is only interested in their own compromise that pays for the cuts by raising taxes on the wealthy, knowing that the House won't vote for it, and they can then blame them for being against the middle class. Isn't that encouraging?

However, the Republicans may have found a measure that would stregthen their compromise. They have also added a proposal that would restart the Keystone Pipeline Project, which is expected to create hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the states. The project is very popular among Democrats and Republicans alike, especially with labor unions, whose crews would be doing most of the work.

   Unfortunately, after taking some heat from the environmntalists over the proposed pipeline, Obama gave in to their demands and pushed the project back until after the 2012 elections. The President defended his decision by saying that futher study was needed to measure the safety and environmental impact of the project, and blah blah blah.  That study has already been done, just like the Presidential Commission On Debt Reduction study was done, but Obama still insisted on doing another one for political reasons.

   Never mind that pushing the project off would kill off thousands of jobs, especially at a time when Obama is pushing his so-called Jobs Bills so hard. I guess staying in favor of the environmentalists was more important to his re-election campaign.

   But Obama may be facing a bigger problem from the labor unions who want to see the Keystone Pipeline project go forward, and from Democratic House and Senate members who are up for re-election and whose states would benefit from the pipeline.  Harry Reid may not be able to block the passage of the bill, unless he just flat out refuses to bring it up for a vote like he does with most Republican proposals.

   Furtherore, the President promised to reject (he didn't say veto) any payroll tax cut compromise if the pipeline project is attached to it. He said it was just a political trick.  I guess he meant the same kind of political trick that Democrats regularly use when they try to attach legislation to military defense budgets.

   So anyway, the stage is set. We have two choices and 20 days to decide. We can either give the middle class its payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits, fully paid for, and a plan for creating thousands of jobs, or we can bypass all of that by insisting on a plan that raises taxes on the rich, increases the deficit, and kills jobs, all for political purposes. The debt clock is ticking. At least that's my opinion.  What  do you think?

In To Win

2011-12-10T07:54:00.002-05:00

Sometimes I find it amazing that we as conservatives don't eat our young. It's just mind boggling to me how narrow minded and self-serving we can be, as in the case of the right wing media trashing the current rise in popularity of Newt Gingrich.

Unlike many of our conservative pundits, journalists, bloggers, and politicians, who are still too cowardly to endorse a candidate, I have always known who I favor. I back Newt Gingrich. There! I said it! See how easy it is? And I'm proud to announce it. And if you back someone else, that's fine too, because if Newt doesn't win, I will gladly back whoever the nominee is. But how can you not know by now who you favor? What more information do you need?

What are they waiting for? The field has been set for months. There have been numerous debates. Everyone knows where the candidates stand, and if you don't, go read their web page. It's all written out for you. There aren't going to be any new surprises, nor is some new Great Conservative Pumpkin going to rise up out of the most sincere political pumpkin patch to save us from the current line-up. What you see is what you get, so pick somebody already.

I was glad when Newt entered the race because I have followed and listened to him over the years and I know how intelligent he is about politics and history. But until just a couple of weeks ago, he was being written off by both Democrats and Republicans alike, and it looked to be well-deserved with his organization falling apart around him.

But then came the debates, and the more he spoke, the more that the American people liked what he had to say, until now he is surging in the polls, ahead of even Mitt Romney, and not just by a little bit. Newt is currently enjoying a comfortable lead in the polls that no one else in the lineup has been able to match. So why then are conservatives in the media trashing him?

In the beginning, I was asking why the American people weren't backing Gingrich, but now that they are, it's the right wing media who has turned against him. I expect that from the Democrats and the left wing media, but if Republicans hope to defeat Barack Obama next year, why aren't they backing their front runner?

Every night I hear conservative pundits questioning his marriages, his Tiffany's account, his job with Fanny and Freddie, and decisions he made twenty years ago that are no longer relevant in today's politics. They even question his sincerity and his conservatism, they call him angry and unpredictable, and yet they all agree that he's extremely intelligent, and that he would be a great debater against Obama.

The problem, they say, is that he doesn't look presidential, or at least not as presidential as Mitt Romney. What the hell does "Presidential" mean anyway? Can someone explain that to me? When did this become a beauty contest? If we go by the media's standard, did Lyndon Johnson look presidential, or Richard Nixon? This whole idea of looking presidential started with John Kennedy and how he looked on TV compared to Richard Nixon. It's media hype and it doesn't mean a damn thing. I don't vote for someone because they have nice hair.

That's all just an excuse. Here's the way I see it. I think the conservative news pundits have gotten so used to writing Newt off and accepting Mitt Romney as the front runner, that Newt's ascension to the front of the line has thrown them all for a loop. They were all ready to coronate Romney, even if reluctantly, so how can they walk away from him now without looking like hypocrites? Therefore, they trash the leader, minmalizing his rise in the polls to that of Bachman, Perry, and Cain, who all enjoyed a temporary spot in the limelight before falling behind.

Maybe they are right, maybe Newt's rise is a temporary thing, but I tend to think not. Newt stands above the rest of the pack when he's making his case. He is reaching numbers in the polls that leave the rest of the pack in his dust, while the numbers of everyone else have barely changed, hoovering around 20%. Maybe it's time that the news pundits start seeing what a growing number of Americans see, that Newt Gingrich is definitely in the race, and he's in it to win.

Even if Gingrich doesn't win, we should be supporting all of our candidates because any of them is better than four more years of Obama. Leave the trash talk to the Democrats. Our goal is to put a Republican back in the White House, to maintain our majority in the House, and to gain a majority in the Senate. How are the Republicans supposed to convince Americans voters to support the conservative candidates if their political and media representatives are trashing them every night on television? They might as well hang "Vote Obama" signs.

I don't know who the nominee is going to be. I just know that everyone wants the best candidate to go up against Obama. Maybe that's Mitt, maybe that's Newt, maybe it's one of the others. I'm just happy my candidate is doing so well right now and I hope his luck continues, but I'm not going to trash the other candidates just because I back Newt Gingrich.

We as conservatives should not be engaging in trash politics. I think it's possible to compare and contrast our candidates fairly and respectfully without being callously dismissive or digging in their trash cans. They'll be enough of that from the other side before it's all said and done, and they don't need our help. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

The Friday Post: Stepping Down Off The Soap Box

2011-12-09T07:00:00.001-05:00

As most of you know, I am a self published E-Book author. I write "thrilling novels of supernatural suspense" which you can find and read about on my web page DavidARollins.com.

Since I self-publish, I'm always looking for new ways to promote my work. One of the most frequent questions I get asked is, are my books available in paperback? Unfortunately, for the time being, the answer is no, but that may be changing next year.

I am currently researching a number of Print-On-Demand printers who offer printing services for independent E-Book authors such as myself. They take my digital file and turn it into a paperback, which my readers can then order.

I would really love to offer this option to my readers, basically because it would widen my fan base to those who prefer to read a physical book as compared to reading a computer file, or for those who don't have computer access. But first I want to make sure that it's cost feasible.

I expect that the paperback version will probably cost a little more, especially since it has to be ordered and shipped, but I don't want that extra cost to be so great that it turns readers away. That's why I'm looking at a number of printers to find the best deal for my fans.

I'm not a mainstream author in as much as I don't employ a publisher or an agent. It's just me and my fans. My goal is to see if an unknown author can be successful building a grassroots fan base one reader at a time based solely on the work and not a lot of commercial hype. I write exciting and suspenseful novels that I showcase on my website and sell on Amazon and Barnes and Noble to anyone who wants to read them.

So far it seems to be working because my fan base is growing as more and more people discover my books. Maybe by adding a paperback option, even more people will discover my work and help to spread the word. Nothing would make me happier. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Bandaids

2011-12-08T06:18:00.003-05:00

Today I want to finish up my thoughts on the debate of extending the payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits. It's an important debate, to be sure, but is this really the most important debate to be having at this time?

The White House Press Secretary has a new prop on display at his daily briefings. It's a deadline clock that is counting down the days to the end of the year when the current payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits expire. It is there to remind us that time is running out for Congress to pass a compromise that will extend both benefits into next year and beyond.

I admit that the clock is a novel idea, and it makes a good visual aid for partisan campaign politics, but beyond that, it's meaningless. While the media pundits and bloggers like me are giving voice to the debate over the extensions, in the end, it isn't going to make a bit of difference to the economy whether the extensions pass or not. It's small beans.

Putting a few more dollars in someone's paycheck in these hard times, or extending their unemployment benefits, would certainly be a help to people in need. But if anyone thinks that either of these things are going to lower the national debt or create jobs, they are fooling themselves, and that's the real debate we should be having. The rest of it is merely incidental.

As I posted on November 17th, the deficit ticked over 15 trillion dollars, less than one year after it hit 14 trillion. Since that date, less than one month ago, we have added 92 billion dollars (it will be more by the time you read this) and we will add another trillion to the debt before the election next year. On top of that, the real unemployment rate in this country is near 20 percent when you count everyone, not the falsified 8.6 percent that the bean counters in Washington would have you believe. Why aren't we talking about that?

The White House has made three failed attempts in the past year to reduce the national debt. Even though many good ideas have been proposed by the debt reduction panels commissioned by the President, they are largely ignored in favor of tax increases. Even the debt reduction package that got passed in March, the one that Obama likes to brag about as his compromise, was a mere drop in the ocean and did absolutely nothing to lower the debt.

The truth is, we need real cuts, cuts that drop the debt below the base line. But the Democrats only idea of a spending cut is to reduce the amount of increased spending above the base line. In the meantime, the debt keeps increasing, and they wonder why the Republicans reject their offers.

Taxing to create revenue is fine if we are using our tax dollars wisely. But there's no evidence that we are doing that. Our elected politicians from both sides of the ailse have not been good stewards of the national trust by any means. Our tax code is an unintelligible mess that over the years has offered undeserved tax shelters to the weathy and politically motivated tax exemptions to the poor. It's so confusing that it requires most Americans to hire and pay someone just to file a return. It needs to be reformed.

Furthermore, we can't continue to keep bailing our way out of our problems. All it does is raise the debt. Until we can curb spending on both the state and and federal level and bring budgets back in line, until we can stop engaging in wars that aren't paid for, until we can stop wasting billions of tax dollars investing in worthless companies like Solyndra, until we can clean up the corruption, fraud, and waste in Congress, it's agencies, and our entitlement systems, until we can curb the negative impact that illegal immigration has on our economy, until we can do all that and more, then the government doesn't deserve one more penny of our tax dollars.

President Obama wants to use the payroll tax cut debate as a distraction because he doesn't have a plan to deal with the major problems that we face. None of his solutions to fix the economy have worked so far. They are merely bandaids. Therefore he creates mountains out of these little molehills in an effort to hide his inadequacies by engaging in class warfare and blame.

So here's my suggestion as I sum up. If the Obama administration is really serious about fixing America's problems, then they should immediately replace the Press Secretary's silly deadline clock with the debt clock, because it's much more important to bring down those mountainous numbers than to blame Republicans for the little molehills that don't amount to a hill of beans. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Left And Right Wing Hypocrisy

2011-12-07T07:50:00.000-05:00

I've been beating up on the Democrats pretty good since Sunday over their failure to construct an extension of the payroll tax cuts and the unemployment benefits that both sides can agree too, but the Republicans are not totally exempt from blame either, or from playing politics.

Just last year, the Republicans fought hard to get the Bush tax cuts extended, and they succeeded in that fight with a last minute compromise from the Democrats, but without paying for them, saying that now was not the time to be raising taxes on anyone.

And yet even though it is still not the time to be raising taxes on anyone, the Republicans are now insisting that the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits be paid for. That, my friends, is what is known in politics as talking out of both sides of your mouth. It's blatant hypocrisy!

Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachman were each asked in recent interviews why the Republicans let the Bush tax cuts go unpaid while insisting that Obama's tax cuts be paid for, especially since the Bush tax cuts cost the tax payers more than Obama's entire stimulus plan. Both candidates strategically avoided answering the question.

To be fair though, once the Republicans took over the House, the spending cuts that they proposed amount to more than enough to cover the cost of all the tax cuts, but those spending reductions have successfully been blocked by the Democrats.

And while President Obama is right to call the Republicans to task over their obvious hypocrisy, I don't understand what point he's trying to make, especially since he has no plan of his own to cut the deficit. Is he making the point that because the Bush tax cuts weren't pad for, he shouldn't have to pay for tax cuts either, or that he should be able to raise the deficit to pay for them? Do either of those solutions help the economy?

I might also point out that when Obama signed the extension of the Bush tax cuts, he also agreed that it was not the time to be raising taxes on anyone. Obama also said when he introduced his jobs bill this fall that all of the proposals would be paid for with spending cuts. Since he is now insisting on tax hikes, he was obviously talking out both sides of his mouth as well.

So how about this solution, Mr. President. Instead of repeating Republican mistakes, or making new mistakes of your own, why not trump the opposition's play and construct a tax cut that neither raises taxes or increases the deficit. That's what a real leader would do.

Unfortunately, the time for leadership is quickly running out, and both sides seem entrenched in their opposition to each other. I'm sure that like the Bush tax cuts, there will be a last minute compromise so neither party has to take the blame for raising taxes on Americans next year, even though both sides will continue to blame each other.

Will any of it make a difference to the economy. I'll get into that tomorrow, but here's a hint. Don't hold your breath. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

I Should Have Known Better

2011-12-06T08:19:00.000-05:00

   To say that I'm confused would be an understatement. On Sunday, I told you about a possible compromise deal that Senate Leader Harry Reid was putting together in an effort to get the payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits extended.

   The hold up has been the refusal by Republicans to agree to a tax hike on the wealthy to pay for the extensions. They want to pay for it with deficit reductions. On Sunday, the media insinuated that the Reid compromise eliminated the tax increase, and the White House Economic Council Director Gene Sperling even said Sunday that President Obama is not against finding alternative payments.

   Then yesterday came. In the morning, there were signals in the media that a compromise had been reached. The President even scheduled a press conference. But then, Republicans started putting out statements saying that the first they heard of a compromise was in the media.

   A top aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in an email to reporters just before Obama spoke, "If you get a copy of this new 'bipartisan compromise' that Sen. Reid and the president are about to speak about, would you mind forwarding to us? We still haven't been given a copy."

   Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, also said it's hard for Democrats to call the legislation a "compromise" when Republicans were not consulted about the proposal.

   My heart sank as it quickly became evident that this was just another partisan game. That feeling was validated when the President finally spoke. He didn't mention any deal. Instead he urged Congress to come to a compromise, even as Harry Reid was introducing his compromise in the Senate. Didn't he get the memo?

   Furthermore, though President Obama made it clear that he was willing to listen to "reasonable" (that's the operative word) payment alternatives to the tax cut extensions, it was obvious that he still favored tax hikes and rejected any deficit reductions to get there, which directly contradicts Gene Sperling's statement on Sunday that the President was open to alternatives.

   As usual,when Obama holds these impromptu press conferences, he left the room without taking any questions. Why call a press conference and gather all those media people if you're not going to take questions. Why not just have your spokesman put out a statement? It looks arrogant to just walk out, but even worse than that, it looks cowardly.

   At any rate, after reading about the Reid Bill yesterday, it's hardly a compromise that Republicans will readily accept. It still depends on tax hikes to pay for it, and since Reid constructed the proposal without any Republican input, it can hardly be called a compromise, so what did they accomplish. The answer is, nothing! I'll have more on that thought tomorrow.

   As for today, this so called compromise was just more of the same juvenile political theatre, like the kind that David Axelrod was promoting over the weekend. I had hoped that when I heard about the Reid compromise, the Democrats would offer a serious plan that worked for the good of all Americans instead of just trying to make Republicans look bad for political gain. I should have known better. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Dead End Politics

2011-12-05T06:49:00.001-05:00

If you ever need a clear picture of the kind of advisers that President Obama surrounds himself with, then just listen to his top advisor, David Axelrod. Axelrod is a prime example of Chicago style class warfare politics.

Yesterday, Axelrod appeared as a guest on Meet The Press to discuss President Obama's handling of the economy, specifically his failure so far to secure the extensions of the payroll tax cut and the unemployment benefits, both of which are due to expire at the end of the year.

But instead of offering an intelligent analysis of the debate, as one might expect from the President's top adviser, Axelrod immediately went into attack mode, blaming the Republicans for holding up progress and saying how he couldn't understand why Republicans would deny the middle class a tax break in favor of giving a huge tax break to the wealthy. Yawn!

Now I ask you, how tired is that theme becoming? Is anyone even buying it anymore? Does anyone, save for David Axelrod, really believe that Republicans want to hurt the middle class? Is anyone out there really lacking that much in intelligence? Save it for the schoolyard, Mr. Axelrod. We want a fair adult debate here. Your argument is a dead end street.

Ironically, for all his juvenile blustering, I think that Axelrod ended up with a little bit of egg on his face yesterday when his childish "blame game" was directly contradicted by his own party. Senate Leader Harry Reid announced that he will propose a compromise plan today to get the extensions passed, without the tax hikes.

Harry may be partisan, but he also knows that when push comes to shove, he's never going to get the extensions passed using tax hikes as a means, and class warfare as a weapon . As I said in a recent blog post, it's not that Republicans don't want to extend the payroll tax cuts or the unemployment benefits. Unlike the Democrats, they just feel that there are alternative ways to pay for the extensions other than raising taxes.

Republicans counter the Democratic argument by saying that they don't want to raise taxes on any American in this economy, rich or poor. And from the look of recent developments, they may be winning the argument, despite Axelrod's baseless accusations.

Not only is Harry Reid proposing an alternative plan that doesn't require tax hikes to pay for it, but even as Axelrod was blabbering his nonsense on Meet The Press, White House Economic Council Director Gene Sperling said Sunday that President Obama supports a compromise.

"We are always willing to work together, so I'm not going to say the president is going to insist on one and only one way to work on this," Sperling told CSPAN's "Newsmakers".

Now that sounds like smart politics. And isn't that what the Republicans have been saying all along, that there's more than one way to solve the problem? If that's not proof that the class warfare strategy being propagated by David Axelrod and other partisan Democrats is starting to fall apart, I don't know what is. Otherwise, why offer the compromise?

So maybe the Democrats are starting to come around to the idea that class warfare is a dead end for them, and that they actually have to compromise to accomplish something. They are learning that they can get what they want from Republicans if they remain open to alternatives. That debate would be made much easier without one sided party partisans like David Axelrod in the mix. That road goes nowhere. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Owning Up

2011-12-04T07:56:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, after several weeks of intense speculation and insinuation by the media over past sexual harassment suits, Republican candidate Herman Cain decided to end his run for the Presidency. Even though no hard evidence was presented of any wrong doing by Cain, the insinuations and Cain's own lack of credibility in explaining the suits made it impossible for him to run an effective campaign.

Cain has not denied the sexual harassment suits. What he has said is that the suits were found to be unwarranted. Even still, the original judgements were sealed by the court, and the media conveniently trotted out a parade of questionable women to contradict Cain's claim. It quickly became a case of he said/she said, with Cain constantly on the defense.

Unfortunately, his defense was a rather awkward and at times a desperate looking effort to extricate himself from the scrutiny. Instead of owning up to his mistakes, Cain tried to blame everyone from his fellow candidates, the Democrats, and the media for the story, even though he didn't deny the charges. And while the media was merely reporting the truth on a ten year old story, it quickly became obvious that they were insinuating a lot more than the known facts implied to destroy Cain's character.

But let's be honest here. Whether the charges were true or not, Herman Cain had to know that someone was going to get a hold of the story and run with it. His downfall was that neither he, his handlers, nor his organization seemed to be prepared for the consequences. You can't enter this game hoping to hide your past. To do so is guaranteeing defeat.

Politics is a contact sport without any rules. To run for office, you must be willing to have every action and decision of your entire life scrutinized not only by your opponent, but by the media and the organizations that support your opponent, and no lie, mis-truth, or exaggeration is too small in the battle to bring you down.

Running for office is not about debating the issues anymore, and maybe it never was. It's about avoiding them. It's about who has the best garbage to throw around. Never mind if you have creative ideas, good intentions, and a great work ethic. If you have made one misstep along the way, it will be magnified a thousand times over in the media, and facts are merely an afterthought. Insinuation is really all that's needed.

In closing, let me just say this. Even without the sexual harassment controversy, I never believed that Herman Cain was going to be the Republican nominee anyway. His lack of knowledge on foreign policy left him too vulnerable to criticism, especially in the unstable world we live in today, and this is not the age of on-the-job-training. We need a skilled diplomat in world politics, not an eager student willing to learn foreign affairs.

Mr. Cain is the first of what will soon be a dwindling line-up of players from the campaign as the field narrows. I wish him continued success in life. He has certainly shown that he can survive in the world of business, and I admire anyone who puts their life under the microscope for the good of the country. But he had to know his past would show under that bright light. He needs to own up. This was his mistake, not anyone else. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Playing The Numbers

2011-12-03T07:40:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the unemployment number fell from 9% to 8.6%, but don't go jumping up and down with glee just yet. If you are like me, you were immediately asking yourself what happened between last month and this month to create such a big drop. Did businesses suddenly go on a hiring binge? Did temporary holiday hiring cause the drop? While both of those scenarios would be great, and a welcome change, unfortunately neither apply here.

One opinion, according to an article posted on FoxNews.com by John Lott, an American Academic and political commentator, is that the unemployment number didn't fall because we added jobs. It fell because a large number of unemployed workers have simply stopped looking for work.

Lott writes that the new unemployment numbers are a lot worse than the headlines indicate. The news media is breathlessly reporting today that 120,000 jobs were created in November. But with the working age population increasing by about 160,000 people each month, job creation isn’t even keeping up with the number of people entering the work force.

So how is it possible for the unemployment rate to fall from 9.0 to 8.6 percent? The explanation is actually pretty simple. People are only counted as unemployed as long as they are actively looking for work. This has long been thought by many academics to be the reason for the occasional shifts in the rate, either up or down. The more people actively seeking work, the higher the rate, the less people actively seeking work, the lower the rate.

In November, the numbers could hardly have been worse -- 487,000 people simply gave up looking for work and left the labor force. That is the 6th worst report since the recession started 48 months ago. Even more startling, 5 of those 6 worse reports have occurred since the “recovery” supposedly started in June 2009.

Another 10 million people have given up looking, or can only find a part-time job. If they resumed their job searches, they would again be registered as unemployed, and the unemployment rate would rise to roughly 11 percent, say analysts.

The second concern is that a large number of the jobs being created are “temporary service sector” jobs. Even accepting the 120,000-job growth number, fewer than 100,000 of them are permanent jobs. Firms have simply not been willing to commit to giving people long-term employment.

I've been saying this for a long time. The government keeps fudging the unemployment numbers each month to make them look as positive as possible. The truth is, unemployment isn't 8.6%, it's not even 9.0 percent. The actual national unemployment rate is well over 20 percent, but since government doesn't count people who aren't actively looking for work, we get the lower number.

I'm so sick of spin. I am an adult of average intelligence and I know when I'm being hustled, and these new numbers are a hustle. I wish the government would just tell me the truth. I'm big enough to handle it and I'm going to find the truth anyway no matter how much they mislead us.

Some people will look at yesterday's numbers and automatically believe that we have turned a corner on the road to recovery. That's what the government wants them to believe and that's why they fudge the numbers. Some people will believe anything, but if you use your common sense you will know that nothing could be further from the truth.

Nothing significant in Washington or the business world has happened since last month to warrant the drop. Certainly it wasn't due to Congress passing any meaningful legislation. And though hiring may be up in some sectors, its only temporary help right now for the holidays. I know it, you know, and they know it.

Perhaps we as Americans should start fudging the numbers too and only re-elect the number of politicians who tell the truth or who actually accomplish anything. I guarantee you, that number would be much much lower than yesterday's unemployment rate. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Is That Egg On My Face?

2011-12-02T07:27:00.000-05:00

    It would seem that the easiest way to get Congress to come together and act on anything these days is to embarrass them. A little egg on the face of our elected officials goes a long way.

   Take a recent "60 Minutes" expose that accused ex House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and current House Speaker John Boehner of using insider information gained from their dealings in Congress to enrich themselves in the stock market, an activity that is illegal in the private sector, but evidently not in Congress. Isn't that convenient? What slime bag Congressman wrote that law? It may not be illegal, but it's damn unethical.

   Of course both Boehner and Pelosi deny any wrongdoing, and since it's not illegal, no charges have been brought, but with the Occupy Wall Street movement making so much noise here of late, just the hint of any impropriety was enough to send lawmakers scrambling to police themselves by proposing legislation banning such practices. After all, how would it look for members of Congress to side with the OWS protesters with thousands of dollars in ill gotten Wall Street profits stuffing their pockets. Hypocrisy abounds!

   The insider trading in Congress was obviously much more widespread than just Boehner and Pelosi, because since the 60 Minutes expose there have been three bills proposed to deal with the practice. When was the last time we saw Congress act that fast? They are scrambling to police themselves now that they have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

   Congress hopes to pass the combined pieces of legislation, known as the Stock Act, before the Christmas break.  No member is expected to oppose it. In fact, both Boehner and Pelosi have come out in support of the legislation, as if they are shocked to find that these kind of unethical practices are occurring. Can you say sanctimonious!

   It's too bad we can't embarrass Congress more often, say on health care and entitlement reform, tax and energy reform, immigration reform, and a dozen other issues. Maybe a dozen or so eggs on each of their faces might actually get something done for a change. We could serve up a Congressional omelet! At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

One Sided

2011-12-01T06:36:00.000-05:00

This week, the President is pushing for Congress to pass another part of his jobs bill, an extension of the payroll tax cut. As usual, Obama wants to pay for the extension by taxing the wealthy, which seems to be his "go to" solution on nearly everything these days.

The solution works well as a campaign strategy if your ultimate plan is to try to make the Republicans look bad by forcing them to choose between a tax hike on the wealthy and a tax break for the middle class. But are those two choices really the only alternatives, or is Obama merely playing politics?

Senate Republicans argue that it doesn't make sense to pay for a tax cut with a tax increase. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said of the plan, "We're not arguing against extending the payroll tax cut, we just think it shouldn't be punishing job creators to pay for it."

Instead, the Republican have offered an alternative to another tax increase that borrows from the original Simpson-Bowles plan for reducing the the deficit, the same plan that President Obama commissioned in 2010 and then ignored. Their plan calls for a three year pay freeze for federal workers, and cutting the federal work force by ten percent., which would more than cover the cost of the payroll tax cut extension.

And yet even with alternate proposals on the table, White House aides are leaving the door open for passing the extension without paying for it in lieu of accepting a Republican solution, which would directly contradict the President's claim that all of the proposals in his jobs plan are paid for. So why is the President being so one-sided when it comes to his proposals. It can only be a campaign strategy.

We have seen this kind of partisan rhetoric from the President all along - in the health care debate, in jobs creation, in the debt ceiling debate, and in all of the recent deficit reduction debates. He likes to stay removed from the debate and play the Compromiser-In-Chief, claiming that he wants to hear ideas from all sides, but in the end, it is either his way or the highway. He will even break promises and criticize his own party to get his way, and Senate Puppet Leader Harry Reid does everything he can to see that Obama succeeds.

Since taking the majority in the House, Republicans have offered numerous pieces of legislation that work toward fixing our economy without raising taxes, including proposing a budget. To date, the Senate Leader has not called one of them to a vote. It seems that the Democrats reject any proposal that doesn't raise taxes.

Obama may think that he has a winning strategy. All he has to do is propose massive tax hikes on the wealthy and then blame the Republicans for being anti-middle class when they reject the proposals. It's class warfare, and that's fine when there are no other alternatives on the table, but there are alternatives, Obama just ignores them.

President Clinton was faced with much the same situation going into his second term. He had a Democratic administration with a Republican majority in Congress. But instead of playing class warfare, he learned to take the best ideas from both sides and get legislation passed, and let the country benefit from it, but then, Obama is no William Jefferson Clinton, is he? At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

The Unskilled Work Force

2011-11-30T07:29:00.002-05:00

Yesterday I pointed out how to free up jobs for Americans by holding businesses accountable for hiring only employees who are legally eligible to work in the United States.

The consensus on the left has always been that Americans won't take these typically low paying jobs, but the immigration reforms such as the model put forth in Alabama directly contradicts that theory. Not only has Alabama lowered their number of illegal immigrants through reform, they have also greatly reduced their unemployment numbers in the state.

However, having said that, some American companies are complaining that they can't fill open positions for well paying jobs with good benefits that don't require a college degree, and it has nothing to do with immigration. It has to do with specialized skills, such as industries that require welders. Union Pacific struggles to find enough electricians who have worked with diesel engines. Manufacturers in many places can't find enough machinists. Oil companies must fight for a limited supply of drilling-rig workers.

"There's a tremendous shortage of skilled workers," said Craig Giffi, a vice chairman of the consulting firm Deloitte. A recent survey it did found that 83% of manufacturers reported a moderate or severe shortage of skilled production workers to hire.

Pay levels provide evidence. While hourly wages in the broad category of maintenance and repair workers rose 6.4% from 2007 to 2010, increases were 10% in the subcategory of heavy-vehicle mechanics and 15% for specialists in electrical repairs on commercial and industrial equipment. The implication is that employers were competing for a limited pool of qualified workers.

The Deloitte study found that 74% of manufacturers said a shortage of skilled production workers had a "significant negative impact" on either their productivity or expansion plans.

I can't imagine this happening in the United States 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago. The men of my father's generation, and even my generation to a lesser extent, were mostly skilled laborers. My uncles were men who could build things. They had construction skills, electrical skills, plumbing skills, and so on. The jobs for that kind of work were plentiful, and obviously they still are.

The problem these companies face isn't hard to understand. As we move out of the industrial age and deeper into the digital age, less and less people are learning these specialized skills. However, there are still businesses that require skilled labor, and they are willing to pay well to get it.

Today's worker may be able to network an international based computer system for global minded businesses, but they don't have the skills to fix the toilet or the toaster at home. It seems that for today's young work force, jobs requiring physical labor has become a deterrent to work instead of an incentive, something to be looked down on, even though they pay well.

I can only imagine what America's old skilled workers who are now retired must be thinking. They must be shaking their head at today's work force who willingly sit unemployed because they don't have the drive to learn a skill. Our government puts out billions to teach the unemployed new skills in green energy or digital technology, so why not pay to teach them a useful labor skill as well?

Those retired workers of yesterday wouldn't be sitting at home collecting benefits with jobs to be had. They would have scarfed up those jobs in a New York minute, and been proud to hold them, but maybe that's because they were a different breed of men back then than we have today. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

A Fair But Humane Approach

2011-11-29T06:52:00.000-05:00

With so much negative attention being focused on Newt Gingrich by other conservatives for his position on immigration - many of whom consider his position to be a form of amnesty similar to that which President Bush proposed - it's hard to know which position is the right position.

While we as conservatives can't simply ignore the problem at the border, with hundreds if not thousands of illegals crossing into our country every year, neither can we afford to appear inhumane by splitting up families who have lived and worked here for decades and whose children were born here legally by trying to ship them all back home, as many conservatives advocate. So where is the fair balance?

In truth, the Gingrich plan is far less liberal as the one proposed by President Bush, whose plan closely mirrored that of President Obama, which is to just to give everyone here a path to citizenship without any real clear plan to secure the border or to hold businesses accountable for who they hire.

President Reagan tried to strike a fair bargain with Democrats in 1984, when he agreed to an amnesty program in exchange for a more secure border. But the Democrats never held up their end of the bargain at the border, and we won't go down that path again.

The Gingrich plan would go further by securing the borders first and then imposing strict employer penalties, and once all that is done create a deportation policy with some humanitarian exceptions based on preserving family units, but no preferential pathway to citizenship (except for those who serve in the U.S. military). I think that's about as fair a deal as you can get for people who are breaking our federal laws.

In fact, there is already a model in place similar to the Gingrich plan that seems to be working, and it's lowering unemployment rates at the same time. Alabama recently made changes to their immigration laws which, among other measures, requires businesses within the state to use the E-verify system for potential employees. The change is reportedly resulting in large numbers of illegal aliens exiting the state, thus allowing citizens to now fill their former jobs. Take away the source of illegal jobs, and many illegal immigrants will self-immigrate back home.

September was the first full month that the reform was in force, and the unemployment rate fell from 9.8 percent in September to 9.3 percent in October, according to a Nov. 18 report from the state government. The rates fell from 9.9 percent to 9 percent in Etowah County, from 8.8 percent to 8.1 percent in Marshall county, and from 11.6 percent to 10.6 percent in DeKalb county.

“The latest fall in unemployment numbers is proof that American citizens will work, and continues to solidify [the evidence] that self-deportation [by illegal immigrants] due to the Alabama Taxpayer & Citizen’s Protection Act is occurring,” said Chuck Ellis, a city council member in Albertville — the main town in Marshall County, northern Alabama.

Of course President Obama is against the plan, and the federal government has already sued the state of Alabama. Supporters of the reform expect additional lawsuits from the federal government. But as I said yesterday, attacking the Republican plan is not a policy, and if Obama really opposes this kind of reform, then he needs to tell us exactly what his plan is, because if he is just advocating amnesty across the board, then he will not only lose conservative support, but the also lose the support of much of his own party.

America is not a Temp Agency for any person willing to cross our borders looking for a job. America is an ideal to be held up as an example to the world, We want citizens, not illegal migrants. To be a citizen, you have to want to be an American, and if that's what you truly desire, then get in line, there's a process in place for you to follow. Otherwise you're just breaking the law. At least that's my opinion. What do you think? Temp

Going Back For Seconds

2011-11-28T08:21:00.000-05:00

Welcome back my friends. I hope that your holiday weekend was enjoyable. It's another manic Monday in the world of politics, so let's get right to it, shall we?

   With the first caucus in Ohio just around the corner, President Obama and the Republican challengers are gearing up for next year's political battle for the Presidency, and it's no holds barred.

   But while Obama faces no real threats to his Presidency for the moment, at least not until the Republicans choose their nominee, he needs to start crystallizing his vision for his second term instead of attacking his political opponents with broad sweeping generalities and class warfare.

   Conservatives still have many questions to be answered before deciding who will be the Republican nominee, and each candidate presents his own unique list of pros and cons for us to consider. But the American people also have many questions to ask of Barack Obama before offering him a second term.

   So what is Obama's agenda for his second term. The Republican candidates have each laid out a clear vision of what they would like to achieve, and you can agree or not agree with their positions, but we haven't heard any alternative plans from the President beyond vague generalities. Do you know what his plan is beyond attacking the Republicans for their policies?

   After nearly four years of dismal economic growth and increased unemployment, even after multiple tax increases and small business incentives, nothing seerms to have worked. So what is his plan to spur job growth in the second term?  What does he plan to do about entitlements? What is his plan to deal with long term debt and taxes? How will he solve our immigration problems? What happens if the Supreme Court shoots down his health care bill? If you can answer any of those questions, you're doing better than me at this point. And these are just a few of the questions he will face.

   Right now everyone is looking at the Republicans to see who will lead the party. Once that candidate is chosen, the focus will change. The challenge will then be to President Obama to tell us why we should reject the Republican agenda and stay with him for another four years, and he better have more than attack ads to offer if he expects to keep his job. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Shopping Secure

2011-11-27T07:15:00.000-05:00

Black Friday, Small Business Saturday, and Cyber Monday. What do they all have in common? They afford the consumer the opportunity to make purchases with their credit cards, and the bad guys are waiting in the shadows to steal your information.

Bad guys know perfectly well that when the online bargains begin after Thanksgiving, specifically, on the Monday after Thanksgiving, you will be providing your credit card number to retailers all over the world. So here are some tips to help you stay secure with your on-line purchases, put together by Robert Siciliano, personal security and identity theft expert, and consultant for McAfee.

1. Go big. Do your online business with major retailers, or those you already know, like, and trust. The chances of a major online retailer stiffing you, or of their database being compromised, are slimmer than those of an unknown.

2. Do your homework. If you search for a particular product and wind up at an unfamiliar website, do some research on the retailer before putting down your credit card number. Search for the company’s name and web address to see if there have been complaints.

3. Don’t give out more personal data than necessary. Many retailers require your name, address, phone number, and credit card information. This is normal. But if you are asked for anything beyond that, like bank account numbers or your Social Security number, run hard and fast.

4. Vary your passwords. Often, online retailers will ask you to register with their website when you make your first purchase. Never register using the same password you’ve already used for another website. Otherwise, if one website is hacked, your password could be used to infiltrate your other accounts.

5. Use HTTPS sites. Websites that have a secure checkout process, with “https://” in the web address (as opposed to “http://”) are safer.

6. Print out and save online receipts. Keeping track of what you bought, where, and for how much can become confusing when making multiple purchases online. You need to pay close attention to your purchases in order to reconcile your credit card statements.

You should always shop wisely and securely whenever you shop on-line, but especially during the busy holiday season when you make more purchases than usual. By following these few easy steps you can greatly reduce your risks. At least that's Robert Siciliano's opinion, and I can't help but agree with him. What do you think?

Keeping The Holidays

2011-11-26T07:36:00.001-05:00

   Yesterday, I was watching the news coverage of the Black Friday shoppers as they spent the day lined up around the block waiting to get their hands on the holiday bargains. But I didn't see much of the holiday spirit.

   Call my nostalgic, but I remember a time before Black Friday became such a feeding frenzy for shoppers, when we shopped on city streets instead of in malls or mega stores. The store fronts where all decorated for the season, lights were strewn across the streets, Christmas songs played over the store intercoms, and people dressed in festive clothing strolled happily along the street with their colorful bags and bundles or sat warming themselves in the diners and restaurants. It was gaiety. It was communal. It was Christmas!

   Now before all you PC's out there start having a hissy fit, I'm not talking about the religious side of Christmas.  People of Christian faith will hold those beliefs dear no matter what. I'm talking about the magic side of Christmas - Santa, elves, reindeer, Christmas trees, Christmas cards, stockings hung on mantles, milk and cookies - it all seems to be waning.

   Nowhere yesterday did I see any sign of holiday gaiety, just massive rows of shoppers lined up to "get the deal" before the other guy gets it first.  Black Friday is nothing but a greed fest, sponsored by corporate management to fill their coffers. And yes, the customer get some good deals if they are willing to stand in line for 12 hours waiting for the doors to open, but it's all about the deal, the sale, the greed, and the profit margins. Sadly, Santa got knocked to the ground and trampled on in the process.

   What seems to be missing during the holidays now is that wonderful sense of Holiday spirit. We've somehow lost the magic of the holidays.  Now we just shop for sales. We're indoors at the mall in a sterile atmosphere without the holiday sounds and smells of the street.  The stores limit their decorations and change their greetings for fear of offending someone, and even when you get home, good luck trying to find a holiday special on TV.

   Of course we were a much more prosperous country in the past, and when people have more to spend, they seem happier and more cheerful.  But even without prosperity, we also kept the holidays in our hearts back then, and when you have the holidays in your heart, then even the scant years seem a little brighter.

   Black Friday was invented by retailers for retailers. It's Ebeneezer Scrooge pinching every penny he can from the consumer while giving no thought to the spirit of the day. Every year it seems to start earlier and earlier, making people work when they should be home with their families, tempting the consumer with irresistible bargains and one day sales, and they fall for it every time. The blood is in the water, and the sharks begin to gather.

   And so my friends I say this. If you want to stand in line on Black Friday, by all means go. I won't be there. For me, it's not about the deal. It's not about the money saved. It's about the giving and the receiving.  Let's not forget that with all his prosperity, Scrooge was empty inside because he never gave of himself or allowed himself to receive the blessings of others.

   So that's my wish to all of you this year, that you are prosperous, but that you also carry the spirit of the holidays in your heart, and most of all, have yourself a merry little Christmas. You dont have to interupt your holiday or stand in line for 12 hours for that. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

The Friday Post: Stepping Down Off The Soap Box

2011-11-25T06:50:00.000-05:00

In 1929, a Hungarian writer named Frigyes Karinthy wrote a short story called "Chains." In the story, he introduced the the theory of "Six Degrees Of Separation", which states that anyone on the planet can be connected to any other person on the planet through a chain of acquaintances that has no more than five intermediaries. However, that was before the Internet.

According to an article on Foxnews.com, a study by the social network and the University of Milan, the old six degrees of separation theory doesn't always apply to you anymore. Only three people instead of five separate you and anyone else with a Facebook account, bringing six degrees down to four. And, if the person on the other end of the connection is from the same country, the number of people in the chain is reduced by one more.

We all know Facebook makes the world a smaller place, but we never really knew the full extent of its effect among users until now. Unlike its similar project with Yahoo called the Small World Experiment, this study examined all 721 million active accounts without users having to opt in to participate. It took a month for the researchers to come up with these results using algorithms developed at the University of Milan.

If these numbers don't sound impressive on paper, maybe they'll sound more remarkable in a real world example: "When considering even the most distant Facebook user in the Siberian tundra or the Peruvian rain forest, a friend of your friend probably knows a friend of their friend," the Facebook Data Team writes on the website. In a few years, the degrees of separation may shrink even smaller as more and more people join the social networking site.

As for me, I'm not so sure that Facebook alone has contributed to the reduction. There are many many ways of socializing on line, Facebook being just one of them. I not only maintain a Facebook page, I also have a web page, a blog, and Twitter account that I maintain as well. Each of these connects me with the world around me and each connects the world with me. The wider your exposure is, the less the degree of separation.

I don't know if I buy the theory or not, but I can't disregard it either. The one thing that I have always loved about the Internet is the ability to instantly connect with people from around the world, and I have friends across the globe. Without the Internet, those connections would never have been made. So in theory, whether I realized it or not, I suppose that with each new connection I made, I lowered my degree of separation.

Since I work hard as being an independent E-book author, writing thrilling novels of supernatural suspense, I hope that with each degree of separation I am able to lower, I'm getting closer to that Hollywood director who wants to turn one of my books into a film. Now that would make me a true believer. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Happy Bird Day!

2011-11-24T06:48:00.000-05:00

Happy Thanksgiving to you all. Today, I thought I would turn my post over to some notable people and their thoughts on this Thanksgiving holiday. I hope you enjoy them. Some would make a great toast before dinner.

The Pilgrims made seven times more graves than huts. No Americans have been more impoverished than these who, nevertheless, set aside a day of thanksgiving. ~H.U. Westermayer

If the only prayer you said in your whole life was, "thank you," that would suffice. ~Meister Eckhart

Thanksgiving Day is a jewel to set in the hearts of honest men; but be careful that you do not take the day, and leave out the gratitude. ~E.P. Powell

Thanksgiving Day comes by statute, once a year; to the honest man it comes as frequently as the heart of gratitude will allow. ~Edward Sandford Martin

For each new morning with its light,
For rest and shelter of the night,
For health and food, for love and friends,
For everything Thy goodness sends.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Thanksgiving dinners take eighteen hours to prepare. They are consumed in twelve minutes. Half-times take twelve minutes. This is not coincidence. ~Erma Bombeck

None is more impoverished than the one who has no gratitude. Gratitude is a currency that we can mint for ourselves and spend without fear of bankruptcy. ~Fred De Witt Van Amburgh

Gratitude unlocks the fullness of life. It turns what we have into enough, and more. It turns denial into acceptance, chaos to order, confusion to clarity. It can turn a meal into a feast, a house into a home, a stranger into a friend. Gratitude makes sense of our past, brings peace for today and creates a vision for tomorrow. ~Melody Beattie

Got no check books, got no banks. Still I'd like to express my thanks - I got the sun in the morning and the moon at night. ~Irving Berlin

Hem your blessings with thankfulness so they don't unravel. ~Author Unknown

Give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way. ~Native American Saying

May your stuffing be tasty
May your turkey be plump,
May your potatoes and gravy
Have nary a lump.
May your yams be delicious
And your pies take the prize,
And may your Thanksgiving dinner
Stay off your thighs!
~Author Unknown

Have a blessed day my friends. I'm thankful for everyone who visits me here. That's my blessing.

Happy Thanksgiving,

David A. Rollins

The Keys To A Happy Thanksgiving

2011-11-23T06:19:00.001-05:00

    I was trying to think of a nice holiday message to send out to all my readers when I saw an article on FoxNews.com titled "The Keys To Having A Happy Thanksgiving," and I thought, what better message to share with my friends. So here it is.

   According to the article, the keys to having a happy Thanksgiving, or at least a happier one than you might otherwise be anticipating, have little to do with getting the turkey right, or managing the annoying relative who seems to be a part of everyone’s family. Those things help a little, but they aren’t nearly as important as these four steps. I think you will agree.

   First, we need not pretend that all is well in our lives in order to experience thankfulness. This coming Thursday, try to find at least one thing for which you can be grateful despite the tough times in which you may find yourself this year. It’s amazing how much happiness this practice can generate, on Thanksgiving, and throughout the year.

   The second key to a happy Thanksgiving is sharing with at least one other person the thing for which we can be grateful. What we feel becomes more real when we share it.

   The third key to having a happy Thanksgiving can be learned from the Pilgrims, who celebrated even though much of what they hoped to achieve had not been realized. Don’t allow your hopes that things were better get in the way of appreciating where they are already good.

   It may be that things in your relationships are not ideal, that things at work are not as you hoped they would be, but that doesn’t mean there are not always things for which to be grateful. If the Pilgrims could declare a day of thanksgiving, despite all the death and deprivation which they were experiencing – if they could find some good despite how short they had fallen of their ideals – so can we.

   Finally, knowing that the story is never over will help us to have a happy Thanksgiving. Have faith that things in life usually turn out the way they should, and that we are not powerless to bring about a positive outcome.  One door closes and another opens as they say. Always stay open to possibilities.

   So by all means, work on the menu and deal with your relatives, but no matter how all that goes, practice these four steps and find yourself having a happier Thanksgiving than you may have ever imagined possible.

   Oh, and let me add one more item. When your relatives have all gone home, remember to thank your spouse, or your partner, or your significant other, for a great meal and a wonderful day, and help with the clean up.  Then, later in the evening, when you remember that extra slice of pumpkin pie sitting in the refrigerator, go ahead and have it. It's sure to bring a smile to the end of your day. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Failure And Blame

2011-11-22T06:43:00.001-05:00

   The surprise that everyone knew was coming has finally occurred. The long heralded and sadly disappointing 12 member Super Committee Debt Reduction Panel was forced to publicly admit yesterday that they are totally inept and lack the intelligence, the skills, and the will to solve our dire economic woes, mainly because they are so mired in party ideology, class warfare, and campaigning for 2012 that they have lost all credibility.

   And, as if that wasn't embarrassing enough, to top the day off, the President predictably held a scripted campaign press conference where he boasted about how hard he's worked to broker a deal, and then placed the entire failure of the panel to reach an agreement on the Republicans. Talk about ideology!

   I don't agree with the President on many issues, but after seeing him playing politics yesterday with an issue that threatens to destroy the economic foundation of this country, I have now lost what little respect I had for him.  Until now my disagreements with him were over policy issues.  But more and more I have seen him playing this class warfare game, and his comments yesterday were nothing short of pathetic.

   As usual he didn't take any questions. He cowardly left the room to avoid having anyone challenge his remarks, as if the media would ever challenge his statements with anything more than a softball question anyway. And even if they did challenge him, he would spend ten minutes filibustering an answer until question got lost in the explanation.

   I like to think that I'm a fair minded person, and I blame both parties for the failures of Congress. There's enough ideology to go around. I understand that any President is going to side with his own party on matters of policy, but to be totally disingenuous about why the panel failed to act shows a disturbing lack of character. It's nothing but partisan politics when we need a real leader, and in my estimation, it hurts the country as a whole.

   Just because it comes as no surprise to most of us that the panel failed to accomplish its goals doesn't lesson the future impact of their failures, in fact, if anything, it exacerbates the problem, as does this game of class warfare that Obama is playing, so he shouldn't look or act so smug. He is as much to blame as the rest of them.

   Smugness is not going to extend unemployment benefits for the jobless or tax cuts for small business, both of which will expire at the end of the year without an agreement by the panel, not to mention the real possibility of having our credit rating downgraded again, and that's just the start of a long list of problems resulting from the panel's failure. Accordingly, U.S. stocks plummeted yesterday as that realization set in.

   As for me, I'm fed up with the lot of them and have been for some time now, as I'm sure many of you are.  Nothing would make me happier than to also see the Majority and Minority leaders of both the House and the Senate voted out next year, along with every member of these worthless debt reduction panels, and every member of every financial and regulatory committee who have brought this country to the very precipice of economic disaster.

   These clowns have been sticking it too us for long enough, and getting rich in the process.  Most of them are old and corrupt and have forgotten what brought them to Washington in the first place. Their lofty ideals have been replaced by party politics which makes them useless to the public they serve.

   In 2010, the voters orchestrated a house cleaning in Congress that shook them up a little, but evidently not enough to get their attention. In 2012, it's time to really clean House. Both Houses, and the White House! When our politicians stop working for the people, as we saw with the debt panel and from the President yesterday, then it's time to elect new politicians.  At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

What's The Point

2011-11-21T06:43:00.002-05:00

Sometimes I think journalists write just to justify the cost of their computer. It surely can't be because they have anything worthwhile to say.

Over the weekend, I saw a headline that read: Jobless Claims Fall To 7-Month Low: Is The United States' Large Layoff Period Ending? I read the article, posted on a website called International Business Times, hoping that it would have some information to offer that at least hinted at the end of the layoff period. I was sadly disappointed.

The article was referring to last weeks decline to 388,000 in first time claims for unemployment benefits, a 7 month low. However, though the article saw the decline as good news, it in no way offered any evidence that the decline was due to any major changes in the economy, except to say that if the decline continued, that would be good news.

The article stated that if jobless claims continue to fall or remain below the psychologically significant 400,000 level in the weeks ahead and then trend toward 375,000, that would signal confidence in commercial activity is increasing and that most companies are, at minimum, tapering if not ending layoffs and, in some cases, may be ready to begin hiring.

Well DUH! Great analysis there, Einstein! So what's your point? Of course it would be great if the decline continued, but do you see any evidence of that?

The article then laid out the real state of affairs. The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington-based think tank, says the United States is short a staggering 11 million jobs. In other words, the U.S. economy has to add 11 million jobs just to return the workforce to a level at the beginning of the last recession in December 2007. To put that in perspective, if the U.S. economy added 300,000 new jobs per month, it would take roughly 37 months to return the nation to the 5.0 percent unemployment rate it had prior to the start of the recession. During the current recovery, the economy has created about 110,000 new jobs per month.

Hence, it's important to keep Thursday's decline in jobless claims in perspective. It does not mean companies large and small have all started hiring in a big way: They have not. Nor does it mean that layoffs are low: They are not. But the decline in jobless claims, assuming the downtrend continues, would suggest the country's lingering problem of continually high job losses is ending -- and that would be, arguably, the best news the U.S. economy has registered this year.

Personally, I don't know how anyone with half a brain can conclude that a couple of weeks of low unemployment numbers comes anywhere close to suggesting an end to our economic woes. The article did nothing to encourage me as the headline hinted it might. If anything, it only reminded me of how bad our situation really is.

So here's a suggestion to all you so called journalists out there. Stop boring us to death with these meaningless articles. Stop with the tease headlines and just write the facts please, and only when you have something worthwhile to say. Otherwise just shut the hell up. At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

Don't Count The Count Out

2011-11-20T10:58:00.003-05:00

As an author of supernatural suspense novels, I found this story rather interesting.

As far as supernatural themes are concerned, the vampire has always been one of the three most famous figures in literary and film history, the other two being the Frankenstein creature and the werewolf. And of all the vampire stories ever written or filmed, none has had such cultural impact as Bram Stoker's Dracula.

However, when it comes to financial success, Stoker may have written his novel a century to early. Vampires have become a multi-billion dollar industry in the new millennium.

The upcoming release of Twilight: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 will be hard to avoid. Screaming teenagers and hyped fanfare aside, the film is almost certain to win big at the box office: The first three movies in the series grossed about $1.8 billion.

Sexy, strong, dangerous and immortal, it seems that vampires have acquired another quality: lucrative. Looking at the various industries that benefit from the genre, 24/7 Wall St. estimates that vampires contributed nearly $10 billion to the economy in modern times. Consider the following numbers:

MoviesGross Vampire Product: $5 billion

Video Games & Games
Gross Vampire Product: $1 billion

TV, Comic Books, Magazines
Gross Vampire Product: $150 million

Halloween Costumes
Gross Vampire Product: $1.2 billion

Books
Gross Vampire Product: $2.2 billion

Events and Entertainment
Gross Vampire Product: $200 million

Merchandise
Gross Vampire Product: $200 million.

However, even though Stoker's novel didn't generate the kind of returns that Twilight has financially, his novel Dracula has still maintained its firm hold on the psyche of the entire world. Whether you're on Team Edward or Team Jacob in the Twilight saga, when most people think about vampires, it's not Edward or Jacob that first pops into their minds, it's the regal and sophisticated Count from Transylvania that immediately comes to mind.

As an author myself, to be able to create a literary character with such enduring and widespread appeal would be worth more than all the finances in the world. I expect that in another hundred years, Dracula will still be thrilling readers worldwide.

Authors like Anne Rice and Stephenie Meyer have certainly made a enduring and much deserved name for themsleves in vampire lore, but it will be interesting to see how well their vampire legends fare over the centuries when compared to Stoker's Dracula. I suspect not as well. Dracula is a novel for the ages, while Twilight is more culturally specific to our times. But then I doubt if either Rice or Myer intended to compete with Dracula. That's just my opinion. What do you think?