Tag Archives: stimulus package

Funding Oversees Jobs With Stimulus, Bailouts and Defense Appropriations

Liberal folklore maintains that the heartless and evil Republican monsters of the nation are beholden to the mean and greedy big interests, which act like a Robinhood-in-reverse and steel from the poor to give to the rich. There are several problems with this political legend. One of them is that without the wealth creators of business, there would be no wealth to take and give from. That is something which Democrats deny but Republicans understand and why Republicans do not seek policies which make creating wealth a negative. But another problem with this liberal theory presents itself in the facts that come to light with the actions of the existing Democrat led Congress.

Ignore for a moment the fact that President Obama received $1 million from BP before he gave the Deep Sea Horizon oil rig a safety award and exempted them from several regulatory practices, all before the greatest ecological disaster in our history occurred. Instead of focusing on that, realize this. Under the Obama/Pelosi/Reid government economy that has taken over the free market economy, big business has been receiving more federal financial aide than ever before. And in those cases where the public perception is that federal aide, or more federal aide, is seen as truly unreasonable, the Obama government has simply taken over those interests, i.e.; Government Motors.

But even more to the point is the despicable case of General Electric.

Since the Obama/Pelosi/ Reid regime came into power, G.E. has benefited from a strong relationship with Democrats and the White House. It’s chairman, Jeffrey Immelt is a member of the President Obama’s economic advisory council. In turn, G.E. has been an ardent supporter of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid stimulus package, a package that G.E. received a few billion in federal bailout funds from. Among other things, the economic conspiracy begs the question, how many members of Congress and the Administration have vested interests in G.E. stocks?

But beyond that is the ugly spectacle that is taking place right now as G.E. continues one of its most extensive and expensive lobbying campaigns ever. After receiving billions of dollars in federal bailouts funds, General Electric is lobbying Congress for more than $485 million in this years annual defense appropriations bill and continued support for their development of an alternate engine for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet program. It is anticipated that over the next 25 years, the federal government will purchase more than 2,400 joint strike fighter aircraft and it is G.E.’s contention that the alternate engine they are developing will eventually bring the costs of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program down significantly.

To make their case known, so far this year G.E. has spent millions on a national ad campaign and in just the first three months of this year, over $10 million was spent to directly lobby Congress for this year’s annual defense appropriation request. At least now we know why the financial arm of G.E. needed a few billion in bailout funds?

Interestingly, General Electric is not alone in this alternate engine project. They are partnered with the U.K’s Rolls Royce corporation. But the Connecticut based G.E. employs hundreds of thousands of employees across the United States, and have a vital manufacturing presence in many regions. For instance, G.E. houses a major plant in Cincinnati, Ohio where unemployment stands at nearly 9.5%.

That high unemployment rate is what makes the latest part of this G.E. lobbying effort all the more troubling.

If this $485 million subsidy goes into the defense appropriation bill, that is coming up for a vote today, the G.E./Rolls Royce alternate engine will be manufactured in Great Britain.

Now to be fair, President Obama vows to veto this earmark, the only one he has ever made such a threat over. But President Obama’s objections are due to his desire to cut defense and Pentagon costs. And it his belief, and that of Defense Secretary Gates, that the investment in the development of this alternate engine will not produce a savings significant enough to justify the initial investment. That is fair enough. Besides, I believe that significant cost reductions and budget cuts that do not place us at a strategic disadvantage, could and should be made in the Pentagon . I do however lack confidence in President Obama’s ability to do so properly. His termination of missile defense systems and rejection of the F-22 stealth fighter program, lends credence to my lack of confidence.

But in the case of this alternate engine I can agree with the President on discontinuing this particular earmark. But I oppose it on two grounds. In addition to already costing too much and not producing a savings that is worth the investment at this time, I do not want to subsidize jobs in foreign countries when we need them here in America……..especially manufacturing jobs.

Yet Congress does not see it this way. They are prepared to fight the President on this. And unless they back down, that fight could get ugly and cost the President support on several other initiatives such as the repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.

In the end, this is just another case of the Obama Administration getting tangled up in a broader web of tricks. In this case, he has in many ways benefited from placing his friend, G.E. chairman Immelt on his economic advisory council. Immelt in turn supported the federal bailouts and stimulus packages that his company profited from. Then he used those profits to lobby the Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime for more subsidies that would ultimately go towards building a product that G.E. will make a substantial profit from, all while taking manufacturing jobs out of America and giving them to foreign interests.

This is all just another example of how truly damaging and useless the Obama economic recovery plan has been. On a day that American consumer confidence is reported to be at one of its lowest points in year’s, finding out that the Obama bailouts and stimulus plan is helping to finance efforts to ship jobs overseas, is not encouraging. If anything, it is insulting. Hopefully Congress will not approve additional funding for this alternate engine. At least not so long as it involves taking more of American manufacturing jobs oversees at a time when they are desperately needed here. Because in case you haven’t noticed, unemployment is not exactly falling at any significant pace, despite all the federal spending that was meant to do that.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

28 Years Ago The Economy Recovered By Giving Freedom A Chance

Bookmark and Share   Last week marked the 28th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s signing of the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act. When it comes to the economic recovery methods that we have adopted b.govtoday,  it is appallingly easy to see that we our government has lost its way since then.
The approach to government that Reagan instilled in the conduct of contemporary conservative governance was basic. It was rooted in the belief that the engine which propelled America’s greatness was not government but the nation’s people.
It was centered around freedom and the allowance for the natural progression of freedom and the free market to grow our economy, spread wealth and create a sustainable prosperity for all.
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was an implementation of that thinking, which reduced tax rates and unleashed one of greatest economic recoveries our nation has ever seen. It eventually brought unemployment down from a high of 10.6% to 5.4% and drastically eliminated inflation. With consumer prices at the highest peacetime rate on record-up 13.3 percent in 1979, three years later, the rate of inflation had slowed considerably, with the Consumer Price Index advancing only 3.8 percent during that same year and from there on throughout the rest of the 80’s and 90’s the actual inflation rate remained well below 5%.
That whole process is in stark contrast to the economic recovery acts that we saw our government begin to practice in 2008 and repeat in 2009.
Those recovery acts deceptively added the word reinvestment to them and decidedly rejected the successful thinking behind the 1981 measure designed for the same purpose that the most recent bills were.
The newestt recovery measures taken were nothing more than a bid for more government and a grab at more centralized government that initiated unfunded mandates and essentially took more money away from the people rather than afford them the chance to keep more of their money.

The modern recovery acts were designed to create more jobs and spur more spending. Yet to date, with less than 10% of the monies slotted for these initiatives spent and the bulk of it not expected to be allocated for years to come, little benefit has actually been seen. And the fact of the matter is that in the end little will be seen.

With only a fraction of the stimulus money having been spent to date, a recent poll determined that 72 percent of Americans want the unused portion of the $787 billion dollar stimulus package returned to taxpayers. They believe it would do more to boost the economy than having the government spend it. That sentiment runs deep through out society as a 59% majority of Democrats, 87% majority of Republicans and 70% majority of independents believe that the money should be returned to taxpayers. This was the same Reagan thinking and policy that allowed for the recovery that we saw in the 80’s.

In all honesty, when you look at a major goal of the recent recovery act, you will see that is the creation of jobs. But the package only creates government jobs. By nature, government jobs do not sustain themselves. They do not create a market which produces a profit that generates a self funding source for themselves. They are funded through taxes. But in addition to the need for a continuous stream of tax dollars to finance these government jobs is the problem that the jobs created by these modern recovery attempts are only temporary.

The work that will be created through the bills are have no enduring future. For instance, once a road is built, it is done. Maintenance for that road will always be required but that alone does not employ the number of workers required to build that road originally.

This is just one example of what may produce a positive effect but will assuredly only be a temporary effect from the most expensive pieces of legislation in history. Ultimately the recent stimulus packages are legislative creations which simply have no long term benefits. But they will have damaging long term effects induced by the ensuing debt that these most recent recovery packages create and the tax burden that their debt will inevitably produce.

Conversely, the recovery act that people like Congressman Jack Kemp and Senator William Roth were responsible for developing was  a stimulus package that allowed for the people to posses more money and it allowed for them to spend more and invest more. All of which energized an entrepreneurial revival that created more self sustaining, permanent jobs and more investment.  All of which spurred a natural cycle of sustainable growth that did not rely on government spending and federal taxation.

28 years later and intermittent failures to acknowledge the success of this thinking at the federal level continues to threaten our economic stability and jeopardizes the freedom based fabric of our American future.

On the day before the anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s signing of the successful recovery measures that we took in 1981, The Center for Fiscal Accountability released it’s annual report which provides evidence to my claim.

The report demonstrated that the average American devotes 224 days of work a year to simply cover the costs of government mandated programs and controls and that the federal government demands approximately 61½ % of our combined national income.

That’s far more than half of what we earn.

The number of days that Americans must work to cover this cost of government allows The Center for Fiscal Accountability to establish what they call Cost of Government Day.  Based on a national average that day for all Americans was August 12th.  That is 26 more days than least year. And it means that when you come down to it, you worked the first 8 months and twelve days of the year to fund the government. 

But if you want an even greater example of just how burdensome and oppressive the crushing costs of government can be, lets take a look at my home state of New Jersey.

While the 2009 national average for the Cost of Government day falls on August 12th, for New Jerseyan’s the Cost of Government Day falls on September 6th, 25 days later than the national date.

One of the state’s few true conservative leaders, State Assemblyman Jay Webber stated that “Since 2002, the average family of four in New Jersey has seen a state tax increase of more than $10,000, a wallop to the wallet by far the worst in the entire nation. The state’s citizens have been saddled with a cumulative tax increase of $21.2 billion from FY2003 to FY2009. We have experienced 108 new or increased taxes in just 8 years—on income, sales, estates, employees, employers, home sales, televisions, phone bills, motor vehicles, tires, and many more items. And that does not even count the state’s record-setting property taxes, which have skyrocketed 54.8 percent since 2002 and amount to $6,500 per household. New Jersey collects more property taxes per capita than any other state.

All of this is a direct result of increased government programs and an increased size of government. It demonstrates that more government is not the answer and that a growing bureaucracy does little to solve problems but much to create more problems and expenses.

But New Jersey is not the state with the latest Cost of Government Day. Connecticut has the latest date, surpassing New Jersey by one day. Behind New Jersey is New York, August 31st (243 days out of the year), followed by California, August 23rd, (235 days) and the fifth worst is Maryland, August 21st, (233 days).

When looking at these states you will find a direct correlation between their overregulation, social engineering programs and high costs of living but you will not find a connection between those characteristics and booming business environments, high employment, government efficiency and a quality of life significantly superior to anywhere else. What that means is that despite all their regulation, government provided services and taxes and fees in these five states, Americans still have no good reason to want to live in them.

In fact in New Jersey it is just the opposite. People are fleeing the Garden State to find jobs, affordable homes and bearable tax rates that will allow them to live comfortably and with a sense of freedom.

All of this makes one wonder whether or not we should really be trying to establish such things as government controlled healthcare. It also makes us question how wise it was to create an economic recovery that throws more and more money into what apparently is responsible for holding the economy and taxpayers back…….government.

The Kemp Roth Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 that Ronald Reagan championed, worked twenty eight years ago. It invested in the people and our entrepreneurial spirit. But the so called recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 is far different. It takes money and control away from the people and invests it in government.

The Obama administration may call it “reinvestment” but by all proven standards, I call it a bad investment.

Take a moment to watch the video below of the fateful moment 28 years ago when Ronald Reagan signed the economic recovery package that brought us out of economic despair.  Hear in his own words the keys to its success

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Connecticut and Dodd the Dud Is Yet Another Faultline For Democrats In 2010

Bookmark and Share   In 2008 Connecticut Democrat Senator Chris Dodd was running for the Democrat’s presidential nomination. Now as 2010 approaches he is running for his political life and more and more it is looking like that race will be as successful as his run for President. As a major player in the regulatory schemes that helped bring the DoddDudU4Prezhousing and finance markets to their knees and ushered in the economic crisis that confronts us today, the doldrums that Dodd wades into among Connecticut voters is well deserved.

As Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Chris Dodd, along with his counterpart, Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking, Barney “Elmer Fudd” Frank of Massachusetts, led the way for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to enter into an unprecedented level of issuing trillions of dollars in low-risk investments that were only sustainable if real estate prices continued rising.

The problem is that real estate prices ceased to rise and started to fall. By the time this reversal took place, it was too late. The lack of liquidity that stemmed from the defaulting of the excessive overextended volume of sub-prime loans began to tighten up the lending of money throughout the entire banking and finance markets and the worldwide credit crunch and economic crisis that we face was born.

It did not have to happen.

In 2005 Alan Greenspan warned Congress of the urgent need to tighten regulations on the systemic abuse that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were partaking in. Before Congress he testified that “if Fannie and Freddie continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,” he said. “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

The advice and circumstances prompted Republicans in 2006 to sponsor new regulations that would have placed the two housing lenders under strict requirements that would have severely limited their ability to take excessive risks and would have corrected illegitimate recording practices that they were participating in. They would have also averted financial ruin.

Chris Dodd rejected these corrective measures. And while refusing to adopt these regulatory measures, he was simultaneously collecting oodles of dollars from Fannie and Freddie and became the largest recipient of campaign contributions from the very entities that he refused to correct.

Another words, Dodd dodged efforts that would have helped to stem the troubling tide of the economic red ink and financial calamity that we found ourselves awash in during 2008.

You can try to put the blame on someone else. You can try to blame it on Bush and you can accuse me of falsifying the factual record on this issue but you would lying. The truth is that President G.W. Bush and his administration called for tighter regulation of government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for a total of seventeen times.

On top of that, Republicans sponsored legislation aimed specifically at the tighter regulations and more accurate recording practices that the President and Alan Greenspan asked for. The measure, S.190, was sponsored By Republican Chuck Hagle and co-sponsored by Republican Senators Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Senator and former Republican nominee for President John McCain. But with Dodd at the helm of the banking committee, Republicans couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

In the meantime while Dodd stalled efforts to avert financial ruin and campaigned for President in Iowa, Fannie and Freddie spat out a trillion dollars worth of sub-prime mortgages between 2005 and 2007 and by 2008, money stopped flowing throughout our nation.

The facts have forced some like Democrat Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama to state, “like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.”

But the reality of the circumstances which force Dodd to shoulder the largest share of blame for the financial catastrophe that we must endure is not the only burden he must bear as he runs for a fifth term in the United States Senate.

After refusing to stem the economic crisis that Dodd and Democrats could have averted, the Connecticut Senator found himself in the key position of shaping the legislative bailout of Countrywide Financial Corp., a company that found itself needing bailout bucks after operating under the regulatory practices that Dodd refused to reform.

But this brought rise to an ugly conflict of interest. It was discovered that in two separate sweetheart deals, Dodd was the recipient of two cut-rate mortgages of nearly $800,000 from Countrywide Financial. The political favoritism that Countrywide afforded to the Chairman of the senate committee that oversees their business practices is seen as, to say the least, shady and Senator Dodd has not been forthcoming with the details of the arrangements. Instead, without remorse he has promised to refinance the Countrywide deals, which would save him at least $70,000 over the life of the mortgages.

Then in February of this year, after bailing out AIG, Dodd slipped an amendment into the stimulus bill that ensured that executives of firms bailed out by the government could still collect already contracted bonuses. When this slight of hand came to light, Dodd denied doing it. An intense barrage of outright public indignation forced a glaring spotlight on Dodd until he finally admitted to being responsible for the amendment but ultimately he claimed that President Obama made him do it.

Now after being the first Democrat to throw his Democrat President under the bus, a slew of recent improprieties and slights of hand and a prior history of questionable real estate and financing schemes extending from as far back as 1986, Dodd must confront a very leery and disgruntled Connecticut electorate.

With a negative rating for him of anywhere from 38% to 42%, voters in the Nutmeg State have Chris Dodd trailing his likely Republican opponent Rob Simmons by 9%.

A closer look at the most recent Quinnipiac poll that reveals this troubling news for Dodd shows that while the incumbent Senator has somewhat solidified his base Democrat vote with 74% of them willing to again vote for him, his support among the state’s Independent voters continues to slide and Simmons has leaped out to a 29% lead over Dodd among them. With 87% of all Connecticut Republicans declaring confidence in their likely nominee and an overwhelming preponderance of Independent voters also inclined to support him, the numbers seem to add up to an end to Dodd’s almost three decades in the Senate and his lifetime of financial scheming.

As a former Congressman Rob Simmons has a record that could, at best, be considered moderate. It certainly isn’t one that could be construed as that of a cutting edge conservative.

For those of my school of thought, that would not exactly make Rob Simmons my first choice for a senate seat but we are talking about Connecticut. This is a state that, on occassion, considers Joe Lieberman too conservative for their liking so perhaps Simmons is the closest to being a voice of sanity that we can expect out if this region of New England.

But the story here is less the fact that Simmons seems to be in a position to give Dodd a run for his money than it is the fact that Dodd has become a total dud.

In a previous post I pointed out the many instances where conservatives are mounting challenges to the Republican establishment and to the wing of moderates who have compromised away too many of the principles that make us Republicans. I also pointed out that in addition to this emergence of more traditional Republicans some successes of the G.O.P. in 2010 will be brought about by the mere ineptness of many of the Democrats that they will be challenging. The Simmons-Dodd race is just another such example of the latter as Chris Dodd proves himself to be one of the most inept Democrats of all.

So as 2010 approaches, look for Connecticut to provide one of the tremors that will lead to a political earthquake that shifts the tectonic plates of ideological influence and shapes a new landscape on Capitol Hill in the not too distant future.

Bookmark and Share


Filed under politics


6aantillegalstimulusBookmark and Share     Prior to the senate’s passage of the most expensive spending package in history, there was a great deal of debate on exactly what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 should include and what guidelines should be created regarding how money in the bill would be spent. 

A bill of such historic size and scope has a lot of strings attached and well it should. That is why Republicans in the Senate tried to insure that one of the greatest concerns in this bill, jobs, be addressed properly. So Alabama’s Republican Senator, Jeff Sessions, tried to offer amendment SA 239. It was an amendment that required all businesses that received any troubled asset relief money or that would get any other federal funds or tax breaks be required to implement use of the electonic verification data base that currently operates under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security.

The E-Verify system vets the immigration status of workers and helps to prevent the hiring of undocumented immigrants.

The measure would have been an added level of security to help insure that the stimulus package did its job for the American people. It was meant to insure that money aimed at increasing jobs for Americans did just that and created jobs for Americans and not foreign citizens living here illegally.

But despite attempts to make this spending bill a more meaningful recovery package, Democrat Senator Max Baucus of Montana objected to the measure.

Immediately following the objection, Nebraska Democrat Senator Ben Nelson made a motion to conclude debate on the entire stimulus package and with a vote of 61 to 36 debate was ended and the stimulus package was scheduled to be voted on without any assurances that any stimulus created jobs will go only to American citizens.

Had debate not ended and the amendment been approved, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and New Jersey Senator Robert antillimmMenendez pledged that they would have used their veto power, under special procedures, to have blocked the E-Verify amendment from being included the final bill.

By denying inclusion of the E-Verify amendment, Democrats have slapped unemployed Americans in the face and Senators Reid, Menendez, Baucus and Nelson have gone out of their way to put the employment opportunities of illegal immigrants on par with hard working, law abiding, American workers. Some reports suggest that their refusal to approve the measure could account for as much as 10 or 11 percent of the money in this stimulus package going towards the hiring of illegal immigrants.

With billions of dollars of questionable spending already included in this so-called recovery package, it is a travesty to see lawmakers go out of their way to willfully waste more by insuring that illegal immigrants have a fair shot at taking jobs away from needy Americans.

Sadly, this is just one example of the American Recovery and Investment Act’s wasteful spending and misappropriation of funds.

Even sadder is the apparent loyalty that Democrats have to the underground culture of illegal immigration.

Bookmark and Share 



These are the insightful words of humorist and columnist Dave Barry:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy

Q. But isn’t that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Ask Not What Your Country Can Spend For You. Ask What You Can Spend For Your Country

PhotobucketI am no economist but in reviewing the assessments and suggestions of major economists there seems to be some very valid suggestions, at least from what a layman like me can understand.

Despite my lack of economic expertise, I do know the basic fundamentals of the economy and I believe my understanding of those fundamentals is what can sometimes create some confusion when reviewing the advice of so called financial experts and leading economic government officials.

All the suggestions offered by them are based on spending.

Spending is what grows our economy. The more we consume and spend, the more that is produced. The more that is produced increases the need to employ more people to meet those production needs. By employing more people we are empowering others to spend more and from there the cycle continues in an ever growing circumference of increased wealth.

Sounds pretty simple. Yet other factors help to complicate things and break the seemingly simple and free flow of this cycle. Things such as unexpected shortages of materials, import and export troubles, natural disasters which influence the chain of events, and many more all factor in the process.

While understanding this, what is responsible for the current economic crisis?

Has there been some sort of natural disaster that has depleted a particular basic and essential resource that our economic cycle relies on? Has there been a total collapse of certain industries which have thrown the cycle off with an inordinate amount of unemployment and consumption which further deteriorate the supply and demand cycle?

To a certain, small extent, events like that have taken place but not in some kind of all consuming way. There have been droughts effecting crops and downturns in some markets that have produced layoffs. But none have been to the extent which has, for example, made wheat crops extinct or stopped cars from being made.

So what’s the problem?

Well in my unprofessional, economic, opinion, the problem is rooted in something that government financial experts are not discussing. In fact, in my opinion, most solutions being initiated by government officials, past, present and future, are the problem. They are trying to put icing on a cake before they baked it. They all promote spending.

In tune with the laws of supply and demand, spending is good. However; the focus on spending has been accentuated and promoted so much and for so long that it has brought about a couple of misguided generations that have taken that advice too far.

As a society we have become accustomed to spending more than we have, and responsibly. should.

The predatory promotional practices that financial markets undertake ,in an attempt to make more money of their own, is a big part of the current economic crisis. It is a crisis brought about by the chickens coming home to roost and the bill coming forward to be paid.

We have taken the advice of Republican and Democrat leaders and we have spent. The government has even taken their own advice and spends. The government has spent money in order to give us money to spend with. They call it an economic stimulus. The problem though is that

  1. The government doesn’t really have enough money to do that. They have their own, our own, deficit, and…….
  2. The money they gave us back in this so called stimulus package was ours, so maybe they should have taken less from us in the first place.

Those two points alone raise doubts about the soundness of the “spending solution” given to all of our problems. Yet, those in charge still offer it as the most sound solution to our problems. They even go a step further and ask people to not save any of the monies given out in stimulus packages.

Although I do not have a problem with spending,………. all you have to do is tag along with me at clothing or shoe store to realize that,….. I do have problem with spending money that we don’t have. And there in lies the problem.

The promoting of spending practices has created generations of spenders. These spenders don’t even use real money. They use plastic. We all use plastic. In some instances you can’t even pay for a good or service without credit.

This has led to our getting accustomed with living on borrowed money,……. plastic,……..fake money.

For decades now, the government has encouraged this practice. Government policies have encouraged borrowers and lenders to enter into deals that neither can really afford. The greatest example of this was the Homeownership Initiative that was created under the Clinton administration. It forced lenders to make a significant number of loans available to unqualified borrowers, borrowers who could not pay these loans back. The practice was so popular that it helped to create the banking crisis that ushered in the current crisis.

The promoted “spending” solutions that have dominated our problem solving efforts with the economy are, in and of themself, part of the problem.

Americans need to get back to an economy that is based on sound fiscal policies. That statement brings into play many suggested economic theories and actions but when I write “sound fiscal policies” I am not making reference to some deep epistemology of mankind or the ontology of finances. Nor am I debating the importance of the Keynesian school of thought. I am simply saying that society…..our citizens, needs to begin living within its means.

If one is not sure if they have enough money to put food on their plate, they should not be buying cell phones and using it to send out text messages asking if they can borrow money for dinner. I mean I am sure AT&T or T-Mobile appreciate the fee that your purchase and contracts will cost you but you will they be pleased with the bill collector that they have to employ to get their money.

My point is, we have gotten away from living within our means. We have become accustomed with living life on borrowed money. This practice has brought us to where we are today. And truth be told, there is no end in site.

I believe that we are about to enter a very tough transitional time that will last for many years. It is a time that will have us getting familiar with living within our means.

Doing so will mean less spending. Less spending will lead to less employment, and so on and so on. But this does not mean that the sky will fall and the economy will ultimately implode. It means that we will endure a difficult adjustment period but once we have become reacquainted with real money, sound personal financial habits and living within our means, the economy will eventually stabilize and growth will again be seen.

I am not alone in this thinking. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson has recently made a video addressing this same issue. In it, he takes a tongue-in-cheek approach to our current “spending solutions”.

Take a moment to view it. You’ll get a kick out of it. It left me wondering where the Fred Thompson, that we see in this video, was when he ran for the G.O.P.’s presidential nomination?



Post Election Toast

The Election Is Over, The Results Are Known.

The Will of the People Has Been Clearly Shown.

So Let All Get Together And Let Bitterness Pass

I’ll Hug Your Elephant, And You Kiss My Ass.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics