Byron's Blog

Anonymous believes The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the illegal Washington D.C. hand gun ban re-affirmed what should have been obvious to every single out-of-touch, bombastic, self-serving politician -- that the U.S. Constitution means what it says and that you actually do have a right to protect yourself.

Got Guns?

by Anonymous

It took long enough, about ten score and 17 years, but finally the nation has some clarity about your fundamental right to own a hand gun and use it in your home to protect yourself from thugs who -- for some reason -- never really pay much attention to the voluminous restrictions that leave law abiding people vulnerable to vicious, murderous criminals.

The U.S. Supreme Court cut through the verbal noise that flies from the mouth of pompous, arrogant and elitist politicians in its ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller to say, you have a right to have a handgun in your home. Heller is Dick Heller, a security guard, authorized to carry a handgun, who merely wanted the right to have it in his home. He lost the trial, won on appeal and in the Supreme Court where the Justices re-read the Constitution very carefully and concluded that no where could they find an "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

The reaction from Mr. Heller, "I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household." The staid, tired and predictable reaction from the gaggle of anti-gun ne'er-do-wells, included big city mayors, full of empty words, who did their best to scare you into thinking that this is a harbinger of bloody street-level gunfights, where fire-power settles disputes and bullets ricochet off concrete sidewalks and steel buildings. What a crock.

Here's a point that seems to escape those blow-hard politicians -- seems the cities with the toughest gun laws often have the highest crime rates. The laws in Chicago, for example, are among the most stringent. Why then is there so much crime in Chicago? That's an easy one. It's because crooks have the guns and victims do not. Just think about it. You live in a rough neighborhood and the law says you cannot have a handgun in your house. Any criminal who picks up a weapon on the black market can come crashing into your home with little or no expectation that you're equipped to fire back.

You want another example. How's this? Just compare the number of murders in Chicago for 2007 with the rest of the county in which Chicago resides. There were 435 murders in the city and about 125 for the rest of Cook County combined. Remember, Cook County gun laws are more lax than Chicago's.

Now factor in population figures and apply a little math to the numbers. Here goes. The Cook County population is just under 5.3 million. Chicago's is around 2.8 million. That means Chicago comprises just over half the population of Cook County. Now the kicker -- nearly 80 percent of the murders in Cook County happen in the City of Chicago, where the restrictions on gun ownership are the toughest. Hmmm.

Say what you want. Those are the facts, but it's way easier for an uninformed or thick headed politician to stand in front of a crowd, pound a podium and say, "We must ban hand guns and get 'em off the streets." The people cheer, the politician smiles and the beat goes on -- gang members acquire guns illegally and use them to shoot each other and unarmed citizens, who only want to protect themselves.

No doubt your naive friends, who see the foundation of their viewpoint crumbling, will grasp at anything to bolster their stance and rail against accidental shootings. When the rant concludes simply say that you support gun rights, not gun proliferation. There's a difference. The anti-gun fanatics want you to believe that gun advocates want everyone to pack heat. You hear it all the time. Anonymous remembers one individual who shouted with red face and neck veins bulging, "Yeah, let's give guns to everyone, that's the answer! We can all just shoot it out when we have problems!"

The calm, measured retort -- the Second Amendment merely guarantees your right to have a weapon and the Supreme Court affirmed that reasonable rules are Constitutional. That means that it's perfectly acceptable to restrict gun ownership to law abiding citizens. There is nothing wrong with a law that requires guns to be registered. Heck, how 'bout routine, mandatory safety training. (The government could actually make a buck or two on that idea.) This alone would help prevent accidental shootings. What about background checks? Absolutely and a reasonable waiting period. Why not?

No, guns are not suitable for everyone who's entitled to own one. There are certainly plenty of people who do not want them around their children. Others simply do not want to have anything to do with them. You will not find any suggestion here that people with an aversion to firearms must or should have them, but many people who obey the law would be better served and protected if they have access to one.

There are millions of Real Estate Agents who ride around with strangers in their cars, or sit in an open house where people they do not know come in and out all day long. Do those men and women have a legitimate reason to carry a pistol? What about a jeweler who routinely transports extremely valuable merchandise? Is that person entitled to have a gun? What about a woman who lives alone in a tough neighborhood? A rapist breaks in and starts to attack. She can have 911 on speed dial and still not have police at her home quickly enough to prevent an assault.

One sad example of a murder that should not have happened involves the story of a woman named Ronayle White. She had an order of protection against her estranged husband, but he did not care and in May, 2002 he went to her house and killed her. She called 911, three times, but it took officers 17 minutes to arrive and when they did, she was dead. A 911 tape recorded two muffled pops during the final call. That was the gunfire that killed her. She did not have a gun, never had a chance and left behind a son.

The head of the Illinois State Rifle Association said it well. Police are not the first line of defense against crime. Individuals are, and no one, not the anti-gun lobby or anyone else can get around that reality. Justice Antonin Scalia made the point this way. He said the handgun is ideal for self-defense partly because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police." You got that right, brother.

The idea that you might catch a .44 caliber slug to the chest during a break in would probably make you think twice, maybe even three times about it. You might even consider a career change. All this gets lost on those individuals whose hazy notions about self defense are based on fantasy and the idea that there's some magic bullet that will make guns go away. Thankfully, a majority of the Justices on Supreme Court had more clarity on the matter.

Finally, Anonymous discovered the true meaning of the message about change that Junior Senator Barack Obama has made his campaign theme and that nugget of wisdom came from a most unexpected source.

Change

by Anonymous

It was nothing short of pure genius when a colleague uttered this about the theme of the Barack Obama campaign and the gobbledygook that is his prescription for the economy: "Change -- yeah, that's all you'll have in your pocket if that guy gets elected."

One fun part about genius is you just never know where you'll find it and in this case, it came from a man, who's been careful with his money and is closing in on retirement. His concern is not unique to people with similar circumstances, but Anonymous has not found anyone who more succulently expressed the problem with Barack Obama and his knuckle head ideas about money.

How about his one-size-fits-all notion about people who make more than $150,000 a year. Barack Obama believes they should pay more tax because they're making so much money. Try that one on a couple who live in mid-town Manhattan or any other large American city. That salary in a big city makes you middle class, but Senator Obama's rant about tax increases for those people is just one more example of how he's simply out of touch with reality.

More proof came in a session during which he pandered to retired individuals and promised to increase the Social Security tax on people who make more than $250,000 a year. You see, right now, once you cross the $102,000 a year threshold, you've fulfilled your obligation to pay the tax. His nutty solution is to eliminate the tax on income between $102,000 and $250,000 and impose the tax on everyone who makes more than a quarter million dollars a year. You've got to love his rationale -- he says it's not fair that millionaires and billionaires only pay a fraction of their income for the tax.

Uh, Barack -- millionaires and billionaires do not earn a quarter million dollars a year. They earn way more than that. The social engineering that Barack Obama is attempting will punish people who are hard at work to get ahead. Hey Senator, millionaires and billionaires will not care and probably will not be hurt too much from your ridiculous idea. Chances are their accountants are clever enough to find other ways to off-set the tax.

Barack Obama's wacky approach hurts people who are starting to turn the corner and become wealthy, but the junior Senator is against that basic American ideal -- reward for hard work. Seriously, why would anyone want to vote for this guy given his propensity to hammer people who want to improve their financial situation?

Instead, Senator Obama should be working to lower all taxes and enable all people to keep more of what they earn, but that's not Barack. He wants to increase taxes on people who have done well in life and kowtow to middle class Americans with a tax cut for them. Interesting, Barack Obama constantly talks about one America, but continually looks for ways to divide the nation into affluent and poor.

Here's a little dose of reality for the Senator and anyone else who would like to understand some of the basic tenants of economics. Tax and spending cuts help everyone. That recipe always improves economic performance, but that does not matter to Senator Obama. He's not interested in what will work. He's interested in saying the things that will make him popular.

That's probably why he's talking about pouring money into "green" energy. Sure, it sounds great, but the fact is that government sponsored energy initiatives generally fail. Just think about the billions and billions that the government has spent over the decades to fix the energy problem. What has any of it done for the nation? The answer is nothing.

Why not use tax breaks as an incentive for firms to build hybrid cars and for you to buy them? That will work, but perhaps Barack Obama is not creative enough to understand that concept. Instead, he's the guy who's certain the government's job is to solve all of life's problems.

Then there's his foolish idea of a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Great plan Barack, increase the tax on oil companies at precisely the time when gas prices are rising. Sure, he says he only wants to prevent oil companies from earning so much money, but what he's too short sighted to see is that his plan will lead to even higher energy prices.

Oil companies use profits to invest in new sources of energy. Take away that money and you take away that form of investment. What will be the result? Supplies will decline because energy companies will not spend money on the search for new sources of energy. The result -- higher prices. Here's the kicker and it does not require much thought, unless you're Barack Obama -- how does a tax increase lead to lower prices? Hooray Barack Obama, champion of the middle class, with a plan that will ultimately hurt working people if he gets his way. Good job Barack!

The truth about Barack Obama is, he's nothing more than the classic tax and spend liberal. Wouldn't it be great to ask him about that during one of those town hall meetings, where a member of the public gets the chance to ask candidates a question. Here's one that goes straight to his herky-jerky tax schemes. "Senator Obama, this is a two part question. Could you please explain how a tax increase on any sector, in a declining economy improves productivity and the second part is, where did you go to business school?" Then, just step back from the microphone, watch the Senator stammer, stutter then fail to adequately answer the question.

If he understood economics he would know that taxes drain the economy. He would also see that the amount of money the government collects from a tax increase is often less than the projections because people always find legal ways to avoid paying. Just check the tax code. It's complicated for that very reason. Sure, Barack Obama says he's going to get rid of all those nasty nuances in the code and crack down on all those fat cats, with their $150,000 a year salaries, who are swimming in cash, but his formula will hurt people who could use a break, while the truly wealthy will easily find new ways to avoid his barrage of taxes.

Oh, by the way, what exactly is Barack Obama going to do with the loot he hopes to collect from his tax hike scheme? He enjoys revving up crowds with talk about building schools or health care, but seriously, do you think for a minute that his tax boondoggle is going to pay for all that? Let's get real for a minute.

Do not expect edgy questions about this from his public relations team, who've cleverly disguised themselves as reporters. They're busy with the soft, gentle ones, perhaps about his next multi-million dollar book deal, gulping down his tired message about change and be certain, he's talking about the spare change you'll be left with, jangling around in your pocket if he becomes President.

The chorus of people who say Hillary Clinton should withdraw from the race left Anonymous wondering, what are they thinking and what exactly do they have against Democracy?

Democracy in Action

by Anonymous

Apparently some people are not ready to swallow whole the offerings from Barack Obama's public relations machine, which is masquerading as the national press corp. Reporters, editors and news photographers have created an image of an unbeatable, infallible, anointed man who has a birth right to the Democratic nomination. The warm, fuzzy coverage they've provided for the junior Senator from Illinois seems designed to quash the competition and enable Senator Obama to float effortlessly to Inauguration Day and the Presidency.

Democracy demands something different. It offers anyone who has the desire and the means a shot at political leadership. The push and pull of ideas is a benefit to the nation and gives voters a chance to see beyond the glossy, carefully worded hype that's become infused into the American political process.

No one is entitled to be United States President. The person who becomes Chief Executive has to win the job. The political strategists and editorial writers who fume and demand that the opposition cave so a 'favorite son' can have an easy go if it, are behaving in an irresponsible manner. Hillary Clinton has the right to battle to the finish and use every penny of her money to stay in the race, if that's what she chooses to do.

Sure, Americans have the right to elect whoever they wish, but apparently Barack Obama's minions believe that right does not involve fair competition. Try selling that notion to working class people. You know the ones, the people who Senator Obama says, get bitter, cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them. Those Americans generally believe in a fair fight to the finish, but not the people in the Obama camp.

Talk about the height of arrogance, but that's Barack Obama for you and that vibe runs through his campaign, accented by the notion that somehow Hillary Clinton owes it to the party and the nation to drop out of the race. Why, when the the anointed one took soaking in West Virginia and is entirely capable of saying something else so offensive that he alienates another block of voters?

Barack Obama would do better if he would simply accept the inordinately favorable media coverage he receives and remain silent on matters of importance. That way he can avoid any more enormous gaffs, but that's not his style. He speaks then, splat -- another dozy and when it happens, Hillary Clinton will be right there to point out the obvious: Barack Obama is not qualified to be President.

This is the man to whom Senator Clinton should yield, who's going to unite the nation, heal divisions and bring about a new era of politics? Barack Obama has not yet mastered the art of closing his mouth and keeping his outrageous opinions to himself. That would make it easier to suck up all the gushing and adoration he gets from the throngs of reporters who've filed a seemingly unending stream of glowing stories, that tout him as a phenomenon and borderline messiah.

The beauty of all this is, Senator Obama has no one to blame but himself for the consequences of his words, which include the distinct possibility that he will never deliver the political knock-out punch to Hillary Clinton, who could still win the nomination. And just when it appeared that that whole flap about his spiritual advisor was starting to fade.

Poor Barack Obama. No soft, easy ride to the White House for him, not as long as Hillary Clinton and Senator McCain are around. Some voters have started to acknowledge that his vague, rambling answers are usually void of substance. Imagine if he had to face what every single candidate should encounter, tough scrutiny, the kind that Hillary Clinton has faced since she announced that she wanted to be President.

No one on the Obama team wants that. His people want to shove aside Senator Clinton. Democracy -- who cares? They've got a President to appoint and do not care if, in the process, that means damage to the Democratic way of life.

Anonymous hopes the presidential candidates will actually return to a serious discussion of issues that matter to people, such as health care and Social Security, and offer you the opportunity to opt out of either one.

Power to the People

by Anonymous

Does it feel as if the Presidential campaign is now infused with a certain dullness? Certainly seems that way. A ho-hum vibe surrounds the lack-luster discussions on who has the best plan to fix the economy, provide health care system or enable you to collect Social Security one day.

Say what you want about Reverend Wright, or any of the other distractions that have diverted attention away from the issues. What's important is where they stand on the more significant matters. Problem is, too often politicians waste your time saying what they think you want to hear, rather that offering solutions to the emerging crises confronting the nation. 

Right now, they just cannot seem to stop talking about gas, as if anything that any of them do will have an impact on pump prices. Just take a historical tour through the nation's attempt to set energy policy and you will see one big pile of wasted dollars. The various schemes you hear to use this or that tax to lower prices are plain silly. What fun Anonymous had the other day during a colleague's rant about how the government must impose yet another tax on oil companies. The colleague offered a blank stare to this one question: explain how any tax increase lowers prices? 

They don't. Taxes increase prices. Tax cuts reduce prices. Enlightened people also know that those cuts can also be used as a tool to provide incentives for individuals and firms to act in specific ways. You want to lower gas prices? Reduce the tax on it and offer tax breaks for people who build and buy hybrid cars. Forget about getting mad with oil firms. Anger and more taxes will merely translate to higher prices for you and everyone else who drives. Besides, high gas prices will not matter once you own a car that gets 70 miles, or more per gallon. Eventually the price of fuel will stabilize, maybe even start to drift lower as demand falls. See how simple that was?

Here's another easy one. People are anxious about health care. The political response -- a plethora of plans and plenty of talk about how the government will take care of you. National health care is a wonderful idea, but fails to take advantage of another concept that helps reduce prices: competition.

It is ridiculous to try to develop any national policy without allowing you the option to choose a government sponsored plan, a private plan or a blend or the two. That would give you choices, but also force government and private health care providers to compete and offer you value. The result would be affordability because consumers would have the opportunity to abandon coverage that's too expensive or did not meet their needs. The market place at work -- what a wonderful thing.

The same concept would work well for Social Security. Anyone born on the tail end of the baby boom generation or later has to have at least some jitters about whether or not the Social Security dollars are going to be available for them. Understandable, given the government runs the thing, but there's an alternative -- allow qualified individuals to have the option to invest those dollars themselves. Every accredited investor should have the option to take control of those dollars.

Who are accredited investors? They're are people who are either money professionals themselves or who meet the income and net worth requirements to invest certain types of funds. Elitist you say. Hardly. These standards are already in place and could easily work to determine who can take control of those accounts.

What about others who want that option? Simple. It's not difficult to develop strict rules for brokers and financial planners who would handle the investments for non-accredited individuals and reduce risk for them by limiting the options available for those accounts. High quality municipal bonds or triple A rated corporate bonds represent two good alternatives. People could then decide whether they want to stick with the traditional Social Security system or be more involved with their retirement dollars, which potentially enables Americans to earn more than with the antiquated government system.

Not surprising, politicians set up Social Security as a pay-as-you-go system, instead of structuring similar to an insurance policy with premiums that match the dollars that individuals will collect. That's why the thing's running out of money -- more people collecting than paying. An overhaul would take years for the bumbling politicians who run government, so why not give people the choice now to stay with the system or opt out?

Do not expect the candidates to include any of this in the national debate during the current campaign, or any other for that matter. They are not inclined to discuss ideas that will actually lead to solutions. They're busy trying to figure out what they can say to make themselves popular. That means that fundamental changes to improve the nation and the quality of your life get pushed aside for the sake of useless rhetoric, but what's new about that?

Anonymous believes the recent House hearings on oil profits were nothing more than a diversion, designed to distract attention away from the ineptness that permeates the majority of activity on Capitol Hill.

Congressional Gas

by Anonymous

It's so easy to hide your shortcomings when you're a U.S. Representative or Senator. Just call hearing about oil companies, invite chief executives and say bad things to them about the money they make. There it is -- you've made yourself look big and important, while you've accomplished zilch. It's a heck of a trick, but when your busy gorging yourself at the public trough, that type of stunt helps perpetuate the illusion that you've actually done something, when you've really done nothing at all.

It's far more useful to understand why gas prices rise, why oil profits enable you to drive and why Congress members ought to blame themselves for a great of the pain you feel when you top your tank.

Gas prices have risen to their current level because demand is strong. That's the whole story. You want evidence? Check the highway during rush hour. Do you see traffic getting any lighter? Not a chance and while you're at it, just check what people are driving. They're still lumbering along in gargantuan SUVs that get abysmal gas mileage. Drivers are sucking down gas about as quickly as oil companies can produce it and unlike politicians, most people understand the law of supply and demand, which means as long as Americans have a hearty appetite for gas, the price will reflect that. Sorry, but that's the reality.

Now, about the phony anger that the desk-pounding House Representatives exude during their semi-tough but visibly deficient questioning of the oil executives -- it's theater, nothing more. All that outrage about oil profits is merely hot air. You think for a nano-second that any company would be motivated to produce anything that's a money loser? Not a chance, which is why profitability ensures that you can get in a car, start it and go where you want everyday.

Profits enable firms to find oil and produce gas, which is an expensive proposition. Now consider that gas prices have risen more slowly than inflation for at least a few decades now, which means oil companies have actually been highly efficient in the way they conduct business. So let's see -- highly efficient firms provide the fuel that enables America to be an affluent society and the price of that fuel is low compared to most of the industrialized nations on the planet. Yeah, let's knock those oil guys down a peg or two.

Then there's the profitability that flows to shareholders and this goes beyond high net worth individuals. Anyone who hired a competent financial planner probably wound up with an investment portfolio that included energy. The people who profit in this scenario are individuals with retirement accounts or others who are already retired and rely on income that from their investments. Stick it to the oil companies and you stick it to those people too. That makes no sense, but it does not matter to the politicians who never miss an opportunity to make themselves look good at the expense of others.

It's also worthwhile to know that gas and oil profits come in increments. Think of it this way -- say you sell paperclips for a living and you earn a penny for every one you sell, but you sell millions and millions each year. You're going to earn a tidy profit, but your profit per unit sold is not that high. It's somewhat similar with gas. Oil companies do well because they sell so much gas. That's why any tax or penalty you impose on oil companies has a direct and almost immediate at the pump, which leads to the answer to the question, what can government do to reduce the cost of gas? Cut the tax on it.

Federal, state and local taxes add up to around 40 cents a gallon, or more. Reduce the tax and you reduce the burden on working people. It's really that simple. Oh sure, politicians are going to bellyache about how they're strapped for cash and need the money. Don't believe it. Tax payers constantly have to reduce expenses to get by, government can too. Lord knows politicians waste gobs of cash anyway, why not help you with a tax break instead of throwing away dollars on pork projects? What a concept.

Politicians need to stop wasting time beating up oil executives and work on ways to create incentives for people to drive hybrid, fuel efficient or green cars, but that actually involves doing something, which is pretty much counter to what government is all about.

Anonymous says that Barack Obama's decades long support of the inflammatory and knuckle-headed Pastor Wright is merely a small indicator of the Senator's poor judgment.

Forget Rev. Wright

by Anonymous

It's nothing short of astonishing that popular media have latched on so forcefully to the outrageously thick-head comments from Barack Obama's pastor. It's as if the Senator's continued support for the Reverend was evidence of Obama's inability to make a good decision, but he's already demonstrated that time and time again in far more obvious ways. This latest blunder does serve to highlight Senator Obama's shortcomings, but do not mistake it, alone as proof positive that he's not Presidential material. He's done that in other ways, that seemed to have escaped the scrutiny he's receiving now from the Rev. Wright flap.

Take that comment that always draws a cheer from Barack Obama's glassy-eyed followers when he says, he's the only candidate who's opposed the Iraq war from the start. People love to hear it, even though it has no foundation in truth. The reality is that Senator Obama voted time and time again to fund the Iraq war, but that seems to be lost on the people who simply what to accept every word that falls from his mouth as gospel. It makes life so easy -- just listen to what the messiah says and believe it. No need to check facts or use your own brain for its intended purpose, which includes thinking. Barack Obama has duped his followers about that critically important issue, adding to the evidence that shows he lacks the ability to lead the country.

Then there's his brilliance on the economy. He says America needs higher taxes, even though economy's in decline. No doubt he missed a recent story about taxes that pretty much sums up how it goes when politicians rely on money they think they're going to get from a tax hike. It's the story about the Chicago tax on bottled water and how the cash the city receives from it is about 40 percent short of projections. Gee, let's ponder that one.

Oh yeah, that's right -- it's simple to figure out, if you've spent more than an hour running a business, household or attended a business school lecture. People figure out ways to escape tax increases by modifying their behavior. Raise taxes and individuals will respond in ways to avoid it. That's not the worst of it. Any tax increase amounts to a drag on the economy, no matter if it's directed at the 'rich' the 'super-rich' or 'super-duper rich' and Senator Obama's plan to do that is reckless, especially because he's talking tax increase during economic contraction. Yeah, that'll work.

It gets better, readers. How about his statement on his willingness to bomb terrorists who try to escape into Pakistan from NATO forces fighting them in Afghanistan. That's one of the most foolish, dangerous and lame-brained things any politician has ever said. What do you think will happen if American led forces dropped bombs on an ally that just happens to have nuclear weapons? The result would be disastrous, but Senator Obama said he's willing to carry the fight into Pakistan and his followers said, good idea, Barack. What are they thinking?

How about that plan to build a fence along the U.S. - Mexico border? Barack Obama was right there, supporting the plan that does nothing to solve the fundamental problems associated with illegal immigration. People come to the U.S. illegally for a myriad of complex reasons that are rooted in economics and to think that some fencing along the border with Mexico is going to fix the problem is short-sighted, but that's Barack Obama for you. A border fence will simply force undocumented immigrants to pay a higher price to get to America and make the brutal, unsympathetic and criminal smugglers wealthier. Great on that one, Senator.

The fiasco with indicted Democratic fundraiser Tony Rezko is another of Barack Obama's epic blunders that he, himself acknowledges was a bone-head move. You remember the deal between the Obama's and Rezko's wife who sold them a ten foot strip of land that created a buffer around the Obama mansion, that they bought $300,000 below asking price. Sweet, for them and Rita Rezko who was able to score a few bucks on the deal with the Obama's. Very cozy.

There was also that gaping lack of good sense the Senator exhibited when news broke about the campaign contributions he received from the hard work of his pal Tony Rezko. Recall that Barack Obama decided to donate that money to charity only after those stories about those campaign dollars became public.

The scary thing about it is that this is just a sampler of the bumbling, stumbling mis-steps from the Junior Senator from Illinois who thinks he's got what it takes to run the nation. Hardly. Rev. Wright's rant on how the government lied about inventing HIV as a means of genocide against people of color is not a reason to condemn Senator Obama. Nothing the Reverend has said about that or anything should be taken as reason to withhold your vote from Senator Obama. Hardly. Barack Obama is capable of underscoring his numerous shortcomings and alienating clear thinking people all on his own.

Anonymous has a prediction about the Presidential race and says John McCain will win the election after he emerges unscathed from the Republican primary process, while the Democrats scratch, claw, fracture their party then self-destruct.

President John McCain

by Anonymous

Whew! That was almost too close for comfort, but luckily for America, the Democrats have done it to themselves again. They've managed to alienate reasonable thinking people who are not enthusiastic about tax increases and a bloated, big spending government. No matter what happens on super Tuesday and no matter which of the two leading Democrats emerges, the fact is that the party has ravaged itself and will chose a candidate who is politically battered. That person will be scuffed up, worn down and too far left of center to win the general election.

The person who raises a right hand to take the Presidential Oath of Office January 2009 will be John McCain. Thank goodness for that. He has demonstrated leadership, he has experience, he has the authority to be the Commander in Chief. He is the only person in the field who's actually seen combat and he will become President at a time when America must have a leader who operates on strategic imperatives, not catchy campaign slogans.

Now a reminder about Barack Obama. He's a junior Senator who has probably spent more time asking for money than actually helping to run the government. His experience dealing with tough, gritty and messy international matters: zero. The job of U.S. President is not an on-the-job-training type of position. It takes someone who has gone head-to-head with global thugs and won those battles. Senator Obama promises to bring home the troops and every American wants that, but his message misses some critically important realities.

Speak with actual military personnel about the nature of the conflict and they will tell you that America is fighting a movement. It would be lovely to believe there's going to be a neat, simple solution that brings home the troops in this-or-that many days. That's not what's going to happen. The head of the military counterinsurgency center says the fight against Al-Qaeda may take a decade. Do you believe him, or Barack Obama? I'm going with the Colonel.

Hillary's not too far from where Senator Obama stands on this -- one more reason to be thankful that John McCain will defeat her in a general election. She's declared that the war will end under her watch, but the truth is, it will not. Yes, it's unfortunate that President Bush decided to invade Iraq. Anonymous believes the justification for the attack was unfounded, but there is no way to undo what has already been done and now the best way to address the conflict is to accept the reality that the fight will not be easy.

Then there's that economic thing -- you know, how it's contracting and how both Senators Obama and Clinton say, now's the time for a tax increase. If you want to expand an economy you cut taxes. Oh, but theirs targets only those handful of rich people who really do not need the money. Number one, do you believe that the tax increase will stop there? Hardly, but even if it does, it still will have a dampening effect on an already sluggish economy. Not wise, but that's their answer.

Oh, but the increase will pay for universal health care. Sure it will, because their estimates on cost are rock solid and accurate, the same as all other government predictions on spending. Any person who has spent even a semester in business school will inform you that, a tax increase will cause the people who are affected by it to adjust their holdings, portfolios and investments to mitigate the increase, so inevitably the best guess about how much money the government expects to generate from a tax increase will fall short.

President McCain will not increase taxes. He's apparently had a conversation or two with an economist who's explained the relationship between investment, productivity and the correlation between the two. President McCain is for reduced taxes because he knows that productivity and economic growth cannot happen without investment. Wealthy Americans invest lots of money, which improves productivity and leads to more jobs. Middle Americans invest too and will also benefit tremendously from low tax rates. The key is to limit spending, a trick too many politicians have not learned.

Perhaps it's possible to pay for universal health care, by spending less on the panoply of other programs and projects that devour billions upon billions of your dollars every year. Not if you're a Democrat.

Mitt Romney is a worthy candidate, with the business acumen to understand how to improve the economy. He also has run a government so scores reasonably well on the experience front, but his credentials are not as impressive an Senator McCain's and sadly too many Americans are apprehensive about him based on religious prejudice. That's wrong. Judge the man on his own merits. Anonymous has and believes John McCain would make a better President.

John McCain will also fare better in the general election. The person who wins the race must win the political middle ground. While the Democrats have been busy carving up each other and positions left of center, the Republicans have been demonstrating their willingness to select a man who will easily appeal to the voting block that will determine the ultimate outcome, so breathe a sigh of relief. John McCain will reside in the White House and America will be better for it.

Anonymous was both aghast and amused at the gyrations from politicians designed to fix the economy and says their feeble offerings only distract from their ineptness about matters involving finance.

An Economic Boom

by Anonymous

How lame is your government when members of the Senate Finance Committee do not even know how to say the Federal Reserve Board Chairman's name? It's way lame and helps to explain why the nation's economy is in such a mess and why there's no way on earth anyone should expect that politicians will lead the nation to economic recovery. Incidentally, for the members of the Senate Finance Committee, the Fed Chairman's name is Ben Bernanke, in case you're wondering and he's the guy who helps decide what they, banks and everyone else will pay to borrow money, not that he's important or anything.

Those same knuckle heads in the Senate and House are vying with the President and the others who want his job to come up with a way to ignite an economic boom and what's their big idea? They want to give you $800 to $1,000 to spend any way you want. Wow, that took deep thought. It's what the economy needs -- an infusion of mad money to provide the vigor that's going to restore the nation's financial health and solve all those nasty problems such as the mortgage mess, the hemorrhaging balance of trade deficit, the plunging dollar and head off the possibility of a recession. Yes sir, just give the people some cash so they can buy a new wide screen TV or maybe a dinner out then presto, problem solved.

Anonymous is wondering if America can get someone in office who actually understands economics and at minimum knows the difference between a silly patchwork and a real solution? Let's start with the basics -- a non-political primer about money.

If you want to contract the economy you raise taxes. If you want to expand the economy you lower taxes. That's it. Political types try to make it more complex than that, but it's not. Economic expansion occurs when money is inexpensive and available to individuals and firms interested in investment, spending or saving, which -- in fact -- are the only three things you can do with a dollar. Economic contraction occurs when money is expensive and not readily available to individuals or firms. There it is.

Anonymous is keenly aware of the tired rant that usually enters these discussions about now. You know the one about how those dirty rich folks make more so should pay more. Turns out they do. Let's run through this and see if it's possible to finally place the matter in context. One dude makes $50,000 a year. Another dude makes $500,000. Assume they both pay the same tax rate -- say, 30 percent. Guess what - the first dude pays $15,000 tax, while the second dude pays $150,000. Any modern calculator reveals that the high income dude pays more. Try the math yourself.

Now add the reality of the American tax system that penalizes you as you ascend the economic ladder and discourages financial advancement, which is a totally inverted notion of the American dream. Currently, the top tax rate is 35 percent. That's for couples who are fortunate enough to earn right around $350,000 or more a year. That tax bill: right around $120,000. Couples who earn between $64,000 and $128,000 pay 25 percent. The tax bill for the top of that tax bracket: right around $32,000. Again, a standard calculator will show which tax bill is higher. Now recall about that rant from the leading Democrats about the Bush tax cut for the rich. It's a lie, designed to get people enraged about the unfairness of life and provide them an excuse to confiscate even more money from the economy. Yeah, that's the answer.

It does not matter who you target, the fact is that any tax increase will have a negative impact on the economy. It's especially irresponsible for anyone to propose that when the economy is so shaky. Why would you want people of means cutting back on spending when the motivation should be exactly the opposite? It's foolish, but it's the political counterfeit that the Democrats are spending to try to win an election.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and the rest of 'em just love to stand in front of crowds and say how they're going raise those taxes as if that's going to make it all better. Interesting how they never say exactly how much money that's going to generate and precisely what they plan to do with it. Just imagine for a moment that you're the head of a firm and announce that you're going to issue more stock to raise money from the investing public. You know the first question you're going to get from the Board of Directors? Probably along the lines of, just what do you plan to do with the cash? You better have an answer or you're going to be looking for a job. Any responsible business owner would know with a high degree of certainty how much capital he or she would need to raise to accomplish a particular goal, but that's not how government works. Your money is more of a play-toy to politicians.

There should be absolutely no consideration of a tax increase in a shaky economy without a full accounting of what government leaders plan to do with it -- period. And what is that makes people so happy to hear that one class of people or another are going to have to pay more? How do a cross section of voters, or the public gain from a 'get-the-rich' tax policy? Have any of the candidates explained how the majority of Americans will benefit from their lame-brain scheme?

No one's offered to transfer cash directly from one individual to another. No one's offered an assurance that anyone's circumstance will be better or outlined the economic advantages of a tax increase. It's not going to mean any more money in your pocket and there's not even a hit that it will make your life better, yet those throngs of wide-eyed Democratic believers stand and cheer every time their millionaire leaders say how they're going to stick it to the rich. Pitiful. The notion that a tax increase on a certain set of individuals is merely a play on class envy designed to get votes. That's lousy and might actually be economically debilitating.

If the goal is economic boom then the wasteful characters who spend your hard earned dollars need to reduce the trillions they throw around as if it's free money and cut taxes for all Americans. Try this exercise -- just ask five, maybe ten people if they'd be better off if less of their paycheck went to the I.R.S. It's fun and the answers will surprise no one. People want more of their own money and with it they'll save it, invest it, or spend it and all three things will help the economy.

Prosperity will come not from a check from the Treasury that most people will tear through in a matter of days, or weeks at the most. Prosperity will come from low taxes and reduced government spending, but that formula requires restraint and discipline on the part of the nation's political leadership, so it won't be happening.

Anonymous is convinced that the whole concept of a black vote is outdated, irrelevant and borders on racism.

The Black Vote

by Anonymous

The stories sprang to life almost immediately after the New Hampshire Primary. No doubt you saw some of them. They were all about how the Democratic Presidential candidates would vie for the black vote in the South Carolina primary. Just one question, what exactly is the black vote?

Politicians, consultants and news reporters all throw around the term and theorize about how this-or-that candidate will get black people to vote one way or the other. It's as if a certain set of issues will compel an entire people to act in unison. It's insulting and implies that black Americans are mindless drones who will be moved to react in concert because of a glossy message that speaks to what some political researcher says African - Americans want to hear.

African - Americans actually want what all Americans want: justice, fair treatment, an opportunity to succeed and freedom. How are those aspirations different than anyone else's? They aren't, yet political leaders and the media act as if black Americans have some particular set of needs that are unique to them and no one else, so candidates go to churches and speak with contrived Southern accents, then sing hymns and clap their hands with the conviction of a newly saved soul.

You can also find those same candidates at inner city community centers, talking about health care, education, welfare and other subjects that they think will win sympathy from the people there. Then they move on, whisked away in their oversized, black S.U.V.s, with heavily tinted windows and security personnel who protect their path out of the ghetto. Thanks for the visit.

And can someone please explain why any candidate preaches civil rights with such fury to blacks, as if African - Americans are going to be magically moved by the mere mention of hope and equality. Yes those things matter to them and yes racism is an ugly reality, but the civil rights message that black leaders have espoused since the '50s and '60s does nothing to address contemporary matters that involve discrimination.

Racism has morphed into a different entity. It is insidious, but more shadowy then ever, disguised in the form of set-asides, offering limited opportunities that bring resentment from those who do not benefit from entitlements. It is not the overt, Jim Crow segregation that used to be painfully easy to see, but the note that politicians sound when they're pandering to black Americans remains cloaked in the old, 'we shall overcome' message that does not speak to the more assertive posture that impoverished people must assume to break from poverty.

The assumption that a few words here and there about jobs or schools is enough to win the black vote is preposterous. Black Americans are not a uniform band of people, with a singular mind set, who will get swayed by a promise that things are going to get better, someday. How insulting. African - Americans are diverse thinkers, each individual with a unique set of principles and goals that are not necessarily rooted in the rant they hear during the election cycle.

To call any particular strategy an attempt to win the black vote demeans African - Americans and reduces their dreams to a paltry set of buzz words and catch phrases. Black people will continue to get this hollow treatment until black people insist on more. A politician should not and cannot be rewarded with any vote until the candidate demonstrates that he or she has earned it.

Black Americans must refuse to elect anyone based on skin color or party affiliation. Politicians have had it far too easy when it comes with winning the sympathies of African - Americans. The result: blacks represent a disproportionately high number of the prison population, are under represented in corporate board rooms and earn less -- on average -- than nearly every other ethnic group in America. There, that's what politicians have accomplished for African - Americans who've given them the black vote.

Maybe it's time to vote, not as a race, but as hard headed, deep thinking individuals, who refuse to be moved by candidates who offer catchy, luke-warm speeches about equality that so far have yielded next to nothing for American blacks.

Anonymous wonders if other Americans are livid about the prospect that the government is going to be late returning your money to you because Congress has been tinkering with a tax that punishes people who work hard and get ahead.

Legalized Theft

by Anonymous

There's a story that's been floating around in the financial press for months, that's now just starting to make it to the popular media. It's all about one rotten aspect of the I.R.S. code known as the Alternative Minimum Tax. Kind of an innocuous name that seems to imply the government's seeking a minimum amount of tax from you. It's exactly the opposite.

The Alternative Minimum dates back to 1969, when Congress passed it to collect booty from 155 families. Seriously 155, that's it. These were the richest in America and leaders felt it was high time the government raid their bank accounts. Today, 23 million Americans pay the A.M.T. What happened? The bumbling, stumbling, goofs who comprise much of the House and Senate forgot to index the thing that's now swallowed up billions and billions of dollars. Whoops!

That A.M.T. monster was never supposed to punish all those millions of people, but it does. The tax kicks in now for families that earn about $210,000. No big deal you say? Go ahead, soak the rich. They've got the money and they're not doing anything important with it. Sure they may want to pay college tuition for their children, invest it to create capital formation which enables firms to expand and employ people, or even save it to increase liquidity so that others who want loans can -- say, buy homes at affordable rates.

Oh yeah, another happy thought. That $210,000 threshold keeps getting lower. Next thing you know, families in the $175,000 dollar range will pay it, then those who earn $150,000 and before you can say, 'repeal the tax' maybe millions more will get to pay, maybe even you. Hooray taxes!

Another point. The tax is arbitrary, which makes it unfair, but what's new about that. The tax code itself is unfair. Say you're a couple and you live in Manhattan. Sure, you're pulling down $220,000, but what does that get you. The answer is, not much. That $220,000 in Greensboro, North Carolina means you may actually be on the wealthy side, but the tax code does not differentiate between. Neither does the A.M.T.

None of this matters to money hungry Congress Members, who simply cannot figure out how to live within their means and a President who's signed off on every bloated budget they've passed. The head of the clout heavy Ways and Means Committee compounded this tax mess by proposing this novel idea -- eliminate the A.M.T. and replace it with a tax increase. That bit of brilliance came from the sometimes barely functioning mind of Representative Charles Rangel, Democrat from New York, whose plan emitted the foul stench of a bad scheme that proposes to fix a problem by causing another. Congress -- hard at work.

Weeks of foolishness and wasted time resulted in a patchwork plan that basically left things the way they were, except for one thing. Your friends at the I.R.S. announced that it would take two and a half months to adjust their computers to account for all the rigamarole and the end result would be late tax refunds. Now, the kicker. All this wrangling means that $75 billion in refunds will be tardy, returns not only to people who earn six-figures, but also to low income wage earners. Those same Democrats who say they're working for little guy actually stuck it to them. Way to go, Democrats. Thanks again.

Anonymous found Barack Obama's call to cut-off aid for Pakistan alarming and even more evidence that there is simply no way he should become President.

Barack Obama -- Wrong on Pakistan

by Anonymous

Strange how events change things. Take this blog for example. It was going to be all about the ludicrous Alternative Minimum Tax -- how it punishes an increasing number of working Americans, how Democrats maybe want to eliminate it, but naturally replace it with another economically debilitating tax which will cost them the Presidential election in a close race. All that got pushed aside because of the the bonehead statement from Barack Obama about how the U.S. should now cut off aid to Pakistan. His idea is so outrageously insane that no amount of will power could keep Anonymous from pointing out how dangerous and reckless Barack Obama would be as President.

The tragic, disheartening assassination of Benazir Bhutto prompted Senator Obama to try -- once again -- to appear as if he's a tough, assertive leader. All he did was confirm that he has absolutely no idea how to handle international affairs, or much else for that matter. The idea that the U.S. should now cut off economic aid to Pakistan is the worst policy move imaginable. America should be more engaged and involved there, not less.

Pakistan is economically, strategically and culturally important to the U.S. None of that changed because the Bhutto assassination. Some parts of the nation are in chaos, political uncertainty is high which means the need for the U.S. to be engaged is even higher than ever. Now, imagine what would happen if Barack Obama were President (geesh!) and America cut off aid. There can only be one outcome from such a misguided strategy -- it would make a bad situation worse.

There is no question that the Musharraf regime has been corrupt and ineffective, but maybe one of Senator Obama's more astute aids should pull him aside inform him that Pakistan just happens to be an American ally in a part of the world where friends of the U.S. are hard to come by and tell him, by the way Barack, they've got the bomb. To stand by while a nuclear armed ally struggles through a time of major disruption and upheaval is just plain dumb.

Maybe the Junior Senator from Illinois wants to collect his proverbial toys and stomp his feet all the way home, but that childish move would not enhance America's interests. U.S. firms have substantial investments there, which are a key reason why Pakistan has an emerging middle class. No, President Musharraf has not led the way toward change, but remember it was American influence that helped him understand that he must relinquish control of the military. That happened because the U.S. stayed connected and is the very reason why America should stay involved now.

America has an opportunity to broker a positive change, help a people move toward Democracy, influence the path that Pakistan takes and have a lasting impact for decades to come. Nah -- let's follow Barack Obama's lead and simply walk away at this most critical moment. He rambles on and on about the politics of change, but this plan sounds more like political amateur hour.

Anonymous says it's the height of lunacy to give any consideration to who actress and professional gab artist Oprah Winfrey wants for President.

Stay Home Oprah

by Anonymous

Wow, what a scene -- throngs of screaming, adoring, dizzy fans gathered together to hear the ramblings of a woman who chats ad nauseam about fashion and pole dancing. This time Oprah was there not to tell them what book to read or film to watch. She was giving them guidance about who should run the most powerful nation on the planet. Analyze the event through the prism of time and it becomes especially easy to see the stunt for what it was -- meaningless.

Barack Obama is simply not qualified to be President. He lacks the experience, perspective, judgment that the job requires. Oprah Winfrey wants to deflect attention from that reality, but her gushing and fawning about him not work. She mouthed what Mr. and Mrs. Obama are trying to foist on the American public and that is that the nation needs a leader who can restore hope and belief to the populous. It makes for a mediocre news story but not much else.

Hope and belief do not solve problems. They do not negotiate arms agreements, they do not end war, they do not capture terrorists or spur economic growth and development, yet they are central to the Obama campaign and Oprah's around to merely augment that message. It's all so very silly. Think about it. Say you're considering a economic, or military advisor who comes a meeting on strategy and offers you hope. Perhaps you'd have the discipline to hide your astonishment, tell the individual, thanks for the time, never contact that person again, then proceed to find someone with experience. There's that word again, the one that scares Barack Obama and his pals who're doing everything they can to divert your attention away from it.

They've read the polls that say when voters are looking for a candidate based on experience they choose Sen. Clinton, but they find Barack likable. It's sheer insanity to think that the Democrats are going to select the person to run an international superpower because he's friendly and smiles real big. None of that matters. The worst thing that can happen for the Obama folks is that voters actually take a look at the world and decide based on what they see.

Scan the globe. American troops are involved in two wars, the value of the dollar is plunging, inflation is looming, the balance of trade deficit is hopelessly out of whack, foreign central banks practically own the domestic economy, U.S. stature is fading and rogue nations have no intention of giving up their designs on more weapons and power. Many parts of the African Continent are in chaos, the Middle East is fractured and Democrats are about to count on hope to pull it all together? Please.

There are some elements that may mitigate the misguided Barack-is-our-guy attitude among the unfocused public. One is that Americans are smart enough to vote for who they want and not who celebrities say they should elect. One big reason why the Oprah-for-Barack campaign will probably have zero impact on the who lands the job of Chief Executive.

Another aspect -- her association with him might actually damage his credibility. The polls also show that Americans already think of him as a 'celebrity candidate.' That feeds into the notion that he's qualified to deliver slick speeches that promise the stars and moon, but not equipped to do much else. Sure, they're marginally entertaining to watch, but they don't mean anything and are loaded with assurances that he could never fulfill, even if he spent all the bullion at Fort Knox.

Yes, it sounds noble to want to build schools all around the world, pay the tuition of everyone who wants to go to college and provide the insanely high level of health care that Congress members assured for themselves, but that's not going to happen, even in the extremely unlikely event that he wins the race.

Those problems deserve attention and are worth tackling, but it's going to take more than speeches to get it done, some of which he delivers with a phony southern accent to certain crowds below the Mason-Dixon line. Talk is cheap, whether it comes from him or his buddy Oprah, who cannot resist the urge to chime in on everything from her new diet to her new attitude. Chat all you want, Oprah but save it for your fluffy show and leave Presidential politics to the pros.

Anonymous sees indications that some in the news media as well as opposition candidates want to paint Republican Ron Paul as extreme, when he's actually more mainstream than anyone else in the race.

Ron Paul's the Man

by Anonymous

It was one of the subtle jabs, that maybe a mindless producer or other news staffer thought of to underscore Republican Ron Paul's view about the world's oldest profession. He believes that it's a waste of time, money and law enforcement personnel to have officers chase around after call girls, while career criminals victimize law abiding citizens. Some genius at one cable news operation invited the owner two legal brothels to appear for an interview about prostitution.

You may have seen the guy. He operates the Moonlight Bunny Ranch and BunnyRanch Two. The antics and shenanigans that happen inside those two establishments are the grist of a T.V. program that's designed to titillate and that's about all. Why then would anyone include him in any serious discussion about the matter? There is no reason for that man to be part of any serious discussion on the topic. He's an opportunist, a showman and has a huge bias, which is fine, but he cannot truly speak to the deep social implications of legalized prostitution.

The only purpose it served was to entice you to watch and -- in some ways -- equate that silly interview with Ron Paul. That's shameful. Rep. Paul and many others recognize the fundamental reality about most behavior, that's impossible to legislate away all the bad things that people do and when you try, you're simply affecting the cost of the activity. If the any action involves voluntary behavior, then the law to ban the activity is all but pointless.

This is not to say that prostitution, or even marijuana use or other non-lethal, fringe activities should be legal. It is an argument in favor or advancing the debate to a higher level while attempting to strip away the political posturing that usually surrounds the discussion. Crimes against individuals such as robbery, rape and murder are not the product of an agreement between two or more parties and should always remain illegal. Ron Paul and thousands of other intelligent people understand that the nation's resources are best spent on more serious matters than whether or not individuals chose to pay for sex, which has not led to the downfall of civilization and will not go away no matter how many laws are on the books.

This all leads to back to Rep. Paul and why he is the best of the bunch. He's the only candidate willing to advance the discussion on thorny social issues and despite what all the others are mouthing, he's perfectly clear about his views. No waffling. He parts company with other Republicans and opposes the Iraq War -- always has, he's never voted to raise taxes, he's never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership, he's never taken a government sponsored junket.

Not convinced. O.K., Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act, voted against regulating the internet, returns a portion of the money he receives to run his office to the Treasury and does not participate in that ridiculously rich Congressional pension plan. Go ahead and name any Presidential candidate, heck any politician who's as clear and as honorable as that.

Ron Paul identifies himself as a Republican, but he is actually a Libertarian, which winds up being the bent of more Americans than mainstream politicians are willing to admit. Capital "L" Libertarians probably do not support his strict pro-life stance. That's fine, because Libertarians actually understand that reasonable people can disagree and if you engage Rep. Paul in a debate on the matter he will certainly listen and acknowledge your viewpoint.

No surprise then that his character and views are gaining momentum. He's on target to raise at least $12 million this quarter and that total could easily be much higher. He's had to rely on gritty, grind-it-out campaigning, because popular media -- as usual -- are slow to understand new ideas, including the Ron Paul phenomenon. They're busy chasing the front runners, while they lap up tired speeches from politicians who want to prevent a vibrant campaign and keep new ideas from reaching the voting public. Refuse to let that to happen.

Even if you do not agree with Rep. Paul, give him a hearing. America is not about the staid, stale two party views that offer either some socially liberal ideas coupled with stupidly excessive spending that have bankrupted the nation, or a the purportedly conservative fiscal stand from the other side that comes with intrusions into your personal life. Neither will work, both are out dated, most everyone gets it except the majority of the nation's leaders. The fun part is, you get to let them know exactly where they can go with their broken policies by voting for someone who actually thinks before he opens his mouth.