Byron's Blog

It became abundantly clear to Anonymous that one of the biggest problems with the economy is that too few people understand it, especially that part about how investing offers no guarantees.

Legalized Gambling

 by Anonymous

Funny thing about financial markets, how they go up and down and all around. Sometimes there's logic behind the moves, sometimes there's nothing more than sheer emotion, but there are never any assurances that anyone who sinks even one dollar into an investment vehicle will get back any of it. The reason is as simple enough -- strictly speaking, the market place for securities is not much more than a venue for legalized gambling.

If you don't believe that, then just read the disclaimer that appears on every single prospectus that firms send to prospective investors. They usually say something along these lines -- "The Securities and Exchange Commission has not approved or disapproved the securities contained in this prospectus or passed on the accuracy or adequacy of this prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense." It's a way of saying, the government guarantees nothing and truth is, any broker, agent or investment advisor who guarantees you a return on any investment has violated that laws that regulate finance.

None of that resonates with the throngs of financially illiterate reporters who have been churning out story after story to appease readers, listeners and viewers, that purport to answer one question -- where are the safe places to invest your money? What they don't get is, there are no absolutes to investing and there really is no such thing as a safe investment. Every single one carries risk -- some more than others, but they all come with risk. Even the relatively dull, dry and drab world of money market funds come with disclaimers. So when you see news promotions or stories suggesting this or that report will show you how to keep your money safe, turn the channel, the page, or change the radio dial. That's because, the safest place for your cash is a safety deposit box. End of discussion.

Now that everyone's on the same page, let's consider what's wrong with the economy. One answer is nothing. Most people are giddy when the markets are boppin' along and portfolios values increase. Most people get testy when the markets are dropping and portfolios are values decline. Makes sense, but what those same people too often fail to recognize is that no market moves in a straight line. They go up, then they go down. It's that downward part that makes individual investors call their financial planners and start yelling.

Why the anger? Because those investors are jittery and may not understand the ol' Wall Street adage -- you make money when there's blood on the street. Sounds awful, but it's true. Too many people wait for a hot market, when the shrewd investor buys when a sector is in shambles. Just ask any Real Estate Agent about prices and value and you'll hear a ton. There are plenty of people who don't want anything to do with property, but agents will tell you, now may be the best time to buy because you have the anomaly of low prices and low interest rates. Remember -- buy low, sell high.

The same is true in the securities market. The Dow touched the 10,600 level in late September. The last time it was that low -- January 2006. The thing peaked at right around 14,000 about a year ago and has been trending down ever since. If you'd continue to buy during that decline, you could have taken advantage of the phenomenon called dollar cost average. That's a wonderful little miracle that enables you to buy shares in a fluctuating market at a discount. Just dedicate the same dollar amount to purchases over a regular interval and voila -- you've done it. Not only that, but all those shares you bought on the dip, will be worth a whole lot more when the market turns positive.

You could still make some bread, even if you're inclined to by in chunks, instead of over time. All you have to do is ask yourself, is the market a) relatively high or b) relatively low? If you answered 'b' then apply the buy low, sell high theory. Plenty of financial analysts will direct you to of the beaten and battered sectors, which includes -- you guessed it, financial services and bank stocks. Why, because the survivors will be in an excellent position for growth. Face it, Warren Buffet's decision to sink five billion into Lehman Brothers was not an act of benevolence. He did it because he plans to make money. The man's politics may be a bit nutty, but he does understand a thing or two about markets.

The truth is, executives at financial service firms are going to have their hands full hiring enough qualified people to keep pace with the huge number of prospective clients who're going to need help getting to retirement and then setting up accounts that they do not outlive. Bear in mind that the nation's largest population group is inching toward that day and many of those baby boomers have no idea how to structure their portfolios. There is also all the other stuff that people need to keep their lives in order, including all sorts of insurance products. This is all a way to say, the rubble of a collapsed sector can sometimes be the fertilizer that fuels economic growth.

None of this is to say that you can count on anything when it comes to selecting sectors for investment. A big part of the trick is to find some poor sucker who wants to buy when it's time to sell and sell when it's time to buy. That's the game. It's a straight up gamble, nothing more, nothing less. You can pad the odds with knowledge -- the ability to read a firm's financial statements, an understanding of macro economic trends, enough focus to spot trends and take advantage of them. Master all that and you can make money, just remember this: when it comes to investing, there are no guarantees.

It was absolutely astonishing for Anonymous to discover that if Congress would simply do nothing, energy firms could start to decrease the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil, which -- in turn -- would make life better for you.

Oil Drill

by Anonymous

It has to be the ultimate irony that the one time you need Congress to do nothing, the bumbling men and women who sit in the House and Senate are busy working to further muck up U.S. energy policy. If they would simply sit on their collective behinds, a technique they've practiced to perfection, then the ban on drilling in America's outer continental shelf would simply expire.

The ban's been in effect since the early 80s and has forced Americans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to import oil, a practice that means huge money for some not-so-savory characters who run nations where oppression is nothing more than a political tool and human rights are subject to the whims of the tough guy who's in charge.

The correct course of action seems obvious enough, let the ban come to an end, let oil firms explore the outer shelf and let the nation become more energy independent. It makes sense, but that's not how the government operates. Instead, the Gang of Ten, a group of Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators, has come up with a plan to spend $84 billion of your money for an assortment of subsidies. The question is, why spend your money when the oil companies are perfectly willing to spend theirs?

Oil firms have earned record amounts of dollars, by producing a product that Americans want and need. They provide a commodity that drivers willingly buy, the price of which has increased more slowly than inflation, and are eager to spend those profits to find more oil.

It's easy to get mad about those profits when the economy's in rough shape and certainly politicians are always ready to exploit that sentiment to deflect attention away from their incompetence. They beat up oil executives and blame them for nearly every evil, which is pure hypocrisy because those profits have generated a tremendous amount of tax dollars for all levels of government. Still, political types yell and scream about gas prices, then collect, with glee, the huge revenues they produce, while searching for ways to spend those dollars foolishly.

Another point that people in Washington D.C., most of whom are deficient in economic reasoning fail to note -- energy firms do not set the price of oil, they pay the prevailing rate. Strong men in oil producing nations establish those prices. You would be able to include the United States in the category of price makers to an increasing degree, but for some strange reason, there is not enough political will to permit exploration of the outer continental shelf. So, remind Anonymous once again, how exactly are big oil firms controlling energy policy?

Right now it's those ten Senators, who are pushing their plan to spend nearly $100 billion on a cockamamie idea that might not even work. What will work is to enable energy producers to do what they do best -- produce energy. Give them permission to start drilling and oil prices will almost certainly stabilize. The reason. Prices react not only to supply and demand, but expectations as well. There's no question that it will take time, maybe a considerable amount of time to extract oil from the outer continental shelf, but the mere expectation that it will come to market will be favorable for people who drive cars.

The ban on off-shore drilling is partly founded on the idea that the drilling could lead to an environmental catastrophe. Fair enough. No one wants globs of oil to gunk up American beaches, but doesn't it make sense to at least know how much is oil is out there? Apparently not to Barack Obama, who voted in 2005 to defeat a law merely to measure the amount of oil off shore. That's just bizarre.

American lawmakers should be doing everything they can to get out of the way and enable oil firms to use safe proven techniques to see how much oil they can find. The technology has evolved dramatically, from a 17 percent success rate in the 1970s, to a 70 percent success rate today. Think about it -- if you know that seven out of ten wells will strike oil, you might be in favor of not merely knowing how much is out there, but allowing oil companies the chance to bring it to market.

Not Barack Obama, who wants to prevent oil firms from tapping these fields. A word comes to mind about his position on this. Insincere. He says he wants to help the little guy and take on oil companies, but when the chance to help middle Americans presents itself, he hides behind rhetoric. Criticizing oil firms will not solve energy problems. Nor will multi-billion dollar crackpot Congressional programs that are laced with loony subsidies.

Embedded in the confused psyche of the American body politic is the notion that lawmakers can fix economic problems. The overwhelming majority of these men and women are lawyers. Let's start there. Lawyers argue and seek to win those arguments, sometimes regardless of whether or not their views are correct. Lawyers are students of the law, not students of economics.

It is possible to have a reasonable debate among economists with divergent views about how best to shape energy policy, but that crowd should never include politicians. They should simply apply the conclusions that the economists reach. Then again, House and Senate members could never let that happen because they would not get credit for the benefits that flow from the discussion and you know politicians could never stand for that.

Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on rich people will not hurt the truly wealthy and his plan to increase corporate taxes misses the mark too, at least that's what Anonymous concluded from the application of basic economic principles coupled with some elementary investment strategies.

 Soak the Rich

by Anonymous

That nutty Barack Obama. There's no way he can actually be serious with all that talk about tax increases on the rich and for corporations, because the fallout will be nothing but pain for working Americans. On second thought, maybe he is serious, after all, the junior Senator from Illinois has likely never spent any time in business school, or run a corporation. Had he acquired at least some economic acumen, he would know that what he's proposing hurts the very people he claims he wants to help. That whole 'soak-the-rich' concept sounds great when its woven into those hollow speeches he recites, that get get ovations from frustrated Americans who want a shot at prosperity, but Barack's wacky ideas are more evidence of just how ill equipped he is to be President.

Let's start with his plan to increase taxes on wealthy Americans, which -- by the way -- he says includes anyone who earns more than $250,000 a year. First of all, a quarter million dollar a year salary may be big bucks if you live in Eureka, California or Presque Isle, Maine, but there's no way it makes you wealthy if you live in a major American city, but that's the kind of narrow minded, one-size-fits-all thinking that illustrates the severe limitations of Barack Obama's capacities.

Now, to the point. Say you have $2.5 million under management with a competent investment advisor. You can easily collect $125,000 a year and never pay a nickel in federal tax, no matter how high income tax rates climb. How is it possible? Just invest in municipal bonds. No one pays federal income tax on any municipal bond dividend, some of which yield in the neighborhood of five percent right now.

The rules about that date back to an 1895 Supreme Court decision that established the Doctrine of Reciprocal Immunity, also known as the Doctrine of Mutual Reciprocity. Basically it says that a government entity can only tax the interest from the securities it issues, which is why you pay federal income tax on the interest from U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, but no state or local tax. So you see, the federal government can never collect tax on the interest payments from municipal bonds or municipal bond funds.

Now, Imagine that you're even richer than that guy with the $2.5 million. Say you've got $5 million and you're working with that same advisor. Now you can draw $250,000 a year in dividend payments, tax free. The larger the amount invested, the larger your tax free income, so people who are already rich will stay that way. That's just one reason why Senator Obama's plan will never hurt the truly wealthy.

Here's another reason. The tax advantages from investment property, which include not only the a tax deduction for the mortgage interest, but maintenance expenses as well. A wealthy individual can simply buy an assortment of rental homes and fork over a down payment that enables the investor to draw tax free income. A smart accountant can calculate just how much income the investor should receive, based on the offset from deductions. Voila, more tax free income.

Those are merely two examples. You better believe there are tons more, so you see Barack Obama's plan to soak the rich primarily hurts middle Americans who work long hours, with the intent of becoming prosperous. Chances are, your earnings are taxes as ordinary income and remember, tax rates increase as you gain success, which is a drag for middle class Americans who have chosen to attempt the difficult journey to wealth. Barack Obama's plan will make it immanently harder for people who are trying to achieve the American dream and leave those with existing wealth virtually unaffected.

What if the the misguided Senator manages to increase the income tax rate on people who make $250,000 a year or more? Thousands upon thousands of individuals will chose investments that enable them to adjust their taxable income downward. The result is, they'll never pay the 39.6 percent rate he wants for top income earners, which also means the estimates regarding the revenue the government anticipates will most certainly be wrong. That miscalculation could lead to even more taxes to bridge the gap between the amount of money the government expected to collect and what it actually receives. Nice going, Barack.

Now, to the notion about how corporations should pay more tax -- let's say you're the top dog at a Fortune 500 corporation and Barack Obama gets his way. How will you react? You'll raise prices, fire people or both. Who's that going to hurt? You guessed it, the very people to whom Barack Obama kowtows every time he opens his mouth -- working people who will have a harder time than ever finding a job, keeping a job and a tougher time than ever paying for increasingly expensive goods and services. Where again did Barack Obama go to business school?

None of this gets to his strangely confused energy plan that's a moving target, makes absolutely no sense and will cause the most pain for middle Americans. It's some hodge-podge of a tax increase on oil companies and restricted off-shore drilling (or maybe not, depending on which ways the political winds are blowing). He seems to think that a tax on oil profits and more free money for Americans in the form of a $1,000 rebate check based on that additional tax, is simply grand. It's actually irresponsible and will translate to higher prices for you.

If Barack gets his wish, billions of dollars that oil company executives want to invest to find more product, employ more people and supply you with gas, will go away. The result will be higher prices and a nation increasingly beholden to foreign sources of oil, hardly ideal. You see, when American oil companies strike deals with those tough guys who run nations that sit of oodles of oil, they have to give them a substantial piece of the action. That impacts profits and the price you pay for gas. When those same firms produce the oil from places in and around America, it costs them less and is a better deal for you.

So why does Barack yammer ceaselessly about cracking down on oil firms and raiding their profits? Because it makes him appear as if he stands for something when he really does not. None of this discussion even touches on the notion of how his wacky ideas will limit capital formation and produce inflation -- grist perhaps for another dose of hard truth about Barack Obama, who does not have enough abilities to be a U.S. Senator, let alone President.

The sum total of what he says is vapid, void of substance and economically debilitating. What he plans will not matter to people of great means, if the worst happens and he gets elected. They will adjust their portfolios accordingly and continue on their way, leaving hard working people to bear the brunt of his ridiculous, thick headed notions about the economy. Good luck with him, America.

It occurred to Anonymous the other day that the light headed, self centered and narcissistic politicians who run the nation could stand to take a page from the book of an old school, big time philosopher who said, most rulers have it wrong -- the king should serve the people.

Where Art Thou, Leviathan?

by Anonymous

It had to be a dreamy moment for any true political science junkie -- the column from a recent edition of Investor's Business Daily about 17th century political deep thinker Thomas Hobbs. Now, before you allow your eyes to glaze over, as they did during those excruciating college lectures about the man consider this, his point about who's in charge and how the king should run things. Seems that brainy fellow hit on something that slams home a critically important point, lo these four centuries later. Turns out T. Hobbs believed that the king was ultimately beholden to the people.

Sure, there was all that tough guy stuff about how the head honcho should have absolute authority over religion, justice, the military and all other important aspects of life, but the bottom line was, the big cheese had an obligation to protect the people from all forms of savagery, including war. It was a reciprocal type thing -- the people agree to the rules, the ruler agrees to protect the people from thieves, thugs and other undesirables. If the ruler botched the arrangement, the deal was off.

Somehow, in the span of centuries between then and now, the concept got inverted. Now days, people seem to think politicians run the nation when it's supposed to be vice-versa. Politicians dictate how much tax you have to pay, while you stand there and take it. Congress members run up a debilitating debt and instead of reining in their spending they demand that you pay more, then have the gaul to say it's about you contributing your fair share. Exactly who determines what's fair? Certainly not you.

The phenomena that have caused this topsy-turvy relationship between rulers and the ruled has given rise to the nauseating cult of personality that's now embedded in American politics. News accounts glorify popular politicians, snap pictures looking upward at them as they wave to crowds with broad smiles and stand in front of red, white and blue backgrounds. Lost in the glorification is the duplicity of what they say -- a promise to serve your needs while they serve themselves.

That self-serving violates a basic tenant from the epic book Mr. Hobbs wrote called the Leviathan, a king who was the embodiment of the people. Every self respecting student of politics has read it. It's thick, it's deep, but it's clear that once the ruler mucks up the arrangement, the deal's off.

Interestingly, affirmation of the concept came in the form of unsolicited e-mail just the other day. Normally Anonymous ignores these electronic annoyances, but this one got a rare read. It's circulating under the heading of 545, which represents one President, nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices, 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 U.S. Senators. It's passionate, takes aim at both Democrats and Republicans, and says, if you're wondering about the source of the sometimes overwhelming number of problems in America, simply direct your attention to those 545 individuals.

The e-mail sites the author as columnist Charley Reese, whose logic is irresistible. "Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?" Great question. "You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does."

It gets better. "The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force Congress to accept it." Sounds about right. "Who is the Speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President can approve any budget they want." His point -- politicians campaign against the very problems they create and do nothing to fix them. "(D)o not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mythical forces like 'the economy, 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do."

Seems pretty clear that American political leaders have broken the social contract with the people. They have been busy though, giving themselves unbelievably generous pension plans and health coverage. (Interesting how so many of them enter politics as middle class Americans and leave as millionaires. Wonder how that happens?)

Perhaps some of their behavior would be tolerable if the nation were in immaculate shape. That's the foundation of Hobbs' Leviathan concept, but modern American politicians have failed on the most important part of the arrangement, that bit about improving your condition. You actually have the power to fire the whole lot of them. Think of how good that would feel and seriously, you can't do any worse than what you've got now.

Somewhere between the decline of good journalism and now Anonymous says news organizations morphed into public relations outlets and one of the most revolting examples of this is the way they've chosen to market the Obamas.

Marketing the Obamas

by Anonymous

It used to be that when you picked up the newspaper or watched a newscast, you got news. You know, the straight stuff -- information that enabled you to make smart choices about they way you lived you life. The reporting about candidates and campaigns reflected that. The stories were hard headed. They focused on what politicians said and did. They informed you about their records and such. Ah, the good old days.

Turn on the T.V. now, or read a newspaper and you get soft, gushy stories about the Obamas -- how much they love each other, where they go for dinner, where Michelle shops for clothes, what Barack listens to on his i-pod. Just one question -- exactly when did it become O.K. to care more about a candidates lifestyle than his record?

Journalism in America has reached a new low with this drivel of useless stories about a man who has neither the experience nor the capacity to be the leader of the most powerful and influential nation on the planet. The absurdly voluminous stories on his every utterance, twitch or meal from the recent Obama world tour was not only annoying, but an embarrassment to journalism. Splashy, bold headlines with glorious, triumphant pictures of Barack Obama appear in newspapers day after day. Then there are the electronic media, trailing after him as if he were a deity and his mere words could provide enlightenment.

The men and women who call themselves journalists somehow cannot seem to remain focused on his ridiculous notions or his mad dash to the center of the political spectrum to appease every single voter he can. Instead, reporters and their editors seem to think it's acceptable to spend precious air time and column inches telling you a whole lot of nothing about how he and Michelle met, or what they like to do on dates.

The sad part is that there appears to be no end to this madness. Story after story glorifies this guy and it's obvious that his handlers are successfully manipulating the media. Do not blame his people. Blame those to allow themselves to be suckers.

Watch as the reporting about his wife start to cast her in a warm glowing light. Why is that happening? Well, plenty of people have a negative opinion of her so naturally the Obama machine is spoon feeding stories to news operations about the softer side of Michelle. You can read ad nauseam about her hobbies and devotion to family. Wow, that's great. So interesting.

Bad enough that you have to suffer with all this mess, but another problem is the reporting is so blatantly lopsided. Where are the stories about Cindy McCain and the gobs of philanthropic work she's done. Look hard for those, because they're going to be hard. You'll also find it difficult to see any reporting on the McCains' favorite restaurant or where they prefer to vacation, because -- you see -- those news accounts are reserved exclusively for the Obamas.

When the media do finally acknowlege that, oh by the way, there is another candidate, they talk about how McCain's voters are less fired up that Barack's or even flip facts to ensure that the reporting centers on that under qualified Senator from Illinois. One example involved fundraising. Normally those stories start with who's got the most money, but not when it comes to Barack Obama. Instead of reading, McCain campaign leads in fundraising, one recent story made sure the reporting centered on Barack Obama. It said how Obama's setting a torrid fundraising pace and that he's closing the gap between him and Sen. McCain. Seriously, that's how it went. Anything to give Barack an edge, I suppose.

Credibility is difficult to gain and easy to lose which is why it's so troubling to see so many news organizations fritter it away on glorified Barack Obama coverage. Leave aside for a moment the long and troubling list of reasons he should never be President. (Anonymous will happily address them once again through another blog.) The news media are not only doing a major disservice to the nation by shamelessly promoting a man who has no business running America, they are also irreparably damaging themselves.

News consumers are smart enough to see that they're getting skewed campaign coverage. It's deplorable and irritating, but apparently will continue. It's sad, really that straight reporting has yielded to this mesh of hodge-podge, herky-jerky journalism that heaps adoration on a guy because of no good reason, but that's the way it is now. What a shame.

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 BLEEP-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.