To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of  this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.

First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.

However, what you don't see is the back story.

I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend.  There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... You never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.

Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this
country.

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.

Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about....

Forlornly,
Pete

Noah circa 2009 right here in the US of A,

 

Take 10 minutes to watch this video of Obama voters exiting the polls.  Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does." Comedian Ron White said "You can't fix stupid."

Henry Ford was able to assert, “You can have any color you want . . . as long as it’s black” because lots of people chose to have an automobile rather than ride a horse.  When GM started producing competitively-priced cars in a number of colors, Ford either had to provide color choices or lose market share . . . big time.  Choices have consequences.  Behaviors have consequences.

Should the federal government have stepped in to bail out Ford, if he’d wanted to continue producing only black?

 The “Big Three” (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) back in the day all had their CEOs supporting the same political candidates as the bosses of the UAW.  In labor negotiations, a deal was cut with the “targeted” company du jour, and then an almost-identical deal was “negotiated” with the other two. The contracts for workers were “too good to be true” and thought possible only because there was no one producing colors.  The four parties – GM, Ford, Chrysler, and the UAW – were the American auto industry.

 Then came colors.  The likes of Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, VW, Mercedes, et al, came to America, ignored Detroit, ignored Michigan, ignored the UAW, ignored the paradigm, ignored the deal; opened plants in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, the Carolinas.  Each made deals with plant workers that were good, but not “too good to be true.”

 The now-sorta-big three today are in the same position that Henry Ford was back in the day.  And so is the UAW.  And so are its members.  If the automakers there choose to continue from the same old playbook – despite what’s going on down south from Motor City – they’ll either suffer disastrous consequences or have the federal government step in and allow them to continue with black.  If the UAW and its members choose to continue from the same old playbook – despite what’s going on down south from Motor City – they’ll either suffer disastrous consequences or have the federal government step in and allow them to continue with black.

 The market – the real world – dictates that they change the playbook or perish.  A government bailout won’t change the market, won’t change reality, just push it down the road, and not far.  Henry Ford understood the market, did the right thing.  Will the auto titans of Detroit finally get it?  Will the bosses of the UAW?  Will the autoworkers themselves, both present and retired?  We can only hope so . . . for their sakes.

Saturday November 8 I sent the e-mail letter below:

Dear Ana Gomez-Mallada:

Your e-mail with Rebuild the Republican Party was forwarded to me by Sandra Schimmelfennig of Madison, Alabama, that because she knows what I am working on.  I thought that almost all of your message was spot-on and hugely important.  Let me contrast my view, focus on with what I disagree.

 I can only hope that America hasn’t passed the tipping-point, both slouching towards Gomorah and sliding towards some combination of socialism and fascism.  If I could have persuaded my wife, we’d have moved to Panama, evacuating our assets. I can’t persuade her, so I have to persuade America.  Critical is saving America, not saving the GOP.  If I thought that a third party could succeed at saving America, I’d be going that way.  I don’t.  If I thought that the Republican Party could be rebuilt, I’d be going that way.  I don’t.  I’m working to co-opt the Republican Party.

 The closest boots-on-the-ground webvehicle to what’s needed that I see isn’t of either the DNC or the RNC.  It’s outside and independent.  In 2004 in Pennsylvania RINO and CINO incumbent Arlen Specter defeated true-conservative Republican Pat Toomey . . . narrowly.  The RNC and its titular head, President George W. Bush, saved Specter.  It defeated Toomey and discouraged bright-true-conservative-potential candidates across the fruited plain.  Officially, county GOP organizations are neutral in primaries, while unofficially they favor incumbents.  To not do so would be unseemly, offensive, and rude.  Ditto state and national.

 America’s viable future depends on having, first, a true-conservatives’ majority in both House and Senate; and, second, a true-conservative POTUS.  My plan focuses on the House and Senate in 2010.  With 435 House races and but 16-17 Senate, focus between them must be equal while results expectations favor the House.  Critical is getting Pat Toomeys, not Arlen Specters, identified, recruited, funded and campaigned for in, say, 350+ congressional districts and, say, 13+ senate races from border-to-border and sea-to (shining)-sea, including against Republican incumbents.  Given how the RNC functions, and how state and county GOPs function, collaboration with the Party will naturally begin post-primary.

Given continuation of an Obama presidency, my hope for 2011 is that we can halt the slouching and sliding.  Another hope for 2011-2012 is that in Congress conservatives will attempt to fulfill Contract with America II only to affect repeated presidential vetoes.  (See the "Cliff's Notes" version  of the Contract here.)  The case for true conservatism versus liberal socialism/fascism will be stark.  Given declining influence from “mainstream” news media, and our boots remaining energized and on the ground, November of 2012 may be the reverse tipping-point, and in 2013 and 2014 much of Contract with America II can actually be implemented.

GetAmericaRight.org (and .com) will be (not up yet) a web 2.0 bottom-up transactional webvehicle.  It will recruit members, e-mail subscribers for news bulletins, contributions, advertising.  It will provide headline news with comments following, professional videos, links (including, maybe, to yours).  Most content will emanate from congressional districts and states.  It will encourage formations of meet-ups within congressional districts, working toward identifying, recruiting, funding and campaigning for GAR primary candidates, and identifying and recruiting more members.

Would I like to see a “rebuilt” Republican Party that’s stronger than the Democrats?  If it’s one that multiplies the size of the federal Department of Education?  No.  If it’s one that gives us Medicare Part D?  No.  If it’s one that throws Pat Toomey overboard in favor of an incumbent who almost scuttled good Supremes nominations?  No. If it’s one that leads Democrats towards socialism/fascism with the recent bailout(s)?  No.  If it’s one that “reaches across the aisle” to form gangs of 10 or of 12?  No. If it’s one wherein any elected official, when sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, can and does so swear without crossing his fingers or having a Pinocchio moment?  Yes. Hell, yes.

 If that’s the GOP you’re (re)building, Ana, count me in.  Meanwhile, my task is daunting and I’m a neophyte, so I’d like your encouragement and support and assistance; along with that of Erick Erickson, of Patrick Ruffini, of Matt Lewis, of Mike Rempasky, of  Jon Henke, of  Ben Domenech, of Soren Dayton, et al.

 

Enthusiastically,

 Pete Stevens

Louisville, Tennessee

    Those who led the riots in Los Angeles, at the Democrat convention in Chicago in '68, who shot police and bombed the Pentagon; those virulent and violent, radical anti-America, anti-capitalism, anti-American culture, Saul Alinski-devotee, Marxists; they did not grow up to become titans of industry or copies of their parents and teachers.  Rather, they invaded academe and became professors, invaded foundations that fund "community organizers", social-service bureaucracies that redistribute moneys and whine, invaded Hollywood, newspapers and television.

    They were defeated forty years ago -- temporarily -- because they were on the outside, because they didn't influence, much less control, the police, the National Guard, the military.  Their agenda hasn't changed.  They still want to defeat America as we know it, defeat capitalism, obliterate American culture.

    What has changed, however, is that in just ten days America seems ready to vote to have those domestic terrorists take over and control the police, the National Guards, the military, both the public- and private-sector labor unions, the "bully pulpit", the State Department, America's foreign policy, America's economy.  The coup has been masterful and brilliant!

    On your way to becoming a radical (?) outsider, please enjoy some clips of The Messiah 1995-present.  Subject any final doubt you might have about whether Barack Obama is a Marxist to the core to this 2001 NPR interview segment.  As to the liklihood that he can achieve his agenda see this column on our tipping point from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution; and see today's in-trade market odds showing that betting is 87.7 Obama to 12.5 McCain.

    It's amazing to listen when people explain why they're gonna vote for Barack Obama.  Even Colin Powell, but in his case, it certainly has nothing to do with race.  Certainly folks in Harlem know why they're voting for Obama.

    In an earlier quiz I posted my answers to the biggest problems faced by America were (1) liberalism and (2) ignorance.  Do you think McCain-Palin will lose because of #1 or #2?

    San Francisco has a Prop K on the November ballot which would disallow local police enforcement of California's laws against prostitution.  If it passes, should we then close the case on the question of whether folks in the City by the Bay (where we all left our hearts) are looney?  No.

    That case has long been closed.  When a city pays people to be homeless?  Case closed.  When a city delays firing an employee until her live-in partner's sex-change procedure is completed because it's being paid for by city-provided "health" insurance?  Case again closed.

    The second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  "Liberty" implies property.  Any of us has an unalienable right to do whatever we wish with our property as long as we don't infringe on another's identical unalienable right.  It is why murder is, and should be, a crime.  It is also why suicide should not be a crime.  It's my body and my life.  It's why I wrote here last month that there's no such thing as "price gouging."  Our U.S. Constitution was crafted for the sole purpose of protecting these individual rights.

    Laws prohibiting prostitution violate both the prostitute's and the john's unalienable right to liberty and property.  It's her body, his money.  It's why there should be no laws proscribing smoking in restaurants.  It's up to the restaurateur to decide, not government.  It's why there should be no "War on Drugs."  If I want to fry my brain, it's my brain.  It's why each of us should be free to put our organs up for sale on, say, ebay.

    Ok, so I'm concluding that the folks in San Francisco this November may lower their score on the loon meter.  But, I'm not certain that I've offended the heck outa every reader so far, so a quick quiz.

    Michael Vick pled guilty yesterday before a judge in Virginia's case against him.  It's thought that doing so might reduce his prison time on the federal charges.  Question:  Are Vick's sentences for his dog-fighting operation (a) too lenient, (b) about right, or (c) infinitely too harsh?  Now that we've settled that, other questions:  Whose dogs were they?  On whose (real estate) property were Michael Vick's dogs fighting?  No matter how offensive you feel Vick's behavior was, you do not have an unalienable right to be unoffended.  The correct answer is "c".

Obama and McCain Tax Proposals

According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and

Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

            The law that would suppress broadcast speech, if and only if it disagrees with leftist-liberal doctrine, cleverly dubbed with the demagogic moniker Fairness Doctrine, will pass and be signed into law in 2009.  Rush Limbaugh, et al, will appeal to the federal courts, but the odds of not facing a leftist-liberal judge are slim.  Such a case will likely have to be finally appealed to, and heard by, the U.S. Supreme Court.  Its make-up is but slightly better today than the one which failed to overturn McCain-Feingold.  The only reason I see for the Democrat-controlled congress to delay passing this clearly-unconstitutional bill would be to first add another leftist-liberal-activist justice or two to the Supremes.

             Conservative talk radio accurately portrays itself as “opinion”, as “commentary”.  The New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, and on and on all inaccurately portray themselves as “news”, as “the press”.  The so-called Fairness Doctrine will, thus, not apply to them.

             Liberals cannot succeed in talk radio because the format demands the ability to argue.  Argument requires the use of data and facts, of logic and evidence.  Especially when wit and humor are added, the format can be entertaining and compelling.  It’s fun.  Liberals cannot and do not argue; they bicker.  As George Will opines, “For conservatives seeing is believing while for liberals believing is seeing.”  Liberals believe in “diversity” in any and all cases, except with respect to ideas.

             A liberal talk show host recites dogma.  If a caller agrees precisely, there’s nothing more to say.  Next dogma.  That’s not entertaining.  If a caller disagrees, the host rants and attacks.  It’s not witty or humorous; it’s not entertaining or compelling; it’s ugly, mean, and unpleasant . . . even for liberal listeners.  Liberal hosts go after recalcitrant callers like “the press” has gone after Sarah Palin (and her family) and gone after Joe the Plumber.  They’re not angry; they’re mad.

            Some 12,000 San Franciscans  have a ballot initiative to name a building the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.   A woman was attacked in NYC a few days ago because she was carrying a McCain sign.  In late September, also in NYC, a small McCain parade in the liberal upper west side brought out crowds of liberals vastly outnumbering the marchers, shouting epithets and threats and brandishing skyward-pointing middle digits while holding hands with their small children with the other hand.  College campi across the country have “speech codes” to sanction “offensive speech”, which is code for “conservative” or not liberal doctrine.  If you’re passing a college campus in May, and you hear loud booing and shouting, you’re passing one of the very very few with a conservative commencement speaker.  A Florida 7^th grader was called "racist" for wearing a McCain-Palin tee shirt.  Even liberal 7^th graders don’t argue; they bicker, they assault.  They must learn that from their parents . . . at parades.

             There is no-nil-nada-zip-zilch point in any of us – or John McCain or conservatives in congress, that small group over there in the corner – trying to argue with those who want to silence talk radio.  They don’t argue.  “Reaching across the aisle” and “bipartisanship” are also code.  They mean conservatives cave and forego any principle.  “Maverick” is also code.  It means without an ideological core or principle, ego- and self-esteem-challenged, seeking affirmation.

             Liberals own America’s news media, its unions, its colleges and universities, its k-12 government schools, its federal bureaucracies, its lawyers and judges, its gimmes (all those people who vote for a living).  They are visibly opposed by about thirty congressmen, a half-dozen senators, and conservative talk radio; that’s it, that’s all.  When we – U.S. Constitution-abiding, America-loving, principled conservative ideologues – elect ten times as many true-conservative senators and eight times as many true-conservative congressmen, who will run on my Contract with America II, then we might just save America.

             Here in Tennessee, we have one -- just one -- congressman, mine, John J. Duncan, who fills the bill.  We have two more  -- Zach Wamp and Marsha Blackburn -- who might be swayed or coerced into camp.  That leaves six congressional districts where we need to start from ground zero.  Our two U.S. senators -- Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker -- are both lost-cause Republicans.  Alexander will be re-elected next month, while Corker comes up again in four years.

 

The federal government’s job – its only job – is to protect individual liberty, that unalienable right each of us has from the Creator.  That is why national defense is its job.  That is why we properly have laws proscribing collusion in restraint of trade.  That is why we have laws enforcement and courts to sanction those who usurp others’ liberty and property.

That is why labor unions should be illegal.  They usurp liberty of both employers and prospective employees.  That is why, just as one example, Medicaid should be illegal. Either it usurps liberty and property from doctors and other medical professionals or from taxpayers like me who are forced to pay for someone else’s property.*  Farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, sugar and steel tariffs, subsidized housing, any and all forms of welfare are all unconstitutional and should be illegal.

*  Postscript tangent:  If you wanted healthcare services, lacked money to pay, came to my door with a gun, and demanded money to pay for your doctor, I could have you arrested.  If you went to your doctor, presented a gun, and demanded free services, she could have you arrested.  If you get congress to force either me or your doctor or both (with threat of a gun if necessary) to provide same, that works.

 Dr. Thomas Sowell recently said, “Prices are like messengers carrying the news of supply and demand. Like other messengers carrying bad news, they face the danger that some people think the answer is to kill the messenger, rather than taking steps to change the news.”  So when a gas station owner substantially raises price or a hotelier does so, the hue and cry from the ignorant whiners is “price gouging”.  Your president, your congressmen and senators line up at the mics and decry the selfish and uncaring opportunist businesspeople and promise to do something about it.  Kill the messenger.

 The gas station owner owns the station and the gas.  She may offer it for sale at any price she wishes.  Liberty.  You may choose to buy at that price or not.  Liberty.  You own your money.  Is this a good thing from a market perspective?  Yes.  Price balances supply and demand.  Is it a good thing from a constitutional perspective?  It’s not just good; it’s essential.  The federal government’s job here is to assure this, not to proscribe it.

 Each of us has an unalienable right to stupidity or just being wrong or making a wrong decision. It’s liberty.  And the job of the federal government – its only job -- is to defend and protect that right.  Behaviors have consequences, and they should.  Some decisions and behaviors result in profit.  Some result in loss.  It’s how smart and responsible people learn.  Reward and punishment.

 Often the federal government behaves badly, and behaviors have consequences.  President Bill Clinton in 1995 – pressured by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, et al; by the likes of Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines; by the Congressional Black Caucus, including then new guy Barack Obama; all of them, either in cahoots with or coerced by ACORN – lowered reserve requirements and regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that they could buy more commercial banks’ mortgage loans.**  These were the ones that ACORN had intimidated these banks to make for sub-prime borrowers, minorities and people of color, people who had virtually no-nil-nada-zip-zilch ability or discipline to pay back.  This wasn’t the beginning of the problem, but was likely the tipping point.

 Banks wrote the mortgages, sold them to Fannie and Freddie.  Fannie and Freddie packaged bundles and sold them to investors as MBS (mortgage-backed securities).  Soon the investors started to notice the salmonella hiding under some of the lettuce in the salad.  Behaviors have consequences.  The investors stopped buying and looked elsewhere for investment opportunities.  Wooops.  Fannie and Freddie were stuck.  The house of cards collapsed.

 So here we are in 2008, looking to a Democrat-led congress to solve the credit crisis that they and their predecessors – 1938, 1968, 1970, 1977, 2003, 2005 – created.  First mistake.  Johnson, Raines, Frank, Waters, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, et al, should have been perp-walked out of congress.  And a special prosecutor should have been assigned to ACORN.

 What the lame-duck president did, aided by both POTUS-wannabees, with the full cooperation of the congressional perps and with conservative capitulation was to pass a 400+-page, $700+- billion, pork-palace, usurping the unalienable liberty of each and every American.  Second and supreme mistake.

 Incontravertably, congress knows that the behavior you reward tends to be the behavior you get, vica-versa vis-à-vis punishments.  They show this all the time with subsidies and taxes.  So what congress, the president and the POTUS wannabees did was to reward with bailouts all of those who erred in decision making and behavior – Johnson, Raines, Frank, Waters, Dodd, Pelosi Reid, et al, ACORN, GSEs, MBS bankers and insurers, sub-prime-mortgage defaulters – while punishing tax-paying homeowners who continue to make their mortgage payments on time and in full.  Third mistake.

 Back in 1990, the federal government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we trust the economy of our country to a pack of bozos who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling booze?  We saw what happened when Hoover and Roosevelt – both enamored of that Joseph Stalin guy – tried to have the federal government control and take over the private sector.  Depression.  We saw what happened when the central government of the Soviet Union tried to run the economy: shortages, rationing, poverty, and collapse.

 The collective genius of the American economy is its millions of individuals acting in their own enlightened self-interest, knowing what each knows, seeking profits, working to avoid losses.  Both the profits and the losses reinforce lessons . . . unless the federal government intercedes, not knowing what each knows, incapable of knowing what each knows, rewarding mistakes, rewarding stupidity, punishing prudence, punishing responsible behavior.  Ok, you say, but at least they’re gonna regulate those bankers and insurers and investors and speculators, right?  Yep, they’re sure gonna.  Fourth mistake.

 The federal government wants to regulate these guys to stifle greed.  Greed?  They behaved that way because the wanted to go bankrupt?  Wanted to lose their jobs?  That’s a nonsequitur.  Government wants to regulate because it can. It’s power.  It’s control.  If you regulate speculation, you’ll regulate innovation, invention and creativity.  Regulation is a governor on the economy’s throttle.  It stifles exactly what made America the most-prosperous nation in the history of humankind . . . by a bunch.

**  Postscript tangent:  Since the tipping point was probably the deregulating of Fannie and Freddie, should congress and the prexy reregulate them?  No.  Wrong question.  Right question?  Should congress and the prexy eliminate Fannie and Freddie?  Yes.  Read the Constitution, then re-read.  That enumerated power is found where?

 What should the federal government have done?  After the perp-walk and beginning the prosecution of ACORN, congress should have passed HR-25 and S-1025, aka The FairTax, and started the process of repealing the 16^th amendment. No-nil-nada-zip-zilch infringement on individual liberty or property.  Indeed, a restoration of liberty and property.  No rewarding bad behavior or punishing good.  Not government doing; government undoing.  While awaiting implementation of the above, the federal government should have suspended the capital-gains tax for three years.  More undoing, while allowing more private capital investment.  It might also have been smart to suspend all federal business taxes for the same period.  That would have brought U.S. dollars home from abroad for additional private capital investment.

 Why did we get what we got?  Why didn’t we get the government undoing?  I mean, don’t behaviors have consequences?  Yes.  Don’t bad decisions have bad consequences?  Yes.  Yes for us, but not for government.***  It’s like someone said of the late Senator Wellstone of Minnesota:  “He’s the most-generous man I ever met . . . with other people’s money.”

***  Postscript tangent:  You'd be hard-pressed to identify the federal official -- legislative, executive, judiciary -- who, when sworn in (to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States) didn't either have his fingers crossed or had his nose grow longer. Maybe, the last two Supremes and Justice Thomas.  Bush no.  McCain no.  Obama no.  Clintons no.

    The relationships of Barack Obama, ACORN, local banks nationally, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then President Bill Clinton and VP Al Gore, along with their Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros, and congressional Democrats; all of their roles in creating the current credit and mortgage crisis are studiously explained in a National Review Online lengthy piece by Stanley Kurtz. 

    Additionally, how ACORN -- a central player in the above -- is continuing to defraud to this very day on behalf of Barack Obama is described colorfully today in a Michelle Malkin Townhall column.  Both are must-reads.

    I'll not editorialize on the contents.  I've been taught that information is power.  However, I disagree.  I believe that information is prerequisite to power.  You then have to do something with that information.  You are so invited.

According to mywaynews, John McCain during last night's debate proposed a $300 billion buy-up of failed homeowner mortgages so as to stabilize the market.  (After the first three minutes, I turned off the "debate".  I couldn't watch.)  "Is it expensive? Yes," McCain said.

To whom does McCain think it's expensive, the government?  As I've said before, McCain is economics illiterate.  Lemme see, take money from the rich (aka smart, hard-working, prudent) and give to the poor (aka stupid, working not at all or little, and imprudent). Reward laziness and imprudence; punish hard and smart work, and prudence.  Pure Marxism.

McCain said the gubmint should buy the variable-rate mortgages and have them changed to low-rate fixed, based on the current deflated value of the home.  When these lazy and imprudent (dare I say, mostly "minority") nonresponsible folk then default on the fixed loans, waddya think we oughta do then?  Forgive those too? Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

Why does, say, the University of Florida pay millions for its football coach, Urban Meyer or its basketball coach, Billy Donovan?  Because it wants to win big-time games and doesn’t want to play against those coaches.  99.99% of us cannot do what those guys do.  Most of us can stand, but very few can bring us to our feet with what they do.  Sports-elite universities – Florida, Notre Dame, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State, and your school for sure – know that their public persona and image is greatly enhanced by their athletics successes . . . and it boosts fundraising big-time.

 Why do, say, NBA teams pay humungous salaries and bonuses to lottery picks?  Because they’ll be immediate-impact players who’ll help win lots of games and, maybe, championships.  And because those teams don’t wanna have to play against those guys.  99.99% of us cannot do what those guys do.  The teams pay big money to bring in big money.  Ditto for Tom Hanks or Brad Pitt.  CBS and Katie Couric?  I dunno.

 Ok, so what’s with the platinum parachutes, you ask, the golden handshakes?  Smart buyers don’t pay for what someone has done.  They pay for what someone can and will do in the future.  Why pay tens of millions to a “retiring” CEO?  What’s he gonna do for you in the future?  He’s gonna be a model of what you’ll do for his replacement, the next guy, that’s what.  Another reason?  It may be the price necessary, given contracts, to get rid of the the loser, the mistake that looked so good back when hired.

 What’ll the impact be of congress – with the president’s signature – capping CEO salaries and bonuses?  Said another way, what’ll the impact be of violating a company’s unalienable right to liberty (ala Title IX)?  When applied to the big investment houses in New York, the impact will be to have the best and brightest go to work in London and Hong Kong, and to have the center of the financial world leave the Big Apple and cross the pond.

 Prices are the messengers, explaining the relationship between supply and demand.  (I learned that from Dr. Thomas Sowell.)  The supply of superstars is tiny while the demand to see, cheer, and drop big bucks to see and cheer them is huge.  It would be a huge mistake to shoot the messenger.  Then again, “demagoguery beat data.” (Tom Delay said that.)