A Balancing Act

When we look at the structure of government, we all must realize that it is not about some idealistic set of principles, it is about mutual or common interest.  Balance of powers is just that -- a balance of the interests of the powerful against each other in a manner that no one of them can gain dominance.  Otherwise, there develops a dominant ruling entity -- whether it be a king, autocracy, plutocracy, or whatever.

The U.S. system was designed for a balance of powers -- Executive vs. Legislative vs. Judiciary.  In theory it is a great design although in practice it is in constant search of balance. 

There is one piece of the balance of powers that is little discussed -- or at least has been examined very little since the Civil War.  That is the balance of power between the states and the federal government.  Until that relationship is returned to balance, we will continue to see the growth of government at the federal level at the expense of the states.  The states must come together in mutual self-interest to preserve that power.  The Constitution has a provision for that, it is the power to amend.  I don't think the Constitution needs amending.  I do think that the states must elect members of Congress who will vote to return that balance.  Or, better yet, let's see a President who will push to return that balance.  There are a few potential candidates out there.

USPS Doesn't Get It

Ooo, Ooo, I know the answer!!!!

USPS posts $3.5 billion third quarter loss

Can anyone say Free Enterprise???

In The Midst of a Coup

It is time to throw them out.  If they voted for ObamaCare they should be thrown out of office.  Representative Democracy is dead in this country.  If it was not, the bill would never have passed the Senate or the House.  An overwhelming majority of the American people are opposed to the bill.

This is one more step on the way to destroying the states.  When the state governments become insolvent, the federal government will take control.  At some point, all control will reside in the federal government.  When that occurs, we will become a communist nation.  We are experiencing a takeover through economic means.  Communism is not Socialism.  With Communism, power is in the hands of a few.  It is complete, controlling power.  The people have no rights under Communism.  Non-conformity is punished severely -- by servitude or by death.

It is time to throw them out of office.

Copenhagen Math

I'm a little confused about why the U.S. should cough up $100 Billion per year to help other countries deal with their committments on UN regulation of "climate change."  That means we will pay for it twice -- once in a subsidy through a corrupt organization (the UN) that will pass on a portion of it to corrupt governments (most of the developing world), and then in the increased price of goods that we will likely purchase from those very countries.

I know, $100 Billion doesn't sound like much now that we toss around numbers like $3 or $4 Trillion, but if you divide it by the current population of the U.S. it comes out to about $328 per person or $1,312 per family of 4.  We probably need to double those numbers because of the increased cost of goods and services.  No, we should probably triple it because the government is such an inefficient allocator of wealth that the true cost to our economy will be much larger than the $100 Billion.

Obama: World's Will on Climate Change 'Hangs in the Balance' at Copenhagen

Regulating Cattle Emissions and Conspiracy Theories

OK. I’ve finally had enough of the ludicrous idea that the way to control greenhouse gases is to regulate emissions by livestock. I suspect it is really a plan to destroy the livestock industry by those who think we should all become Vegans. Or, maybe it is something even more sinister.

The carbon cycle is relatively simple to describe although its actions are complex. Living things are carbon-based. This includes plants and animals. Plants take carbon-dioxide out of the atmosphere, trap the carbon into their tissue in the form of various molecules such as sugars and then release Oxygen. Animals eat plants (or other animals) and through the process of digestion, break down the complex molecules (such as sugars) from the plant material and utilize the released energy to fuel their existence. In the process of digestion, some of the carbon is released back into the atmosphere as various gases and carbon dioxide is released through respiration. This process cycles the carbon in a somewhat continuous loop. Plants also release carbon when they die. The process of decomposition releases carbon into the atmosphere.

This carbon cycle has continued since the beginning of life on this planet. At one time in pre-history, there was significantly more carbon floating around in the atmosphere which fueled riotous growth of plants. Many of those plants were then trapped in sediment and over time changed to oil, gas and coal or were bound into limestone and other sedimentary rocks.

Until we began releasing the carbon that was “sequestered” in the form of oil, gas and coal, carbon wasn’t a problem. It was cycled through plants and animals just as it is today. It was this release from the utilization of fossil fuels of huge amounts of carbon back into the carbon cycle that created what some scientists today are claiming to be a cataclysmic problem for life on earth. In other words – it isn’t the cattle that are causing “climate change,” it is the burning of fossil fuels that released huge amounts of trapped carbon into the atmosphere that is causing the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

So, why do our government and the governments of other nations throughout the world think the solution lies in regulating gas produced by cattle? Here is one possibility – it is part of the plan to control the world food supply. In the U.S. most crops are subsidized through various support payments. Livestock production is not. Placing regulations on the livestock producers under the guise of controlling greenhouse gas emissions makes sense only in the context of attempting to gain control of one of the few lightly regulated industries left.

It fits into what could be construed as a plan to force a one-world government. The way I see it, if one wanted to control the world you would begin with a series of induced crises. The crises would be designed to gain control of some key things – banking, energy and food. Hmmmm…..we recently saw manipulation of the first two of these items. That leaves food. I wonder what’s really going on behind the scenes in Copenhagen……

A Young Employee's Take on ObamaCare

A young employee commented the other day that he was concerned about the Health Care Bill that Congress was considering and the President was pushing. I wondered why.

He said that if he understood correctly, what would happen is that the Health Care currently provided by his employer would go away and be replaced by a Health Care program offered by the Federal Government. If that happened, the amount the employer was currently providing on a pre-tax basis would then become taxable income. The Health Care offered by the government was likely to be very restrictive on its coverage and therefore inferior to what he was currently being provided. The net result is that if passed, he would get inferior Health coverage and pay more for it because now it was being taxed.

I said, "that's about right."

Other States Are Watching Texas Business Success

For those of you who may not have seen it, the article linked below comes out of Washington -- the state, that is. It is about the Texas economy.

Texas Economy Shining Brightly Despite Recession

Perry on Limited Government

Limited government. Is it only a dream now? Have we gone too far to turn back?

Governor Rick Perry of Texas has some timely comments in today's Washington Times:

Perry: Texas Proves Limited Government Works

Perry vs. Obama Care

The Governor of Texas has always been a strong proponent for business interests within the state. That is one of the reasons we have managed to weather the economic downturn so well. His stance on "Obama Care" is right in line with his sense of what is best for the business climate in Texas. The Healthcare package before Congress would put a number of small businesses out of business.

Businesses create jobs. Jobs put food on the table. Why anyone would ever think that forced charity and state control is better than self-reliance is beyond me.

Perry Raises Possibility of State's Rights Showdown With Whitehouse Over Healthcare

On This 4th of July

On July 4, 1776, we declared our independence from Great Britain. We claimed the right to self-governance with representation of the people's will in determination of the laws of our land. We claimed the right to reject an oppressive government and replace it with one that was both responsive to and responsible to the people of this land.

That oppression arose from our dependency on Great Britain. The original colonists needed the support of the mother country for survival. In return, the king required taxes. Those taxes paid for wars that caused a mounting debt. The response of the king was to increase taxes to finance his aggressive policies that sought to consolidate his power.

The people sought relief from the burden but were ignored. They sought representation of their views but were rejected. Over time, their dependency allowed the king to increase taxes to the point they could no longer be borne by the people and they rebelled.

Through the blood of committed individuals that Independence was accomplished over the course of 40+ years when we finally severed the control of Great Britain in the War of 1812. Yet, it didn't end there. We remained a nation seeking to find its way. We continued to seek a balance of power in how we were governed which culminated in a Civil War that consolidated power in the federal government. It was a result that led to better relations between the various races which comprise our people, but eroded the power of the people by consolidating it in the hands of the federal government.

We have survived global wars in which the United States came to the aid of nations whose values resembled our own. We have gone wherever necessary to combat the tendency of man to consolidate power through aggression. Yet we have allowed special interests to consolidate power within our own borders.

We have struggled with our own identity. We are a nation of many varied yet closely held beliefs. We have faced many issues that arise from the human frailties of self-interest and fear. We have made great strides in creating an environment of equality of opportunity for all. Yet we have allowed those same frailties of self-interest and fear to be used against us by the very politicians we elected to serve us.

We continue to struggle. Today we face some of the greatest challenges that we have ever faced as a nation. Many of those challenges are the result of the quest for power of individuals and groups who have only their self-interest at heart. They seek power for gain and not in service for the good of the nation and its people. They bully and intimidate through the power of the purse.

That such individuals and groups hold the reins of power is the fault of the people. Enough of us have allowed ourselves to be subjugated to the carefully orchestrated largess of the state and federal powers that our Independence has been lost. That subjugation has resulted in efforts to further consolidate power through expanding government services in ways that create further dependency. We see today an aggressive expansion and consolidation of power through the use of regulation and welfare (although not always by that name). We have become a nation controlled by dependency. Therein lies our downfall.

Our dependency on the government has created a situation of mounting debt that must be repaid. It is the tendency in such times to use taxation to repay the debt. The burden of government has become oppressive. We are facing a crisis in our nation that in many ways resembles the conditions prior to the War for Independence. It is time once again for our government to become both responsive to and responsible to the people.

(also posted at Panhandle Poetry and Other Thoughts)

Money and Politics -- The Usual

It is obvious to me that agriculture doesn't wield much political power with the current administration. I guess there aren't enough voters who make a living from agriculture for it to be worthwhile for them to apply the federal largesse to this particular segment of the economy. Maybe, they just realize that this is a group whose votes can't be easily swayed by the application of large sums of money. It's much easier to obtain votes among the unions by pouring dollars into industries where they are strong. Besides, what's a few Billion among the Trillions that are being spent????

I must again repeat the quote of Benjamin Franklin -- "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not liberty to purchase power."

Just Thinking....

The Democrat's Stimulus Plan makes me think:

• Allegiance can sometimes be acquired through the "beneficence" of the giver.
• Beneficiaries of largesse are often lazy or crooked.
• That's my money they're handing out in order to buy power.

We have sold our country.

Since when have we become beggars??? -- as in, "Please buy our T-Bills and Bonds, we're broke."

It is hard not to be negative.....

Financial deja vu

Having come through the S&L crisis of the 80's and 90's, I find the current financial crisis to be extremely frustrating. One would have thought that we would learn from past mistakes but that doesn't seem to be the case.

The last crisis was closely correlated to oil prices -- as is this one. One of the differences is that last time interest rates were too high, this time they are too low. Last time, flexible rate loans caused borrowers to find themselves with payments beyond their ability to pay. This time, low interest rates allowed unqualified borrowers to get into homes they couldn't afford. The effect was the same. A glitch in the general economy suddenly meant that borrowers couldn't make their payments.

The biggest culprit in the mess is the government. By guaranteeing loans for borrowers with inadequate capital of their own to invest in real property, they set up a system for failure. The borrowers must share risk proportionately with lenders. When housing markets were soaring, the system worked. Housing markets always go through periodic deflation. It's part of the cyclical nature of markets. Cash-strapped borrowers defaulted. Lenders were burned.

Government interference in markets always inflates the cyclicity inherent to capitalism. If supply and demand were allowed to work, so would the market. Lenders would evaluate loans based on risk and reward. We would have fewer homeowners but we would have more savers.

We have pulled all available cash into the marketplace and created an economic bubble that must deflate. What we see today is a lot of air going out of that bubble. The big question is whether it will deflate slowly or pop suddenly. I fear that additional government interference in an effort to "salvage" the economy will only set us up for a greater fall. Let's take the hit, get the government out of the "guarantee" business and move on. It will hurt but will make our economy stronger in the long run.

One thing the government should do is to criminally prosecute Executives who receive "golden parachute" bonuses within a year of the failure of any publicly traded corporation. Those executives should be liable for double the value of any such bonuses or the liquidated value of all of their personal assets -- including homes and personal property. They should not be allowed to seek the shelter of bankruptcy. Any IRA or 401K assets should be included in the liquidation. They should have no protection whatsoever. Leave them penniless.

Global Warming Bill's Temporary Defeat

I like a clean environment. I enjoy the outdoors and wildlife. I recycle when I can. I set my thermostat a little warm in the summer and a little cool in the winter. I prefer home-prepared foods instead of highly prepared and packaged foods. I typically don't drive somewhere unless I really need to. In other words, I try to be a good steward of the resources at my disposal. I think most people are that way. The far-left wackos and the duped are leading us down a path toward collapse into a global socialist state. The hyper-hysteria over Global Warming is part of it.

Hold onto your pocketbooks folks because even though it went down to defeat today, U.S. Global Warming legislation hasn't gone away. If nothing else motivates you for the Fall elections, this should. A Democrat controlled Congress combined with a Democrat in the White House and we will see the Welfare rolls soar -- because none of the hard working people of this country will have any money left to spend except for the bare necessities of fuel to get to work, food for the table and energy to heat our homes in winter (note that I left out cool it in the summer). We will be lucky if we have jobs at all. We should give thanks for the Republicans that bought us some time. We'd better use it wisely.

The GHG Fleecing of the American Consumer

Forty-five trillion dollars!!! That's a number so large that it is unimaginable. That's what we are being told is the cost to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by the year 2050. It will be us "little guys" that are stuck with the bill. It won't cost the oil companies. It won't cost the government. It won't cost the multi-national corporations. It will cost the consumers. The taxpayers. The hard-working people of this world. All those other guys will just pocket the money. It is another scheme for sucking the results of the productivity of the average person out of our pockets and into the hands of the elite few.

It doesn't matter what form of government we are talking about. The results are the same. When governments work for the "good" of the people I always start asking which people they are talking about. The little guys? or, the ones that contribute to their campaigns? -- the ones that control the strings of wealth on this globe.

Then, they try to pull the wool over our eyes....

"Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050."

Yeah, right. How much of those dollars flowing into developing countries started right here in this one?