Obama Smoking 'Issue'...

I continue to see little references to the fact that President-Elect Barack Obama has the occasional cigarette, and musings about whether or not he will or even should quit that nasty habit.  (I can say that because I did smoke cigarettes... a lot...and quit many years ago.)

I am amused that these musings probably come from people who were and are adamantly opposed to smoking but who are now being 'forced' to make excuses for the person they favored in the recent election.  Some of the musings have been nothing short of farcical including the comments that he might well make better decisions if he can smoke a cigarette while pondering the weighty issues of the office he occupies come January 20th.

Will this slow the inexorable tide to rid our nation of any and all cigarettes and all other tobacco products, to close any business that has the audacity to think it is a private entity entitled to make decisions as to the customers it will serve, to outlaw all public use of a lawful agricultural product?  I suspect not.

Does anyone detect any hypocrisy?  Does it matter to anyone?  Is this the sound of one hand clapping? 

~~~

More Scientists Join Global Warming Dissenters...

Dr. Will Happer, award winning Princeton University Physicist says, "I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken."  Happer, who was fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993, said of that incident, "I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy."

Additional dissenting scientists include:

• Dr. W.M. Schaffer, Ph.D. who is Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona - Tucson.
• CNN Meteorologist Chad Meyers, a meteorologist for 22 years and certified by the American Meteorological Society.
• Engineer and Physicist J.K. "Jim" August, formerly of the U.S.Navy nuclear power program and former chair of professional standard committees in both the American Nuclear Society and the American Society of Mechanical Engineering.
• Biologist and Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone who has authored 120 scientific publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
• Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller, former weather forecaster at Amsterdam's Royal Dutch Weather Bureau.
• MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately fifty years of teaching experience.
• Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements and who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers.
• German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, a Consulting Meteorologist.
• Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience and a past member of the American Meteorological Society.
• Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich who has more than thirty years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government.

The story line of a "consensus agreement" is simply not true as we have come to understand with the more than 650 dissenters who have now made themselves and their views known.  Those who are pushing for rapid adoption of the so-called "consensus" are doing so for fear they are being disproved more with every passing day.  They cannot afford to answer the criticisms since they're hypothesis is riddled with error.

Is there any real need to rush to judgment?  Or is this more a contrived need with those pushing the global warming issue recognizing that once unleashed, the movement will go on and on and on regardless of the validity of the movement.  These things take on a life of their own as we have seen in any number of previous government-backed programs, without regard for facts.

This debate is far too important and far too costly for us to make an incorrect judgment.  We will literally ruin the economy of the United States if this is permitted to take root, and we're already sliding down a very slippery slope created by other government meddling where well enough should've been left to be.

The use of the term "debate" is really a reach since there has been only a one-sided diatribe to date; there has been no true debate. 

The State of Wisconsin and Milwaukee County have been dueling over programs to aid the poor.  This involves the county call center over which the County Board and the County Exec have fought for some time, and it involves the awarding of a $2.4 million job training grant.

The players are Lee Holloway, County Board Chairman, and Michael Morgan, a top aide to Governor Doyle, and Karen Timberlake, head of the Department of Health and Human Services.  Morgan and Timberlake are appointees of Governor Doyle.

Another player is, obviously, County Exec Scott Walker, who has run against Governor Doyle before and seems poised to do so again.

Swirling through the mist is the effort to privatize the call center handling inquiries from people in the county who need assistance in one form or another.  Walker has pushed that at least twice and has been rebuffed by the board in both instances.  The state is threatening to penalize the county for transgressions, imagined or real, and it appears this will happen as it now stands.

The question that comes to mind is this:

Is this really about the people of Milwaukee County or is it about Doyle trying to set the stage to show people just how bad it would be if they voted to elect Walker as the next governor?

I suspect that it is the latter, and that, if the case, simply proves out the old saw that politics is always hardball.  I'm reminded of the title to the Clinton-era book called "Blood Sport".

Frankly, this brouhaha isn't just confined to state-level politics.  It can be found in varying degrees where ever elections are held to pick people for offices.  Too many of our elected officials view themselves as the 'anointed' and come to believe that any tactic is permissible so long as it isn't illegal (and some don't stop for that little inconvenience, either).

Those who suffer in all this back and forth are the people whose welfare was to be paramount.  Elected officials, and their appointees, too often are consumed with re-election.  They seem to believe that it is so important that they stay in office that doing whatever that requires is 'job number one'; people be damned if that becomes necessary.  Once on that slippery slope, the next such decision becomes easier and each subsequent such decision is more easily taken yet.

None of us can sell his or her soul just once.  Once sold, it becomes a commodity with which to barter for more power, more prestige and more money.  Our recent economic tumble can be viewed through this prism, as well.  How many of the 535 elected to go to Washington, D.C. have not yet been infected by this siren's song?  Simple answer:  Not enough!

Those who do not succumb to this 'disease' can be seen along the way; they too often represent the 'road kill' of politics.

Maybe this speaks to term limits.  Maybe this speaks to more aggressive prosecution.  Maybe this speaks to laws that are far more clearly laid out so as to eliminate the decision-making process for the honest.  Maybe we actually vote in our own image; but, I hope that we're simply more uninformed, and maybe overly trusting than we are corrupt when we cast ballots for some of our politicians.

Caring state or hardball politics?

Politicians, of every stripe, tend to make lots of promises in order to get our votes.  Once they are in office, or even as they prepare to assume the office, we begin to see and hear the back-tracking.  That has gotten into full swing already on the national level and is beginning on the state level.

We are being reminded now that the economic downturn may not end in the next year even though we may've been led to believe that while viewing campaign commercials and listening to speeches.  I recall hearing that this could very well be changing by June, 2009, for example.

Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI), who is among the most powerful members of the House of Representatives since he heads the House Appropriations Committee, is now advising us that "the downward momentum appears too strong to end the recession anytime soon."  I don't mean to pick on Mr. Obey but this is a classic example of the back-tracking he and others are now engaged in to protect the image of the Democrats.

While we elect presidents every four years and senators every six years, we elect members of congress every two years.  That means that we have a two-year election cycle, and explains why we seem to have perpetual campaigning going on and why it costs so much to run for an office.  We see a somewhat similar situation in Wisconsin since our members of the Assembly stand for election every two years.

Candidates are probably reminding themselves that they need be careful for what they wish, since there comes the time when pipers must be paid.

The mood of the people can change several times between now and the next national election in just under two years, but the politicians who find themselves in control cannot forget that they need to tamp down the expectations they raised during the campaign season.

This time it is the Democrats who are experiencing this, and that is true on both the state and national levels.  The Republicans have something behind which they can hide during this cycle; they have no control.  They lost control because the mood of the voters had changed markedly...and it will again.

I do not intend to take any sides in this piece, but to simply state the facts as I see them.  If you feel that I stray, please express your thoughts in a comment.

~~~~~~~~~~

We are about to inaugurate the 44th President of the United States.  He, in this case, has much on his platter and has already taken quite a few steps in a relatively short period of time.  All this would indicate that his will be a well-organized administration and that things we see transmitted by picks, statements, leaks and so on are things of which we should take note.  I doubt that there will be a lot of 'wasted motion' from the Obama administration.  That does not appear to be President-Elect Obama's style nor does it appear to be the style of Rahm Emanuel who will be the back-seat driver, and the outspoken commenter when occasions require.

Among his early challenges is that of our economy.  I am reminded daily of just how intertwined our economy is with that of the world at large.  I am reminded daily that there is no such thing as an invincible company or institution.  The most revered names of my time, such as GM and GE and FedEx and Ford are being pummeled in the marketplace.  For example, $1,000 invested in GM at the end of 2007 is now worth $184 according to the Wall Street Journal this morning.  Similarly, $1,000 put into 3M is now worth $690.  That same $1,000 put into GE is worth $460 today.  A similar investment in Alcoa is now worth $273.  All these are the big industrial entities with which I grew up. 

There have been some indications that the Obama administration may well take the view that more government control is the desirable course at this point in our country's existence.  That suggests that our industrial model may see more governmental control over the products that are manufactured, the services that are offered, and the relationships of one with the other.  The buzz word has been "socialism".  That may well be too strong a term, and it was obviously designed to give people pause for thought when introduced by those on the right side of the aisle.

It is valid, I think, that we recognize there will be winners and losers as the new administration assumes its position and begins to guide the country.  There have essentially been two classes of appointees announced so far.  There have been the more conservative announcements such as that concerning defense, and there have been some liberal announcements such as that concerning the EPA.  This suggests that we'll likely be on a dual track from January 20th forward, at least for the foreseeable future.

If I knew who/what would be winners, I'd try to align myself as much as possible; similarly, if I knew the losers, I'd try to take the proper defensive measures.  But, I know neither with certainty.  I can only speculate.  And my speculations lead me to expect some of the following:

• Health care will not be as severely remade as had earlier been indicated since there are many impediments to wholesale change, with the economy and the country's finances being the chief reasons I see.  We just don't have the money to do wholesale change.
• Organized labor will be a beneficiary given the solid support received from those quarters by the incoming administration.  The labor department pick appears as though it could've been hand-selected by labor, for example.
• Our country will be driven to be 'greener' whether or not that is indicated by thoughtful consideration.  The Browner selection virtually assures this direction.
• Education will continue to be driven from the top down rather than from the bottom up.  Choice and charter will not be in much favor so far as I can determine.
• Stimulus packages will be aimed at infrastructure projects thus being of significant benefit to the trades and unions, and with much longer payback periods for the rest of us.  Those projects will be as 'green' as possible given the Browner appointment.
• Foreign policy will be a bit softer around the edges than during the past eight years, I suspect.  We'll be more concerned with what others think of us and that will drive changes.

We're in for an interesting ride into the future, and there will be some new winners and some new losers.

Above all this, my one hope is that you and me will be winners as the citizens of this 'changed' America, and not just those who wield the power.

Time will tell.

The global warming 'debate' seems to be rather slanted judging from reports in the mainstream media.  We seldom hear from those who question the premise, and those few references tend, from my perspective, to be used in an effort to 'debunk' the debunkers.  (The references to UN IPCC that follow, by the way, are for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)

The full report of the U.S. Senate Minority includes the dissent of more than 650 scientists, some of whom are former supporters of the premise, as contrasted with the 52 scientists who wrote the Majority report.  Snippets from the Minority report as shown on that website include:

• "I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
• "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly...As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."
• "Warming fears are the 'worst scientific scandal in the history'...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
• "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others.  It doesn't have open minds...I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of if UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
• "The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC 'are incorrect because they are only based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
• "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
• "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." - Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
• "After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and as an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
• "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?  For how many years must cooling go on?" Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
• "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp...Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
• "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
• "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense...The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major business and political battle.  It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delagado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
• "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another...Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so...Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
• "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

These are not crackpots; these are well-educated, thinking people who are calling out their peers.  These are people who are very concerned with what the Global Warming movement may succeed in causing to be wrought on the planet.

Could it really hurt to slow this rush to judgment even though Al Gore is fully invested, both psychically and financially, in the 'movement'?

How is it that a world that takes centuries to embrace religions has adopted this "religion" in a decade or less?

I was struck as I read the morning Wall Street Journal with two items appearing on page A2:

California adopted the nation's toughest, most far-reaching greenhouse gas emissions policy yesterday.  It likely will further exacerbate the economic plight in that state by placing new burdens costing untold dollars on the state's businesses while also creating the vaunted cap-and-trade program that is to become effective by 2012.  That will create the market for businesses to sell their capacities for creation of greenhouse gases to others who need more capacity to do the same.  Greenhouse gases are thought to trap heat rising up from the earth, thus adding to the "global warming" that is so far an unproved theory.

At the same time, Louisiana saw an 8" snowfall in Amite and had an inch of snow on the ground in New Orleans, adding to the apparent invalidity of the movement.

All this became even more frightening to me as I noted that Carol Browner has been designated to be the new "energy czar" for President-Elect Obama's cabinet.  She established herself as head of the EPA in President Clinton's cabinet and left havoc in her wake.

We are in for a real thrilling ride of environmentalism over the next four or eight years.  The excesses will be mind boggling.

I don't think I'm going to like the idea of a "czar" running a range of agencies that she believes have enough legal standing already to be able to mandate anything she decides ought be implemented.  The "change" could be devastating to an already frail economy.

And, we're going to get 'change' if the Democrats have their way...and that seems likely.

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) retained his seat in the senate yesterday so the Democrats will not have the magic number necessary to absolutely control the senate.  The outcome in Minnesota is still somewhat in question, but, at the rate that new votes for the Democrat candidate are being 'found', I suspect that he'll prevail.

The problem with Republicans in the senate has always been the number who have worked hard to earn the right to be called by that ugly name, "RINO"; "Republicans In Name Only".  Those people are still there and they are still beyond the ability of the Republican leadership to 'control'.  Even though the Democrats will technically be unable to override filibuster attempts, the RINOs will often tip the scales by bolting from the 'party line'.  Those three or four people tend to be more liberal in their thinking than conservative.

So, we are going to see the 'change' we voted for in November.  The only questions remaining, in my mind, are just what that 'change' will be, how quickly it will occur, and how much it will cost.

The magic "first 100 days" comes into play so far as answering the question of how quickly change will occur.

The Democrat leaders are busy shaping what they'll propose, developing the time lines for each, and determining whether or not they'll go for a few all-encompassing bills or take smaller bills up, pass those and bask in the victories during the course of those first 100 days.

The likely items include the vaunted "economic stimulus plan", a bill requiring electric utilities to be using renewable sources for at least 15% of their power by 2020, a big push on funding and hurdle-clearing for embryonic stem cell programs and increases in the funding and reach of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

After the meeting between governors and the president-elect yesterday, I presume we'll also see some kind of state-directed stimulus programs proposed, possibly as part of the overall stimulus package.

Change is around the corner.  The Democrats understand that they will be gaged by what they accomplish in the coming two-year period, so far as the elections that hit two years down the road for the entire house of representatives and for one-third of the senate seats in Congress.

As always, these are interesting times in which we live.

Our political system creates winners and it creates losers.  It has done that since there was a political system.  It does that no matter the party in power.  We are watching the reshuffling of the seats of power in Washington now, and that is a great thing to watch since it did not involve a military coup or the forceful overthrow of one regime in favor of another.

The winners and losers are being resorted as the result of the most recent election.  It is interesting to me that I see many of the same faces that I recall seeing over the course of time.  They seem to ebb and flow almost like the tides.  They may be "out of favor" for awhile and then they're back "in favor".  In their cases, there is relatively little difference between the two except that there may be more prestige when they're "in favor".  Money always seems to flow in their direction although it can be diminished when they are "in favor" if that means they hold an office in the government of our country.

We shouldn't anguish over their plight for too long since they seem to make up for any financial duress suffered when they 'retire' from the government position.

Government employees are adept at remaining winners.  Some in Milwaukee County walk away with a million dollars in their pocket at retirement.  Few are ever laid off even though that threat hovers every once in awhile.  All have solid benefit programs.  Few seem to be overworked.  It seems almost impossible to "privatize" any of these positions as we see from the trials and tribulations of Scott Walker as Milwaukee County Executive

Some winners seem adept at remaining winners almost without regard to the party in control.

Some losers seem adept at remaining losers, too.

The perennial losers of whom I am thinking are us...the taxpayers.  It seems we are always coming out on the 'short end of the stick', doesn't it?

Just over the course of three days in November, we learned why we are in the column called "losers".

MATC was given the seemingly perpetual right to tax us to the tune of at least $5.7 million every year since we are blessed to be part of that taxing district.  Us taxpayers took another one in the shorts!

Governor Doyle was quoted as saying "the pain must be shared" in speaking of the current $5.4 billion expected shortfall in the next biennial budget.  We know to whom he was speaking...us taxpayers!

Then to add insult to injury, three gentlemen wrote an article called "How to raise money for our state" that was published on JSOline on November 22nd.  I tote up the great ideas they espoused:

• the Doyle proposal to increase taxes on oil companies and hospitals to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars
• a sales tax increase of 1% that would raise something on the order of $800 million per year
• the extension of the sales tax to non-medical professional services like tax preparation and accounting services that would raise some $300 million per year
• the extension of the sales tax to business services that would raise $230 million
• closing business tax "loopholes" for companies doing business in and out of Wisconsin (so-called "combined reporting") that would generate an estimated "several hundred" million dollars a year.
• elimination of something that is called the "domestic production deduction" that would 'only' impact companies with over $100 million in assets and that would yield "at least $40 million"
• changing the taxing of businesses from that of taxing profits to a system where business receipts would be taxed instead (so that a business not making a profit would still pay taxes) which would generate some $400 million
• increasing the top rate on personal income tax from 6.75% to 7.75% ( a nearly 15% increase) which would raise another $180 million
• taxing all capital gains thus adding some $280 million to the treasury
• restoring the tax on the first 50% of social security earnings to get another $100 million
• elimination of a thing called the "itemized deduction credit" that would 'only' hit people earning more than $100,000 per year thus generating $320 million
• bringing back the tax on inheritances that would generate another $95 million
• and, last but certainly not least, restoring the annual inflation indexing of our already highest in the nation tax on gasoline that would bring in another $32 million for every penny of gas tax (that would mean something in the range $1 billion annually if the gas tax is now $0.30 per gallon)

I certainly appreciate their attempt to be helpful but I doubt that our governor and the senate and the assembly majorities need any help to raise taxes.

What is forgotten, ALWAYS, is that it is us losers...us taxpayers...who pay every penny of every tax levied in the state in one form or another.

Taxes always find their way to the lowest rung on the economic ladder, and that is us, the consumer and the taxpayer.

There certainly are winners and losers.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could experience being a winner once in awhile?

And...isn't it amazing that we never learn how much could be saved if some of the jobs would be eliminated, and if some of the benefits would be reduced, and if some of the massive 'give-away' programs were curtailed?

Yup.  I'm hallucinating, all right!

Hedged promises...

Promises are made in every election campaign, and especially in presidential election campaigns.  We're told that one candidate will do this for us and the other will do that for us.  We are made promise after promise, almost on the order of a 'can you top this' game.

Today, as the president-elect makes his preparations for the assumption of office, there is a decided 'tamping down' of his promises.  Those promises are said to have totaled some $135 billion per year.  Those are the promises that can be specifically identified.  There are another 'passel of promises' that we'll never be able to price because they were implied to special interest groups and/or made in somewhat more private settings as deals were cut.

Already, we see and hear that some are "shocked" that their pet things are being relegated to the back of the line so far as promises to be kept.  There is a very simple thing that all should remember, and that is this:  If you vote for a person on the basis of promises made that will favor you or your special interest group, you need to step back and reassess just how you'll make voting decisions in the future.  After the campaigning is done and reality begins to reestablish itself, we realize that not every promise will be kept, that some will but they won't resemble what you expected and that some will result in nothing like what you expected they would.

Today, there simply isn't $135 billion available for the grandiose promises made on the trail to the White House.  And, even the money that may be available will be allocated according to lobbying and the back-room deals in Congress.  Your needs and my needs be damned; there are more important things that have to be accomplished...such as the payoffs to those who got the next president to this point.  And that is the case no matter which ticket won the popular vote.

Character would be a much better barometer with which to gage decisions than promises which were probably only intended to gather a few more votes.  I hope all of us voted on that basis...but I am skeptical.

Bail-out expectations...

It is amazing to me, although it shouldn't be at my age, to see the length of the lines of those special interests seeking a government bail-out.  The Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae sub-prime mortgage debacle (Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, and Charles Schumer continue to try to hide from their special culpability in all this) pointed out just how shaky the economy was.  That proved to be more than the economy could swallow without massive corrections.

And, it showed the truly global nature of the economy...every country was in a very tenuous position economically and all are now in the tank...except maybe for China and maybe for India.  Even the oil sheiks are pinching pennies or whatever it is they pinch.

Enter stage-left...

The likely actors were lined up before we knew the magnitude of the debacle to come.  The investment banks, the insurance companies, the commercial banking industry, the Wall Street stock barons, the hedge fund managers; all were waiting for their piece of the bail-out.  So some $700 billion was thrown into a thing called TARP and the Treasury Secretary, Paulson, was given the go ahead to steer us through.  Of course, Congress began almost immediately to try to seize the tiller and steer where it thought it could garner the greatest political gains.

Detroit has been in shambles, and that happened long before the most recent economic decline; and that is in no small part courtesy of both federal and state politics and excessive payroll costs, both labor and executive.  The auto makers were 'given' $25 billion for "green" manufacturing change-overs.  That money has yet to be dispensed, by the way, as is so often the case when Congress does something like this.

The Democrats are now working their behinds off to force the Bush administration to move ahead on the next major phase of the 'bail-out' by trying to get a new hand-out through in the coming "lame duck" session starting tomorrow.  The obvious reason behind this is simple, they can then point to one more "failure" on the part of 'Bush 43' when this all goes down the toilet...which is most likely where it'll go.

The Republicans, of course, are trying to sit this one out by saying that the $25 billion of "green" money ought be the bridge that Detroit is seeking, to force the Democrats to finally have to show some political courage of their own come January 20th.  It would make the Republicans happier if they were able to paint the Dems with the brush that had been reserved for President Bush and the Republicans.

Underlying all this action on the 'stage', to which I referred earlier, is the problem you and me are facing as members of the audience for this multiple act thriller/dark comedy.  Yet again, we see that politics trumps everything in Washington, D.C. 

Our representative democracy is the greatest form of government ever seen on this earth, but it sure has its seamy and vulgar sides...and we seem to be witnessing most of it today.

And you and me are the only people who can make that less a problem as we cast our future votes.  We must demand better...and we must punish those who disobey our demands by sending them home!

I find myself in a contemplative mood following the election last Tuesday.  I was not a Barack Obama fan but he is our president-elect and will guide us, in conjunction with the Congress, over at least the next four years.  He is my president-elect and, as he said during his press conference yesterday, "We have only one president at a time."  I really want him to be successful!

There were three articles on the Opinion pages of the week-end Wall Street Journal this morning that I found particularly appropriate in these days of transition.  Maybe you'll find them such as well.

The first, was Jim Towey's piece titled Why I'll Miss President Bush.

The second was Jason Riley's The Weekend Interview with Rahm Emanuel, the newly selected Chief of Staff for President-Elect Barack Obama.

And, finally, an editorial concerning my favorite rising star, Rep. Paul Ryan.

I hope you enjoy these items.

Now that the dust of the election returns has begun to settle, the talk of the governance approach of our new president has taken flight.  I have read several pieces that discuss this subject and heard several discussions on the same subject.  The Wall Street Journal had an excellent editorial today titled Obama's Real Opposition.

The subject of that piece was the old line liberals who will be pushing and pulling President Obama as they wish, to make him decide as they wish him to decide.

There are many who believe that President Obama will actually move to the center left as he takes office and begins to face the daily decisions required of him.  There are also many who remind us of his very liberal voting record and suggest, therefore, that he'll govern from the left or far left.

We are reminded of those with whom President Obama will interact:

• David Obey from our own state who wants to slash the defense budget to get money for his social entitlements.
• Barney Frank who recently said that he thought defense could be reduced by 25%.
• Chuck Schumer who continues to push banks to lend more money even after being heavily involved in causing the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae problems due to similar tactics.
• George Miller who heads the House Education and Labor Committee who is talking about 'nationalizing' 401K and other private pension plans to free up all that money for other purposes.
• Jim McDermott who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee and who seems to like Mr. Miller's ideas.
• John Conyers who loves the idea of the Europeans indicting President Bush and Bush officials for 'war crimes'.
• Henry Waxman who wants to grab the Chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee from Rep. John Dingell so that he can really push the global warming agenda.
• Pete Stark who believes that a Canadian-style single payer health care system is exactly right for us.
• Rep. Pelosi whom we presume will retain her leadership post will continue down the very liberal path she has trod to now.
• Sen. Reid whom we presume will continue in his leadership role, although he could find that a difficult task given his miscues so far.

These men are well-seasoned congressional combat veterans who know the inner workings much better than does the new President Obama.  They will stop short of nothing to take advantage of what they see as a 'significant mandate' from the United States electorate.  They are running short of time in which to make the country over into the image they believe is best for us all; they will not be anxious to slow their pace simply because a new president wants that to happen.

President-Elect Obama has seemed to recognize this in his appointment of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D from Chicago) as his new Chief of Staff.  This is the single most powerful position in any White House.  The person in this role manages the President; he determines who the President will see and what he will hear; he selects those on the staff who will be granted limited access to the President; he will play a very large part in determining the programs the new president will pursue and the order in which various initiatives will occur.  Everything goes through the Chief of Staff.  Everything.

Emanuel is a rough and tumble Chicago-style politician.  He is liberal.  He is going to be a tough Chief of Staff.  The battles between him and those in Congress who believe they deserve the President's ear will be legend before this tour of duty is finished.

I suspect that our new president will be pushed to the left of center very quickly whether or not he wishes to be in that position.  The question in my mind is just how far left of center he'll end up after the first hundred days that seem to be so magical.

He will have inherited a terrible economy and a country with so much debt that it will be able to do only limited things in the way of new programs.  Against that backdrop stand the legions such as described above who simply don't care about this, that or the other.  They are intent on getting their way, on making their imprint seen.

This Congress has it within its power to limit this new president to a single term, as was the case with President Carter, if it forces the new president too far to the left and pushes too hard for what it thinks is now being demanded by a country they believe to be left-leaning like themselves.

I am overloaded with politics!  This election for president has been going on seemingly forever.  Obviously, it has been going on for nearly two full years.  The two final candidates have spent nearly $1 billion between the two of them.  They have filled the airwaves with television and radio advertisements and they have filled the newspapers and mailboxes with written advertisements.

In addition to the presidential campaigns, we have been inundated with congressional campaigning and local senate and assembly campaigning.  Telephones have been ringing with 'get out the vote' campaigns and with 'robo calls'.  Lawn signs have seemed to grow for the past three or four months.  Early voting has been going on for a month or better.

I have watched the 'talking heads' tell me what I should be thinking until I want to throw something through my television screen.  I have seen the Saturday Night Live videos over and over again.  I have seen the late night show clips over and over again.

I have listened to the 'pollsters' explain this and that trying to convince us as to their method's accuracy.  The plethora of polls has produced varying numbers for months on end.  If there are six polls released in a day, there six different sets of numbers.  Exit polls were even wrong last time around.  Why should I put money on pre-election polls?

The candidates seem unable to even agree with themselves.  One tax plan has three or four different versions in as many weeks.  Amazingly, each political party is to blame for everything bad that has happened according to the other party.  Washington insiders dress up to appear on the Sunday morning talk shows and spew the day's 'talking points' as if they are gospel.

We are given the treatment befitting idiots by both parties.  If we are so dumb as to fall for their lines, why in the world are we given a vote?  We would obviously not even be able to find a polling place if we were susceptible to their diatribes.

Political activist organizations are falling all over themselves to sign up new voters.  Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck get registered and we are to feel assured that every vote cast is a legitimate vote from a legitimate voter.

Senators running for re-election are convicted of accepting bribes.  Congressmen who took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac like it was going out of style are now sitting in Washington meeting rooms with the look of the pious telling us why it was someone else's fault that our economy took a nose dive.

Re-election to office is so nearly automatic that we citizens ought to be examined carefully to assure full mental faculties before we permitted to get close to a ballot box.

I am tired and it isn't even election day yet.  I am disgusted with what we have permitted to happen in our country.  I am disgusted that so many of my fellow citizens seem to fall for the largest promise of good things if we'll simply elect the right people from the right party.  Elect me and I'll give you this; no, elect me and I'll give even more than he will!

Have we lost our senses completely?  Do we really think that government creates anything?  Is it possible that we can all get a tax cut, especially when tax reductions from one administration will be ended?  Is it really possible for 95% of Americans to receive a tax cut?  How is it that we can reduce taxes when we have the national debt that we have?  How is it that we permit ourselves to be hoodwinked on a regular two year and four year cycle?  Should we really end our foreign trade deals?  Will we be able to have what we want when others don't get what they want?  How will we keep our economy moving when we refuse to recognize that we can't possible get to the level of greenhouse gas emissions the various players are telling us they'll get us to in the time span allotted by their plans?  Where do we think the money for such programs is coming from?

Are we nuts?

I have political overload, and I fear it isn't going to end on the evening of November 4th

If you've watched the Fox News Channel chances are good that you've seen Judge Andrew Napolitano, the dapper and perpetually happy senior judicial analyst for Fox News.  He has written a piece titled "Most Presidents Ignore The Constitution" that appears on the Opinion page of today's Wall Street Journal.

He writes about the 2001 Public Radio interview of Barack Obama where Obama was lamenting that the civil rights movement had become too 'court centered' and therefore failed to cause 'reparations' for past abuses.  That, of course, serves as quite a bombshell so far as future implications if he is elected and presuming he has the same thoughts today that he held then.

I thought, however, that the balance of the opinion piece was quite interesting as Judge Napolitano discussed how the majority of presidents of our country have ignored the Constitution and forged ahead as they desired.  Roosevelt caused agriculture to be subjected to a "Soviet-style central planning" process and rejected arguments that this was unconstitutional.  Roosevelt said that the Constitution was "quaint" and that it was written in the "horse and buggy days" and predicted that the public and the courts would agree with him according to Napolitano's article.

Napolitano cites that Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland were the exceptions he recalled who didn't ignore the Constitution.

As we move into the next presidency, regardless of who wins, I'll have to remind myself that most have ignored our Constitution whenever I feel the current President has crossed the line.  He probably will have crossed the line, and appears to have had a lot of company over the history of our country.

We have survived even with the intentional ignoring of our Constitution...but it doesn't seem right no matter who ignores that document.  Where will it end, if it ever will end?

I received an e-mail containing the following quotations and thought it simply had to be in front of as many readers as possible as we approach perhaps the most important election in my lifetime.  Much food for thought follows:

• Suppose you were an idiot.  And suppose you were a member of Congress, but then I repeat myself.---Mark Twain
• I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.---Winston Churchill
• A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.---George Bernard Shaw
• Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.---James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
• Foreign aid must be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.---Douglas Casey, classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown
• Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.---P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
• Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.---Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
• Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it.  If it keeps moving, regulate it.  And, if it stops moving, subsidize it.---Ronald Reagan (1986)
• I don't make jokes.  I just watch the government and report the facts!---Will Rogers, Humorist (1879-1935)
• If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it is free.---P.J. O'Rourke
• In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.---Voltaire (1764)
• The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.  The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.---Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
• What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.---Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)
• A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.---Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Patriot (1743-1826)

 Some things, it seems, never change.

There is more and more speculation as to the potential that we'll see a 'clean sweep' by Democratic candidates on Tuesday, November 4th at both the state and federal levels.  I hope that isn't the way it turns out, but I'm tiring of being beaten about the head and shoulders every time I read a newspaper article or watch the bulk of the television news items.  Maybe that is the intent.  If us conservatives can be sufficiently demoralized, maybe we'll just stay home.  Not this conservative!

What do I mean by 'clean sweep'?  I refer to the potential that both the Assembly and the Senate in Wisconsin will see a sufficient Democratic majority that will be able to pass anything they wish in spite of the number of Republican votes that could be massed, with assurances on most such items that those will be signed into law by the Democratic Governor Doyle.

Similarly, I refer to Democratic victories in both the U.S. House and Senate that will be Republican-proof and that will likely find favor with a Democratic President Obama.

Jay Weber has done a good job on setting forth 23 items that could be part of the triumvirate of Sen. Harry Reid (D), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) and a President Obama and you can find those by clicking here.  Things included on Jay's list include renegotiating NAFTA, ending secret ballots in union organizing, government-run healthcare encroachments, reintroduction of the 'Fairness Doctrine' to control conservative access to the airways, and so on.

At the state level, we could easily see state-run health care, the increase in costs of education, ever larger portions of our income going to state and local taxes,  more and more loss of personal freedoms and so.

There has been, in most of our history, a certain "check and balance" relationship in most of our governments so that not everything that was proposed was ever likely to be passed.  That 'protection' could disappear for years if we see the 'clean sweep' at the state or federal levels, or both, as the result of our national election on November 4th.  Our country tends not to flourish well under such governments regardless of party in power.

Vote your conscience next Tuesday!

Main Street & The World...

It wasn't all that long ago that I wrote about the St. Francis Bank being acquired by a northern Illinois banking company called Mid-America followed by the take-over of Mid-America by Cleveland-based National City Bank.

National City Bank has had its problems, as have many banks, with poorly performing mortgage loan portfolios and its stock has been in the dumps for some time.  It received a $6 billion infusion of cash not long ago from a private equity group by the name of Corsair Capital.

We'll have a new bank, at least a new bank name, in our world.  National City Bank agreed yesterday to be purchased by the PNC Corporation which is based in Pittsburgh.  National City "agreed" under duress since the government had told it to either get itself acquired or fail.  The PNC purchase is expected to close by year-end, and is being financed by a government infusion of $7.7 billion, some $5.8 billion of which will go for this deal.  The Corsair Capital group squeaks through this deal whole since it had the sense to build some protective language into the deal it did earlier this year.  That begs the question of why you and me are always at risk when the big capital organizations can do 'sweetheart' deals.

I went through this 'dry' explanation of the change for the simple reason of reminding us of just how global is our economy and of just how much each of us has at stake in the world-wide financial problems now on the front pages.  The people whom I see when I bank are about to get their fourth set of bank 'logo' clothing before the first set ever showed signs of wearing out.  They are about to be "treated" to the need to learn another banking system and another banking language.  I hope they all remain in place because they do an excellent job at customer service!

Even though we live in Germantown, we can't hide from the world wide realities of economics.  We're subject to the ups and downs of the global stock exchange system as much as we are to the ups and downs of Wall Street because it is all inter-connected.  The 'futures' trading in Japan and China set the tone for the rest of the world as it awakens to another day.  OPEC makes our gasoline prices fluctuate when it decides to reduce production...except for yesterday when it dropped production 1.5 million barrels and saw the price go down by $4 per barrel instead of rising as it had expected.  Even the oil barons are flummoxed with the current 'goings-on'.  It isn't just hitting you and me, although admittedly we feel it more intensely since most of us don't have the luxury of big cash cushions.

Another thing this should remind us of is this:  our government makes decisions we don't know about until after the fact, and those decisions are often critical to our existence.  We are the ones who determine who leads that government as we will again in a week or so.  There are already discussions going on in Washington that would impact our individual 401Ks dramatically and that would see the money accumulated being used by our government as it sees fit with guarantees of interest made to those of us holding the account.

Those promises are only so good as our economy and are only so trustworthy as our government.  Let us not go down the pathway that Argentina is on where we permit nationalization of individual accounts.

The following words are variously attributed to both Abraham Lincoln and to Rev. Wm. J.H. Boetcker (circa 1916).  Without debating from whom they flowed, I thought it very important that these be shared during this particularly important election season.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could, and should, do for themselves.

Powerful words and powerful thoughts, indeed!

Et Tu Brute?

Or should I have said Et Tu Peggy?  The Latin sentence above means "Even you, Brutus?" according to my teacher of Latin, Mrs. Chase.  She had to bear up under the strain of me in two years of her classes.  I'm sure you would send her your condolences just having read this Blog and without knowing how I struggled in her classes.

Peggy Noonan writes in her current Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece, Palin's Failin', about Sarah Palin and my first thought was just that:  "Even you, Peggy?"  Noonan has been among my 'must read' columnists for a long time.  I occasionally find myself disagreeing with her, and this was among those times in which I disagreed, strongly enough to have to express that to anyone foolish enough to be reading this.

Noonan seems to have succumbed to the Eastern Elitist buzz on Sarah Palin.  She mocks the dropping of g's at the end of words.  She seems offended that some of us ne'er-do-wells in fly over country would be dumb enough to think she is one of us.  She feels that McCain made a bad selection while I think it was a stroke of brilliance...even if an accidental stroke of brilliance.

Noonan doesn't yet know what Palin stands for.  I think she pretty well stands for the things that many of us hold dear.  Noonan sees her as a follower, and I can't square that with her history to this point.  How many governors have you seen who were followers.  How many people have you seen who took on members of their own party whom she thought to be wrong-headed?  That doesn't strike me as being a follower.

Noonan takes Palin to task for not speaking as eloquently as Noonan must think she (Noonan) writes.  I would submit that Sarah Palin speaks as the large majority of United States citizens speak...without the affectation that elitism seems to bring forth from some.

I can say that I believe Palin would be far more effective for conservatives and for John McCain if she were permitted by the campaign 'handlers' to be herself.  I am convinced that Sarah would've had the perfect rebuttals for Katie had she been following her own instincts.  Palin hasn't been a wilting house plant in her life to this point.

I know we'll argue as to the 'qualifications' to be Vice President and whether she or Mr. Biden are better qualified to assume the presidency.  That, for me, is for another day.  For today, I am a bit disgruntled with Ms. Noonan.  Would that she could spend a few weeks with real people again.  Maybe it would take a few years, though.  Seems she has succumbed to the charm of the upper crust.

There is a very real sense that we have been placed in a new world of politics.  I'll call it Politics 2.0 signifying the coming of a new genre.

As I watched the debate last evening involving Barack Obama and John McCain, it was as if I was witnessing a battle between the old and the new politics.  And, that is exactly what we've been hearing during this twenty-month plus campaign.  Obama has been pointedly making himself the leader of Politics 2.0 so far as the race for the presidency.

Obama has appealed to those of us who are younger and has been successful.  He outlived his Democratic challengers and he appears poised, if we are to believe the pollsters and the mainstream media, to become our next President.  He is a masterful communicator so far as style points.  Too many of us are unable to, or don't feel the need to, dig beneath the smooth, suave surface to get at the underlying meat in his answers and in his speeches.  He has run a campaign of nearly two years in length and we are still waiting for some definition to his talking points; we'll wait until after November, 2008, too.

Obama has deployed one of the most effective campaigns I can recall, and I've been an active observer since Au H20 (Goldwater) days.  He has had an advantage in campaigning against one of the 'old' pols who can 'barely' communicate when viewed in the glow of Obama.  He has, in my opinion, had the advantage of having the mainstream press firmly in his pocket for well over a year, if not longer.  I have seen mainstream "journalism" largely trumped by Politics 2.0, and I have seen the Internet used to very nearly its current maximum potential by one candidate. 

As if this wasn't sufficient, we see our economy reeling and that almost always portends defeat for the party in the Whitehouse without regard to the cause or finding of true fault.

I have made no pretense as to my views of the final two candidates.  I am a fiscal and social conservative and there is but one place for my vote.

That having been said, I can say that I am fearful of a Democrat sweep that leads to control of the Congress and of the Whitehouse.  If that should occur, I will see much of which I disapprove happening in our country.  If there is nothing remaining but a vocal, versus meaningful, minority, the minority's voice will be silenced except for the Internet and talk radio for the next four years.

While our federal government usually takes a long time to get anything accomplished, that is usually because the two-party system is sufficiently active and potent to thwart some of the less-than-wise moves attempted by the majority.  If the Democrats sweep to the degree that they have absolute control in both the House and the Senate, and if they have Barack Obama in the Whitehouse, we'll see an activist government such as we've not before witnessed.

We will see Supreme Court justices that will re-interpret the constitution to their liking.  We will see congressional hearings into everyone who ever served in the Bush administration.  We'll witness the complete take-over of healthcare by the government.  We'll see 'progressive' taxation policies that will cripple the economy and stifle the growth of businesses.  We'll see states governed by liberal majorities creating laws recognizing same sex marriage.  We'll see attacks on our rights to keep and bear arms.  We'll see our education system subverted to become a political indoctrination tool beyond that which already exists.  We will see an inexorable slide toward socialism.

I hope that I am wrong...but I fear that I may be correct.

As the recent chain of events concerning our country's economy has unfolded, I found myself thinking about 'slippery slopes' and just how easy it would be for us to begin a slide that we'd be unable to overcome.

We have just partially nationalized our major banking entities.  We have effectively nationalized the AIG insurance giant.

I have never felt so close to the point where it could become possible that our country would become the United Socialist States of America.  There will be those among you who see this as pure and unadulterated blasphemy.  There will be those among you who will nod your heads up and down in total agreement.  There will be those among you who have not given this any thought; and among that group there will be those who now begin to think about nationalization/socialization, and there will be those who simply aren't concerned.

We have a candidate for President of the United States of America who has openly stated that he favors re-distribution of wealth so that those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder can enjoy the fruits of our nation's wealth.  And, we have a mainstream media that seems to have missed this statement in its entirety...or we have a mainstream media that agrees with this stated position...or we have a mainstream media that doesn't care.  This is a socialist mantra.

We seem intent on moving ourselves into government run and controlled healthcare.  Our government has become our 'nanny' concerning all kinds of things from the food we eat, to making decisions for us because it knows better than each of us does.

While I have thought, until now, that the alteration of our country to that of a socialist state was so preposterous as to be silly to contemplate, I have come to see how it could happen in the comparative blink of an eye and just how close we have come to that possibility.

The presidents of the major banking firms in the United States met with the Secretary of the Treasury for about an hour, and then left the room having signed off on a deal that has the United States of America becoming the owner of preferred stock in each of those entities.  These bank leaders didn't know what the proposition would be when they entered that room, and they didn't even consult with their respective directors.  They felt as though they had no choice.  This happened shortly after AIG was 'purchased' by the United States of America for $85 billion that was later escalated to just short of $125 billion.  AIG felt as if it had no choice.

We have an automobile industry begging for similar treatment after seeing their stock erode to 1950s prices.  These industry leaders feel as though they have no choice.

This is written in one of the last socialist strongholds of the United States...Milwaukee, WI.  I know several people who prefer the 'good old days' under socialist mayors.

So, as much as you might suspect my sanity at this point, I would submit to you that we have already taken several steps down that slippery slope in the name of protecting our economy.  Our economy got to this point through actions taken and not taken by our politicians.  That was, I believe, simply coincidence...but it could've been part of a conscious plan.  It makes little difference after the fact.  We delude ourselves if we think it impossible.

Once we are at the bottom of the slippery slope, we'll not climb back in our lifetimes.  We were warned years ago about "irrational exuberance".  "Irrational panic" is a much worse taskmaster.  Incremental erosion of our freedoms is insidious, and, too often, we aren't even tuned in sufficiently to comprehend what we're losing. 

We drink the kool-aid and then wonder how in the world we got to the point we'