As GM goes, so goes the nation

And don't forget...What's good for GM is good for America. I like those phrases less each time I hear them. Even more, now that GM and Chrysler both are becoming nationalized companies. Government officials are now not just bailing out the companies, setting salaries and making management hiring decisions, they're also going to guarantee warranties?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Carmageddon '09 - Lemon Aid
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

And, from the folks at Reason:



As one fellow said after seeing the piece from Reason...

GM + Government Motors. If Amtrak is any guide, future cars will break down often, get bad miliage, and cost $100,000 each.

I'm not sure, but I might be a domestic terrorist

I'm used to being thought of as "odd" for some - or most - of my views, but some recent news items have left me wondering if I might be a bit more dangerous.

from an article at Fox News:

If you're an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, if you possess subversive literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.

That's according to "The Modern Militia Movement," a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a government collective that identifies the warning signs of potential domestic terrorists for law enforcement communities.

And this little icon from Homeland Stupidity popped up at WenchWisdom:

And, from Glenn Beck's Monday show:



Now, how many of these things in my life show up on the checklist?

• Donated money to 3rd party candidates and Republican Liberty Caucus wing of GOP
• Used to have Ron Paul bumper sticker. Can occasionally still be seen about town in a "Who is Ron Paul?" shirt, when not wearing "Government is the negation of liberty" or "Got Liberty?"
  
• Has a copy of the Constitution on her iPhone
• Former/current Libertarian Party member
• Gun owner
• Unhappy taxpayer
  
• Donated money to libertarian/free market groups, such as CATO and Ludwig von Mises Institute
• Member of Free State Project
• Owns hard currency
• Fan of small government, states rights and the sovereignty of the individual.

-----
Update: Apparently, I'm not that dangerous after all. From WenchWisdom:

Suddenly Domestic Terrorism is No Longer Fun
Yesterday, the MIAC amended their report to the FBI to exclude a lot of what they perceive to be "terrorists", and now it's no longer fun to poke fun at the whole situation--a situation created by a group of loonies with tinfoil hats and a handful of 9-11 Truthers.

One thing that IS fact from their list: militia members tend to vote third-party. That's all.

It appears I can no longer commit treason and tyranny simply by waving the flag, posting links to videos of Constitutional discussion, and by owning a gun--my fun has been taken away!

Now I actually have to WORK at being a domestic terrorist....sheesh! :)

Reason TV: Stimulis Ad

I'm avoiding conversations about the current battle over bailouts and stimulus packages as much as possible. It's gotten tiresome, both with liberal friends and with my ultra-right wing mother. Thanks to Reason TV, I no longer have to say a word. I can just send this link:

Inaugural Day

There are so many people commenting on the inaugural speech, and our new President, from all points along the political spectrum. I'd like to take a minute to highlight a different speech from today. Senator Diane Feinstein, a woman who I respect, though I disagree with her often, spoke of the significance of today's historical event - which happens in our nation every four years, before her introduction for the new President & Vice President. The transition of power from one leader to the next which the US celebrates. No violence. No civil war.

In a world where political strife is too often settled with violence, we come here every four years to bestow the power of the presidency upon our democratically elected leader.

Left or Right, it doesn't matter today.

Putting the (R) back in RNC

I officially became a republican again about five years ago. Not because I agree with everything the party stands for - that's far from the case. I left the Libertarian Party because of the kook factor. The 9/11 conspiracy talk and increasing importance placed on being the purest Libertarian in the room... it was too much for me. The DNC was never an option. I just can't embrace the idea that the money I earn is public property. I prefer candidates who are fiscal conservatives AND social liberals. The RNC platform of less regulation, lower taxes, and lower spending was the best I could hope for, right?

I held my nose and voted for (R) candidates who had supported no child left behind and drug coverage for seniors, while allowing partial privatization of social security to drop off the radar. After all, it was better than the (D). That ended in 2008.

I voted for a few republican candidates on the ballot this past November. (Not Saxby Chambliss.) I didn't cast a vote for President. I skipped that section of the ballot. I couldn't vote for Barak Obama. He seems to be a good man, but I have a family to take care of - I didn't think I could afford him. I wouldn't vote for John McCain. His stance against pork barrel projects didn't translate to opposition for other government spending, and he was proud of the job he did on campaign finance reform. RINO!

The last few months of bailouts have only served to give me confirmation that I made the right choice. I knew I wasn't the only fed up republican out there. Even my mother, who joined as a young republican back in the 60s, admitted to feeling the need for a shower after leaving the voting booth this year.

Well, somebody at RNC headquarters seems to have remembered the R:

(from the washington times) Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.

Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.

"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

Finally! It's a case of too little, too late, but (raising coffee mug in toast) here's hoping it catches on.

Not just another presidential debate

I've been watching all the political goings on. I'm not voting for either of the two annointed candidates, so I've not been talking much about them. It's a case of "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." The presidential debates, especially the VP debate, were purely entertainment for me. Frankly, they haven't even been good entertainment. I got more out of the various bloggers (Vodkapundit, Reason) liveblogging the debates then I did from the questions and answers on the television. Not just because I like my substance served with a garnish of snark, either.

It's not that I don't like either Obama or McCain. I think they are both charismatic men with incredible personal stories, and I would gladly sit down for a beer with either one. They both have ideas. Good ones, bad ones, and ideas that aren't even theirs, but make an interest group swoon in supportive fervor.

On many issues, I'm completely neutral, mildly opposed or mildly supportive. I know that should put me in with the elusive undecided voter group that gets all the attention in focus groups, but I'm not undecided. There are issues about which I hold strong opinions, but neither candidate addresses those to my satisfaction.

I'm very decided. I will not vote for either Obama or McCain. McCain might be a little closer to my economic and smaller government views, but only in the way that a gentle snowfall is closer to a July afternoon than a blizzard. Same goes for Obama on social issues. With McCain's support of the financial bailout and general economic rescues (a.k.a meddling), I don't trust him to protect my wallet. I agree with almost nothing Obama has said about our economy, but that's nothing new. I do expect better from democrats on protecting my individual rights. I don't see the conviction from Obama I need to give me any confidence he'd start rolling back the invasions of privacy and lessening of freedom on the slippery slope of the Patriot Act(s). One or the other might be better on particular issues, but there's no choice when you look at the big picture. Each would be disasterous, just in different ways.

Which brings me to Sunday night. The 3rd party candidates will be taking to the stage for a debate, sponsored by Free and Equal. Ralph Nader (Independent), Cynthia McKinney (Green), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution), and maybe Bob Barr (Libertarian). Bob Barr's a maybe, because he says he'll only debate Nader. That's rather hypocritical of him, as he bitched about not being included with the big boys in the official debates, but has no problem trying to snub the lesser known 3rd party candidates when it is his turn.

It should be a load of fun. These three (or four) folks won't agree on much of anything, and they will argue. I expect politeness, but there will be claws. There is no carefully chosen tightrope for them to walk, in order to fall in line with the highest number of voters possible. They will talk about what they actually think and believe, sans focus group approval.

I'm not voting for any of these presidential hopefuls either, but I'm going to watch their debate with something I've missed in the debates thus far. Genuine Interest. Maybe even a bit of enthusiasm.

W.W.A.R.H.D?

What Would Ayn Rand Have Done?
From Time/CNN, 9/19/08

I know it's not as warm and spiritually fulfilling as the WWJD - What Would Jesus Do? bumper stickers, but I think it's a really good question, especially in today's social and political climate.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of thinking about living my life in a "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" fashion , and think the world would be a better place if more individuals thought in the terms of The Golden Rule. That's a rule for the individual, though, not for the Government.

The Government's job is to protect my life, my liberty, and my property from invaders, both of the foreign and domestic variety. Someone breaking into my house? I want the police to show up and arrest him - assuming I didn't exercise my 2nd amendment right before calling 911. Should Canada decide it's a good idea to march south in order to seize our excellent health care facilities, I'd expect the US armed forces to fend them off at the border. (Sorry. Had to clean up the coffee I snorted towards the monitor at this thought.) If a bank or investment institution lies to my grandfather about the securities backing his accounts, I want the weasels to either make it right through restitution, or go to jail.

That's it. That's all I want my government to do. I do not want the government to seize a portion of my income to fund the bailout of mortgage backed securities. That job is for the individual corporations to handle, while being accountable to stockholders and customers.

I do not want government wasting my time, tax dollars and patience to come up with bridge loans for struggling corporations. Not even if, as I've heard pointed out in several interviews this last week, the government stands to make money on the deal as the assets are sold off. That's not quite accurate. I should have said Especially if... as the government is not supposed to be a profitable enterprise. The only money making the government is allowed is the minting of currency, and even that it's been doing to excess lately.

If regulatory agencies set up the "guidelines" under which all these failing companies have been operating, how exactly are these same bureaucrats qualified to fix the even bigger problems we have now? They take over more of the operations and asset management, all in the name of the "public good". I'm not that far into my stack of economic books, but I'm pretty sure public (government) ownership of industry is called Socialism. And the government management of ostensibly privately held companies? That's Nationalism.

The Fed and Treasury are taking the step of removing from power the company heads who were in charge during the plunge into the current mess. As more companies approach the government for help, and from industries other than banking, who is going to pull the plug on Paulson and Bernanke for their gross mismanagement?

Tax Season Woes

April 15th is less than a month away, and it's time for me to put my life on hold for a week or two. Time to wade through the annual sea of paperwork, just so the IRS can tell me to write them a check. ANOTHER check, really.

Kept all the receipts, everything filed by category. Plugging the information into TurboTax is the easy part. The killer is figuring out exactly which child a particular camp fee was for. If for the eldest, was it before or after his 13th birthday? Wait! What about the actual birthday week? Do I split that in half?

HSA distributions, deposits, insurance premiums... check, check and recheck. Ooh! Go back. Check again. Did the amount spent on dentists, orthodonists, annual checkups and prescriptions total up to 7.5% of AGI? Darn, we're 0.2% shy of the amount needed to deduct medical expenses. Except... where's the Rx receipts for June/July allergy and asthma meds? Who filed these in the Veterinary Bills folder?

This week, I have projects in the works for clients, books to read to 1st & 3rd graders at school, and two or three days with perfect riding weather. All of these things take a back seat to my preparations for that 1040 (and schedules). I know, an accountant could help. Might be worth it. Might not. An accountant would take care of the information which is input to TurboTax. Like I said earlier, that's the easy part. He/she would not be able to take care of the most time consuming, frustrating part of the process. The 12 months of record keeping, the gathering of the stacks of folders, the sorting.

There's too much time spent by too many people on this *$#!%@~! Something about the US tax system has to change. I'm not sure the "Fair Tax" is the answer. A flat tax seems the simpler option.

The president elected in November won't be able to do a thing to change the current mess. He/she may set the tone, but the actual laws are not made by the executive branch. That's the job of the House & Senate. The people we put into those seats make the real differences in our daily lives, and in the plans we make for our future. Question is, will enough people write/call/email their offices, or the campaigns of those running for office, to put real tax reform on the front burner. I plan to, as soon as I find that missing receipt.

Government 'Gifts'

Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson called the stimulus package a "gift for the middle class." What kind of a gift is it, though?

If you haven't tried it yet, PBS has a calculator to figure out the amount of your 'gift'.

According to what I've read at CNN and several of the personal finance sites, the 'gift' is based on the 2007 tax year, and your tax return must be filed to be eligible. (Not to mention the other income eligibility requirements.) So, would that mean the money received is an additional refund of taxes paid in 2007? I wouldn't exactly call that a gift. That's more like a mail-in rebate.

This "gift" isn't a rebate though. It's based on 2007, but is actually a pre-bate of money we'll be paying in taxes during 2008. Except, we have to report it in our 2008 tax return, and pay taxes on it. I'm actually a bit fuzzy about whether it's counted as taxable income, or if it will be deducted from any refund amounts / added to taxes due next year. Again, not much of a gift.

The AGI caps for the stimulus checks are $75k for an individual, $150k for a couple, filing jointly. If this is truly a gift, shouldn't it be something for every single person on the tax rolls?

From what I understand, millions of retired and lower income individuals will also be receiving checks as part of the stimulus package, even though they have little or no tax liability at all. I've heard this called relief from payroll taxes. I'm pretty sure that was the reason for the Earned Income Tax Credit, wasn't it?

For the person who has no tax liability to offset, and who will not be required to pay taxes next year, the stimulus package may be called a 'gift'. Or, maybe not. Considering this is an election year, and the politicians adjusted the stimulus package until it included the maximum number of voters, I think the proper term is bribe.

The More Things Change

During my daily reading, I came across this quote at The Agitator:

“I am suspicious of this railroading of bills through our House of Representatives, and I refuse to vote for a measure unseen and unknown. … I want the RECORD to show that I was, and am, against this bill and this method of procedure; and I believe no good will come out of it for America. We must not abdicate our power to exercise judgment. We must not allow ourselves to be swept off our feet by hysteria, and we must not let the power of the Executive paralyze our legislative action. If we do, it would be better for us to resign and go home-and save the people the salary they are paying us.

“I look forward to that day when we shall read the bill we are considering, and see the author of the bill stand before the House and explain it, and then, after calm deliberation and sober judgment- after full and free debate-I hope to see sane and sensible legislation passed which will lift America out of this panic and disaster into which we were plunged.”

He followed the quote with an admonition to click through, for the who & when.

I figured it was Ron Paul. Probably about the Patriot Act. Or the Patriot Act II. Or the war funding. Or Medicare Rx coverage. Or maybe the current economic stimulus package that's on Rush Order. I couldn't think of many lawmakers, or any really, who talk like this these days. So I clicked the link...

...and ended up reading the answer at Downsize DC. I'm a big fan of this group, though they tend to get overshadowed by Reason, Cato, and Mises when I'm looking for answers. Downsize DC is a grassroots group working to get a law passed to make mandatory a certain amount of time before a vote on new or changed bills, in order to ensure everyone has had time to read through the entire text.

While reading through the papers we sign is a habit for most of us Regular Joes and Janes, we apparently have a Congress full of people who don't even bother to skim the content of the bills which have so much power over the lives of millions. Even worse, this has been the status quo for quite some time. That speech I quoted earlier? It was made by Rep. Ernest Lundeen from Minnesota in March, 1933 upon passage of the Emergency Banking Relief Act.

Different Congress, same legislative B.S.

Coming soon to campaigns near you....

Limits on donations to campaigns.
Restrictions on what can be said over the public airwaves during the election cycle.
Restrictions on groups who contract for advertisements for or against a particular piece of legislation slated to be put before candidates, if they were elected.
Restrictions on individuals who contract for advertisements for or against a particular piece of legislation slated to be put before candidates, if they were elected.
Laws which weaken the ability of a newcomer to challenge an incumbent.

Sounds a bit like the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, don't it?

Toss in taxpayer funded campaigns, restrictions on publishers, and a slew of other convoluted regulations, including some which might restrict anonymous bloggers, and you get New Zealand's proposed Electoral Finance Bill (EFB).

I've read parts of the bill, editorial writeups on the bill, from both sides, and I can't say I understand it. I want to though, so I'm going to keep reading.

Why am I so interested in NZ politics? For the same reason(s) everyone in the U.S. ought to be interested. Many of the regulations are beefed up versions of things found in our own Campaign Finance Reform (CFR). And if not in CFR, it's being discussed by candidates for the presidential nomination in 2008.

The Fairness Doctrine would force radio and television stations to provide equal time to all candidates. While news programs do this as part of their regular jobs, can you imagine having to track down the opponents to answer to the mere mention of a particular candidate during a call-in show? And what of the political ads? Will stations have to give away time to offset the purchase of time by others?

And publicly funded campaigns? We have a matching system now, which has a slew of criteria to meet before a candidate can access funds. There's a limit of $2300 per individual on donations. Non Profit entities have been set up for the express purpose of political advocacy. Big frakking mess.

Take it to the next step. Government provides funds for all campaigns. Government then gets to set the rules for how much money the candidates get, as well as the rules controlling the spending of said money. And who runs the the government? Why, it's the same folks who are taking the cash for campaigning. If it's tough for challengers now, how much worse can it get? And third party candidates who are already having to struggle for ballot access?

Since the natural tendency of government is to grow, and to increase the scope of it's power, this is something we should all worry about.

A growing number of New Zealanders have got it right though. They've been taking their protests to the streets, while they still can. And each protest has been larger than the one before. The support crosses the demographic and political spectrum. From Peter Cresswell, at NotPC:

Momentum is building. Yesterday, five thousand of us took to the streets in Auckland to protest the Clark/Peters/Fitzsimons/Dunne Electoral Finance Bill: protesting the speech rationing, democracy rationing and electoral corruption that this Bill entails: protesting now while it's still legal...

More pics and commentary at MikeE's, including this pic above and the accompanying potent observation:

The above photo shows that freedom of speech and the EFB is no longer a beltway issue. Today we had conservatives and liberals, left and right, maori and pakeha, anarchists and statists marching side by side in disgust at the EFB. Some might claim that this is a National and ACT thing. It wasn't, I spotted: National, Act, Labour, [Libertarianz,] Socialist Workers, Free Palestine, Maori Sovereignty movement, Tuhoe Anti-Terror Bill protestors, war veterans, mothers, accountants, lawyers, students, anarchists, businessmen and women all marching against this disgusting piece of legislation. They will not stop, this bill will will be the end of those politically who support it.

He's dead right, and more mongrel MPs should be listening. As a few free-speech-supporting green friends have said to me, a few of whom marched yesterday, "We didn't vote Green for this!"

5,000 people. In one city. That's beautiful. I don't think we could get 5,000 people in the Atlanta metro area together for a protest for free speech, and the population in this region is greater than in all of NZ.

Death & Taxes...

Yeah, Politics. Next up, religion and money.

How many issues do you need to have in agreement with a candidate before you can support him? One? Two? Five? Maybe all but one?

I know so many people who say they support a particular candidate, BUT he's...
...been known to support gun bans
...raised taxes
...increased state spending, or voted to increase federal spending
...voted to limit free speech
...voted to increase government control over individual decisions

Why is that okay, but it's not okay to support a candidate who truly supports shrinking the size and power of government in our daily lives, just because he doesn't support a war which he believes to be against the constitution?

How many other candidates even weigh their decisions and stated views against this "goddamned piece of paper" we call The Constitution of the United States of America?

Anyway, his name is Dr. Ron Paul, he's a congressman from Texas, and he's a rare thing in politics - a man of conviction.

Get your own button