The BIG Scam!

I find it shockingly depressing to have confirmation of what I have for a long time intuitively felt: that SO FEW in this country can actually post a “score” on an EEG test. This tidbit was brought to me today courtesy of a good friend…

Just look at how the stupid car buyer got taken to the cleaners in the recent “Cash For Clunkers” program (and remember once and for all – NOTHING is EVER Free, especially when the government is involved):

If you traded in a clunker worth $3500, you get $4500 off for an apparent "savings" of $1000. However, you have to pay taxes on the $4500 come April 15th (something that no auto dealer will tell you). If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1350 on that $4500. So, rather than save $1000, you actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for. Now you have 4 or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, that was costing you FAR less to operate than the payments that you will now be making. But wait; it gets even better: you most likely also got ripped off by the dealer. For example, every dealer in LA was selling the Ford Focus with all the goodies, including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc. for $12,500 the month before the "cash for clunkers" program started. When "Cash For Clunkers" came along, they stopped discounting them and instead sold them at the list price of $15,500. So, you paid $3000 more than you would have the month before (Honda, Toyota, and Kia played the same list price game that Ford and Chevy did). So let's do the final tally here:
You traded in a car worth: $3500
You got a discount of: $4500
---------
Net so far +$1000
But you have to pay: $1350 in taxes on the $4500
--------
Net so far: -$350
And you paid: $3000 more than the car was selling for the month before
----------
Net -$3350

We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, etc.) on the extra $3000 that you paid for the car, along with the 5 years of interest on the car loan, but let's just stop here. Why increase the pain? So who actually made out on the deal? The feds collected taxes on the car along with taxes on the $4500 they "gave" you. The car dealers made an extra $3000 or more on every car they sold along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies. The manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month before. And the poor, stupid consumer got saddled with even more debt that they likely cannot afford. Obama and his platoon of scam-artists gone Super-Size convinced Joe consumer that he was getting $4500 in "free" money from the "government" when in fact, Joe was giving away his $3500 car and paying an additional $3350 for the privilege. If someone wanted a new car it would have been better to wait for this program to end (like now), sell your (your car) without the sale of your asset being treated as taxable income, and negotiate your new car at normal market prices.

And this is the government leadership that so many citizens STILL want to singularly run healthcare in this country. That’s simply amazing – only insomuch as I did not realize the sheer number of people in this country who are true zombies (the living dead, at least from the neck, up). What else could explain such dangerously misplaced confidence, such empty-headed stupidity?

Thanks for playing. :^/

Things I love to HATE

OK I admit it. At times, I am a complete HATER. There are some things I simple cannot do anything but Hate. Loathe entirely. Vomit on. Despise. And of course since I cannot (will not?) refrain, the list is coming to you live right now:

1. Kyle Bush - have you ever met such a bigger pansy-waisted little fairy-boy who is apparently still nursing from Mama's paps, who somehow is actually a NASCAR driver?

2. Being woken up in the middle of the night without cause or explanation. Does this require ANY explanation?

3. Cats. They serve NO useful function and could all die and I would be utterly and completely fine with this. The fur. The crapping. The self-absorbed existence. The hairballs. The claws. The failure to perform any useful pet function. Cannot stand them.

4. People who do not work.

5. People who do not work and actually still somehow get paid.

6. People who allegedly "manage" people who do not work and still get paid.

7. Users. People who use other people. People who think that other people exist solely to please and serve themselves.

8. Drama. For all adults, drama should have ended in 5th grade.

9. Reality shows involving skank women, be they former rock star girlfriends, wives of former rock stars, or narcissistic self-absorbed housewives of Wherever.

10. Politicians who advocate a society which abdicates personal responsibility, or who believe that government should be doing for us what we SHOULD BE DOING FOR OURSELVES. I'm going to vomit on this one, I'm telling you.

11. Running out of toothpaste.

12. Worse - running out of toilet paper.

13. Worse still - running out of coffee.

14. Abhorently worse even still - running out of gas. Which leads me to one of the Truly Big things I hate....

15. Stupid people (it's unforgivably stupid to run out of gas).

16. Businesses which telemarket to your home phone.

17. People who ask you to sign a petition to revoke Proposition 8 after the issue of marriage has been settled TWICE by the voters of the State of California. What a hopeless bunch of haters.

18. People who are allowed to vote who are dumber than a bag of hammers, also known as, people who vote who do not even take the time to inform themselves of the candidates and topics at hand.

19. People who do not vote at all. Argh! Drives me up a wall.

20. People in category 19 above who complain about the government. Even WORSE!

21. Waiters and waitresses who interrupt you at least 10 times during your meal when you are trying to have a serious conversation.

22. People who do not control their children. Screaming demanding spoiled children who are WAY OVERDUE for the whipping of their lives. Children who turn into destructive teenage monsters who disrespect their parents. Parents who cluelessly cannot understand why their children are not their friends. Total Clueless Wonders.

23. Liars.

24. Liars whom you know are lying, who if they were in possession of even the cortex of a brain would know that you know they are lying.

25. Getting bled white paying taxes. I HATE taxes. However much I pay it is still WAY TOO MUCH.

26. The size of government. All government. State, local, and especially federal. I cannot think of a single thing they do for me beyond defending the country and delivering the mail, the latter of which any number of companies could do more competently for less cost.

27. Unions, which, in case you don't know, are pretty much the bain of productivity and economic strength. They serve as a shelter for the incompetent, the lazy, the useless, the bloodsuckers, and the green slimy dregs of society. They allow the above described to avoid accountability for results.

28. Stupid drivers. Like female drivers who put make up on and drink coffee and talk on the cell phone while driving.

29. (Sub-category of 28) People who cannot get on the freeway without lots of drama and the taking of other drivers' lives in their hands.

30. Bad breath. Granted, for me, I means keeping Altoids in business, but still, with the existence of Altoids and other products, for one to have bad breath is simply without excuse.

31. Whiners, especially the type at work who start whining the moment others expect them to - you guessed it - work. Oh how I hate whiners.

32. Nepotism. I cannot tell you the quantity of world-class idiots which I have encountered, who hold their position simply because of someone who Daddy knows, or whom their spouse knows, or whatever. They go on, without a single variation, to cause complete trainwrecks in whatever work in which they are involved.

That's it for now. I'm out of breath. I'm sure when I catch my breath, there'll be more. But thanks for playing.

:^\

PS - if you have some things you hate, share.

The Color of Stupid

Wow, just when you think you have encountered Stupid in every color visible to the human eye, bam! Some idiot shows up with Uninformed Opinions, lowering the definition of Stupid to a whole new level. Most popular case in point, our beloved president: two guys seen doing what looks like a break-in. Police respond. Harvard law professor who broke into his own home - because he what, lost his keys? - is arrested after refusing to show ID and getting semi-hostile with police officer. The professor is a buddy of the POTUS. So Oblama, unappraised of the facts, calls the police officer (and EVERY police officer) "stupid" because he arrested the professor.

Here's the twist. Obama was playing a race card, implying that police officers all do some kind of racial profiling, and oppress the black man. He brought Color to Stupid. In so doing, he insulted every honest, hard-working policeman in the country, men and women YOU WANT TO SHOW UP when you call 911. He called them stupid by virtue of their role.

There's national leadership for you. Actually, what that is is the un-teleprompter-governed blathering of a novice who wants the world to be color-blind while he is the farthest thing from it. What a national embarassment. But, I ask myself on that note: how is today different from any other? Oh yeah, it's not.

Thanks for playing.
:^\

The Big Evil Healthcare Industry!

OK I have absolutely had enough (again). I've just watched the President's press conference, which was largely centered on healthcare reform and the bill he's trying to ram through Congress.

Look. I'm not stupid. I completely tire of the healthcare industry being painted as the Big Evil Monster who is pillaging the country. I'd be near the front of the line to point out the problems with healthcare in the USA, but for the leader of the country to basically imply that the doctors and the health insurance companies are evil profit takers all out to get our wallets (not that he could ever be grouped with "our," what with a private doctor and all)? Come on. I'd categorize that as Ignorant and Unhinged and Unbelievable.

I'm supposed to believe that the market has no competition, so that's why the government needs to have an option, to force competition and lower costs. The government couldn't compete with a blind man in an archery contest. I'm not stupid. What would happen if the Post Office had competition? They'd be out of business.

I'm supposed to believe that the government is going to bring efficiency and reduce waste and fraud out of healthcare. Like they do with Medicare, right? Like they do with welfare, right? Right. I'm not stupid.

I'm supposed to believe that this healthcare plan will not cost the American taxpayers any additional money. You mean beyond the $650b downpayment? Or do you mean like the multi-trillion dollar expense the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts it will cost? If I had a frontal lobodomy, I would still not be that stupid.

I'm supposed to be okay with a government plan covering 10 MILLION illegal aliens. No, I will never be okay with government-provided healthcare services to people who have no right to be in my country.

I'm supposed to tear up because 50 million people do not have coverage. But break it down. 10 million are illegal aliens. 19 million can afford it, but CHOOSE NOT to have healthcare coverage. That's 29 million, which leaves 21 million. Many of whom are presently elligible for Medicare. All dry eyes here so far. The problem is massively overstated in this regard. I call that Drama.

Many cry that something should be done. I agree. Something should be done. Hospital associations should stop resisting (via lobbying) the legal specialization of hospitals into value-added process shops. A growing number of hospitals have focused on just key areas, such as hip and knee replacements, have much lower costs than general hospitals (their competition), have extremely lower patient post-op issue rates than their competition, and consequently have a much better value and success rate. It should be allowed nationally for any hospital to specialize in any areas in which it chooses to. The efficiency of such precision medicine for ailments that are predictable in diagnosis and treatment drives down costs and drives up success rates of treatment. There are presently regulatory obstacles to that continuing, courtesy of our nation's two hospital associations, who are resisting change. But wait - yep, there's more.

The pharmaceutical industry should have its federal protection removed or at least paired back. As it is, it is federally protected and allowed to amortize all its research into the cost of new drugs. Those drugs eventually get cloned by the pharm industry in other countries (mainly Israel and India), and they end up in less-regulated markets (like Canada and Mexico) for a small fraction of the charge per pill in US dollars. Change the rules (in some effective way) - open the markets, and watch the costs drop.

Medical liability and tort law needs a big rip and replace. Start making the losers of frivilous lawsuits pay the expenses of the winners, and the number of lawsuits will drop. Take away pain and suffering damage awards from a jury, and put caps on them so hair-brained judges don't continue to feed the legal industry, and medical expenses will drop. I'm sure there's a heck of a lot more bloodsucking lawyer graft going on here, but this is all I am aware of at present.

Reform healthcare insurance law so that it is not illegal for a doctor to offer medical insurance plans directly to his patients (pushing the insurance industry out from in between the doctor and the patient/customer). Yes, that's pretty much illegal in most states. Make it legal. Watch innovative local doctors and doctor groups offer plans that are affordable and creative in meeting the basic healthcare needs of their markets. Costs will go down. Service will go up.

Those are just 4 brief examples of at least 72 or more. You want to reform the healthcare industry? Okay, reform it. Plenty of places to start. But launching a new government healthcare program will be like launching the Titanic. It will hit a glacier of cost explosion and service implosion, shortly after onboarding 100 million new passengers freshly forced from the land of private health insurance, and it will sink them all in an ocean of debt and healthcare disservice. Unnecessary suffering and premature death will ensue on a massive scale. I kid you not.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself this question: can you name one thing the government does effectively, beside collect taxes and defend this nation? Name one. Can you? I didn't think so.

Thanks for playing.

:^/

Abuse of Power

It's amazing. I have never seen anything like it. Our Transcendent President and his pack of wolves are out on the biggest power grab, the most overt abuse of power that perhaps the office of the President of the United States has ever seen in history. Am I reaching here? You decide.

First we have TARP II (Bush is to blame for TARP I): $754 billion. With that the passing out of favors, control of whole sectors of the economy, and the take over of the auto manufacturers began. No one knew it at first, but now it's quite clear. Take Chrysler for example - secured lenders like the State of Indiana were deprived of their property without due process of law (also known as thievery or private property seizure without just compensation). Bankruptcy court was bypassed and so bankruptcy law protecting secured lenders was skirted, and the UAW (a major Obama ally and campaign funder), which held no meaningful legal equity or debt claim, was made a 55% owner. This is consistent with the Obama agenda to redistribute property. It's just that this time public employee retirement funds for the state of Indiana were bilked to the tune of 29 cents on the dollar. The basic philosophy is, "Take it from others and give to our guys". That works for them. They are so okay with that. Does that work for you? I call that abuse of power. And perhaps you may have no idea how undermining such an action is to the sanctity of private property.

So consider GM. Obama and the knights of his round table give them their requested loan(s). The hook is set. Then after the UAW president gives the order to Team Change, they pull the levers, and cause GM's president to be kicked to the curb. Is any of that constitutional? Nope. Abuse of power.

So consider the Stimulus bill's (hilariously named and insidiously created) Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, SO appropriately acronymed the RAT Board. This board's creation is buried in 1073 pages of law, known generically as the Stimulus bill. It creates a board that is authorized to stop inspectors general from inspecting government program for potential fraud, abuse, and corruption. The language in the law enables them to ask "that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation." Ask yourself, under what circumstances would you want to ask an independent oversight office's inspector general to refrain from conducting an audit or investigation of a government program or government-funded program (insert ACORN here as one type of government-funded program)? Answer: when you have something you wish to hide. Abuse of power.

Sidebar: will we please fire those who voted for this bill, exclusively and particularly for failing to read it in its entirety before making a vote/no-vote choice? Not to mention those crafty slimy power-lusting black widows who have spun this web. Say it with me: "Abuse of power."

Ah, and last but not least, and not even half-told, is yet still another overt move to expand his power footprint on this country (definitely not to be confused with a carbon footprint). Obama has grown fond of appointing a platoon-sized cadre of "czars". His predecessor (W) had set the previous record at four czars. The current and growing list stands below:

Army of Czars:

1. Drug Czar. Okay I guess I get that. I think this is the pharmacist who gets drugs for all the other czars. Someone is selling some really bad drugs here.
2. Energy and Environment Czar. The fact that these two topics are - in Team O's mind -closely linked together represents the depth of stupidity in this administration and a guaranteed abdication of any meaningful national energy independence policy. Their whole energy policy is: protect the environment. I think this particular czar graduated from the Seminary of the Church of Environmentology.
3. Homeland Security Czar. Don't we have a Secretary over that Department?!
4. Health Czar. Does the Dept of Health and Human Services know about this? What about the Surgeon General? Or is this person the planned viceroy of the new Health Kingdom Obama is trying to make into law, with an associated power grab of 17% of the economy?
5. Urban Affairs Czar. Um, did we dump the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development? Does this guy sell "protection" ala the Sopranos? What about a Rural Affairs Czar then? Give me a break. More than likely its a political payoff for someone who has a track record of zero.
6. Regulatory Czar. Huh? Do we need another guy making up regulations? Are the Feds understaffed on those types? Perhaps, this czar exists to aid some of the other czars in their assigned agendas.
7. Technology Czar. What happened to the Federal Chief Information Officer Barry just appointed?
8. Government Performance Czar. Outside of the fact that this is an extreme oxymoron, isn't this what the Government Accounting Office does, audit crap?
9. Border Czar. Isn't there a Border Patrol with a person who already runs that? Is this guy there to let select people in to vote in the next election? I don't get it. Do you?
10. WMD Policy Czar. Don't we have a policy of "we don't let terrorists get those" already? Have we had any attacks since 9/11? I didn't think so. So is there something deficient in that policy or is he in charge of making it jihadist-friendly?
11. Intelligence Czar. Do we think appointing someone to that role will cause better coordination among intelligence agencies? Perhaps this will be the person whom Princess Pelosi can designate the new Head Liar of the Intelligence Community?
12. Car Czar. Oh yeah, this is the guy who is going to be the UAW's enforcer, and work to pummel all auto manufacturers into submission to their will, and to get them even more sweet ownership/equity deals in other auto sector companies.
13. Pay Czar. And he shall reign over executive compensation of all debtors and servants of the Obama Kingdom (aka, all the banks and all the financial institutions and insurance companies and auto companies that were forced to take TARP money, and as many others as they can try to control). Do they think they have the constitutional authority to dictate pay and compensation? Does that scare you? Does that strike you in any way as the slightest bit wrong, perhaps? Shouldn't the share-holders who own the company be the ones to decide? Are we back to a backyard break-in on our private property rights again?
14. Great Lakes Czar? Come again? Huh? Are you kidding me? Team Change has slated $475m to "clean up" the Great Lakes, no doubt as a payback to the high priest of the Church of Environmentology.
15. Cyber Czar. Announced position, but as yet unfilled. This guy is going to rule the cyber-space for Team Change, and cooperate with the Regulatory Czar to prevent any political opponents from using the internet to organize against them.

So this overlay gang of executive hit men are going to execute Obama's rule, satraps ensconced in their perches of freshly minted power. Yet one more in what I promise you will be a long and unmitigated string of abuses of power. That is, until (hopefully) the next election, when enough people have had enough and conservatives hold at least 40 seats in the Senate. At that point someone will finally be able to stop the bus before it runs clean off the cliff of constitutional integrity and faithfulness. So much for solemn oaths to protect and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help you God. Those were just words. Their value evaporated ten seconds after departing the New Executive's lips.

Thanks for playing. :^\

Using Ize to Destruct the English Language

Alright, I am going to take a brief reprieve from my anger-filled rantings on political issues, which I know you savor like sweet little baby bell peppers filled with cream cheese. Or not, but anyway (thinly veiled self-affirmation there). Something has been bugging the living crap out of me regarding the slow destruction of the English language. I am not an English language expert. I do, however, know when stupidity and word-abuse is occurring, and this is the linguistic equivalent of child-abuse. It's the use of the suffix -ize, to turn a noun which is turned into an adjective already, into a verb. I'll explain (with the example that makes me realize how ignorant some people are - but intelligence was never a prerequisite for jobs in the news media, and we know they are not prerequisites for jobs in the entertainment industry):

Incentive - noun: something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort.

Incent - verb; to do something that incites...(insert the definition above).

--We're okay so far, but here comes the problem--

Incentivize (word used repeatedly on the news) - verb (I differ here because this word is not in any dictionary you pick up that has been printed 5 years ago or early, but you will now find it in online dictionaries, because complete idiots have used this so many times, it is now being considered a word). 

It is acceptable to take a noun, like money, put an -ize on the end of it, and make a word that means to turn into money: monetize. Another example is the noun weapon being converted into the verb weaponize. Again, -ize is to turn into.

You would never say adaptivize, or addictivize, or consumptivize, or constructivize, or delusivize. You would say adapt, or addict, or consume, or construct, or delude. So that's why I say these guys have crap for brains, and need some extensive 2x4 therapy to the head. (Now, if you are secretly thinking to yourself, yeah, I would say that, or, I have said that, or, that sounds pretty cool and sophisticated, I think I will use that word in the future to impress people, you are also a candidate for 2x4 therapy to the head.)

I would love for these media buffoons who use make-up words like incentivize (and think they are clever in doing so) to apologize that they repeatedly failed to recognize their murder of the English language. Their crime of popularizing this pretend word causes me to agonize, and provokes within me the desire to cauterize the bleeding extrusions of such disfunctional brains, but I know that will not civilize their dialectal deviance. I remain constrained to only satirize and attempt to ostracize their actions, to theorize on the sources of their obtuseness, while they brutalize the language and antagonize those who care, truly care about its proper usage. 

Okay, enough. Thanks for playing. :^/

Can Arnie and the legislature figure this out?

California's state government budget teeters on the edge of a precipice. Public school elementary and secondary education is a $50 billion section of that $119b budget (which includes a $42b deficit). It is the pink elephant in the room. It is what costs the State the most, and, as the teachers' unions in California would have you believe, it must remain fiscally sacrosanct. Public schools are doing a dismal job, and especially in this state. There is just no factual countervailing argument. And you simply do not reward bad performance with higher pay or funding. The problem is not a lack of funding. In fact, the problem is too much funding, and a reduction in funding will result in a corresponding improvement in eduation. I will explain.

California's taxpayers pay $8594 per student per year for education under this model. Their children get very little in return. The main reason is that the model is bureaucratic and monopolistic. In other words, it is highly inefficient, with an inbelieveably massive, bloated lethargic bureacracy, and it has no competition. There is a simple fix for this. It is not politically easy, but it is simple. Make private education an option of the public funding of education. Offer to all who are legal residents of this state, and the parents or legal guardians of elementary or secondary school students, the option to receive a $5000 voucher per student, per year, to be used at a private school of their choosing. Such a voucher would be used to pay for some or all of a private school education; let the parents/guardians figure that out (this is also known as letting the market decide). For each student that is pulled out of the public school system, and enters into the voucher system, the State would save $3,594. If 20% of the students in the State move into this system, that would save the State $3.6b. The dollar amount does not have to be $5,000, but it has to be reasonable and realistic. Private schools handily provide a consistently dramatically superior education when compared to public schools, and do so at far less per student. So I figure somewhere in the range of $3,500-$5,000 will be sufficient to allow market forces to work, and work they will. This is what will happen.

Poor performing schools and school districts will see their enrollments drop, anywhere from incrementally to dramatically, depending on the aggregate student capacity of alternative private schools in that locality, and on the ability of the public schools and their leadership to dramatically change their organizations, their behaviors, and their cost structures. Some school districts will eventually be forced to consolidate, and to close and sell school properties to reduce and regroup. Private schools (with increased facility demands) and other interests will purchase those properties and repurpose them. Public school teachers unions, instead of changing and responding to market changes, will dig their heels in and try more of the same: demand more money, fight against vouchers with shrill protests, and strike. School districts and county offices of education will be forced to further consolidate, to reduce their administrator-to-student ratios (also known as reducing unproductive payroll), to contract out non-education services like landscaping and facilities management. A byproduct opportunity in this consolidation is that public school districts can simply sell older facilities, and consolidate into newer ones. Instead of having to engage in expensive building retrofits and remodelings, the properties can be sold for cold hard cash. 

Meanwhile, the percentage of students in private schools will continue to swell to the available capacity of local private schools, moving more and more funding from public schools to private schools. This increased demand will strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of the private school "industry" in California. Private school chains and franchises will arise, and the more innovative and opportunistic among them will target weak and ineffective school districts. This will further the demise of ineffective public schools. This will shine a very bright light on the fact that public schools cannot compete with private schools. The "market" will consistently choose private education over public education, because of the contrast in quality. People will vote with their dollars.

The demand for teachers in private schools will steadily climb. Private school teacher pay will incrementally climb, as a direct result of the increased demand. A larger percentage of the better teachers will walk away from the unions, and take jobs with private schools, which will offer more immediate cash rewards such as signing bonuses, performance bonuses, and merit increases. Private school teachers have always worked harder than public school teachers. Some innovative private institutions will offer profit bonuses to their teachers as part of their compensation, giving them a financial stake in the efficiency and effectiveness of that institution. Private schools are not bound by tenure rules and union constraints. If a teacher does not perform, regardless, he or she is subject to disciplinary action and termination. 

Test scores will incrementally improve on the whole, but only insomuch as the percentage of private school enrollments swell. This will be simply evidence of the provision of a better education. A better educated student populace will directly result in a correspondingly larger percentage of students pursuing higher education, which will result in a more valuable, competitive, and productive work force, which will result in a stronger state economy, and eventually an incrementally higher tax revenue base for the State's coffers. 

So the government will see, over the long run, a tangible benefit to its financial structure, by steadily divesting itself of largely ineffective costs (public education), while taking meaningful steps to bolster the underpinnings of the state's economy: an educated workforce. Like I once heard said, when your outgo exceeds your income, then your upkeep becomes your downfall. Um, that's happening in California. It takes brave and bold steps like this to produce lasting and effective change. I hope Arnie and the legislature can figure this out, but something tells me they will not.

A detailed and thorough analysis of this premise, approached on a national level, can be found here. It has the hard facts, and is worth the read, particularly if you care about this topic. 

Thanks for playing.

:^/ 

July! Julyer!

My friend sent me a series of jokes about how some students had to use certain words in sentences for an assignment in an English class. One of them was Mexican (my friend is hispanic; I am 1/2 Puerto Rican, so we can traffic in this stuff, laughing at our own kind). When he came to the word July, his sentence was:

"Ju told me ju were going to tha store and July to me! Julyer!"

Too funny! But the accusation can be leveled against someone else now. Someone who has some serious Baby Mama Drama going on. The Baby being Nancy's stack of changing stories and accusations of being lied to by the CIA, and the Mama being, well, Nan herself. The Drama being how can she stand there and lie, accusing the CIA of lying to Congress "all the time" no less. She was briefed. She knew about the water boarding. She didn't protest until she thought she could make political currency of it. Which leads you to what conclusion? She's an unscrupulous, shameless powermonger who exhibits no sense of respect of the Constitution, or of the office she holds, or of the country she rules, or of those who serve and defend it. That's how she sees it; be under no illusions. She doesn't serve the country. The country serves her. She'd be just fine with a crown and a sceptre. 

Could you do that? Could you stand in front of the nation and lie? She's not even good at it. It was a World Class performance in fumbling, bumbling, and looking the stooge. And shameful and reproachable as well. She stood up again today and made a statement about everything else, and she took NO questions on the CIA. She asserted her accusation. Even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Wow. 

How do you do that? I could never conceive of doing such a thing, not and hold my head up in public. This is the big lion in the democratic caucus of the House? This is #3 in line for the Presidency, if Barry is impeached and Joe kicks the bucket? What an empty-headed mannequin, a Hamas-groupie, a queen who thinks the Air Force exists as her personal taxi to San Francisco and back. To her it's all about power, and her mustering it in one fist, it's all about her personal lust for control and worship, it's not about the nation or its security or its best interests. It's not about honor, it's not about owning up to her faults, or providing meaningful leadership. In classic Machiavellian fashion, she will never admit she lied, she will never apologize, and her attacks will grow more outrageous and shrill, or, she'll completely ignore it (if the press lets her) and go on and act like it never, ever happened. And her groupies in The City? Well don't hold your breath waiting for them to vote her out of office. 

All I can hope for is that she just keeps doing more of what she's doing. Barely 6 months into a new Congress, and she's leaving a trail of political excrement that will give the conservative movement the best case study in liberal power-lust and shameless behavior it has ever had. 

Thanks for playing. 

:^/

Strong Financial Discipline? You cannot be serious!

OK noodle this with me and think about it for a moment. It should take just a moment; if it takes any longer than that, go away and never read my blog again, because, need I say it? Your kung fu is weak. 

Let's say, for argument's sake, that your family budget this year is $35,000. However,  the hard truth of the matter is that your actual income is only $23,000, but you want to spend $35,000. So, how are you going to do that? Forget how idiotic it would be, for a moment. Since you have a credit card with a $12,000 limit , you are going to charge $12,000 to that card. Yes, it will have interest, and yes, that amount is over one half of what your annual income is, and yes, it will take you an immense amount of time at your income rate to pay that debt off, and (shh! don't tell your spouse) yes, you even fully intent to outspending your income again next year too, and the following year, but hey, you have big dreams so you are going to do this. So, when questioned by your spouse about this intended course of action, and the overt imprudence, ludicrousness, indulgence, irresponsibility, and unhampered consumer-lust of your spending plan, you retort with how you are showing amazingly Strong Financial Discipline. Your spouse waits to hear your explanation. 

You present to your spouse, with great conviction, that you are exhibiting heretofore unheardof fiscal austerity by cutting ninety (count them, ninety!) "Venti half-caf with room" cups of coffee annually(!) from your Starbucks budget, which will net a savings the equivalent of $170 dollars, annually. You heard me right, annually. One-hundred, seventy dollars. One-seventy. Dollars. That much. Fiscal discipline. You think your spouse would buy into that? Do you view your spouse as that stupid? How would your spouse respond? Before or after filing for divorce? Exactly. 

Well evidently your President of the US of A thinks you ARE that stupid. Because today, the White House has annouced it's fiscal budget for 09-10, which is $3.5 trillion with a T budget, which contains a $1.2 trillion with a T deficit (borrowed, which must be paid back, with interest). To top it off, they are hailing this administration as exhibiting Strong Financial Discipline, but cutting $17 billion in federal spending as part of this exercise in financial suicide. 

Hey, if you haven't figured it out, that's the same as you offering an annual savings of $170 on your family's $35,000 annual budget and calling yourself fiscally responsible and disciplined. (I just removed some zeroes to make it easier to grasp.) I do not know what your reaction is to this, but right off, mine is: You're kidding me right? You cannot be serious!

Well guess what? This adminstration is serious about the spending, and they aren't kidding about the plan, and they are hoping you are stupid enough to buy the idea that they are fiscally disciplined. They site the $170 savings while they borrow $12,000 as the proof. Are you that stupid? Tell me you are not that stupid. 

Final irony: guess how much federal borrowed spending that is per household? Well let me help. At approximately 116m households in the US, that is about $10,344 borrowed per household. Just shy of the $12,000 credit card debt in our above scenario. Oh, and you and I have to pay it back, with interest. How ya feelin' now? If like me, right now you are torn between looking for the nearest toilet into which to empty the contents of your stomach, and angry enough to call your congressman and senators. So whether or not you toss your cookies into the porcelin recepticle, do call your representatives. They are partially and particularly to blame for this fiscal disaster. I assure you that Feinstein and Boxer are complicit in this budgetary action. And if you think for a moment that this fiscal action is not going to have severe negative repurcussions in the next handful of years, then you are dangerously ignorant of even the most fundamental math. I am talking 2+2=4 math.  This is not even economics. This is just plain math.

Thanks for playing

:^\

It doesn't take 17 working synapses to figure this out

In my state (California), the government is about to go broke. On first examination of that scenario, one might think, oh no! But after a very brief reflection it occurred to me that this is exactly what we need. We have a democratically controlled legislature which has expanded its expenditures and government programs by almost double in 19 years. Revenues, obviously, have not doubled. Hence the $42 billion with a B deficit. The legislature is in need of a collective financial full-blown intervention (you heard of that TV show Intervention, right? With the drug and alcohol abusers? Yeah). They remind me of the girl in that movie Shopaholic. They just can't stop increased spending. And the notion of shrinking spending, shutting down programs, thinning the ranks of government so-called "workers" (there's an oxymoron for you) - it is completely foreign to them. In fact, the current slate of propositions on the May 19 ballot represent behavior analogous to the Shopaholic main character pulling her last usable credit card (which is encased in a brick of ice) out of the freezer, and applying all necessary tools to break that card free from its cryogenic state and resume spending like it was the next needed fix of heroin. Which is pretty much what these propositions are, to this State government.

So in any effective intervention, if you are going to break the addict free from his bondage, you have to permanently separate him from the powers that enslave him. In this case, those enslaving powers are led by the State's teachers' unions (paid 25% above the national average), the correctional officers' union (paid 35% above the national average), and the state service employees' unions (not paid so great, but way way too many of them). These unions have big money, are aggressive lobbyists, and their lobby money and contribution money is the crack that keeps the ho's of our state's legislature enslaved. These unions do not hesitate to use their pimp hand on our legislature.

When I noodle all this for a moment, when I lend about 17 synapses to the problem at hand, I realize that these two won't separate. It's systemic. Which is why I stated at the beginning that going broke is exactly what this state needs. We need a good bankruptcy. This will be the only thing that detonates the link between the unions and the government. A bankruptcy will negate the power of all contracts (as in labor contracts), and put the state into the place where everything is vulnerable, nothing is sacred. It will allow the government to do what it cannot do with these forces looking over its collective shoulder: drastically and permanently change state government's labor contracts and expenditures to align with the harsh reality of its financial situation. It is a needed step, but it is only the first step.

There's much more that needs to happen, and the only way to properly catalog it is to write a book, which was not my intent when I started this post. But just to throw a list out there (since I cannot resist at this point)...

...We need to open up K12 education to private competition in order to change its behavior, through vouchers. Yep, I just dropped the V word. Competition changes behavior, and behavior is our big K12 education problem, not funding. When private schools can deliver a far superior education at a fraction of the expense the state doles out per student, our education problem is not insufficient funding. So, competition changes behavior because it brings this unpleasant kind of accountability. That would be the first issue; the second issue is transparency. Transparency of meaningful performance metrics is the second part of California's K12 problem.

...The lack of transparency and accountability are also the root problems in our correctional system, and our state government at large. If you knew the crap that is going on, you would hit the roof. Opening up the correctional system to competition from the private sector would be a good start too. When a private contractor can function as the steward of a state inmate for materially less than the State can do it, it's time to change the model to drive out the cost. Why not get the Maricopa County Sheriff, and make him the Corrections Czar of California? I think if we did, we would see alot of changes here, changes we would like. Costs would plummet. Return customers would plummet. Crime rates would decrease. You get the idea.

...The third part is we need to give businesses cause to want to do business here. From a cost and regulation standpoint, we are giving businesses left and right plenty of reasons to not want to do business here. And guess what? As a result, they are leaving. That trend only gets reversed when it becomes more attractive to stay here than it does to leave here. If the state wants a growing tax revenue base to fund its operation, it needs an economy, and it's really hard to have an economy with businesses leaving, which means jobs are leaving too. Basic 2 + 2 stuff. At least for you and me.

...The fourth part is budgeting. As long as the State has a spend-it-or-lose it budgeting and spending model, which disallows the carrying forward of budget dollars, the State will continue each fiscal year to empty its checking accounts of all left over funds. That practice rarely results in good investments and a good use of tax dollars. Who does that? You don't behave this way. I don't treat my finances this way. What the heck?

...The fifth piece is retirement. This needs to get scaled back to reality. The main reason so many deadbeats run to the state employment payroll is because after barely working for a period of time less than you and I by about 10 years, they can retire at 55 without having to really do much of anything in the way of saving. As a hard-working tax-payer, how's that grab ya? I am not suggesting we take away the retirement of those that have worked for many years and are now 54 and a half, getting ready to retire. But I am saying drastically change that retirement scale now. Push it to 65, and scale the retirement benefits payout package way back. In fact, why not tie their retirement in a meaningful way to their financial contributions toward retirement so that they only get out something related to what they put in? Imagine that. Real world scenarios. Wow. What'll I think of next?

Alright, enough cataloging for now. I am getting angrier and more hostile as I contemplate this whole mess. So with that said, let's all get back to work. There are alot of able-bodied welfare recipients in this state depending on us, not to mention all the part-time workers otherwise known as government and education employees. You ticked off yet? I am.

Thanks for playing.

:^\