Free Our Free Markets

Romney's Philosophy Of Competition.

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:28:41 PST

I observed Mitt Romney’s speech in Detroit and found it to be a standard campaign speech telling the audience everything he will do for them and stating why Obama needs to be fired. This was the case until the very end when someone asked him his concerns about China's growing economic power. His answer was interesting.

He said he welcomed the competition that China provides on the economic front; however, he would demand that they compete fairly and comply with international trading rules. Per Romney, they are allowed to manipulate their currency and steal our technology secrets. "They are good competitors, and like all good competitors, will take every advantage they can get. As long as we allow it, they will continue doing so", Mr. Romney said.

My question is why do we allow oligopolies here in the United States to ignore anti-trust laws that were created to protect free markets? Will Mr. Romney apply the same standards he plans to impose on China to domestic corporations competing domestically? Will he protect free markets?

The United States was founded on the principle that everyone is born with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Early on, our ancestors decided, the best economic model to reach these pursuits was capitalism. Free markets were chosen to best attain the nations economic objectives. Capitalism is here to serve society. Society is not here to serve capitalism. Read More: http://goo.gl/Vdsxg

Tools To Reduce Your Gas Bill!

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:47:32 PST

We have the tools to substantially reduce this nations gas bill. It requires no drilling or exploration of new oil. It does not cause any inconvenience. It fact, it will be more convenient.It is time to unleash the new technology that we all use in our daily lives. It is the Internet, Skype, PCs, video cameras, texting headphones, microphones and clouds.

A large percentage of Americans now work in an office. For most of them, there is no reason why they cannot work from home two or three days a week and avoid the daily commute. Employees and employers would need to get use to it. It should be limited to two or three days per week so everyone still has face to face contact on a regular basis. Managers would need to learn to manage from afar. Workers would need to gain new discipline.

A good place to start the experiment is a state and federal government. Dtart off on a small scale and grow as the kinks are worked out.

Everyone wins..

Federal Governments Role In Education.

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:24:00 PST

"The public school, Mr. Santorum said, arose “when people came off the farms where they did home-school or have the little neighborhood school, and into these big factories, so we built equal factories called public schools.

Education reformers on both the left and right criticize the uniformity of instruction that dates from mass public education. But Mr. Santorum...seems to want to substantially scale back or cancel federal and state guidelines on standards and equality of access." Mr. Santorum Defends Remarks On Obama And Government's Role In Education, New York Times, February 20, 2011

The most important resource this country has for its future is our children. We must invest in them and assure they have every possibility to learn and succeed. It is what is right for the child and it is right for the country. Education is part of the "general welfare" clause contained in The Declaration of Independence. This dictates the federal government be concerned about education.

I agree that the role needs to be better defined. Some on the far left would argue that only role of the Federal Government is to fairly distribute money to the states and let them ascertain what to do with it. As a federal taxpayer I would want some say and control of how the money is used. I want to make sure that it is being used wisely. Wisely does not mean that all states must use the funds in the same manner. It does means that state and local governments must bare most of the financial burden to educate their children.

From afar it appears that the Department of Education has gone too far in setting standards and objectives of school districts. The dolling out of federal money provides a big stick to the federal government and it should be carefull not to overuse the stick. Remember, the objective is to improve education in this country. It is not to allocate credit for doing so.

Controlling Deficit: Develop A Plan!

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:53:08 PST

Allot of this is about confidence. Austerity is not working and more stimulus is needed; however, it will add to confidence, and thus GDP, if we began working on a plan to solve our long-term deficit problem now. We are not doing this The Republicans are mainly at fault.

The Republicans take their pledge to Norquist more seriously than their pledge to the citizen to act in the best interest of the nation.

Obama seems to have given up on this issue. Yes, he included it in the State of The Union address and in his new budget, but he is remiss in using the bully pulpit to make the point. Obama has also told the world that he is through governing this year and off to the campaign. This year we do not have that luxury. We have too many problems. See More: http://goo.gl/y0YtJ

Greece: Germany In 1919 Revisited?

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:50:45 PST

Per the article World War 1 Treaties And Repatriation, United State Holocaust Museum

"For the populations of the defeated powers -- Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria -- the respective peace treaties appeared an unfair punishment.... Revision of the Versailles Treaty represented one of the platforms that gave radical right wing parties in Germany, including Hitler's Nazi Party, such credibility to mainstream voters in the early 1920s and early 1930's."

It is ironic that ninety years later the Euro Zone, led by Germany, is imposing strict conditions on Greece resulting in Greeks rioting in the streets objecting to the sanctions. The two situations are not identical; however, they are very similar. Other countries are imposing stiff santions on another soverign country that are perceived to be unbearably strict from the perspective of the citizens who must live by the sanctions.

Germany resented austerity imposed on them by other countries in 1919. The German people accepted their self-imposed austerity to unify East and West Germany towards the end of the last century.The Euro Zone needs to be more realistic with the sanctions imposed on Greece if they indeed want to be a United Europe.

Show Me The Recovery

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:00:53 PST

It will still be some time before the recovery matches the GDP and employment numbers of the mid 2000's. We have not found a replacement for new housing construction. Housing will not pick up until demand exceeds supply. There is still a foreclosure hang over the market that will not disappear for several years. Consumers were burnt and they are no longer counting on housing appreciation to be their savings. Thus the housing construction business is stuck in neutral.

The net wrthth of families shrunk from the housing debacle As a result, Americans have less to spend and are more cautious. They are also concerned about the federal deficit and our countries inability to govern. Consumer debt was also over extended and we are not in the mood to use credit cards like a piggy bank. Read More: http://goo.gl/Wn4Tj

Ron Paul: Some Contradictions!

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:29:47 PST

I read an article in the New York Times that made me admire many of Ron Paul's qualities. He is a man of integrity and consistency, both of which are hard to find in a politician these days. His home-spun charm could talk the skin off a Texas size rattle snake. His humble beginnings and lack of an ivy league education is refreshing.

I certainly can relate to his feelings about the military and foreign affairs. We should no longer be the policeman of the world. He believes in free markets and so do I. We both believe the government is too big and too wasteful. We both would like to see income taxes as low as possible, but I would bet he would agree that a zero tax rate is not possible nor would it be wise. There are certain things that only government can do and we would probably have a healthy discussion as to what those things should be. Further, we both agree that we must get the federal budget under control.

What puzzles me about Mr. Paul is some of his views on the economy. He appears to be against all government assistance relative to the economy including bailouts and government assistance in helping the economy recover from a major collapse like we had in 2008. His approach is to let the economy flush it self out and cleanse itself by going through a prolonged self renewal.

As a physician, he takes action to save lives. His hypo-critic oath does not allow him to sit at a patients bedside and let his body "self-cleanse" itself. It is amazing what modern medicine can do. It was not that long ago when doctors practiced blood-letting, draining blood from the body to cure the patient. We now know that does not work.

Just like medicine, the practice of economics has progressed. Sometimes intervention is the best policy. I readily admit sometimes economist, just like physicians, may over prescribe the medicine and for that matter, may even give the patient the wrong medicine. Is this a reason not to go to the doctor?

Mr. Paul, I admire you. Now only if you would change some of your views. I cannot go to a doctor who still does blood-letting.

Capitalism: Use it or Lose it!

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:15:39 PST

Capitalism is broken and needs fixing or must be further regulated t0 protect the consumer and worker from oligopolies. This is directly related to the inequality of income in this country. If we desire to fix inequality, we must fix capitalism.

The United States was founded on the principle that everyone is born with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Early on our forefathers decided the best economic model to reach these pursuits was capitalism. Free markets was chosen to best attain the nations economic objectives. Capitalism is here to serve society. Society is not here to serve capitalism.

Our early leaders recognized in order for capitalism to work markets must be free. Free markets meant the individual must have a wide variety of choices as to whom he could buy goods and services. Many providers forced them to provide the best products at the lowest prices possible or they would go out of business.

Early settlers were less concerned about government over-regulating markets then about devious suppliers trying to control markets. Today when a conservative complains about the destruction of free markets he is condemning the government saying it is over-regulating the markets and not allowing them to operate effectively. The damage caused by regulations pales to the damage caused by markets taken over by oligopolies and oligarchs.

With the consolidation of market control comes the consolidation of income. This is at the heart of today's unequal distribution of income. If a small group of companies are in control of a market, they can set prices and set the quality of the products produced. They also have more control over the cost of labor in the idustry.

A corporations principle objective is to maximize the wealth of its shareholders. In a competitive marketplace, with many buyers and sellers, this is accomplished by selling the best products at the lowest price possible. In a tightly controlled market, this is accomplished by tightening the control of the market and making it hard for the consumer and suppliers, including labor,.to go to a competitor.

The oligopolies are tightening their grip further by buying influence in Washington with huge campaign contributions. We are now seeing the results of the so-called Super PACS. We have one billionaire financing a major portion of Gingrich's campaign. Romney's campaign is being financed by huge contributions from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms. The news media is reporting that Obama will be spending a billion dollars on his reelection campaign. One man one vote is being replaced by one dollar one vote.

This must change and here is how.

1. Prohibit Corporations and Unions From Financing Political Campaigns by Amending The Constitution
2. Enforce Anti-Trust Laws against Oligopolies & Monopolies!
3. Bring Our Deficit Under Control and amend tax code!

THe question is do we citizens have the will to do it.

Choosing A President

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:10:14 PST

The criteria for the best presidential candidate is one having experience, character, an understanding of the problems facing the country, is living family values and will not sacrifice what is best for the country to improve his chances of winning in 2016. Barack Obama is the only candidate meeting this criteria.

He made mistakes early including allowing health care to side-track focusing on the economy, not recognizing the need to build coalitions with the Republican leadership in the House and Senate and failing to capitalize on the work done by the Bowles-Simpson Committee; even though he recognizes the need for a balanced approach to solving our debt problem.

We are better off than we were four years ago. With hindsight we know we were deeply involved in a sub-prime mortgage meltdown that almost brought on a depression. This meltdown was partially brought on by relaxing financial regulations and allowing institutions to get to big to fail.

In November 2008 everything came to a head. Without quick action by the Federal Reserve, during Bush's term, we indeed would have revisited the 1930's. Much of the large spending icreases the Republicans complain about resulted from the errors made during the Bush years. Frpm 2000 to 2008 consumer debt increased by 163% as shown by the chart to the left from the Federal Reserve.

The truth is economic hangovers hurt and they take years to correct. The recession officially started in 2008; however, much of our growth in the last decade resulted from excess consumer debt and the housing bubble. We borrowed from our future and are now paying the price.

At the same time, we were involved in a war in Iraq that should never have been. Thanks to Obama we are now out of it. Some will say we left too early. I say we went in too fast. It cost us much in life and treasure, while getting very little in return. In addition, Osama bin Laden is dead and al-qaeda is in disarray.

The President recognizes the need to invest in our future through education and building and repairing infrastructure. The Republicans have blocked every attempt to do so by demanding other programs must be cut while not agreeing to any tax increases on the wealthy.

We have an economic system that is not fairly distributing income. Our "Free Markets" are broken and no one is fixing it. Free markets can be harmed by over regulation by governments. The same markets can be destroyed by over zealous companies controlling markets and destroying free enterprise. The result is economic power becomes concentrated as does income and wealth.

Will a candidate, REpoblican or Democrat, please step forward and address this issue?

2012 Agenda For Politicians

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:02:57 PST

American politics is one of the few jobs where you are allowed to hunt for another job during 98% of normal working hours and continue to be paid for your present position. WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN THIS TIME!

"Republicans hope Mr. Obama’s pronouncement that a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut was the last “must-do” piece of legislation for the White House will work in their favor, making them look as though they are trying to create jobs while Mr. Obama is busy campaigning." Boehner Faces a Restive G.O.P. and New White House Attacks, Jennifer Steinhaurer, New York Times, January 14, 2011

In 2012 we have the following items that demand national attention: the presidential and congressional elections, the Afghan war, Iran building a nuclear weapon, high unemployment, a teetering economy and a national debt with no plan in place to solve it. These are just the items on the top shelf.

Our elected officals are going to try and do the side-step to avoid confronting anything other than their reelection. This is where they make their money and get their power and influence. They would rather wait until after the election when they have raided more money and consolidated their personal power. Both Democrats and Republicans will play the delay game. Each side may bantor some for the cameras and the press; however, in the end they only have their power retention objective in mind.

No one knows how long the world will give us to develop a plan that corrects our deficit problem over time. The consequences are too great to find out; just look at Greece and much of the rest of Europe.We need a plan now. We can begin its implementation later, but give us the plan.

Unemployment cannot wait. There are too many citizens not working and too much work to be done to build and fix infrastructure. Money is cheap and there is an excess supply of labor. What are we waiting for? The election? Families need work now.

It is time for our politicans to go to work rather than spend time and taxpayers money to solidify their next job.

First Religious Super Pact?

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:25:15 PST

" Reaching what one organizer called an “unexpected supermajority,” a meeting of more than 100 conservative Christian leaders voted on Saturday to support Rick Santorum for the Republican presidential nomination." Conservative Religious Leaders, Seeking Unity, Vote to Back Santorum, New Ypork Times, January 14,2011, By ERIK ECKHOLM and JEFF ZELENY

Here comes the first relgious super pact

President and CEO

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:26:03 PST

In these difficult economic times should we be looking for a Presidential candidate that has CEO type qualities? The duties of a CEO of a business does not come close to the responsibilities of the President of the United States.

Per a textbook used by many colleges for their introductory course in finance , it is the objective of the CEO to "maximize the wealth of the corporations shareholders". Foundations of Financial Management, Page 12, by Stanley B. Block, Geoffrey A. Hirt, Bartley R Danielsen

The more shares an individual owns, the larger his share of the corporation he owns. For every share of stock owned you have one vote.

This is the primary mission of the Board of Directors and Officers of the corporation. The corporation is expected to operate within the law while pursing their mission of shareholder wealth maximization.

The role of The President of the United States can be drawn from the Preamble of the Constitution that says;

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Doing a good job as CEO does not guarantee to make one a leader of a Nation.

Depressions Do Not Happen In A Day!

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 04:24:13 PST

Obama is getting blamed for the high unemployment numbers and our current economic downturn when in fact we should be pointing our finger at the Bush administration. The country's eyes were taken off the economy by the disaster of 911 and it was exasperated further with the unjust war in Iraq.

This is a Bush depression that has its roots in the early part of the last decade.

This depression did not happen in one day. It evolved over time. We presently have an unemployment rate of 8.5%, compared with a rate of 4.2% in October 2008.

Below is a graph showing unemployed from 2000 to the present. In 2007 roughly 8 million people were unemployed. Today the unemployed total 14 million. If we take into account that many of the jobs created from 2000 forward were related to the housing bubble caused by the sub prime mortgage scam, another 2 million jobs were artifically created.

Has Obama made mistakes? Of course he has and much of it was due to a lack of experience. One of his first mistakes was tackling the health insurance issue too early and not getting directly involved in the debate for almost a year. Another was he spent too much time trying to compromise when his opposition had no desire to compromise. This was especially evident with the deficit discussions and the need to raise the debt ceiling.

Stimulate And Plan!

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:36:27 PST

Revised: January 6, 2011.

In an opinion published in the New York Times by Paul Krugman titled Nobody Understands Debt, he says;

Of course, America, with its rabidly antitax conservative movement, may not have a government that is responsible in this sense. But in that case the fault lies not in our debt, but in ourselves.

So yes, debt matters. But right now, other things matter more. We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap. And the wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession with debt is standing in the way.

I agree we should use debt to stimulate now to reduce unemployment and improve growth. I did this with some reservation that our high dependence on imports would surely dampen the affects of any stimulus. However, as the chart below indicates, imports hovered around 16% of GDP prior to 2008 and this should not cause a significant concern. We do need to focus on a plan to reduce our debt; not immediately but soon.

I understand that most of the debt owed by our government is owed to Americans. This maybe somewhat better than owing it to foreign countries; however it still is an issue. At some point, if our deficit is not brought under control, interest rates will rise significantly and we will choke on debt service. When the heirs of Bill Gates decide to cash in some of their U.S. Treasury holdings the government will have to pay a much higher interest rate and this will exasperate our problems.

The President must fight equally hard to stimulate now and to develop a plan to get our deficit under control in the future. Both are necessary. More: http://goo.gl/Wqzr4

You Have A Friend. Taylor

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:51:23 PST

Differance of Stimulus And Welfare

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 12:42:37 PST

There is a difference between a stimulus and welfare and we should not get them confused.

A stimulus is when someone provides a good or service to the government and is paid. An example is when the government enters into a contract to repair a road. When the contractor completes the work he is paid. This is similar to members of congress being paid for rendering a service so the government runs in a manner approved by the people. In theory neither will get paid if they do not do the work.

In good times the road is repaired because it makes the country more efficient and if the repair is delayed it becomes more costly to fix. In difficult economic times repairing the road provides the above benefits in addition it "stimulates" the economy causing more consumption and thus creating more jobs..

Providing welfare, plain and simple, is helping people who in theory are not able to help themselves. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, helping the needy is one of the pillars that make us proud to be Americans. Yes, the system is abused by some, just as some congressmen abuse their position for personal gain. We should strive to eliminate all abuse; however, it does not mean we should abolish welfare or Congress. Both are need and both needed to change.

There is no good reason why anyone should be opposed to a stimulus. We must be selective as to how we stimulate, but stimulate we must. There is only one reason not to stimulate now. More: http://bit.ly/ofGCBj

We Are Better Off Than Four Years Ago!

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:35:41 PST

We are better off than we were four years ag0. With hindsight we know we were deeply involved in a sub-prime mortgage meltdown that almost brought on a depression. This meltdown was partially brought on by relaxing financial regulations and allowing institutions to get to big to fail.

At the same time, we were involved in a war in Iraq that should never have been. Thanks to Obama we are now out of it. Some will say we left too early. I say we went in too fast. It cost us much in life and treasure, while getting very little in return.

In November 2008 everything came to a head and we were starring a depression in the eye. Without quick action by the Federal Reserve, during Bush's term, we indeed would have revisited the 1930's. Much of the large spending icreases the Republicans complain about resulted from the errors made during the Bush years. The truth is economic hangovers hurt and they take years to correct. http://goo.gl/4i0fp

We Should Stimulate and Help!

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:16:11 PST

I can see where the chart that follows, taken from an article by Paul Krugman in the New York Times titled Debt And Growth In The G7; can justify the theory that we can afford to borrow additional funds in order to stimulate the economy. It does appear the world will not collapse from excess debt. However, it does suggest that over the longer run our debt as a percentage of GDP needs to be reduced. The second part of the question is will a stimulus help. So much of our consumption comes from overseas including oil from the middle east and goods from China. The result is that the funds borrowed quickly leave our shores and remain in other sections of the world. As a result we have borrowed money to help stimulate the economies of China and the middle east

Any stimulus we enact must be targeted to those projects that are investments in our future. They include fixing infrastructure such as roads and bridges, repairing schools, improving our education system, developing domestic energy, demolishing or repairing dilapidated buildings in our inner city, We should try to avoid directly stimulating the economies of other countries.

Another portion of what is spent should be looked at as helping our fellow man. Some of our citizens are hungry, they cannot properly clothe their children. We are Americans and we should help them. I could make an argument that our greatest asset for the future is our children and therefore it is economically justied to help them. Forget that.

The core reason we should help is we are Americans living in a country primarily based on Judeo-christian values. This is a big part of being proud to be American. There is nothing wrong with this, so let's do it.

Mr. Romney: Should He Be President Romney?

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 06:33:26 PST

"Nearly four decades ago at Harvard, Mr. Romney embraced an analytical, nonideological way of thinking, say former classmates and professors, one that both matched his own instincts and helped him succeed. On a campus ripe with political and social ferment, he willfully distanced himself not only from politics, but also from larger ideological frameworks and heated debates." At Harvard, A Master Problem Solver, Jodi Kanton, New York Times, December 24, 2011

Whether you believe Mitt Romney should be President depends on what you believe are his objectives. If you believe he will say and do whatever to gain and keep the office of President, he shoul not be elected. On the other hand, If you believe he will always do what he believes is best for the country, vote for him for President.

Mr. Romney has a track record of identifying and solving problems. The issue is what does he define as the primary problem. Doing the right thing for the country can be at odds with retaining the office of the Presidency. The two objectives can be mutually exclusive. Which one will he choose; that is the question.

Proposed New Bank Capital Rules: Fatal Flaw

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:54:57 PST

The fatal flaw in the proposed rules change is they do not protect against unknown negative events.

“A lot of the proposals are built around things that the Federal Reserve and other regulators believe did not work as well as they could leading up to the financial crisis,” said Deborah P. Bailey, a director in Deloitte & Touche’s banking and securities group. Over all, she added, the proposals “are designed to make sure that banks are strong and won’t need government help going forward.” Fed Proposes New Capital Rules For Banks, New York Times, December 20, 2011, by Edward Wyatt

Many people saw the housing bubble coming during the last decade; however, no one in the banking industry foresaw the magnitude of the problem and the affect that it would have on the banking industry and the economy in general. until it was too late. .This will happen again. After all, we are human. The crisis in the future will be a different one. It will come from a different industry and it will present different problems

The only way to solve the problem is don't let banks become too big to fail as proposed by Thomas M. Hoenig, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City http://goo.gl/kc3TY

China's Bubble!

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:05:33 PST

Just about all experts believed real estate was exempt from bubbles. Invest in real estate and nothing can go wrong. The theory relied on banks to make rational decisions about who they would lend too and they would be properly regulated. The secondary market and cooperative rating agencies allowed banks to unload risky loans; so they thought. When the loans stopped performing so did real estate

China now appears to have an over supply of real estate, relative to its price, given the fact that the world has slowed down its purchases of goods and services produced in that country. The result is an asset not providing a reasonable return or no return at all.

China will probably weather this storm because of its high level of reserves. It can either sell foreign debt or not renew it when it comes due. Either way, this spells more trouble for the U.S. and Europe.

Health Insurand And Free Markets

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 05:52:58 PST

"Why doesn’t the market work here? Ken Arrow explained it all half a century ago. Patients by and large don’t have the information to evaluate medical treatments; in any case, they mainly buy insurance rather than medical care directly; and insurers profit not by providing the most cost-effective care, but by trying to insure people who won’t need care." Paul Krugman. Ron Wyden, Usefull idiot, New York Times, December 17, 2011

The market does not work because it is not free. In addition, it is not properly regulated. In many states one health insurance company, not always the same one, controls over 80% of the market. This is not a free market. Further, the industry needs better regulating.

Free markets exist to help meet the needs of society. It is not societies responsibility to meet the needs of free markets. Adjust the regulations of the industry to have the same criteria that medicare has to cover their clients.

Free Markets need to be regulated for the good of society. One regulation not used today is anti-trust laws. This is not happening because the oligopolies controlling some of our markets are buying off our politicians. This must end and here is how to do it. More: http://bit.ly/qTIUyF

Newt Gingrich: Wrong Perscription

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:34:59 PST

We all make mistakes in life. THe problem is when they are made when you are older they cannot be corrected

"Shortly before the passage of President Obama’s stimulus bill in 2009, Newt Gingrich’s political committee put out a video of Mr. Gingrich denouncing it as a “big politician, big bureaucracy, pork-laden bill.”

But at the same time, Mr. Gingrich was cheering a $19 billion part of the package that promoted the use of electronic health records, something that benefited clients of his consulting business. “I am delighted that President Obama has picked this as a key part of the stimulus package,” he told health care executives in a January 2009 conference call. Gingrich Push on Health Care Appears at Odds With G.O.P," By JIM RUTENBERG and MIKE McINTIRE, New York Times, ublished: December 16, 2011

Newt is what we do not need as President. He is a sly insider. He is in it for personal gain. He milked the system when he was in office and continued milking as an outsider. He was not alone. All of our Washington politicians do it. He just does it better and with a certain amount of class,

Our political and economic systems are broken and it is not by accident. Over the past 30 years many of our industries have been taken over by a small group of very large companies and turned into oligopolies.These oligopolies in turn have bought our politicians.

It will be a long fight and here is where we must begin. More: http://bit.ly/qTIUyF

Ron Paul & The Economy

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 04:36:02 PST

I admire Mr. Paul's consistency. It is unfortunate that he is often wrong in what he believes. The economic community and the President need to accept much of the blame for the citizens not buying into the idea that we need to stimulate. The population has never been educated about the benefits of Keynesian economics. It is a complex subject that somene needs to simplify so a phD from Princeton is not needed to understand.

Some of the basics that need explaining include: 1) Can we afford another stimulus given our present debt load and, 2) given the fact that so much of our consumption is from abroad, will we really be stimulating our economy? More: http://bit.ly/vA5i2U

My Dinner With Barack Obama!

noreply@blogger.com (Banicki) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:56:54 PST

Last night I had dinner with Barack and Michelle Obama. Below are exerpts from our discussion.

A lady friend and I were having dinner at a restuarant in downtown Detroit and the Maitre' d asked if we would mind if the President and First Lady shared the table with us. After falling off my chair and embarrassing my date, I said sure. What an honor.

First, they are really nice, down to earth, people. They did everything in their power to make us feel like equals. I could like this guy as a friend. The same is true of Michelle. I also must admit that she does not hurt the eyes.

After 30-minutes of small talk and a couple buttes of Stroh's the President started talking politics and kept jabbing me to be honest and open up relative to how I thought he was doing. After one more beer, I got the guts to be honest with him. I informed him that I am a 1980's style free market conservative. In 2008 I was leaning towards supporting John McCain until he selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. At that moment I was hoping Obama would win the election. He took a sip of beer, flashed his big grin, looked at Michelle and said "Remind me to thank Sarah" Michelle reminded him that he got my vote by default and not by impressing me.

After that, the beer and his smile got to me and I opened up. I confessed to him I had tears in my eyes as I watched the Inaugural. I remembered where I was when I heard John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were murdered. I remembered a big black man in the foundry at the Buick plant in Flint, where I had a summer job, protecting my butt from younger black men who were harassing me because I was white, saying "if you ni__ers mess with Steve, I will mess you up".

I was excited and expected the newly elected President to do well.

I went on to say I quickly realized his lack of experience mattered. He was not leading; instead, he was following. I told him "your lack of leadership first showed up when you pushed for health care reform from behind. It seemed like you let our government drift for a year before you actively got involved in the debate. You lost time and momentum. Further, you did nothing to release the strangle hold that the insurance companies had on the market. Mr. President, if you believed in free markets you would have been pushing to break up the oligopoly controlling the health insurance industry."

Obama smiled and ordered us another Stroh's. I glanced at Michelle and quickly realized she was not happy with my candor but she politely smiled. Mr. Obama broke the ice with her by teasing her and asking me if I thought she was the sexiest First Lady we ever had. I smiled and said "that's a fact.. The closest second was Mrs. Kennedy." That was when it was clear that the President had a keen ability to work a crowd.

The President got serious again asking for more criticism. I blurted out "Can I please have another Stroh's?". I went on to tell him that it is very frustrating to hear him harangue on Wall Street, big banks and oligopolies and simultaneously attend $40,000 per plate fund raising dinners with them. For the same reason it was very frustrating to see him replace his Chief of Staff with a senior mega-bank executive who oversaw the political lobbying efforts at one of the financial institutions that contributed to the financial crisis. I said, "your actions don't always match your words and this is both disappointing and confusing." Obama got very Stern saying "that is unfair. I pride myself in being very consistent".

I told him he may think he is consistent, however, there are many supporters out ther that are beginning to wonder. He then stated "OK, Ok maybe I can see what you are saying; however, that is an isolated example." I said "not exactly Mr. President".

"In the past Mr. President, you praised small business for being the engine to create jobs and yet appointed the CEO of one of the largest multinational companies, General Electric, to head a committee to develop a plan to create jobs. The committee has done nothing of substance and the multinational company paid little taxes last year."

Michelle then asked "What do we do now?" "Be yourselves", I replied. "Your core values and beliefs are more alligned with the American people than any Republican candidate has to offer. Your lack of experience caused a number of mis-steps. Now you have the experience that no Republican candidate has. Mr. President you give a great speech. Focus more on really being in touch with the people. Clearly explain why you want to do what you are doing. Don't present your ideas as if they are edicts.The American people are your audience. Talk to them in their language.

Just then the President was interruppted by a secret service agent who whispered something in his ear. "i have to run", said the President, "However, would you consider moving to Washington and working"............. Just then I was awakened by a phone call from my ex-wife. Her timing was always bad. My dream was abruptly ended.