Crazy Politico's Rantings

Creepy Commercials

2009-07-10T21:56:00.002-05:00

Yesterday was an "office day" for me. I needed to get maintenance done on the work truck, catch up on some paperwork, and schedule some jobs.

In between all of that I made a detour to Wal-Mart and picked up a 42" Sanyo HDTV. I've been hemming and hawing for months about getting one; when the price on a decent one that size got down to the low $600's, I decided it was time to plunk down the cash.

Set up was easy, as was dealing with Comcast to pick up a new HD/DVR converter box. In fact, I was doing paperwork and making phone calls while watching the news at noon in HD.

Two quick discoveries though. All of the new Prius commercials become creepier when you realize the sun and plants are all people dressed like flora and fauna and solar flares. And porn may not be necessary ever again. If I just DVR all of the "Everyday Italian" episodes on FoodNetwork HD, Giada looks more awesome than I thought when the color is clear and the picture is huge.

Junk Science Equals Junk Mail

2009-07-09T05:18:00.004-05:00

I posted my letter to the Illinois Senators last week. I got an immediate auto reply from Roland Burris, and nothing else.

I thought Dick Durbin ignored me, but he didn't. His reply got caught by the junk mail filter, and until I checked it yesterday, I didn't realize he'd sent anything back. I guess Outlook '07 knows that junk science equals junk mail.

Here is the Senator's reply. I basically echo's the presidents sentiment that global warming is a non-debatable thing. It's happening, even if 700 scientists think it's not.

Dear Mr. Beller:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding the creation of a national "cap-and-trade" program to address global warming. I appreciate hearing from you.

As a part of the Fiscal Year 2010 budget, President Obama laid out his proposal for the creation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat global warming. Specifically, President Obama's proposal would cap greenhouse gas emissions at 14 percent below the 2005 levels by 2020, with a goal of reducing emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2050.

By tackling the sources of climate change and taking steps now to reduce the impacts of global warming, we can protect our environmental future while expanding our economy. If we choose to ignore global warming and its consequences, we are placing our planet and our future in grave danger and could face large-scale environmental and economic dislocations that threaten our national security.

Although some see it differently, mainstream scientists have accumulated overwhelming evidence that the global warming problem is real and that we can't afford to wait any longer to act. Most scientists believe that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will raise the earth's temperature by as much as three to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. This temperature change could produce catastrophic changes in our climate.

I am confident that our nation has the ingenuity and technical savvy to achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. A market-based cap-and-trade system can set the ground rules for private competition, to help us achieve the necessary goals as inexpensively as possible. At the same time, we must provide industries with sufficient time to prepare for new standards and ensure that consumers are not subject to sudden cost increases.
Your voice is a valuable part of this discussion. I will keep your concerns in mind as the Senate considers legislation on this matter.
Thank you again for your message. Please feel free to stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

Letter to the Senators

2009-07-01T04:35:00.002-05:00

This is the letter I sent to my two Senators, Dick Durbin and Roland Burris about Cap and Trade.

Dear Senator,

Soon your chamber, like the House of Representatives will try and ram through the Cap and Trade legislation to transform our energy policy.

Like the House will the Senate be voting on 1200 pages of legislation that no member has had time to read?

Will you and Senator Burris have the courage to come home and tell us the truth of the costs of this bill in the Midwest, where coal electricity is the prevalent source?
Will you repeat to them what the President said, that "electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket" under cap and trade? Or will you repeat his claim that this will create thousands of new jobs, even though the European experience with Cap and Trade has been just the opposite?

Will both of you go downstate, and tell the families who earn their livings in the coal mines that the bill is designed to put them out of work?

Will you come to Abbott Labs in North Chicago, or Baxter in Round Lake, and tell the folks there that their jobs will probably move to a facility overseas? Abbott and Baxter use a lot of coal generated steam for their drug processing, under this legislation productions costs will skyrocket.

Will you tell those people that the double whammy of the proposed health care legislation and energy legislation will make it necessary for their jobs to move for their company to survive?

I don't believe you have the political courage to do this sir. Instead, I think what will happen is if it passes you'll have lunch with the limousine liberals on the North Shore, and tout what a great thing you've done for the environment. You’ll ignore what it's going to do to the working men and women in your state and their families, the people your party claims to be the champions for.

The Next Dave Krieg?

2009-04-05T17:11:00.001-05:00

A lot of folks like me, Packer, not Bears fans, are freaking out, thinking Chicago just got better with the trade for Jay Cutler. I'm not, in fact, I think Chicago just assured themselves of staying in the .500 club for the next few years.

As I watched the Jay Cutler trade unfold this week, my thoughts turned to Kyle Orton, the guy who got moved to Denver from Chicago, along with some draft pics for Cutler. There are big differences between the two, obviously. Orton's never been to a Pro Bowl, Cutler was there in February. Cutler has an arm like a Orion rocket, Orton's is more like a bottle rocket. Cutler can make every throw, Orton can't. The big one too me, though, is that with excellent receivers and a good offense, Cutler is a career .500 QB. Orton has a 21-12 starters record, without ever having good receivers or a great offense.

While Orton benefited from a good offense in 2005, in 2008 he had a defense that was about as bad as Denver did, but ended up 9-7, while Cutler with all his skills, and an excellent offense was 8-8.

Cutler is a product of hype, a guy who's going to be the next big thing. He won SEC Player of the Year with a .500 record, and big numbers. He's often compared to Brett Favre, with the "gun slinger" mentality evidenced by his number of boneheaded interceptions.

Orton reminds me of a couple of past quarterbacks in the NFL, Dave Krieg and Steve DeBerg. Both, like Orton, were considered "servicable" NFL quarterbacks. Never flashy, never "the guy", and always one draft away from being benched, traded or cut. Like Orton all they ever did was win with average teams, and make other folks better.

I think in the next few years Chicago finds out having the next big thing isnt' always what it's cracked up to be. And Denver finds out that sometimes a quarterback who doesn't lose games for you is just as important as one who can win them for you. My guess is that Denver ends up a play-off team before Chicago after the trade, and everyone will ask why.

Smart Kid

2009-04-03T16:54:00.002-05:00

So, my 11 month old grandson evidently wanted a bottle. How do I know this? Did he scream, kick and cry? No he went into the diaper bag and brought me a bottle liner and can of formula!

Amazing how much kids learn and how fast.

What Took Me So Long?

2009-04-01T15:10:00.002-05:00

I can't believe it's taken me this long to realize that I should be overjoyed with President Obama. Seriously. His firing of GM's CEO, and the new revelation that he's looking for a way to have not only executive pay, but other pay rates managed by the government made me realize he really is looking out for me, not the big guy.

Anyone with half a brain knows that business is bluffing when they claim his cap and trade to end global warming will drive them offshore. Where would they go to find cheaper labor, and less restrictions than here?

The idea that charitable contributions will dry up when he tells fat cats they can't deduct them anymore is crazy. Who gives to charity expecting a tax break, I sure don't!

No, now I realize that the President is really looking out for me, and I'm onboard with him.

Check the date of this post.

GM Is now Obama's Problem

2009-03-31T05:47:00.005-05:00

Now the GM is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama White House, some are saying the company's turnaround, or collapse, will reflect directly on the President. I'm not sure Mr. Teflon will see much of that stick to him. Much like the 30% drop in the stock market since he took office, he'll deflect criticism to those who came before him.

With GM though, Mr. Obama has put himself into a tighter spot than the economy in general. As he mentioned while pushing Rick Wagoner under the bus, there is a lot more restructuring to do at GM.

The problem is now the restructuring rests mainly with two groups, bondholders who are carrying billions in GM debt, and the UAW. Both are suspicious that the other isn't going far enough to help the company survive, and both are playing chicken with each other.

The major problem bondholders have is the UAW's unwillingness to see 50-60% of GM's outstanding debt to the UAW retirement fund be paid in stock. That would cause an immediate dilution of shareholder value, but at the same time would eliminate tens of billions of liabilities off the company books. Bondholders don't want to renegotiate their debt to better terms until they see that debt gone and feel GM can actually do something towards paying them off.

The UAW, on the other hand, doesn't want the stock, since right now it would be an embarrasement on a penny exchange. They want bondholders to renegotiate the terms of the debt, and even forgive billions of it to bolster share value before they even discuss such an idea as stocks to the retirement fund.

Since neither side seems willing to move on those two problems, which happen to be the two biggest impediments to making the company solvent, now Chapter 11 is back on the table. That would end up costing both sides much more than what Wagoner proposed, and they rejected.

This creates a tightrope for Obama's group. They've already said they are working on a way to "cushion" a chapter 11 filing. The question is for who? If it's the bondholders the UAW ends up a shell of itself, but the markets might react favorably to something from the White House. If it's the UAW the union vote stays strong, but they risk a huge tank in the markets as other institutional investors realize the White House cares little for them, or the billions in market capital they provide.

Welcome to the real world, Mr. Obama.

Sweating With The Socialists

2009-03-30T21:20:00.001-05:00

Too damn funny! Don't know who did it, but they should win some kind of award.

Mind Your Helm

2009-03-26T20:36:00.003-05:00

Many years ago I learned how to steer a ship. Not a boat, a ship. And I didn't get to cut my teeth on a small one, instead it was 54,000 tons of prime US steel named USS New Jersey.

I got that experience at probably the worst time you could learn to drive something large and lumbering, when it was moving slowly, and had a lot of restrictions on what you could do.

At 25 knots New Jersey steered like a dream, 15 degrees of rudder was probably too much for most turns. But try driving something almost 900 feet long, drawing 30 some feet of water at 5 knots, and all of the sudden 15 degrees of rudder was needed just to correct your course. Turn off a few of the propellers to save fuel and then all of the sudden maybe 20 degrees or more was needed.

Where am I going with this? Our President, of course. It seems that like me, he didn't start to learn to steer on anything small, say a Senate Committee or governorship. He decided he wanted to drive a big ship right away (I didn't get a choice). Much like my early turns on the helm, the President seems to be given to over use of his rudder, sending things turning wildly. The problem is that it takes much more work to correct for oversteering than the initial mistake.

I was lucky, I was surrounded by results oriented people as I learned to drive a big ship. Their goal was to teach me how to do it right, and safely. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, he's surrounded himself with agenda oriented people, who don't seem to care about the results, as long as they include their agenda item.

I was lucky to have people who would tell me to check my rudder, and mind my helm when I started drifting. Mr. Obama seems to have people that don't really care how far he swings the ship, as long as they hit their course eventually.

I do, however, understand the politics of what they are doing. There is a reason that a 3.6 trillion dollar budget was tossed out their for this year. Trying to push his expansion of government next year, with primaries for everyone in the House and a third of the Senate wouldn't work. They'd get eaten alive. So do it now, while you can. And, because once a social program is started it's nearly impossible to kill, better to try starting them when you have the best chance.

I will say this, I never had enough balls to tell the Officer of the Deck my rudder was at 15 degrees when it was at 25. Why? He had a repeater in front of him and could see what I was doing. The American people have one too, the press, the CBO, OMB, and they've all said we will be running huge deficits, TRILLION DOLLAR plus deficits most of the next 10 years. Yet Mr. Obama had the balls to tell us all on TV and in his online chat today that his budget gets us back to fiscal responsibility. When? Sorry, Mr. President, you are a bald faced liar, your own 10 year budget plan proves it.

Amateur Hour Now Four Years Long!

2009-03-19T07:37:00.000-05:00

Used to be that "Amateur Hour" was only an hour (actually, 30 minutes, except one season). Now, two months into the Obama administration, we can see that it will be lasting a lot longer this time.

Whether it's the slew of cabinet nominees having to withdrawl because of tax problems, investigations or stupid comments, or the reversal of his own lobbyist bans to get people into positions he wants, Mr. Obama has proven that he and his staff weren't ready for the big stage quite yet.

Many folks on the right asked last year "what has this guy done to prove he's a leader", and were drown out by shouts of "hope and change". Now it's becoming evident to just about everyone the answer was nothing, and that he's not up to the task of leading.

Hell, he's proven that he's not even up to the task of making comments with a foriegn leader if the teleprompter isn't running correctly. In fact, he just reads what ever they put on the thing, as though he has no idea what he's supposed to be talking about. Wouldn't it be a hoot if one of the guys operating it decided to put up Mary Had A Little Lamb instead of a speech. I wonder how long he'd be reciting it before he realized what was up?

While many of us laughed during the Clinton years about the tail wagging the dog, I can't remember articles in the NY Times about Wednesday night meetings to discuss polls and how to shape the message around them.

Say what you will about the last administration, but one thing was always true for eight years, press conferences were treated as serious discussions of issues, and many time even uncomfortable for them. Contrast this with the new administration, where they seem to be an outlet for Robert Gibbs to display his sarcasm instead of a grasp of issues. The more I see of Gibbs the more I believe he got a lot of wedgies as a kid, and is using his press secretary position to make up for it.

Then of course we get the AIG debacle. No one is happy to see 165 million in bonuses paid out to a company getting hundreds of billions in taxpayer backing. At the same time the outrage of Congressional leaders and the White House now seems funny.

Now that we know that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had language to prevent them removed from the stimulus bill, and Christopher Dodd (largest congressional AIG donation recipient) wrote language into the bill that made them legal their fake indigation and suprise is laughable.

And that the President (#2 AIG donation recipient) knew about them; and the legal ramifications of not paying them; before they hit the press makes his outrage just as laughable.

Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have about 5 months until the 2010 election season starts heating up. In that time they have to stop looking so much like Moe Larry and Curly or they may find out what the GOP did in 2006, that the electorate doesn't like gridlock, but they like incompetent single party leadership even less.

I Am Alive

2009-03-08T22:20:00.000-05:00

Just thought I'd let everyone know I'm still alive. Political burnout, a cool grandkid, and a horrible work schedule have conspired to keep me from blogging. However, they haven't killed me. In fact, the grandson is probably why I'm still sane.

Planned Move?

2008-12-31T11:24:00.003-06:00

Rod Blagojevich has done what has to be considered an amazing job of moving the heat off of himself for a while, and directing it to Senate Democrats, by appointing Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's empty seat in DC.

Harry Reid and Company now have to figure out how to hold up their promise of not seating Illinois' appointee, while not looking like race baited fools. Good luck on that. Bobby Rush was at the conference to remind Harry & Co. that the only black Senator is now in the White House and there should be another of similar color to replace him.

Illinois, in the meanwhile, gets to look more foolish than it already did. The legislature was in a hurry to block Blagojevich's ability to appoint a replacement, until they figured out a special election was the only way to do it. Knowing that any GOP candidate other than Alan Keyes could probably win the seat, they decided against it, and went for the slow death by impeachment method. Only problem is that Blago is still governor, and decided; I'm sure on the advice of his attorney and others (next paragraph); to fill the seat and say "Screw You" to everyone telling him not to.

Caution, bitter cynicism to follow
I would like to think that President Elect Obama; and the rest of the Democratic establishment in DC; is surprised by this move. However, deep inside me, my gut says they knew it was coming, and may have had a round about hand in it.

Everyone knows Blagojevich is done sooner or later. However, by allowing him time to make the appointment, though legislative inaction in Illinois, they can toss all the grenades his way. It also makes sense in that Burris will be the incumbent in two years, and incumbents usually get to keep their jobs, it's how the system ~~is rigged~~ works.

Reid & Company can make their indignant remarks about being ignored by Blagojevich, and in the end, on a close vote, Burris gets seated. Remarks will be made, as they were yesterday, about him being a good man, and not a bag man for Rod, and everyone will get back to the business of indictments and impeachment here, while the Democrats keep the Senate seat.

America, welcome to Chicago Politics on a national scale. Remember, you voted for it.

I thought He'd Be Older

2008-12-22T22:50:00.003-06:00

So, I told Santa what I want for Christmas. I always thought he'd be a little bit older. But I guess since he caters to kids, being young is an advantage.

For those who haven't figured it out, it's my Grandson John, or JR as he's know around here.

Grandchildren make you do silly things, like buy Christmas gifts that make noise and need batteries, even when the kid lives with you. I used to get a kick out of buying them for nieces and nephews, when I didn't have to hear them. Now I'm subjecting myself to that kind of noise.

I'm becoming fluent in jibberish, and relearning the joys of crawling around the living room floor. His knees crack a lot less when we do that, though. That stuff was a lot easier 20 years ago than it is today.

Hope everyone has a Merry Christmas, or if you celebrate something else, that it's happy.

Snow-maggedon '08

2008-12-18T21:24:00.004-06:00

The white death is coming, I'm stocked up on Toilet paper, milk and cigarettes, so I'll be fine. The snow blower is gassed and ready to go. Now if the snow would only get here. We've been having wall to wall news coverage of a storm, that much like that Aunt everyone has, is running hours late. The original prediction had the snow starting a 3pm, now it's close to 10, and it still hasn't started.

Right now the estimate for my area is a foot, give or take a few inches, not that it matters at that point. There is a cool part of this impending disaster, really. The National Weather Service is predicting "Thunder Snow", a winter thunderstorm producing 2 inches of wet, heavy snow per hour. That part is cool. The clean up afterwards isn't. If you've never seen lightning and hear thunder is a snow storm, it's completely different than during rain.

Well, if I don't write for a few days you can figure I'm either busy as hell with work, as I have been the last few weeks, or I had a heart attack trying to get snow blower to deal with this storm.

Hey, FEMA, if you are reading this, I need a 16hp dual stage in my yard before this starts! Better yet, a Polaris 4 wheel ATV with a plow.

New Democrat

2008-12-13T04:36:00.002-06:00

George Bush may as well just start calling himself a Democrat, as much as he's become in love with the idea of big government and government control of industry.

Senate Republicans, rightfully, blocked the band-aid "rescue" package for Detroit's automakers, and now Bush has decided to look for a way to use the $700 billion bank bailout package to skirt the Senate and help them anyway.

I predicited a few weeks ago that congress would come up with a package just unpalettable enough to get it filibustered so the formerly Big 3 could file bankruptcy. It looks like that is what happened, but GWB doesn't want to see it happen.

I can see his point, to an extent. At the beginning of what looks to be a long recession, having the automakers become wards of the court may deepen the economic downturn. On the other hand, spending billions to prop them up until the time is more appropriate for failure doesn't make fiscal sense when we've already increased the deficit more in 3 months than Bush 41 did in 4 years! Remember back in the 80's when we screamed about Reagan coming up with a $500 billion dollars of deficit spending in his second term. Hell, we've done better than that this quarter!

A month ago the CEO's of the Big 3 begged for $25 billion as enough to get them through. A few weeks later, they said they underestimated, and needed $34 billion. Economists who testified before Congress said that $80-120 Billion was probably a more realistic figure. So Congress of course tossed all those numbers out, and came up with $14 billion as a patch for the hole in the side of the Titanic.

It appears the final outcome will be Chapter 11 for GM and Chrysler; the question is how long do we keep them above water before it happens, and who's the next industry to get bailed out?

My Lovely Governor

2008-12-09T20:52:00.000-06:00

Okay, so the wonderful Governor of Illinois was arrested today. This makes our last two that the feds have gone after. Blagojevich came into office while George Ryan was getting ready to go up the river for his licenses for bribes deals; claiming to be the reformer Illinois needed. It's obvious now the only reform was that he went after much more money than Ryan ever thought about.

Here's the affidavit that lead to the arrest; evidently the talk of selling a Senate seat to the highest bidder caused the feds to move faster than they wanted to. It's scary to think how much more they could have gotten on tape had they not wanted to stop the sale of that seat.

Many Obama supporters are up in arms because folks are supposedly trying to tie Obama to this scandal. While the federal prosecutor; Patrick Fitzgerald of Scooter Libby fame; said Obama doesn't seem to be directly tied to the scandal. I'd direct folks to page 56-62 of the affidavit, which describes in detail conversations with "Advisor A" and "Advisor B" in Washington about what the President Elect could do for both Blagojevich and his wife right after the election.

There's even a description, from the advisors on how Blagojevich could name an SEIU friendly person to the Senate seat, in exchange for SEIU getting him a seat on the board of Change for Win, one of their 529 groups, and the President Elect getting his wife a job on a corporate board.

So while the President Elect may not have been "directly" involved in the pay for play with his former Senate seat, it's obvious his advisors were. It will be interesting to see who on the transition team has "personal matters" to attend to in the next week or so and has to leave the team. You can bet that Advisor's A&B won't be around Obama when their names go public.

Keep Your Friends Close, But...

2008-12-03T21:09:00.004-06:00

The warrior saying is keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Watching Barack Obama pick his cabinet, I think he's kept that in mind.

Call me a cynic if you must, but I think that part of the Obama strategy in picking his cabinet is to discredit the Clinton Era, since that's when most of their careers took off. I know where Obama is from, and how politics is played in his neighborhood. When you can't get rid of thorn in your side in Chicago's political world you bring that thorn TO your side. Then, as soon as the time is right, you find a reason to toss it, normally with enough innuendo to destroy the person.

When you look at his economic team, it's nearly all made up of Clinton leftovers. Most have some pretty decent credentials, and no less than "the most evil man on earth" Karl Rove has called the selections excellent. That alone should make those folks wonder what's next.

Simply put, we are in a 24 hours news world. People don't want to hear that we've been in a recession for a year, they want to know why it didn't end yesterday. When it doesn't end by June, Mr. Obama; who last week claimed it would be his vision those Clintonites would be working towards; will start letting on that his economic team has let him down, hasn't shared his vision, and led us astray. And he'll start firing them.

His foriegn policy team, though is where he really gets to make a killing. Keeping Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense has to be driving the netroots nuts. But is truly a good move. And when Gates starts disagreeing with ideas on Iraq and Afghanistan, he's easy to cut loose as a left over from the last administration.

Hillary Clinton though, is the big prize, and not nearly as smart as many thought she was. Secretary of State sounds like a dream job for her, but it will be her nightmare, you can quote me on that one. Her acceptance of this job will be the end of her political career. Unlike her husband she's not a "comeback kid". And when she's dropped like a hot potato, for what ever the reason, she's done. Once she resigns her Senate seat it won't be coming back soon. Her own party will get to fill it, so challenging for it won't be an easy option. Moving "down" to the House won't really be an option either.

Hillary is really the only person in the party with enough horsepower to challenge Obama should his term prove to be troublesome, or worse, Jimmy Carter like. But if he's got her strung up in the State Department, she can't really do much to challenge him. Better, if he comes up with a reason that she "screwed up the State Department" then he discredits her, and can get rid of her and any potential challenges.

Her better option would have been to respectfully decline the offer, behind closed doors and quietly, and pushed for John Kerry who also wanted the post. Then, from the Senate she could have pushed against agenda items she had problems with; cherry picked to be the most damaging to Obama; and in four years if things didn't look good for him, challenge, showing by her Senate actions how she'd have done things differently.

Those in the "rose colored glasses" crew will say that Obama has artfully picked a team with experience to help the inexperienced. And that is true; but they are also a group that he can just as easily say didn't alway share his vision, and are easier to get rid of.

There are some pretty safe folks he's named. Eric Holder, though he has baggage will probably stick around as AG for quite some time. While his involvement in some of Bill Clinton's pardons will come under scrutiny at his confirmation hearings, his body of work since the Reagan administration will get him confirmed.

Bill Richardson at Commerce will have no problems. Disregarding the fact that he was probably the most qualified of all the Democrats in the primaries, he doesn't pose a threat to Obama. In fact, his pick to be at Commerce and not State is strange, he's much more qualified for Hillary's upcoming job than she is. That's part of the reason I think she might be short for the post.

Why Not Just Cut Taxes?

2008-11-27T06:21:00.001-06:00

President Elect Obama has decided that the $175 billion "economic stimulus" he suggested during the campaign may not be enough to get the economy rolling again. So now, he's discussing a plan somewhere between $500 and $700 billion dollars. (GPO linked XL spread sheet. Cell BI)

To put this in perspective, that's between 40 and 60 percent of all personal income tax revenue estimated to be collected for FY 2008. If you do the low end of it, $500 billion, that would be every bit of tax income paid by the bottom 95% of tax payers; folks with an income under $153,000 in 2006. (Tax Foundation Table).

This begs the question, why not just eliminate the income tax on the lower 95% of the population for the next year or so? That seems to be the simple solution to getting that money out there. But there is are political reasons it won't be done.

Simply put, Mom and Pop feel better about getting a check from Uncle Sugar than they do about seeing their paycheck go up a few bucks. Over 40% of tax payers complain about their income tax, yet don't actually pay any. They see the money come out of their check, but then come April, get a refund with tax credits that is more than they paid in. They like that check, and seeing taxes deducted over the course of a year gives them something to bitch about, and politicians a way to claim the little guy is being screwed.

The second reason is that by cutting taxes directly, you aren't able to pay off the lobbies and interest groups that got you elected. If instead you send that $175 billion back to tax payers, and spend the other $325 billion on infrastructure projects, you can make a lot of folks in a lot of industries that invested in you happy.

For those not familiar with this method, it's known as the Chicago way. Our state leaders; the mentors of Barack Obama; have become the national experts at buying votes from interest groups with OPM (other peoples money). It was a trend started in Chicago (hence the name) to keep the Original Mayor Daley in power, and has spread to our state capital in a big way. Big enough to have the last Governor in prison and the current one under investigation by the feds.

If you think you need help from road builders, get a federal grant and spend a billion or so, spread among the 10 biggest, and redo every major freeway in Chicago, at once. Want help from health care providers, expand the state health care system to pay for just about anyone, then let the judges say it's illegal. It's how we do business here in Illinois.

President Obama would like to carry this quaint midwest tradition to the White House, deficit be damned. And, great for his union buddies, The Davis Bacon Act makes sure that all that infrastructure money gets funneled through them.

Yes, a tax cut would get the money back to the people in the most efficient manner, but let's not get confused here. The purpose of the economic stimulus expansion has much less to do with you, the tax payer getting something than it does with paying back political backers.

Happy Thanksgiving

2008-11-26T21:22:00.002-06:00

Hey All!

Hope you have a happy, safe Thanksgiving holiday and are able to spend it with family and friends.

If you are driving, as I will be, keep the shiny side up and the rubber side down. And if you are flying don't crack jokes at security about the exploding turkey in your luggage, unless you really want to miss dinner.

When you sit down to your meal, give thanks to those folks on ships, in the trenches, or flying top cover for the men and women overseas. We get to give thanks for our freedom because of them, so please remember them.

Also, thanks the cops, firefighters, doctors and nurses who are probably pulling double shifts so others can be with their families, and you can still be safe.

Have a safe and Happy one. If my insomnia gets the best of me over the weekend I may post a few things. If not, I'll see you next week.

Bob

Demanding a Failing Plan

2008-11-25T06:07:00.000-06:00

Congress, in it's decree to the (formerly) Big 3, wants sustainable green vehicles as part of the plan that they bring back to DC next month as they beg for more money.

The problem is, as pointed out by the Washington Post; in it's green section; is that green vehicles are money losers, and probably will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

The story reminds readers that the Toyota Prius, the poster child for how to build a good hybrid, is a money loser for Toyota. The company won't say how much they lose per car, but experts figure thousands of dollars per unit sold.

The Chevy Volt, the car that gets environmentalists into a nearly orgasmic state, won't save GM. Instead, it could sink the company based on estimates of $8-10,000 just for the battery pack. Conservative estimates are GM would need to get upwards of $50k per car to turn a profit on it. Even at $4.00 a gallon for gas they'd be hard pressed to price the car at a profitable price. That's why they are limiting early production to 10,000 vehicles a year.

GM already plans to have nine hybrid models on the market next year, but if each of them is a money loser, that Congressional bailout money might just as well go down the drain.

President-Elect Obama yesterday reiterated the requirement for a bold plan from the automakers to come up with a sustainable business model based on vehicles such as the Volt, Fusion Hybrid, etc.

I wonder what Congress will say if the three CEO's show up and tell them the truth, that business model doesn't exist, and probably won't for the next five to ten years?

Here's something Congress could look at, though it will drive the Green lobby nuts. They need to relax some of the diesel restrictions that they put in place. Ford's Fiesta, (which isn't going to come here with a diesel), and VW's Jetta diesel give people cars with mileage in the Prius range, but with the ability to turn a profit on the car.

VW and BMW both have diesel cars that have passed California's tough emissions standards, and are going on sale in all 50 states, and don't eliminate the performance Americans like to get better mileage. The flip side is with the federal fuel tax, and most state taxes being higher on diesels, the cost of fuel for them has a 20-30% premium over gas, discouraging the sales of those higher mileage vehicles.

A second thing Congress could do, instead of limiting the tax credits they are planning to hybrids, they could provide a smaller tax credit towards anyone who purchases a vehicle with an EPA estimated milage greated than 32 or 35mpg combined, and increase that number slightly each year.

As the Post story points out, getting the full benefit of the proposed $7500 non-refundable (you don't get back more than you pay in) credit for hybrids and electic vehicles means only those making more than $50k per year would see the full benefit of the credit.

Looking the Wrong Way

2008-11-23T16:53:00.004-06:00

Rhetoric from Democratic Congressional leaders and President-Elect Obama's advisors is heating up towards the automakers, and all being aimed the wrong way.

I've got little sympathy for the 3 clowns from Detroit who flew in on private jets; at a cost of $20k each; to beg for money from Congress. The $12 to $24 Million each makes is a ripe target for lawmakers, admittedly.

However, you can cut all executive pay, sell all the corporate jets, and each of the (formerly) Big 3 will still lose $1-5 BILLION per month. Ford burned through $7.7 billion last quarter. Their CEO, Alan Mulally will make $24 million this year. Take out 3 months of his pay, and Ford still lost $7.694 billion in the quarter. Sell off their $150 million worth of jets, and they still lost $7.55 billion.

It's easy to see why lawmakers want to look at those things, it's easier than going after the root cause of their losses, labor costs present and past. That's where the money is going, that's why Ford loses over $1000 per vehicle sold.

That's why lawmakers have positioned themselves to allow the Big 3 to file bankruptcy, and blame them. Senior Democrats have told them to come back in December with a plan that preserves the current labor deals, and retiree benefits, but will somehow magically make them profitable if they want government help.

The truth is they can't; it's not possible. You have a better chance of spinning straw into gold. When they come back to the Hill next month, and can't show on paper they they can turn a profit in a recession with a 3 month cash infusion, Congress can throw up their hands, blame the evil corporate management, and say they tried.

Late January or early February is when you can probably expect to see GM toss it's papers to the court. Ford will be following shortly, with Chrysler last. They still have about 7 months worth of cash.

Then it will really get interesting in Washington.

Secret Ballots For Us, Not You!

2008-11-23T06:24:00.000-06:00

Senate Democrats are waiting giddily for January, when they hold substantial majorities in Congress, and the White House to reintroduce their pet Card Check legislation, that removes the National Labor Relations Board requirement of secret ballots for unionization votes.

With the amount of money that the AFL-CIO, UAW, NEA and other unions poured into their campaign chests last cycle, it's at the top of the agenda.

The Wall Street Journal and LaborPains.org both point out the hypocrisy of Democrats when it comes to their own votes on committee chairs. Every committee will vote on their chairperson via a secret ballot, or already has.

Joe Lieberman retained his Homeland Security chairmanship after a secret ballot was taken by the committee to decide his fate. Henry Waxman wrested the top seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee from John Dingell; one of the longest serving chairman; on a secret ballot.

Why do they do this? Well, to protect themselves from flak both inside the capital, and outside. Lieberman has been a hated target of the Daily Kos/Huffington Post crowd for years, since he started getting vocal about the failings of his party and national security. Anyone on that committee that voted openly to retain a guy who supported John McCain over Barack Obama would get blasted by the far left blogging crowd.

Secondly, if Waxman or Lieberman knows for sure you voted against them that puts you pretty low on the ladder when it comes to ranking positions on their committees, and getting your legislation on the agenda. It also means they, who now hold some sway with the House at large can start usurping larger pet projects from you as payback.

One of the big jokes of this is that the guy who orchestrated Waxman's rise on the committee, as pointed out by the Journal; Rep. George Miller; is one of 10 Congressional Democrats to write a letter to Mexico a while back stating "We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose."

Evidently that's only important in Mexico, not the US. I'm sure if Mexican unions were contributing to the DNC he'd recant on that letter in a heartbeat.

Changes

2008-11-22T12:51:00.003-06:00

Hope you like the new color scheme and fonts. If you have problems with it let me know. It seems readable on my newer dell monitor, my 10 year old Gatway monitor and my laptop, so I'm hoping everyone else can read it too.

One problem, the blog won't look good at 800x600. Fight with it as I might, I can't make it work at resolutions below 1024x768. Sorry. Hopefully with monitors dirt cheap no one's using that low a resolution anymore anyway.

(Update, 11/23) The Digg Tool isn't quite right. Submitting a story from the main page submits "Crazy Politico's Rantings". To submit individual articles you have to click on the "Read the Whole Story" link, then Digg it. That's not a totally bad problem, since it gets the blog on Digg,

Trickling The Wrong Way

2008-11-22T11:05:00.000-06:00

President Elect Obama laid out his plans for getting 2.5 million people back to work by 2011. Unfortunately, it's the standard liberal plan. Spend a bunch of government money on projects, instead of trying to create long term sustainable jobs outside of the government.

His major proposal is to put people back to work fixing our infrastructure. And it's hard to disagree that it needs it. However, road and bridge construction aren't long term projects for the most part, and with a $500 billion dollar deficit next year, where does the money come from?

One proposal that will gain steam come January is to jack up the gas tax. In fact ideas of raising the baseline gas tax, then having a "punitive tax" added on to keep gas prices at a certain level are very popular on the left.

If you set the level high enough, you have tons of cash for building those roads and bridges. Never mind that the "fair for all crowd" is championing one of the most regressive taxes there is, getting rid of SUV's is more important than making sure low income workers can afford to drive to work.

The downside is another price spike in oil and suddenly the punitive tax is wiped out, and they still have a money hungry group of road builders to pay.

Another proposal of Mr. Obama's is to put folks to work building new solar and wind farms. Great idea, because renewable energy is a great idea. Utilities actually don't mind wind and solar power. They cost much less to operate and maintain than coal and gas fired plants. However, they balk at "minimum renewable" requirements for various reasons, and the fact that most legislatures put the onus on them to create the power, but limit their ability to recover the higher than normal start up costs.

The different wings of the same environmental lobby that wants those wind and solar farms sues to prevent the construction of the transmission lines to get the power to the grid. Here's a site from Rhode Island that is trying to prevent government bodies and utilities from building either the wind farms or transmission lines. It's not limited, just google wind farm lawsuits.

Yet another group sues to stop the wind farms based on the birds and bats that might fly into the blades.

Solar is another good idea, but it costs so much per kilowatt hour that most consumers couldn't afford electricity if it becomes a major source. The second problem with it is the industry itself. Most of the solar industry loves the idea of the "roof top" installations where individual homeowners make their own power, or a portion of it. Unfortunately it's also the least efficient manner of installation, since it's normally a fixed installation, where you never really get maximum benefit of the solar panels,

Utilities, on the other hand, like the "solar farm" plan, where you toss thousands of KW worth of panels in an area, and have them on movable platforms to produce the most power possible whenever the sun is out. It's also the most cost effective way of producing solar power, with the lowest cost per user.

All of these plans seem to have one common thread. The federal government is central to their planning, implementation, and execution. In other words, the least economical mode of operation is the default setting. While roads and infrastructure are probably best handled at the government level, the state and local levels are better for it than the feds. Power issues are better handled by utilities, unabashed by government mandates, regulations, and interference.

Obama-Care Looks Like Hillary Care

2008-11-20T19:07:00.005-06:00

For those who wondered, it seems that Obama Care will look much like HillaryCare. though not as many details will come out, so as to keep us from bitching this time around. Considering Barack ran his entire campaign by not releasing much info other than he "hoped for change" that shouldn't be a surprise.

The Wall St. Journal has a nice piece on what Obama Care will probably look like. They base it on what Obama has said, who he's probably picking to run Health and Human Services (Tom Daschle) and the policy blueprint making it's way around the staffers of the House Finance Committee.

Basically, the plan that appears to be coming together will be three pronged. The first, govenment regulation of the insurance industry to require all companies that sell health insurance to do it at a group rate. An expanded Medicare that competes against the private companies will also be part of that insurance pool. Everyone gets to chose their policy, but as many states do now, the Fed's will be telling the companies what they have to have in the policies.

Second, and employer mandate that a certain percentage of payroll must be spent on health care, or you'll get a tax penalty. As the Journal points out, that number has to be targeted correctly. If the penalty is too low, a lot of companies will just dump their coverage and pay the fine. Why not save some money if you can.

The reverse is also true, though. If the percentage is set too high companies will just shed jobs in the US and move them elsewhere. We already have the second highest corporate income tax of all industrialized countries, adding to that burden will cause some to leave.

The third the Journal devined from Max Baucus' policy blueprint. That is an individual mandate to buy insurance, or face a tax penalty for failing to. Obama campaigned against this, but if he wants the rest of the package, the guess of the Journal (and me) is that he'll cave to this demand.

For those who can't afford the insurance, a tax rebate will be given to help pay the cost. Who is considered to not be able to afford coverage? According to the Baucus blueprint, families making less than FOUR HUNDRED PERCENT of the federal poverty level, or about $85,000 a yearfor a family of four.

The reason for not getting to wonky on the details? Obama learned from Hillary. She brought in about 3 million "experts" from every possible interest group to help build her plan. Instead they ended up with a brawl in the White House and nothing getting done. Obama will limit the number of folks coming in to give ideas, and limit the amount of information that comes out, lest we get unruly about the details again.

There will be interst groups that do bitch. Unions will be the biggest. While they claim to love the idea of universal care, their members may balk at it; and then you'll have them asking for an exemption for collectively bargained benefits.

Obama say's he'll exempt small businesses from the mandate, but the level that equals "small" hasn't been set. Is it based on number of employees, gross income of the company? Who knows, and we probably won't until it gets to the floors Congress.

Baucus' plan gives no idea of what it will cost. "Conservative" estimates are about $150 billion a year. That's a joke folks, even if Katie Couric can say it with a straight face. Medicare, which only covers about 44 million people has a baseline budget number for 2009 of $420 BILLION. Somehow, for 1/3 that amount, we think we can double the number of people in the program, and more than likely triple it.

Tripling may actually be a conservative estimate, too. Consider that insurance companies will be asked to write group rate policies for everyone, and Obama has already said that he want's no pre-existing condition clauses. When you do the math on that, companies are going to walk from the business. Not being able to charge more to folks like me who are overweight, smoke, drink, and don't exercise means that they will have to jack up everyone's rates to cover us slobs. That means selling insurance suddenly becomes less profitable, if at all, and they'll start walking from the health coverage business.

If anyone doubts this, New Jersey provided a great example in the late 1980's and early 1990's with their auto coverage mandates. By the time the legislature there was done imposing restrictions on what could and couldn't be covered, and charged extra for, most of the big insurance companies just pulled out of the state.

That of course is the utopian vision of the left. Get rid of the private insurance companies, and just let the government handle health care all together. Seriously, considering how well they've done with Medicare and Medicaid why would anyone doubt their abilities to handle it for the rest of us, right?