First a quick lesson on basic economics. The economy consists of two types of units, producers and consumers. Producers produce products and the consumers consume those products. Simple enough? There is one final part of this equation that makes it all work. How do the producers produce these products and how do the consumers earn the money they use to consume these products? Well the consumers supply the labor used to produce the products and in doing so they earn the money used to consume the products. It makes for a closed loop or what is known as the economic cycle.

So if the economy is in a recession, then production and consumption are down. The question is how to get them going full speed again. Do you give money to the producers to help increase production? This will cause an imbalance in the supply and demand ratio. An increase in supply will cause a lowering of prices. A lowering of prices will cause an increase in consumption. Add to that an increase in production will create an increased need for labor (more jobs) and an increase in consumer wealth. All in all a good thing.

So what happens if you give the consumers more wealth? This gives the consumer more consuming power, and IF they increase their consumption, that will cause an imbalance in the supply and demand ratio also. However it will cause an increase in demand that will cause an increase in prices. This increase in prices will cause the producers to increase production and once again all is good.

So kiddies, did you notice the two major differences in where the money is interjected into the cycle?

First, if the money is given to the consumers, they may just hang onto it or they may pay down existing debt. You see consumers are not concerned with cash flow. They have no payrolls to pay; they only have to worry about monthly debt. So there is the first flaw in the Democratic idea. If the money is given to the producers they will use it to increase production and thus increase cash flow. There is little incentive for producers to hoard money. You need to use money to make money.

The second problem is that by increasing consumption, you increase prices. By increasing production you lower prices. These changes in prices will eventually be balanced out by the invisible hand of the free market system, but at least for a short time, the Democratic idea will raise prices. Add to this that the US will more than likely have to increase the money supply, we are heading for inflation again. Can you say President Carter?

So I ask again, why am I the only one noticing this?

Back in 2000, I was living in the San Francisco bay area, making good money, living in a nice house, and driving new cars. Then things went down hill for me financially. I had to sell my home for little to no profit, sell the one car I owned outright for the cash and move to Washington State because it was cheaper to live here. 

So why do I bring this up? I mention this story because it shows that when I hit difficult economic times, I had to make difficult economic decisions. Gone where most of the luxuries that I had become accustom to. Gone were the nightly steak dinners. Gone were the fancy restaurants. Gone were the weekly salon trips for my wife. Gone were the friends and neighbors we knew in California. We pulled the belt in a couple of loops, made some difficult decisions and made it through a very difficult time.

Today we rent a nice house and drive nice cars, one of which is owned outright, but neither was new when we got them. Hard work and perseverance have brought my family through the tough times and things are looking much better, bad economy and all.

Which brings me to the moral of this story. Why do we (the US) seem to believe that during hard economic times we have to increase our spending on more and more luxuries? Do we really need to refurbish various government offices right now? Can we really afford to spend $400 million to help people quit smoking? Should we spend $600 million on new cars for the government, or just continue to drive older cars until the economy turns around? When we the people hit economic times, we are forced to make tough decisions to continue to survive. Why does the government seem to think that the billions spent on “necessary” programs that we could cut and continue to exist as a profitable nation must be continued, even increased? 

In the world of business, boom times are when a portion of your profits are put aside for the inevitable recession. How come after finishing one of the biggest boom times in the history of the world (the Internet revolution) we put nothing aside. Worse we increased our debt dramatically. Now that the inevitable recession has hit, we are spending even more money that we don’t have in hopes of paying if off when? Are we planning on the country filing for bankruptcy so we can be forgiven for all of our debt? This is not the way it works and the monies we continue to borrow every year will have to be paid off at some point. This deficit spending cannot continue unabated forever.

Misquotation is, in fact, the pride and privilege of the learned. A widely- read man never quotes accurately, for the rather obvious reason that he has read too widely.

America lives in the heart of every man everywhere who wishes to find a region where he will be free to work out his destiny as he chooses.

Just what is it that America stands for? If she stands for one thing more than another it is for the sovereignty of self-governing people.

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.

No man who ever held the office of president would congratulate a friend on obtaining it.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts.

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent.

That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

It does not matter how slowly you go so long as you do not stop.

Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in getting up every time we do.

He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason.

All virtue is summed up in dealing justly.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work.

The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.

Aristotle

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! We need to pass a stimulus bill right away!

OK this may or may not be true, but let us assume for a moment that those shilling for this spending program are right. After all, FDR did it in 1935 and it led to the end of the depression. Right? Well considering the scores of economists that disagree with this statement, I would point out the logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc, or “after this, therefore because of this”. Just because the Depression ended after FDR enacted the WPA, is not proof that it was the reason the Depression ended. But, again, let us just suppose that this was true, the WPA was the stimulus that primed the pump and ended the Depression.

So now that we are in another depression, oh I mean recession, that is as bad as the Depression, or at least about 1/3 as bad, we need another WPA to save us. Right?

OK, let us assume this is also true. Yes I know, I am assuming quite a lot here, but for the sake of argument, let us keep heading down this road.

So the new stimulus bill will be the new WPA and save the day. Right?

OK, now we get to the meat of my argument. No the stimulus bill is not another WPA. The WPA was mainly used to build bridges, schools, public buildings, and other tangible assets, most of which still exist.  The stimulus bill will fix up some buildings, but mainly will spend money on short-term assts such as automobiles and the like. Will the hybrid vehicles purchased with this money still exist in 50 years? I think not. Are there dams and bridges in the bill? Not to speak of. Even the more esoteric aspects of the WPA, such as the Historical Records Survey, helped to organize state and local documents, the historical benefits of which will affect us forever.

So which parts of this stimulus bill will have long lasting affects on our nation? Virtually none. It could be argued that the sections such as the green areas will help the environment, but that is an argument for another blog. There are next to no permanent, tangible assets being created here. Comparing this bill to the WPA is like comparing going on a cruise to building a house. At least the house gives you a tangible asset.

More inane poop from the public, the media, and a Bay Area District Attorney. Now ex-officer Mehserle is being charged with either 1^st or 2^nd degree murder for what in my eyes was obviously an accidental shooting. Why is this happening? Because Mehserle is white and his victim was not. There is no other reason. Before the investigation even had begun his family sued for $25 million dollars, trying to win the death lottery. 

Lets look at what we know. The cops were called out to a call of several youths fighting on a train. They found several individuals they thought were the youths. They took them off the train and restrained them, face down on the ground. The youths were resisting and complaining in a minor way that most malcontents do in today’s society. None of these facts are being contested.

Now according to the screeching left, Officer Mehserle, drew his pistol and intentionally shot Mr. Grant, in the back, less than 24’ from a fellow officer who was kneeling on Grant’s neck. Why did he shoot him? Why because he was black of course. 

First off, why did he not shoot any of the other blacks that had been restrained?

Why would he risk a fellow officer by shooting Mr. Grant so close to the officer restraining him?

Officer Mehserle had never met Mr. Grant, so what was the motive? Pure racism? Not likely. Because of Mr. Grant’s attitude? First not many would risk their career and freedom over a mouthy perp, let alone commit murder. Officer Mehserle had two years of experience. He had heard this before.

So why is it hard to believe that Mehserle mistakenly drew his pistol, thinking it was a Taser (which is similarly shaped) and shot Mr. Grant when meaning to Taser him? This is why several police department require the Taser NOT to be carried on the gun hand side, to prevent this type of mistake. A case of negligent homicide to be sure, but not 1^st degree murder. Also not a reason to riot in the streets about the racial injustice of America. Didn’t we just elect a black President? I feel sorrow for Mr. Grant’s family, but I also feel sorrow for Mr. Mehserle and his family. His life is ruined and he has to live forever with the knowledge that he (most likely) mistakenly took a human life. Race baiters, take your placards and go home.

Over the last few years I have run up against a wall of prejudice against me. Yes, it’s true. I am a white, male adult, so by some people’s rationalization, it is not possible to discriminate against me. This politically correct assumption aside, I am discriminated against, and it is not based upon by race, gender, ethnicity, or any of the typically protected classes. What is being held against me is my time in the United States Army. It is not that I am discriminated against for being a veteran, it is worse; I am denied the title of veteran. Because of the dates of my active duty, I have been dropped from the roles of veterans and dumped into the pile of Prior Service. My time serving my country has been deemed less than worthy. You see I served in the Army from June of 1978 until June of 1981, after the era of the Vietnam War and before the era of Panama. Events such as the Iranian Hostage crisis that was modern America’s first brush against Islamic fundamentalism were not deemed on par with the invasion of Panama. So how did I get to this conclusion?

This first started while I was still in the Army. The GI Bill had been retired in 1976 and replaced by the Veteran’s Education Assistance Program (VEAP). For those who don’t know, the GI Bill supplied veterans with grants to pay for college or vocational schooling, among other benefits. VEAP required service members to contribute to an educational fund, while in the service, that the government would match, 2 to 1. Of course being under 21 I was not looking to the future, and in the late 1970’s the world had not started to require college degrees for occupations such as law enforcement. Since I had my sights set on becoming a police officer (I was a Military Policeman in the Army), I never gave it a second thought. I did start to regret the decision when I ended my time in service, honorably, in 1981, and every police department I talked to asked for college credits and did not acknowledge my time in the Military Police as legitimate experience.

Now flash forward several decades. I was working with a man who was attending college that was being paid for by the federal government. He was a disabled vet. He had permanently injured his back, moving furniture for the Army while serving in the Army reserves. We became good friends and one day he told me about an insurance company that specialized in low rates and was only available to active service members and veterans. This company, USAA, was started by 25 Army officers to help active duty and veterans with the high cost of insurance. Of course I was interested in saving some money on my auto insurance so I went to their website to see about changing my insurance to USAA. Unfortunately, I quickly found out that I was not qualified to be insured by them. Only active duty, disabled veterans, retirees, and veterans who had served during times of war (or police actions deemed worthy such as Korea and Vietnam) and their dependents were accepted by USAA. Oh well, it was not a major loss as it only prevented me from saving a few bucks a month on my auto insurance. The matter was quickly pushed to the back of my mind.

A while later, I was pondering on how to network better to improve my professional life when I came upon the idea of joining the American Legion. I knew I could not join the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) as I had not served in a foreign country, at peace or war. I was not aware, however, that the American Legion is reserved for veterans who have served during times of war, whether or not they were actually in the war’s theater. So of course, my service to my country was not sufficient to qualify me to join. This time I was a bit more upset at not being able to join with my brethren and in doing so possibly create some positive social networks. Oh well, not a major blow in life, just an irritating one. Once again this was mentally pushed to the back burner.

The final straw came when I was perusing the federal job database, USAJobs.gov. While creating a profile in the system to enable me to apply for a federal position, I came across the section for veterans. I used the supplied wizard to find out how many points my time in service was worth in the federal hiring process. Any guesses? That’s right, zero points. I was not a veteran, but classified as prior service. Prior service? I thought that was the very definition of a veteran! 

This issue has come up several times since, usually involving government employment. So why does it bother me enough to write about it? It bothers me because of the inherent unjustness of it all. I offered up my life to the alter of freedom as President Lincoln so eloquently put it. Is it my fault that Mars was not accepting sacrifices at the time? Worse, I joined the Army just three years after our pull out of Viet Nam. This was a time that the country did not look favorably upon its military. It was not “cool” to be in the military at the time. In point of fact, the Army was under staffed the entire time I was in. In 1979 the Army missed it recruitment goals by 17,000. So I had the chutzpah to join when it was not en vogue.   Add to that the fact that I spent my time protecting our nation’s nuclear arsenal from terrorist threats. Yes Virginia, there were terrorist before the 1990s. Finally, and the part that bothers me the most, is that there are soldiers, as you read this, that are doing the same thing I did, in the same location, that will be considered veterans. Why? It is because there are wars (or police actions) ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

And please don’t think for a moment that I think the job they are doing is any less important that the fighting that is going on. In the military there are at least a dozen soldiers behind the lines for every soldier actually fighting. This means that only about 8 % of war-time veterans are ever in a position to be shot at. The majority are driving, moving, guarding, and cleaning so that the combat troops can carry the fight without impediment. This is what I did when I was in.  It just so happens that the war I served during was a cold one.

So I ask of you the reader, is this fair? There are thousands of us that served our country honorably in a time that just happened to be relatively peaceful. Is it right that those of my ilk are delegated to being less than veterans? Prior service indeed!

Yes a bipartisan vote against it. All of the Republicans and 11 Democrats voted against the bill. Only Democrats voted for it. Of course the real headlines are screaming that the Republicans are not acting in a bipartisan fashion because they did not vote the way the Democrats wanted. We all know that to a Democrat, bipartisan means you need to compromise, not them.

From By Matt Spetalnick and Jeff Mason of Reuters:

With the recession and financial crisis topping his agenda, Obama urged the Senate to approve the stimulus bill that the House of Representatives passed this week.

But as conditions worsen, the president said new strategies were in the works.

"Soon my treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, will announce a new strategy for reviving our financial system that gets credit flowing to businesses and families," Obama said.

 So what is the stimulus bill for if not to get credit flowing to businesses and families?

Do I smell some cow feces here?

This is a call to raise taxes upon the rich profiteers! Those who have profited from the war our country has waged, thousands of miles from home, must pay for the cost of that war.

Waging a war in a distant land is prohibitively expensive. Just the cost of transporting the troops and war materials to the battlefield has put the country in massive debt. This debt has become so large that it is beginning to adversely affect the common man. Should these men be held responsible for this debt?

How about those that have profited from the massive natural resources made available by this war? If not for the war, these men might not have increased their fortunes at an unheard of rate. Should not these be the ones to pay for the war? They are the ones who have most greatly benefited from it.

Even today, the cost of keeping troops billeted so far from home continues to further strain the country’s economy. Who is to foot the bill for this cost? The average citizen or those who have benefited from this action?

Without these troops, the barbaric hoards would overrun the locals residents and then where would those profiteers be without access to the natural resources that are the source of their profits?

I call for the houses of the government to raise taxes upon these rich men and force them to pay the piper for their success.

King George III

or

President Obama

Could it have been the senior investment advisor, Robert Rubin, who led Citigroup down the path of reckless investments in the real estate market in search of bigger profits? That sounds an awful lot like the Democratic talking points about the greedy Republicans. Good thing Mr. Rubin is not going to influence the new administration. Oh wait! Obama just announced that he is picking Geithner as Treasury Secretary, Summers as Senior White House Economics Advisor, and Orszag as Budget Director. All three are (in the words of that right-wing paper the NY Times) protégés of Mr. Rubin and ex-Clinton appointees.

Good thing we voted in the candidate for change.

We all understand that Barak Obama’s election to the office of the President was an historic moment in American and human history, the first black person to be chosen by a predominately white population to lead them. A proud moment for all of us.

BUT!

Can we stop with the “historic” histrionics?  Every day I read new articles about something Mr. or Mrs. Obama do that is deemed historic solely because of their race.

Mr. Obama’s historic meeting with President Bush. Mrs. Obama’s historic term as the First Lady. It goes on without end. We get it. Mr. Obama being elected is historic because of his race. Does the media have to tout everything he does from now on as historic just because it will be the first time a black President does it? Enough already.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.