Congressman Tim Bishop continues to push his manufactured campaign issue, with the full union backing of the Communication Workers of America, to fight against outsourced call centers. He calls it a “surgical strike”. I think there are more appropriate names for it.

It’s always fun to listen to someone who hasn’t spent a day outside of academia or government tell the rest of us, a) what the problem is; and b) what the solution is. The first question that I would ask Congressman Bishop is “why is this such an important issue for your constituents?” Answer: It isn’t. There are no major call centers in his district and there are none that I know of that are weighing a move to his district. So why is this his major legislative focus?

He is desperately looking for an issue, any issue, that he can campaign on. He cannot campaign on his record. He cannot campaign on a record of supporting the Obama economic disaster. He cannot campaign on how much the debt ballooned on his watch. So Doctor Bishop wants to do a little surgery and penalize companies who outsource call centers. Since Bishop never held a job that produced anything for a profit he can be excused for not grasping the impacts of his proposed bill.

One of his provisions is to make companies that have outsourced call center jobs overseas ineligible for government contracts. Two of the largest US PC manufactures HP and Dell and they both have call centers overseas. So does Congressman Bishop want the stop the federal government from buying PCs from HP and Dell? Who should they buy them from? Chinese Lenovo, Taiwan based Acer? Japan’s Toshiba? Speaking like a general he says it is a surgical strike. Well surgical strikes are designed to limit collateral damage, and Bishop’s plan is chock full of collateral damage.

Here is how Bishop could really help the situation. First, take a basic economics course. Study how the global economy works and how free global trade helps everyone. Perhaps he should ask his backers at the Communications Workers of America, what they can do to make call centers in the US more cost-effective. Do they have too many work rules in their contracts? Do they force their members to pay union dues to pay for the union to back Bishop and Obama? If their dues were limited to collective bargaining, perhaps employers could afford more call center jobs in the US. Tell Obama we need to slash the corporate tax rate so that companies do not save billions of dollars by locating operations in overseas countries with lower tax rates and then trap those profits overseas so they can’t be brought back to create jobs here.

But that may be too much to ask of Mr. Bishop before November. So here’s a better idea. Step down, and let someone who has actually created jobs take your place.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Tim Bishop has submitted legislation to punish firms that use overseas call centers. He is desperate. He needs an issue that he hopes will sneak him past the electorate into office for another two years. Outsourcing worked for him last time, so he is trying to put lipstick on that pig and pass it off as bold, new thinking. What I am thinking is when is Tim Bishop ever going to represent the people who actually live in his district?

How many call centers are in his district that are threatening to move overseas? How may call centers are trying to decide between locating in his district or locating in India? If the answer to either of the above questions is none, why is he spending time on this?

Over twenty years ago, while working at Citibank, they had a customer service center for credit cards in Melville. For cost reasons they were looking at shutting it down and moving it. I was asked to provide an analysis of the telecommunication costs in an effort to keep it in place. Based on the customer distribution, I showed that its current location was the best choice from a telecommunications basis, but it was not enough to offset the people cost. The alternatives considered were Maryland, South Dakota and Nevada. India was not on the list. But if you were a customer service rep on Long Island who didn’t want to move, was the fact that the job was staying in America, give you consolation? Your job went away

So what is Tim Bishop doing starting a trade war with India? How does that help his constituents?

 ”Outsourcing is one of the scourges of our economy and why we are struggling so to knock down the unemployment rate,” said Bishop.

In a previous post on Mr. Bishop’s insightfulness I pointed out that the largest Toyota factory outside of Japan is in Georgetown, Kentucky. Through a new free trade agreement that plant will now begin exporting Toyotas from the U.S. to South Korea. If Toyota didn’t outsource those jobs to the U.S. but kept them in Japan, there would be 7,400 fewer Americans employed in Kentucky than there are today. So how does Bishop square this with his statement that outsourcing is a scourge and contributes to unemployment when this is proof of the opposite? Perhaps if our tax structure wasn’t so abysmal, other companies would locate their factories here? But we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, so why build here? But when was the last time you heard Tim Bishop pounding the podium for lower tax rates?

With the stimulus plan, Congressman Bishop voted to spend a trillion dollars across the country to be paid for by whom? Well, consistent with the Democratic message of “tax the rich”, when compared to other states, New York is relatively rich, so we get a bigger share of the bill and a smaller cut of the benefits. How did Congressman Bishop’s vote help his district? Most of the money that did come here went to people who already had a job, and a union card, the teachers. Who is backing Mr. Bishop on his phone center folly? The Communication Workers of America. Bishop knows he needs union muscle if he has a prayer of getting reelected.

He also likes the idea of the payroll tax holiday and tells people at his town hall meeting, not to worry about the Social Security Trust Fund losing important funding, that money will come from elsewhere. Where exactly? Does Mr. Bishop have some magic beans or a goose laying golden eggs like a gatling gun? We’re broke thanks to Mr. Bishop and his pals spending, spending, and spending.

So Tim Bishop looks out for Tim Bishop first, Nancy Pelosi second, and if he can help his constituents cut through some bureaucratic red tape, cut through it but not eliminate it, he will do so. But he needs something, anything, to take the voters eyes off his dismal record in Congress, so let’s try another new twist on outsourcing, whether it is germane to his constituents or not. After all, where else is Tim Bishop going to land a job that pays $174,000 a year with his resume?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Congressman Tim Bishop held an online town hall meeting to hear questions from constituents and give his answers. Perhaps he thought this a safer forum than a live town hall meeting. Last year’s meeting in Setauket did not go well and was soon viral on You Tube.

I will comment on three of the topics from that meeting: the payroll tax cut, regulations, and manufacturing jobs.

Payroll Tax Cut

Congressman Bishop came out heavily pitching the extension of the payroll tax cut, from the normal level of 6.2% to the current level of 4.2% and even to go lower to 3.1%, for at least another year. He made the startling claim, quoting some experts that if the payroll tax cut wasn’t retained it would cost 400,000 jobs. It must be from the loss of all that spending power generated from a 2% cut in the payroll tax. I am sure pizza parlors will be devastated, as the weekly savings to a typical family will be about the cost of a pizza pie. The other statistic was that if the payroll tax was cut further to 3.1%, 750,000 new jobs would be created. Interesting. Raise the tax by 2% and 400,000 jobs would be lost, cut it by an additional 1.1% and nearly twice as many jobs would be created. Like prior predictions of how government intervention would affect jobs, we are supposed to believe that employers will start hiring if the cost of hiring a new employee  is reduced by 3.1% for just one year, before going back up. Only those people who never worked in private industry, like Bishop, Schumer, Obama, would believe that.

Bishop insisted that these cuts would have no impact to the Social Security Trust Fund. Considering that there is nothing in the Social Security Trust Fund other than a bunch of IOUs from Uncle Sam’s other pocket, he may be correct on that front, but he said that the cut would be paid for cutting spending elsewhere. Not surprisingly, he didn’t say where exactly “elsewhere” was.

Throughout the call, Bishop’s press secretary was conducting a dopey poll. To paraphrase, “If you are in favor of the payroll tax cut that will put $1,500 in your pocket, press 1, if not, press 2.” Who wouldn’t press 1? What would the results be if he asked, “If you are in favor of borrowing $600 from China that your children and grandchildren will have to pay back, so that we can give you $1,500 today, press 1, if you think more borrowing and debt is a bad idea, press 2,” I think the poll would turn out quite differently.

Regulations

A caller who owned a small construction company asked about all the regulations and paperwork that businesses had to deal with. Bishop said that President Obama had things well under control forming a commission to “zero base” all regulations and hundreds and hundreds of regulations have been taken off the books. In the Wall Street Journal today there is an editorial titled, “Regulation for Dummies,” that paints a very different picture.

To answer the most basic question—has regulation increased?—we’ll focus on what the government defines as “economically significant” regulations. Those are rules that impose more than $100 million in annual costs on the economy, though there are hundreds if not thousands of new rules every year that fall well short of that.

According to an analysis of the Federal Register by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, the Cabinet departments and agencies finalized 84 such regulations annually on average in President Obama’s first two years. The annual average under President Bush was 62 and under President Clinton 56

As the graph clearly shows the number of “economically significant” regulations under Obama has skyrocketed. This is what is causing the uncertainty that is hindering employment. How can this be curtailed? A bill just passed in the House of Representatives called the “Regulation from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS)”. This would require any of these economically significant regulations to be sent to Congress for approval before becoming being enacted. What the process is today is that Congress can vote against regulations, but that can be vetoed by the President. If the regulations are coming from the president, wouldn’t you expect him to veto it? This turns it around so that the Congress has to approve the regulations, if they don’t, there is nothing for the president to veto. The Democrats say this is a Congressional encroachment of the Executive.

“The REINS Act would undermine our ability to protect children from harmful toys, prevent asthma and lung ailments resulting from pollution, and ensure that our small businesses can compete fairly in the marketplace,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer added. “At the same time, it would force Congress to play a larger role in the regulatory process, leading to even more gridlock in Washington.”

Surely he forgot to mention killing bunnies in there somewhere. But let’s look at the process: Congress passes a law; departments in the Executive branch write regulations to carry out the law Congress passed. So why is it an outrage that Congress reviews economically significant regulations to see if the Executive is actually implementing what they passed? Tim Bishop voted against the REINS Act. This is another case of Democrats focusing on piddling regulations while saying “hands off” the really impactful ones.

Manufacturing Jobs

Another caller asked the Congressman about manufacturing jobs. He patted himself on the back for helping to bail out the auto industry. He said if he and others hadn’t done that that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost. I addressed the implausibility of this in an earlier post. In that post I argued that if GM and Chrysler went bankrupt and even if they didn’t come out of it leaner and meaner, people still needed transportation. They would buy Fords, Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas, etc., that are currently built here in the U.S. Those car companies would need to increase their purchases from suppliers and those who formerly supplied GM and Chrysler would be well situated to supply the remaining car companies. The argument that we don’t manufacture here anymore is a myth. On a dollar volume basis, we still manufacture more than any country on earth. A few miles from where I am writing this, in Georgetown, Kentucky, is the largest Toyota factory outside of Japan. Due to a free trade agreement with South Korea that the Democrats blocked for years, that Toyota plant will begin exporting about 6,000 Camrys a year from Kentucky to South Korea.

One of the reasons we don’t build more here is our lousy tax code. Fix it. A reason there is not more manufacturing in Mr. Bishop’s district on Long Island is high electric rates. Factories run on power and power on Long Island is expensive. One of the reasons for that is that government approved the building of a $5 billion nuclear power plant on Long Island, and then when it was ready to throw the switch, they changed direction and said it couldn’t open. So Long Island rate payers had to find and buy electric from other sources and pay for the mothballed plant that produced nothing. Once again, the government helping us out.

But Tim Bishop has a solution. He wrote a bill to ban offshore call centers from federal contracts or loan guarantees for five-year. Nothing like micromanaging a corner of the economy while the rest of it burns. Why not look to the root cause? Tax structure, too much regulations, ObamaCare, out of control government spending. If Congress would fix those problems maybe companies wouldn’t look offshore to set up call centers.

The Budget

Tim Bishop also touched on the deficit and debt. He said we need to cut spending, but he never said what he would cut; he said we needed to control entitlement spending, but he didn’t say how he would do that; and he said we needed to add revenue, but he knew exactly how to do that, tax the rich. Here’s how I see it. The government got us into this mess by spending too much money, they should get us out of it by spending less money. Asking for any more tax revenue is just shirking their responsibility for which they are paid handsomely, and passing the problem on to us. Who couldn’t solve the problem with enough money?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

On a report that his challenger from last fall, Randy Altschuler, may be looking at a rematch, Tim Bishop’s team wasted no time throwing away all pretense of what they preach to get back in the gutter to revel in the politics of personal attack.

What Bishop Says

In a speech on the floor of the House during consideration of a vote to repeal ObamaCare, Congressman Bishop had this to say:

“Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time this Congress does what President Obama called on Americans to do last week: approach our debates and our differences with civility and honesty. We appear to be doing reasonably well with regard to civility, but less so with honesty.”

What Bishop Does

Jon Schneider, Tim Bishop’s spokesman responded to the report of a rematch with juvenile name calling:

“Randy Outsourcer couldn’t win in a once-in-a-generation year for Republicans,” writes Jon Schneider, the spokesman, using the campaign’s negative nickname for Altschuler. “While Tim Bishop will be able to run in 2012 on his record of fighting House Republican efforts to cut 1,000 jobs at Brookhaven National Lab, Randy will remain a fatally flawed outsourcer with a track record of getting rich by shipping American jobs overseas.”

“Randy Outsourcer”? That is hardly civil nor honest. It is the kind of discourse you would expect in a grammar school lunchroom or schoolyard.

The Facts

Congressman Bishop’s main argument for reelecting him was that his opponent created a successful company that provided services to businesses and some of those services were provided from offshore locations. We live in a global economy, but don’t let facts get in the way. Will Mr. Bishop tell Canon, USA, to close their North and South American headquarters in Melville, which employs 1,200 Long Islanders, because everyone knows outsourcing is bad? Let’s send those jobs back to Japan where they belong! How about SRI, a German manufacturing and engineering giant looking at Long Island; or WiseCon and Surikat, two Chilean companies? Let us not forget all the foreign based auto companies that employ tens of thousands of Americans here in America. Go home foreigners!

But don’t look too closely at Bishop’s record. After all, he voted for the bailout with taxpayer money of GM and Chrysler. After getting our money Chrysler announced the construction of a $570 million engine plant in Mexico. GM for their part quickly announced that they were increasing their offshore production by 53%. These are high paying manufacturing jobs. So what does Congressman Bishop have to say about his proclivity to outsource using not his own money and taking risks on his own, but with our money? I’m still waiting on a response to the letter I sent to him nearly two months ago asking that very question.

Perhaps it is just a lack of understanding of economics. A study by Dartmouth’s Amos Tuck school of business found that for every job outsourced overseas, two new jobs were create here. In a global economy it is foolhardy to try pick and choose among products based on their country of origin. In 1989, I bought a Ford Probe GT. It was built by Mazda, in Canada, but Ford owned 25% of Mazda. So what was it? Who cares? Pursuing this line of thinking will take us back to the days of Smoot-Hawley tariffs that plunged us deeper into the Great Depression, but that shouldn’t be surprising. The progressives, like Tim Bishop, are doing everything else to mimic the Great Depression.

Time for a New Strategy

It is interesting that Mr. Schneider picked Tim Bishop’s current efforts to save the jobs of 1000 workers at the Brookhaven National Labs. He doesn’t mention his votes for ObamaCare, the Stimulus, the auto bailouts. While saving 1000 jobs is admirable, what about the rest of the 700,000 citizens in his district. He just wants to hand them the bill. Since government has no money except that which it gets from its citizens through taxes, every big government program has an invoice that has to be paid. Take, for example, the stimulus. His constituents share of that bill is about $3 billion. He “successfully” brought home $679 million according to www.recovery.gov. That would be like getting a $679,000 house for “free” with a $3 million mortgage attached to it. Are there any takers out there for that deal?

Next time around Mr. Bishop may actually have to run on his record, but let’s leave the taunts and childish names behind and have an adult debate on the issues. The people of the district deserve as much.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Congressman Ron Paul, a perennial favorite of CPAC, the annual convention of the American Conservative Union, packed the house and then lit it up with his speech of liberty and libertarianism.

The themes he hit hardest were the fiscal situation, foreign policy, the Federal Reserve, and individual liberty and the crowd loved every minute of it. The full ballroom, the balconies, and several overflow rooms with video feeds waited for his remarks.

His opening salvo was on the fiscal situation. We have been spending far too much for far too long he told the crowd, surprising no one. He pointed to a common theme, which always seems to follow a progressive defeat at the polls, the call for bipartisanship. Congressman Paul tacked the opposite way saying he thought there has been too much bipartisanship. All of the social spending of the last fifty or sixty years could not have been accomplished without support from both parties, so Congressman Paul would like to see less bipartisanship. Unless, that is, there was support from the crony capitalists and the big government liberals to join in a bipartisan effort to cut the hell out of both.

His remarks on our foreign policy made a distinction between defense spending and military spending. Defense spending is what we need to defend ourselves. He called military spending what we spend to keep are troops around the world on a permanent deployment, citing Japan and Germany as places where we have had troops since the end of World War II. Congressman Paul is a strong advocate for staying out of the affairs of other countries. His definition of foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. Most of the seventy billion dollars we have given to Egypt in foreign aid has ended in the bank accounts of the Mubarak family, he said.

Congressman Paul’s opposition to the Federal Reserve is well known. He is now in a position to effect some changes as he is now chairman of a subcommittee with Fed oversight. He wants to audit the Fed and make them accountable, and the crowd roared.

Regarding personal liberty, Congressman Paul has a simple rule: the government should not be able to do anything we cannot do. “If I can’t steal from my neighbor, I should not be able to tell the government to go and steal from him for me. No redistribution of wealth.” The listeners lapped it up. He offered a deal to the crowd. He asked if they would be willing to accept paying no more than 10% of their income if they agreed to take care of themselves and not ask the government for anything.

Congressman Paulwon the2010 Presidential straw poll at CPAC and he may win it again, if the “applause meter” is a gauge. Yesterday, Donald Trump said he liked Ron Paul but he is unelectable. With the number of young people in the crowd, their enthusiasm, and the progressive agenda crumbling, I am not so sure. He may be getting on in years, but he did open his remarks with a good point. Kentucky has a new senator, Senator Rand Paul.

CORRECTION: In the original post we had that Ron Paul  has repeatedly won the CPAC straw poll. He did not win it repeatedly, he won it in 2010 alone.

Ah, the romance of rail travel.  From Murder on the Orient Express to From Russia with Love to White Christmas to Some Like It Hot there is something alluring about a train.  But for all those warm feelings it’s time to recognize that we are in the 21^st century and to leave trains to the movies. 

There have been calls for the great idea of high speed rail that is, in effect, a solution in search of a problem.  It may work well in Europe and Japan, but the United States is not Europe or Japan.  Two things needed to make high speed rail viable are population density and distances between such population densities that are not too close and not too far. We have a whole lot of neither.

Building a high speed rail system is capital intensive.  Between the track bed, carefully engineered to keep high speed trains on the tracks and the passengers comfortable, the rolling stock, and the signaling and safety equipment, it takes a lot of money to build it.  If that investment is to be recovered you need many passengers paying ticket prices high enough to make a profit and low enough to attract those passengers.  Those population centers have to be far enough apart so that the inconvenience of public transportation offsets driving by car and close enough so that the travel time is not too much longer than air travel.  How many of these routes are there in this country that satisfy those criteria?  Precious few.

Consider that part of the country where the population is densest, the Northeast Corridor, extending from Boston to Washington, D.C.  This happens to be one place in the country where rail service works.  Amtrak runs a fast train service along this corner that in 2008 actually made a profit of $41 per passenger on this service, called Acela. 

Let’s compare that to what is being planned for California.  The concept is a high speed rail link running from San Francisco in the north to San Diego in the south, a run of about 800 miles.  The initial segment of the project is estimated to cost $5.5 billion, take five years to build, and will connect Bakersfield to Madera mainly through agricultural regions.  From a construction perspective that should be an easy build with long stretches of open spaces.  Anyone care to wager what how much the estimate will grow?  The total cost is estimated at $40 billion.  If you could achieve the same profit as the Acela ($41 per passenger) and carry as many passengers as the Northeast Corridor in a year (10.8 million), it would take over 90 years just to recover the capital costs, not including any interest charges.  Is that remotely feasible?

Here’s where the problems mount, you could travel the 800 miles by air in about an hour and a forty minutes, whereas a high speed train would probably take around four hours.  One of the towns mentioned in a recent article in the New York Times as being along the route is Corcoran, population 26,000 including 12,000 “guests of the state” at nearby prisons.  Don’t count on them using the rails much.  The distance is too great and the population density is lacking.  But once again, the federal government is in the middle of something where it doesn’t belong providing funding.  Why should the overtaxed citizens of New York and New Jersey pay for a high speed rail system entirely within the state of California?  This about sums it up:

On Dec. 9, California’s rail authority received a windfall of additional federal stimulus money — some $600 million — when Republican governors in Ohio and Wisconsin passed on money intended for their states. California voters approved high-speed rail in 2008, and deadlines are already passing, including a Dec. 31 cutoff for the state to finalize a plan to spend federal money in the Central Valley. Initial spending will span a raft of projects, including designing stations, redirecting nearby roads and acquiring land.

So responsible governors in Ohio and Wisconsin passed on federal stimulus money; rather than return the money to the Treasury, damn it, it was going to be spent by someone!  Send it to California.  In case you hadn’t noticed lately, California is broke.  So tell me again, why hasn’t this project been cancelled?

If the people of California want to build this themselves, fine.  If a private company sees the opportunity to make a profit and wants to build this, go ahead.  But to take tax dollars from one state and give it to another to build another white elephant, is insane.  It is time to get our heads screwed on straight and live within our means.  Between cars and air travel, there are few places you cannot reach in this country.  There is no value in spending billions of dollars to hit a very small niche between the two.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

President Obama is in Japan today and plans to issue a joint statement on nuclear disarmament.  It’s not yet clear how far he will go towards apologizing for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but one can never tell with his worldwide apology tour.

Let’s Ban All Nuclear Weapons

With the same idiocy that is used in gun control here in America where criminals with illegal guns are given a government issued guarantee that their prey will be defenseless, the Obama Administration wants to extend this to the world of nuclear weapons.

Can’t you just see the grinning Ahmadinejad, with a secret stash of nuclear weapons, as President Obama ceremoniously destroys our last nuclear weapon?  Or how about Kim Jung Il?  Do you think he will feel a little taller that day?  Can’t Obama just do something innocuous like Gerry Ford and hand out WIN buttons?  Does each of his programs have to do damage to our country on such a massive scale?

When democracies having nuclear weapons are demonized, only demons will have nuclear weapons.  God help us all.

Democrats Lining Up to Vote for Cap and Trade

The tide is turning against the case for man-made global warming.  An article in today’s Wall Street Journal has the following:

“Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.” — The Climate Change Climate Change, WSJ, June 26, 2009

So if the case for controlling CO2 emissions is gaining skeptics, what would a reasonable person do?  They would probably pause and listen to see if they should alter their position based on this new information.  What do the statists do?  Double their efforts to jam this gargantuan tax bill through Congress, again without reading it because it’s too big, before the American people find out just how monumentally stupid it is.

Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Ed Markey are the lead lemmings jumping into the sea and expecting all of us to follow.  You see, if they can slam this thing in they will have enormously increased their power and make it very difficult to unwind this monstrosity.  Their disdain for what is right for this country and what is best for the American people is truly astounding.  Their arrogance and sense of empowerment knows no limits.

Scientists Speak Out

Far from Al Gore’s pejorative and dismissive label of “deniers”, some real scientists weigh in:

“The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)”  — The Climate Change Climate Change, WSJ, June 26, 2009

Can you feel your liberties slipping away as those in power do what they want rather than representing us.  Sounds like it’s about time for a tea party.

How much time do we have left before Joe Biden’s prophesy comes true that within six months of taking office Obama, and by extension we, will face an international crisis?  Well, unless you haven’t been paying attention, I think he will hit his mark before his 100 days are up.

Obama and Biden and the rest of their supporters have confused the difference between being liked and being respected.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan, while ambassador to the UN called the world, “A Dangerous Place.”  When trying to be a leader in a world that is dangerous, it is far better to be respected than liked.

The Obama Feel Good Tour

As President Obama tours the world and grovels at the feet of the Europeans, the Saudis, and Latin American dictators, trying to “repair the damage,” done by President Bush, our enemies are licking their chops.  The Europeans flocked to see him, touch him, kiss him, but when he asked for a commitment of more troops for Afghanistan, how did they respond?  Awkward silence and an offer of 5,000 troops to train police while at the same time an insistence that the “world” should have some say in the regulation of the U.S. economy.

While President Obama achieved his goal of improving the U.S.’s likability quotient, pirates were taking ships on the high seas, North Korea sent an ICBM over Japan, Iran celebrated Nuclear Technology Day, and the Taliban made inroads in Pakistan.  How did the popular leader respond?  To North Korea, he scolded that actions have consequences and words have meaning and proposed more words from the UN to be piled on top of the words the North Koreans are already ignoring.

Disarmament

To continue with the feel good groove, we have stopped calling terrorists terrorists.  Their acts are now to be called Man Caused Disasters and I guess the terrorists themselves are to be called Man Caused Disaster Causing Men (or Women).  After all, we don’t want them to be offended by being called terrorists.  Isn’t that was caused 9/11?  It was merely a response to our bad behavior, no?  Our lack of likability?

There is no longer a War on Terror.  It’s an Overseas Contingency Operation.  We don’t want to raise Osama bin Laden’s sensibilities thinking we might be at war with him, but we do need contingency planning in case something happens.  As a further show of good faith, let’s start re-writing the Al Qaeda training manual for them by telling them exactly what kind of interrogation techniques we use so that they can best prepare the training of their members to resist them.  Of course, we already swore we would never use them again anyway, but we have to make sure they are prepared for the infidel’s trickery.  Repeat after me: “I am not going to drown.  I am not going to drown.  I am not going to drown.”  There, it’s simple, now they can resist even our most diabolical torture.  But we shouldn’t forget to tell them that if an interrogator so much as raises his voice they should do the following:

1. Ask for a lawyer
2. Insist on having their Miranda rights given to them in both English (so their lawyers can verify it) and in their native tongue
3. A clean, untouched by infidels hands, copy of the Koran
4. Immediate transport to the United States
5. A green card
6. A path to citizenship
7. A tenured professorship at the college of their choice

If that doesn’t get them to lay down their arms, what will?

Respect Not Likability

The only time the United States is both respected and liked is when the bullets are flying and the United States is saving the hides of our new friends.  When the shooting stops or it is confined to a theater far away from the talkers, the United States will be disliked but, however begrudgingly, respected.

Ronald W. Reagan may have been liked personally in private but when the klieg lights were on, he was “an amiable dunce,” and  “a cowboy.”  But Reagan stood firm and put Pershing II missiles in Europe against all protests.  Such steadfastness led to the eventual arms negotiations and winning the cold war.  At the moment President Reagan took the oath of office, the Ayatollahs in Iran released the American hostages they held for 444 days.  They respected that Reagan would act, not just talk.

George W. Bush was not liked.  He was another cowboy, one who was inarticulate to boot.  But he was respected.  After 9/11 the world respected that he would hunt down and kill America’s enemies.  After the Iraq invasion, Libya publicly shut down their nuclear program.  Quadaffi didn’t want to be next.  President Bush kept America safe for seven years after 9/11.  Now, this Congress and this President want set aside over 200 years of precedent and to put them on trial for doing that.

Preparing for Our Enemies

President Obama plans to keep America secure by cutting our defense budget by 25%.  He plans on a staggering increase in our national debt and selling it to the Chinese.  Picture the Chinese doing to the USA what Obama did to General Motors.  Can you just see the head of the Chinese Communist Party saying to Obama, “Well, we own you now.  You’re fired.”

Can this Juggernaut be Stopped?

On April 15th over 1 million people gathered at Tea Parties around the country to protest the growth of government, the taking of our liberty and out of control taxes.  The Obama main stream media largely ignored the event, or willfully disparaged it.

A recent Rasmussen poll, “85% of mainstream Americans say the government has too much money and power, just 2% of the political class agree.”  If they have no bread, let them eat cake! The poll went on to say, “51% of Americans have a favorable view of the Tea Parties but the political class strongly disagrees.” {emphasis added}  How more out of touch with the people can they be?  How more arrogant in their shameless grab for power can they be?

I will end this post, my friends, with a quotation from the Declaration of Independence.

“WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

July 4, 1776

I hope to see you at the Tea Party on July 4, 2009

If you earn less than $75,000 per year, you are in line to get a tax break of about $8 a week.  Let me get out of your way as you grab the car keys to take your $8 and go on a spending binge that will have the economy humming in no time at all.

There are No Earmarks in this Bill

Do you long for the days of Bill Clinton when he waxed philosophical about the meaning of the word “is”?  President Obama said:

“We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review,” he told reporters on the Hill Tuesday as he tried to build support for the measure.

So, if no Congressional member specifically inserts language about a specific spending request in a particular district, it doesn’t meet the definition of an “earmark.”  So cut out some of the specifics and voila, an earmark is no longer an earmark!  A pet project of Nancy Pelosi, preserving the habitat of the salt marsh harvest mouse, has $30 million, earmarked, er, included in the stimulus bill.

Republican lawmakers said they learned of the marsh money when asking about how various agencies plan to spend stimulus money. The vitality of the mouse has been an issue for Mrs. Pelosi and other California Democrats since the early 1990s.

While the Republicans are raising questions about how American’s tax dollars are being squandered in the name of stimulus, Democrats are responding by calling Republicans unpatriotic, obstructionists, against the will of the American people.  When Speaker Pelosi’s office was asked about the $30 million a spokesman had this response:

“The speaker nor her staff have had any involvement in this initiative. This is yet another contrived partisan attack,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said. “Restoration is key to economic activity, including farming, fisheries, recreation and clean water.”

Does anyone with a room temperature IQ actually believe that statement?  The spending is in San Francisco which is where Nancy Pelosi’s district it located.  Are we supposed to believe she had nothing to do with $30 million of spending in her district?  Was it a Valentine’s Day gift from Steny Hoyer?  If she knows nothing about it, TAKE IT OUT! Those evil Republican partisans had the temerity to ask this question:

“This certainly doesn’t sound like it will create or save American jobs,” Mr. Steel said. “So can Speaker Pelosi explain exactly how we will improve the American economy by helping the adorable little” critter?

The American People Weigh In

Maybe Pelosi can explain it, but she’s not going to.  Perhaps that is why a recent Rasmussen poll had that 67% of Americans think that they could do a better job on the economy than Congress.  Do you think Nancy’s mouse is one of the reasons for that?  Even more embarrassing:

Forty-four percent (44%) voters also think a group of people selected at random from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress, but 37% disagree. Twenty percent (20%)are undecided.

Selected at random from the phone book! We pay these people $167,000 a year and we think names drawn at random from the phone book could do a better job!  Is it only me, or does someone else see a problem here?  These clowns are going to bankrupt us and our children and grandchildren, so they can push through this porka-palooza as fast as possible so no one gets a chance to look at it.  Spending didn’t fix the Great Depression.  Spending didn’t end the lost decade in Japan.  Why do we think it will work now?  Isn’t that the definition of insanity?

Tax cuts were proven by JFK, and Reagan, but let’s not try anything that has actually worked before.  The Democrats say that the reason spending didn’t work in Japan is that the spending wasn’t high enough or fast enough!  So, if this “stimulus” fails to work, as many are predicting, we can expect Congress to come back and say, well it’s those Republicans.  They didn’t let us spend as much as we wanted, so now we have to go back and spend $2 trillion.

So while you ponder that, enjoy your $8.  Don’t spend it all in one place.  But when you put your head on the pillow tonight, rest easy, the salt marsh harvest mouse got $30 mill.  But remember, the Democrats are looking out for you.  And don’t forget to start saving $2,500 for each member of your family, because that’s the size of the tax bill the Democrats will be leaving you and your children.