Think about lawyers.  Think about your feelings toward lawyers in general.  Think about the news articles you read about tort reform.  Think about nuisance lawsuits.  Think about ACLU lawyers trying to get a cross in the middle of the Mojave Desert torn down.  Think about lawyers arguing to put the rights of terrorists languishing in Guantanamo above the rights of the families of the 9/11 dead.

 

Now think about your representatives to Congress and the Senate.

 

Harry Reid - Lawyer

Richard Durbin - Lawyer

Charles Scuhmer - Lawyer

Hillary Clinton and her successor Kirsten Gillibrand - Lawyers

Christopher Dodd - Lawyer

Charles Rangel - Lawyer

Barney Frank - Lawyer

 

I don't think I need to go on - you get my point by now.

 

Why do we elect such people to govern us?  Why, in the name of G-D, do we do such stupid things?

While the original Boston Tea Party took place in December, there is still a parallel to be drawn with today's nationwide "tea party" protests.  That is, the original tea party took place because of a specific event - A protest by the colonists against the landing of several shiploads (100+ tons) of taxed tea.  Today's parties also mark a specific, albiet annual, event - The income tax filing deadline.

 

I listened to reports of the events on several media outlets, even such notoriusly liberal ones as NPR.  It seemed to me there was a unifying message:  Quit spending!!  Of course, the income tax filing deadline doesn't involve spending per se; but it is symbolic of the average Americans perception of the government's main source of funds to spend - a tax on income.  So today's message was really:  Quit taxing!!  Just like 1773.

 

If more and more of the populace start to think like today's tea partiers, the same thing might happen to our current government that happened starting in 1773 to the British.  That was not a good thing for the government then and wouldn't be a good thing for the government now.

 

Today's question is:  Do the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Dodd and Frank have the smarts to realize what might happen?  I'll bet a whole pre-1965 silver dime they don't.  They only know how to prostitute themselves to buy re-election with handouts of tax money.  The taxes from one successful businessman can buy the votes of myriads of do-nothings who depend on the government to survive.  Special interests?  Yes, and they're not just PAC's.  They're every person out there who has their hand out for a handout.  Who react to any criticism with "you owe me".  Who refer to their monthly welfare stipend as "my paycheck".  Who have no idea of what their best interests are and depend on the government to tell them how to live.

 

The good of the People and the United States mean less to a Congressperson up for re-election than any colonist meant to King George III in 1773.  The only thing the Congresshmuck cares about is your being alive to vote.  And even that doesn't matter in Chicago.

Just the other day, North Korean Grand Poobah Kim Jong Il "led" his subjects in a glorious public rally celebrating the success of the weekend missile launch over the North Pacific.  The fact that the missile didn't perform as well as hoped (or lauded) makes no difference to Kim.  To him, it's all about image and public perception.  His government run programs, whether military like his missiles or his fizzled nuke from several months ago or civilian like his efforts to feed his 23 million starving subjects, are generally complete and utter failures.  No problem - have a success rally anyway!  Get a couple of hundred thousand of the troops and a few pretty girls to parade in the streets cheering and waving and invite the press to publicize the whole affair.

 

Travel half way around the world to Washington D. C.  The leaders of our government - Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, Clinton and, especially, Obama - lead the cheers from our Congress in rallies put on by our own media to celebrate government programs that are complete and utter failures.  Stimulus package?  No, just a massive Keynesian deficit spending package.  TARP?  I haven't heard of any troubled assets that have been retired lately.  Tax cuts?  Not unless you're poor or the Treasury Secretary.  Us middle class wage earners are going to pay more.  We're the ones who have an income to tax.  Health care?  I can't think of a better way to dramatically and quickly reduce the population of our country than to let the government care for our health.  Just think - flyover red state conservatism might become classified as the newest untreatable disease.  We wouldn't want to waste health care dollars on someone dying of conservatism!

 

Our leaders don't give a rat's patoot about the well being of you and I.  They care about power and control.  Every regulation, every executive order and every law is written for the sole purpose of placing a few more good people under the thumb of our rulers.

 

Does this foreshadow the fall of democracy?  No, we will still democratically elect our rulers - kind of like Cuba.  How about liberty and justice for all?  There I suggect you bid a fond farewell, sayonara, adios, auf wiedersen and ciao.

At times, companies make announcements such as earnings, dividends, executive personnel change and other good (or not so good) news late in the day, after the markets close, or on the weekends.  The purpose of this timing is to mitigate the effect the announcement has stock prices.

 

Apparently, the clowns in our current administration think the same thing might be true for news from the government.  To wit, two announcements made over the weekend:

 

1.  The CEO of GM is quitting, effective immediately, at the request of the White House.

2.  The Treasury Secretary believes the markets can't resolve the current 'economic crisis'.

 

First, I was taught in business school that the chain of command in a corporation was the stockholders, who elected a board of directors, who in turn hired (and fired) a CEO or president.  I guess under Obamanomics, the senior debtholders now decide who runs the company. 

 

Second, to say that the markets can't handle an economic problem that was caused by government mandates shoved down the throats of the company CEO's is to say that capitalism doesn't work.  Apparently, Treasury Timmy's lack of mental capacity extends far beyond his inability to remember to pay his taxes.

 

April 18th is fast approaching.  To all of you I say "To arms!  To arms!  The socialists are coming!"

It's my recent understanding that the money for the various bailouts, toxic asset purchases and stimuli is coming from government borrowing.  But wait!!  Borrowing doesn't create money; it only moves it around within the economy.  Money (wealth) is created by creating something of value - manufacturing a product, writing software, mining ores, growing food, raising livestock, repairing machinery, providing desired services, etc.  Which means the money for the government programs comes from a class of individuals known as "Producers of Wealth". 

 

Today's question is addressed to all of those Producers of Wealth.......

 

Would you loan money to the government?  Would you loan money to an entity comprised of those, both elected and appointed, who seek to define your well being, tax your wealth, dictate your lifestyle and limit your freedoms?  To those who, under the auspices of the phrase "We the People", empower themselves to tell you what is best for you and punish you for not following their directives?

     Just the title of this tirade is a contradiction of terms.  In 2002, California was in a multi-bazillion dollar budget crunch.  Then-Governor Joseph Graham (Grey) Davis was adamant in his re-election campaign that the problem could be solved without financial consequence to the average taxpayer.  In other words, he would pull a rabbit out of his hat and make the deficit go away without raising taxes or cutting programs.

 

     Although the average Californian was dumb enough to believe that (they re-elected Davis), you and I know that there isn't a hat, much less a rabbit.  After Davis was sworn in in January 2003, he quickly raised the subject of taxes to pay off the deficit.  Shortly thereafter the voters overwhelmingly recalled and replaced him with our own beloved Arnold the Terminator.  Arnold promptly called all the commie pinko liberals in the state legislature "girlie-men" and proceeded to do whatever they wanted.

 

     Now understand, nothing was ever done about the multi-bazillion dollar deficit.  So now, five years later, it's a multi-Gazillion dollar deficit.  The last I heard we were looking at $41,000,000,000!!  Personally, I think that's a hell of a lot of zeros.  Arnold has agreed with the legislature on a bill containing a package of tax increases, fees and program cuts.  Problem - California is a super-majority state.  The legislature needs a 2/3 majority (read 3 Republicans) in both Houses to enact their program.

 

     FINALLY the Republicans have grown some cojones.  Only one Republican State Senator has gone along with the plan (he helped draft it) and as a reward for his effort has been thrown out of his Senate leadership position and his butt kicked back to Fresno. 

 

     I'm not naive enough to think this will do anything but delay the inevitable, but it's nice to see a reaction to such things as a 2.5% fee to insure the privilege of filing my tax return, a 12 cent gas tax increase and a half point sales tax increase (do I hear bids on a full point?).  It's going to happen; the taxpayers are going to be raped again, and they're going to have to pay for their own Vaseline.

 

     The point?  My question for today is:  In three years, after the rape, pillage and plunder of the taxpayers' pocketbooks, will the deficit be

 

         a.   Less than $41,000,000,000.00

         b.   Still $41,000,000,000.00

         c.   More than $41,000,000,000.00

 

     My money, what little I have left, is on (c.) above.

     This is my first ever blog posting - I have pontificated on a soapbox for beau-coup years, but never in any sort of "media".  All writings and opinions herein are mine.  Others may or may not share them.  I'm a transplanted fly-over conservative living on the left coast.  All that being said, here goes:

 

     I remember when DDE was President.  I remember when RWR was President.  It actually wasn't all that long ago.  So I often wonder, "What has happened?"

 

     Can a country really go to hell in a handbasket as quickly as ours has?  It's been only 20 years since Mr. Reagan left office.  For 12 of those 20 years we had a 'conservative' President and for a like (but not congruent) 12 years we had a 'conservative' Congress.  The federal budget deficit has exploded ('ballooned' is much too weak), taxes are outrageous, the 'media' considers their opinion to be 'news', their 'anchors' aren't journalists but 'talking heads', we are engaged in two seperate (albeit related) wars, our government is throwing money at anyone who contributes to someones political campaign and I have to drop my pants to get on an airplane.  If this is 'Conservatism' what the hell can I expect in the next 4 years?

 

     Can a country really go to hell in a handbasket in 20 years?  How about Russia between 1917 and 1937?

 

     Do I have a point to make today?  Not really.  I'm asking a simple question for which I expect no answer.  But, seriously, can a country really go to hell in a handbasket in 20 years?  It's beginning to look that way.