Seattle Conservative

Taking Some Time Off

2009-07-06T12:25:00.000-07:00

Hello,

As you have noticed, I have not updated my blog recently. I have decided to take some time off from letting you know about the craziness that is going on. I hope to return in the fall, in time for the elections in November.

Thank you for visiting and commenting on the blog. I look forward to seeing you in the fall.

Matt

Poor Kids Go to College

2009-06-09T19:40:00.000-07:00

On our dime. Here is the story from the Seattle Times. This program is STUPID. In order to enroll in the program your parents cannot earn over a certain amount of money at the time of enrollment, here is the income chart, and must remain below the threshold until they graduate from high school. Doesn't this encourage parents to not make anymore money because they risk their child's free education?

I'm all for giving kids a free education until they get done with high school, but come on, should we really be giving all these people free college educations too? This just amounts to another welfare program. I find it interesting that they call it a scholarship, when it is just welfare. A scholarship would indicate that the recipient is a scholar, however to be eligible all you need is a 2.0 GPA.

When I went to college a lot of my classmates parents couldn't pay for tuition, room and board, etc., but instead of taking a hand out they took student loans to pay for it. They are getting a college degree, they should be able to pay back the loans with the extra they will earn, that's why people are willing to give student loans. Maybe instead of giving them another handout the government could work on low cost loans for these students, it still isn't a perfect solution, but it is better than another government handout. Here is the website.

The Stimulus Has Failed

2009-06-07T14:40:00.001-07:00

And the politicians lied to us to pass it. Not only did the President and the Democrats, and a few Republican Senators mortgage the future; the deficit has at least tripled since last year, but they lied to us to pass the stimulus bill.

Back in January and early February they told us that without the stimulus bill unemployment would reach 8.8% in 2010. While promoting the stimulus bill the administration said that the passage of it could hold unemployment to 7%. Well on Friday the unemployment rate reached 9.4%, a substantial amount higher than their estimates. Aren't these supposed to be the top economic minds? How could they be that far off with their estimate?

Answer, they made them up to get support for the bill. In other words they lied, because they knew we would believe them and we wouldn't do anything when we found out. In the last six years people called Bush a liar for the intelligence on Iraq, when are we going to start calling Obama a liar on the economic front and his domestic policies?

I believe that the next thing that will happen is the administration is going to push for another bigger stimulus package, maybe they will say with another stimulus they can hold unemployment under 10% by 2010. So far they have shown they will do anything to get their agenda passed.

Standard Insurance Does Not Cover Floods

2009-06-02T20:38:00.000-07:00

As this article points out, a standard homeowners policy does not cover floods, and Seattle only has to reimburse for the depreciated value of belongings that were destroyed. I worked at an insurance company and I believe that most insurance companies will give you the depreciated value unless it says otherwise in your policy, if somebody knows differently let me know.

I believe in this case the city should do the right thing and not strictly adhere to the depreciated value thing. Most people do not have flood insurance because they don't expect three feet of water to flow through the city streets, and it is a good assumption as it hasn't happened in that area before. This was caused by the city and residents were unprepared for it. It would be different if the city told them this could happen, but they didn't. Instead most of the homeowners will be stuck with big out of pocket expenses.

As an aside, most homeowners policies don't cover earthquake damage either, so if you are worried about the next big one you may want to invest in an earthquake policy.

More Taxes Coming Soon

2009-05-28T19:36:00.000-07:00

I warned you about the consequences of voting for Obama and the liberals last November. I told you about the big government they wanted and how that would translate into higher taxes, but you went for Obama's no tax increases on anybody making less than $200k. The problem is we need to pay for national health care and the stimulus plan and all the other spending he wants. Even the President said we are out of money, after proposing a budget with a $3+ trillion deficit.

So now to pay for all of this excess in government spending, some are floating the idea of a national value added tax. Of course this would add to the cost of everything we buy, it's like instant inflation. Imagine you have $100 in the bank, after the VAT is imposed that $100 instantly buys less than it did the day before.

What would this do to the economy? All of a sudden the government is taking a bigger chunk of money out of the pockets of consumers and consumers have less buying power. Seems like they will buy less stuff, leading to more layoffs and dependence on the government for unemployment benefits. Finally isn't this a double tax? You are taxed on your income and then when you try to spend i,t you are taxed again? This is what you get when we elect tax and spend liberals. Their solution to everything is to increase the size of government and the tax levels to pay for it. We must remember what President Reagan said: Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. They are once again demonstrating that.

We can only hope that small government conservatives can reign in the size of government and stop increased taxes. I sure don't trust the President to keep his promises about taxes.

Auto Bankruptcies

2009-05-28T07:34:00.000-07:00

I guess I'm not smart enough to understand the whole auto bailout thing. I remember back in December the two of the big three went I'm front of Congress and begged for loans so that they could avoid bankruptcy. Bankruptcy was made out to be a disaster, so the government threw good money after bad and gave them billions in loans. Why did they do this if after a few months Chrysler declared bankruptcy and GM is almost there. They could have gone bankrupt without government loans back in December. I believe that the government gave them the loans so they could influence these companies, much the same way they used the TARP to pressure banks, and after they go bankrupt the government gets an equity stake.

That's just what we need the government controlling the means of production. I wonder what the government designed car will look like, probably the same as those old East German cars. I'm sure this can't miss. Just another step down the path to socialism, when we can't let the market work.

Fight for States' Rights

2009-05-26T19:49:00.000-07:00

If you haven't read this, take a minute and do so. After 80 years of the federal government imposing their will on the states, the states are starting to fight back.

The problem that this is going to run into, is that the Constitution says that the federal government is to promote the general welfare, which some believe gives the federal government the right to do almost anything as long as they believe it promotes the general welfare. While this is not often used in court arguments, it does influence what politicians try to do. In order to expand the reach of the federal government, politicians have turned to the commerce clause, which has become so broad that the government can make an argument for regulating almost anything, and the Supreme Court has usually upheld their arguments.

In addition to supporting the reach of the commerce clause, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against states who tried to used the Tenth Amendment to argue that the federal government did not have the authority to pass certain laws. There are of course rare exceptions to this, but the precedent is there to the benefit of the federal government.

As much as I would like to see the power of the federal government limited in favor of states' rights, I am doubtful that anything will come of this.

Memorial Day

2009-05-25T14:56:00.000-07:00

I hope you took a moment today to remember those soldiers who fell protecting this country and our freedom. For the last century the United States has been both the beacon and protector of freedom around the world, and it is because of those that serve that we remain in that position. In addition, if you see a current member of the armed forces make sure you thank them for the sacrifices that they make. A lot of them leave their families to fight for freedom for a year to a year and a half at a time, some have gone four, five and even six times. It is quite a sacrifice that they make.

More on the Chrysler Bankruptcy

2009-05-21T17:16:00.000-07:00

This is almost the same thing that I said on here last week about how the Obama administration interfered with the senior status of some lenders, but this appeared in the Wall Street Journal. They too believe this sets a dangerous precedent.

We Must Learn From California's Mess

2009-05-20T19:54:00.001-07:00

Yesterday the voters of California voted down tax increases, that if implemented probably wouldn't have solved their problems. We must learn the lesson that California can teach us. Voters and legislators there were determined to over-regulate everything and to provide vast social programs. In order to pay for this California has one of the, if not the, highest state tax rates in the country.

The system they built was a house of cards. As the economy worsened, the tax base declined, while the social programs became more strained. In addition once you start to increase the size of the government bureaucracy, to manage all of these programs and increased regulation, it is extremely hard to downsize. Voters and politicians didn't want to give up anything they had instituted so of course to balance the budget they turned to tax increases.

When the economy is failing, jobs are drying up and companies are locating to more favorable tax and regulatory climates, what is the worst thing to do? Increase taxes of course. The voters were right to reject the higher taxes, now they have to be able to live with the consequences - massive government cuts.

There is a valuable lesson that we need to learn here. We must not use the government to increase unneeded regulation and provide vast social programs, as it creates a bureaucracy and reliance on government that is unsustainable when the economy goes south. The government is to provide services that the market cannot provide. Roads, defense, police, fire protection and schools are the big ones that come to mind. Not health care and education for illegal immigrants. We must not go down the road that California has followed. More laws, regulations and programs create a bigger government that is unsustainable and funnel tax dollars away from priorities.

Obama Playing Dangerous Game With Corporate Debt

2009-05-14T20:06:00.000-07:00

The Chrysler bankruptcy shows us that the President and his administration are playing a dangerous game with corporate debt that could unravel and destroy corporate financing as we know it. The LA Times has a decent post about what happened.

To summarize the government forced a Chrysler bankruptcy because the deal they negotiated with the creditors favored the unsecured creditors over the secured ones. Mainly it was in favor of the unions. Imagine the precedent this sets, subordinate creditors were given priority of senior creditors. What is going to happen to the way corporations finance themselves if the people loaning them money aren't sure if their senior status will be upheld? You will see risk premiums rise as well as the cost of capital. This of course is bad for investment and the economy.

Maybe the Speaker Needs Some Waterboarding

2009-05-14T19:57:00.000-07:00

Did you see the train wreck that is Nancy Pelosi today? She said that she was informed of enhanced interrogation techniques that the CIA was performing but not briefed even though other members of congress says they were briefed about it by the CIA. She then went on to say that the CIA lied to and mislead congress.

She is trying to cover her ass because she and a lot of other Dems have been critical of the Bush administration's interrogation techniques. Problem is that now we know they knew about them and did nothing to stop them even though they controlled the congress for the last two years of Bush's term. It's kind of hard to be critical of something you knew was going on and did nothing to stop. So now she has to lie and mislead the public about what she was told. Maybe the CIA should use some enhanced interrogation techniques on her to get the truth.

My Opinions Supported

2009-05-12T20:07:00.000-07:00

There is a good reason why you read this and listen to me, it's because I'm right. Here is one about the economic dangers and shaky science the EPA is using to try to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

This one says we can't keep spending money like we are or we are going to be in serious trouble.

I have been saying these things for months and so have many other conservative commentators, I guess time will show that we are right.

Budget Deficit Grows

2009-05-11T19:29:00.000-07:00

Today new budget deficit projections were released that shows a $1,800,000,000,000 deficit. This is up $90,000,000,000 from the last estimate, just three months ago. I like to put all the zeros behind the numbers to show how big they are.

Once again the Obama tried to say that it is all Bush's fault. I wonder how long he can use that line. Imagine in four years when he is running for re-election still blaming everything on Bush.

From 2010-2019 the smallest deficit is projected to be $500,000,000,000, with the cumulative deficit over that time to amount to $7,100,000,000,000. Those projections assume that the economy contracts by 1.2% this year and grows by 3.2% next year. The past two quarters have seen the economy shrink at over a 6% clip, so I am prepared for even bigger deficits.

To put this in perspective the current national debt at the time I'm writing this is $11,270,918,744,965. Obama's proposed budgets would increase the national debt by 62%.

By blaming Bush for the mess, the President can mislead the public into thinking that he doesn't really want to spend all this money, but that he has to in order to fix Bush's mistakes. We know of course this is a lie, Obama wants to increase the size and scope of government, he is a big government liberal. Check this out from the Heritage Foundation.

In addition there is a prominent economist out there who thinks the government should spend more to get us out of the economic downturn (maybe his wife will put another comment on my blog). That's right, let's dig the hole as deep as possible for future generations.

At some point we have to pay for all of this spending, the only question is how. This is where the President is lying to us, the way we are going to pay for his spending is by increased taxes for everybody. He says that nobody with an income under $200k will get a tax increase, but that just isn't true. The cigarette tax has already been increased, cap and trade will add on to that and whoever is unfortunate enough to follow Obama will have to clean up his mess by increasing the income tax. I wonder how long he will be able to blame Obama? This spending is setting up the next generation to fail, ask that same economist what increased tax rates do to aggregate expenditures also known as national income.

Miss California Gives Provide Glimpse Far Left

2009-05-11T19:06:00.000-07:00

The whole Miss California controversy has given us a true view of what the far left believes, you can have your own opinion as long as it is ours. The judge who asked her the question during the Miss USA competition called her a "stupid bitch". I have heard more than once that she was selected to represent Californians and with her opposition to gay marriage she doesn't.

I find that an absurd statement. I heard on the radio today that in the US the issue of gay marriage has come onto the ballot 30 times, and all 30 times the public voted against gay marriage. The state of California voted against gay marriage just last November. President Obama and Vice-President Biden said last year they don't think gay marriage should be legal. So it appears that she is actually representing the majority of Californians and of the country.

Personally, I don't care too much about social conservatism, I'm more concerned with the fiscal and government power aspects, but what the left is doing to her is terrible. The judge said that she should leave politics out of the competition, then why ask her the question? Whether you agree with her or not you should at least admire the fact that she answered the question honestly and did not abandon her values.

The real travesty in this is that America has lost one of her great virtues, that you could have an opinion and be able to freely express it. What this episode has taught us is that unless your opinion is the "right" opinion people out there will try to destroy you. I know this is not limited to the left, but I have never seen anybody but the left go this far to personally destroy somebody.

Homeland Security Out of Control

2009-05-05T19:59:00.001-07:00

It seems to me like we should be more concerned with the ineptitude in the government than the threat posed by these domestic terrorists.

More Light Rail Stupidity

2009-05-04T18:56:00.000-07:00

Here we go again, we passed light rail last year without a complete plan. Now Bellevue wants a tunnel instead of an elevated train. It's only going to cost an extra $600 million. We already have the highest costing light rail system in the country so why not just add to that right?

The light rail plan ignores the suburbs, especially the northern ones and mainly benefits King county, yet residents in the three county area are all paying. If Bellevue wants a tunnel they should figure out a way to pay for it themselves. If they can't and don't want the elevated rail line I'm sure Everett or Tacoma will be more than happy to take it away from them. Stop complaining Bellevue, you are getting the benefit of this tax while many more people are paying for nothing.

Cardinal Sin of Final Jeopardy Wagering

2009-04-30T19:57:00.000-07:00

I just got done watching Jeopardy and the five time champion just lost. She also committed the cardinal sin of wagering in Final Jeopardy. She had roughly $10k and the other two were around $13-14k. In this situation the third place person should bet 0. The top two have to wager against each other and bet most of their money, in this case the first place person bet $13,500 of her $14,000.

Instead tonight the third place person be all but $7. This was a mistake, even if she got it right if one of the other players were to also get it right she would still lose. As it happened she got it wrong leaving her with $7. The other two players also got it wrong and the winner had $599 at the end of the game and the other one finished with $5.

When the top two players are really close, meaning that if they both make the right bet and get it wrong they will have less money than the third place player, going into Final Jeopardy, the third place player should always bet 0. If she had followed this rule she would still be the champion.

It isn't that hard to figure out, yet I see people get it wrong all the time and it annoys me every time I see it.

I Told You Not To Trust These Guys

2009-04-30T18:49:00.000-07:00

Sen. Arlen Specter switched parties mainly to try to save his seat. I have said numerous times that politicians are only looking out for their own interests, mainly to get re-elected for life. This is just another example of this, few of them have any real beliefs or convictions. We need to put term limits on these guys, maybe then they won't be so busy looking out for themselves and actually do the job they were elected to do. With Sen. Specter's switch the Republicans aren't losing anything because he was more of a Democrat than a Republican.

Sen. Specter said that the Republican party was going farther right. I take a different view, the Republican party has shifted left, just not as fast as the Democrats and Sen. Specter. If you ever have a representative like this, no matter which side they are on, make sure you vote them out of office as they clearly care more about there own hide than doing the job they were elected to do.

Talk About Unintended Consequences

2009-04-27T20:14:00.000-07:00

We don't want to hurt the salmon so we put sand down instead of salt. Of course this was a miserable failure back in December. Now we are dealing with more consequences of this bone headed decision. Seems all the sand is clogging up the water treatment system.

This is the ultimate of unintended consequences. Almost everything the government does has unintended consequences. The government interferes in the economy, they screw it up. They try to cap greenhouse gasses, prices go up, although this isn't really unintended. The government needs to learn, either do nothing or stick to what we know works. We knew salt melts snow, but we didn't use it, now we are paying the price. I wonder how much they will raise taxes to pay for this.

Obama's Budget Cutting Challenge

2009-04-22T20:23:00.001-07:00

Did you hear about Obama's plan to cut the budge by $100 million in the next three months. That sounds like a lot of money but let's put a little perspective around this stunt.

The 2010 budget proposal is $3,600,000,000,000. That is 3.6 trillion. Obama wants to cut .0028% of the budget. Wow a whole 3 one thousandths of a percent. This is just a ploy by the President to try to show he is trying to be fiscally responsible.

I heard on the radio Obama's press secretary complaining the people didn't think this was a very big cut, he said only in Washington is $100 million not a lot of money. This comes just weeks after saying that $8 billion of pork is a drop in the bucket and for criticizing John McCain during the campaign for railing against pork even though as a percent of the budget it isn't very big. Here is that exchange. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Here is an article from Yahoo! on it, and one from News Busters.

Washington House Finds Another Way to Steal Our Money

2009-04-21T20:15:00.000-07:00

Did you see this one? The Washington State House of Representatives is trying to steal your money. Currently you can opt in to contribute $5 to the parks, with this change the house is hoping you don't get to the bottom of the form on opt out. It is just another example of how the government thinks we are stupid and can take advantage of those who don't see the box or ignore it.

This is wrong. What if on your federal tax return you had to opt out of paying an additional donation? What is the amount of money where people would get upset? What if it were a $20 opt out, $100? I bet you would get pretty upset if the amount were higher. It isn't the money that is most important here, it is how the government is trying to take advantage of you and squeeze every dime out of you. Shame on them. It's time to get rid of the fools in Olympia.

If you don't like it contact your representative. I did, go here and click on "View Roll Calls" to see who voted for it. On the top left of the page click "Find Your Legislator" and from there you can find the place to email them.

My representative is Al O'Brien. He voted for this bill. What a cowardly vote, trying to trick people into paying more in taxes. Why would you need an opt out? Suppose everyone who wants to opt in does so, the only incremental revenue would come from those who don't know they need to opt out, thus tricking them into paying.

I Might Be A Domestic Terrorist

2009-04-16T20:45:00.000-07:00

Opposition to abortion - Yes
Opposition to illegal immigration - Yes
Learning to fight in the military - Yes
Opposition to an African American President - No
Having your house foreclosed - No
Inability to get credit - No
Being critical of outsourcing jobs - No
Perceiving threats to the US by foreign powers - Yes
Opposition to bigger social programs -Yes
Criticism of government infringement of civil rights - Yes

That's 60% yes, plus I'm an Iraq war veteran and I support gun rights. I wonder when the government is going to kick my door in and drag me away. Maybe instead of targeting American citizens we should be focused on the ones who have killed thousands of Americans in the last decade, the Islamic terrorists.

Tea Parties Misunderstood by Left

2009-04-15T19:21:00.000-07:00

Was there any doubt that the left would attack the tea party and their participants? I first read this opinion by Alan Colmes, who I think used to be on TV, I'm surprised anyone watch his show because he doesn't make any sense.

First he compares our tax to the rest of the world, mainly Europe. I have news for you, we aren't Europe and I don't want to be Europe. Historically Europe has had lower growth and higher unemployment than us, mainly because of their "progressive" programs. What Colmes doesn't understand is that taxes and entitlement programs are the government's way of enslaving the population.

He says that the government can run things well, and he gives the military as an example. The military is not run by the bureaucrats and politicians that run the rest of the government, it is run by officers and enlisted personnel who work a lot longer and harder than the rest of the government, I know I was there.

He then goes on to list the things that the Federal Government pays for and asks when are we going to stop using those or call for an end to those. First everybody uses the military so he shouldn't have even mentioned it here, secondly the other things he lists should not be Federal Government programs. Finally he says we should show gratitude for our freedoms and our low tax rates.

He falls into the same trap as a lot of people. We don't have low tax rates. Add it all up, Federal income tax, social security, medicare, sales tax, state income tax, phone tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax, gas tax (federal and state), capital gains, interest, dividends (which are actually taxed twice), and I'm sure you can probably think of more.

The liberals also miss the point of the tea parties. I have heard the left saying in response to the tea parties, that under Obama's plan only the top 2% will pay higher taxes. The tea party attendees realize that this isn't true, with all of the bailouts, additional discretionary spending and entitlements, taxes will have to be increased across the board. You cannot run deficits forever. The tea parties are against huge increases in government spending while Americans are cutting back, they are against the socialization of our economy and they are against the higher taxes that will come.

We must look past the next two or five years and look into what we are doing to future generations. All of this spending will add to the debt that they must pay off. In order to do this they will face crippling tax rates that will destroy our economy. That is what the tea parties are trying to prevent. These people get it, when will the people who are supposed to represent us catch up with them?

Bike Accident Cost $3.5 Million

2009-04-15T19:06:00.000-07:00

I came across this in the Seattle Times. While it is tragic that he hit the hole and had massive brain damage that he will never be able to recover from, I find the reason why they sued kind of strange.

"Lawyers for Jeffrey Totten and his wife Danielle Leavell said the county was at fault because it promoted Novelty Hill Road as a bike route but failed to maintain it in a safe condition."

So let me see if I understand, because King County promoted it as a bike trail in a guide they are responsible for his injury? I have an idea, stop publishing the guide, that way they won't open the door to any more lawsuits. Imagine the flood of lawsuits that this could spur, someone gets hit by a car along a bike route, the county failed to protect the biker from the cars. It could go on and on.

This is kind of ridiculous, if I am driving on the interstate and I hit a pothole and blow out a tire and get injured can I sue because they promoted the road as a driving route and didn't properly maintain it?

We all know what is going to come of this, speed limits for bikes and ride at your own risk signs, all of which will cost more taxpayer money. Maybe to pay for it they will institute bike tabs similar to car tabs to pay for the use of the road.