Political Dogs

Multi-Tasking

2009-01-28T06:36:00.000-08:00

Aren't we, in this modern day and age, truly wonderful human beings? We have finally achieved the ability to "multi-task" or so we have led ourselves to believe. "Multi-task" is but a buzz word for the act, or ability, of/to handling more than one item at a time. When, during the campaign, the economy tanked and our government wanted to craft a solution, John McCain was ridiculed for suggesting that the two candidates (of course, already being important members of the government) take a hiatus and focus on this most pressing issue. Obama ridiculed McCain and noted that he, himself, was more than capable of dealing with more than one thing at a time, of "multi-tasking." The problem is, when really important matters are before you, multi-tasking is a very bad idea.

Right now, the economy is in as bad a shape as it has been for quite some time. Things are not getting better. The stock market is fairly stable but that is because it has hit a bottom and decided not to test a new, second low ... for now. That's not likely to remain the case since each and every new day there is additional bad news.

Most public companies are in the process of closing the books, undergoing financial statement audit, and ultimately reporting earnings as well as outlook for the near-term future. Earnings have already been somewhat discounted by the stock market but any downward surprises are likely to be met with panic. Forecasts for 2009-2010 are looking fairly bleak but that's not going to freak out the markets since everybody seems to be on the same page. But as soon as the financial people firm up their numbers for the past and immediate future, they are going to set about working on the current.

Financial people are working all sorts of hours to get the books closed up tight and the forecasts out the door. But as soon as that clears, their bosses are going to want them to work on plans to increase the bottom line figures in coming quarters. That time, right after financial reporting season, is the "restructuring" season. It is almost upon us!

Already we are hearing layoff plans being announced but the pace of these is likely to pick up steam over the next four months. Each large layoff leads to less purchasing power out there on which everybody else's forecasts are based. So after earnings comes job loss, comes downward revisions, comes more downturn. That's a bad cycle and it has significant momentum right now. Don't fool yourself that we have already hit rock bottom.

Yesterday I saw a news flash suggesting that we ought to jump back into the stock market today because right after the market hit bottom in 1932, it jumped up again. The notion is we should be buying stocks because what goes down must come up. This is, of course, an illusion since during the great bear market of the Great Depression, the stock market did jump up several times, only to retreat again. If you could time such things, you'd be doing very well. But then again, that's as true in bad times as it is in good ones.

The truth is, nobody is absolutely sure whether we may suffer yet another huge downward fall. That depends on the overall nature of economic news over the next year or so. This is why the economic stimulus package that ultimately surfaces from Congress is so important. It simply MUST stimulate the economy or we are in for desperate times ahead. We need to focus on one thing and one thing only. That is economic stimulus.

But Obama and Congress are self-described multi-taskers. And Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, never likes to let a good crisis go to waste. So thus far, the "economic stimulus" we have been hearing about is filled with everything but the kitchen sink, everything liberal, though nothing much stimuative to the economy. There is nothing wrong with a liberal government, one that was duly elected, pushing money into its pet projects per se. We should all expect that. Elections have consequences. But if the economy doesnot get stimulated as a result of this trillion dollar package, there's going to be hell to pay come mid-term elections.

Everything I have been able to read and hear about the stimulus package bouncing around Congress - and to be fair, I have not spent a lot of time reading about it for a particular reason - says it contains hundreds of millions for things like education spending, global warming research, universal healthcare, "infrastructure" rebuilding and funding for a slew of items having nothing to do with our current crisis.

Puching money into education is not going to result in business booking around the country. It is merely paying back a constutuency, the teacher's union. And if we are already certain that global warming is real, and we seem to know precisely what it's effects are going to be, why should we spend one thin dime for additional research? In fact, what we should be doing is reducing the already huge sums spent for scientific research to determine whether global warming is happening or not. Universal healthcare is a nice pet project for liberals but it has zero stimulative effect on the economy. Infrastructure building would be nice were it not for the fact that most of these projects will take years just to begin, after the court battles are fought with environmentalists. The million other pet liberal projects likewise will do nothing for the here and now. Thank goodness Obama figured out that spending for abortion and contraception, especially outside these United States, was a really bad idea at this time. But still, where is the meat and potatoes? Where are the items which will result in jobs and economic stimulus?

If liberals wanted to really stimulate the economy while at the same time pushing money into their favorite programs, we'd see something like hundreds of millions pumped into a program to put solar panels onto people's rooftops. Sure, that money would go to the supposed "rich" since one would have to own property in order to qualify. But there is nothing better which would result in more highly skilled construction jobs, not to mention purchase of non-consumer durables like trucks and equipment. At the same time, we would be building the country to combat global warming (which by the way I still consider to be a hoax).

Similarly, given that the liberals think global warming is real and here, one would expect some sizeable utilitarian projects dealing with the supposed problem which both yield results and employ huge numbers of people. When we're kicking around numbers like a trillion, we can talk about some of the expenditures which normally get squashed because of their size like nuclear power.

Forget about the supposed renewable fuels from agricultual products. That's been a huge fiasco, driving up the cost of food worldwide. Even if such a project were to be stimulative, it does nothing to feed people who are currently hungry. Rather, it takes food out of their mouths. The out of work, or soon to be out of work after their pay for no work program runs out, UAW people need jobs, real jobs. They aren't going to go to work on corn farms. They need to build equipment and for that we need something big.

Windmills are probably as big a joke as agri-fuels. But there are a million other sorts of energy related programs which would yield jobs and equipment purchases. Why spend money on scientific research yielding long-term benefits when what we need is economic stimulus right now? We have some "solutions" to our country's energy needs already on the table. Why not fund the ones which actually accomplish something? With the amount of money we're currently kicking around, the government could practically buy everyone in California and other water-starved places new appliances which are both energy and water efficient. That kind of purchasing would create jobs, spur new private sector businesses, and create long-term liberal benefits.

The point is, there are a million little projects which could be completely funded, considering the amount of money we are contemplating spending, which would stimulate the economy while also accomplishing goals liberals love. But because the Democrats and Obama are multi-tasking, they've already taken their eyes off the ball. The way its going, they are almost certain to strike out. And time for this at-bat is about up. We're now talking months, not years, before the economy takes another downward plunge and brings the stock market with it. The time to act is now and the act had better be focused, focused on the economy, not just the top liberal pet projects.

Give Him A Chance?!

2009-01-19T07:56:00.000-08:00

The discussion topic for the day is: what the hell is meant by all these requests to "give Barack Obama a chance?"

First off, do you all mean, give him a chance to be President? There isn't one among those who do not "support" Obama who can do a single thing to not allow the man to be President. He earned th job and tomorrow he takes office. The only way anybody cannot give him the chance is to kill him and that's illegal. Not only is it illegal, a physical assault on the President of the US, regardless of his party, is an assault on the country. It is a decidedly un-American unpatriotic thing to do.

If somehow killing the President were legal and patriotic, not many would sign up for the job since the guy to step in and fill his shoes would be Jumpin Joe Biden. If somehow both were killed, who would we be left with, what is the line of succession? The answer is, things get worse, far worse, as you move through the line of succession. No intelligent human being could possibly want to roll the dice by assassinating the President.

So we will certainly give him a chance to be President. What other options are there?

I have to assume that there is more to the phrase "give him a chance" than the mere physical sense of the possible meaning. The sister phrase and/.or question belies the real meaning. That is, "he is your President so support him." By support him, generally folks mean for us all to be proactive in proclaiming that we love or like the man and are 100% behind every possible policy he might apply. We are supposed to be united tomorrow in our unconditional support for the Democrat President.

Where exactly are we supposed to have learned what this kind of suppport involves? Should we look back at the way in which liberals and Democrats "supported THEIR president when that person happened to be a Republican or conservative? Should we take example from the way the media proclaimed Reagan a nice guy but not very bright person during and after the point at which he managed to turn around an economy mired in stagflation caused by poor policy decisions made by Democrat Jimmy Carter? Should we look to the blame placed (by the media and our children's history books written by liberals) at Nixon's feet for the Vietnam war when it was Kennedy who put us there and Johnson who sunk us into the swamp? Should we take note of the way in which Nixon was called a criminal, not for engaging in the act, but rather for covering it up so as to keep the political power he earned through legitimate means, while Clinton's transgressions are completely overlooked and pooh-poohed by the media? Should we give Barack a chance the same way the media and liberals gave both George Bush's a chance?

I'm all for it. Let's give Barack Obama a chance, the same chance liberals gave Republican Presidents! You guys created the game. We conservatives learned from the masters. Let's go. Game on!

Further Proof

2009-01-15T11:19:00.001-08:00

The above pictures are 1) Waxman - see previous post and 2) Obama - from the cover of Time Magazine. Note the eery similarity. This people must be from the same planet, far away from ours.

Alien Invasion

2009-01-15T10:22:00.000-08:00

Forget about Hamas, Madoff, the Depression, Obama's immaculate inauguration, Michelle O.'s mom living on the public dole, Blagojevich, Gore's use of an amount of energy which he proposes each of us use ... multiplied by 100,000. There is a bigger problem. A spate of UFOs has been reported all over the country. The aliens are here. o; The proof? The photograph to the right was taken in the US Congress. The alien claimed he was Rep. Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. He said, "Our environment and our economy depend on congressional action to confront the threat of climate change and secure our energy independence." He wants to move swiftly to encumber the US economy despite the fact that we are in perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen and, more importantly, that the climate has not warmed since the IPCC was formed (no wonder they received the Nobel prize). Waxman is qualified to represent the "change" agenda because he has been in office since 1975. But I suspect the fellow in the photograph is actually an alien. And now we know where all this global warming BS has been coming from. The aliens wants our petrol!

Not Easy Being Green

2009-01-15T06:57:00.000-08:00

It's not that easy being green.

As Gizmodo points out, sometimes you have to go way out of your way to save a little carbon-based fossil fuel!

Submitted for your consideration, consider the plight of one newly elected Congressman Eric Massa of NY. Mr. Massa is a greenie, he loves the planet and fears that carbon dioxide might be ruining it. While running for Congress, Mr. Massa set forth a new "Declaration of Independence." He called his work a "Declaration of Rights Which have Been Denied" and included the phrase:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident ...

The People have a right to a sustainable environment ...

The People have a right to energy at reasonable prices"

Evidently prone to grand symbolic gestures, Mr. Massa set out upon a journey to demonstrate the utility of fuel cell automobiles, a journey which would lead Mr. Massa to the edges of the Twilight Zone.

The Congressman decided he would proceed to his new post in the legislature, 300 miles from his home, in a vehicle having a range of just 200 miles without benefit of a hydrogen station along the way. In order to accomplish the task, he used his massive capacity for creativity. He drove one vehicle to the halfway point, exited it, climbed inside another and proceeded to his destination.

In order for this to take place: 1) a second vehicle had to be waiting at the ready - it had to be towed there by some vehicle which could make the full journey, one powered by fossil fuels and, 2) the first vehicle had to be towed from the halfway point by another vehicle which could make the full journey. In other words, one conventional vehicle followed Mr. Massa from home, while towing a second one which then towed the empty fuel cell car home to NY and yet another had to be used to place the second fuel cell vehicle along the route. SUVs were used for the towing since they can handle the load.

One SUV travelled some unknown distance to place the second fuel cell car along the route. A second SUV towed another for the first 150 mile leg of the journey and then followed on an additional 150 miles. The third SUV was released from tow at the midway point so that it could travel back home while towing the empty fuel cell car. Then, upon arrival at the destination, SUV # 2 then towed the now useless fuel cell car back the 300 miles to home.

For the 300 mile one way trip, a total of five vehicles and four total drivers were necessary. Each of the fuel cell vehicles travelled 150 miles, one SUV travelled an unknown distance. The second SUV travelled 600 miles (to DC and back). The third SUV travelled 300 (to the midway point and back). That's a total vehicle log of 1,200 miles travelled to accomplish a 300 mile one way trip. One would hope the return trip would be a little less onerous.

It is worth noting that Mr. Massa's first fuel cell car could easily have made the trip to an Amtrak train station, dropped him off and returned back home again, whereupon he could have proceeded to DC far more economically aboard a train, met his second fuel cell car, which also could have been driven, not towed, there, and then enjoyed a short drive to Congress. He could have made use of the very fuel efficient infrastructure which has been in place for decades thanks to funding provided by the very Congress he entered.

But had Mr. Massa done the sensible thing, he would not have entered the Twilight Zone.

Get used to common sense problems being resolved in this fashion. We're all headed to the Twilight Zone.

Israel versus Hamas, Who Are the Good Guys?

2009-01-14T12:49:00.000-08:00

There's no such thing as the "rightful owner" of any land. It's always been about who has the stronger army. Who is the good guy in this?

Human beings are social animals, and we humans tend to segregate ourselves into groups, and then become loyal to that group.

The Theory of Evolution that Darwin himself defined says that the strongest will survive, and those who adapt to their surroundings are the ones who propagate. Isn't that what all wars have been about?

Fair And Balanced

2009-01-14T08:42:00.000-08:00

Calling all you Bush bashers. Calling all MSM Journalists.

This is a call to arms, um, hands, um, even handedness. You want to prove that there is no MSM left/Democrat bias, go ahead. Here's your shot.

When Bush was inaugurated four short years ago, you screamed from every media outlet how ridiculous it was that he was spending $40-60 million for his inauguration during a time of war. Obama is poised to more than double the cost of Bush's "extravagant" party. MORE THAN DOUBLE!

According to you'all, the situation in Iraq is no better than it was 4 years ago and the one in Afghanistan is worse. So I suppose the circumstances are no different for Obama's inauguration. Ih yeah, there is the little matter of the economic crisis. That changes things a bit.

But the point is, where, MSM, is your extensive coverage regarding the COST of Obama's extravange?

Folks, this is just the beginning. You think we hammered at your lack of objective coverage in the past? Just wait. It's game on.

March Of The Dweebs

2009-01-12T12:55:00.001-08:00

Michelle Obama sent out an e-mail, a dweebish call to service, which reads as follows:

Your call to service

Friend --

One week from today, on January 19th, Barack and I will join thousands of people all across the country for an extraordinary day of service.

I recorded a short video to tell you more about this important effort. Please take a minute to watch it and sign up to host or attend a service event near you.

Volunteers of all ages and backgrounds are committing to renew America together, one community at a time.

Whatever service activity you organize or take part in -- cleaning up a park, giving blood, volunteering at a homeless shelter, or mentoring an at-risk youth -- you can help start this important journey. But this is about more than just a single day of service, it's the beginning of an ongoing commitment to your community.

Monday, January 19th, is also Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Dr. King taught us to live a life of service, and he led by example. He once said:

"If you want to be important -- wonderful. If you want to be recognized -- wonderful. If you want to be great -- wonderful. But, recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. That's a new definition of greatness."

Barack and I will be volunteering in Washington, D.C., our new home. I hope you'll join us by taking part in this national call to service in your community:

http://www.USAservice.org/calltoservice

It will take ordinary citizens working together with a common purpose to get this country back on track. This national day of service is an important first step in our continuing commitment.

Now is the time to remind all Americans what ordinary people can accomplish when we stand together.

Thank you,

Michelle

Beg Pardon?

The parks in my area are pretty much pristine because the people in the surrounding area feel personally responsible for keeping them that way. Yes, sometimes illegal aliens do come in and throw their beer bottles (alcohol is actually prohibited), food containers, etc. all over the place but then ordinary people see it and pick up the trash. One day, I expect the illegals and others will eventually trash the parks but right now, they remain clean.

Give blood? That's community service? That's a bit of a stretch especially when what we give is then sold by others. Give a little blood, get a donut. Need blood, check out the itemized charges on your hospital bill!

Volunteer at a homeless shelter? I'm sure there are homeless people nearby but, honestly, they congregate in the cities so as to use vacant buildings or the services the cities provide. Unless you live in a pretty large city, chances are fairly good there is no "homeless shelter" at which to volunteer and frankly, I'd like to keep it that way.

Mentor an at-risk youth? At risk for what? Mentor in what way? Risk being sued for God only knows what? No thanks.

You know, people do what they can. We don't need some wealthy politician's wife (how they got wealthy is anyone's guess), who went to college and obtained a law degree ON THE PUBLIC DOLE, and someone who has never given nor volunteered in a meaningful way, when it was inconvenient for herself, telling us what we must do to make this country right, in her terms. The last thing this country needs is a bunch of liberal talkers talking and trying to make us feel guilty because we haven't given enough as they take half or more of our earnings and hand it over to people incapable of sitting still in high school or working beyond 30 hours per week or etc., etc.

You can play the guilt game if you don't rob us. You can rob us but don't make us say thank you as you steal our money. If you do both while expecting us to smile and then vote you back in again, you;re a dweeb and let's see how that plays out for ya.

Chicago In The News

2009-01-08T07:46:00.001-08:00

Chicago is again in the news though not exactly for political corruption reasons. Today it is about their "cappuccino bill." That's right, their cappuccino bill. It seems that, under the management of our nominee for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, the schools purchased 30 cappuccino/espresso machines for $67,000. They didn't even get a good price on the purchase. According to Inspector General James Sullivan, the schools paid about $12,000 too much - they could have done better on the internet! Also, according to Sullivan, several schools weren't interested in getting these machines. He said, the schools "weren't prepared to implement them into the curriculum."

The schools weren't prepared to implement cappuccino/espresso machines into the curriculum? If they had been, would that have made the purchases appopriate?

Why are Chicago schools doing such a bad job of educating students? Can we expect a federally mandated, fully funded, cappuccino/espresso curriculum project along with the economic stimulus plan? Does that count as rebulding infrastructure?

Barbed Wire Love Snags My Jeans

2008-12-29T09:57:00.000-08:00

Oprah recently chose a gut wrenching, incredibly inspirational love story to promote. Here's what her site says about it (as of noon Monday, December 29, 2008):

the single greatest love story, in 22 years of doing this show, we've ever told on the air ... When he was 12, Herman Rosenblat and his family were taken from their home in Poland and sent to a concentration camp in Nazi Germany. Young Herman was forced to work shoveling bodies into a crematorium ... One day two years later, Herman walked up to the barbed wire fence and saw a girl on the other side ... The girl fed Herman an apple every day for seven months. Then one day he told her not to come back—he was being moved to another camp. "A tear came down her eyes," Herman says. "And as I turned around and went back I started to cry, too. I started to cry knowing that I might not see her again." Herman was shipped to Czechoslovakia. Just two hours before he was scheduled to die in the gas chambers there, Russian troops liberated the camp and Herman was set free.

Why is this interesting? It's interesting because it's not a true story though it was presented as such by the author, his literary agent, and Oprah.

The real story is somewhat less gut wrenching. The couple actually met on a blind date in NYC. I can see how the confusion happened!

The author was indeed at Buchenwald, and for that reason alone he should know better than to defile the memory of all those, Jew and non-jew alike, who perished in Nazi concentration camps by turning it into fiction. Further, the man's fictionalization may cause Holocaust deniers to gain ground. Worse, those who have listened to Holocaust victims tell their personal stories may call some of it into question. It is absolutely critical that, with respect to the Holocaust, we stick to actual truths since those truths are so horrible, so difficult for many to believe, that the stories told simply must be absolutely verifiable.

During my college years, I spent one, three credit course reading historical accounts of the Holocaust in the form of legislation, letters, military orders, and personal eye witness accounts of the events which culminated in gas chamber deaths of millions upon millions of "untermenschen" (subhumans). We experimented with the decriptions provided by Nazis about the spaces in which they shipped, housed or killed so many people and were struck by just how cramped the trains, baracks and gas chambers were. We read accounts provided by administrators arranging shipping, burial, etc. We listened to special speakers talk about their experiences in the camps and realized how horrendous of an experience it was. But had some kid stood up and said, "hey, prove that any of that happened, you're making that up" it would have cheapened the learning which took place as we pampered college kids came to understand exactly what the Holocaust was.

The single most striking element of the entire horrendous affair was its ordinariness and apparent nonchalant manner in which it all was caried out. I think perhaps that is the most important historical lesson. One seemingly simple law after another was passed and enforced, each, on its own, seemingly somewhat innocuous. Nobody really paid all that much attention to the individual pieces which when put together in a finished puzzle represented the single most complete example of human capacity for evil. Some would claim that everyone who read Hitler's "Mein Kampf" would automatically know what he intended to do yet even today we read the several memoirs of a politician and doubt he really means what he published in a book or that he will ever be able to carry out his plan.

Somehow, I suspect that most young people who have not understood the Holocaust in a formal, academic manner, just would never be able to fully understand or believe its normal, everydayness. My own kids think this happened when someone (Hitler) came to power proclaiming that he was going to kill millions of people in the manner one of our politicians today might say he backs universal healthcare. They don't understand that this kind of thing is done via the backdoor, the casual, the manpulation of the populace by the official media, the passage of laws and the actions of courts and administrators. They see it on a grander, more immediate scale. That's not how it all got going. It is critical to prevent recurrence that we fully appreciate precisely how this played out.

When we cheapen history by fictionalizing it in this manner, by making it into a love story, we turn an ugly truth like the Holocaust into a product which can be branded, packaged, advertised and used to make money while also defiling the victims and causing otherwise good people to believe it just cannot happen in the real world. When we drift into a fiction-only existence in which reality loses its grip on our attention, we create the fertile environment in which this kind of thing can happen again.

You would have throught Oprah learned her lesson with that million little pieces fiasco. Apparently she has not. Apparently, if she is going to fall, it must be on the side of the melodramatic rather than on that of the Truth. At this point, anytime Oprah promotes a book, you've really got to bang your head into the wall and then think hard before running out to buy it. Thank goodness, this time, the publisher found out and killed the book before Oprah started shoving it down tens of millions of Americans' throats.

Wrong Questions

2008-12-24T08:28:00.000-08:00

The AP wonders, "Will Obama's stimulus work fast enough?" That's the wrong question. The right question is, will Obama's stimulus work at all?

The AP discusses Obama's plan and notes that unlike the recent Bush stimulus which was used by individuals to pay down debt, Obama's plan would not result in a check but rather a reduced withholding - a gradual payout or tax reduction. The idea being that nobody would have enough money in their hands at one time to pay down debt. That's absurd.

Also noted is, "states would get up to $200 billion over two years for Medicaid health coverage for the poor and to narrow state budget gaps, which are forcing layoffs and cuts in services."

Healthcare for the poor is going to stimulate the economy? Sorry, that has no chance.

But $200 billion for state budget deficits because those deficits are causing cuts in services? You mean governmental services - those that cost many times more in the public sector than the private and which do NOT create jobs or spur the economy. Besides, California alone is projecting a deficit on the order of one quarter of Obama's entire plan.

The AP says, "It's too soon to know whether many of the 2.5 million jobs the president-elect has said he intends to 'save or create' within his first two years would become permanent." No, its not too soon. Public sector jobs do not spur the economy and generate tax dollars the way private sector work does. Government jobs are make work. Private sector jobs are driven by profits and necessarily more permanent.

The economy will lose the jobs Obama hopes to "create or SAVE by the time he takes office. And what's this about saving jobs? We don;t need to save jobs. We need to create them within the economy. Bush created those jobs and many more. So Obama's goal is to save abouit half the jobs Bush created? That's pretty weak.

Obama is said to want to accomplish his goals by "embracing projects already in the pipeline and stressing infrastructure repairs, parts of the plan could roll out soon — perhaps within weeks — creating jobs and stirring economic activity." He wants to follow through on stuff that was already in the pipeline? That's "new" or "change?" That's visionary?

We are in serious trouble and things are not nearly as bad yet as they are going to be.

What Is Caroline Afraid Of?

2008-12-23T18:29:00.000-08:00

Won't Caroline Kennedy release information concerning her finances as anyone running for the office she seeks would have to? What might she have to hide? Obviously, there is no legal reason for her to release this information unless and until the is actually running for election to the office. Perhaps there is no other reason. If so, she should just say that and repeat it again and again. Presumably the AP would just accept it and drop the issue. But if she has a reason to hide, what might the reason be? Here's my thoughts:

Amount of wealth
She either has far more or far less personal wealth than anyone supposes and this is a point of embarrassment to her. It may be that she is ashamed of a very high level of wealth. It might just be that she has far less than her crowd believes. It could be that she leads others to believe she donates more to some of their causes than she possibly can.

Investment / tax strategy strategy
Perhaps Caroline is invested in a sophisticated manner unavailable to persons of her personal wealth which happens as a favor to one of her relatives like the good senator. Perhaps she is invested in such a manner that she pays very little in income taxes. Perhaps, like a Presidential candidate from a bygone era, she is invested mostly in munis. Perhaps her personal wealth is invested oversees in some tax haven or she utilizes other strategies to minimize taxes.

Benefitting from Ted's work
It may very well be that Caroline is a direct neficiary of some of the legislation Ted sponsors or supports. A little pork here and there is one thing but pork which benefits one's relatives is quite another. Perhaps something Ted pushed for is on the record and might be connected up to some of Caroline's investments.

Lack of charitable contributions
Maybe Caroline like many Democrats talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Perhaps her wealth is substantial and she doesn;t give a thin dime to charity. Lord knows she would hardly be the first Democrat to practice this personal policy - give away only other people's money. But maybe it is either a source of personal embarrassment or she believes releasing information about the recent pass will prevent her from being re-elected whereas a few years to clean up her books, as it were, would avoid this uncomfortable situation.

There are any number of reasons Caroline would have to hide her finances. And there's no good reason for her to share the information with us, except one. Americans are fed up with the internal pay to play games of the Democrat party. They are sick of politicians lying about everything from a bridge to nowhere to the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac fiasco created by Barnie and friends,ands blamed on Bush. We've had enough of dishonest, self-interested, self-dealing crooked politics. We've reached the end of the line and are quickly becoming rebellious. We want reasonable answers to reasonable questions. We are sick of the political patronage practices which are ruining our government and we are ready to burn the whole goddamn thing down. So go ahead, Caroline, and hide behind the law if you need to. Live with the repercussions.

Jackasses!

2008-12-23T11:50:00.000-08:00

The NY Times published a letter, really an e-mail, it received from "the mayor of Paris" criticizing her ladyship,. Caroline Kennedy, which was really sent by someone else. They retracted it and said, "We are reviewing our procedures for verifying letters to avoid such an incident in the future."

How long do you suppose it will take them to "review their procedures?" I mean, really, how long do you think it would take? 5 minutes? Procedures as they stand, "get a ridiculous letter which says it comes from somebody big => print it." Procedures as they will stand in the future, "get an unverified ridiculous letter from an unconfirmed source, strike delete key."

The blogger, Peter Kofka, who posted this "news" on All Things Digital, a site owned by the Wall Street Journal, has marked himself as a liberal media apologist by attaching a few editorial comments as follows "Expect this story to generate a lot of new media rulz! from the blogosphere. But you can file that in the same place you put the "Twitter is like a news wire, only better!" arguments. I'm just glad the Times can afford to have a staff big enough to verify the authenticity of every letter it prints. And I worry that this won't be the case in the near future."

The Times is no better than the blogosphere. It may have the cash to pay somebody to verify letters but it didn't use that cash - it did not verify the letter - that was the whole problem. Instead it chose to publish its "exclusive" despite the obvious warning signs. I mean, this wouldn't have made my inbox. It wouldn't have broken free from the spam filter. I'd never have seen the obviously spoofed e-mail. How can anyone be so stupid? Oh, I know. It's an ego thing. Somehow, I doubt this will be the last time someone slips one by the Times, whether they have enough staff to review this stuff or not. Somehow I doubt this will be the last time anybody fools some big-headed media stalwart into believing the unbelievable.

Short Oil

2008-12-23T10:21:00.000-08:00

If you want to make any money in this crazy market, here's a phrase filled up with advice: short oil. Oil fell today to below $38 per barrel. Nobody is suggesting any longer that it may recover to the $75 target OPEC suggested was the right price. Now there is speculation it could go down as low as $20 and the market for it is now looking for any kind of bad news. OPEC may suggest further cuts but that is likely to be shrugged off since announcements don't cut supply and compliance becomes somewhat dicey when your own country's economy is looking like a disaster. Iran, Venezuela and non-OPEC member Russia are unlikely to want to cut their revenue any further. If the global oil market continues to tank, they are going to experience a fair amount of pain and will have little motivation to extend or intensify that pain through self-inflicted means. Even if these countries actually make the cutbacks they have already promised or deepen these further, the price is likely to continue its downward spiral causing them to suffer even more.

Attention Seattle, Don't Dial 911!

2008-12-23T10:14:00.001-08:00

Seattle got snow and ice. Seattle plowed the streets ... with rubber blades so as to not damage the roadways ands manhole covers. Seattle treated the ice covered streets with some sand but not enough. Seattle roads remain caked in ice and that is by design. Seattle, you see, does not use salt because it is afraid that might harm the environment. They don't want salt to run off into the bay!

Yes, the bay is salt water. And, no, using a limited amount of salt over a short duration does NOT permanently harm the environment. And, by the way, Seattle police use rear wheel drive vehicles. So when somebody is breaking into your house, don't call the police. They won't come with sirens screaming to your home to rescue you. They'll be arriving on foot since the roads are impassible!!!!!!

This is what you get when you and your elected officials are a bunch of bleeding heart liberals.

For God's Sake, Get It Right

2008-12-21T08:15:00.000-08:00

The NY Times has an article online here which suggests that the economic situation we find ourselves in today should be blamed on lax lending standards for mortgages. No kidding!? They seem to be the last person to the table on this. But then they compound their idiocy by saying "there are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk" and, of course, the biggest culprit of them all, President Bush who "pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards."

What about those to blame from the Democrat camp? What about Barnie Frank and the many, many former Clintonistas who populated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during and after the two Clinton administrations? What about the simple fact that pushing home ownership for minorities is, at its core, a liberal policy, one advocated by Obama, Pelosi, and most of the top Democrats in Congress? What about the fact that Republicans did seek greater check points on quasi-governmental lending, especially just a few years ago, and top Democrats killed those efforts?

It is one thing to come to the table late and quite another to know absolutely nothing about the conversation which took place before you got to the table. Don't these Times' liberals read newspapers? Don't they do research before they tickle the keys? Do they live in a bubble? Do they think we are all as stupid, as uninformed, as completely without any degree of common sense, as they are?

Congress Passes $4,700/Household Stimulus Bill

2008-12-20T08:25:00.000-08:00

Congress passed a $4,700 per household stimulus bill and it didn't even make the morning papers.

The stimulus will be limited to certain households . You might want to check into this a little more deeply to see if your family qualifies. $4,700 is a lot of money for many families and would definitely aid in making the happy holidays a little happier, not to mention the ensuing pay off holiday debt period in January, February, etc.

$4,700 can cut a bit into a whole lot of misery. OK, so now you know this stimulas package is out there. And you want to gauge whether your family qualifies or not.

So, who exactly qualifies? The families which will receive the $4,700 stimulus are those which have a member who is in Congress. All members of Congress will receive a $4,700 increase in annual pay as a result of the legislation.

Don't qualify for this stimulus? Me neither! But take heart. Even if you don't qualify for the added $4,700, you can still participate in the program. That's because each of the $4,700 stimulus checks will be paid by you. If you actually pay taxes, you will pay for this directly. If you don't, you'll pay indirectly via the money Congress will not be able to spend on you and yours.

So every American family will be a participant whether they receive the stimulus check or not.

Isn't that just special?!?

The Real Question

2008-12-19T12:33:00.000-08:00

Obama was pretty quick to claim that nobody on his staff haddiscussion directly with Governor Blagojevich about Obama's son to be vacant Senate seat. Then he told us that after a thorough review, nobody with him did speak with the governor. So his first knee jerk reaction was "I'm sure we are pristine because anything less would be inconsistent with this campaign." Then it was, after an exhaustive analysis, we remain confident that nobody talked to the Governor. But it is beginning to look as if Obama's staff did indeed hold such discussions and they were somewhat frequent and extensive. So the next tack is to claim that they were not willing to commit any illegal acts by paying anything for the seat. In fact, Blagojevich is said to have been somewhat upset by their unwillingness to pay to play. This begs the question of whether the Obama campaign knew a potentially illegal act may have been underway and whether they reported it to anyone. As far as the news coverage to date goes, apparently nobody in the Obama camp reported what appears to be a heinous crime to anyone despite the fact that they very much knew what was going on. The real question is, did they not do anything because they see this as politics as usual? Given the association with the Illinois political apparatus, one would expect them to have become innured to this sort of act. And that begs the question, do they engage in the practice.

Admit Your Mistakes?

2008-12-18T11:40:00.000-08:00

President to be Obama said something today along the lines of his administration will be willing to admit when they make mistakes. I forget the precise words he used but the indication was that Obamnistas will make some mistakes and the difference between them and the children who preceed them is, the Obamanistas will admit their mistakes. All I want to know is, since running the campaign is supposed to represent your best preparation for the job, can you give us one single example in which your people admitted making a mistake. To the contrary, every single mistake you or your people have made over the past couple of years has yielded double speak and deliberate obfuscation meant to put mistakes beyond the scrutiny of anyone. The Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, etc. things were brushed under the carpet. There never was any example of an admission of an error of any kind. Every stupid thing you or your people have done has been swept aside and not dealt with in an open, honest, transparent fashion. Why, exactly should we expect things to change now?

Inherited Trillion Dollar Deficit?

2008-12-18T11:33:00.000-08:00

One of Obama's side comments today involved his administration's "inheritance" of a "trillion dollar deficit." That is what is know as setting the bar low while also blaming your kid brother for making a mess that is so bad, yours might pale in comparison.

It does not escape anyone's attention that the trillion dollar deficit Obama is inheriting has a lot to do with the $700 million bailout. I don't like the bailout but it is largely bipartisan. It even has the fingerprints of Obama himself on the actual document. Obama paraded around pretending that most of what was proposed were his ideas. Now he wants to disclaim any involvement with it because it was deficit spending?

Obama has some very big plans for next year. He recognizes that this will cause some significant spending. But what he does not seem to grasp is that the economy is really tanking. Tax receipts are going to dramatically plunge. And the degree by which they tank, is precisely the degree by which Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficit will rise. Mr. Obama, don't call the kettle "black."

You Are Kidding, I Hope

2008-12-18T11:25:00.000-08:00

The media supervising apparatus of the Obama Administration, the AP, announced today, "FBI agents each billed an average of $45,000 in overtime during three-month tours in Iraq and were sometimes paid for watching movies, exercising and going to parties. The investigation released Thursday by the department's inspector general found that agents claimed at least eight hours of overtime a day, every day, for the 90 days they were stationed in Iraq. That amounted to $63 million in overtime between 2003 and 2007, the report found. This year, overtime costs in Iraq came to about $6.4 million. The inspector general concluded that the FBI improperly used overtime funding."

This is newsworthy? An employer told a bunch of its employees that they had to leave the country and live in a God-forsaken land of dust, heat, and danger. &while being expected to book just normal hours despite the fact that they were separated from their family, their home, their country and put their lives on the line 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? I wouldn't do it. If I knew I could earn a few extra bucks, I'd go though not enthusiastically.

We need to criticize some guys put to extraordinary circumstances? Why? Because they cost us a whopping $6.4 million in a muti-trillion budget which is going to run at a trillion dollar deficit this year and perhaps a multi-trillion dollar deficit next?

This is some sort of joke! Leave this alone. Put it away!

Make Off Prevention

2008-12-18T09:12:00.000-08:00

President-in-waiting Barack Obama named some "important nominees" for various positions today. Ordinarily, these positions are of the less important variety, less important to the general public because they are all in that boring place we know as financial regulation. But, given the financial crisis, these are perhaps his most important nominations to date. He announced several people to fill positions within the governmental regulatory apparatus including Mary Schapiro and Gary Gensler. Then he went on to denegrate the job done under the Bush Administration in something less than implicit terms. He laid a tiny piece of blame at Congress' doorstep and then accused Bush Administration officials of failing to do their job due to what he described as a complete "disdain for regulation." Obama noted that one of his principal goals is to make sure this Madoff thing can never happen again. he also espoused the important roles of openness, accountability, and transparency in his administration. So let's be open, accountable, and transparent while looking at these nominees and examining their prospects for preventing another "make-off" scheme.

Obviously, before one can prevent something like the Madoff Ponzi scheme, one has to fully understand how and why it happened. Bernard Madoff is not some organized crime figure who one day decided he would try hard to set up the biggest Ponzi scheme the world has ever known. Had that described the man, probably the scheme would never have grown as large as it did. Before he ever became criminal numero uno, he was a respected man, an accomplished man, a man who in many ways gave us the foundation for the way financial markets do their business.

To begin with, Madoff was very much of a visionary. He began his career by starting a company which became known as Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. According to Wikipedia, he started the company with $5,000 he saved from his job as a lifeguard and another one installing sprinklers. "At first, the firm made markets (quoted bid and ask prices) via the National Quotation Bureau's Pink Sheets. In order to compete with firms that were members of the New York Stock Exchange, the firm began to use information technology to disseminate its quotes. After a trial run, the technology the firm helped develop became the NASDAQ."

Madoff's firm became "the largest dealer in NYSE-listed stocks in the U.S." He helped develop what is now known as the NASDAQ. The NASADAQ essentially re-created the stock market and promoted electronic trading of the sort many, perhaps most, Americans use today. He pioneered the way most people do their investing.

Madoff became a rich man, a very rich man as a result. He spent lavishly but he also was quite the philanthropist, giving away millions annually to many charities. He also was involved in politics and was perhaps one of the most sought after contributors to Democrat party candidates and causes. He served on the boards of many institutions including educational ones and was the chairman of the NASD. He was smart, rich, very involved with the creation and development of the NASDAQ, heavily involved with the NASD's regulation of dealers, very generous to charities, and a very political person who clearly sided with Democrats and had almost complete disdain for all Republicans.

One person I know of said he is lucky to have not invested in the Madoff scheme because he has the right connections to get to Madoff and because he is Jewish and runs sort of in the same social circles. But because the man is also known to be a conservative who backs Republicans, Madoff would never permit him to invest with his firm. He felt lucky - not smart - to have missed the opportunity to throw his money into that black hole.

Madoff was a run of the mill successful investment house manager and CEO. That is, while nobody will ever call Madoff "run of the mill" again, he ran a legitimate investment house, a large legitimate investment house which actually did business the legal way for quite a long time, decades actually. He was a respected, long-term old war horse in the investment community. He was not some guy who showed up one day with hair greased back in a leisure suit who suddenly appeared with a two hundred dollar hiarcut and custom tailored, respectable and expensive garb. He was no flash in the pan swindler.

The question is when did things change? A Time Magazine blog suggests Madoff went from honest investment house CEO to operator of a Ponzi Scheme "sometime around 2001 ... in the early stages of a bear market that would last almost two more years" and during which Makoff's investment strategy began to fail. He tried to prove his naysayers wrong and "he doubled down in attempt to recoup the losses." This led to near total collapse of the investments me managed, legitimately managed, at the time.

If you'll recall, prior to 9-11, things were pretty chaotic as one administration went out and another started up in a somewhat disorganized fashion as Bush people tried to locate the keys which had been removed from their computer keyboards, adding machines, telephones, etc. There's no blame to lay at the feet of the Clinton administration for these childish acts they freely admitted to committing, not with respect to the Madoff Ponzi scheme per se, but it is a fact that the Bush Administration got off to a slow start in many areas and some of that was caused by the juvenile delinquency of the Clintonistas.

Still, one wonders if they could in anyway be blamed for Bush's security people's failure to nail Madoff. Most likely not. In crime, as in all kinds of business, the first years are the most precarious. Of all businesses that fail, about 80% do so within the first two years. Once a business survives its start-up, things generally proceed with a degree of momentum. The same can be said for criminal enterprise. And in the Madoff case, we have a business that prospered to a great degree for a very long period of time before it became suspect or downright criminal. Then, partly because of the timing of the market fall in 2001, it remained a hidden criminal enterprise which was unlikely to ever be scrutinized unless ...

The reason Madoff's company would not receive much scrutiny is because: A) it had been around for so long and B) it was run by a guy who would never be suspected of ripping anyone off. Generally, the SEC has a job which is impossible to perform completely. Like all law enforcement and regulatory activities, the thing operates on a limited basis. These functions must operate on a limited basis because if they were engineered to do the complete job, the industry could not function - it would collapse under the weight of compliance.

You can make sure that a pitcher does not throw a spit ball if you place an umpire behind him whose only job is to make sure this doesn't happen. But you'd also need an official in each dugout to make sure both pitchers did not put any foreign substance any place beteen innings and then you'd need another in each of the bullpens. You might have an inspector who would examine all pitchers' uniforms and equipment before and during games. You might want a crew of officials to inspect all those bats to make sure none are corked and while you are at it, you could have some officials take urine and blood samples before, during and after games to check for banned substances. You might just as well also hire some investigators to make sure the players, managers, other coaches, and team employees don't own any illegal handguns or stay out at establishments of ill repute late into the night. In short, it may be possible to "clean up" any game by bringing in more officials than there are ballplayers, assigning a complete set of duties which make any misstep impossible, but we don't do that. Rather, we spot check and look into strange occurrences like some 175 pound hitter for a high average who has never hit the ball out of the park suddenly appearing at spring training as a 250 muscle-bound guy who hits homers. nbsp; That's much more efficient and allows a game to be played in (cough, cough, ahem) under three and a half hours.

The same principal applies to traffic cops, school security, police generally, and just about every other aspect of regulation, at least in free countries. In countries run by dictators and despots, run by authoritarian systems, they spend quite a bit more on imposing and policing regulations. If they want to absolutely prohibit anyone from driving a city's 4,000 streets over the speed of 25, they hire 20,000 policemen to do nothing other than handout speeding tickets. If they want to prevent drugs from entering their country, they make the crime punishable by death. Then they hire a large number of drug police, torture the guy found with 2 grams of marijuana until he gives up his pusher, and follow the trail upwards in a spiraling path of increased penalties and torture until the final inside-the-country source is identified and put to death.

Our securities regulation works like any other regulatory institution operating in a free, non-dictatorial society. Inside firms, we often hear, "this call may be recorded and or monitored!" What percentage of calls do you think result in a compliance geek actually listening in, 5%, 10%, 15%? I have no idea but I am absolutely certain it is not 100%. If it were, the compliance department would be at least as large as the other half of the firm. Outside the firms, inside government, how many investigators do we have? Are they some percentage of the number of firms or individual traders? If we wanted 100% compliance with securities laws, how many would we need? A couple thousand, a couple tens of thousands, a couple hundreds of thousands? I have no idea but it certainly would be a lot since such regulators would not have to simply watch every trade or other business transaction. They'd also have to spend time learning the intricacies of the law, examining specific transactions, auditing books, records and statements. It is plain, flat out impossible task within a functioning marketplace.

So, if we can't guarantee 100% compliance, what do we do? According to an article on Huffington Post, "the SEC tries to inspect advisers at least every five years and to scrutinize newly registered firms in their first year." If you are in your first year of building an investment firm and are engaged in a Ponzi scheme, there's a pretty good chance you will be caught. If you survive that first year or otherwise run a normal, entirely legal business, your odds of being examined go down dramatically. If you've run a legitimate business for decades, you don't get very scrutinized very frequently. Not only that, as your business goes along through several decades, you begin to know instinctively exactly what regulators will examine in five years when they revisit you.

The longer an enterprise continues, particularly in a legitimate sense, the easier it becomes to pull off a crime and go undetected for a long period. If Sears Automotive shops began operating chop shops in which stolen cars were brought to be chopped down into parts, what do you think the odds of them being investigated would be? If one outlet were found to be running a chop shop, do you think law enforcement authorities across the country would automatically figure out what was going on and then inspect every single store they operated? You'd be mad if you thought that could happen.

So any regulatory body is going to contemplate the every five year examination of the firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, owned by the man who helped create the very system under which stocks and securities are traded, which has been around just about forever, which has been examined countless times before, and the folks charged with supervising the examination are going to let out one big yawn. The seniors and supervisors on the job are going to use this examination as a learning exercise for the younger, wet behind the ears, inexperienced staff, and go sit in Bernie's office, one of his kid's, or some underling's to chew the fat about baseball, the kids, nothing in particular. No examiner walks into Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and expects to find any sort of wrongdoing.

This scenario is true whether those examiners work under an SEC commissioner appointed by Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, the Bush Royals, or the upstart Obama. There is no way the US can continue to run efficient securities markets and absoutely prevent such a thing from ever happening again. It just cannot happen.

Now, let's look to Obama's appointments.

Mary Schapiro
She was originally appointed in 1988 to Commissioner of the SEC by Reagan. She was re-upped by Bush and then Clinton. Clinton then moved her over to chair the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Later she was President of NASD Regulation, then vice chairman, and then Chairman and CEO of the entire NASD. In short, she's not just familiar with the system of financial regulation, she IS THE SYSTEM. She does not represent change. She represents the status quo in absolute terms. Heck, she probably was once very good friends with Bernie Makoff, for all I know. She was in a position of authority for a good chunk of the time during which Bernie made off with the money!

Gary Gensler
He held various positions including Assistant Secretary with the Treasury Department beginning during the second term of Clinton's administration and ending with Bush's inaugguration. He was an advisor to Sen. Sarbanes, including being one of the authors of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (S-OX). You know S-OX. That's that law which many have blamed for the financial collapse due to its provisions for "mark to market." He also worked for nearly 20 years for the American institution known as Goldman Sachs - that behemoth which many consider to be the seat of real power in these United States. nbsp; Almost every big time politician appoints someone to a place of significant power and authority who once worked in a senior position at GS. It is considered smart to do that because, in this country, you really cannot do anything unless GS says you can.

So, Mr. Obama today blamed the regulators within the Bush Administration for having abbrogated their responsibilities because they had complete disdain for the philosophical underpinnings of those very responsibilities. Obama promised to never again allow something like Bernie making off with everyone's money to happen again. Obama actually used the term, "adult supervision" to describe what his administration will do and what the current one does not. Then, in order to institute his brand of change, to name who the adult supervisors would be, in order to replace those unwilling previous regulators with some folks with real muscle, heart, maturity and will, some folks who will really get the job done, he appointed basically the same old same old. He appointed some people who were once asleep at the switch in the manner he condemned. he appointed the dog in charge of protecting the chicken house, who sent out engraved invitations to all the local foxes to come over for dinner, he appointed the very people who permitted this very thing to happen, into the positions they previously held!

Am I missing something?

Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much

2008-12-17T10:33:00.000-08:00

David Axelrod came out in defense of Rahm Emanuel in the Chicago Blagojevich scandal. Let's see now, for a very long time it has been common knowledge that Chicago was at least as corrupt as any other place on Earth including notorious Tammany Hall and a few other choice Democrat political machines. Obama came from inside the Chicago political machine but many supporters implied that his being was entirely outside that machine. His two closest advisers, Axelrod and Emanuel, also come from the inside. Emanuel followed Blagojevich in the House position Blagojevich formerly occupied. Blagojevich is a part of the machine. The nominated new Secretary of Education is part of the machine. And the list goes on and on including Rezkoand other questioanle characters both inside and peripherally related to Chicago politics. But somehow, Obama's administration, his friends, advisers, and acquaintances are supposed to be completely clean in the Blagojevich thing! Obama and his cohorts are presumed to know nothing about Blagojevich's trangressions!

This "sale" of Obama's Senate seat is not Blagojevich's first questionable act or association with questionnable practices. Blagojevich has been practicing this brand of modern Bakeesh for his entire career. Several Blagojevich underlings have previously been sent to jail after convictions or plea deals with similar sales of public offices and patronage practices. So where did these folks learn how to exact Bakeesh? Could it be that this is business as usual in Chicago Democrat politics? if so, how could anyone survive without being tainted by it? How is it possivle that Obama never bumped up against it?

If Obama never engaged in Chicago Bakeesh, if he somehow was completely unaware of it, if nobody in his inner circle is in any way tainted by it, if it has never soiled the garments of the king or his disciples, then perhaps he is the Messiah. Perhapos Christ has indeed returned.

Consistent Theme

2008-12-17T10:10:00.000-08:00

What do you think the theme of the day is? Well, let's take a look. Two nominees for federal posts were announced today. They were Tom Vilsack, former Governor of Iowa to Secretary of Agriculture and US Senator from Colorado, Ken Salazar, as U.S. Interior Secretary. Vilsack comes from real farming country of Iowa which produces about 10 billion in corn. Salazar has been called "an outspoken environmentalist" who is opposed (really opposed) to drilling for oil just about anywhere. Can you say corn-based ethanol?

Bush was lambasted to no end for advocating ethanol made from corn. He was said to be buying votes from farmers by pushing ethanol to such an extent that it caused our food prices to soar. Bush was guilty of that. What will Obama be guilty of?

2.2 Million Barrels Of Oil On The Wall ...

2008-12-17T08:13:00.000-08:00

OPEC has agreed to reduce production by 2.2 million barrels of oil per day. They say they want to do the world a service by keeping the price up at around $75 in order to encourage "marginal" producers (those who cannot or will not produce at $40) and thereby avoid a shortage. That's so nice of them. They are, like O'Reilly, lookin' out for the folks! ASnd, might I add, at great cost to themselves.

At about $45 a barrel, the 2.2 million barrel reduction costs these countries $99 million ... per day. In the three months some experts say it will take for a price increase to take hold, that's about, that's $9 billion. If the price increases to the target $75, they more than make up for this by a fair margin, rather quickly. But if the price doesn't go up, well ...

Pundits in the media suggest that this move will work to bring the price back up, though by how much, many are not saying. If the economy places a drag on the price to say $50, the move will be a wash. If it does nothing or goes down, happy days will certainly not be here again effect in places like Iran and Venezuela where the money they received at much higher prices have barely kept a lid on their people's political dissent. Venezuela, in particular, might be ready for a mass protest.

All the economic news coming out lately points to a very bad situation which is likely to force the price down further rather than permit a rise, even with this reduction in output. Worse still, the economic situation of today points to this attempt to drive up prices causing a big drop in demand, particularly if this attempt to raise prices actually works. So, while there may be some sort of initial spike, most likely this will sew the seeds of an eventual oil market collapse, worse than we have seen thus far.

It should not go unnoticed that the oil ministers, in dicta, essentially said that part of the reason for the reduced output is "a minimum of two million we think needs to be cut so we can balance the market." In other words, OPEC is already supplying the market more than it uses. The cutback is needed merely to stop producing much more than is being used. That doesn;t sound like a very good forecast for the oil producing countries since we have not yet begun to fully feel the economic fallout of the stock market crash and financial credit lockup. When we do, perhaps oil will see prices closer to 10 than 50. And then there will be a substantial risk of the other "D" word, deflation. When real, sustained deflation shows up to the party, now that will be a dark day.