Monday, February 28, 2011

To Wisconsin Union Leaders and Employees: Say What?

I just heard a Wisconsin union leader tell the governor there that he can't fire any Wisconsin public employees because it's "his job" to, instead, make/ensure jobs for them. Say what? I thought it was his job to keep the state from going bankrupt. He "owes" NO ONE a job. A job ANYWHERE is a privilege, not a right! You work ANYWHERE AT YOUR EMPLOYER'S PLEASURE!

I've ALWAYS understood that I held a given job at my employer's pleasure. In high tech, it was common knowledge that our employer could terminate us AT ANY TIME and he/she wasn't even required to give a reason. That's the way things should be run, including government. If ANY company or government entity is having such financial troubles that they're on the verge of going bankrupt, it is NOT their "responsibility" to "make" or "preserve" jobs for people just because it will be hard on them. Same for government. They don't "owe" ANYONE a job. If ANY company has become bloated by pay and benefits that are rendering the company unprofitable, the senior management in fact has a responsibility(!) to execute whatever cutbacks are necessary to keep the company afloat. In fact, a company doesn't even have to become UNprofitable for this to happen. Two or three quarters of decreasing profits are enough justification for a layoff.

To expect ANY employer, public OR private, to keep you employed when he can't afford to is IRRATIONAL. No employer ... NO EMPLOYER ... has ANY SUCH "OBLIGATION". When an employer thinks he can no longer afford to keep you employed, he has the right AND obligation to terminate you ... with or without 'cause'. His greater obligation is to ensure the survival of the entity. His greater obligation is to ensure the effectiveness of the entity, NOT to ensure you keep your job.

I was layed off four times in my career even when I had an excellent work record. The need to lay off a given person doesn't necessarily have ANY relationship to how good a job he's doing. OFTEN, good employees get terminated in layoffs too ... because the company MUST cut back to that extent for fiscally responsible reasons. It doesn't even matter if it was mismanagement of the entity by the current management that created the need for layoffs. Their screwups are paid for by everyone who gets terminated. It's life. Life can be unfair even when you don't personally 'deserve' it. Get over it already!

ALL the above applies EQUALLY to benefits that are GRANTED by the employer. Few if any benefits are "rights". The employer is under NO OBLIGATION to continue providing a given benefit if he can no longer afford it. Many Americans have decided they can no longer afford to pay off their mortgages or other debt and just walk away from them. How is it okay for them to walk out on an obligation to pay someone but employers who have NO obligation to keep employees can't terminate them? There are even companies advertising on TV that you have a "right"(!) to pay back only 1/10 of your debt and all you need to do is contact a lawyer to make it happen. NO YOU DON'T!!! YOU think you don't have to honor an obligation to pay people what you DO owe them but employers cannot terminate you when they have NO obligation to keep you on-board? Huh?

If you don't like someone else having that kind of control over your employment, then find a different job or, even better, start your own business. Otherwise, learn to live with unfairness in employment that you may not even deserve. It happens. Life isn't always fair. Oh, and stop with the whining already.

Maybe We're Not As Shallow As Hollywood And The TV Networks Think

Check this out regarding this year's Oscars coverage on ABC:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41833506/ns/today-entertainment/

Do you mean we're not as impressed with these people as the introducer of Oprah who said of her: "We're PRIVILEGED(!) to breathe the same air [as Oprah]"? Or as impressed as MSNBC who called it a "royal" event. Royalty? R U KIDDING ME?

I'm encouraged that Americans appear to be growing tired of their narcissism, morals and other things. Seems we're not as shallow as they and the media think! Or as I was worried in my previous blog on this. Good for us!!!

Shallow Nation

MSNBC called the Academy Awards event a "royal night". Royal? Those people are equivalent to 'royalty'? I'm sure that room full of nacissists appreciates that kind of comparison and eats it up but R U KIDDING ME? Gads!

They surely do enjoy patting themselves on the back, eh? Worst of all, they actually believe they deserve all this attention and 'royal treatment' as if people in their profession are the only ones who do a great job and deserve acknowedgement. As if The Awards isn't enough, they have literally dozens of awards nights for all the various categories of work performed. We can't seem to go a month without some big hoopla over yet another awards night. On top of that they get special treatment by the media and others including the White House of all things. They surely are full of themselves. And we encourage them.

What makes them so 'special' anyway? When you boil it down to it's basics, their profession isn't any better than most jobs in America. Most professions rate much higher in my book on the scale of honorability and real contribution to society. They're no better than many of you out there who are working hard and being responsible every day, every year ... making REAL sacrifices and doing something that's actually useful. My hat's off to YOU! I celebrate YOU!

And then we watch this nonsense on TV. If you find it entertaining, that's cool. But if you fall into the trap of thinking these people are actually as special as they think they are I encourage you to give that some thought. If these people have become our 'royalty' that's sad for us.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

FDR, Democrats' Patron Saint Of Liberalism In America, Opposed Public Sector Unions!

I've been hearing snippets of FDR's opposition to unions in public employment and wanted to hear/read the entire context about it. I found a link to it that I wanted to share with you:
http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2011/2/19/text-of-fdr-letter-opposing-public-employee-government-union.html

His thoughts seem completely rational to me. Any comments I might add wouldn't say it better so I'll just let his words speak to you on their own.

I imagine this may be the ONLY time that American progressives won't embrace the thinking of their hero.

Friday, February 25, 2011

It Makes No Sense

Wisconsin and other state's teachers are making approximately what I did with a master's degree in engineering. How about some comparisons?

Teachers there and to varying degrees elsewhere:
  1. On average have bachelor's degrees.
  2. Work, on average 36 weeks per year.
  3. Have a long work week averaging around 50 to 60 hours (for 36 weeks per year) based on what I personally hear from them.
  4. Current average salary is $51,000/year. Adjusted for a 52-week year of employment translates to $68,000/year.
  5. In the case of Wisconsin (most other states being somewhat near the same), teachers can retire as early as their 50's.
  6. They retire with an annual pay of approximately $40,000 on average from their pension fund. Add to that the $20,000/year most of them will also receive from social security and their total retirement income is about $60,000. (My total income is about 1/3 of that and I saved well.) Question: why are so many folks getting all worked up about how poorly the Wisconsin teachers have it? Why isn't $60,000/year in retirement (ie, approaching what they made while working!) plus generous benefits enough? I completely don't get it!
  7. At retirement they will have contributed into their pension fund approximately 2 to 3 year's worth of what they'll get back. After those 2 to 3 years, their income will be paid by someone else ... by Wisconsin citizens who are still working.
  8. They retire with overall VERY generous benefits, medical and others.
  9. Job Security and Seniority. Better pay, benefits and work the older one gets in the education sector. Doesn't matter too much if you're not performing well. In fact, most government jobs are jobs for life ... followed by generous guaranteed retirement benefits.
  10. Their pensions were pretty well protected/rebuilt after the 2008 financial collapse. They'll still receive in retirement pretty much what they expected to receive. In fact, about half of the stimulus money all Americans paid went to prop up union pension funds. None of it went to prop up the retirement funds of the average American whose savings were hammered, in some cases to near oblivion. Teachers' annual retirement pay is largely unaffected by the state of the economy. The American taxpayer was forced to ensure that.
Let's compare that with others like myself:
  1. Master's degree in engineering.
  2. Worked on average at least 48 weeks/year. 1 week off between Christmas and New Years; one or two days off for other holidays. Note: Most years I had to work during much of what were supposed to be holidays, including Christmas.
  3. Worked on average 50 to 60 hours per week. In fact, during 'project crunch time' I often worked around the clock for up to three days with little to no sleep.
  4. My planned vacations were frequently cut short by 'work requirements' and ALL of them had to be worked around what was convenient for my company.
  5. People in high tech get 2 weeks of vacation per year to start. Those companies often have policies that increase that to 3 weeks AFTER 5 years and to 4 weeks after 10 years. Problem is that layoffs happen often enough during employees' working years that most of them don't achieve more than 2 weeks per year.
  6. My average salary was around $70,000, including occassional bonuses and near trivial stock options. That's approximately the same as what Wisconsin teachers with master's degrees make, adjusted for a 52-week year. (By the way, I'm 68 and retired so it's not like I was working so long ago that it's not comparable to today's salaries.)
  7. I put into my retirement savings more than twice what Wisconsin teachers put into their pension plan.
  8. I was VERY successful at what I did as a design engineer, manager and program manager, completing almost all of my assignments and projects on-time and on- or under-budget. I was in charge of many very complex design projects with budgets over $10 Million. So, compared with the education system results over the past 30 years I performed very well ... at approximately at an "A-" level.
  9. Most of you've heard about stock options given in high tech companies but those don't amount to much except for employees in the top 10% performance rating. For everyone else here is the real story. These options can't be exercised until a future maturity date. By that date, there's a good chance of being layed off or if you're still working there, the price to exercise the option at that future maturity date is often MORE than the current price of the stock. Who wants to pay more for a stock option than they would pay for it on the open market? If you're fortunate enough to still be working there when the option matures AND the option price of the stock is less than the current market price, you still pay almost the market price. That's because when options are granted to the average employee, it's usually only a small discount off the market price ... the average employee does NOT receive free stock. So the stock option thing is wayyyyy overblown by people who don't work in high tech and, therefore, don't understand how they work. The average high tech employee does NOT receive much benefit from stock options.
  10. Bonuses in high tech companies are sporadic and don't amount to much. They're given annually only when companies achieve certain profitablility AND the employee receive a very high rating in their performance review. When I did receive a bonus it was on the order of $100 to $1,000, usually toward the low end of that spectrum.
  11. I was required to do random work wayyyy outside my expertise and was still REQUIRED to do it well. For example, although I was only experienced at performing and managing computer hardware design, I was once asked to be in charge of a division's facility move. My boss PROMISED(!) me that I'd have job security if I took the assignment (as if I really had a choice, right?) and completed it well. I found out what building we had to move into on December 8th and was REQUIRED to make it happen by the end of January, about 7 weeks later. I obviously had to do the work over both Christmas and New Year 'holidays'. We had to move into a 3-story building and it required major rennovations to create workspaces out of nothing and the purchase/installation of all new furniture. The work entailed: getting architectural drawings, city permits, construction company hiring/planning, construction (walls, electrical, plumbing, painting), multiple city inspections (and resulting construction tweaks), choosing furniture and getting it built/delivered, building and equipping 4 engineering labs and a manufacturing area. I got it done on-time AND on-budget. I had to work right through Christmas and New Year and my work week that entire time was approximately 80 hours/week. My wife and children rarely saw me.
  12. Note: I had hired the second largest contracting company in the San Francisco's south bay area for the division move (#11 above). At the end of it, their construction project manager told me that in all his years of experience he hadn't seen anyone accomplish what we did in so short a time, so smoothly and with such high quality results.
  13. NO job security. In fact, I and most people I knew averaged a layoff every 7 years or so. And the layoffs often had nothing to do with accomlishments and seniority worked against us, not for us. For example, a year after I completed the aforementioned division move I was layed off (in spite of a promise of job security by our VP beforehand if I took that assignment and completed it well). To make matters worse, at the time I got my layoff notice, I had just returned to work after 8 weeks off recovering from open heart surgery. In the REAL WORLD, employees are disposable 'resources' and compassion is an irrelevant concept. In education job security is considered to be a 'right'. There's no such thing as tenure in the real world.
  14. One job I was able to land after a layoff when I got older paid so little that I had to take a second job (ITT electronics instructor). That was also a full-time job so during the year I had that job I worked at least 80 hours per week and didn't see much of my family.
  15. My retirement pay is around $20,000/year. That includes social security plus income from my investments. Yes, I saved rather well. In fact, I put into my own savings about twice what Wisconsin teachers do. Although I made approximately the same as teachers with master's degrees, I worked harder at savings than they do. But with today's interest rates, retired folks who responsibly have their money invested in secure things get very small returns. Contrary to what teachers receive in retirement, our retirement income is significantly dependent on how the economy is doing. Right now it sucks badly. Many of us lost large sums of money from our retirement investments in 2008's crash and will never get it back.
  16. The earliest I was able to retire was about 2 1/2 years early at age 62+. Note: retirement age for folks in my profession is about to move out to 68 with early retirement at 65. Teachers' early retirement is still in the late 50's. That means they retire after (57-24)x 36/52=22 years' worth of teaching. High tech folks retire after (63-24)x48/52= 36 years of actual work. Hmmmm. Wisconsin teachers retire on more than double my income and with generous medical benefits after 1/3 fewer working days over a teaching career. Hmmmm.
  17. In retirement I have NO health benefits beyond what I have via Medicare and I pay for it all ... medicare part A, B and D out of my $20,000 income. Frankly, that doesn't leave me much to live on. I have no dental, hearing or eyesight coverage because I'd have to pay full price for it and I can't afford it.
  18. AGE DISCRIMINATION. In the REAL WORLD, age discrimination is rampant outside government jobs. Especially in high tech, the older you are the more often you're layed off AND there's pressure to keep your salary low because you're deemed not as 'productive' as younger people. Experience counts for precious little past the age of 50. In fact, seniority flat works AGAINST you in high tech! I experienced much age discrimination beginning around age 50. More layoffs and the older I got, the longer it took to find someone willing to give me a job. And, yes, I was flat TOLD I was too old! (Problem is, it's hard to prove age discrimination with no witnesses to or proof of the comments.) JOB PROTECTION VIA SENIORITY IS A NON-EXISTENT CONCEPT in many lines of work. Age is a disadvantage most of the time. Unless you're a teacher.
  19. By the way, I'll get out of Social Security approximately what I put into it. I'll get AT BEST out of my other retirement funds what I put into them. As I described above, Wisconsin teachers will have put about two or three years' worth of retirement money into THEIR pension fund and will receive way more than they put into it.

How do these things balance out? Would you say that Wisconsin teachers are poorly treated or well treated compared with us in technical professions with advanced degrees? By ANY measure they're doing well today, regardless(!) of the FACT that our kids' education places them near the bottom of all developed countries. I did my job responsibly and very successfully by any standard, worked harder for longer and my retirement pay is sadly about 1/3 of theirs and my 'benefits' suck by comparison.

So, don't expect me to feel sorry for them having to pay for 2 to 3 years of their retirement. In fact, expect me to be angry with their self-centeredness and greed. I've paid for 100% of my retirement. I won't be asking ANYONE to pay more for my retirement than what I contributed to it. I never expected to get something I didn't earn and that's always been okay with me because I've always believed one should try to pay one's own way in life. But that's clearly(!) not what teachers' unions are about these days because they have others paying for most of their retirement pay AND benefits and they don't want to give up their bargaining rights so they can get even more from us. What they're practicing is not the American way that I grew up believing in. And it's not the attitude toward self-sufficiency that'll serve our country well in the future.

When they start producing results as if our kids' education is truly important to them (ie, RESULTS) I'll consider supporting some of this nonsense I hear them whining about.

By the way, why are so many people upset over us who are on social security? We paid into the system approximately what we'll get out of it. Wisconsin teachers will get WAY MORE out of their retirement for a whole lot less work. Who picks up the balance they haven't put into it? Wisconsin citizens and, via stimulus and bailouts, the rest of us. No one sees that as a problem? Why?

Oh, I Get It!

I GET IT NOW! There's a REASON for (or at least a benefit to) dumbing down our kids for the past 30 years since the Department of Education was created. As adults the products of this (failing!) education environment aren't able to do the math now and figure out what a rip-off the education system's own (working AND retirement) pay and benefits are relative to what they were supposed to accomplish. See my recent blogs for the statistics and some analysis.

The Reality: What Wisconsin Teachers Are Willing To 'Give Back' Is Still Disconnected From The State's Education Record And Is NO Budget Fix

Wisconsin teachers said they're willing to pay more for their benefits. There are several reasons why this is not much of a compromise, at least nowhere near what's needed to balance a broken state budget. Check out the facts of what's going on there at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/260629/wisconsin-myths-and-facts-matthew-shaffer

The FACT is that they currently put into savings during 30 years of work about TWO YEAR'S worth of retirement pay. They've said they'd be willing to contribute 17% more as long as they can keep collective bargaining. If they paid 20% more into their retirement plan, instead of paying only two year's worth of their own retirement they'd be paying two and a half years of it. Taxpayers would STILL BE FOOTING THE COST OF MOST OF THEIR RETIREMENT.

They're also 'willing' to increase to 6% the amount they pay into their health care. Well, at least that's approximately the national average. Nevertheless, do employees in a system that's failing at it's primary responsibility deserve that? I won't belabor this point since it would at least be in line with the national average but, based on performance, it's not irrational to wonder whether they've earned that.

Bottom line REALITY: a SMALL give-back on what they pay into their pension fund will do VERY LITTLE to make their retirement affordable for the citizens of Wisconsin because teachers would still be receiving about $40,000 per year in retirement pay that the citizens of Wisconsin would be on the hook for after three years of a teacher's retirement. And many of these teachers can retire in their 50's.

Figure it out for yourself (if, as a product of America's education system, you can). If someone is to receive somewhere near $40,000 per year in retirement and had put a total of two and a half year's worth of it into their pension fund then, if they retire at age 57, that means the CITIZENS of Wisconsin pay them $40,000 per year out of THEIR POCKETS for THE REST OF THE RETIRED TEACHER'S LIFE BEYOND AGE 60. That's RIDICULOUS! Even if Wisconsin's citizens were willing to do that it should only be because their kids were getting a good education and AT LEAST keeping up with the rest of the world in test scores.

Problem is, on average, America's children, including Wisconsin's, are scoring near the bottom of ALL developed countries. To me that means those in our education system haven't (for at least 30 years!) performed at a level anywhere close to deserving the kind of retirement that far exceeds what most Americans get for doing their jobs well their whole lives.

Only in the government could it make sense to pay someone more than what average citizens make and provide retirement pay and benefits FAR exceeding what average citizens get when the system in which they're working produces such awful results.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Need Proof Of Schools' Failures?

The story is similar throughout the country but take New York state for example. New York state citizens spend the most per pupil in the country @ $17,173 per pupil annually. That's almost as much money as I make in a year in retirement and that's the amount for just ONE student! Do you see ANYTHING wrong with this picture? HELLO!?!?

Teacher pay and benefits for New York's teachers rank among the top in the country and teachers are able to retire in their 50's. The results of this "investment": nearly 40% of New York's students won't graduate than 23% of those who do will leave high school prepared to enter college.

If we grade New York's education (the story is similar in the rest of the country!), that's a 60% success rate, right? 60% of their kids will graduate. Let's explain that on a basis that even those in the education system ought to relate to. On a standard grading curve, what does a grade of 60% get New York's education system? Oh, yeah. AN "F" ... for FAILING! By the way, the national average isn't a whole lot better at 70% which was a "D-" when I went to school ... still FAILING relative to what we need them to do, what they're hired to do and what the kids need them to do.

Inflation-Adjusted Increase In Cost Of Elementary and Secondary Education

According to the Dept of Education (the "ies", National Center for Education Statistics), adjusted for inflation, the cost per pupil increased from approximately $6,200 in 1985 to approximately $9,800 in 2007. That's an inflation-adjusted (ie, a NET) increase of about $3,600. That's nearly a 60%(!!!!) increase ABOVE(!!!!) what inflation added to the cost! Here's the link fyi:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/expenditures/figures/figure_02.asp

What did we get for that "investment"? NOTHING! During that time our kids' scores were almost completely stagnant and the scores went from among the best among developed countries to near last! Think about that and its various implications, not only for our kids but for our country's future.

So, when our elected representatives say we need to "INVEST" in education to fix it, I have to ask them, "what exactly do you call all that spending we've already done?" We've TRIED THAT. IT DIDN'T WORK! Hello!?!? We've been very generous in supporting your so-called investing and it has gotten us exactly NOTHING! Throwing money at education has done nothing and you want us to throw even more money at this problem? Do you think we're stupid? Apparently you do! :-(

Americans are beginning to wake up to this travesty for the reality of it. Since you 'education professionals' have failed, utterly, for the past 30 years, WE FOR WHOM YOU WORK are going to take charge and fix it ourselves. Buckle up you knuckle-heads!

Please STOP telling us that capping or even reducing the cost per pupil will hurt the kids' education! Historical evidence shows that there is NO relationship between cost per pupil and test scores. More money has not improved the results one iota so stop telling us we can't cut back these costs!

You all won't implement merit-based pay (ie, you get paid more if you produce results) so we will. You have EARNED a pay and benefits CUT due to unacceptable performance/results. In the private sector, employees who perform this poorly relative to their goals would have been fired long, long ago. Never mind pay and benefits cuts. You should be happy you still have jobs!

Get ready for merit-based and accomplishments-based pay and benefits as well as some tough choices. You're not going to like them but, frankly, you've forfeited your right to fight it by failing our kids as well as citizens for whom you work. Got news for you. We're the boss, not you. Not government. Definitely not unions!

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

We The People Say "Enough Is Enough"!

ENOUGH ALREADY! Our education system has let us down, both those of us who pay the bills and the kids the government is supposed to educate. We've CLEARLY lavished support on teachers and the education system in general in a hope, now proven false, that the investment would be worth it. Government leadership, especially liberal ones, keep calling for yet another(!) 'investment' in education. What do they THINK we've been doing all these years? At what point should one say, THIS APPROACH ISN'T WORKING? Isn't 30 years of trying it this way enough to convince our government that this approach does not work? This is insane isn't it? GADS!

Now we're hearing that Wisconsin teachers make more in salary and benefits than their counterparts in the private sector and they can retire on $40,000/year and many of them can retire at age 50! Good grief! They contributed a total of only about $80,000 to their retirement fund which is two-years worth of retirement pay. After two years the still-working citizens of Wisconsin will have to pay their retirement for however long these retired teachers live after those first two years. They'll get back way, WAY more in retirement pay and benefits than they contributed. (And people are all upset over Social Security retirees who, on average, put into that trust fund approximately what they're getting out of it! WE haven't expected a free ride from ANYONE!) The Wisconsin teachers' retirement benefits package is among the most lucrative in the country. VERY GENEROUS BY ANY STANDARD! What have the citizens of Wisconsin gotten for all this generosity? Stagnant test scores by high school students for nearly 30 years.

Some facts to illustrate the complete lack of results from a mind-boggling 'investment':

  1. Federal, state and local spending on education in the USA has more than doubled since 1996 from $400 Billion to near $900 Billion. The education budget is the biggest item in state budgets and the pension plans are about to bankrupt nearly every state in the country!
  2. Student test scores: stagnant now for approximately 30 years, ever since the Federal Dept of Education was created whose charter was to keep our kids' education near the top among all nations.
  3. Question: What has the creation of huge new government bureaucracies and DOUBLING(!) the money spent in 14 years delivered in the way of results? Ans: NO CHANGE IN TEST SCORES AND THE SCORES ARE NOW NEAR THE BOTTOM OF ALL 'DEVELOPED NATIONS'!

Generous pay. Outright lavish retirement pay/benefits. Students' test scores continuously declining from among the best to its current level near the bottom of all developed nations. Has the 'education system' earned its pay? By ANY MEASURE, has the education system, including the teachers, EARNED what we've lavished on it at the cost of nearly bankrupting every state in the country? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!! A THOUSAND TIMES, NO!

Don't these teachers who are revolting at various states' attempt to avoid bankruptcy have a conscience? Why don't THEY understand that THEY have failed to perform? Failed the very kids they 'hide behind' when claiming unfairness? Failed the people who pay them? By ANY RATIONAL MEASURE they've failed, utterly and completely failed to deliver what ALL other developed countries have done with far less support. Anyone performing this poorly in the private sector would have been fired long, LONG ago, even where there are unions.

If the teachers are so concerned about the kids as they keep telling us before every vote regarding their pay or benefits, why haven't THEY been at the forefront of recognizing their failure and, ON THEIR OWN(!), taken aggressive action to fix it? Clearly, the argument that it'll take money to make our kids smart enough is a complete lie by virtue of pay/benefit increases compared with sorry results. They've PROVEN(!) that money isn't the problem!

Let me repeat that. THEY (teachers, unions and the education system in general) PROVED (vis a vis the failure to keep our schools among the best in the world) that money is NOT what's needed. If it were, we wouldn't have the most poorly educated kids! So why aren't THEY focused on IDENTIFYING THE REAL PROBLEM AND PROACTIVELY FIXING THAT ON THEIR OWN? ISN'T THAT THEIR JOB? AREN'T THEY THE PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW HOW TO DO THIS?

Gads, fellow citizens! At what point do we wake up and acknowledge the reality(!) that our education system has failed and continues to fail their employers (us), our country and especially our kids? HELLO!?!?

Isn't it time we started INSISTING this gets fixed? Isn't it time we eliminated the Federal Dept of Education that has UTTERLY failed in its primary mission of educating our kids? When an organization totally fails to do what you hire it to do, you clean house and start over.

It's time for the board of directors (America's citizens) to take BACK control and get this problem fixed using people who are more committed and able to do that. No more nonsense from self-serving politicians, unions and selfish employees. We've given these people AMPLE support and opportunity to do their job and they didn't. The kids and their education MUST come first from now on. Sorry, unions and 'education professionals' if you don't like that. You get an "F" and it's time for you to go stand in the corner or, perhaps, be expelled while we fix your mess.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Obama's Monetary Policy IS Driving Up Prices ... Dramatically!

Have you noticed the price of EVERYTHING going up ... FAST? That's no accident and it's not the result of something some other country is doing to/about the products and raw materials we buy from them. WE DID THIS TO OURSELVES! Or, more to the point, The Fed did this to us.

About four months ago, Democrats (congress and the White House) gave The Fed the okay to increase the money supply by buying back some governement debt (ie, treasury bonds). The liberal philosophy about this sort of thing is that increasing the money supply injects life into a sluggish economy. That may be true in the short-term but it isn't long before it causes a worse problem ... inflation.

In my opinion and that of many, many economists this cure is worse than the disease. There are at least a couple of interesting facts associated with this that average Americans need to know because when we let them get away with this nonsense, they don't tell us the truth. We need to know what they're doing so we're properly armed to stop them from doing this kind of nonsense.

First, we need to understand where The Fed gets the money to 'increase the money supply'. Hint: although I always thought they did, they are NOT actually 'printing' money with which to buy back treasuries. That will probably surprise a lot of folks. It did me. Last Fall I heard (and believed) that The Fed was "starting to print lots of money". They didn't do that but they DID increase the 'money supply'. Turns out they no longer have to print actual money to increase the 'money supply'.

Fact is, most of our country's money doesn't exist as hard currency. (I knew this but I didn't know how The Fed 'increased money in circulation'.) Most of it is 'electronic money' ... banks passing credits (the electronic equivalent of actual money) back and forth without actually moving hard currency. Basically, one bank gives to another bank a kind of IOU (a 'credit') which they, in turn, pass to some other bank. The banking business exists only in the form of credits and debits they pass around among themselves as compensation for given transactions. (In fact, if everyone in the USA used only credit and debit cards we wouldn't need paper money at all but that's a subject for another day.) Back to The Fed now.

So The Fed takes ownership of treasuries from a bank and, as payment for those treasuries doesn't give the bank actual money but, rather, pays them in 'credits' which they can use to make loans or buy some form of investment. These credits The Fed gives to banks are completely created out of thin air, just as if they had printed money. It seems to me that The Fed would just as soon eliminate actual money and have all purchases and sales done via electronic credits.

So, while The Fed isn't actually printing money, they ARE doing the electronic equivalent of that ... creating 'money' out of thin air ... out of electrons actually that are running around inside all our computers. So, for argument's sake, when The Fed says they're increasing the money supply or, as it is euphemistically known, "Quantitative Easing" ("QE2" was the latest round which began last November) they are doing the electronic equivalent of printing actual money. Either way, it comes out of thin air! QE2 devalued our dollar just as surely as if they had printed actual dollars. It puts more 'electronic dollars' into circulation which THEY think helps the economy. But it DOES devalue the dollars that existed before they did the QE2. Then comes inflation. Every time! (To understand this, consider what the painting Whistler's Mother is worth. Now imagine that five more had been painted just like it. Now how much would each one be worth? Ans: a LOT less than just having one.)

This electronic Quantitative Easing does indeed cause inflation. If you doubt it, look what's been happening with the prices of ALL 'stuff'' the past couple of months since The Fed started doing this QE2 (increasing the electronic money supply). Price of gas: up A LOT. Price of food: Up considerably. Price of clothing and just about everything else: up significantly. The price of gas is NOT going up because Middle East countries increased the value of their oil. They ARE charging us more but it is because all this artificial increase in our (electronic) money supply has devalued the dollar in international trade. It now takes 10% more dollars to buy a gallon of oil than just before The Fed started QE2 and, therefore, devalued the dollar. That's in just four months! Are you ready for Jimmy Carter type inflation? You'd better be because it may be coming if congress doesn't fix our economy soon.

Does this sound familiar from an environmental standpoint? As in "carbon credits"? Maybe they're just as fake (regarding reducing carbon emissions) as dollars are to banks and The Fed? Hmmmm. Another subject for another day perhaps.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Did You Know (Wisconsin Teachers Pension Vs Social Security)

Did you know? (Note: This is information I found on the internet and the Wisconsin retirement info is taken strictly from that state's official retirement website. There may be a few very small inaccuracies here and there but it's substantially accurate and I doubt that whatever small differences one might come up with wouldn't have much effect on the general points I'm obviously making. I'll be happy to update this with more accurate info if it's significant enough to affect my conclusions but I'm pretty confident in the info below.)
  1. Wisconsin teachers retiring after 30 years will receive around $40,000 per year from their pension fund. Those of us who don't have any pension money have to live on about half that much from Social Security. (By the way, most of those teachers receive both the teacher's pension AND Social Security so their total income in retirement is around $60,000 and I have to live on about 1/3 that amount. Seems fair to me that they're so upset over what the Wisconsin legislature wants to do. NOT!)
  2. Wisconsin teachers put an amount into their retirement fund approximately equal to only two or three years worth of what they collect in retirement. Ie, they get way more out of it than they put into it.
  3. Today's Social Security recipients will receive approximately as much as they put into the trust fund.
  4. Wisconsin teachers' benefits cost on a per student basis is among the highest in America. I've read that it was second only to New York in 2002.
  5. One of the reasons Wisconsin teachers receive so much in retirement is that their contributions are actually invested and earn interest while the federal government didn't invest any of the Social Security money. In fact, the federal government spent (ie, stole) the Social Security money it received into that trust fund. All of it. If they had invested the SS contributions as a trust fund should, there'd be plenty of money to pay Social Security retirement recipients and it wouldn't be anywhere close to bankrupting the country. At least Wisconsin handled their retirement funds properly!
  6. Nevertheless, Wisconsin teachers still receive more from their pension fund than their contribution plus interest. Guess who pays the balance?
  7. There are two answers to #6: A) mainly the citizens of Wisconsin who are still working and paying taxes and B) the rest of the country's taxpayers via various bailouts in recent stimulus money and in whatever future bailouts come from the federal government.
  8. By the way, guess where progressivism has its roots in America? Yep, Wisconsin. What a surprise, eh?
Question: if retired teachers receive more than they contribute plus interest doesn't it make sense that at some point that'll bankrupt the state just as is happening California and many other states? Wisconsin and any other government do not create a profit from which to make up the difference (the amount retirees receive in excess of what they contribute) ... they can only get extra money they need to pay lucrative retirement funds by increasing taxes on their citizens. Those citizens had NO SAY whatsoever in how lucrative those pension funds became. If those citizens are upset about that, haven't they a right to be? After all, it's their money that's basically being stolen from them without their okay.

To make matters worse, those teachers are making more in salary and benefits while working today than their counterparts in the private sector. So people who make less than they do for the same work will have to pay the balance of the teachers' retirement money beyond what the teachers themselves contributed. By what form of logic is that okay or even rational? That's taking from poorer people and giving it to richer people is it not? How's that progressive redistribution of wealth working out for y'all in Wisconsin?

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The 'Guilty' Ones Are Those IN THE LEGISLATURE Who Created And Mismanaged It All

Who, according to state and federal constitutions, has ULTIMATE (Bottom Line) authority and responsibility for spending, taxes and debt ... whether it's done well or poorly? Hint: it is NOT The People, governors OR the president! It is the Senate and House at state and federal levels, period!

When we have an unacceptable and/or unsustainable level of spending, IT IS NOT We The People who DID that. It's ALL the result of legislation and policies those in government created.

When we have an unacceptable and/or unsustainable level of debt, IT IS NOT We The People who DID that. It's ALL the result of legislation and policies those in government created.

When we have an unacceptable and/or unsustainable level of taxation, IT IS NOT We The People who DID that. It's ALL the result of legislation and policies those in government created.

AND IT IS ==>> NOT <<== the fault of those who benefitted from any 'government largesse' resulting from legislation. It ==>> IS <<== TOTALLY the fault of those in government who created the legislation and then usually ALSO mismanaged the resulting programs and policies. It ==>> IS <<== TOTALLY the fault of those in government who, KNOWING(!) that programs were going to cause fiscal/economic problems years or even decades(!) in advance, DID NOTHING OR TOO LITTLE TO FIX THE PROBLEMS. We The People RARELY IF EVER CAUSE THESE PROBLEMS but we are ==>> ALWAYS <<== the ones who MUST pay for the errors, arrogance and fundamental incompetence of those we entrust with the responsibility to take care of our governance; to whom we give the capability to do such awful harm to us.

I DO NOT accept the premise that they should be blindly excused because of their 'good intentions' because that's not an acceptable excuse for such gross fiscal ignorance and incompetence. There is NO acceptable excuse for not fixing these programs at the first hint of trouble. It is NOT an excuse for failing to fix it correctly and completely on their FIRST attempt to do so.

Is there room for excusing on the basis of good intentions? Some room, yes. For example, Social Security was well intended. But, legislatures IMMEDIATELY began mismanaging it by spending it all, rather than holding it in TRUST as they PROMISED! To make matters worse, they LIED to us who only lately have been finding out they spent it all, including all the surpluses that existed over the past 60 years! In addition, when they began to see this train wreck coming some 20 to 30 years(!) ago (they knew that long that this baby boom problem was coming ... they're not stupid!), they did little to fix it and basically kicked the can down the road for future legislatures to fix. ONLY the initial Social Security legislation gets a pass for good intentions. What they did to screw it up between then and now is nothing less than incompetence and complete failure to be responsible with it. And then they lied about what they were doing. Gads!

And what we're seeing they've done are not simply 'mistakes' unless we're to assume they're stupid. I prefer to think of all those lawyer and other professional types as being pretty smart. Most are college educated, many with multiple and highly technical degrees. If they're not smart enough to have figured out what problems THEY(!) were causing, then they've proven(!) they were incompetent to create and/or manage the programs that are bankrupting our country. If the programs were so complicated they couldn't be managed properly, they shouldn't have been created in the first place. There is nowhere for them to hide on this. They've been screwing these programs up for years.

Not only did they not fix problems that were coming, they LIED to us about what they were or were not doing about them. Lying about the extent to which their so-called fixes would actually fix the problems. Again, I don't buy the argument that they truly believed they were 'fixing' them. To accept that REQUIRES(!) us to accept they were stupid. I don't believe that. They've proven(!) themselves to have been at least incompetent however.

Pretty much every big 'social' program they've created has been mishandled to an astounding degree. Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid. Sub-Prime mortgage program. Various welfare programs in general. The first three are all about to bankrupt the country. The fourth one collapsed the housing and mortgage industries which in turn caused a serious recession. By the way, those programs are all pretty much the doing of the Democratic party, both in their creation and mismanagement. That's undeniably, factually true is it not? If not, how not? We ought to be mature/grownup about the reality of this because to ignore this truth will cause us not to fix the problems properly and to cause us to allow it (good intentions gone wrong and run amok) to happen again. We need to begin drilling down to the root of these kinds of problems. Not doing that will cause us to come up with fixes that don't really fix them. We can no longer afford to not fix things well the first time, can we?

Yes, it is Democrats who are mostly to blame for the current recession for at least two reasons. Their sub-prime mortgage program started out, like most things liberal/progressive, well-intended. First, Democrats mismanaged it and fought regulation of the program and of Fannie and Freddie. In fact, President Clinton required Fannie and Freddy to make half their mortgage holdings be this sub-prime type. The ONLY way F&F could do that is to loosen the qualification requirements ... no/little money down, no assessment of ability to pay it back, bad credit history's okay. Yes, F&F caused the sub-prime mess but it's because they had to ignore bad credit in order to do what Clinton required. Then Democrats fought regulation that even Bush attempted. Only one month before the sub-prime collapse bankrupted F&F, Barney Frank, the chairman of the committee responsible for F&F oversight, said F&F were sound and in NO danger of collapsing the way they did only a month later. He's a real visionary isn't he? Need any more proof these guys don't know what they're doing? Need any more proof that, based on actual history, we can COUNT ON these guys to mismanage big government/social programs? To think otherwise is to ignore actual history and the facts.

To blame Republicans for much of the failed programs OR mismanagement of them is erroneous to an extreme degree. After all, Democrats have held a veto-proof majority in one or both houses for 30 of the past 60 years while Republicans have done so ZERO times. Democrats, by virtue of creating all of those 'social' programs AND having the most control of these programs (via so much veto-proof control), clearly are the most at fault in allowing this to happen to our country.

As for ANY president's responsibility, remember that it is the legislature that (constitutionally!) has the most authority and responsibility over spending, taxes and debt. They legislatively control ALL those things. The president can only propose and veto. The legislature doesn't have to do what he proposes and they have the ability to override any of his vetoes. Bottom line: the legislature is responsible for both success AND failure in these areas, period, not the president.

Everybody makes mistakes. But patterns of repeated and severe screwups (severe enough to potentially collapse our entire economy) are inexcusable and should tell us something about the nature of our legislatures and the people we place therein. They've EARNED our complete distrust, have they not? They, and no one else, have for decades utterly failed in their fundamental (constitutional!) fiscal responsibilities. Bankruptcy and so much loss of freedom is too high a price for this progressive social engineering.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Don't Confuse "Balanced Budget" With Zero Debt!

So, president Obama offered a budget that he says saves a TOTAL of $1.1 Trillion in deficit spending over the next TEN years. (That's NOT $1.1 Trillion per year; it's $1.1 Trillion total or an average of about $100 Billion per year.) If you think that's good news, please consider some facts about what his budget ACTUALLY does:
  1. His 2012 budget proposal does NOT reduce spending. In fact, it INCREASES the budget deficit by $8 Billion next year. In other words, he's proposing spending $8 Billion MORE than last year's record amount.
  2. His 2012 $3.73 Trillion budget is NOT a spending decrease. In fact, it is a spending record!
  3. In fact, HE says in his newly announded 2012 budget proposal that, based on his proposed spending plan, the national debt will INCREASE from $14 Trillion now to $16.7 Trillion in the next 18 months. Wow, that's certainly an aggressive attack on the national debt, eh?
  4. The budget deficit this year will continue increasing to a record $1.65 Trillion record amount by year's end and THEN begin decreasing. SLOWWWWWWWLY. :-(
  5. Obama's new budget projects the budget deficit (not the debt!) to decrease to $1.1 Trillion by the end of 2012.
  6. #5 above does NOT mean the national debt begins to decrease at ANY time during the next ten years. A budget deficit of $1.1 Trillion at the end of 2012 means the NATIONAL DEBT INCREASES by that amount.
  7. Common Sense: Just because the budget deficit begins to decrease DOES NOT mean the national debt starts decreasing. The national debt doesn't begin decreasing until there is a budget surplus! ANY year in which there is ANY(!) budget deficit, the national debt increases by the amount of that deficit. ==>> The national debt won't START decreasing until the first year in which we have a BUDGET SURPLUS <<-- Ie, when we have more money coming into government coffers than going out!!! So that there is money left over(!) to use paying down the debt.
  8. In fact, Obama says in HIS new budget statement that BUDGET DEFICITS WILL CONTINUE FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT TEN YEARS(!) and will total $7.21 Trillion between now and then! The math is SIMPLE: In ten years the national debt will be $14 Trillion PLUS the $7.21 Trillion increase ... ie, Obama's 'wonderful' budget proposal means a $21.21 Trillion national debt by 2021!!! Does that sound to you like those yahoos in DC are getting a grip on THEIR outa control spending and debt? It doesn't sound like it to me!
  9. Regarding #7 above, do you have ANY idea how difficult it will be to achieve a budget surplus based on the history of congress' ability to produce surpluses? How long do you think it will take these yahoos on capitol hill to achieve an actual budget surplus? Until then the national debt will CONTINUE INCREASING!
If you think Obama is being aggressive with the national debt, please answer whether you think that continuing to increase the national debt year after year for at least ten MORE years (to $21.21 Trillion) according to Obama(!) represents fiscal responsibility.

To be fair, most of the debt increase over the next ten years is due to increases in entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and ObamaCare. The amount of new spending beyond those programs is not a big deal. So, to his credit and for a change, Obama is NOT proposing huge NEW spending in his budget planning over the next ten years. That's a good thing. However, he is nevertheless the guy in charge who is RESPONSIBLE for producing a plan to get entitlement spending under control. His 2012 budget SHOULD have included proposals how to solve/address the problem of entitlement spending that's on a course to bankrupt the country. HE DID NOT(!) propose ANYTHING to start addressing this problem. He should be LEADING THE COUNTRY in fixing this problem. He may not like having to do that but he is our country's CEO and leading us on fixing this IS his responsibility. He has no courage, much less any concept of the kind of leadership that Americans and the duties of his office require of him right now.

Question: Who exactly is going to act like a grownup in DC and start leading the country in fixing this? It is NOT We The People who are responsible to fix it. In fact, WE CANNOT! It IS the responsibility of the president AND congress. President Obama's new budget IRRESPONSIBLY dodges the issue!

Too Much Worry About The Wrong Thing

Sad headlline on MSNBC's website today ('First Read'): "A budget with re-election in mind"

I'm a believer in sticking to the basics and taking care of job one. Take care of the basics and many (most) of the things that end up causing us worry will take care of themselves. Love and respect your spouse ... your marriage will thrive and last. Students, concentrate on learning the material you're given (rather than grades in and of themselves) and grades will take care of themselves.

As for the headline above: Politicians, look out for The People and re-elections will take care of themselves! Most of those knuckleheads in DC worry about the wrong things. Do the will of those who elect you and re-elections will take care of themselves.

That's a tad over-simplified of course but it's nevertheless TRUE that politicians are focused on the wrong things for the most part. Instead of re-election, focus on what The People and Constitutional Principles demand of you and things will tend to work out better for everyone!

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Want To Know Whether An Islamified Government Might Be Okay Where You Live?

Here's some info on the Muslim view of things from Pew Research. Note that this is NOT just the views of 'radical elements' but, rather, of mainstream Muslims in countries possessing a Muslim majority or at least a significant population percentage. For the most part, I'll let the information speak for itself and only add a couple of comments following the link.

http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/#prc-jump

These beliefs, unarguably extreme by Western standards, appear to be consistent with the Quran, at least among those saying these are their beliefs. In fact, if you're paying attention, we're beginning to see these beliefs manifest themselves in European countries so it's not foolish to consider it could become an issue here in the USA too. If you doubt this, do an internet search on where the leadership of England, France and Germany stand on multi-culturalism (which they(!) say has resulted in such extreme beliefs becoming fought-for there).

So, it appears to be a question of when, not if, we'll have to deal with it here in the USA. Question to you is, where do you stand on this relative to the history of our culture and the freedom we enjoy today? Trying to remain neutral or accommodating on this is more likely to ensure it'll become an issue for us because the 'forces' behind these beliefs appear to be pretty determined based on the fact of things going on world-wide, irrespective of whatever may be about to play out in Egypt.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Pew Research Report On History Of Muslim Brotherhood

The highly-respected Pew Research group issued a report on Sept 15, 2010 about the history and evolving philosophies of the Muslim Brotherhood. It needs to be read and understood in order to conclude whether The Brotherhood is a threat of any significant kind. Here's the link to that report:
http://pewforum.org/Muslim/Muslim-Networks-and-Movements-in-Western-Europe-Muslim-Brotherhood-and-Jamaat-i-Islami.aspx

To be fair, The Brotherhood isn't as idiologically extreme as it has been historically. Nevertheless, it still appears to have as its primary goal the Islamification of all countries, including the establishment of Sharia Law everywhere. The answer to the question how far are they willing to go to achieve that end has gotten fuzzy in recent years but philosophically they still(!) appear prepared to do whatever it takes. One has to answer for one's self the question, what will they likely do when (not if) they run into opposition they cannot overcome by more peaceful means?

They appear more focused now on supporting the growth of Islam and the needs of Muslims on a very non-secular basis. To what end is the question begging an answer. If their goal is still the Islamification of the entire world, is their intention now no less an aggressive overthrowing of all non-Muslim societies? Whether such an aggressive overtaking of societies is non-violent, it is still a focus on the elimination of all non-Muslim societies. It would be foolish to confuse that with peaceful intentions ... just because they do it by 'peaceful' (non-terrorist, non-militaristic) means.

To say their actions are 'peaceful' now is to ignore their stated goal (Islamification of the world) which is anything but peaceful living with the rest of the world. Living in peace with the rest of the world means to respect and support the rights and mores of other cultures and societies, not overwhelming their governments with your own culture and idiological beliefs whether by peaceful means or not. Are their means and goals no less directed at nation-building than militaristic and diplomatic methods employed by powerful nations such as Russia and the US?

To me, it appears that the Islamification of all societies is being pursued on two separate but parallel paths. One violent, the other peaceful. But they have as their common goal the eventual replacement of all governments with Islamic (Sharia) rule. For self-interest purposes, non-Muslim societies need to understand the seriousness of the threat of both means. If non-Muslim societies don't want Islamic rule they have to decide whether and how to oppose either/both pursuits effectively.

It appears to me that pursuing multi-culturalism and accommodation is to allow an open door to the aggressive (although peaceful-appearing) Islamist elements. Trying to live in peace with people who have as their declared and rather strong idiological goal taking over your society (peacefully or not) is a fool's errand, is it not? What do the strong tend to do with the weak (appearing)? Is appearing weak an invitation to the peacefully or violently aggressive to take advantage of us? What if we do want to keep what we have society-wise? Where do we draw the line that gives us the assurance(!) that action will work? How and when do we draw it? First, we need to truly, rationally understand what we're up against, whether our way of life is worth defending, what we need to do to keep it, and whether we're willing to do what that means is necessary.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

It's SO Lame I've Gotta Highlight It Again!

Our National Intelligence Director, James Clapper, just said the Muslim Brotherhood is non-violent and secular. It's bad enough he thinks this group is non-violent but how CAN a group be both Muslim AND secular? And he's in charge of America's national "intelligence"? OMG!

So, Obama's Head Of National Intelligence Thinks That The Muslim Brotherhood Is A Non-Violent Secular Group! Huh?

I could go on and on about how wrong our current Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Clapper, is about the Muslim Brotherhood but here's a link that does it for me:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/258419/fear-muslim-brotherhood-andrew-c-mccarthy

Basically, the Muslim Brotherhood's STATED OBJECTIVE is to PRETEND to be cooperative and peaceful ONLY as long as necessary to get enough power to overthrow ALL governments and install Islamic rule. Violence is not only acceptable but is expected for the final phases of such takeovers. They are NEITHER non-violent NOR secular! Do some internet research yourself and you'll easily(!) find more information backing up what is claimed in the link above.

How our DNI can come to his conclusion (they eschew violence, opposed Al Qaeda(!) and are a secular group) should be a concern to all. HE, if anyone, ought to have a better grip on reality regarding what this group has done and is willing to do to establish Islamic rule/law everywhere. How can our leaders make rational decisions regarding national security policies when the people in charge of giving them rational information have their heads operating in la-la land? How safe can we expect to be when the organization responsible for terrorist threat analysis is so out of touch with reality?

By the way, Mr. Clapper, how can a group be both Muslim AND secular? DUH?!?! Is that just about the dumbest thing you've ever heard? And he's in charge of national 'intelligence'!?!?

This is not the first nonsensical thing this guy has said but this Muslim Brotherhood statement is the most bizzare I've heard from him so far. How he manages to keep his job is a mystery.

Do you feel safer with Mr. Clapper in charge of the organization that assesses national security threats? I sure don't!

Monday, February 7, 2011

Obama's Take On Being Very Liberal And Being On The Receiving End Of 'Hate'

Bill O'Reilly's interview of President Obama prior to yesterday's Super Bowl was very interesting. The president's trying to convince us all that he's a center-left kind of guy. Leaves me saying to myself, HUH?

I'll get back to that but first wanted to remark about another subject they covered. O'Reilly asked him how it feels to be on the receiving end of people's ire, in particular any feelings of hate toward him. (A big reason O'Reilly asked that is because O'Reilly receives much hate himself, including death threats.) One of Obama's responses was interesting: "The folks who hate you, they don't know you." If he believes that and, apparently he does, then why does he think it only applies to Democratic leadership? How is it that someone who feels that way about hate (hating someone without knowing them) can encourage hateful attitudes toward those of us on The Right as he did his first two years in office? "Sit and be quiet" he said. There's plenty of irrational and vile hate from The Left toward tea-party types but I guess he has no problem with that. Must think it's justified, eh? Even though the hateful ones don't understand us and don't care to. Hypocritical isn't it? Not to mention being totally unfair to others in ways he doesn't want them to be unfair to him. For a guy who doesn't like to receive harsh judgement when someone doesn't know him very well, he sure can dish it out. Being fair to people is a one-way street with him.

We hear hateful things directed at us all the time when all we're doing is expressing a belief and challenging the liberals' actions. We take it rather well by comparison I think. Mr. President, either deal with hate from all sides fairly and forcefully or just stop whining.

As for Obama saying he's not as liberal as people have portrayed him to be, he's been a proud leader of progressive legislation for the past two years. A very reasonable argument can be made that he's at least a border-line socialist. He does(!) believe that government IS the solution to most if not all of our big problems. And then has the audacity to compare himself with Reagan who said (and believed) "government IS the problem". To believe he's not very liberal, one has to ignore his voting record as a senator, his legislation from his first two years in office, his actual words about things like 'redistribution of wealth', and much else he has said and done his entire political life. Of course it's a ridiculous notion to consider him anything but quite far left politically. Just how gullible does he think we are? Pretty gullible, eh?

The ONLY reason he's claiming he's not so far left is because of last November's election. One thing he is NOT is stupid. He's a really smart guy. Give him credit for that! To the extent people believe what he has said and done for his entire political life, especially as president, there's little liklihood that he can get re-elected in 2012. (Gads! That's next year!) He's smart and he's pragmatic. For sure(!) he'll say whatever's necessary to get elected regardless how untrue it is. And he'll "move" ONLY as far right legislatively as necessary to get re-elected. He's done it before (as before his last election) and there's no reason to believe he won't do it again. Besides being smart, he's pragmatic. Completely idiological but pragmatic too. The problem with it is that he makes a strong effort to hide where his heart lies politically. It's next to impossible to measure this man based on what he tells us. His political actions and maneuvering speak volumes when examined carefully.

I like to make a what-if argument to help understand truth in situations like this. In the case of his pronouncements that he's not all that liberal, I like to imagine what will happen after the 2012 election if he's re-elected and Democrats regain full control of both the House and Senate, including a veto-proof majority at least in the senate. Is there ANY doubt whatsoever that he'd head off in the same direction again as he labored his first two years? C'mon, be realistic. Can you doubt at all that he'd operate at least as progressively? Even more so probably because it would be his last opportunity (term limits) to make so much 'progress' for the progressive movement. Use your head people! Of course he would! There can be no doubt about it whatsoever.

The only reason he's willing to work with Republicans now is because he has to! Yes, it is more than lip service but, he's a pragmatic guy who knows what's required in order to leave office with historic progressive accomplishments behind him. He wants to out-progressive Hoover and Roosevelt, plain and simple. The only way he can do that is to get re-elected next year, along with Democrats regaining control of the House and veto-proof control of the senate. He will be totally committed to doing the best he can to ensure it happens, no matter how far right he has to 'act' in the meantime. And it will be an act. Then, after the 2012 elections, he'll resume his quest of becoming a progressive legend regardless what it does to our freedom and the constitutional(!) principle of small government and little debt.

He likes to promote transparency and then do the opposite. He likes to think we believe his words (that he saw the light in the last election and will change) and not his actions (how he has lived his entire political life). And he likes to think we're so stupid that we can't see who he really is. While his legislation is anything but transparent, he's one of the most transparent people I know. The emporer wears a mask to fool The People but has no clothes.