dailybeacon

Chrysler isn’t owned by the government but you would never know it since our government has now told them they have to accept a buyout by Italian Fiat.  So, our government is forcing a private company to be sold to a foreign company.  Should there be a continued meeting of the minds to help the company survive?  That would certainly seem reasonable, however, if this was the only option when Chrysler accepted stimulus money, why were they allowed to accept tax dollars in the first place?  The money is gone, with nothing to show for it.  Billions of dollars down the tube.  Taxpayers get bit in the butt again and the government continues to expand its powers into uncharted territory, uncharted and dangerous territory. 

Apparently the government isn’t in a recession.  President Obama can rationalize taking 500 people to England for the upcoming G2o summit, 500 people?  I wonder what the carbon footprint of that trip is?  Is this Obama’ s individual stimulus plan for five hundred staffers and England, to the additional demise of our own economy, as he spends our tax dollars overseas.  Another off the chart decision.  Other people’s money strikes again.  This is becoming more like a monarchy every day.  Maybe that’s why they’re really going to England, so they can take notes on how it is done.

Are you kidding me!!!  Obama’s latest attack on the free enterprise system proves that his view of our economy is getting closer to a dictatorship than a free economy.  The forced removal of GM’s CEO should send chills down every American’s spine.  Rationalizing that if GM takes bailout funds that the government somehow has the right to administrate their business is just that, “rational lies.”   Have automakers done things wrong, yes, and the marketplace is responding to that.  If a socialist country like Sweden won’t even bail out their auto maker, thaat should clearly indicate the first problem in this equation but then to forcibly remove the head of a private company in a free society, is over the top.  Almost every day, it just gets more ridiculous and frightening at the same time.

We’re in trouble.  If you don’t see it, you’re living in the wrong country.

In a recent speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that must have made teacher’s unions all over the country momentarily stop breathing, President Obama actually proposed merit pay for teachers who are effective and hinted at a more expedient way to remove ineffective teachers from the profession.  As should be expected the president of the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association, among others, opposed merit pay in lieu of increasing teacher salaries based on more education and board certifications and nothing tied to improved test scores.  As if any certifications make weak teachers better.  Why would we want to base teacher pay on the same values other professions have: performance.  The common sense of merit pay and accountability escapes the educational community by and large because it places responsibility squarely where it belongs, on the people who deliver the educational curriculum of a district.  More money by itself does not make a teacher better, otherwise students in the poorest districts would never graduate successfully from college and many do.  Teaching ability, commitment, and high expectations serve to make both teachers and students better.  So, thank you Mr. Obama for finally saying something that I can heartily agree with but given how you are now waffling on your first reactions on the remarkable bonuses paid by TARP recipients, I expect to see the same when the various teachers’ unions cry foul and they will LOUDLY.  Given all the monies they spent electing you, VERY LOUDLY.  Please don’t because this system needs to rapidly change.  The irony of the MTEA’s president’s remarks is that in most districts, teachers’ education costs are also paid by districts, actually by the taxpayers, but don’t ask you to be accountable, actually to improve learning.  The nerve!

In the classic using of other people’s money a bank in Rhode Island, the year after firing 121 employees, received $7 Billion in Tarp money.  Given the state of the economy, would it be too much of a stretch to think that at least some of that money might be used to either bring a few of those folks back, loan it to customers in their home state, or something to add some impetus to the local economy?  But no, they sent it to China.  Seven billion tax dollars that haven’t even been collected yet and already it’s out of the country and the economy.  Is it a stretch to think that this is not an isolated incident?  Neel Kashkari, assistant treasury secretary, said during his testimony on the Hill Wednesday, that the treasury department is depending on bank examiners to track where the bank bailout is going.  I think these same examiners were monitoring the banks when everything went out to pasture.  Does anyone besides me have any additional concern about this revelation?  The treasury should be marking every bill to see where it goes because without that oversight, billions will be wasted with no return to the taxpayer and with no watchdog, without record.  This change is worse, maybe worse than it has ever been.

That’s right, up to 4.3 billion gallons of oil sitting approximately 1,000 feet below the surface of the Bakken Formation of North and South Dakota and Montana.  Enough oil to support our economy for about forty years with NO additional Middle Eastern oil used.  President Bush authorized drilling in ‘06 but to date only 107 million gallons have been harvested, a proverbial drop in the bucket.  Do you think if it was flowing, the cost of oil from the Middle East might even be less expensive than $43 a barrel?
The reasonable question would be, why isn’t it being drilled?  Is the Middle East funding environmental groups to keep it off the market?  Is it the Democratic Congress, in power since ‘06?  There is no reasonable answer, or at least one with common sense.  Add this resource to off shore drilling and Alaska’s untapped reserves and we could be oil independent for the natural lives of everyone alive now in the United States and beyond.  That’s real economic stimulus.  We could pay down a majority of our debt to China with the receipts, oops, but then our citizens wouldn’t have to depend on the government to bail us out.  As long as President Obama is in office, that’ll never happen.  Let’s be held hostage for at least four more years and plus the time it takes to build the infrastructure to harvest our own resources.  Vote liberal and keep us in tax hell and beholden to the Middle East and now even the Taliban.  Great thinking

What in the world is this ridiculous flap over Rush Limbaugh’s statement about “hoping that he fails” when referring to President Obama.  Like every liberal in America wasn’t hoping that President Bush would fail.  Give me a break.  Anyone opposed to Obama’s policies hopes he fails because his beliefs are wrong for the country and the only way we’ll get it right is if people see it’s not going to help in the long run.  The problem is that a majority of Americans today only care about the short run.  More and more would rather get something for “free” instead of having to work for it.  Entitlements paralyze because they create a path of least resistance to getting something for nothing, even if everyone else has to pay for the “nothing”.  Necessity is still the mother of invention but if I don’t have to work my way out, I don’t need to use any creativity and everyone suffers.

   It’s great to see that President Obama is bringing change.  No earmarks.  Right.  The problem is that there are so many zeros in the number of earmarks in the current $410 Billion dollar spending package, that the Democrats must think that it means zero earmarks.  $200,000 for tattoo removal.  How do we get jobs out of that?  How does that work towards getting the economy going again, or over a million for studying manure odor in Iowa.  This is not just a Democratic problem, some so-called Republicans are joining in the fray and submitting to the temptation of giving in to special interests, for their own interests of buying support to get re-elected.  If the President were true to his campaign word and vetoed a 9,000 earmark laden bill, maybe the change that he promised would have some teeth.  He’s hoping of course, that three years from now no one will remember and with a press not holding him accountable, he’s probably right.  The joke is still on us.

According to Obama administration, one way to stimulate business is to unionize, whether you like it or not.  That’s right, under a current proposal, if a business and employees are unable to reach a bargaining agreement to begin unionization, the two sides go before a government arbitrator who IMPOSES a two year union agreement.  Of course, one of the first targets will be Walmart, who because of their current refusal can continue to offer discount prices to the general public.  Do you suppose that the pricing will change with union involvement?  Do you think that might have an impact on how much is purchased?  Can you possibly see that this move will add to the slide to depression, perhaps faster than any other single move of this already insane economic policy?  If you don’t, you don’t understand how a free market works.  If you don’t think that union involvement in the car industry hasn’t contributed to the current demise, or the educational system, or professional athletes, and the list goes on you’re not paying attention.

   Freedom, in order to be viable, requires responsibility.  When unions began, it was a legitimate response to irresponsible, greed-based management.  If owners had been treating employees fairly, unions would not have been necessary.  However, now unions are making irresponsible demands on business for the same greed-based reason, so there needs to be a reeling in, but a Democratic Congress and Administration, heavily funded during the election process by union dollars, are always going to be beholden to that influence.  This proposal is wrong.  Workers should have the freedom to choose yes or no to union membership by secret ballot and if no, that’s the end.  But a change here is being pushed so that employees, fearful of retaliation for voting no, are forced to vote in public ballot and will be coerced/forced to vote yes.  That is a far cry from freedom which assumes freedom to choose.  We should all have the freedom to choose, except when a life is at stake.