Saturday, June 13, 2009

What is a Czar, and Why Does Obama Have 16 of Them?

Czar – noun

1. An Emperor or king
2. An Autocratic ruler or leader
3. Any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field


Before you get worked up over the definition of a Czar, it should be known that we have used them in our history before. Roosevelt was the first president to use Czars in his administration, they were, at the time called Dictators. They were in place to regulate certain parts of commerce, similar to the Obama administration. Nixon used Czars as well but calling them “Dictators” would be a bad political move, so he named them Czars. They have been used by a few presidents since, rarely and in cases of Emergency because of the power they hold.

The power Czars have is the reason they are used. Like the president, they are part of the Executive branch, and do NOT answer to the congress. They are not appointed by congress and go through no vetting process. They can claim executive power if they are asked to testify before congress, and do not have to answer questions to congress, or the American people. Obviously they are not elected officials so the American people have no say in who gets the job, and if they do a poor job, only the President can remove them.

Under the Obama administration, Czar Usage has been taken to a whole new level. In the few months that Obama has been in office he has appointed 16 Czars, they include,

· Energy Czar, Carol Browner
· Border Czar, Alan Berstein
· Pay Czar, Kenneth Feinberg
· Car Czar (Leader of small taskforce), Steve Rattner
· Urban Czar, Adolfo Carrion Jr
· Infotech Czar Vivek Kundra
· Faith Czar, Joshua DuBois
· Health Reforme Czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle
· TARP Czar, Herb Allison
· Stimulus Accountability Czar, Earl Devaney
· Non-Proliferation Czar, Gary Samore
· Terrorism Czar, John Brennan
· Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein
· Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske
· Guantanamo Closure Czar, Damiel Fried
· Great Lakes Czar, Cameron Davis

Credit to David J Rothkopf for is Article on for many on the list!

Together this List of Czars oversee Billions of US Tax Dollars and they don’t have to answer to Congress or anyone. Obama doesn’t have to go before Congress to get approval to spend he just appoints another Czar. The Irony behind these Czars, most of them mirror current administrations in our Government. There is a Department of Homeland Security, and Border and Terror Czars, a FDA and a Drug Czar, a Securities and Exchange Committee, and US Treasury, but also Pay Czar, and Regulatory Czar, the list goes on. Why would be the incentive to use Czars over current branches of Government to get the Job done?

That is where Regulation, Power and Control fit into the big picture. The current forms of Administrations all answer to the Congress, they Report to the President but Answer to Congress. They get all their funding from Congress and Congress has the power over them. This has been part of our government’s “checks and balances” for hundreds of years, and is Vital to our Country’s freedom. With this significant entourage of Dictators, oops I mean Czars, the Obama administration gets to exert MORE Executive power over other Agencies of the Government. Who knows how long this List of Czars will get, it seems at this rate Obama will fufil his promise to create 100K jobs this summer by appointing 100K Czars to his Administration.

While many on this list of Czars were appointed more as figureheads to fulfill promises during his campaign, they still oversee Billion of US Tax Dollars and are completely unregulated. For instance the Great Lakes Czar to, “Oversee the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to clean up the Great Lakes,” is not really a big deal, I mean they only have 5 Billion to spend (Obama was praised by the Media having a task force appointed to save 100 million from the budget over the course of 90 Days). Some of these Czars oversee Hundreds of Millions of Dollars, and in the example of the Pay Czar, will be pushing for controversial private sector regulations on the Salaries of executives. Regulations like this should be going through Congress and the US Treasury, not a person who answers to “no one except the president”.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Voters polled fail to identify leaders in the Republican Party

If the republicans are going to emerge as a viable political party, they need a leader. On today’s front page of the USA Today an article shows the results of a recent poll. This poll was conducted to see who people thought the “Voice” of the Republican Party is. The results show Rush Limbaugh in 1st place with 13% of the vote, followed by Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Newt, 52% had no clue. I guess the Irony behind the results are the fact that despite the poll showing all of the leaders being, “Old White Balding Males”, as the article put it, in truth the leader of the RNC is a Younger (then them) African American Male.

After seeing the article featured on MSNBC, with both the anchors eating up every opportunity to criticize and get a laugh out of the reality of the RNC challenges, I figured it was important to shed some light on the matter. Yes there are Old Republicans, but in life older generally meets with wiser. When voters were polled during the 2008 Election, they overwhelmingly said that McCain had the Experience, but Barak Obama won on “Change”.

When it comes down to it, if you can’t win on your weaknesses you have to play to your strengths. The older Republicans should be using their experience in politics to turn things over on the media and the Democrats. It seems all too often the younger Republicans will not come forward and step up to be a voice, because they are afraid of the Obama Popularity and his following. Look at what happened with the Arlen Specter, he was so worried his district would switch parties, essentially because of the popularity of Obama, for which he has been a republican in for years, would switch on him. To save reelection he flopped parties.

In contrast to what the party IS doing, what they SHOULD be doing is playing to the real base that is out there. Many studies have been done to show that the Country, as a whole, is a Center Right country. Just look at the flip Abortion has done in the last year, more people now consider themselves Pro-Life than Pro-Choice. People WANT a leader that can compromise to get things done, that can cut spending without making it harder on Americans, and a leader that doesn’t make radical points just to get media attention.

Rush Limbaugh has not emerged as a “Voice for republicans” but as a “Voice for Liberals to Label Republicans with”. Rush IS the voice of talk radio, and he makes allot of good points, but sometimes he takes it a little too far, and when in the spotlight, that just leads to talking points on Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann Shows. Allot of people on the Right, and people that really understand Washington and Politics, understand rush, but be is alienating the Center Right people, because of controversial comments.

Bill O’reilly on Fox News has toned down somewhat lately and is a good voice for the older Generation, and Glenn Beck in the Afternoon is a good voice for Younger Republicans, but hardly anyone sees him because he is on at 5:00. I know my wife has become a big Glenn Beck fan because he really explains things in a down to earth straightforward laid out kind of way, a way that normal people can understand and say “Wow I never looked at the spending that way.” That is what Conservatives need more of, leaders that point out, in quick 2 minute economics lessons, the true consequences of Liberal Ideals.

Lastly I will conclude with a couple Videos from “10000Pennies” They are incredibly informative example on Jobs and the Stimulus plan, and how the Stimulus money is being spent.

This one is on the Budget cuts Obama Promised

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

North Korea, A Weak Man, A Madman, and A Bomb and you get a BOOM

N. Korea Arms Parade

The politics that our President is using with North Korea are showing the World that we do not mean business when it comes to Terror. North Korea has always done what they can to get into the headlines, either by threatening other countries or their public desire to obtain Nuclear power. Under President Bush, N. Korea agreed to stop their nuclear program in exchange for getting taken off the list of “State Sponsors of Terrorism”. Being off the terror list allows them to have access to financial resources and United Nations money and food aid. President Bush got them to disarm by being firm with them, you have to show us you’re willing to work with us and then we will do the same for you.

Now starting with the long range missile that they fired over the coast of Alaska earlier this year, they are testing the Obama Administration to see how far they can go. The line was drawn in the sand by the Bush administration, No Missiles, and no nukes or your back on the list. Since Obama has taken office N. Korea has tested a long range missile, which is capable of reaching its nearby countries in Asia as well as Alaska. They have also tested countless short range missiles that can reach South Korea AND have started up the nuclear refining facility that they closed under Bush. Each of these things independently would get them back on the list, let alone all three.

Recent Satellite Images of N. Korea Nuke Plant

The Obama administration has responded by first asking them politely to stop what they are doing. Then once N. Korea publicly admitted they detonated a Nuclear Bomb underground and started up their refining plant, Obama asked the United Nations, to ask N. Korea, to please stop. After the UN asked N. Korea to stop they began testing short range missiles that they could use in an offensive against S Korea, or sell to other countries or terrorists. To this day, Weeks after the Nuke Test was confirmed and Months after the Long Range Missile test, N. Korea is still NOT on the Terror List. The only thing the Obama Administration has done right through all of this is to put US Navy ships off their shore to inspect vessels leaving N. Korea for Weapons.

It’s clear that N. Korea wants Nukes, and they have admitted they are looking for buyers for the technology. One of those buyers is potentially Iran, who has been pursuing Nuclear power for the past 4 years. Not only is Obama letting N. Korea slide on this issue but he has also PUBLICLY stated Iran should be free to pursue Nuclear power, if they intend to use it for the right reasons, despite saying they want to “Wipe Israel off the map” (Our one and only ally in the middle east).

It seems like our President thinks that if he is “nice” to all of our enemies then they will turn into our allies. In theory that might be a good principal, but in reality, this is a big nasty world with people that absolutely hate us and our way of life. Simply being nice to them and letting them have their way will NOT make them our friend, and on top of that, in this process they are becoming more powerful every day.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Why is California in such a Financial Crisis?

California is one of the most Liberal states in the country. Whether is it the Gay Marriage Debate, Illegal Immigration, or Women’s Rights, they have always been leading the way. Part of these more “liberal” principals is higher taxes on everyone, but mostly on the rich, used to pay for a large state government with many social programs. They have VERY high property taxes and very high state and local taxes. They also use a more progressive system then most states do. (The higher your income the higher the percentage of taxes you pay). With a top income tax rate (Including Payroll tax) on a Small Business owner in California of 61%, this system is opening the door for people to move Away from California and into other states that have lower taxes.

Texas is a good example of one of the states that is “taking” taxpayers from California. They have had little to no job losses in many metropolitan areas throughout this recent recession. By contrast to California’s 10.5% State Tax, Texas has No State income tax, so a family making $1,000,000 a year in California, saves $105,000 a year to move to Texas. Other states that have No State income tax are Washington Wyoming Nevada Florida North Dakota and Alaska.
On top of the problem of many high income taxpayers moving away, many of California’s cities advertise as “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants. They have been vocal with their unwillingness to seek out and send back immigrants that have not yet obtained legal status. This includes not only expired visas but immigrants that have just hopped over the border fence. The Sanctuary Cities do not deport immigrants even if they have been convicted of nonviolent crimes, and in some cases release, on bail, criminals awaiting trial of violent crimes including rape and murder.

An Idaho illegal offered $250,000 bail after being arrested for rape, after the victim, A 10 YEAR OLD GIRL gave birth to his baby.

All of the illegal immigrants in California and any other state they reside in are allowed full access to public schools and public welfare programs. The public school system in Arizona was SUED (and lost) because they reported a family of Illegal Immigrants to customs when one of their kids was caught dealing drugs in middle school. The Supreme Court determined that Education is a right for Anyone residing in the US, and it is Illegal for the school system to report anyone to Immigration Officials. On top of that the immigrants that do work are taking jobs that could potentially be filled by the millions currently on the welfare rolls. While those jobs are Low Paying they are generally the type of job that many on our welfare system would be qualified for.

What Californians face are High Taxes, Overpopulated Schools, undocumented Illegal immigrants filling up the Jail and Court system, and now with the recession, a jam packed unemployment system. On top of all that, as more and more people get fed up and leave, the budget deficit grows and more social programs are cut, leading to LESS overall benefit from the high taxes that are being paid. The only solution now is for the Obama Administration to give California a bailout with Federal Tax dollars. That means that everyone in the country, even those not residing in CA, or receiving any benefit from CA overspending have to pay their bill.

Over time, policy like this will hurt states like Texas and Florida, because Federal taxes will be raised to even out the state taxes. The Liberal states will not make it if people keep moving away, and they need to reduce that incentive, by forcing the raising of taxes in low tax states. Sometime in the future if things continue on this path I could see the state taxes becoming controlled by the Federal Government instead of the individual states. It’s a long shot, and maybe a conspiracy theory, but I see no other way for California to keep taxpayers from moving away and NOT lowering their own taxes.

On a side note I do give credit to California for some of the best state park in the nation, they have done a AMAZING job of keeping the pristine beauty of California preserved for generations. I lived there for 9 years and I absolutely loved it there in that sense. I also would like to say that I have nothing against Hispanic Immigrants, I am not a racist, but I believe in LEGAL immigration being the best way to move here. I wholeheartedly support anyone that wants to move to this country if they apply for visa, live here and apply for citizenship the right way. I even support them if they get a worker visa and leave or reapply when it expires. I do NOT support the migration of ILLEGAL Immigrants, or the renaming of ILLEGAL immigrants “Migrant workers” because “migrant workers” get VISAS.

Thanks for reading your comments are welcome and encouraged.

Friday, June 5, 2009

How will Cap And Trade affect all of us and what will it cost?

What IS Cap and Trade?

Basically that "Cap" is a total emission output cap on any polluting company inside the US. So picture your electric company, they put out Carbon Dioxide as they burn coal for electricity, (Carbon Dioxide is what every living mammal exhales when we breathe). The limits would be set to be strict to begin with, making them turn down output, and the restrictions would get Stricter year after year.

The "Trade" part allows companies that produce fewer emissions then they are allowed to can sell their allowance to the companies that overproduce emissions for cash transactions.

The Government will set up a market for this trade and collect a percentage of all the transaction. Some companies including General Electric (Parent Company of CNN, MSNBC, NBC and CNBC) are already working on technology to streamline this transition and positioning them to be very profitable from this transition.


Here is a quote from the Center For American Progress on what the government can do with the money raised: "it would create a large and dependable revenue stream. These financial resources could be used to achieve critical public policy objectives related to climate change mitigation and economic development."

So Global Warming becomes Climate change when it is discovered that the world is not warming nearly as fast as we thought. Then we make laws to control global warming anyway, even though it’s not quite global warming anymore. Last we use the money from those laws to enact more "critical public policy objectives" related to the Global Warming, that well isn’t really quite global warming. This is limilar to GM, soon to be Governement Green Motors under the new control that the Obama Administration has.

Okay now that we know what Cap And Trade is, how will it affect us? A Liberal organization at MIT did a study earlier this year that puts the Consumer cost of Cap and Trade as it is proposed at $1600-$4900 per household. Unfortunately it is not something you can hide from, if Gas taxes are raised you can ride your bike, but this tax will affect EVERYTHING you buy. The CEO of a Pennsylvania Power company said that electricity rates will go up by 60% and that their company has EVERY intention of passing 100% of the costs onto consumers. The trickledown effect is astounding when you think about it, you fridge is made in a factory, and to replace it will cost more. Your electricity will obviously cost more and so will your Laundry Detergent, your Shampoo, and the new laptop you were trying to buy. Your produce isn’t made in a factory and neither is beef from the store, but they are raised with Farm Equipment, that will cost the farmer more to buy as well as the pesticides he uses on the produce.

The effect on the economy unfortunately goes even farther than just what it will cost you and your family. A Concrete manufacture that employs 80 people in Los Angeles said on CNBC that if Cap and Trade takes effect it will cost him much more to manufacture Concrete than his competition just south across the border. He will likely close down and retire, leaving the most of the Concrete for LA to be manufactured in Mexico, where they have even lower standards for emissions then here. On a Per Unit basis (in this case cubic yards of concrete) MORE pollution will be generated AND US jobs will be lost. This is just typical of MANY companies that will face rising costs and mounting foreign competition.

In Truth, something needs to be done about pollution and CO2 Emissions. I really believe in taking care of our planet and "cleaning up" after the human race is important, but this is clearly NOT the way to do it. More things will be made in other countries that are not regulated like Canada, Mexico, China, and India. More jobs will be lost and the US consumer will bear the burden of some real steep taxes.

Link to MIT Study

What does "Green" have to do with the automakers and How will all of us be Affected?

Years ago it was not uncommon for a Family sized car to get 12-15 Miles per Gallon of gas. Nowadays because of new technology, consumer demand and rising fuel prices cars on the road typically get upwards of 30 MPG on the highway and some get up near 40. Some new rules have been put in over the last several years requiring car companies to up the MPG on most models. Although allot of those rules were more "suggestions" then true enforceable laws. Now in the Obama administration a new law has just been signed that Forces automakers to up fuel economy by very large amounts, in all cars, including SUVs and large trucks.

This new law has been driven by a not quite new, but highly formidable force in the "Green Movement". First off I will say that Green is definitely good, everyone should Recycle, they should put effort into using less excess, create less trash by not using Styrofoam plates. Unfortunately some people including our leaders and scientists want to take the Green movement MUCH farther. A law was passed the congress under the First George W. Bush administration that allowed scientist to testify under oath in congress and state things as "Fact" when they could not be scientifically proven. This was in essence to allow them to say things like "The temperature of our planet WILL rise by 2 degrees causing mass destruction, and the sea level to rise 20 feet in 10 years if we don’t do something". This is the "Global Warming" that Al Gore was and IS a Huge proponent for, (Which is now called "Climate Change" because despite scientist "Facts" in the 1990's the Earth hasn’t Warmed in the last 30 years).

Over the recent past, allot of Corporations have jumped on the green bandwagon offering everything from eco safe laundry detergent to eco safe house paint. efforts have been taken to require people to use Eco Safe light bulbs, even though in testing of an entire city in Indiana they found that when Eco Bulbs were used, overall the town consumed MORE electricity because it didn’t cost them "as much" to leave the lights on.

"So how does this affect me and the cars that I will buy in the future?"

Well, now with the Government having controlling interest in General Motors and a Minority stake in Chrysler, they have control over a huge portion of vehicle manufacturing in America. What’s for better or worse is they also control the Rules that will govern ALL the automakers. The Obama Administration holds the white house and the Democrats hold the House, Senate and soon to be Supreme Court, they also have a large enough majority that they don’t need a Single Republican vote to pass ANY laws. So when Obama says that GM will build the "New generation of Eco Safe cars Americans Want to buy", is it possible the second half of that statement is False?

68% of Hybrid car owners said they bought the car for...

Umm you guessed it, to "Make a Statement".... .... really?? are you kidding me??

hmmm what about the Environment? Oh there it is, I only read the 1st 3/4 of the article, #4 was people wanting to help the environment.

On top of that the Irony behind trying to save on gas as number 2, it generally takes 5-7 years for a Hybrid to bring back its value in gas prices, and those calculations are with gas prices where they were last summer $4.00 a gallon.

So now that we all get to Drive cars that "Make a Statement"... (Although if we’re all driving them there won’t be much of a statement being made)… What other affects will there be?

Tiny Car

Well for one, if you tall or of larger stature, you probably won’t be comfortable. In Europe, where FIAT makes cars.. (hmm fiat is with Chrysler now).. Almost every car you see is smaller than a Honda Fit. Second cars will not be as safe. The test results don’t lie, smaller cars just plain score LESS in collision tests, and even with less large cars on the highway, there will always be trucks and trees for people to run into. We will likely see lower speed limits to offset this, so it will take longer to get where we are going. On another note with safety, Goodyear makes a tire that advertised saving you 50 gallons of gas on a set of tires, yet is scores lower than similar tires on grip to the road. So even while you’re driving slower, if that kid down the street runs in front of your car again, and you have these tires, well he’s dead, but YOU saves the environment :D. The last great thing we have to look forward to with the new cars is the price tag. Even by the Obama administration’s own admissions, cars under the new 2012 requirements WILL cost upwards of $3,000 more than they would without the new requirements. If your Camry costs $3,000 more and gets the required 5 more MPG it will only take you 252,000 miles to make up for the extra cost at purchase if gasoline is $3.00 a gallon.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

What does the Union and Government want the Automakers For?

First off let me say that I am NOT "Anti-Union", Many of my friends are Union workers and "Unions" can be good when hey are used for the right reasons. Worker safety would not be anywhere near it is today if it were not for the early Unions in this country. Labor rates would be somewhat lower and worker benefits would likely be somewhat lower as well, especially in Union companies. They have certainly done what was necessary to raise the bar in these areas.

If you already know the history of the Auto unions you can skip to the Summary :D

The auto workers union functions as its own company, it has employees, and President and CEO as well as uses money for advertizing and Lobbying congress. They survive by charging every worker that is signed up, a monthly or weekly fee. They then use those fees to advertize to expand and to Lobby with Campaign contributions of Money to Congressmen. They to this to get laws passed to support their cause such as Higher Minimum Wage or better benefits being required by law. This is where the problems start, the use of Money and gifts to manipulate the law should ALWAYS be controversial, but in this case it’s just standard practice. Another tactic the Unions will employ is the threat to strike if their demands are not met. This is arguably THE most powerful aspect of a union, because if the company needs t lower costs, but the union will not bend on Wages or Benefits, then the company is doomed to fail.

Over the last several years GM, Ford and Chrysler have all gone to the Unions and asked for help. They have asked that benefits be lowered for new employees, and that Retirees who can now be covered under Medicaid or Medicare, sign up for those instead of the Automaker Pension Healthcare. The Unions would not bend, and with rising healthcare costs and slumping auto sales the companies were sure to fail, it was just a matter of time.

Now here we are, a Month after Chrysler went down and 3 days after GM Filed bankruptcy. Many Economists have said that allowing a Bankruptcy was the best bet for GM and Chrysler from the beginning. A Non-Government structured Bankruptcy would have allowed the dissolving of the Union contracts that have Plagued GM for many years. They could have become Non-union and restructured to similar, arguably more successful business models like Honda and Toyota. If that happened we would have a Successful automaker, making profitable, well build cars, employing Thousands of Americans and the union would have been literally history. So how could the Union, with Millions of Dollars in the bank and Senators in their pocket let that happen.

Now for the summary of how it all goes down.

-December 19th 2008, Bush allows 17.4 Billion Dollars in loans to the Automakers to keep them afloat.
-March 7th 2009, Chrysler tells the White house that sales will be sufficient to keep them afloat through the year. They are okay and will not need any more bailout money.
-March 29th 2009, the Obama Administration gives Chrysler 8 Billion Dollars in cash.
-May 14th 2009, Chrysler files for Bankruptcy. the Obama administrations takes charge in the Organized restructuring and gives 55% to the Auto Workers Union, 20% to Fiat, 8% to themselves for the money that the government has paid, and 2% to Canada. None went to the Bondholders, those who have Billions of Dollars in Chrysler Bonds, and of course non went to the Stockholders, but they should be last anyway.

So it can be said that one of the Biggest contributing factors in the Failing of Chrysler, became the BIGGEST beneficiary in the restructuring. Imagine the Child who racks up $30,000 in credit card debt while away at college, on their Parents cards, Forcing the parents into Bankruptcy and the Judge rules the Child (Not the Creditors) get their house and Cars. The parents and the ones that are owed all that money get little to nothing.

As far as the GM bailout, it went in a similar fashion, started by the money they received from the Bush Administration, continues with $20 Billion more given by Congress earlier this year, and ended with 30 Billion more given last month for restructuring under bankruptcy. The difference being that this time, instead of the Union gaining control, the US government now holds 72.5% of one of the worlds largest car manufactures.

The Obama has said numerous times that he doesn't "Want" to be in the car business, however they seem to really like handing out this money and "gaining" control of companies. Most independent economists and Analogists have said the bailouts were bad from the beginning, spending 50 Billion to save a fraction of a fraction of a percent of our unemployment, in the tune of 1 MILLION Dollars PER WORKER. Yet the Govt keeps on doing it and "Accidently" ending up with control. The Obama has said that during this restructuring GM and Chrysler with begin to build "Affordable Green cars that Americans want to buy". Although if that was the case, then why was the Truck and SUV business of GM Chrysler and Ford the most profitable part of their company?

This all leads to my next topic on Green cars, the future of our automobiles, and how the new emissions requirements will affect YOU bottom line for years to come.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

GM Bailout and Bankruptcy

Recently the government committed to putting over 50 Billion Dollars into helping General Motors through their bankruptcy, that number includes the original investment the Govt gave them earlier this year to "keep them out of Bankruptcy". The irony behind the "50" in 50 billion is that the number of jobs estimated to be saved by that investment is 50 Thousand. If you divide the Money invested over each of those persons whose jobs were saved you end up with exactly 1 MILLION Dollars per Job. Honestly is THIS the BEST way to bring GM back and save American Jobs? With the employment rate climbing every month, what about all those other people loosing their jobs? Are they worth 1 Million each as well?

From the other perspective, GM itself is much bigger than the 50K jobs that the Government is trying to save. You have to also include the Parts manufacturer and supplier of GM as well as GM only dealerships who would be affected by GM going under.

However, there are a few things to consider. If GM were to go under, and ALL 50K jobs were lost, then no longer would we be able to buy cars from them (Chevy, Cadillac, Pontiac, Saturn, Saab, Buick, Hummer, ect). So with ALL of those cars no longer being manufactured, and the number of Americans shopping for card being roughly unchanged, (Besides the 50K GM employees) all of a sudden the OTHER car companies will need to ramp up production. GM was one of THE LARGEST CAR manufactures, and ALL the other companies would need to make enough cars to make up for their Absence. So now Ford, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai will all need more Workers (And More SUPPLIES from the GM Suppliers) to keep up with demand. So they hire some of the workers GM laid off and things begin to balance themselves out.

Two questions to ponder,

1) How far should the government go to raise a failing company from the ashes? At one time being in the Typewriter business was a good thing. Imagine if the government has reached out and saved that industry. Would we still see typewriters for sale at OfficeMax next to the handheld PCs?

2) If there are 4 Struggling Movie rental stores in one shopping center and only enough people renting DVDs to support 2 of them. Does it make sense to bail out the 2 DVD stores that are failing, just to keep the employees they have employed? Or should we just let go and let the 2 that are failing, fail, and maybe the 2 that are left will pick up a few employees as their business increases.

Honestly I do feel for the employees of the automakers that are struggling. However, I just don’t see how the government continuing to pump money into the system that just isn’t working will help anything.

For tomorrow,

Some other reasons why the Government might want a controlling interest in GM.

Also How did the Union get control of Chrysler, when many economists blame the union itself for the failure of Chrysler?

My First Blog

Well fist off I should say a little about myself. I'm 25, so not quite a kid, but I consider myself young compared to most of the people making our political future. I graduated Lutheran West High School in Rocky River Ohio in 2002, and attended Lorain County College for 2 years, where I studied Accounting and Economics. I have lived in Chicago and Northern California when I was younger and Cleveland, and Pittsburg since I graduated. I consider myself Politically a Conservative, although I am not far to the right. I believe in Lower taxes, less government, and generally good values being important.

It seems that most of the blogs online seem to be more liberal. I believe that is important for the Media to always have a somewhat critical view of our politicians. I feel that if they are not critical, and they relay the news to the masses of people, then there really isn’t anyone to hold our leaders responsible. It seems that the "Post President Bush" era of our government is leading WAY to the left. With Congress, The Presidency and soon to be the Supreme Court, all being to the left, we have lost any chance at the "Checks and Balances" that our essential to our Democracy.

Hopefully I will be able to post on a new topic once a day, and be able to bring things into perspective. I tend to see the good and bad in each side of a argument, and using real world examples will relate everything to our daily lives. What will be the consequences of the decisions being made in Washington, and what can we do about it?