Good money after bad

The Houston City Council, thankfully, rejected today a proposal to use leftover money from emergency appropriations to help pay down certain debts of first time homebuyers in the city. The thinking (if you can call it that) was that people whose credit scores were only 10 or 20 points shy of allowing them to qualify for a mortgage could be helped over the threshold if only their balance sheets were given a focused little nudge by city government. The city would give up to $3000 for these individuals to use on car loans, credit card balances and other debts.

This is wrong on so many levels, it's crazy easy to just tick them off, so I will:

• It is not the city's money to give, it is the taxpayer's.
• How would you feel if you were told to pay your neighbor's credit card bill so that s/he could buy a home?
• Isn't the whole reason we're in this housing mess because banks made loans to borrowers that were not creditworthy? Will paying off someone's debts make them creditworthy? Maybe on paper, but not in practice. That's like putting makeup on a pig and calling it a supermodel. Giving loans to people who make the grade artificially will only set the system up for more problems in the future.
  
• Speaking of calling pigs supermodels, there's a reason a high percentage of lottery winners find themselves broke within ten years. Wealth is not something you have, it is a state of mind. So is broke. If a broke person wins the lottery, s/he is still broke, even though s/he happens to have money.

If you happen to be reading this and are one of the people who are missing a credit cutoff yourself, or are finding yourself behind in your finances, all things being equal (i.e. you haven't been laid off or had some other negative life event), take this opportunity to right your mind. Get out of the broke thinking and broke mindset. Because no matter who bails you out or how much, you'll still end up in the same difficulties unless you change the playing field, which is your thought process and practices regarding your personal finances.

GM and Chrysler should be allowed to die

Businesses come and go. Which ones survive in a free-market model (such is the direction the U.S. is currently skewed) is determined by whether they are able to deliver profits to their shareholders. For some time now, GM and Chrysler have not been able to do this. Ford, the third of the so-called Big Three automakers, has been able to pull itself up by the bootstraps and limp along while it's adjusted business model and product offerings heal its balance sheet.

The fact that GM and Chrysler are continuing to have a tough go at it is reflected in their announcement that they need still more money from the government to maintain operations (they are asking for tens of billions more, in addition to the 15-odd billion they got a couple months ago). Ford says it is fine for the rest of 2009. Economic Darwinism, or survival of the fittest in a business sense, mandates that GM and Chrysler either be dissolved, sold, or allowed to die.

Yes, there will be some pain if Chrysler and GM go away; ebbs and flows, pain and ecstasy, are inherent parts of an economy that is left free to grow naturally, without government intervention. The survival and health of Ford and foreign automakers should soften the blow, though.

The only other alternative is likely government control of the auto industry. Though they are asking for a loan, look at what is happening to banking. Surely, there are people in legislative power licking their chops at an opportunity for the government beauracracy to get its hooks in this new industry.

Government is notoriously bad at running businesses; there is ample evidence of this throughout history. Business and industry grows when allowed to select experts to direct their growth. Government has no such experts. Nationalization of the auto industry would mean greater pain in the long term than allowing two-thirds of the Big Three to come to their natural end.

Latest readings

For the past several months I've been working my way through "Rise to Globalism" by Stephen Ambrose. It is my first Ambrose book and my first history book since college (nay, high school) and I have to say I am enjoying it thoroughly.

It is an easy read that begins before WWII and tracks the evolution of American foreign policy up until the first Gulf War.

I am spending more time reading it lately so I can get it on up to my
sister, who is also reading up on history I think (aside from tort history that is). In addition, I have a pile of new books to start getting through thanks to a B&N gift card from my sister and brother in law.

"Rise to Globalism" is a good start for a just-enough-depth overview of the history behind out foreign policy.

Where do you get your milk money?

Our local rag, the Raleigh News & Observer, reported on a decision by the federal government to stop paying for whole milk for pregnant and nursing mothers and children older than 2. Why did they do this? Because whole milk is more fattening than the alternatives, of course! And with childhood and adult obesity rates skyrocketing...

How did they do this? Because they can, quite simply. This is the better story, because it may be a portent of things to come. He who pays, decides. This applies to dietary decisions or to health care. I certainly can't say I fault the government for doing this (nevermind the potential health benefits of whole milk over skim). They have to keep costs under control, and it's cheaper to care for children and their parents of a "healthy" weight than obese folks. Same goes for health care. Want those cutting edge drugs that can save your life, even if for just 5 more years? If you're not paying for them, you probably won't get to decide.

If this is the government you want, it's the one you'll eventually get. Again, be careful what you wish for.

"Four score and seven years ago..."

Do you remember those words? I think just about every kid had to memorize them at one point in his or her life. Abraham Lincoln's speech on November 19, 1863 was just 10 sentences long, and was over in under four minutes. Most of the people in the audience, weary from standing for hours in Gettysburg, barely realized what he was speaking about before Lincoln was finished. That was evident from the scant and hesitant applause that he received. Lincoln returned home thinking he had bombed it. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address was reprinted in newspapers across the Union that it really caught on and people saw the tremendous value in the words he spoke.

Do you remember what it was about? If you had asked me before yesterday, I probably would have said that it was all about slavery. I would have been wrong. (I was probably confusing it with his other milestone, the Emancipation Proclamation.)

Not until I was reading an account of the speech to my daughter last night did I remember what it was all about. It was about the historic and tragic battle there in Pennsylvania, in which 40,000+ Union and Confederate troops were killed or wounded during the three days of fighting. More so, though, it was about what they had fought, and died, for.

Lincoln considered the American Civil War a test of not only the Union, but the whole foundation on which the Union was founded -- the idea that all men are created equal. He knew that if the principle couldn't be upheld for the slaves, then freedom and liberty for any of us might someday be at risk. When you have men deciding who should enjoy the blessings of liberty and who should not, then those decisions are subject to the frailties of men.

In some ways, we are still fighting those same battles today. So, it is important to read those words again today, as the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth is noted by our lawmakers and executives. Read them yourself, and remember who has gone before you and why they offered up their lives.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Unconstitutional? Who cares?

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' -- President Barack Obama, January 20, 2009

Like every president before him, Barack Obama uttered these words on his Inauguration Day. They are just barely three weeks old, and we may see soon how quickly they will have lost their meaning to him.

It is immensely obvious that the Constitution itself has lost its meaning and importance to many of your Congressmen and Congresswomen.

In a recent column, George Will writes about the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act and its attempts to subvert the Constitution. In summary:

• The act, covered in H.R. 1905 and S. 160 would create a permanent seat in the U.S. House of Representatives for a Representative from the District of Columbia.
• The Constitution states that the House "shall be composed of Members chosen...by the people of the several states."
• The District of Columbia is not a state. Rather it is the "Seat of Government of the United States."
• Though the Constitution is rather vague on the steps necessary to add a new state to the Union, Washington D.C. is a special case since it is already identified as a territory within the Union (though not a state) by the Constitution. Therefore, an amendment to the Constitution would be the only way to modify the status of D.C. to that of a state.
• Again, Washington D.C. is not a state and no amendment has been ratified recognizing it as such.
• Since D.C. is not a state, as holds forth in the Constitution, it cannot have representation in the House of Representatives.

The logic is fairly clear. This is not to say, though, that the people of D.C. should not and can never be allowed representation in Congress. The only thing needed is an amendment to the Constitution. With such an amendment, D.C. would be awarded at least one Representative (or such a number as reflective of their population) and two Senators.

So why the push for this legislation, that clearly flies in the face of the Constitution? Easy:

• The Democrats currently control both the House and the Senate.
• The voters of Washington D.C. typically vote over 70% along Democrat lines.
• The Democrats (who introduced the respective bills) would be most assured of gaining one more seat in the House. Similar efforts to award two seats in the Senate for D.C. (and for the Democrats), is not far off should this legislation be signed into law.

Barack Obama, who, as a Senator, supported an earlier attempt at the legislation, will undoubtedly sign this into law. His oath of office will have become a farce, he will become (again?) like all the rest of the power-hungry politicians, and our Constitution will once again be rendered insignificant.

Nobody's perfect? Is that the best you've got?!?

Responding to questions about former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle's viability as DHHS Secretary due to his $130,000 tax "mistake," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs remarked that "Nobody's perfect."

I don't expect anybody to be perfect (except myself, and I am more often let down than not). I certainly don't expect perfection out of career politicians. Hell, I don't even expect them to try, since their standards of perfection are leagues different from mine (their definition of perfection is winning the next election and staying in power).

But I do expect some modicum of competence from them. I do expect that they will not insult my intelligence by offering up candidates such as Tom Daschle and Tim Geithner who apparently have no repect for their "patriotic duty to pay taxes" (in the words of Joe Biden).

Daschle is the second of Obama's cabinet-head appointees to have been caught with more than a forgivable "mistake" in their income taxes.

Geithner, now Treasury Secretary (of all things, he is now the head of the IRS!), failed to declare income he made while working overseas for the IMF for a string of 4-5 years. His unpaid bill? About $45,000. What did it cost him, politically? Nada, nothing, zero, scratch. He was deemed to be the only man capable of seeing us through this economic turbulence, and given a pass. He was "too important to fail."

This is a guy who failed to pay taxes for 4 years and got audited by the IRS for 2 of those years. When the IRS made him aware of his mistake, he adjusted his returns for those 2 years and moved on with his life. Did he adjust for the other 2 years? Not until he learned that he may be the next Treasury Secretary. Then, and only then, did he go back and fix the rest of the problem.

Daschle failed to pay taxes on certain benefits he received from his employer, such as a private limo and driver at his disposal. He also failed to pay taxes on speaking fees. He claims that he didn't know speaking fees were taxed. Are you joking, Tom?! You're an ex-Senator! You know better than anyone that anything even remotely smelling of income will most definitely be taxed.

Again, this tax cheat will likely be given a pass. Why? Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee offers a suggestion. When it comes to helping reform health care, Daschle has been "an invaluable and expert partner." Looks like another appointee has been declared too important to reject because of a bothersome little thing like tax evasion.

Two weeks into his first term, Obama has been caught with his pants down three times already (don't forget the former lobbyist William Lynn he has nominated as Deputy Secretary of Defense, after issuing an Executive Order pledging not to nominate former lobbyist).

The media and fellow Democrats (and many Republicans) seem to be ignoring these flubs. As do you, America. Is it that Obama, the Uniter, cannot be allowed to fail, even a little bit? Why don't you demand that he does right by you, and withdraw these nominations and at least offer us people who have not cheated their country? Do you care?