What Could Make Our Congressmen and Senators Do It?

Here's a letter I just send to several dozen Congressmen and Senators:

When calls and letters are running 98% AGAINST BAILOUTS, RADICAL NEW SPENDING PROGRAMS, and other FOOLISH INTERVENTIONS in our FREE MARKETS in order to "save" banks and investment firms, what could possibly cause a CONGRESSMAN or SENATOR to turn against his or her constituents?

Perhaps the fact that (according to the Center for Responsive Politics) the fact that the securities and investment industry contributed $53 million to congressional and presidential candidates in the 2008 election cycle. Congressmen who voted in FAVOR of the initial bailout (Sept 2008) had received 54% MORE MONEY in campaign contributions from banks and securities firms than had those who voted AGAINST the bill.

Blessings on those who were willing -- and CONTINUE to be willing -- to STAND AGAINST this dangerous and damaging foolishness! The rest of you should be ASHAMED!

What are YOU going to tell them?

Who was it, again, that people on Capitol Hill were calling "greedy" and "selfish" again? Was it those folks on "Wall Street" that the Capitol Hill "pot" were calling "black"?

Why the Democrats' Economic Stimulus Plan Will Fail

Read this enlightening article here.

Thanks.

Worth Considering At This Time

"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs." --Theodore Roosevelt

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too." --W. Somerset Maugham

Are U.S. Automakers and Congress Telling the Truth About Jobs?

“The auto industry supports one of every 10 jobs in the United States,” Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has said multiple times in her pleas for a bailout of the Detroit Three.

Is it true?

Click here for the real story!

A Warning from Alexander Hamilton - The Federalist Papers #1

It was Alexander Hamilton that warned citizens so many years ago that we must be watchful, for he said, "... dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues and ending tyrants."

It was just such speech as Hamilton describes that has been the ladder upon which every socialist and communistic threat to the liberties of the people first climbed within reach of their despotic control.

We must beware lest obsequious speech and the promise to "rescue us" in the time of economy emergency become also the steps by which our American liberties are overrun by liberal politicians hungry for ever larger governments and ever more control over the economy.

Bailout for the U.S. Automakers?

An announcement was made today that Congress is presently preparing legislation to bail out the U.S. automakers. Like the bailout of the mortgage industry, the act is both senseless and needless.

Also, similar to the mortgage industry bailout, this proposed bailout is not really for the U.S. automakers, it is a bailout for the United Auto Workers union. The same union that has driven the U.S. automakers to the brink of collapse now wants their Democrat friends to throw taxpayer money at the problem so the union leadership -- or unions, in general -- will not suffer the consequences of their years of wrong-headed thinking.

Participants in unions should wake up to realize that unions only benefit two groups of people:

1. The union executives -- those who draw a salary predicated solely on having established a monopoly on labor in some factory or industry.
   
2. The below-average workers -- because above-average workers could, in the absence of the union, most likely negotiate a better wage and benefits package for themselves individually.
   

As we are seeing, however, in the real long-term, unions benefit no one!

• Unions do not benefit the consumer because they cause prices to rise faster than the rate of inflation in almost every instance.
  
• Unions do not benefit the worker because they ultimately make the businesses and industries they dominate to become less and less competitive, ultimately reducing the workers' wages to zero as increasing numbers fall victim to unavoidable layoffs.
  
• Unions do not even benefit the union executives in the end -- although they will bleed the union workers and their captive industries for as long as possible -- because when all the workers have finally lost their jobs, then the union executives will also finally lose their jobs.

Do not take me wrong. I am not opposed to groups of workers organizing to strike or negotiate for better working conditions. However, each worker should be able to negotiate their own agreement with the employer as to wages, benefits, working conditions and work practices. They should not be coerced to pay some worthless executives to come around to aid in making the workers' employers less competitive and less successful in the marketplace.

Now, back to the bailout.

Three Steps the Government Could Take to Save the U.S. Auto Industry Without a Bail Out

1. Reduce corporate and personal income taxes immediately to give the U.S. consumers more money in their pockets to spend on durable goods. Note: The U.S. consumer pays both the corporate income taxes and the individual income taxes. Don't let political tom-foolery trick you into believing anything different than that.
   
2. Lift needless federal regulations that cost U.S. automakers millions of dollars while providing absolutely zero value-add to the consumer. The CAFE standards, for example, are absolutely without justification. U.S. automakers should be able to make cars and trucks that consumers want to buy. If the politicians and environmental groups can hoodwink enough consumers into believing they are "saving the planet" by buying a hybrid or some other fuel-efficient automobile, then the automakers will manufacture such vehicles in response to that consumer demand. We do not need the government to tell us what kind of vehicles we ought to buy.
   
3. By executive order, liberate the U.S. automakers from the ridiculous union contracts to which they are presently bound. Allow the automakers to hire and fire at will and to negotiate compensation plans with each worker individually.

These three simple steps:

• Do not require the U.S. taxpayer to be burdened with additional bail-out debt;
  
• Would stimulate the economy; and
  
• Will not lead to the nationalization of private industry.

This approach is safe, sane and reasonable -- all of which are reasons that the Democrat leadership and Republicans that have lost their bearings will reject them.

(c)2008 Richard D. Cushing

On the Lack of High-Mindedness

In my last post I discussed the lack of wisdom displayed by liberal Democrats in this ill-conceived attempts to achieve "equality of outcomes" (instead of equality of opportunity) in the U.S. mortgage market through the influence of such creatures of the state as fannie-mae and freddy-mac. In this post, I will touch on the lack of high-mindedness that accompanied these actions.

First of all, however, let me clarify that the actions of which I speak have not been entirely the purview of liberal Democrats. Certainly it has been the mindset of liberal Democrats that has "carried the water" for programs like FNMA and FHLMC, but it has not been utterly without the support and collusion of some Republicans (who really ought to know better).

Now, to the matter of the lack of high-mindedness leading to the most destructive kind of folly.

As late as yesterday (07 Oct 2008) Congressman Barney Franks (D-MA) was arguing in the mainstream media that any challenges to what fannie-mae and freddy-mac were doing in the subprime mortgage markets was "racist." Furthermore, he and his liberal Democrat allies were still blaming McCain and the Republicans for being against regulation, stating that it was this anti-regulation sentiment that was to be blamed for the current economic crisis.

This certainly exposes a lack of high-mindedness by Franks and his ilk. These Democrats know that it was McCain and Bush (not Obama) who were raising questions and seeking additional regulation to rein in what was happening at FNMA and the mortgage market in general. McCain and others were raising the spectre more than two years ago of such a collapse as we are now experiencing. All of their attempts to bring about regulatory changes were thwarted by votes that fell almost entirely along party lines (with a few renegade Republicans voting with the Democrats). The Democrats want nothing to do with additional regulations on FNMA and the subprime mortgage industry while the Republicans (by and large) were fighting for such changes.

Why were the Democrats opposed to such new regulation? In all likelihood it was because the Democrat party and Democrat members of Congress and the Senate were frequent recipients of favors, special treatment, and financial contributions that originated from within FNMA and FHLMC or elsewhere in the financial industry. This utter lack of high-mindedness has, as we have seen, produced the "most destructive kind of folly." Capital markets in the U.S. have surrendered more than $7 trillion in equity (losses) to the folly foisted upon us by liberal Democrats.

Nay, it is too generous to call this a "lack of high-mindedness"; this is the depth of corruption! For a bowl of pottage our liberal and otherwise corrupt politicians have sold the U.S. economy down the proverbial "river" without a second thought. Worse! They are still defending their actions today.

In this election cycle, it is high time to ask: Are there any real men (or women) remaining in Congress to take a stand against such corruption? Are there any that still understand "wisdom" or act with "high-mindedness" and not the basest of human cravings?

Now is the time to elect some who stop offering promises about what the government can do for you and, instead, stand up to say that it is time to put the nation ahead of personal gain and personal interests!

May God preserve this great nation for it remains today the world's last and best hope!