Was Schumer's Indy Mac Letter a Trial Run for September Surprise?

As some may know, NY Senator Charles Schumer (D) has been named as among the primary reasons the bank known as Indy Mac failed earlier this year. Schumer was named by the Office of Thrift Supervision as being largely responsible for the bank run after a letter he sent.

The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.

"This institution failed today due to a liquidity crisis," OTS Director John Reich said. "Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/07/feds-cite-schum.html

The original radical community organizer Saul Alinksy talked at length in his seminal book Rules for Radicals about the concept of the 'manufactured crisis' in order to create discomfort and drive support for the community organizer's 'solutions'.

Was Schumer's letter a trial balloon to see if the economy could be tripped up?

I have no inside information but I have a very strong feeling about this.

I believe Sen. Schumer sent that letter and publicized it to test depositor confidence and see what kind of response the general public would make given a manufactured panic.

Having proved the concept in June, the stage was set for election season. This same scenario was played out again last month at WaMu and other banks. There is also the conservatorship takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, massive loans to AIG, and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers as well as the near total collapse of the housing market which was the single largest creation of wealth among individuals in the US.

Perfect storm or manufactured crisis?

Given the similarity to the very tactics recommended by Saul Alinksy, I say this was no accident.

It's about judgement and truthfulness stupid!

The Obama campaign is squealing like a stuck pig lately about the impact they are feeling from recently successful attempts by the McCain campaign and the alternative media to bring up Obama's past choice of allies such as William Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Fr. Michael Pfleger, Frank Davis, Tony Rezko, Franklin Raynes, Jim Johnson, the radical group ACORN, and Kenyan genocidal psychopath, socialist and election stealer Raila Odinga.

The Obama camp has attempted to deflect these discussions by saying that they want to talk about the issues, not about his past 'associations'.

Well here is a newsflash, it's about judgement and truthfulness stupid.

The issue is the people and organizations that Obama has chosen to use for his political advancement, that he has taken money from and given money to; the people and organizations whom he associates with due to philosophical and political affinity. What do the people and organizations Obama has surrounded himself with say about his judgement and his truthfulness?

So let's examine the issue of judgement and truthfulness:

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who can launch his political career in a man's house (William Ayers), sit on several boards with that same man, write a blurb for the book jacket of a book written by that same man, and live in the same neighborhood for years with that same man can be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' he was a terrorist? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who sat in a church for 20 years with a known radical preacher (Rev. Jeremiah Wright), who identified that same preacher as his spiritual mentor, who was married in that church by that preacher, and who allowed his children to be baptised and educated by that preacher can be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' he held such radical, racist and hateful views, that he never heard such terrible sermons even though they were for sale on DVD in the church lobby and on the internet? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who says he worked with various church leaders in chicago for years with another known radical preacher (Fr. Michael Pfleger), who identified that same preacher as a good man, who did not condemn that man when he accused Hillary Clinton of crying about being a victim of a black man, can he be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' he too held such radical, racist and hateful views, that he never heard such terrible sermons even though they this preacher had been a guest at his own church many times? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who identifies one of his political mentors as a man who was a registered communist (Frank Davis), who identified that same man as a force in his original political dealings and someone whose early support he recieved and who he later supported himself, a man who was a member of the violent Black Panthers, can he be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' he held such radical views? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who identified as friend and supporter a now convicted felon and influence peddler (Tony Rezko), who represented that same man in receiving $43M in government funding, the same man whose wife paid retail for a parcel of land next door to a new home Obama bought in the Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (which was $300,000 below the asking price) so that Obama could close on the house he wanted and who later sold a piece of the land to Obama, can he be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' Rezko was a slumlord and a blatant influence buyer? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who includes as his housing and economic advisor a man who ran Fannie Mae which is now in government receivorship and who had to give back bonus money when it was found that under his leadership Fannie had overstated earnings like Enron (Franklin Raynes), a man who earned $90M in 6 years while Fannie was creating the siutuation that resulted in a $200B buyout and now $700B in additional expenditures, can he be believed when he said he 'just didn't know' that Raines had been so untrustworthy? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

Similarly with Jim Johnson, another Fannie Mae executive who presided over the same steakth collaps of the housing market and who Obama had tapped for his VP search and who is still raising money for Obama. Obama says he 'just didn't know' Johnson was so corrupt. If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

And what of the radical group ACORN? Obama worked for ACORN in their Project Vote program, the same program that is now under State and Federal investigation for Voter Fraud in at least 12 States. Obama also represented ACORN in court in Chicago in the mid 90's forcing Chicago lenders into sub-prime lending, the heart of the economic collapse we are now suffering. Obama has since had his campaign make improper donations to ACORN. What does that say about his judgement? What does it say about his trustworthiness?

And lastly, we have to ask ourselves if a man who has provided political advice and support to a genocidal psychopath, socialist and election stealer in Kenya (Raila Odinga) is fit to be President. What does that say about his judgement? What does it say about his trustworthiness?

'I just didn't know' is not an acceptable excuse, and frankly it rings rather hollow. As President you do not get to vote 'present' to avoid the tough decisions. And as President we require enough intellectual curiousity, integrity and honesty to evaluate all potential allies and to make the right decision up front, rather than after the fact when the political csts are deemed too high.

Again, it's about judgement and truthfulness, areas where Obama has no lead in any poll, and no record to stand on.

Addiction to credit is in part to blame for current stuation

Listening to Sec. Paulson, Pres. Bush and others as they talk about the potential ramifications of the failure of the House to pass this bailout bill I have had an epiphany of sorts, both about Western culture in general, and about myself.

The part in this passion play that we average joe's play is our addiction to credit. Loans for homes and cars are a necessary evil of sorts, but should we take on a mortgage for a house that can only be afforded by refinancing every couple years as the values go up? Do we need a car that takes a 7 year loan in order to keep the payments 'affordable'?

In business, and here is where I had my own epiphany, are we being successful if it takes a credit line or additional loans to meet payroll or buy basic inventory? When did credit become necessary for day-to-day operations instead of capital investment or the purchase of real property?

The NEED for credit, borrowed money, to meet your daily obligations as an individual, the head of your household, or for your business is WRONG. A rotating line of credit to cover the minor ups and downs of cashflow for business is one thing, but a never ending appetite for borrowed money just to keep the doors open is a failed business - believe me, I know having done it.

This current event is just that, an event. And like the Great Depression (the stock crash which caused it makes today's loss look like speed bump next to Mount Everest), or Black Monday in '87 (20% one day drop), or the Challenger accident, or 9/11 we will survive. We will adjust.

And adjust we must. We must return to the value of EARNING the house, the car, the boat. We must retun to the value of PLANNING and SAVING for our own or our child's education.I hope that we do not see a bailout and that we allow the market to adjust, because history shows it ALWAYS adjusts, we need to keep the 'free' in free market.

Yes, there are politicians to blame, there are corporate fat cats to blame, there are criminals to blame, but we too are to blame. We can toss the politicans out, we can seek the termination of the fat cats, and we can seek the trial and incarceration of criminals, but it will all be for nought if we do not ourselves change our ways.

The Constitution guarantees us the right to the 'pursuit' of happiness, it does not guarantee happiness, nor does it guarantee a home, or health care, or education. We must pursue those on our own.

I predict we will hopefully look back on the events of the past couple weeks and mark it as the turning point for our society where we recognized the danger of living on borrowed money.

Yes, we will look back on this and see it as an important, possibly transformative event, but if history is any guide we will come out of it stronger than before.

Bailout Fails, Now Let the Market Do What it Do!

Bailout Fails to Pass!!

Final vote in the House on the bailout bill:
Democrat, FOR 140, AGAINST 95
Republican, FOR 65, AGAINST 133, NOT VOTING 1
Independent
TOTAL: 205 FOR, 228 AGAINST, 1 NOT VOTING

The Dow was down almost 700 points in the final minute when it was obvious the bill would not pass, and is now down under 500 pts but I predict will recover without government intervention.

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, well this thing would have been a freaking superhighway.

So now what?

Assuming that there are not 10 Congressmen who can be forced to change their vote, I offer my quick points on what should be done to fix the economy:

• suspend capital gains taxes to encourage investment here rather than abroad
  
• provide the bare minimum loan guarantees necessary to cover defaults only
  
• introduce a bill providing only the insurance option similar to FDIC the Republicans suggested
  
• Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley regulation, it has failed to provide any warning in advance of the failure of a number of large institutions and is currently freezing the IPO market due to increased costs for compliance
  
• fix mark-to-market ratios to provide a rolling average rather than a spot price for what the bad mortgages could be sold for at 'fire-sale' prices
  
• initiate immediate special prosecutor investigations into all lawmakers who have benefited from lobbyist, PAC and individual contributions from Wall Street
  
• Remove Chris Dodd and Barney Frank from their Committe Chairs for incompetence and potential criminal conspiracy
  
• Remove Sec. Paulson and Sec. Cox for incompetence

Given McCain's long term focus on corruption and reform the obvious influence peddling in this issue would seem to be a tailor made issue for his advantage but it appears calling a spade a spade when it is so damning is not currrently in the strategery for McCain or the Republicans at large.

I think that if the story were properly covered it would end the corrupt Democrat majority for at least a decade - so of course the mainstream media is carrying the water that the cause is Bush and McCain even though there is ample evidence in Administration Briefs, Budget testimony, at least one McCain co-sponsored bill and statements on the floor of the House and Senate that Bush and McCain sought more and better regulation - they were opposed by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and more.

UPDATE

Looks like the bill failed because Pelosi came out and carried the anti-Bush blamestorming rhetoric to such a vitriolic point that moderate Democrats AND Republicans who had indicated they would support the bill voted NAY in response to her needless partisan statement.

I am hoping that since it looks like there will not be a real meltdown on Wall Street that Fedzilla will decide to just let the market do what it do. I have made some suggestions above about what I think could work to help the market address the challenges it faces without ridiculous intervention or Joe Taxpayer buying up all the toxic securities on Wall Street.

But we need to remove the people who caused the problem in the first place and we must not allow ourselves to be scared, rushed or bullied into making the same mistakes that caused this to happen.

Some interesting poll results following defeat of the bailout (Rasmussen):

• 6 in 10 voters think the Gov. will do too much
• 3 in 10 voters think the bailout was not enough
• 51% of investors oppose the bailout outright
• 60% of House Democrats voted for the bailout
• 32% of House Republicans voted for the bailout

On Rabid Partisanism and Media Bias

This just in, George W. Bush is NOT running for President.

I believe that the independents and undecideds will make their mind up about the forthcoming election based on a review of the big picture. The problem is that the big picture is being deliberately whitewashed by a complicit and decidedly partisan media.

Unfortunately, it takes people like me and many other bloggers to try and highlight the glaring lack of experience or accomplishment for Obama. Admitting he did some blow is not the same as admitting he was wrong - a key criticism from many about W. If it is good for the goose it is good for the gander.

Obama's choices in mentors and advisors shows a critical lack of judgement, and his actions when enough people call him on it show him to be overly maleable and disloyal, he tossed his 'spiritual mentor' of 20 years, who apparently he never actually listened to, under the bus, along with his 'typical white' grandmother as soon as it became politically expedient to do so.

I and people like me may take poetic license in how we word it, but it is not factually inaccurate.

For your consideration, some recent entries:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_...in-fannie.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp...eature=related

Raines and Johnson were/are on Obama's team and they, along with Barney 'there is a gay prostitute ring in my basement' Frank and Chris 'Thanks for the donation' Dodd are largely responsible for the situation at Freddie and Fannie that started this whole collapse. The sub-prime mortgage concept is a DEMOCRAT innovation and it was FORCED on lenders and Freddie and Fannie. Raines was fined for accounting irregularities that led to his enormous bonuses (he made $90M in six years).

Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and there are questions about the CAC, significant questions involving the public trust and $100M. Obama and his team are blocking every attempt to gain access to the PUBLIC records about this and even Chicago has had to investigate corruption in Obama's Garden Program - HOW BAD DOES IT HAVE TO BE FOR CHICAGO TO CALL IT CORRUPT?

Again, I think partisanism is a key element in having a robust discussion, some call W 'shrub', I call Obama the Uh-uh-uh-nnointed one, does not really matter - what matters is that the discussion include the reality and the history of BOTH sides and that has clearly NOT happened.
More attention was paid to Gov. Palin's NON book banning than has gone into the Obama-Ayers connection, or the Obama-ACORN connection, or the Obama-Raines connection, or the Obama-Johnson connection, or the Obama-Wright connection, or the Obama-Flager connection, or the Obama-Alinsky connection, or the actual results of Obama's work as a community organizer.

I agree that there should not be wide ranging poll results as the electorate is pretty roughly split right now - but the action line that Obama won the debate is manufactured. The kook Left netroots are in a panic (HuffingtonPost, DailyKOS, etc,) about how poorly Obama did, the conservative blogs (Politico, Human Events, Real Clear Politics) are abuzz about how good McCain did - think about that, Left and Right agree that McCain won, but the mainstream media line is Obama won - THAT is the problem.

A lot of critics miss the point I think when talking about the MSM and talk radio, and that chiefly is that it is called TALK radio, in other words, it is NOT called NEWS radio. Talk radio is entertainment and again is from an OVERTLY conservative point of view. The Liberals have failed miserably at talk radio due to their message and their delivery - it is real free market.

Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly or Gibson are not masquerading as objective journalists like Dan 'National Guard Hoax' Rather, or (cough, cough) Keith 'Worst Person in the World' Olberman or Chris 'Tingle up his leg' Matthews.

It is people from inside the media, like Bernard Goldberg, and finally some Democrats themselves like Hillary Clinton, Howard Wolfson, Ed Rendell and others who have made the charge of liberal bias and specifically a pro-Obama bias in the mainstream media.

The behavior of the media towards Obama has been an embarassment by any objective standard - and it is their behavior which has confirmed the bias. The only rejoinder for some is to accuse us of 'rabid' partisanism.

Many of we Conservatives ARE partisan, but we are hardly rabid.

Rabid indicates there is only foaming-at-the-mouth, no thought or logic in it and that is very far from the case. Many Conservative posts are well structured, humorous and reserve the name-calling for the stumbling empty suit nominated by the Democratic party - he has a bracelet too you know, his uh, name uh, is, uh, uh, what was the question?

Oh, the Irony!!

Just like buying a used car, you have to check under the hood. Obama is like finding a late model Porsche on Craigslist for under $1,000, it may look nice on the outside but there is some troubling stuff going on under the recent paint and 'new' upholstery.

I have had folks ask why Google shows primarily pro-Obama articles in the wake of the debate.

First off, there are poll results that run counter to the 'conventional wisdom':

FOX News poll (~60,000 votes) 82% McCain, 16% Obama, 2% Tie

FYI - Fox News viewership is 39% self-identifying as Republican, 33% self-identifying as Democrat

Drudge Report (~380,000 votes) 68% McCain, 30% Obama, 2% Tie

AOL Who Won the debate? (~515,000 votes)McCain 45%, Obama 42%AOL Who Appeared More Presidential? (~500,000 votes)McCain 52%, Obama 48%

The Fox results were reported live following the debate last night but I cannot find them on the website.

As for Drudge, that can be found at http://www.drudgereport.com/, and the voting is now at 417,000 votes and still tracking the same 68% McCain to 30% Obama.

I posted those two because they are the two leading conservative leaning news outlets, the news outlets more commonly mentioned are all firmly in the tank for Obama and have given up any pretense of journalistic objectivity - I felt it only fair to provide some balance.

It was PA Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter who condemned the news coverage of Obama as being terribly biased and who complimented Fox News as being the only Fair and Balanced reporting during the Democrat Primaries.

The difference between Fox News and the 'news' outlets more commonly quoted is that Fox News clearly separates their reporting from their opinion/advocacy pieces (e.g., America's Newsroom vs. Hannity and Colmes).

CNN, MSNBC, etc., mix their opinions and their news with no attempt to separate them or identify them as such - see CBS's National Guard Story on Bush right before the '04 election, the 20 year old Bush drunk driving charge right before the '00 election, or the treatment of Governor Palin, or recent polls that deliberately oversample Democrats and Blacks resulting in unrealistic poll results for but a few pathetic examples.

Google is merely a search engine, it finds what it is built to find based on the questions you asked. Since the majority of the media are clearly in the tank for Obama it should surprise nobody that keeping to the mainstream media would yield a pro-Obama story line - ironically, that was Governor Rendell's point - the media have lost all objectivity with Obama and are actively promoting his campaign to the exclusion of all others.

For the record, Obama and his camp are the ones trying to enforce Newspeak through their brown shirt Ministry of Truth starting in Missouri.

For the record, Obama and his supporters in the media are the ones claiming only racism will prevent him from being elected.

For the record, Obama and his camp are the ones who are threatening Conservative investigative reporters trying to look into where $100M was spent at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge where Obama sat on the Board of Directors with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers.

For the record, Obama and his camp are the one trying to silence critics with complaints to the Department of Justice, threats to Radio Network Executives, to radio advertisers.

For the record, Obama and his camp are the ones who threatened the Jewish organizaers of the Iran protests in New York with revocation of their tax-free status if they did not disinvite Gov. Palin after the Obama camp pressured Sen. Clinton into not attending.

For anyone with an open mind, this is a troubling look into the future at how a President Obama would rule - his behavior today is a clear indicator of how vindictive, secretive and totalitarian his regime would be.

All of the things that were said about the Bush Administration by the rabid Left (largely inaccurately but with great fanfare) are actually true about the Uh-uh-uh-nnointed One - he cannot admit he was wrong (about the Surge, about his position on meeting with rogue nations, about Rev. Wright, about William Ayers, about Fr. Flager, about ACORN, about Freddie Mac, about Fannie Mae, about Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, about NOT picking Hillary, about Russia invading Georgia, about threatening Pakistan, about his direct involvement in the collapse of the talk at the White House), he has no compunction about trampling on the Bill of Rights (specifically the 1st and 2nd Amendments) and he has shown that he will stop at nothing to destroy and silence his critics.

The irony is that all indications are that Obama is the fascist the Left warned us Bush was.

McCain wins debate Handily!

Well the first debate is in the can.

I thought McCain decisively won the debate.

Obama was the one interrupting like a kindergartner, looking frustrated, literally pleading with his eyes at times for Jim Lehrer to make that 'meanie' stop talking about him - I thought he was very clearly on the defensive all night.

I thought McCain got off to a slow and shaky start and I was about to bail on the debate but he pulled himself together and I thought he very effectively painted Obama as a neophyte also-ran - his closing remarks were a 50 megaton nuke and were the last word.

I've been involved, as I mentioned to you before, in virtually every major national security challenge we've faced in the last 20-some years. There are some advantages to experience, and knowledge, and judgment.

And I -- and I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas, including his initial reaction to Russian invasion -- aggression in Georgia, to his -- you know, we've seen this stubbornness before in this administration to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge is -- shows to me that we -- that -- that we need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that.

As far as our other issues that he brought up are concerned, I know the veterans. I know them well. And I know that they know that I'll take care of them. And I've been proud of their support and their ecognition of my service to the veterans.

And I love them. And I'll take care of them. And they know that I'll take care of them. And that's going to be my job.

But, also, I have the ability, and the knowledge, and the background to make the right judgments, to keep this country safe and secure.

Reform, prosperity, and peace, these are major challenges to the United States of America. I don't think I need any on-the-job training. I'm ready to go at it right now.

Jim, when I came home from prison, I saw our veterans being very badly treated, and it made me sad. And I embarked on an effort to resolve the POW-MIA issue, which we did in a bipartisan fashion, and then I worked on normalization of relations between our two countries so that our veterans could come all the way home.

I guarantee you, as president of the United States, I know how to heal the wounds of war, I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends.

It was Obama who had the constantly furrowed brow, it was Obama who looked aggravated, it was Obama who agreed with McCain 8 or 9 times and as predicted, without a teleprompter he struggled to make cogent points when knocked off his rehearsed lines by McCain or Lehrer.

And this was after 3 days of debate prep.

Rather than spend three days in seclusion preparaing for the debate with a group of handlers like Obama, McCain had been busy working.

I would like to give credit for one excellent answer Obama gave when challenged by McCain about voting 'against funding for the troops'. He explained he voted against the funding bill with no timetable which has been his signature position (he is absolutely wrong IMO but he has been consistent), where McCain I think voted against a bill WITH a timetable. That was a good answer - clearly rehearsed but a good answer.

I was not looking forward to Lehrer as moderator but was very pleasantly surprised - the questions I thought were good and he did a resonable job of making both candidates at least approach the point.

Telling for me was when pressed on what adjustments need to be made to a budget given the potential cost of the Wall Street bail out, Obama proposed MORE spending, only McCain answered that a spending freeze on all but the true basics.

I think the pre-debate expectations were lowered for Obama to the point that shy of breaking down in tears and running off stage that he stood the most to gain. I thought McCain answered the economic questions very well and with strong Conservative principals other than the populist blamestorming and I think it shows the challenge, as it always is for people of my belief system, is to do a better job of explaining why tax cuts for the risk-takers and the businesses work.

Reagan was effective at it, and W actually did a reasonable job, McCain has to get this down to a quick, easy to understand answer and I think the other part is McCain needs to hammer Obama's tax 'cut' for 95% of America as nonsense as Marxist redistribution of wealth at the point of a gun. He needs to point out the costs in terms of jobs and wages for everyone, with the higher payroll taxes, higher capital gains taxes, and higher income taxes on the small business owners who are the engine of job creation in the US that Obama has announced.

I think this will be dishonestly but effectively spun as a near tie by Obama and his allies in the mainstream media and like I said above, anything other than total failure will be represented as a win for the boy who would be King.

How Much is PAY-triotic - How Much is Enough?

Obama says his plan will give a taxcut to 95% of all taxpayers, but 40% of you already don't pay ANY taxes and many among that get more money back than was paid in.

Where do you think that money comes from?

One of the problems with all the economic talk about 'the rich' is that it is totally impersonal and it asks the folks who do not believe themselves to be in the group Obama intends to take wealth from to focus only on their own situation.

This lack of a personal view into the costs of taxes and the impact they have on those of us who really pay the bill is unfair, it is manipulative, and it stops, today.

I am an engineer by trade, I am self taught, I put myself partially through college with help from my parents. Over the past 20 years I have worked for several different companies, including a start-up. For four years I ran a small business and employed six people at nearly twice the minimum wage. I have been employed since I began working part time in a family restaraunt at age 13, and in the ensuing 25 years I have been laid off twice.

Is it good fortune that I have developed skillsets that are in demand and which receive six figure pay? Is it unfair that my love for aviation drove me to make the decisions and take the education, both formal and informal, that have sculpted my career?

I am curious for those of you who support Obama and his 'tax the rich' approach, just how much more are my family and I supposed to pay? For the past 7 years my earnings have put me in the top 5% of wage earners in the US (AGI between ~$145K - ~$363K, gross earnings of $180 - $400K).

According to IRS statistics, families like mine earn 14.6% of the money earned in the US, yet we pay 20.3% of the taxes in the US. For 4 of the last 7 years, my gross earnings (including performance of my business since we were organized as an LLC) have been in the range that Obama and Biden are now suggesting my PAY-triotic duty is to pay more. They apparently do not think I am paying enough.

Obama and Biden have said they want to increase taxes on $250K and more per year (assuming gross earnings), and they keep referring to cuts for 95% of taxpayers, those two numbers clearly define the top 5% of wage earners according to IRS stats.

This is NOT about the top 400 people in Forbes and you know it.

This about taking money from me and my family, and the 7 million families like mine, and giving it to 125 million other families in a deliberate attempt to buy votes. Classic Saul Alinsky, classic socialism, and classically immoral.

As defined, Obama wants to take an additional $16-18K from me and give it to families I do not know.

That money will be TAKEN from me, against my will, and given to people I do not know. I could use that money for charity, I could invest it and in so doing create more jobs - but Obama wants to take it from me and FORCE me to meet his definition of neighborliness.

Given his choice of friends and neighbors and mentors (Rev. Wright, Father Flager, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Lehman Bros, Goldman-Sachs, etc.) I am CONFIDENT I can do better.

40% of ALL wage earners in the US (about 52 million families) do not pay any effective income taxes (they get a full refund), and many of those actually get more money paid back with the Single Head of Household and other programs. Just to be clear, they get more back than they pay in.

The next 10% (from the bottom 40-50% of wage earners), about 13 million families, pay 3% of the total tax bill.

The bottom 50% of ALL wage earners (66 million families) share in 13% of the earnings, and yet pay 3% of the total bill.

Families like mine (6.6 million of us) make 15% of the earnings and pay almost 21% of the total bill.

If you are making half what I do (AGI of about $62K), you share in 21% of the total earnings, and pay 15.7% of the tax bill, but you split it with 33 million other families.

If you make less than $31K per year, you pay no more than 3% of the tax bill but share in 13% of total earnings in the US, and are likely to have no tax burden and may even get more money back than you paid in.

In order to give $1000 to 95% of all taxpayers as Obama is promising, someone has to come up with about $125 Billion dollars, if the 6.6 million families like mine are to pay for that, not only do we NOT get the $1000 cut, each family like mine will have to pay about $19K more in taxes, every year. If you include the top 1%, that only adds 1.3 million families, it still makes the burden $15.8K more.

That would increase my tax burden by as much as 40%.

Together, we in the top 5% share in 36% of the earnings but foot almost 60% of the bill.

How is that fair?

How is that right?

How much is enough?

They Bravely Ran Away, or Would You Believe a ‘Redeployment’?

As serious challenges to the US Economy are reported with glee Pelosi and Reid are trying to bravely turn their tails and flee. With $200B in estimated costs to fix the subprime bombs at Freddie and Fannie, $85B to AIG, Lehman Bro’s and Merril Lynch on the Auction Block, high energy prices, rising unemployment and massive panic on Wall Street, the ‘leaders’ of the Democratic House and Senate try to skate out of town to leave their mess allowing Obama to apportion blame rather than fix the underlying issues now.

In Monty Python’s cult classic Monty Python and the Holy Grail, we are introduced at one point to Sir Robin who runs away when faced with danger. His minstrels, which could pretty well be today’s mainstream media, sing as they run to keep up with him:

Brave Sir Robin ran away...
bravely ran away away...
When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat.
A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.

And what could bring me to pay homage to such an institution in English Comedy? The comically announced intention for Sen. Harry Reid (D – NV) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D – CA) to adjourn the congress in the midst of a significant challenge to the overall stability of the American economy.

I am not a doom and gloomer and I recognize the farcical inaccuracy of Obama, Reid and Pelosi talking up the current difficulties as the ‘worst economy since the Great Depression’, but these are challenging times and one of the duties of our elected government is to stand fast and put up a brave face, and right now only two leaders in the American political scene are doing that, their names are George W. Bush and John McCain.

Although woefully unreported by the decidedly partisan Liberal mainstream media, both Bush and McCain have tried, unsuccessfully, to reign in the excess at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Bush in 2003, and McCain in 2005. They were opposed by long term Freddie/Fannie ‘family members’ Sen. Chris Dodd (D - CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D – MA), the Congressional Black Caucus, a wide range of Democrat Senators and Representatives, as well as some from their own party as well.

These same names appear at the very top of political contributions from Freddie, Fannie, their leadership, and many of their employees. Democrats have benefitted from political contributions from Freddie and Fannie and Lehman and Goldman-Sachs and other Wall Street giants by a factor of 150% compared to Republicans. And Wall Street has seen a similar benefit from the largesse of their ‘friends’ in Congress.

So now, when there is a crucial need for leadership within the Congress and from the Administration, when there is a clear need for criminal investigations not only into the leadership of the GSE’s and the other recently weakened Wall Street companies BUT ALSO the members of Congress and the Administration who benefitted from or enabled them, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want to run away from the swamp and leave Bush to pick up the pieces.

I agree there should be investigations, but Congress can not be trusted to perform them, The investigation simply must delve deeply into the ties that bind these failed institutions and companies to the Senators and Representatives that have protected them, encouraged them, enabled them, and (in the case of requiring sub-prime mortgages for people who could not qualify for conventional mortgages) FORCED them into the situation that has the markets in turmoil and which could top $500B in costs to the American Taxpayer.

While there is an opportunity for political benefit for Republicans if the do-nothing Democrat Congress retreats and the Bush Administration does manage to shore up confidence, the first cause is not to seek political gain, it is to lead the Nation, to protect the American Taxpayer, and to put into place soild proposals to rectify the challenges the economy faces today.

Proposals like this take time to develop, more time than is allowed in the 24-hour news cycle, and this has led to a neophyte kneejerk proposal from the Part-Time Junior Senator from IL and criticism of a lack of a plan from John McCain.

Well, Sen. John McCain (R – AZ) has just today announced a proposed a Mortgage and Financial Institutions Trust, similar to the Resolution Trust Corporation that successfully managed the challenge of the Savings and Loan bailout from the late 80’s. Economists from the Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton administrations all agree that this is a good and workable solution with a similar chance of success if developed and managed properly.

The time is for leadership, the need is for leadership. McCain has proposed just such a thing, while Pelosi, Reid and Obama seek only to apportion blame and take political advantage.

On the Economy and Taxes

Great opinion piece at Wall Street Journal about the McCain and Obama economic plans - rings more true now following the issues with Freddie, Fannie, Lehman and perhaps now the Auto Industry as well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1221...n_commentaries

Ranking states by domestic migration, per-capita income growth and employment growth, ALEC found that from 1996 through 2006, Texas, Florida and Arizona were the three most successful states. Illinois, Ohio and Michigan were the three least successful.

The rewards for success were huge. Texas gained 1.7 million net new jobs, Florida gained 1.4 million and Arizona gained 600,000. While the U.S. average job growth percentage was 9.9%, Texas, Florida and Arizona had job growth of 18.5%, 21.4% and 28.9%, respectively.

Remarkably, a third of all the jobs in the U.S. in the last 10 years were created in these three states. While the population of the three highest-performing states grew twice as fast as the national average, per-capita real income still grew by $6,563 or 21.4% in Texas, Florida and Arizona. That's a $26,252 increase for a typical family of four.

By comparison, Illinois gained only 122,000 jobs, Ohio lost 62,900 and Michigan lost 318,000. Population growth in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois was only 4.2%, a third the national average, and real income per capita rose by only $3,466, just 58% of the national average. Workers in the three least successful states had to contend with a quarter-million fewer jobs rather than taking their pick of the 3.7 million new jobs that were available in the three fastest-growing states.

In Michigan, the average family of four had to make ends meet without an extra $8,672 had their state matched the real income growth of the three most successful states. Families in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois struggled not because they didn't work hard enough, long enough or smart enough. They struggled because too many of their elected leaders represented special interests rather than their interests.

What explains this relative performance over the last 10 years? The simple answer is that governance, taxes and regulatory policy matter. The playing field among the tates was not flat. Business conditions were better in the successful states than in the lagging ones. Capital and labor gravitated to where the burdens were smaller and the opportunities greater.

The states have already tested the McCain and Obama programs, and the results are clear. We now face a national choice to determine if everything that has failed the families of Michigan, Ohio and Illinois will be imposed on a grander scale across the nation. In an appropriate twist of fate, Michigan and Ohio, the two states that have suffered the most from the policies that Mr. Obama proposes, have it within their power not only to reverse their own misfortunes but to spare the nation from a similar fate.

Good stuff and a great summary in my opinion.

This brings up some thoughts for me about the tax burden as this has become a major campaign issue as well.

According to IRS figures, the top 1% of wage earners paid 19% of all taxes in 1980 when Reagan came into office - they were being taxed at 70% - yes you read that right, 70%. For every hundred dollars they earned the government only let them keep $30.

Due to tax cuts and a resultant surge in incomes, the top 1% of income earners (AGI $365,000/yr) now pay 39% of ALL personal income taxes (up from 37% in 2000) - even though the rates have been cut in half from 1980.

The top 25% (AGI $62,000/yr and up) pay 86% of ALL personal income taxes (up from 84% in 2000).

The top 50% (AGI $31,000/yr and up) pay 97% of ALL personal income taxes.

The bottom 50% (AGI $30,000/yr and below) pay 3% of ALL personal income taxes - and 80% of that group (40% of ALL workers in US) actually have no tax burden, getting more back than was paid in over the course of a year.

Obama claims he wants to give tax cuts to '95%' of the workers in the country, but 40% already get more back than they pay in - that is not a tax cut, it is a transfer of wealth at the point of a gun (IRS).

Most definitions of the Middle Class suggest dual-earner households averaging about $100,000 per year in income, which is about $60,000 in AGI. That means the so-called Middle Class (~33 million families) really only accounts for about 15% of wage earners (occupying a space from the top 50% to the top 25% of wage earners), but their share of taxes paid (16%) pales in comparison to top 10% (11% of ALL taxes but only ~13 million families), the top 5% (20% of ALL taxes but only ~7 million families), or the top 1% (39% of ALL taxes but only 1.4 million families).

So the top 25% of wage earners in the US, 33 million families, pay 86% of the income tax burden, the remaining 100 million families pay 14%.

Put another way, the top 1%, 1.4 million families, pay 13 times as much in taxes as the 66 million families that make up the bottom 50% of wage earners.

Is THAT fair?

SO YOU TELL ME WHO IS NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE.

As a brief aside, the evil big-oil company Exxon-Mobile pays more in Corporate income taxes than the bottom 50% of all wage earners - one company pays as much in taxes as half the wage earners in the US. $30 billion dollars in 2007 and estimated to exceed $40 billion this year.

For every gallon of gas, Exxon sees a gross profit of about $.28, State governments take an average of $.29 and the Federal government takes $.184 (plus 35% of the profit that Exxon made, collected as income taxes).

The Inconvenient Truth About Obama, Jesus, and Community Organizing

A lot of attention has been played in the alternative media lately to a new action line comparing Obama to Jesus as a ‘Community Organizer’. Now we all know how loathe the Left in America typically is to engage in religious comparisons so this shows just how desparate the Obama camp and its minions have become.

To show the utter insidious, contemptuous and manipulative nature of this ridiculous comparison, I offer some quotes from Saul Alinsky’s 1971 book Rules for Radicals, the handbook for community organizing, used by Barack Obama, as well as Hillary Clinton so that you the undecided can compare those to your understanding of Jesus.

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.

The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe's 'conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action'; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind.

The second rule of the ethics of the means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment. If you were a member of the underground Resistance, you adopted the means of assassination, terror, property destruction, the bombing of tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazi's. Those who opposed the Nazi's conquerors regarded the Resistance as a secret army of selfless, patriotic idealists ...." Rules for Radicals is therefore concerned with how to win. "...[i]n such a conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory.

The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the ends justifies almost any means.

There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds, he becomes a founding father.

Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.

For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.

Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

Second: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity. The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

Sixth rule: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment.

Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being
trapped by the enemy in his suddenly agreeing with your demand and saying
"You're right - we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck. The target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target.

One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability - where do you ave the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.

Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.

The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community's segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system.

Rules for Radicals teaches the organizer that he must give a moral appearance (as opposed to behaving morally): "All effective action requires the passport of morality.

The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends states "that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments ... Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means."

Rules for Radicals provides the organizer with a tactical style for community organization that assumes an adversarial relationship between groups of people in which one either dominates or is dominated.

In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.

Saul Alinsky urged the active and deliberate "conscious-raising" of people through the technique of "popular education." Popular education is a method by which an organizer leads people to a class-based interpretation of their grievances, and to accept the organizer's systemic solutions to address those grievances."

Essentially, Alinsky and his students such as Obama and the Clinton's focus on the individual need, the individual grievances, and use any means necessary backed up with moral relativism.

Compare that to the message of forgiveness, and love, and actual community of Jesus, with His lesson of moral objectivity - and of course His ultimate SELF sacrifice.

If you recognize the teachings and actions of Christ somewhere in there, then maybe the comparison is valid.

Where in the Bible does Jesus try to get people to be upset about their individual situation and then channel that hateful energy against an individual, stating that the ends justifies the means?

Is it 1 Obama, Letter to the Daleyian ACORNs, verses 12-19?

Personally, I think it clearly demonstrates that the Obama camp has literally no comprehension of the teachings of Jesus or the sacrifice He made.