Robert Reich is a racist

Robert Reich was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. 

As best I can tell from his Wikipedia entry, he's never done anything but teach school, practice law, or help screw up the country as a government employee.  I don't think he's ever manufactured anything but regulatory burdens. 

Reich recently came up with a list of things that The Teleprompter Jesus could do to create jobs.  Half of the suggestions were the standard "give employers a tax credit for doing things that their Lords And Masters like".  The other half were the standard "take money from one group that I don't necessarily like (rich people, unborn fetuses, banks, etc.) and give it to another group". 

But the tenth proposal perfectly reflects the lunacy to which we've all descended, and that's the one that got my blood boiling.  Here goes:

10. Impose a "severance fee" on any large business that lays off an American worker and outsources the job abroad.

Before I unload on this Statist sonofabitch, let me get in some full disclosure.  I'm proud to work for an American manufacturer.  We make things in the United States, which, considering the regulatory environment, is just about impossible.  We also outsource some work to China.  We're warehousing some stuff in Canada.  We're about to get something big going with a manufacturer in Brazil. 

But in addition to bringing things in from other places, I routinely ship our American-made (and outsourced) products to stores all over the world.  Before my vacation this past week, we loaded out 5 full-sized shipping containers of freakin' fruitstands to Chile.  Yeah.  Fruitstands.  You can make fruitstands anywhere, but people in Chile like ours.  So do our customers in Mexico, Canada and Colombia.  "Trade" works both ways. 

Before we started bringing some of the simpler products in from China, our company had 300 employees in the United States.  And less than a decade after "outsourcing these jobs", in Reich's phrase, to China, we had....

600 employees. 

Yep.  We started making some things in China and this allowed us to double our U.S. workforce.  (We've cut back to around 500 since our peak a couple of years ago, but then, there's a madman in the White House.) 

To what degree should we be punished?  And who will decide how much we should have to pay for sending work to Chinese People and then hiring more American People in the United States as a result of our increased efficiency? 

Let's get to the next bit o' goofiness in Reich's proposal...   I once spent a phenomenally dull Spring welding these weld nuts into 7 3/4 lengths of steel tube. 

Before long, we had doubled the size of our metal shop, and instead of 4 employees, we had 8.  Somebody else welded those things into the steel tubes.  Then 3 people welded them.   

Next thing you know, we've got 3 shifts and 90 people working in our metal shop.  We don't have room to breathe. 

But at the same time, customers decided that they didn't want any more weld nuts tacked into 7 3/4 lengths of steel tube.  Instead of 3 people welding the things, we cut back to just one person doing the job.  Then, for a brief period of time, we occasionally set up a robotic welder to do it. 

Now we order a couple of thousand of the things from China a couple of times a year. 

How is the law firm of Reich, Rodham, and Reid going to determine what "severance fee" we should pay?  And to whom?  Especially since the metal shop has grown to 150 employees since we sent the simpler stuff to China and since no one purchases enough of them to keep an American busy full-time? 

I bet Uncle Sam would have to hire 5 Regulatory Gremlins to monitor our company alone, which is probably the goal of Reich's proposal.  Who knows.  Moving on....

Let's assume that we're succesful in our attempt at manufacturing fruitstands in Brazil.  Let's also assume that Robert Reich persuades The Teleprompter Jesus to slap a "severance fee" on any company that manufactures anything overseas. 

Do you really think that our customers in China, Colombia, Chile, Canada and Mexico will be able to continue ordering things from me at the same price?  Or will their governments turn around and slap a "severance fee" of some sort on manufacturers who purchase my component parts and complete products?

Remember, Robert Reich was educated/indoctrinated at Oxford and Yale.  He's one of the brightest and best.  God help us all. 

Next, put yourself in a company owner's position.  If there was even a remote chance that a new product could be made in China, would you ever consider making it in the U.S. if doing so meant you might one day be required to pay a "severance fee"? 

Hell no, you wouldn't. 

You would keep your U.S. workforce on your old product line.  The new product would be made exclusively in China from Day One so no one at Reich, Rodham, and Reid could ever accuse you of laying off someone and sending that job to China.  

Finally, let's get to the racial issue.  We recently put up a new Martin Luther King Memorial on the National Mall in D.C.  Here's a quote from the base of the statue:

"our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective."

Yeah.  What King said. 

I don't give a rip about the lines of latitude and longitude where something is manufactured.  Robert Reich wants to take that into account when HE decides what HE will allow in and out of what HE thinks of as our little cage.

I don't care about the nationality of the people my employer sells to, or the arbitrary borders on a map that show where they were born.  The ones I've met have been good folks, almost without exception.  I can say the same thing about the people oversease who we purchase from.  Robert Reich thinks that nationality matters more than "the content of their character".   

I don't give a rip about the skin color of the people making my fruitstands.  Robert Reich appears to be obsessed with it.  I wonder if Reich is disturbed that the MLK statue was outsourced to a Chinese dude....

I see no other explanation than to say that I believe Robert Reich is a racist of the worst possible sort.  (And an economic idiot.)  

Quote of the day

The cure for unemployment that we're waiting to discover

There are hundreds if not thousands of potentially devastating videos just waiting to be created about The Teleprompter Jesus and his ability to make bad situations worse.

Note the unemployment rate early on in this video, as employers defensively react to every word that this guy says.

Kinda like the way the stock market reacted during his speech on the economy.

Here's the Obama speech that employers are waiting to hear:

"Yeah, we made some mistakes.
We're not going to try to do anything else to create jobs for the rest of our lives.

Why not?

Because we suck at it.
Taking money from group A to give to group B so they will hire more people from group C ? That merely causes group A to hide their money, causes group B to create projects that Washington likes rather than consumers, and creates a nastly little political bloc out of group C.


Also, we're going to settle in on a Flat Tax system. It's going to slide between 5% and 15%. If you're homeless, you're still going to pay 5% of your "profits" to Washington. If you're Bill Gates, you're going to pay 15%. No loopholes in exchange for campaign donations. Ever.


Oh, and one other thing. ObamaCare is now over. If you hire someone, you're not expected to be his nursemaid, doctor, surgeon, or insurance agent.


I almost forgot... CardCheck is now over. If you hire someone, you don't have to worry about him banding all of your labor vendors together to force you to hire from a certain group.


I'm going to remain on vacation for the forseeable future.


Hope this helps.

Now, watch this swing....

The State Department wasn't the only one playing Footsie with Gaddafi

Muammar Kaddafi was "Dictator Du Jour" on this site a few days ago.  It's a new program I've started to honor the murderous dictators that our State Department blesses with lots of free stuff - training, military hardware, etc. 

(Note: I'm no longer even trying to spell this guy's name consistently from link to link.)

It gets better and better.  This is from The Business Insider:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) promised to help former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi obtain U.S. military hardware, as one of the United States' partners in the war on terror," according to a U.S. diplomatic cable released Wednesday by anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

If the Nobel Peace Prize committee wants to atone for giving the prize to The Teleprompter Jesus, they oughta give it to Julian Assange, the founder and publisher of Wikileaks. 

The meeting, which took place just over a year ago on Aug. 14, 2009, included other influential Americans, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Susan Collins (R-SC) and Senate Armed Services Committee staffer Richard Fontaine, the document explains.

McCain opened the meeting by characterizing Libya's relationship with the U.S. as "excellent," to which Liebermann added: "We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi."

"Lieberman called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting that common enemies sometimes make better friends," the cable continues. "The Senators recognized Libya's cooperation on counterterrorism and conveyed that it was in the interest of both countries to make the relationship stronger."

Part and parcel to that relationship: military hardware, including helicopters and non-lethal weaponry, meant to ensure the security of Tripoli. In exchange for this and assisting the nation in rehabilitating its image with other lawmakers, Gaddafi pledged to send Libya's highly enriched uranium supplies to Russia for proper disposal.

Note that the article doesn't say "in exchange for this, Gaddafi gave us money".  It just says that "in exchange for this, Gaddafi pledged"....to do something or other. 

The cable does not mention anything about the senators pressing Gaddafi for democratic reforms. 

On the places where Warren Buffett chooses to invest his money, Part 3, The final conflict !!!

Warren Buffett wishes he could pay more taxes, if only someone would make him. 

Check out my two previous posts,

Then look at what this guy wrote. 

Lord have mercy, what a Corporatist/Statist tool. 

An update on the places where Warren Buffett chooses to invest his money

Read the previous post before you read this bit o' greatness....

Here's some more about Warren Buffett, who says he should be paying MORE taxes, out of fairness !!

But if he (Buffett) were truly sincere, perhaps he might simply try paying the taxes the IRS says his company owes? According to Berkshire Hathaway’s own annual report — see Note 15 on pp. 54-56 — the company has been in a years-long dispute over its federal tax bills.

According to the report, “We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the IRS for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at the IRS Appeals Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division process. The IRS is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2007 through 2009 tax years.”

Americans for Limited Government researcher Richard McCarty, who was alerted to the controversy by a federal government lawyer, said, “The company has been short-changing the tax collection agency for much of the past decade. Mr. Buffett’s company has not fully settled its tax bills from 2002-2009. Yet he says he’d happily pay more. Except the IRS has apparently been asking him to pay more going on nine years.”

The mind recoils. 

On the places where Warren Buffett chooses to invest his money

Zillionaire Warren Buffett has been in the news a lot. 

First, he made worldwide headlines by complaining in a New York Holy Times editorial that he isn't forced to give enough money to our government. 

This is strange.  Anyone wanting to give more money to the government can do so by hitting this link, which gives you some helpful information, plus this address:

Gifts to the United States

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Credit Accounting Branch

3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D

Hyattsville, MD 20782

No New York Times editorials are necessary.  No complaining is necessary.  No righteous posturing is required.  All Mr. Buffett has to do is write a check for the amount he thinks he should be paying, mail it to that address, and his money will be wasted just as quickly as the money that Washington is borrowing from China.  (And if Mr. Buffett wants some publicity and increased stature amongst The Statists, that would do it.  The more rational half of the nation, however, would know that he'd gone stark, raving mad.) 

Or perhaps Buffett just wants other people to pay more money, but not himself.  We'll never know.  You can go here to read an analysis of why Buffett's claims about his tax rate are somewhat misleading.

Here's something else about how Warren Buffett chooses to spend his money, this time from The Wall Street Journal:

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. will invest $5 billion in Bank of America Corp., giving the nation's biggest bank a much-needed vote of confidence amid questions about the credibility of its management.What do you think? Will that figure shore Bank of America up adequately for a return to profitability? Is Buffett seizing a golden opportunity, or taking too risky a gamble?

Hmmmm..... This is a strange one.  You can go elsewhere on the internet and read that it isn't just the 5 billion investment that has caused Bank Of America's stock to increase.  It's that Warren Buffett, The Sage of Ohama, has taken a look at Bank Of America, thought about it, and declared BofA to be worthy of his money and his shareholders' money.  If Warren Buffett says it's a good investment, it's a good investment. 

Why would Warren Buffett voluntarily throw money at a risky proposition like a failing bank, but complain about not being forced at gunpoint to give more money to a failing government? 

I think it is because Bank Of America is probably a good investment, and a good use of Buffett's money, and a good use of the money of the investors who trust Warren Buffett. 

The United States Government, under present leadership, is not. 

Money talks, bullshit walks.  Especially if it is Warren Buffett's money. 

Quote of the day, on a logical consequence of huge debt

I found this on Samizdata:

During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Christians were not supposed to charge interest. Therefore, the most common moneylenders-to-kings were Jews. They could loan money at a profit, and were thus more likely to lend it.

But whenever the King's debts got too large to repay, he began to demonise the Jews. And eventually came a pogrom. And hey-ho, the debt went away along with the Jews.

I'm seeing the demonisation of banks. I wonder how long before government throws a pogrom?

- Ellen Kuhfeld

I don't believe we have any boots on our throats yet, but....

....this is kinda cool to think about. 

Muammar al-Qaddafi - Our Dictator Du Jour (we were for him before we were against him)

Ron Paul has a reputation amongst The Statists as being totally naive on foreign policy. 

This means he is always right. 

Not just kinda right, but gloriously validated and vindicated.   You don't earn a bad reputation in Big Government circles by being wrong. 

Here's a little dustup that Paul had with our Secretary Of State, also known as She Whose Name Is Not Spoken:

“A lot of people in this country have come to the conclusion that our policy overhaul has been inconsistent; that sometimes we support the bad guys and the bad guys become our enemies,” Paul told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Rep. Paul pointed to America’s support for Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, its collaboration with Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 1980s, and its propping up the Shah in Iran for decades before that.

“But we keep supporting Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, all these dictators, and yet we pretend that as soon as, well, it looks like the dictator might fall, we're all for democracy and we're for freedom and we're against these dictators,” he said.

To which The Hildabeast responded:

“Congressman, you make a very passionate argument, and my response is that, you know, the United States, over the course of its entire diplomatic history, has had to make some very difficult decisions,” she said.

“We try to balance what we believe to be in our interests. Sometimes, and I would argue most times, we get it right. Sometimes we don't,” America’s top diplomat conceded.

You can go here for a partial list of dictators that we've supported, and that most sane and sober people would examine and say "Dang, Hillary.  You sure got that one wrong.  What possessed you folks to give that dictator a bunch of money?"  

So here's today's update:  Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi is now on the run.  Rebels have almost taken Tripoli, and our State Department will soon be able to claim that our military involvement in Libya was justified.  But what about this, from 2009 ??

The State Department has designated $400,000 in international aid funds for two foundations run by the children of Libyan dictator Muammar Kaddafi, a move that two Republican members of Congress today called a misuse of taxpayer funds that should be immediately cut off by President Obama.

The Congress members’ complaints on Thursday came just a day after Kaddafi delivered a bizarre speech to the United Nations in which he suggested the Israelis may have been behind the Kennedy assassination and the swine-flu virus was cooked up in a corporate lab. It also comes amid mounting international criticism of Kaddafi’s regime after it provided a hero’s welcome to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 that killed 270 people.

Ironically, one of the groups designated for $200,000 in State Department funds is the Kaddafi Development Foundation, headed by Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the Libyan leader’s son who personally arranged for Megrahi’s flight back to Tripoli last month after the convicted terrorist was released on “humanitarian” grounds from a Scottish jail. Another $200,000—part of $2.5 million in State Department economic-support funds for Libya—is slated to go to an organization headed by Kaddafi’s daughter Aisha, to promote “women’s economic opportunities.”

“This waste of taxpayer dollars is particularly outrageous following the hero’s welcome given to the Lockerbie bomber,” said Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Relations Committee. Ros-Lehtinen wrote Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her to cut off the entire $2.5 million designation for Libya, noting that it was provided by Congress in order to “promote democracy and human rights” in Libya. “How could this assistance effectively promote democracy when entrusted to the dictator’s family?” she asked.

Yeah.  Good question.  I think that funding got blocked, but I don't have time this morning to research it properly.  But how about this later attempt to give Qaddafi some money?  Not just some money but an increase in his allowance?  This was going on in March of this year !!!!

While President Obama calls Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi a threat to his own people, just one month before attacking Libya the president asked Congress to increase U.S. aid for Qaddafi's military to $1.7 million.

According to State Department figures, the money was earmarked to train Libyan military officers, improve its air force, secure its borders and to counter terrorism.

If this seems contradictory, welcome to the world of U.S. foreign aid, where billions of tax dollars go to people we don't like and nations some say don't need the help. The latest unrest has drawn renewed scrutiny to these policies. 

Hell, by the way they keep trying to throw money at him, you would think that Qaddafi worked for SEIU or ACORN or maybe the Wisconsin Teachers' Union.  If time permitted, I'd check to see if he got any stimulus funds. 

If you have time and don't mind getting depressed, you can go here and see that, through various aid organizations, we've given Libya $176 million since Qaddafi took over as dictator. 

Good job, Hillary. 

*********************

I think my next Dictator Du Jour will be Spain's Francisco Franco or Cambodia's Pol Pot.  We supported both of them until we were against them.  Or I can take nominations for other dicatators from you folks.  The floor is open, and there are plenty of candidates. 

The pic of our man in Libya came from here.  The Aid Trap picture came from here, and that entire article should be tattooed on Hillary's thighs. 

From the CBS News website Gift Shop

Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Kennedy. 

'Nuff said. 

Die quickly, Mainstream Media.  die quickly. 

Why Penn Jillette is a Libertarian Nut instead of just a Nut, and other stuff

I'm reading magician/comedian Penn Jillette's "God, No".  The chapter "Why I'm A Libertarian Nut Instead Of Just A Nut" is so good, so spot-on, that I was going to pound it into the internet this morning. 

This guy beat me to it.  So all I have to do is copy and paste. 

I don’t speak for all Libertarians any more than Sean Penn speaks for all Democrats. I’m not even sure my LP membership card is up to date. I’ve voted Libertarian as long as I can remember but I don’t really remember much before the Clintons and the Bushes. Those clans made a lot of us bugnutty. When I go on Glenn’s show he calls me a Libertarian, I think that’s my only real credential.

There are historical reasons and pragmatic reasons to be a Libertarian, but there are historic and pragmatic reasons to be a Democrat, a Republican or a Socialist. I don’t know if everyone would be better off under a Libertarian government. I don’t know what would be best for anyone. I don’t even know what’s best for me. What makes me Libertarian is I don’t think anyone else really knows what’s best for anyone. My argument for Libertarianism is simple - personal morality.

I start with the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” So, essentially our government does what they do with my consent.

I know barely enough about Max Weber to type his name into Google, but it seems he’s credited with asserting the idea that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. I put those two ideas together (my consent and use of physical force) and figure we all give our government the right to use force. So, the way I figure, it’s not okay for our government to use force in any situation where I personally wouldn’t use force.

For example, if I’m not willing to kill a cute cow, I shouldn’t eat steak. I don’t have to kill Bessy right now with my bare hands, but I have to be willing to snuff her if I want to chow down on a T-bone. If it’s not okay for me, it’s not okay for a slaughterhouse. Asking someone else to do something immoral is immoral. If it’s not okay for me to break David Blaine’s hands so my magic show has less competition, it’s not okay for me to ask someone else to beat him up. Someone else doing your dirty work is still your dirty work.

If I had a gun, and I knew a murder was happening, (we’re speaking hypothetically here, I’m not asking you to believe that I could accurately tell a murder from aggressive CPR), I would use that gun to stop that murder. I might be too much of a coward to use a gun myself to stop a murder or rape or robbery, but I think the use of a gun is justified. I’m even okay with using force to enforce voluntary contracts. If I were a hero, I would use a gun to protect the people who choose to live under this free system and to stop another country from attacking America. But I wouldn’t use a gun to force someone to love something like say…a library.

Look, I love libraries. I spent a lot of time in the Greenfield Public Library when I was a child. I would give money to build a library. I would ask you to give money to build a library. But, if for some reason you were crazy enough to think you had a better idea for your money than building my library, I wouldn’t pull a gun on you. I wouldn’t use a gun to build an art museum, look at the wonders of the universe through a big telescope, or even find a cure for cancer.

The fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, it’s not really a very good idea. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It’s just ganging up on the weird kid, and I’m always the weird kid.

People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment though -- suggesting someone not pay their taxes is probably a federal offense, and while I may be a nut, I’m not crazy.) When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force.

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

I’m a Libertarian nut because I don’t want my government to do anything in my name that I wouldn’t do myself.

Here's another excerpt where Jillette explains the connection between his religious beliefs (none) and his Libertarianism.  He doesn't believe that he knows.  He has no freakin' clue what is best for you, sitting there in Clovis New Mexico, or Birmingham Alabama, or Birmingham England.  He doesn't know what you need !!  Neither does Barack Obama, or John Boehner, or Rick Perry, or David Cameron, or The Pope.  They are ALL ordinary people that some of you good folks want to put on pedestals.  Penn Jillette doesn't understand why. 

“What makes me libertarian is what makes me an atheist — I don’t know. If I don’t know, I don’t believe. I don’t know exactly how we got here, and I don’t think anyone else does, either. We have some of the pieces of the puzzle and we’ll get more, but I’m not going to use faith to fill in the gaps. I’m not going to believe things that TV hosts state without proof. I’ll wait for real evidence and then I’ll believe.

And I don’t think anyone really knows how to help everyone. I don’t even know what’s best for me. Take my uncertainty about what’s best for me and multiply that by every combination of the over 300 million people in the United States and I have no idea what the government should do.

President Obama sure looks and acts way smarter than me, but no one is 2 to the 300 millionth power times smarter than me. No one is even 2 to the 300 millionth times smarter than a squirrel. I sure don’t know what to do about an AA+ rating and if we should live beyond our means and about compromise and sacrifice. I have no idea. I’m scared to death of being in debt. I was a street juggler and carny trash — I couldn’t get my debt limit raised, I couldn’t even get a debt limit — my only choice was to live within my means. That’s all I understand from my experience, and that’s not much.

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

Here's a random Penn Jillette video on the merits of Libertarianism as compared to the other choice.  If you are offended by F-bombs, don't hit "play".  The F-bombs are, however, appropriate. 

The Comedy Genius of Charlie Delta !!!!!!!!

My California friend Charlie Delta has written a blog post in which our political situation pushes me over the edge. 

Stolen Forklifts in heavy traffic are involved. 

Shiner beer is involved. 

I'm not going to tell you how much of this might be true.

Here's the video that inspired Charlie Delta's story.  It takes a few seconds to get started.  Be patient.  This thing is worth it.  Let this be the soundtrack for what you're about to enjoy....

I've been around the world twice.  I've been to China five times.   I've been Employee Of The Year at two different companies.  I'm the father of my daughter. 

I don't know that any of that is better than this.  Hit the link and enjoy the pure comedy gold of Charlie Delta ! 

God's comments on Rick Perry

Something to think about

The documentation for this startling statement is in the fine print at the bottom of the poster. 

Jon Stewart nails it. In Orwellian terms, Ron Paul is an Un-Person

Jon Stewart nails it.
There's something weird going on in the Lamestream Media coverage of Ron Paul.
Enjoy.

Miss USA: Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools?

Humanity is fortunate that the answers to the question "evolve" as the video progresses.

Miss California (at the 2:00 mark, the self-professed science geek) won the pageant, BTW.

Since the other government departments have been so freakin' great....

Please allow me to beat the crap out of a few dead horses before getting to my point....

The Department of Education was founded in 1980. 

Here's a graph showing education spending vs. test scores.  Did you notice how test scores improved and lurched upward in 1980, when all the insane spending on education got started?  I didn't either. 

Next topic....The Department of Energy was founded shortly after the oil non-crisis of 1977 during the Carter administration, and now has 16,000 employees, 100,000 contract employees and an annual budget of over $24 billion.  The Department was created to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

(I firmly believe that wanting to reduce our dependence on foreign anything is a silly concept.  You can reduce your dependence on Proctor and Gamble by making your own soap.  You can reduce your dependence on Joseph A. Banks by sewing your own suits.  You can reduce your dependence on the internet by going to the library.  But that is no way to live your life.  Depending on others is good.  The only truly self-reliant people on our planet live in mud huts and have trouble keeping their feces out of their food.  But at least they don't depend on foreigners.  And they have a very small carbon footprint!!!) 

Sorry for the digression.  The Department of Energy was supposed to reduce our "dependence" on foreign oil.  Here's another chart.  Do you see the massive decrease in oil imports after the founding of the Department Of Energy?  I don't either. 

Let's pick on another recent Cabinet level Department, just for grins and giggles.  Lyndon Johnson birthed the Department Of Housing And Urban Development in 1965 because some government employees conducted a study that found there was a larger possible role for the Federal Government in solving urban problems, a role that would save and create jobs for more government employees. 

One of HUD's most notorious blunders was to round up large numbers of the urban poor, bulldoze their homes, and move them into high-rise hellholes where they had no connections to former neighbors, no sense of community, and no real reason to give a rip about their surroundings. 

Forget the charts.  Forget The Village Voice claiming that HUD was "the worst landlord" in New York City.  For these guys, we need video !!!!

Here's a time lapse of the destruction of the infamous Cabrini-Green housing project in Chicago:

Why the demolition of a beautiful HUD project?

During the worst years of Cabrini–Green's problems, vandalism increased substantially. Gang members and miscreants covered interior walls with graffiti and damaged doors, windows, and elevators. Rat and cockroach infestations were commonplace, rotting garbage stacked up in clogged trash chutes (it once piled up to the 15th floor), and basic utilities (water, electricity, etc.) often malfunctioned and were left unrepaired. On the exterior, boarded-up windows, burned-out areas of the facade, and pavement instead of green space—all in the name of economizing on maintenance—created an atmosphere of neglect and decay. The high "open galleries" were enclosed with steel fencing along the entire height of the building to prevent residents from emptying rubbish bins into the yard, from falling, and from being thrown off to their deaths (giving the visual appearance of a large prison tier, or animal cages, which further enraged community leaders).

Here's a video of Missouri's Pruitt-Igoe housing project implosion:

To be fair, this particular hellhole was built prior to HUD's existence. But it was still a government housing project. You can scour the 'net in vain trying to find someone saying a good thing about the place.

If you're really into this kind of thing, you can go here to watch all the videos of the demolition of Chicago's Robert Taylor Housing Project. 

Now.  Just to cleanse the palate before our main course, here's the video of the last flights out of Saigon, April 1975. 

I could bring up ethanol subsidies, the Department of Motor Vehicles, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, TARP, the Bailouts, the government-inflicted Housing Bubble, the looming bankruptcy of Social Security, the Porkulus Package, the 15 trillion dollar debt/bar tab we're going to leave to our unborn fetuses, and our government's thousands of other debacles.

I don't have time for those.

Here's the kicker.

Barack Freakin' Obama, who couldn't organize a dinner luncheon, is seriously thinking about creating a Department Of Jobs.

The administration may also merge the Department of Commerce, the Office of the United States Trade Representative and some economic divisions at the State Department into a new agency, administration officials said. Possible names include the Department of Jobs or the Department of Competitiveness.

May God have mercy on us all.  I can't imagine how badly he's going to screw that up. 

We've had a good run since 1776.  Maybe our time is over. 

It has been a pleasure writing for you.  Good luck, everyone. 

King Barack declares that fuel efficiency will improve, or we will face his displeasure

Having failed in his quest to lower sea levels around the world, Barack Obama has declared that big rigs will get  better mileage. 

WASHINGTON--President Obama announced the first-ever fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for long-haul rigs, work trucks, and other heavy duty vehicles Tuesday, the second mileage pact with manufacturers in less than a month.

The regulations call for reductions on fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 2018 of 9 to 23 percent, depending on the type of vehicle. Trucks and other heavy vehicles make up only 4 percent of the domestic vehicle fleet, but given the distance they travel, the time they spend idling and their low fuel efficiency, they end up consuming about 20% of all vehicle fuel, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

These things always puzzle me.  If you're going to go into the business of improving efficiency by Imperial Decree, why stop at 23% ?  Why not declare that "I, King Barack Of Chicago, hereby mandate that all semi-tractors will reduce fuel consumption by 50%, or ye shall face my wrath."

Experts say that a 20 percent reduction in heavy vehicle emissions would boost fuel efficiency to an average of 8 miles per gallon from 6 miles now.

Precisely.  And if the driver could be replaced by the Walt Disney Animatronic Driver, payrolls and other transportation costs would be slashed by 25%.  If tires could be made of Mississippi mud instead of rubber, replacement costs would be lowered by 89%.  If we ever get that big engineering breakthrough, the one where they make diesel engines out of Play-Do, vehicles will be 23% cheaper.  And on and on and on.....

Ok, rather than Fisk the rest of this piece of White House Boosterism, which would become tiresome, I'm just going to highlight the individual words that I think are funniest.  If you have any understanding of how the world works and why auto companies are going along with this crap, and the concepts of "collusion" and "corporatism", you'll get it. 

The announcement comes less than two weeks after Obama and the country’s automakers unveiled new fuel economy rules for passenger vehicles that would boost fleet-wide average gas mileage to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, from about 27.8 miles per gallon now.

The success of the Obama fuel efficiency program (!!!!!!!), some of it hard-won through difficult talks with car makers, stands in sharp contrast to the failure of other environmental initiatives, like climate change legislation.

At a time when nearly all major corporate lobbying groups and the Republican Party insist that the administration’s environmental regulations destroy jobs, the auto makers, the United Auto Workers union and now truck and large engine manufacturers are collaborating on rules they think could create jobs. Most environmental groups also praised the new truck standards.

The automobile industry has been more cooperative with the government since the federal bailout of two major car makers, General Motors and Chrysler. It is also mollified by the fact that the new, 2025 auto rules have what critics consider loopholes that allow the carmakers to improve fuel efficiency on their most popular models at a slower pace.

Moreover, the new standards encourage car and truck makers to use off-the-shelf technology, some of which they have already deployed, rather than invest in scientific breakthroughs.

“We’d be able to meet the standards by reducing weight, using low rolling-resistance tires to cut down on drag, making vehicles more aerodynamic and have less idling: those are available in the U.S. now,” said Jed Mandel, president of the Engine Manufacturers Association, the truck and engine makers’ trade group. The federal government has “done a great job in allowing flexibility for truck makers to build vehicles.”

Sorry.  I've got to interject something here.  The Federal Government has no damn business "allowing flexibility" in anything that doesn't harm someone else.  Period.  They've done a great job in allowing flexibility.  They've done a great job in allowing flexibility.  They've done a great job in allowing flexibility.  That's another way of saying "As long as we behave in the way they like, they'll let us get away with a few things." 

We're a nation of sheep, bleating about how our Master allows us greater flexibility. 

Gag. 

The new standards would increase the cost of heavy duty trucks, which cost tens of thousands of dollars, by several thousand dollars each, depending on the vehicle. But the administration and the manufacturers’ group estimated that the higher costs would be recouped very quickly, often within a year or two, because of savings at the pump, one of the biggest expenses for any cargo or trucking business.

The administration estimated that businesses using big trucks could save about $50 billion in fuel costs over the program’s duration.

And in the meantime, competition is decreased.  Barriers to entry are erected.  Choice is eliminated.  Government and trade group alliances are strengthened. 

Mission accomplished.  And it doesn't have a damn thing to do with fuel economy or the environment. 

End of rant. 

The pic of Ozymandias came from here.  The posters came from Dan McCall's Facebook page. 

"Acoustic Song Circle" this Sunday afternoon in Fort Worth

"Acoustic Song Circle" at The Corporate Image, this Sunday at 2:00.  5418 Brentwood Stair Road in Fort Worth.  Bring your guitar and 3 chords, or just show up and listen and drink a few.  It's a fun time!

(The gent who is 2nd from the right in the gray T-shirt is our infamous Dr. Ralph.  Dr. Ralph can play his Democrat rear end off, BTW.) 

Here's how it works.  Somebody starts a song.  The people who know the song play along with whoever is taking the lead on it.  The people who DON'T know the song play along with whoever is taking the lead on it.  Sometimes harmonicas are brought into the equation.  No fake British accents are allowed. 

Other people take turns soloing over the chords every now and then. 

This is me, trying really hard to remember the lyrics to something. 

We're doing this every Sunday afternoon until football blows up the Sunday afternoon time slot.  Hope you can make it this weekend !!