Americanly Yours

I mentioned yesterday that President Obama signed a massive $410,000,000,000 [$410 billion] spending bill loaded with over 8,500 earmarks.

In last year’s campaign, Senator McCain pledged that he would not sign a bill with a single earmark.  Whether or not he would have abided by this pledge is of course unknown to us.  What is known, however, is that President Obama just signed a bill with over 8,500 earmarks which will cost tax payers billions of dollars.

A presidential veto of this bill would have earned Mr. Obama credit with fiscal hawks like myself.

Predictably and pathetically, President Obama blamed the earmarks in the bill on President Bush.  When will this president finally step forward and take responsibility for his own administration?  This has become almost a gut reaction from this President–any criticism of him gets deflected by blaming President Bush.  The earmarks that were in the bill are the responsibility of the Congressmen who placed them into the bill, the Congressmen who voted for the bill, and the President who signed the bill into law.  President Bush is nowhere to be found in this process.

Even more disturbing than the 8,500 earmarks in this bill is the fact that our President has broken a campaign promise by signing this bill.  Check out this CNN clip.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Sorry for the lack of updates. I have been sick most of the week and am just now starting to feel better…

The big news is the “stimulus” package that is about to be passed whether or not the American people want it to.

My friend Art sent me this article from the Wall Street Journal which talks about what all is included in the “stimulus.”  It is pretty ridiculous.

But on top of this, there are are some truly outrageous things in the bill.  Under the terms of the bill, illegal immigrants who have been working in this country illegally will be able to get a tax rebate check of $500 per person.  Seriously.

This bill also gives money to dairy farmers to take their dairy cows out of production in order to raise the price of milk and create a greater profit for the dairy industry.  This type of government intervention is not only wrong, it is very dangerous.  Remember that less that a year ago, there was a global “food crisis” going on in which hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people were on the verge of starving.  By paying farmers to not produce food and drink, our government is playing a very dangerous game.  But this is not a game.  This is real life.  If government intervention causes the price of food to go up, people could actually die.

Here is an interesting article from CNN that was sent to me by two of my friends, Squeak and Hawk (yes, I have a friend named Squeak and a friend named Hawk).  This talks about solutions that Libertarians have come up with to address the current [government manufactured] crisis.  I dont support all of them and there are at least two that I completely disagree with, but they are all better than what we are going to end up spending the money on.

I want to write more, but this is getting to be too long.  Ill have an article for yall tomorrow.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

People were asking me questions about where I heard that the bailout could end up costing $4 trillion.  Here is an article from CNN.com which was a source of mine.

We have thrown unprecidented amounts of money at this problem which would have eventually worked itself out without government meddling.  If that wasnt bad enough, now even our government is admitting that they “may never know whether the government’s $700 billion bailout of the financial industry worked.”  Ironically, the report was issued by the General Accountability Office… wow

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

The American People do not want the auto industry to be bailed out. According to a poll conducted by CNN, 61% of Americans surveyed are absolutely against any federal bailout of the American auto industry. Additionally, the majority of voters in every single region of the country are opposed to these bailouts, including 53% of people in the Midwest (these are the people most likely to be affected by any auto industry bankruptcies). 70 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Independents, and 55 percent of Democrats are opposed to these bailouts. Simply put, this is an issue on which there is an overwhelming amount of agreement. The American people do not want to see their money wasted on bailing out failing automakers.

Chrysler is a privately owned company which is 80% owned by Cerberus Capital Management and 20% owned by Diamler AG. Both of these companies have billions of dollars in cash on hand, yet the parent companies of Chrysler have refused to inject more of their own money into their failing subsidiary. If, as the automakers are claiming that they only need money to temporarily get them through an organization process, why wont the owners of these companies temporarily inject the money into the companies? Probably because they know that it is a bad investment and that they are not likely to receive their money back. If the owners of Chrysler are unwilling to put their own money into Chrysler, why should the American people be FORCED AGAINST OUR WILL into spending OUR money on a bailout? Additionally, the Ford family has billions of dollars in personal assets. If they want to save their company, maybe they should use their money.

Speaking of Ford, of the Big 3 Automakers, Ford is the only one not in horrible shape. Since taking over two years ago, CEO Alan Mulally has begun to implement a vast turn around plan called “The Way Forward.” This plan has been relatively successful, and has already resulted in billions of dollars in cost savings, and will continue to help the company. As a result, Ford is the only American automaker not in immediate risk of collapsing. According to company reports, Ford expects to turn a profit in 2011, while GM and Chrysler haven’t bothered to give the American public any timetable for when they will be able to return to profitability. Both GM and Chrysler are said to be within weeks of collapse, and GM has already hired a team of bankruptcy lawyers. By bailing out GM and Chrysler, the government could be hurting Ford’s prospects of recovery.

Congress, President Bush, and President-Elect Obama should respect the wishes of the American People and allow these automakers to fail—or succeed on their own.

Americanly yours,

Phred Barnet

In the election that just ended, Barack Obama was called a socialist by his opponents.  To anyone who understands the true definition of socialism, Obama could not be considered a socialist (maybe a collectivist, but definitely not a socialist).  Socialism by definition is a system in which the government owns and controls the factors of production in the name of the common good.

Well, in the past 24 hours, Obama has announced his plan to help the Big 3 American automakers. His plan includes a $50 billion loan to the automakers. But, the plan doesn’t end there. In a similar manner to the bank bailout plan recently passed against the wishes of the American people, this plan also requires the federal government to take ownership stakes in Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors. Additionally, Obama wants to appoint an “Oversight Czar” to “oversee the companies” thereby giving the federal government both ownership and control of three massive American corporations. Of course all of this is being done in the name of the “common good.”

The $50 billion price tag is most likely a large underestimate of the amount of money it will take to save these automakers. The government doesn’t exactly have the best history of predicting the total costs necessary in an intervention. Some recent examples: the $152 billion stimulus package passed earlier this year which was supposed to save us from a recession, the $250 billion bailout plan which quickly ballooned into a $700 billion bailout package, and of course the $85 bailout for AIG in September which has already cost $143.7 and could cost much more. When $50 billion turns out not be enough for the automakers, the government will surely throw more money at the problem to “protect” its investment as it did with AIG. And, the automakers will need more money too. In 2010, several state-owned Chinese car companies intend to start marketing very inexpensive Chinese cars in America.

This will not stop with the automakers either. If there is one industry in this country worse off than the automakers, it is the airline industry. The airlines have been hemorrhaging money for years and now that the economy is bad, companies are laying off workers and cutting corporate travel, while regular Americans are also cutting back on flying. The airline industry will be the next to go and its lobbyists will swarm on Congress and demand the same favors that were given to the financial industry and the automakers. Then, the government will also own our airlines in addition to our banks and our automakers.

To me, that is a definite. The only maybe is how far this will go. When no new airplanes are being built due to the collapse of the airline industry, what will become of Boeing? Their bottom line will be hurt, and considering that they are a major defense contractor, would the government deem them to be too important to fail? If the automakers and airlines are suffering then of course the steel industry suffers. Will the government then take control of our steel giants like US Steel and Nucor in order to “protect” them from domestic problems and foreign competition?

Now, I am not opposed to helping the automakers. If a loan is absolutely needed, and if the government believes that there is a reasonable chance that it can get its money back, then the government definitely should help the automakers, but under no circumstances should it buy the automakers and take control of them.

This isn’t all about business either. The Democratic Congress is considering passing laws to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine” to the radio. The Fairness Rule was established in the late 1940’s to guarantee that time would be given to both sides of an issue on the radio. The courts gradually struck down more and more of this doctrine until 1986 when it was completely abolished. Democrats, lead by New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman want to reinstate the rule which would effectively force conservative radio stations to place just as many hours of liberal talk radio on their stations as conservative talk radio (to me this is like requiring Christian radio stations to broadcast Jewish or Muslim programming). Of course, there are no Democratic Senators currently pushing legislation that would require CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and CBS time to conservatives or to require FOX News to give time to liberals.

We as a People voted for change last week. Change can be good, yet this is not the change that we need. We must not abandon the free market and free thinking ideals which brought us from a small, weak country of 13 states into a great Nation. If we are to continue to be a great Nation and a leader among other nations, we must not walk down this road.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet