My Beauty Best Teacher

Bizarro World escapee Barack Obama (currently President of the United States) has called for an end to end $4 billion in subsidies for small companies that produce oil and gas for consumers, saying “You can either stand up for the oil companies, or you can stand up for the American people."

This latest effort to raise the costs of doing business on oil and gas companies is in response to the soaring price of gasoline in the United States, a development that will choke off the feeble recovery this nation has experienced under Obama's leadership.

Despite extensive research, it is still unclear exactly what Obama would cut that adds up to '$4 billion in subsidies', but based on past proposals Obama would likely cut out tax breaks that oil and gas companies receive for buying more efficient refining and industrial equipment, for creating and keeping manufacturing jobs in America, for costs related to repairing wells for safety, for encouraging more environmentally-friendly oil extraction, and for searching out and discovering new sources of oil.

Even though Obama pretends to support all of the stuff that the tax breaks go for, he doesn't like oil companies for some reason, and so he is going to make it more expensive for oil companies to do business in the hopes to lowering the costs of gasoline at the pump. If this makes no sense to you, you just have to think like Barack Obama and remember that up is down, good is bad, successful is wrong, laziness is a virtue, higher costs to produce somehow make a product cheaper, and demonizing others is okay if you're doing it but wrong for others to do.

President Obama though does not demand an end to all subsidies- only for an end for subsidies for companies that he personally does not like. Obama practices crony capitalism, whereby companies that give him political support in the form of campaign contributions get large subsidies, and companies who give money to his opponents (like the Koch brothers) are demonized and attacked. In the game of political power, President Obama intends to win so that he and his family and supporters and friends can benefit financially. Oil and gas companies oppose him because they want to provide cheap energy for poor people and manufacturing while making profits that are then distributed to shareholders and investors and they see Obama's policies as running counter to these ideas, and for their opposition Obama attacks them. So-called 'green companies' on the other hand cough up money to him and so receive substantially greater subsidies.

To wit, from John Hinderaker at Powerlineblog:

Here are some more thoughts on the auto loan bailout, going a little bit further than my last foray into this subject did.

My students keep asking me where I stand on the auto loan situation, and it's a tough position to put me in- I don't want to bias their thoughts, and it's not really about me in my classroom, it's about critical thinking and thought. When pressed though, I tell them that I don't think that the auto companies should get a bailout.

First, I also don't think that the banks should have bailed out either, and by bailing them out, Congress created this whole auto loan mess themselves. Second, the reason I'm not in favor of the bailout is out of principle- it is not fair and morally right that some companies are allowed to go bankrupt by the government, and others are saved with loans. Why one company and not another? The only arguments I ever hear in favor of the auto loan is the the auto companies affect a lot of people- that's true, but if you gave out loans of $1 million to 25,000 small companies (total of $25 billion, same as auto companies), that would probably affect a lot of people too.

And also, why now? Why let past companies fail, and then come in and rescue one now? Were the other companies in the past less deserving- were their works less important than the workers now? My grandpa worked for a steel company, and the US government let it go under- why didn't it rescue that company and provide money for my grandpa's pension and healthcare? Why rescue GM now- because it has better lawyers and lobbyists? That's not how America works- that is how corrupt regimes work.

One more thought on the auto bailout- and that's the role politics play in this whole process. The media is making the Republicans out to be the bad guys for stopping the auto loan. Here is a connection that I just made though- the states that are hurt the most by the auto companies going under are Midwestern states where Democrats are thriving, and the main people hurt by the auto companies going under are Democrats as well, specifically the labor unions who donated $2 million to Democrats last election and only $12K to Republicans. Maybe the chickens are coming home to roost after all. For more on this line of thinking, read Daniel Howes good article today in the Detroit News.

Via Reason:

...The Treasury Department yesterday revised its loss estimate for the Government Motors bailout from $14.33 billion to $23.6 billion, thanks to the company’s sinking stock price. GM’s Sept. 30 closing price, on which the new estimate is based, was $20.18, about $13 less than its December IPO price and $35 less than what is needed for taxpayers to break even.

The $23.6 billion represents a 25 percent loss on the feds $60 billion direct “investment” in GM. But that’s not all that taxpayers are on the hook for. As I explained previously, Uncle Sam’s special GM bankruptcy package allowed the company to write off $45 billion in previous losses going forward. This could work out to as much as $15 billion in tax savings that GM wouldn’t have had had it gone through a normal bankruptcy. Why? Because after bankruptcy, the tax liabilities of companies increase since they have no more losses to write off.

This means that the total hit to taxpayers, who still own about a quarter of the company, could add up to $38.6 billion. That’s even more that the $34 billion on the outside I had predicted in May....

...GM’s new competitors are not Toyota and Honda that share its cost structure but Hyndai and Kia that have a far leaner one. These companies concentrate on the small car market and don’t offer a full product line so GM and Ford’s most profitable vehicles—those evil, gas-guzzling, greenhouse-gas emitting SUV’s and pickup trucks—are somewhat insulated from the downward price pressure. But the greens and Obama administration want GM to reorient its product mix away from big cars and toward money-losing hybrids and electrics, something that could well put GM back in a hole.

But that’s part of the administration’s long-term strategy for ruining GM....

...But the Ostrich-in-Chief Barack Obama, who had assured taxpayers that their GM "investment" would cost them "not a dime," is drawing the opposite lesson, obviously. He has been trumpeting the success of the bailout—repeatedly....

I don't think that the banks should have bailed out either (auto company), and by bailing them out, Congress created this whole auto loan mess themselves. Second, the reason I'm not in favor of the bailout is out of principle- it is not fair and morally right that some companies are allowed to go bankrupt by the government, and others are saved with loans. Why one company and not another? The only arguments I ever hear in favor of the auto loan is the the auto companies affect a lot of people- that's true, but if you gave out loans of $1 million to 25,000 small companies (total of $25 billion, same as auto companies), that would probably affect a lot of people too.

And also, why now? Why let past companies fail, and then come in and rescue one now? Were the other companies in the past less deserving- were their works less important than the workers now? My grandpa worked for a steel company, and the US government let it go under- why didn't it rescue that company and provide money for my grandpa's pension and healthcare? Why rescue GM now- because it has better lawyers and lobbyists? That's not how America works- that is how corrupt regimes work.

From media coverage, it appears like once again only Obama and the Democrats care about the auto industry. From media coverage, it appears that the Republicans and their cut-throat capitalism mentality are about to let the Big Three fail. Media coverage, like usual, is flat out lying wrong.

From the Detroit News comes this story. Apparently, Bush and the Republicans want to use a portion of that $700 billion bail out bill to go to the auto industry, with few conditions or string attached. The Democrats, Obama and Pelosi, are blocking this immediate relief. If they can stall this bill and extend the panic, they may be able to wring more personal and political power out of it, and that's what they want to do.

The goal of this bill is to save the auto companies from going under, but Pelosi wants to turn it into a deal with the devil. In order to get the $25 billion loan, Pelosi wants the auto companies to give the government ownership stake in the companies (of course, if the investment goes bad, you and I get to bail out the investment, and hence it is not the real ownership of putting your hard earned money up in a wild gamble for success).

She and Obama, using their newly found powers of being dictators over companies and individuals, are blackmailing companies with money they took from them in the first place in the form of increasing business taxes, to increase fuel efficiency standards. They want to force the Big Three to knuckle under to the demands of the extreme left environmental groups, and build cars that are expensive for consumers here, and undesirable to consumers abroad.

Furthermore, Pelosi says that "the Democratic plan includes even stronger limits on executive compensation". So let's get this straight- auto companies struggle to be managed well and make money in spite of crippling government policies, the money they make is taxed at ever higher amounts, the auto company is driven towards bankruptcy by the government, the government comes in to rescue them with the money that was taken from them, and demands that for this gift the auto company drive away its management and adopt more crippling government policies.

I can even see the future- the auto companies, under poor management and adopting bad government ideas, struggles further, the government buys a larger stake in the company, further troubles, and eventually the state owns all the auto companies in the US, and to protect them puts up trade restrictions, and then the next thing you know, you are living in China! And in this whole process, the good guy is Pelosi and Obama and the Democrats?!

Frequently on my blog I talk about how the policies of Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Peters, or your Democratic Congressman threaten 'life, liberty, and property.' I don't do this just to evoke our founding fathers and our Declaration of Independence- I do it because in reality, these principles are increasingly under attack when your friends and family put Democrats into office.

On Thursday and Friday, several major American companies- including AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M- said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. These major job providers and major providers of important goods and services in our nation stated that they think that this new health care law will hurt their companies in many ways. In a free nation, companies should be allowed to state how government policies will adversely affect their bottom lines without fear of the government attacking them. But America is not a free country when Democrats are in charge.

Via the Washington Examiner article Democrats threaten companies hit hard by health care bill by Byron York:

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation's top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances.

Waxman has ordered the executives (of those companies) to (fly to Washington DC and) explain themselves at an April 21 hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee's investigative subcommittee.

Waxman's request (for internal company documents relating to finances) could prove particularly troubling for the companies. The executives will undoubtedly view such documents as confidential, but if they fail to give Waxman everything he wants, they run the risk of subpoenas and threats from the chairman. And all as punishment for making a business decision in light of a new tax situation.

Over and over when debating Obamacare supporters I hear the claim that the number one reason why government needs to take on a massive new expensive role in healthcare is because it has become too expensive. These Obamacare supporters think adding more government to the equation will make healthcare less expensive. They are so wrong.

The reason why healthcare is expensive is because of government. Adding government to healthcare in the past has resulted time and time again with a higher cost for healthcare. Government is the problem, not the solution. And this is not just rhetoric- the evidence and data supports the conclusion that adding more government involvement and interference in the private industry of our nation's healthcare has made it much much more expensive.

Presidential-candidate Harry Browne wrote about this back in 2002. He wrote:

It may be hard to believe, but back in the 1950s health insurance cost just a few dollars a month for most people -- and it was available to virtually everyone, including people with pre-existing conditions. The percentage of people covered grew steadily from the 1940s. And by the early 1970s, almost all Americans were covered by some form of insurance. Then the politicians went to work to load up policies with mandatory coverage of all sorts of conditions that may be of no use to you. More and more people decided that insurance had become too expensive and decided to risk being uninsured. By the 1990s coverage had dropped to under 70% of Americans.

In addition, many employers decided health coverage was too expensive. In 1980 fully 97% of the companies with 100 or more employees provided medical coverage. By 1995, only 77% were doing so. The growing number of uninsured people gives politicians more ammunition for more programs to force more costs onto insurance companies, and to push the price of insurance still higher.

Once again, the politicians are seizing the opportunity to save us from their own handiwork.

The domestic auto industry is on the rebound, leading to more jobs, greater protection of union jobs, rising salaries, and a better international balance of trade. But Democrats don't like the auto industry rebound and over the coming months are going to continue their attempts to punish this large and important segment of our economy.

The logic for this is quite clear- the auto industry rebound is being led by booming sales of SUV's and trucks and the rebound would have been stronger if it wasn't for the absurdly poor sales of 'green cars'. And yet Democrats in Congress and in the Presidency are continuing their attack on SUV's and trucks by pushing for higher CAFE standards and pushing for cap-and-tax, all the while promoting and subsidizing and pushing for 'green cars'.

Democrats are trying to hurt the profitable sectors of the auto companies, are trying to make people who work on SUV's and trucks to lose their jobs, and are trying to damage the salaries of everyone in these auto companies by attacking the most profitable operations of these companies. At the same time, they are trying to make auto companies build cars, at a massive net loss for everyone concerned, that people don't want, in a way that would make the communist Soviet Union proud, with the result being auto companies that are less profitable, provide less jobs, protect less union jobs, and provide lower salaries to all concerned.

SUV's and trucks are the future- they are safer, more powerful, have more utility, and look better, while 'green cars' that run on kitchen oil or batteries are the past- they are deadly, lack power, have little utility, and generally are uglier. SUV's and trucks are profitable and make money, 'green cars' don't. And yet, it is the Democrats who are pushing auto companies to build less SUV's and trucks (that are profitable) and build more 'green cars' (which are not profitable) with their regulations, taxes, and public relations stunts.

This is why auto union workers are ignorant for supporting the Democratic party- the very initiatives that are the most important to the modern day Democratic party are the very initiatives that will lead to a loss of jobs and salaries for union workers. It is rather the GOP that is best for auto workers- it is the GOP that looks to the jobs and livelihood of the auto workers and says 'I want you to build more of the stuff that sales better and less of the stuff that sales poorly and thereby make more money and have more jobs'. It is the GOP that is fighting a determined and dirty Democratic attempt to destroy the profits of the auto companies.

The numbers are clear- when the US economy did poorly, many lost their jobs, our income plummeted, and our nation lost ground on everything, it was 'green cars' that everyone talked about and focused on and that the government promoted. Now that the economy is rebounding (in spite of Obama and the Democrats efforts), now that jobs are being created, now that incomes are rising again a bit, it is SUV's and trucks that are selling again.

The lesson to me is quite clear- promote SUV's and trucks and stop promoting 'green cars', and jobs, income, and the United States will be better.

The Boston Consulting Group has just released a report (PDF) listing companies that they consider the "New Global Challengers":

Until recently,only a dozen or so RDE(rapidly developing economies)-Based companies could have been described as emerging global challengers. Today these challengers number in the hundreds. Among them, the RDE100 will play important roles in shaping the global marketplace

These companies are no longer poised on some far horizon;they are globalizing fast and are determined to stay the course. The leaders of today's global companies must be prepared to meet their challenge

On Google Plus tonight, I asked a question:

Companies battle to be where we connect.

It is fascinating to see how fast Google+ has grown and yet I still wonder if it is meaningful. Are you using Google+ content? How often do you Google+? Do you use this and Twitter? I'd like to hear from those using it consistently so I can understand (and perhaps blog about it.) If you reply, make sure it is OK for me to quote you. Thank you.

Kristofer Gigante says "I never used FB or Twitter so because of that, I only check G+ and I check it multiple times a day. I subscribe to lots of blogs (including yours) through RSS and read it in Google Reader. If the bloggers I follow on Reader post more on +, I will probably just use + and discontinue RSS. I have Android phone and tablet and our school is very pro Google, so it is easier to use Google products."

My computer lab of wall-mounted Lenovo m90z touch screens.

I heard Leo LaPorte say that Windows 8 didn't excite him because no one wants to "lean forward to touch their computer" but if you look at my computer lab, you'll see  a totally different form factor. We've mounted the computers and they swing forward and back and my students love the screens and computers. They love it because it is a form factor conducive to touch. No one really gets touch except for the iPad.

The Changing Shape of Information
Some sort of sick, happy, sweet, sour brew is the techno-water and no one knows where this is all heading. We know that critical mass calling for change in US education is happening and Common Core is making inroads. People are publishing their own books and "the cloud" is actually a term that most people understand. 

Meanwhile a 19 year old in Korea creates an image that goes viral in tribute to the passing of Steve Jobs.


A massive blogging platform named Tumblr  (see my blog there at www.vickidavis.me)  is growing has more pageviews than Word Press and it feels like no one is really talking about them. 

Zynga (the maker of Farmville) has 1700 employees and was paid an amount in the millions to stay at Facebook for another 5 years (3 1/2 left on that contract?) because so much traffic to Facebook is through games like Farmville and Gangster wars. 


Facebook now lets your personalpage really sort of function like a Fanpage and overhauled their privacy settings without a really open call to their users to check those settings. Facial recognition is getting better and soon your friends won't even have to tag you to see what you did last weekend. 


Whether we read our books on the iPad or Kindle fire -- the Kindle app and Amazon store are a force to reckon with in the ebook industry. A judge asks Samsung lawyers to identify which was an iPad and a Galaxy tab from 10 feet away and as the lawyers stumble, ruled that Samsung did indeed infringe on Apple's patent.

We are in the midst of fundamental, massive CHANGE. The kind that makes new companies and gets rid of old ones. I tend to ignore the hype about new sites. Truly a lot of that hype is from marketing departments.  But at the center of all of this change are people. 


In some ways it could read like a Dr. Suess book: large people, small people, people over here, people over there, short fuzzy people, and tall skinny bald people -- our recommendations to each other.Our tweets,status updates, and the success of companies is becoming increasingly influenced by their ability to influence the mavens among us to try, like, and use their products

When I was in college, the toughest class that I had was a class called Political Economy. The reason why I had such a difficult time with this class is because I opposed on a moral and intellectual level everything that it taught- it taught how to use the power of the state to guide and control companies. We learned all of the great ways and reasons for unelected bureaucrats and corrupt elected officials to deny freedoms and choices to individuals and businesses and use the power of threats of force to create an economy that protects and rewards those with political connections. Oh, of course the class never stated these aims, but they were the aims of the class regardless, and at the end of the year, the real aims of the class were revealed when we were asked for our final exam to write an essay detailing one political system that could best guide and shape an economy that was fair for everyone; I wrote an essay on the beauties and joys of the most brutally oppressive and corrupt and controlling communist system of government, and earned a 4.0 for the class.

Under Democrats like President Barack Obama, Senator Debbie Stabenow, and Congressman Gary Peters, our nation is fully embracing a 'Political Economy', which is an economy that is ruled over and controlled by those connected to the political process. In this sort of economy, those industries that political elites do not like or understand are to be taxed and controlled and driven out of business, and those companies that donate to the correct political elites are to be rewarded and given tax breaks. It is an economy where the guiding principle is not how efficiently can a company or industry produce a good that is most valued by citizens making free choices, but rather the guiding principle for these Democratic elites is whether or not you donated money to them to help them get in office and gain more power and wealth. It is only the right-wing nuts and crazy tea-party people that restrict these people from becoming completely corrupt; even still, the evidence is piling up that the best way to become wealthy in our nation is to get a job as a low-paying Congressman and than retire a millionaire several terms later (the millions all being earned 'under the table'), or donate to these sort of Congressman so that your company can be given loopholes and tax breaks so that you pay nothing in taxes.

Let us to perfectly frank here- there is little to no money to be made by supporting Republicans or Tea Party candidates- they push for limited government and free choices. Even the whole 'George Bush took us to war in Iraq to reward his oil buddies' rhetoric only reveals that those uttering that rhetoric have no idea what they are talking about since most of the oil contracts in Iraq went to non-US companies. Nope- the real money to be made is in donating to and supporting Democrats, who will then give you waivers for healthcare or create tax breaks so that you pay no taxes.

A great example of what I am writing about is GE. General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010, in spite of the rest of the nation struggling. The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, with $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States. The United Stats has a progressive corporate tax rate that punishes companies that are increasingly successful with higher and higher taxes, and for companies making more than $18 million, the corporate tax rate is 35%. So, one could reasonably assume that GE's tax bill in 2010 was $1.785 billion, but they would be wrong.

You see, GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama. GE-owned NBC recently joined Hollywood in inserting environmentally-friendly messaging into network programming. Furthermore, NBC promotes two annual campaigns — “Green Week” and “Earth Week” — that focus on environmentalism. GE recently found a loophole and became the biggest benefactor of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, a federal bailout initiative. Over $192 million was recently given to GE in government-sponsored projects. GE has created a new “joint venture” called Greenhouse Gas Services (GGS).  GGS invests in and seeks to manage greenhouse gas credits, and without the government stepping in to restrict greenhouse gases, GGS cannot turn a profit.

After doing all of these things, the reward is that GE does not pay any taxes. Yep, zero. GE not only didn't pay over a billion in taxes this year as you'd assume, but it actually was given an additional tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

Koch brothers eat your heart out! That's how you game the system and screw American tax payers- not be supporting limited government, libertarian, freedom of choice, and constitutional powers, but by backing good old-fashioned done-a-hundred times crony capitalism and government corruption of power.

Oh, and no, this never happened under George W Bush, and George W Bush hasn't been our President for several years either, so I doubt even deranged leftist liberals can pin it on him.

UPDATE: Today my youngest kid was watched, fascinated, as my wife smoothed cold cream on to her face. 'Why do you do that, mommy?' he asked. 'To make myself beautiful,' my wife said, and then began removing the cream with a tissue. My kid watched for a second and then said 'What's the matter mommy, are you giving up?'

UPDATE II: Powerlineblog has a powerful post that is perhaps even better than mine- I suggest you all go read John's post Free Enterprise vs. National Socialism:

GE strikes us as a "modern" company, in that its business strategy consists largely of exercising political influence. In truth, however, the concept is not new: the virtual merger of Big Government and Big Business has long been a hallmark of national socialism.

One can hardly resist comparing GE with another American company--one that has steadily increased its American workforce, rather than cutting it. One that has never gone to the federal government for a bailout. One that lobbies out of self-defense, as all companies do, but not to secure special privileges for itself at the taxpayers' expense. One that pays lots of taxes. One that not only advocates free enterprise, but lives by it, competing for business with superior products and services.

A number of companies would fit that description, but I have in mind Koch Industries. Koch is smaller than GE, although not radically so--$100 billion in revenues vs. $150 billion--but it pays a whole lot more in taxes. One might think that a company like Koch would be honored and respected compared with a company like GE, but that is not the case--not on the left, anyway. On the contrary, it is Koch's very integrity that makes it public enemy number one for the Democratic Party.

So the questions are posed rather starkly. Which company should Americans respect, the company that lays off more and more Americans, or the one that keeps hiring them? The company that dodges taxes, or the one that pays them? The company that makes money by partnering with government to force uneconomic products on an unwilling public, or the one that sells top-notch products that consumers want, without any compulsion from Washington? The company that stands for a Big Business-Big Government partnership, or the one that stubbornly defends, and practices, free enterprise?

Today the Detroit News glows over an article that says that the auto industry is happy to be getting 3 percent of the money that will be raised over the next 6 years by the government's new 'cap and trade' scheme. It is projected to raise $15 billion dollars for the auto industry.

I'm no expert in math, but if 15 billion is only 3 percent of the money that our government means to suck out of economy, that means the House is passing a tax scheme that will levy $500 billion in new taxes over the next 6 years. That means that this 'cap and trade' scheme is in effect a half trillion dollar tax increase on US citizens.

This $500 billion is a lot of money (enough money to put in place a 'revenue-neutral' national healthcare scheme). Where will it come from? The money will come from auctions for permits to produce more energy and grow America, and will come from fines of those companies that meet the demand of our vibrant industry and citizens and increase energy and growth beyond what the government arbitrarily sets as the cap. The energy companies will suffer only in that their profits might be lowered- but times are tough for all companies, and there is pressure to increase profits for every firm, so soon those costs of doing business that the government is imposing with little reasoning or logic will be passed on to consumers.

The people who will suffer from this scheme are the auto companies, who will find that the $15 billion does little to stem the hundreds of billions they bleed when consumers are no longer allowed to purchase the cars they want to purchase or are forced into buying expensive hybrids. The auto companies will lose jobs, investors will lose money, and society will suffer.

The people who will suffer the most from this cap and trade tax scheme are anyone who uses power in their lives, to power their dishwashers and microwaves and computers and businesses. They will have to pay the increased costs, lowering their cost-competitiveness and efficiency, and putting them at a further disadvantage vs firms in other nations that do no have to bear these government imposed burdens. The poor and those on fixed incomes will be hit especially hard by this scheme, as they will find it difficult to pay electric and gas bills.

And the benefits of this scheme are inconclusive at best. Perhaps less pollutants will be emitted, and a tiny little bit of harmful waste will be emitted into the atmosphere. This perhaps will stop the Earth from warming.

Although Michigan's US House of Representatives 9th District has historically been a Republican district, in 2008 it elected a Democrat named Gary Peters. According to CQ Politics, in order to defend his seat, Peters has raised a whopping $2 million in receipts through the first quarter of 2010, which is considerably more than any of his GOP challengers (Raczkowski, Welday, Goodman).

People give money to candidates for two main reasons. One reason that people, businesses, and organizations give money to candidates because they believe in the candidate personally or support their policies. The second major reason that people, businesses, and organizations give money to candidates is because they feel that by giving the candidate money it buys them access to power or control over the candidate.

Although Gary Peters is one of the few elected officials who refused to take the Project Vote Smart Political Courage test (a test where a candidate makes known where they stand on important issues), and he has sponsored very little legislation in Congress, and has refused to meet with constituents or hold town halls, we do know some things about his positions on the issues.

As I discussed in my post Gary Peters Scores a 90% On the Pelsoi Index- A Vote by Vote Analysis of Peters Liberal Record in Congress, Peters has voted in favor of the stimulus bill, cap and tax, Obamacare, bloated budget bills, increased taxes, and raising the debt ceiling. He voted against Stupak's Anti-Abortion Amendment. With this information, we can now begin to look at who is supporting Peters in the 2010 election and think about what sort of policies they might be supporting or what sort of influence over the Congressman they might be buying.

According to OpenSecrets.org, the top industries that have currently donated to Michigan Democratic Congressman Gary Peters to support his re-election bid are (in order): Lawyers/Law Firms, Democratic/Liberal Groups, Industrial Unions, Real Estate Firms, Health Professionals, Building Trade Unions, Insurance Companies, Securities and Investment firms, Retired People, Public Sector Unions, Hospitals/Nursing Homes, Transportation Unions, Finance Companies, Lobbyists, Automotive Companies, Commercial Banks, and Finance/Credit Companies.

You make your own decisions, but my rough take on that is that Peters has consistently voted to support 'too big to fail' in a range of industries, and is getting paid back for that. Peters has voted to support government/industry/union partnerships in banking, healthcare, and automotive industries, throwing billions of dollars at the big politically connected firms to bail them out and protect them from competition from smaller, less connected companies.

That's wrong- Peters has got to go.

Absolute madness. According to the Detroit News, Democrats in the United States House of Representatives are close to passing a health care package. At the cost of $871 billion dollars, it would create a government-run insurance company that would provide taxpayer-subsidized health insurance to millions of Americans (not those already on Medicaid), raise taxes on those families at the top income bracket, impose an array of new regulations on private insurers, and strip the industry of its long-standing exemption from federal antitrust laws.

No, no, no, no, no, no!

First no- the cost. The federal government is broke and does not have the money for this plan. That means they will borrow money from China, pay China interest on that money every day, never pay off the principle balance, and mortgage more of our children's future.

Second no- government-run companies? Seriously? I thought we learned over and over again that creating government run companies does not work- they are inefficient, corrupt, and provide poor services.

Third no- providing more health insurance coverage for those too rich for Medicaid? Really? Why didn't they just expand Medicaid, or some other government program, to cover more people? Then at least we could have had a sensible debate about the merits of the proposal. Instead we have to now create more new bureaucracies.

Fourth no- raising taxes? Raising taxes on the top income bracket is usually a very politically controversial issue- how are the Democrats hiding this in a healthcare proposal? What isn't in this bill? Raising taxes on those who are successful and prosperous is not going to make our nation a better place. Taking their wealth just because they make more wealth is not moral. There is no justification for it in this proposal, other than 'because we can take it and they have it'- and that line of logic is tyranny.

Fifth no- impose new regulations on companies? That is not going to make health insurance cheaper. I don't understand this at all- health insurance companies are struggling to keep costs down and the federal government is going to come along and kick them in the shins and impose new costly regulations on them? That is going to drive up the costs of health care coverage for you. You personally are now going to have to pay more money for the current service that you are receiving. That is not a way to help out.

Last no- strip the industry of its long-standing exemption from federal antitrust laws? So the thinking of Democrats in Congress, including my Congressman, is that by having people sue insurance companies more often for alleged lack of coverage or service will drive costs of healthcare down? Bizzaro world strikes again! Up is down, right is left, good is bad! Instead of putting in place tort reform and limiting trivial lawsuits, the Democrats doubled-down and said 'more lawsuits'! Wow.

This is pure and utter madness. Oppose with money, votes, phone calls, and visits. Start prepping for the revolution. Madness and tyranny are on the march.

The Atlantic came out with its list of Winners and Losers from Obama's 2011 budget. I modified it somewhat. Those who win the game of using the state to redistribute wealth from one person to another are:

1. Those people who are currently on the low end of the income tax breakdown, either because they are just beginning their careers, or they do not work very many hours, or they do not have very many useful skills that they bring to the marketplace, would be winners as Obama in all his infinite wisdom has decided to keep in place the tax cuts that Bush gave these people that have worked so well. As these people gain more experience, work harder, and gain more valuable job skills, they will become losers, as Obama's policies do just that- punish success.
2. Public school teachers, such as the NEA, which has so strongly backed Obama and his policies, even though doing so has destroyed education funding in our nation and led to massive pay cuts and layoffs for teachers. Obama's healthcare plan would destroy teachers, but oooohh, he is handing out an extra $3 billion to schools, so that's makes them winners.
3. The government would revoke $6 billion of Bush-era tax breaks on energy producers such as oil, gas and coal companies, and instead give those tax-breaks to clean energy technologies that are little more than boondoggles that suck energy from the system and are inefficient at using resources. This makes these politically correct industries 'winners' in the government lottery of holding a gun to my head to give them my money.
4. Government employees are the biggest winners. Discretionary spending skyrockets, in spite of Obama's recent lies to be a budget fighter and deficit hawk.

Biggest losers from Obama's budget:

1. Successful people, who create jobs, invest wisely, live within their means, and work hard. Obama doesn't like those people, and so is going to raise taxes on them to punish them for being good people (ie, let the Bush tax cuts on households making over $250,000 expire).
2. Banks and companies would be losers, as Obama attacks the money and companies in our nation in a determined attempt to chase it all out of the USA. Multinational corporations will pay higher taxes on overseas earnings.
3. Oil, gas, and coal companies will be shaken down for another $40 billion by eliminating Bush-era tax breaks. These companies will respond by cutting jobs, investment, and production in our nation, and raising prices on everyone who uses energy, making everyone a loser.
4. The biggest loser in the proposed budget is NASA. These people supported and believed in Obama, and now they are being backstabbed by having the mission of NASA changed to 'support of the global warming lie' and the cancelling of all space flight activities.

One of the cornerstones of modern-day conservatism is the belief that America's energy resources can and should be responsibly exploited. This means that the United States should allow private companies to drill for oil, mine coal, build nuclear power plants, tap into natural gas reserves, get shale oil, and utilize whatever other energy resources that these companies wish to use, provided that they respect the property rights of others.

Oh, I know what liberals and left-wingers will say- the horror of pollution! But the faults of energy development do not lie with the companies themselves, but rather with the government for not establishing clear and defined property rights- for example, rather than having the government act as police to safeguard public water, the water rights should be more clearly defined and if companies destroy or harm the property (the water) of others, they should be forced to pay in a court, much as if they destroyed other private property. The faults with 'pollution' then lie not in the companies for breaking ever expanding government rules and regulations over ever expanding public lands, but for the government for not putting in place limited and clear rules regarding private property rights and then divesting itself of public lands by selling these lands off to private entities that can then do a better job of protecting. Like most problems in our society, the solution is less government, not more.

With the main liberal concern out of the way, our nation would be free to exploit and use its vast resources- enough oil for 30 years, enough natural gas for 575 years, enough coal for 500 years, etc. With oil, gas, and coal be utilized to its fullest extent, our nation will have cheap and plentiful energy, enabling it to develop some of the most amazingly energy intensive industries there are- 'renewable resources'. The horse needs to go before the cart here- we  need to have cheap and plentiful energy in order to build the energy intensive operations and industries like building solar panels, developing batteries, building geothermal plants, etc. A wealthy, productive society thriving on cheap energy can afford to become environmentally friendly, as opposed to a cheap, declining society that the liberals and Democrats appear to be pushing us towards with their anti-energy policies.

In a free market, one in which the government is not subsidizing any of the industries (and this includes cutting subsidies for oil and gas and coal), the most efficient energy resources will be developed in an environment that encourages private property ownership and protection. American can be great again, if it moves away from the liberal model of public ownership of lands and public protection of the environment with restrictive regulations and rules and taxes on energy production combined with subsidies for 'favored' industries and campaign donors. It can be great again if it moves towards a more conservative model of private ownership of lands and private protection through impartial courts of the environment, with few restrictions and regulations and subsidies on energy production, encouraging the most efficient producers and users of energy in a free market.

Via Powerlineblog's post AMERICA’S VAST ENERGY RESOURCES I read this quote from the Institute for Energy Research. IER describes the problem (and the opportunity) bluntly:

Access to affordable, abundant energy is, fundamentally, a means of freedom. But for those seeking to create a crisis that provides an opportunity to direct the way we live, work and act, affordable, reliable, abundant, domestic energy is a threat. In a very real sense, the more energy we have, the less power they will have. Energy abundance ends the justification for central energy decision-making.

As it turns out, many of the problems of energy scarcity and rising costs in the United States have been caused by the government itself. In 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a report that outlined many of the policy and regulatory constraints that impact domestic energy production. While the report focused on natural gas specifically, many of the laws and procedures also represent roadblocks to any form of safe and responsible energy production. The list of energy barriers included the following policies, all of which can limit access to U.S. resources, increase delays related to exploration and production, and/or increase costs of development:

(John from Powerlineblog)The list of statutes and other legal impediments that follows is three pages long. Only liberal politicians stand between the American people and development of our vast energy resources.

In several earlier posts I have been critical of Obamacare because it attacks life, liberty, and property and because it represents the growing tyranny of the federal government. But somehow I missed an important reason why we should oppose giving the national government more control over our healthcare system- power should not be concentrated in the hands of government and government officials because when this happens it increases by considerable amounts the chances that this power will be used in a corrupt manner. And we're seeing that under President Barack Obama (Democrat) and a Congress that was run by Nancy Pelosi (Democrat), legislation like Obamacare was passed into law that is now leading to considerable amounts of corruption in our system.

Corruption takes makes many forms, but in this case, we have to consider whether or not Democrats, led by President Obama and Democrats in Congress, passed legislation that allows and encourages more corruption in our nation and also whether or not these same Democrats continue to be encouraging and supporting of corruption. Corruption is seen usually in several ways- trading in influence, patronage, cronyism, electoral fraud, and kickbacks.

It was my suspicion several months ago that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a corrupt piece of legislation designed to transfer property and choice from those who have it to those who want it. There would be those who would not want to be part of this process who would then ask for waivers, and it was my suspicion that these waivers would be given out based on political considerations- in other words, they would be given to groups that support the Democratic Party, Obama in particular, or to companies who had access and connections to those Democratic party officials who were making the decisions on the waivers, likely because of their campaign donations. So I started to do some research on the issue- as I stated, the research was by no means an exhaustive list of evidence but did end up being some pretty fair anecdotal evidence that those who are receiving waivers from Obamacare are those who donated large amounts of money to Barack Obama. Check out the post for my little bit of research on this issue. Usually where there is lots of smoke there is a fire, and it turns out the smoke I saw is now being seen by others.

The Daily Caller is reporting that:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district. That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers. Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments.

....There are rumblings of suspicion that HHS has shown favoritism -- labor unions have received some 26 percent of waivers while comprising only 12 percent of workers. As Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee remarked, "What does it say about the feasibility of the health care law when the administration needs to exempt over 1,000 health plans from its own law?"

A few wags have suggested that the HHS grant the rest of the country a waiver and be done with it. But the implications of what Professor Richard Epstein has called "government by waiver" aren't funny. As Congress has ceded more and more power to regulatory agencies, the opportunities for abuse of power multiply. Writing in National Affairs, Epstein notes that among the companies and entities that successfully sought waivers from Obamacare's provisions were PepsiCo, Foot Locker, the Pew Charitable Trusts, many local chapters of the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers union, and numerous public-employee unions.

But, asks Epstein, "(W)hat about employers who do not have the resources to navigate the waiver process? What about those lacking the political connections to make their concerns heard in Washington? And what happens when the one-year waivers run out? Will they be renewed? Under what conditions? And what rights will insurers have to waive then in order to avoid going out of business?"

The world of Obamacare is no place for the little guy.

The danger of waiver power is that it will be used differentially, giving one private entity a competitive advantage over another. The company denied a waiver can bring suit -- but litigation is expensive and slow....

....Because there are so few avenues of recourse when we live under a government by waiver, we are forced, as Epstein warns, to trust in the good judgment of bureaucrats and elected officials: "The fate of our rights and liberties is left to the wisdom and discretion of individuals; we are therefore governed by men, not by laws."

In Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall wrote: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." It will also cease to deserve that "high appellation" if we submit to the unreviewable discretion of agencies.

Listening to a recent speech by US President Barack Obama (Democrat) regarding the passage of the American Invents Act at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Virginia, I was bothered by way that he phrased things. Shortly into his speech, he said:

...But there are other steps that (the national government) can take. Today, for example, my (the national government) administration is announcing a new center that will help companies reduce the time and cost of developing lifesaving drugs. When scientists and researchers at the National Institutes of Health discover a new cure or breakthrough, (the national government's) going to make it easier for startup companies to sell those products to the people who need them. (The national government) got more than 100 universities and companies to agree that they’ll work together to bring more inventions to market as fast as possible. And (the national government's) also developing a strategy to create jobs in biotechnology, which has tremendous promise for health, clean energy and the environment....

....So (the national government's) going to have to make sure that (the national government's) continuing to invest in basic research so you can do the work that you’re capable of — and still pay the rent, which is important, you will find out. (ha ha, paying the bills is funny.)

(The national government's) need to continue to provide incentives and support to make sure the next generation of manufacturing takes root not in China or in Europe, but right here in the United States — because it’s not enough to invent things here; our workers should also be building the products that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America.

And if (the national government) wants companies to hire our workers, (the national government) needs to make sure we give every American the skills and education that they need to compete. (The national government has) got to have more schools like Thomas Jefferson....

...That’s why (the national government's) boosting science and technology and engineering and math education all across the country. And that’s why (the national government's) also working with businesses to train more engineers, and revitalize our community colleges so they can provide our workers with new skills and training. And, finally, that’s why (the national government's) making sure that all of our children can afford to fulfill their dream of a college education — that they can afford to go to school and that Pell grants and student loan programs ensure that they don’t come out of college with mountains of debt.

This is the economy (the national government) needs to build — one where innovation is encouraged, education is a national mission, and new jobs and businesses take root right here in America.

So that’s the long-term project.

State socialism is an economic system with limited socialist characteristics, such as public ownership of major industries, remedial measures to benefit the working class, and a gradual process of developing socialism through government policy.

Proponents of state socialism claim the state, through practical considerations of governing, must play at least a temporary part in building socialism. Many Socialists, such as Fredrick Engels and Saint-Simon, take the position that the state will change in nature and function in a socialist society; specifically, the nature of the state would change from one of political rule over people into a scientific administration of the processes of production; specifically the state would become a coordinating economic entity of inclusive associations rather than a mechanism of class and political control....

...Traditional social democrats and non-revolutionary democratic socialists argue for a gradual, peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. They wish to abolish capitalism, but through political reform rather than revolution. This method of gradualism implies utilization of the existing state apparatus and machinery of government to gradually move society toward socialism, and is sometimes derided by other socialists as a form of "socialism from above" or political "elitism" for relying on electoral means to achieve socialism....

....Trotskyists believe that central planners, regardless of their intellectual capacity, operate without the input and participation of the millions of people who participate in the economy who understand/respond to local conditions and changes in the economy, and because of this criticize central state planning as being unable to effectively coordinate all economic activity....

As government becomes more and more involved with controlling the economy, specifically economic development, one has to wonder what this leads to. For example, Democratic Governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm recently announced that her personally controlled economic council has decided to award $28 million dollars in tax payer credits for firms and businesses that her bureaucrats like and favor. This is all deemed 'economic development', and supposedly will 'bring in' $151M and create 1,254 jobs. How does this work in reality?

In reality, these politically connected companies were were successfully able to lobby government for special insider benefits will not bring in anywhere near that amount of money or jobs. In fact, I would question whether this $28M will bring in $28M in revenue for the state- I would be willing to give fair odds that the state will lose money on these investments, and the net result will be a transfer of wealth from honest tax-paying citizens to business interests, much as you see or saw in states as diverse as Syria (now), Germany (1930's), Italy (1930's), or Iran (now).

For example, Granholm was re-elected in 2006 on the strength of promises to rebuild Michigan's economy by supporting new and dynamic environmental companies. She said that under her direction, even though she had no experience in business or investing, she would direct state funds to build new environmental industries in our state by giving tax breaks to favored companies.

Take for example the solar energy company Energy Conversion Devices in Rochester Hills. This company makes solar fuel cells, and companies like this have had tax breaks and stimulus money thrown at it in spades. And yet, they are unsuccessful- which is why they weren't getting bank loans before the government stepped in. Today Energy Conversion Devices announced that it is laying off 70 employees and closing a plant. It's business plan, its means of being successful, it's only way to restore prosperity, is to get its hands on more government money and stimulus- not to be more efficient, not to produce goods that customers want, not to make our world better- but to get its hands on my money.

This is what the future looks like in a politically directed economy- it looks like Detroit. Look at these links for the sources for this post- here, here, here, and here.

UPDATE: This is what a political economy looks like- federal stimulus money is flowing into Illinois because the President of the United States is from that state. 12% of all federal stimulus money has been sent to the politically connected state of Illinois, which is probably the highest percentage (I would guess that California gets a lot too because Pelosi is from that state, and Nevada probably got a lot too since Reid is from that state). Political connections=money in today's political economy.

Friedrich von Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom that (via wikipedia's entry, which serves my purposes here) centralized planning is inherently undemocratic, because it requires "that the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people." The power of these minorities to act by taking money or property in pursuit of centralized goals destroys the Rule of Law and individual freedoms, making the individual "more than ever become a mere means, to be used by the authority in the service of such abstractions as the 'social welfare' or the 'good of the community'" In both socialism and nazism he saw "the increasing veneration (of) the state, the admiration of power, and of bigness for bigness' sake, the enthusiasm for "organization" of everything (we now call it "planning") and that inability to leave anything to the simple power of organic growth."

President Obama increasingly uses the state to plan out society, acting in an increasingly autocratic way, imposing his will and the will of his small minority of elites on the people who is supposed to be serving. In his own words he states this as his goal- he says “I refuse to take ‘No’ for an answer” as he claimed new powers for himself in making recess appointments while Congress was not in recess; he has already explained that “where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves,”; the co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, even said that "Obama would be ready to rule on day one." President Obama sees his role in our political system as our ruler; and if he is the ruler that makes us his serfs and slaves.

And it is not just his words which indict him as an autocratic tyrant who wishes to make us his serfs- it is his policies as well. Increasingly he is centralizing the distribution of wealth under his personal authority- turning TARP into a slush fund from which he can bail out favored industries; using stimulus funds to reward favored industries and give loans to his pet projects; and spending through the general budgets massive amounts of funds that are poorly tracked and accounted for. And his policies almost always involve transferring wealth from those who he personally does not like- the rich, oil companies, health care companies, banks, people who live in suburbs- to those people who he favors, by means of policies such as higher tax rates, more progressive tax rates, higher license and permit fees, increasingly regulation, pressure through the media, or cap and trade schemes.

President and his supporters in the media and in various blogs de-humanize people and their lives, arguing that the time they spend laboring in corporations makes them lesser, that the corporations and companies that they invest their time and effort in are 'not people', and that those people in the heartland of America are lesser people as well- racist, uneducated, unenlightened, and clinging to their guns and false religion.

Liberals and progressives cannot refute this argument- their solution to every problem facing society is 'more government', as if government can do only right and never wrong through its actions and inactions. The solution for Obama and Democrats is always to do more- to control people more, to take away more of their wealth and property, and to restrict their actions more. Their supporters in Occupy Wall Street rail against bailouts while Democrats and President Obama bails out banks, auto companies, green industry, and any other failing enterprises, unwilling to let the market act in creating more efficiency of resources and effort. He pushes for bigger and bigger industries, centralized under increasingly smaller cartels- like health-care exchanges or regulations like Dodd-Frank.

Troll through liberal and progressive blogs, and you will see this is the case- they argue for more control of your life, liberty, and property by smaller and smaller numbers of people who act in increasingly autocratic and undemocratic ways.

Throughout history, there have been two groups largely battling it out for control of society- those people who believe that they are better than you and should make decisions regarding your property and life and choices, and those people who believe that they are no better than anyone else and shouldn't make decisions for others regarding their property, life, and choices. Today, the Democratic Party is the party of control, judgement, elites, and Masters, and the Republican Party isn't- oh, I'll give you that it isn't the opposite, but it sure is a heck of lot better than the Democratic Party. And so your choice in 2012 becomes more clear- vote Democrat for Masters and Serfs, or Republican to block this vision.

Read The New Authoritarianism to see how this inspired my own take, and be sure to order and read your very own copy of the Road to Serfdom.

At the San Francisco California Airport, travelers can now purchase carbon offsets to make you feel less guilty about flying. You simply type in how long your flight is, and then the kiosk will calculate how big of a carbon footprint you will be making and match it to the cost of carbon credits, and then you can pay the price and feel less guilty about the flight. I'm not exactly sure where the money goes or what you are paying for, but some people are okay just paying money so they don't have to feel guilty any more.

The interesting thing is that although the government is ever-watchful of gas station owners who may charge too much, and the government has held many Congressional hearings about oil companies that make too much profit, but yet the government seems to be okay with and actually supportive of a carbon offset purchase kiosk that is charging 60 times the going rate for carbon offsets.

According to the Chicago Climate Exchange, carbon offsets are about 20 cents per ton, and yet the kiosk at the San Francisco Airport is charging $12.24 per ton. That's a big difference- I suppose that this amount is simply the waste and fraud and overhead that is so evil in healthcare companies and oil companies but is perfectly okay in a green machine?

To be perfectly honest, I don't understand this carbon offset shell game that the government is going to be creating and running. Democrats in the US Congress are trying to pass a cap-and-trade bill that will take our nation closer to a carbon offset market, and like most government run schemes, you can expect the system the liberals in government are creating to do accomplish very little and profit a few elite people with political connections.

Questions should be asked- who runs these carbon offset kiosks? Are they paying the same price for the space to set up their machines as the Coke vendors or other businesses at the airport? Is there similar government oversight that would caution consumers about buying nothing that is real at excessive prices? This is a government encouraged scam, and should not be tolerated.

Thanks to TigerHawk for first spotting this.

UPDATE: One of my valuable readers has informed me that the SFO charges 60 times the cost of purchasing a carbon offset because they take that 99% overhead that they charge and use that money to buy wind turbines, solar panels, and other green energy producing sources. I imagine that these are installed using union labor paid at the prevailing living wage, and that there needs to be extensive management costs associated with this whole enterprise. I imagine everyone connected with this has great health care and retirement, and assured jobs for life.

In short, rather than alluding to this carbon offset system being a government racket, I know shall point out that the reason why the government is charging 60x the cost of something is because they are price-gouging the customers and using that money to pad their own pockets in a government-endorsed extortion scheme. All the liberals who go hysterical over insurance companies having too much 'overhead' are more than willing to have considerably more for their own useless projects.

Thanks again for the emails, valuable readers. I agree- after more critical thought, this whole story stinks even more like corruption than it did at first glance.