You run for president of the USA.

Night one of the Democratic convention (How did the web feel?)

2008-08-25T23:07:31Z

Well after spending the last couple of hours monitoring the forums a couple of things are clear.

For Hillary Clinton supporters, tonight did nothing for them. Only the slightest little crack in party unification, but it's more than mild. I only found two posts of a positive nature. More than a few felt Michelle Obama's speech was "Preachy". And a few others found it boring and painful to watch.

The independents were probably moved a bit more, mostly by the Obama children. No greatly positive comments to be found, no over the top negatives.

Perhaps the most profound thing I saw tonight on Fox news, and echoed in a few forums, was the feeling of black Americans. Juan Williams was nearly in tears, and a few of the forum posters were moved as well. But here is what is really interesting, and should give all American's pause. Williams, and many others seemed to be moved just at the image of a black woman, who may be the first lady of the United States giving a speech at the Democratic national convention.

Younger blacks may not quite grasp what I think I was seeing and reading. If I can summarize the emotions in to thoughts it seems as if many are wanting to cry out, "I never thought I'd live to see this."

If you like Barack Obama, or don't, one thing I hope we can all agree on, this is a wonderful moment for America.

My thoughts on the night and the convention:
Michelle Obama's speech was a little light on substance. Rather than embracing Barack's unique American story, they chose to portray him as just another American kid knocking around the neighborhood playing baseball and eating apple pie.

After the first night of the convention, we still have no idea what Obama's policies will be. We know a few of his pet projects, but these are not economic policies, they are simply transfers of wealth. Progressive liberals used to realize their was a trade off. We give the rich higher tax rates, support a robust free market, and the money skimmed off the top is used for jobs programs, education, etc.
Obama's projects need to evolve in to real policies so we can better assess the damage, or potential benefit.

Because the race is close, and the party is still rather divided according to the grass roots chat on the web, I'd have to give tonight a C-, and that was saved from an F by the Obama children.

Democrats and Party Unity

2008-08-25T10:02:08Z

Party Unity is all the rage from the media, and the surrogates in Denver this week, is it real?
Well not even close. At HillaryClintonforum.net the talk is still centered around protests and indignation at Barack Obama. Topics range from Obama's fund raising efforts and whether or not he is even legal eligible to be president.

Without listing every forum on the web, let me just give you a broad overview of what the grass roots is saying. The Hillary supporters are not a happy bunch and one can hardly blame them. I think most people expected the big surprise of Hillary as VP. The consensus among both sides before the Biden pick was that this would have truly united the party. The Republican's are ecstatic at the Biden pick. Not because it's Joe Biden, but because it isn't Hillary. The deep dark fears emanating from the Republican grass roots was that an Obama/Clinton ticket would have been unbeatable.

Obama supporters backlash. For the first time in crossover forums (where both Obama and Clinton supporters gather) we're seeing some real fighting going on. Ed Rendell prompted this when he called MSNBC's coverage of Obama embarrassing.

The choice of Biden will effect McCain's VP pick, make no mistake about it. Pawlenty should be out, and the stock of Fiorini and Romney will rise. Why? Biden can be an attack dog, Romney will be able to defend himself, and Biden will just look bad attacking a female.

Right now the mood can only be described as tentative. The grass roots Democratic party members are a far cry from unified. If Obama is to win this election, Hillary and Bill Clinton will have to work some real magic. Only the Clinton's can unify the party at this point.

More each night and every morning.

Drill for Oil Now

2008-05-27T17:39:05Z

The petition is gaining momentum. Send the link to CNN, Foxnews, your local news, and anyone you know. We the American people must stand against the politicians who ride around in limousines, with gas we pay for.
High Oil prices are caused by government blocking exploration in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and Shale exploration and exploitation in Colorado and Utah.

The Drill for Oil Now! petition.

John McCain and Barak Obama will not drill for oil because oil wells are ugly.
Poverty is ugly my fellow Americans. We need politicians who understand basic supply and demand economics, and politicians who understand we the citizens of America are paying their salaries.

As soon as legislation is passed, the speculators will flee the markets, and prices will drop, when we are pumping 7 million barrels a day of domestic oil, prices will sink low enough to less the grip of OPEC, other nations, and the speculators.

The time is now.

The coming oil price crash, and economic boom.

2008-05-21T11:39:17Z

The price of a barrel of oil is going to crash, and hard. The only question now is, when? The new process to get oil from shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah will begin to pay dividends, as soon as Congress opens the area up for exploration. The reserves are at a minimum triple what lies beneath Saudi Arabia.

Add to that the large reserves yet to be tapped in Alaska, and The Gulf of Mexico, and a pattern begins to emerge. We're much closer to energy independence than we thought just twenty years ago.

All of this oil won't stay in the ground forever. Eventually prices will rise so high that Congress will be forced to act, and the oil will be tapped. The challenge this time around is to stay on track, and get the oil out. As soon as exploration is even authorized, prices will go down. If they go down enough, and new sources appear to be on a fast track to exploration, the oil exporting nations will increase production. This will be done in an attempt to stall the progress, and keep control in the hands of OPEC.

While many would like to stop this for environmental reasons (which are all but disappearing in Colorado with the new technology) the people will eventually demand lower prices. While oil rigs in Alaska, and Colorado may be ugly, poverty is even uglier.

How far will the price of oil fall? Initially I think the crash will be speculative, much like the rise was. So you should probably see a leveling off at sixty or seventy dollars per barrel. If exploration and new technology are allowed to proceed, the end result will be prices below thirty, and possible twenty dollars per barrel.

But wait, there's more good news.
When this happens, the biofuel subsidies will no longer be viable, and the price of food will fall. While many are predicting the next Great Depression, we are likely to see a release of pent up demand, coupled with falling energy prices that should make the nineties look like bad times. The lower cost of oil trickles through every aspect of the economy.

The last time consumer confidence was so low, was in the early 1980s. You may recall that we then enjoyed a huge and prolonged economic expansion. Well hold on to your hats. When Congress finally opens up the oil spigot, the world economy will grow faster than it ever has. It may even be enough to offset the coming fiscal crunch caused by baby boomers collecting social security and health benefits in rapidly swelling numbers.

Nothing stops progress forever.

The only question left is, "How long will they make us wait?"

Now get to u4prez.com, start your virtual campaign for president, and start making it happen!

The people of America must demand we drill for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico

2008-05-13T19:00:08Z

Gas prices are now at $4.00 per gallon. The burden on the economy is becoming to great for many families and businesses to bear. We are at the watershed event of the American economy. In the next twenty years nearly eighty million baby-boomers will become eligible for social security and Medicare. And yet the politicians are allowing our economy to wallow in a mess that is easily fixed. This is the time when our economy needs to be growing, and growing rapidly, and yet disposable income, which drives the consumer economy is shrinking.

We have no alternative. The rise in oil prices is the result of two things, demand exceeding supply, and speculative purchasing of futures contracts. The speculation is a result of our congress and president, and all of the presidential candidates refusing to address the core issue.

While they argue, oil prices continue to rise.

We cannot let this happen, and we as American citizens, must solve the problem ourselves. We must enact a fast track development program to get oil out of both of these locations in the shortest possible time frame.

To that end, I ask you to sign this petition.

Drill for Oil Now

It states that I will not vote for any politician, regardless of party, unless he or she supports the immediate opening of ANWR in Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico for expedited oil exploration, and drilling.

There is no other way. Alternative fuels are a distant promise. If we do not act by November of this year, congress will do what it does best, nothing.
This is our country, and these are our resources. They do not belong to John McCain, Charlie Crist, Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, or any member of congress.

It is time that we remind the politicians who pays the bills, and that we, the citizens of America are the boss.

Voter fraud must be much deeper than we suspect.

2008-04-29T17:57:58Z

The outrage over the Supreme court's ruling to allow states to require a photo ID raises some interesting questions. Why would anyone disagree with this ruling? Surely anyone with the mental capacity to vote, can arrange to get either a driver's license, or a state id. With growing accusations from the right and the left about fraud, requiring an ID seems to be a great first step to to avoiding mischief at the ballot box.
The only logical explanation is that voter fraud is widespread, someone knows this, and is willing to pull out all the stops to see that it can continue.
If the fraud was minimal, it wouldn't be worth so much effort to fight the ruling. Surely the opponents don't expect rational people to believe that it is to great a burden to go have a picture taken. Almost all of the opposition seems to be coming from the left. The only logical conclusion is that in some areas, there must be thousands and thousands of illegal votes cast, and these votes are tipping the results. Those opposing the ruling have a vested interest in perpetuating the fraud.

I just don't see any other logical reason for the fight. The oddest and perhaps most disturbing argument is that, "People of color" will be disenfranchised. Is it just me, or is this one of the most racist statements uttered so far this year? What is the point of this statement? Does someone really believe that black people are not capable of getting a drivers license? Or worse, that black people can't find the BMV? How could this possibly stop anyone from voting regardless of skin color?

Those who read my blog regularly know that I'm a big fan of plain old fashioned logic and rational thought. Well, in this case I think the logic is perfectly clear. Someone wants to perpetuate the fraud. There is no other rational answer.

In a democracy, two things are vital to the survival of the nation, the rule of law, and the sanctity of the vote. If either of these pillars falls, there are just one of two results possible. The first is mob rule, overturning real justice. The second is rule by criminals, who have no problem stealing an election. Those on the left and the right would be well advised to study your history a bit. Both of these scenarios ultimately lead to rule by tyrant.

A thorough and honest investigation in to the voting practices of The United States is long overdue. This should be a bi-partisan effort that spans several years, to cover national elections, at the local level. As a fiscal conservative, I would still be in favor of lofty spending to see that this happens, because as I've said, nothing is more important. Elections should be monitored in hundreds of cities and towns, absentee voters checked, and comprehensive reports delivered after every election to determine if further action is needed.

The ruling allowing states to require a photo id for voting should have passed without much notice. The ensuing hand wringing and outrage by some, demands that we look under the covers to see just exactly what they're trying to protect.

The economy should get better sooner, rather than later.

2008-05-08T00:19:29Z

The housing crisis, as it is called, has a real hidden benefit for the economy over the next couple of years. Housing prices were to high, and needed to come down. This has wiped out some paper equity of course on the down side, but on the upside, more people are going to be able to afford a house. When they move out of mom and dads house, or the apartment, they trigger a whole serious of economically stimulating events. The new homeowners need to buy lawn mowers, stoves, washer and dryer, paint to spruce up, and furniture. These purchases related to home ownership quickly trickle through the economy, and the flywheel is set in motion.

I've moved the economic depression (and activity indicator) to a small business resource site.
I occasionally contribute to this site and have a few articles some of you business types may enjoy.

1. How to become a CEO
2. Micromanagement
3. A 30 minute business education
4. Small business ideas

Why alternative fuels won't work. (yet)

2008-04-18T10:14:02Z

The political chatter is again drifting towards alternative fuels as the solution to high energy prices. The immediate problem with alternative energy is that the free market cannot produce them in an efficient manner. The cost of the alternatives is not yet low enough to make a profit. The attempt to subsidize the biofuel industry has so far resulted in higher food prices leading to food riots, and ultimately an increase in world hunger. It's important to understand that this industry is entirely government related. The free market economy researched biofuels for years and determined that without subsidy from governments there was no profit to be made.

Wind power and solar power are in the same situation.
Without massive subsidies from governments across the world, these sources are also at present not profitable. So should governments subsidize these industries? The argument is that this would allow energy companies to build the infrastructure, and in time, the companies would become profitable and we would have our magic potion.

The more exotic fuels are no where near ready. Energy sources such as ocean waves, and fusion are at this point decades away from viability.

This won't work either. At some point there will be enough alternative energy sources to lower the demand for oil and coal. This lower demand will of course drastically lower the price of oil. One can already clearly see that the rise in oil prices is not related to demand alone, but to a speculative attack as well. So the fall becomes even more dramatic. When the fall in prices occurs, the efficiency of the alternative fuels shifts the market back to oil.

This Catch-22 is obvious to even the casual student of economics. It is strange that the world has evolved to a point where only the politicians lack the mental horsepower to understand this conundrum. John McCain has admitted freely he has no idea how to lower the price of a barrel of oil. (Here's a hint, supply and demand). The only way to stop this cycle is to let the advancement of technology play out. When we find an energy as efficient as oil, the problem is solved.

This is not an easy issue. Some day technology will either increase the efficiency of these alternatives to make them competitive, or the permanent price of oil will reach a point where the existing efficiency is sufficient to foster free investment. But we're just not there yet. The logical conclusion is that the "safe" alternative fuels are either not very safe, or not efficient.

Nuclear power is only an option if the entire body of U.S. law surrounding the construction of nuclear power plants is re-vamped. Currently the legal red tape takes this option off of the table. Sadly most of this legislation was created in response to anti-nuclear activists who had no real knowledge of the issue. The children of this group is entirely responsible for the biofuels fiasco as well.

So what's the solution?
This is where things get even more complicated. The cost of oil today is completely the result of government intervention. On this point there can be no debate. There is plenty of oil around the world that can be brought out of the ground, and oil and gas prices would tumble quickly. The United States Congress is stopping the drilling in Alaska and further exploitation of vast oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. This same group is responsible for the legislation that stops nuclear power plants. Given the two, I would suggest that the chances of drilling for oil are much better than the chances for fast track legislation to encourage investment in nuclear power.

"But there isn't enough oil in Alaska to change lower the price."
Rubbish. As I've mentioned earlier, the increase in the price of oil is not just a supply/demand issue, ithere is also a speculative component. Drilling in Alaska will drive out many of the speculators. Drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico should completely drive them from the picture.

Environmental concerns.
Alas we must appeal to man's ability to reason. There are environmental consequences. But global warming may or may not be one of them. The hysteria surrounding the global warming issue is indeed something to behold. I don't consider myself a global warming denier but a healthy skepticism at this point is long over due. Recent data on ocean temperatures and upper atmospheric temperatures would seem to indicate that global warming is clearly not progressing at previously "certain" levels. This is fact. Even the most impassioned global warming believers must keep facts and logic at the fore of their argument, else they have no argument. In my mind there is a bigger issue, which I have never heard addressed by even the skeptics.

Shouldn't global warming be an exponential problem? Or at least linear?
We know that increasing temperatures increase the rate of organic decay, which thus release more carbon dioxide. So if CO2 is the cause of increasing global temperature, how could it ever be stopped? This is not a complex equation. If G=global temperature, and C is carbon dioxide then an increase in C (X+C) causes and increase in G. This is the core of the global warming argument. It is solid logic if we can find a direct relationship.
But further, and increase in G causes and increase in C, because as mentioned warmer temperature increases the rate of decay and subsequent release in C.
So G+C=C+X, X being the resultant increase in C, caused by the increase in G.
What factor stops the increase in C?

And now we must address the question that has plagued man since he stood erect, or for the divine interventionists among us, since he received his soul and logic. What is the risk benefit relationship?

This question is real, tangible and must be answered.
How many poor people are we willing to kill in pursuit of the fight against global warming? I am not attacking anyone with this question. The answer is, we don't know. If we see an acceleration (a real measured acceleration empiraclly attributed to CO2 increases) in global warming, we will have to resort to cleaner fuels. If biofuels are the answer, more people will go hungry and starve to death. If wind and solar and the answer, it will take decades to build the infrastructure. The radicals and the politicians will of course scream and yell that this is not the case, the rich will just have to sacrifice a little more. But this is a lie. Bill Gates doesn't grow any corn, and he can't build solar and wind power plants quicker if you take all of his money. It is a logical, logistics issue. There are only so many people with the intelligence and experience to do these things. There are only so many bulldozers available, only so much metal can be allocated.

So we are clearly and logically left with a risk benefit analysis. The question is not how much more can we take from the rich, it is how many poor lives will we sacrifice.

Once again we are at that historical oddity where logic and reason must fight with politics and emotion. There is no easy answer. We can't get the oil out of Alaska without building and oil rig, and a road to the rig. We can't get oil out of the Gulf of Mexico without risking the lives of some fish. In a better world (notice I didn't say perfect) the politicians would realize that we must be honest with ourselves and sacrifice the pristine frozen tundra in Alaska, in order to save lives. If we are to embrace alternative cleaner energy sources, we must increase drastically the gas tax to pay for it. Gas taxes fall hardest on the working poor. By the logic of the left this is a good thing. Cigarette taxes also fall most heavily on the poor, but the left contends that this modifies their behaviour and we force them to live healthier lives. Well, a gas tax will give incentive to the poor to get better educated, and become wealthy so that they can afford to drive their automobiles to work.

If I were king (President).
I would veto every piece of legislation until Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico were opened for drilling. This would immediately lower the price of a barrel of oil, and thus spur growth in the economy. I would continue to spend taxpayer money to study global warming and the environment, but I wouldn't buy the first draft. I would immediately sign legislation killing the biofuel subsidy, before it becomes so entangled in the economy that it can't be killed. Whey would I do this? Because there is no logical alternative.

And now I'll address the concerns that we've all heard before.

It doesn't matter if we drill in Alaska, because it will take five years to get the oil out.
You said that five years ago and now oil is over $100 per barrel. Further we could award the contract to the company that can get the oil out in three years. (This is still America right?)

Biofuels may be more expensive, but it saves the environment.
Maybe, we don't know yet. But if so we are still starving poor people. Make a decision, but be honest about it.

Global warming is real and will kill us all.
That's not true. The evidence is simply no there at this point. Could it become real? Sure, but an asteroid could hit us as well, so I wouldn't sweat the global warming risk until we're a little more sure.

The rich will have to pay more.
I thought you wanted the rich to pay more for health care? Also the rich got rich by producing the goods and services (including health care) that you so desire. What if they weary of producing only to have governments loot what they earned? Who will produce, Barack, Hillary and McCain? I think not. Honest people realize that what we have, we have because someone scratched the earth to plant a crop. Or dug in the earth to pull out the rich minerals provided so that we can make steel for your car, or girders for your hospital.

And finally the last resort of the desperate.
If we didn't have this war, we would have money to invest in alternative fuels.
Again, I thought you wanted that money for health care? But I'll let that pass. The oil we get now comes from the Middle East. Sadaam was killing and torturing his own people, and invaded his neighbors twice. So are you OK with the killing and maiming? If we killed him and left, there would have been a tip in the balance of power in the region. Are you confidant that Iran would act in our best interests? What would oil be right now, if Sadaam were still in Iraq, and Iran was developing nuclear weapons? Sadaam would not have been as accommodating as George Bush.

McCain: No idea how to lower the price of Oil.

2008-04-04T09:29:36Z

In an interview with Greta Vansustern on Fox News John McCain said,"If someone can tell me how to get the price of a barrel of oil down, I'm willing to listen."

OK, start drilling for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. This raises the supply of oil on the world market. Higher supply levels lead to lower costs.

This is one of those things about politicians that makes you wonder who is running the country. Surely he knows the basic economic law of supply and demand. So why would he say such a thing? If he doesn't know how to lower the cost of oil, how can he be our next president?

Who is to blame for the economy? You are.

2008-04-28T14:06:33Z

Before reading this I ask you one simple favor. Please e-mail the link, or the text to everyone you can. Paste it on your own blogs or websites. I don't care if you put my name on it, put your own name on it if you desire, but before it is too late, let's fix this country.

It becomes more obvious every day that we are in the midst of an economic convulsion. The end result of this convulsion is not yet clear, but so far, the signs are not reassuring. While the Democrats continue bickering about who is going to change more, Obama or Hillary, the real question is what kind of change is needed. On the other end of the spectrum we have John McCain who professes not to know much about the economy. He is a foreign policy "expert" apparently, which will do you a world of good standing in the unemployment lines in the coming years. It will also greatly help you baby boomers when your social security payments are slashed by forty percent or more.

Let us state the problem in its simplest form: The economy is bordering on becoming an absolute mess. Oh we can weather the sub-prime storm, and the housing prices storm. But we cannot weather an unemployment storm. That is the key. If the other shoe falls (high unemployment) the entire house of cards will collapse.
I just have a few observations and questions.

Over the last fifteen years or so, many of you have said, "Oh I'll never get a dime of that social security." Well, you were right, but why didn't you do something about it? Why did you continue to let the media tell you things were going great, when a sixth grade mathematician could have told you the numbers weren't adding up. Why do you continue to support people for president who don't even acknowledge the long term problem? Have you heard Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain even once mention that we need to come up with about forty trillion dollars pretty quickly to cover the baby boomers' golden years?

We've doled out money for everything from atomic clocks, to extravagant prisons, to welfare for generations. We've fought wars, regulated business to death and back, and mortgaged ourselves and our country to the brink of disaster.

You voted for the fools, you embraced the silly programs, and now the bill has come due. Save for a few short years in the mid to late nineties there hasn't been even a glance from Washington D.C. towards fiscal responsibility . Ross Perot told us about this in 1992, and you let the media tell you he was crazy. He wasn't, he is simply intelligent and honest. But we didn't want to hear it.

The time is short. We have made this mess, and we must fix it. Write your congressmen today and tell him to stop looking to Ben Bernanke to fix the economy and start de-regulating business. Tell them to start drilling for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Tell them to cut the budget by ten percent. Tell them, no demand that they cut social security payments by 2.5% this year and 2.5% next year. This is especially important if you are on social security. Otherwise, the politicians will cut it much much more. Anyone who tells you he won't is nothing but a vulgar liar trying to get your vote. Any politicians who tells you we needn't cut social security is the worst kind of bastard. The kind who will sell his own mother and his own soul to get elected. We've had enough of these politicians haven't we? There are some fundamental strengths in the economy that cannot be over looked. We can build on these and turn this economy around. But it will take real, honest leadership.

We need to find a third party candidate and we need to do it now. A real leader who will say it like it is, and who will never compromise with either party because he owes them something. We need a leader who will veto every single bill until the congress gets it right. We can fix this, if we act now. Next year is too late one of the ship of fools will already have the power for four years. The Democrats are fighting over turf right now, and we cannot find Republican leadership with a search warrant. These people work for us, and it is time for no more Mr. Nice Guy.

If we as a nation don't act now, we have no one to blame but ourselves. America used to be a nation where , "When the going gets tough, the tough get going."

Where are all the tough guys?

Eric Gurr
egurr@intralinkinc.com

Christian colleges

Give it to Gore? Are you kidding me?

2008-03-28T15:25:56Z

I keep seeing these stories pop up. Initially they were from bloggeres, but now even Time magazine has expressed that this may be the best way for the Democrats to "come together".
There have been quite a few bad ideas floated around lately, but this has got to be one of the worst.
The Democratic party leadership is not going to turn the election over to a man who didn't campaign, and apparently didn't think he had a good shot at the nomination in the first place.
Franklin Roosevelt struggling with the diverse nature of the party seventy years ago. And it hasn't gotten much better. Gore is a single issue candidate who would only make things worse.
When you factor in the latest information on global warming, even that may not be such a "hot" issue if you'll pardon the pun.
Here are just a few of the latest articles.
Global Warming's missing heat. from NPR.
Former Global warming activist, now skeptic. in this article
But maybe even Gore is finally seeing the light.

I'm not a complete global warming skeptic, but I'm starting to lean towards the need for much more research on this, as I think many others are.
So what would Gore bring to the party? Well he is probably slightly to the right of Hillary, so he could salvage a few moderates perhaps, but surely that would be offset by the disgruntled Obama and Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain.

In all fairness, this is still a fringe idea (Gore getting the nomination) but the fact that it is picking up some steam has got to have the Dem party leadership in even more of a quandary.

The bottom line is Barack Obama has to get the nomination. Even if Hillary Clinton pulls close in elected delegates, the party leadership and super-delegates can't let her win. Blacks have as a group supported the Democratic party by more than 80%. If they go, the party goes. They are the core group that holds the party together.

If the fracture between Obama and Clinton threatens to shred the party, the only logical alternative is another black candidate. Harold Ford could step in and probably actually save the party from itself, Al Gore would just make the schism deeper than it already is.

The end of the Neocons and the return of balance of power diplomacy.

2008-03-26T10:05:31Z

The end of the Neocons.
The presidential campaigns of 2008 have, so far, focused foreign policy more on the war with Iraq, than anything else. What is the overall foreign policy vision of the candidates?

Thus far, John McCain appears to be a classic neo-conservative, almost defining the term itself. McCain was in favor of some level of amnesty for illegal immigrants, opposed to drilling for oil in Alaska, and in favor of an active U.S. role in foreign affairs, to say the least. While not a social liberal, he is certainly more towards the left on more than a few social and economic issues. His rhetoric on Iraq, the Middle East, and Russia leaves no other conclusion than that the United States must exert her will via the military and power diplomacy as the worlds only super power.

Barack Obama on the other hand, focuses his foreign policy on specific issues. While at first glance this may appear prudent, the end result is in reality a return to the neocon philosophy. We've already seen this played out on some level with his comments regarding Pakistan. When Obama expresses a desire to open the doors of communication with North Korea, Iran and Cuba, he leaves the obvious question unanswered. What if he doesn't like what he hears? When Jimmy Carter tried this approach in the 1970's with Iran (abandoning the balance of power) the world was met with the rise of the first Islamic fundamentalist government, and Hezbollah.

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is also almost entirely focused on the Middle East, and according to her website, she would embrace a non-interference policy relying on the United Nations, and mediation. She suffers the same shortcomings as Obama on this front. Every politician begins the diplomatic effort with mediation. But what happens when that doesn't work?

Foreign policy decisions, much like economic policy, must stem from an overall vision. Until Obama and Clinton articulate that vision, we are just left to wonder.

One thing is certain, the way of the Neocon is over.

The cold hard fact is that any comprehensive foreign policy is subject to the times and conditions of the nation. The sentiment has often been expressed that intervention in the opening phases of World War II would have stopped the war. But this is just a guess. Hitler may have just accelerated his killing of Jews, and bypassed his invasion of The Soviet Union. Stalin by all indications would have been happy to sit this one out, and watch the Western Powers destroy themselves, and so World War II would have been perhaps even worse.

Another cold hard fact is that the United States is going to enter a long period of contraction in government spending. Despite the wishes of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, the aging dynamic of the baby boomer generation render new government spending programs as simply a fantasy. The cost of retirement benefits for this group is already estimated at upwards of 40 trillion dollars. Factor in the changes in spending habits and it's clear that government spending at all levels is going to be greatly restrained. For more on this you can read my article "The Pillars of the economy are crumbling".

This lack of funding for "discretionary spending" will first spill over in to military spending. And without the money, the Neocon philosophy is simply not sustainable. While many on the left will cheer at the news, the alternative is probably even less to their liking. The neoconservative philosophy was never one of world domination. The actual diplomatic approach was quite sound in its logic. The use of power diplomacy, and then the military not just to impose our will, but to foster democracy and free market economies in troublesome nations, thus keeping the peace for a much longer period of time.

To fill the foreign policy void the best option is a return to balance of power diplomacy.

The end result of this is that we as a nation will be forced to support less than desirable leaders in order to maintain the peace in specific regions,and around the world. The balance of power approach doesn't work without its ugly step-sister, dollar diplomacy.

So how do I reconcile cutting military spending and increasing foreign aid?
The same way you reconcile eating at home, when you'd rather spend the night at a five star restaurant. You need food, so you'll incur some expense, but you really can't afford to eat at the best restaurants every night.
We need an active foreign policy, but we can't afford to spend more than half a trillion dollars every year supporting the policy. If we are to cut military spending by twenty percent, we save one hundred billion dollars every year. As much as thirty billion may need to be sprinkled around the globe to maintain the balance of power.

But there is more to it.
Just about every foreign policy, short of isolationism, runs the risk of devolving into a chase for dragons to slay. This is one of those oddities of the modern politician and is nothing more than a result of narrow focused thinking. When we wish to engender a balance of power, or impose our will on a region of the world, we first need to answer the question, "Why?".

The answer in the Middle East is obvious. Our economy is dependent on cheap oil. Most of our oil comes from the Middle East, and we can't afford to have the entire region erupting in to war every five or ten years. So is the only answer to spend billions every year to maintain a military presence? Of course not. Now the retort often heard from the left is we need to invest in alternative fuels. Well, that sounds great, but investing doesn't always equal production, and it never immediately translates in to production. So we need to have an interim plan. Oil and nuclear power are the only fuels available to meet our energy demands at this time. But as a nation, we are reluctant to increase our drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. We have also regulated nuclear power to the point that its cost far outweighs the benefit. In short, something has got to give. We are going to have to make a decision to either drill for oil in Anwar and the Gulf of Mexico, or we are going to have to streamline the process for building nuclear power plants. If we don't take one of these approaches, we need to send more American soldiers to the Middle East, until we can stabilize the region and return to a balance of power.

What of Africa?
During the cold war The United States and The Soviet Union poured money in to emerging nations to keep a balance of power, that benefited each countries sphere of influence. When the cold war ended, both nations were content to let the African continent devolve in to genocide and despotic rule. While our economic interests may be small in the area, we are still Americans, and we generally like to do the right thing. Stabilization is preferable to genocide, so we'll be forced to prop up regimes we may not completely agree with.

We as Americans are an optimistic people. That is of course one of our great strengths. But it can also be our biggest weakness. Our nation is going to change dramatically over the next thirty to forty years, and that change began in 2008. The dynamic of the baby boomer generation is like nothing we've ever seen. The largest and most productive segment of our country is rapidly going to become the most dependent on government services. This sea change affects every aspect of government and we must meet the challenge with honesty, and intelligent policy.

If we further entangle ourselves in issues involving other nations, we will quickly bankrupt the nation. This is a unique time in the history of The United States when our options and resources are limited. It will not last forever, but it is here for the next twenty to thirty years. The Neocons helped to end the cold war and free millions of people from the bondage of totalitarian regimes. They expelled Sadaam Hussein from Kuwait, and ultimately removed the brutal dictator from Iraq. In a nation flush with cash, they were probably right, and at least a logical alternative. That time has passed.

The economic depression indicator meter.

2008-05-02T11:36:51Z

Depression indicator meter: Updated March 20th 2008

The index is at -37
When the index is at -200 we are in a great depression.

Index rises to -37
5/2/2008 Slight rise in GDP and unemployment number goes down.
4/14/2008 Corporate profits edging down, along with consumer confidence.
4/03/2008 Unemployment rises slightly as 80,000 lose jobs.
3/26/2008 Durable goods drop and consumer confidence drops again.
3/24/2008 Index rises to -35 from -37. Sales of pre-existing homes unexpectedly rise.
3/20/2008 Update due to manufacturing index falling for a fifth straight month.

The meter indicates how likely we are to enter a recession, depression, or to experience economic growth. The meter is based on 20 economic factors. Some of these factors change (The Sub-Prime mortgage crisis). They are weighted based on their level and trend during previous recessions, and the great depression.
Currently GDP is growing ever so slightly, international trade is up, and U.S. exports are up. The average hours worked is stable and bank credit, despite the recent sub-prime woes appears to be somewhat stable. These offset the other factors, almost all of which are down. As new information is updated (unemployment figures, the stock market, interest rates, etc.) the needle moves.

Current indicators

Housing crisis

Stock market

Fed posture

Unemployment rate

Price of Oil

Price of Gold

Consumer confidence

Banks failing

New housing starts

Quarterly services

Manufacturing shipments/orders

GDP

Business investment

Productivity

Consumer credit

International trade

Bank credit (Total commercial)

Inflation

Average weekly hours worked

corporate profits

A simple plan for fixing the economy.

2008-05-06T19:18:29Z

A simple plan to fix the economy.

Any student of history will tell you that the economic problems facing the United States are enormous in scope, but rather simple in complexity. The short term issues are easy to fix both structurally, and politically, we simply need to invigorate the business climate. Over a longer period of time one cannot discount the potential disaster associated with Social Security and Medicare benefits promised to eighty million baby boomers. Honoring this promise will require deficit spending for years. But if we set our house in order today, we will have the liquidity and confidence of creditors to meet the demand.

The plan I am outlining is nothing new. It is the path lighted for us by past politicians, economists and the march of time itself. Big problems aren't always complex. This is one of those instances.

This plan will result in rather quick economic growth, based on real productivity, and it will check inflation.

1. Lower the capital gains tax rate to 7%, permanently. When nations lower capital gains tax rates, economies and revenues to the government rise. There is no historical empirical data to suggest otherwise, and in fact, very little anecdotal evidence.

2. Increase oil exploration and drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Oil prices are effecting everything we buy. We must approach the task of exploiting American based oil assets with the same vigor we approached re-arming for World War II.

3. Overturn Sarbanes-Oxley. This misguided piece of legislation costs public companies billions in productivity. It is a horribly conceived bit of law, that does nothing to protect investors from criminals.

4. Remove as much regulation on small business as can possibly be accomplished in ninety days. The family leave act, Americans with disabilities act, and as many as 80 other regulations could conceivably free up more than one trillion dollars per year.¹Many of these regulations offer no real protection to the general public, and of those that do, the cost often far exceeds the supposed benefit.

5. Do not intervene in the housing market. Housing prices were run up in many areas because of speculative buying and selling "flipping". Perpetuating this bubble will only cause further ruin. If the prices are allowed to settle at a more natural level, the crisis will quickly pass with minimal impact on the overall economy.

6. Drastically reduce illegal immigration and begin massive deportment of illegals in the country. Rising health care costs related to illegal immigrants are pushing up health insurance rates for small business, and employees, while causing severe economic pressure on border state hospitals. These illegal workers are also pushing wages down even further for the working poor. Build the border wall to discourage repeat offenders.

7. Drastically increase the visas allotted for highly skilled technical workers. These highly skilled workers will pay taxes, and keep jobs in the United States. Unlike low-skilled jobs these positions bring with them high pay and disposable income so necessary to growing our economy.

8. Cut government spending by ten percent. Even social security direct payments will need to be cut by 2.5 %. This will solve the short term deficit problem and allow for further tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Welfare and food stamp payments will also need to be cut. One of the biggest health problems of the poor is obesity², let no one tell you people will starve if food stamps are cut by 5%.

9. Protect the drug companies from class action suits once a drug has been approved by the FDA. This alone will lower health care costs, specifically for the aging baby boomer generation.

10. Rewrite HIPAA laws. While portability is good, much of the HIPAA regulations have increased health care costs with no discernable benefit to health care consumers or providers.

11. Cut military spending by twenty-percent across the board. Re-focus military spending on defensive initiatives (missile defense). Drastically cut overseas troop deployments. Dragon slaying is a diversion for nations flush with cash, in times of economic woe, it is a recipe for disaster.

12. Streamline the process for building nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is more environmentally friendly, and cheaper than fossil fuels. The construction of these power plants is over-regulated and is strangling our economy.

13. Promote free trade. The Smoot-Hawley rhetoric from the Obama and Clinton campaigns will lead to , the same thing the first Smoot-Hawley tariffs led to , increased misery. Cheap imports are a staple of growing economies. Our growth is not dependent on building walls, it is dependent on increasing our competitive advantage. This is done by lowering taxes and regulations. Paying fourteen dollars for a pair of socks is not going to grow our economy.

All of these ideas are easy to implement. Incorporated together they will build a strong foundation for growing our economy quickly, and allowing us to meet the demands of the future. The United States economy is in dire straights. Thankfully, it is easy to fix, as most (not all, but most) of the problems were created by our government.

The time has come for us to put the politicians feet to the fire. No longer can we listen to nonsense about Universal healthcare. There simply isn't any money for it. Universal health care is about increasing access to health care, not decreasing the cost. The time has come for the American giant to rise from his slumber and confront the beast. The beast is nothing more than sloth and ignorance. We are all guilty. Make no mistake the winds of economic chaos are strengthening and their gusts threaten to blow your very livelihood away. This is not the time for slick politically speak, or straight talk that isn't straight about anything. The election of 2008 is not about change, or staying the course, it is about real leadership.

History will judge us harshly if we continue on the path we have taken. The world wide web has opened up mountains of data for historical research. I urge you to get involved. We must find a leader willing to make tough decisions, and one who can lead as all great leaders do, by building a consensus if possible, standing alone if necessary. I do not know who will win the presidential election in November. I do know that if it is McCain, Clinton or Obama, it will be a one term presidency.

Sources

^1. Advocacy created the r3 initiative because complying with federal regulations

now costs our economy $1.1 trillion per year, which costs more per household

than healthcare.  The smallest of businesses bear the brunt of regulations.

They annually pay 45 percent more per employee to comply with federal

regulations than big businesses do.

From SBA advocacy.

2. www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-23-obesity-teens_x.htm

Author note:

Eric Gurr is the President and founder of U4Prez.com. He writes regularly in his blog at blog.u4prez.com. Eric is 43 years old and is married with three children.

He can be reached at egurr@intralinkinc.com

Searching for video of Obama in Church.

2008-03-15T11:42:36Z

You can bet that right now thousands of people are searching through thousands of videos of Pastor Jeremiah Wright. They are looking for a smoking gun. A video of Barak Obama sitting in a pew while Pastor Wright goes on one of his famous rants. Today it appears that the senator has wiggled through this mini crisis. If it becomes apparent that he knew exactly what Pastor Wright was up to, and still supported the church, the problem grows.
The racial overtones have been over played. This is not at its core about race. This is very left wing, anti-American rhetoric. Obama has distanced himself enough in the eyes of the main stream media. It looks like he'll get a bit of a pass here, and Hillary Clinton will have to continue to work twice as hard to make half the progress.
If a video surfaces of Barak Obama in church, nodding his head at some of these outrageous statements, he has a big problem.
Will someone find that video?

This is a serious issue.
The pastor's comments are on the very fringes of far left politics. Wright insuniates that 911 was the fault of America, that the government has hooked blacks on drugs, and the God should not bless America, he should Damn it. A president must be able to lead and represent all of the people. Black, white, Hispanic, gay, straight, liberal, moderate, and conservative all look to the president for leadership. If Obama becomes too closely tied to the extreme left, he cannot win in the general election.
The rank and file party Democrats understand this clearly. The conundrum is that they also understand that black America is the single most loyal group of their party. This is one of those instances where there is no easy out for the Democrats. Obama will have to further distance himself from Wright, and at the same time explain in perfectly clear language what he disagrees with in the pastor's rhetoric.

The danger to the country is buried in the race issue.
This doesn't make it right. In fact, the race component of Wright's comments are probably the least troubling to potential voters. Obama could simply nod and smile and say, "Hey, we've all seen this characters, and many of us black folks have cousins and uncles who believe these wild assertions."
Any one who has even a few black friends knows this. There are enough truths buried in this line of thinking to at least acknowledge where the stories come from, and so dismiss the rhetoric as a bit overblown.
No, the real issue is that many blacks have literally come to the conclusion that Barak Obama is the only African-American politician capable of being president. If he loses, they lose. But this isn't true at all. There are black politicians and leaders all over the country who are better qualified to be president. Harold Ford, Bill Cosby, Condi Rice, Colin Powell are just a few. If things fall apart for Obama, we will need these black leaders now more than at any time since Martin Luther King kept the country from devolving in to racial violence.

This is a difficult time, but we can overcome. Alas it is going to take honesty on the part of us "white folks".
If I were a black man, I would be an Obama supporter. There is nothing I can think of that would bring more pride and hope to the country than an effective black president who can really pull the nation together. Imagine the look in the eyes of a ten year old black child watching the swearing in of a black president. He could then truly dream, "I could be president some day."

We all must hope and pray that Barak Obama is telling the truth. That he never was in church on a day when pastor Wright made these comments hurtful to so many Americans.

10 Things the next president must understand.

2008-03-06T07:56:55Z

2008 is the watershed year in twenty-first century America. There are ten things the next president must clearly understand, and address.

The retiring baby-boomers will change everything about the way government spends money. They have been promised Social Security and Medicare, and they will demand these programs be funded. They will make their voices clearly heard at the ballot box.
Illegal immigration is not a result of lower wages, or even widespread labor shortages. It is a result of excessive regulatory burden on small business. Amnesty will make the problems facing our nation much worse. When an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he becomes a much less desirable employee.
There is no near term solution to our dependence on oil. If domestic oil production does not rise, our continued entanglement in the foreign affairs of The Middle East is guaranteed.
Global warming must continue to be studied, but hysterical and simplistic solutions will not work. Now is not the time to cut carbon emissions. This will completely wreck our economy because no other "emissions" will power your car, your home, or any other aspect of the economy.
The next president must understand "Balance of Power" diplomacy. This dictates that some of our potential enemies become stronger, and we must practice dollar diplomacy (which is more cost effective than war) to strengthen some of our allies. There is no logical path for wide spread use of our military across the globe. The money is not available. Military spending will need to be completely refocused to "defensive needs".
To grow our economy anywhere near the level required to pay the bills that are coming due, we must de-regulate business at many levels. This will cause anecdotal suffering, but the benefit to the middle class far outweighs potential downside. Historically, and without fail, nothing else has worked.
We must maintain a presence in Iraq (see number 5). However, this presence and the associated cost must fall. A small and rapidly mobile force will be needed to maintain the balance of power in the region for the foreseeable future. This will necessitate a shift in the way battles are fought, with less emphasis placed on avoiding collateral damage. This is nothing new, and has historically lowered the level of violence in troubled nations.
The consumer dynamic will shift from spending based on disposable income, to saving. This will have a negative effect on many segments of our economy. In particular, those businesses that have catered to the baby boomers and luxury items will shrink mightily. Businesses fail, and these must not be "propped up" through misguided tax policy.
The next president must have a strong base of understanding of international trade, and the dangers of protectionist trade policies to the United States economy. The next president must also negotiate trade deals that are in the best interest of the United States long term economic health. Accomplishing this will require us to further deregulate, and lower the tax burden on manufacturing.
Social unrest will become more widespread as programs designed to help the poor are reduced (but not eliminated). This is unavoidable and must be addressed with sober, intelligent financial policy. The social safety net for the poor must be maintained, and it must become much more efficient. If direct welfare and social security payments are not cut by 5% over the next two years, they will be cut by more than 40% within ten years. The simple math (number of baby boomers multiplied by the cost of Social Security, Medicare and the prescription drug benefit) dictate that this is a mathematical proof and not a theory or suggestion. There is no realistic mathematical formula for increasing government spending on new programs without bankrupting the nation.

If our next president understands these ten issues, and addresses them with policies based on historical standard, and not "new ideas", our nation will prosper. If our next president embraces a policy of expanding our military obligations, or expanding social programs, the economic result will be catastrophic. A significant lurch to the left, with associated increases in government spending will hasten the pace of our demise. A significant lurch to the right, eliminating the social safety net, will cause ruinous social unrest.

The fiscal challenge facing our nation is not without historical precedent. While it is enormous in scope, it is not a complex issue. We have promised to pay tens of trillions of dollars to retiring baby boomers and the first bill became due January 1st of 2008.

Now is the time for our country to come together. Social issues not related to the long term solvency of our nation must be put on the back burner. Else neither side will live to fight another day. None of the candidates currently running for office has expressed even a rudimentary knowledge of the problem, it is time we put them to the test.

The pillars of the economy are crumbling.

2008-03-04T09:16:00Z

    Your life is going to change in ways you cannot imagine. Many of those upper middle class supporters of Barack Obama are going to find themselves without a job in the coming years. Many of John McCains supporters are going to find that his immigration policy was based upon a profound lack of understanding of the core issue, and their taxes will skyrocket. Eighty million baby boomers will find that the well is indeed dry, just as they need it the most.   Those in favor of universal health care will find that it was but a pipe dream based on access to health care for more people, at a cost we are in no position to bear. And yet none of the candidates is talking about it.
2008 is the watershed year. The beginning of a financial crisis the likes of which has never been seen in the history of advanced economies. The numbers are staggering. According to the comptroller of The United States David Walker, we are currently underfunded by about twenty trillion dollars. I would argue that Mr. Walker's numbers are low. He made these statements in 2007 before the onset of the sub-prime crisis which is going to lower the value of assets in houses. The number one asset of most baby boomers. I would also argue that when the millions of baby boomers begin to retire, their spending habits will change, further aggravating the problem.

    Ross Perot talked about the impending debt crisis sixteen years ago. He was a man ahead of his time. And now, just as these bills are starting to come due, the leaders of our country are talking about spending more money. Some want to spend money to expand government programs, others want to add more citizens to the dole with an amnesty program. Either of these options would accelerate the disaster, both together will crush the economy under a debt burden that is all but impossible to repay.
    Perhaps most troubling is that it doesn't have to be this way. As a student of history, I can tell you that other countries have faced trying financial times. Adenauer in post World War II Germany, Roosevelt during the hopeless days of the early 1930s' and Thatcher in England when the Unions controlled the economy. The path is clearly lit.
    The United States does not face an insurmountable economic problem in the short term. If we can avoid perpetuating the housing bubble, and let prices fall to a more historically correct level, we can come out of the current situation largely in tact. That is a big "if". The pressure on politicians and Bernake is to extend the bubble. The Federal Reserve made this same mistake in the 1920's with another Ben's (Strong) "coup de whiskey" to extend the stock market bubble. As you will recall, that led to the crash in '29 and the subsequent Great Depression.
    But Ben Bernake is a student of the Great Depression, and an intelligent man. I truly believe that he is not trying to extend the bubble, but trying to prime the economy for a much more important reason, we must have job growth. If unemployment spikes to anywhere near double-digit rates, the game is up.

    And here we have the solution to the bigger problem. Jobs, real jobs that increase productivity, will strengthen the economy.
    Our greatest short-term challenge is our faltering economy. Lowering interest rates to spur capital investment (not to perpetuate a bubble) will help to create real jobs. Increasing our competitive advantage in the global market will also create jobs, and grow our economy in real dollars. We can do this with a simple and massive effort to de-regulate business.   Correspondingly, this will also solve the in large part the illegal immigration problem. This is the aspect of illegal immigration that John McCain and most of the Republicans don't understand. Much of the hiring of illegals is not wage driven, or supply driven (lack of workers), it is an effort to circumvent the heavy regulatory burden of small business. The regulatory burden on small business is over $7,000 per year per employee. A small business can actually pay an illegal worker $2 per hour more than an American citizen, and still make more money. If we were to offer a short-cut to citizenship for these illegals, we would be driving ten million people on to the welfare roles and unemployment lines.

    But what do we hear from John McCain and Barack Obama? Amnesty from Senator McCain and a throwback to Smoot-Hawley protectionism from Senator Obama. Two programs that are perfectly conceived to lead to another Great Depression.
    We should also address the price of oil. Oil is a commodity like no other. By its very nature, it affects the price of every other commodity. If the price of pork bellies rises, the price of wheat need not change. A crop failure of oranges in Florida, doesn't have a big impact on the price of lettuce in California. When the price of oil rises, everything rises. With a stroke of the pen, Congress can mitigate the looming economic disaster. By drilling for oil in Anwar, and much more aggressive drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, we can quickly increase the supply of oil, and lower the price. Those that would argue that increased burning of fossil fuels will lead to global warming in the latter part the century should take note, starvation can kill you in days. There is still time to fight the global warming problem, there isn't any time left to fight the onslaught of debt, and inevitable economic meltdown.
    I would also argue that a sizable dose of Keynsianism (deficit spending) is not out of the question, and historically cannot be seen as dangerous at this point. We cannot borrow for more than a few years, and while we are borrowing, every dollar must go in to the creation of competitive enterprise, and productive employment. Our GDP to public debt ratio is manageable for a few more years, but just barely.

   The second and even bigger problem facing our nation is the influx of baby boomers. We have promised nearly eighty million people Medicare and social security benefits. To solve this problem we will need to reverse the deficit spending as soon as the economy is on sound footing. We will also need to undertake massive cuts in federal spending. An overall cut on the order of ten to twenty percent is the only thing that will work. A three trillion dollar federal spending budget, in a fourteen trillion dollar economy with a twenty trillion dollar long term gap, is simply (and logically) not sustainable.
To lower the amount of money we need to borrow in the short term, we need to begin these cuts in government spending immediately. Most of our overseas troops will need to come home. We simply don't have the money to sustain a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and military bases dotting the globe. We can no longer look for dragons to slay, and must abandon the ways of the Neocons in favor of the old ways of dollar diplomacy, balance of power, and perhaps loss of influence in some corners of the earth. This is not meant to castigate the Neocons. They have surely made the world a safer place in many ways. But again, the well is running dry. Good ideas become foolish ideas when they cannot realistically be implemented.
    Social security payments must also be cut. A cut of 2.5% next year, and a subsequent cut of 2.5% the following year, coupled with a cut in administrative overhead is the only way. If you are on social security, or will become eligible for social security in the next fifteen years, this is the only way. You can run the numbers yourself. If these cuts are not implemented, your payments will cut by more than 40% in ten years. The Federal government spent nearly 1 trillion dollars in benefits to retirees (largely social security and medicare) in 2007. This was the last year before the first baby boomer became eligible. The math will not work any other way. Either endure a slight cut now, or a massive cut in a few short years.

The proof is right in front of you. Simply open your eyes.
    The Sharper Image has declared bankruptcy and Starbucks stock is in decline. Why? Because these companies cater to people with plenty of disposable income. You are already well aware that your disposable income pile is shrinking. These are simply the early indicators of coming tough times. They are not however proof of a coming economic crisis.

    Great Depressions are never caused by a single event. They are always the result of several smaller issues conspiring to create a catastrophe. In the last Great Depression the cause was precipitated by a pop in a speculative stock market bubble, coupled with a protectionist tarrif that raised prices on cheap imports, the dust bowl, and in Europe (and perhaps most significantly) the ramifications of the Versailles treaty.
       Today we are faced with a housing crisis that will precipitate a lowering of disposable income (home equity is often tapped for spending sprees), rising oil costs, and a heavy regulatory burden on business. These issues are coupled with a spendthrift government and wide spread military obligations.

    Many of these issues will begin to play themselves out on a much broader scale just before the presidential and congressional elections in November. The looming chaos will become clear in the eyes of most everyone. Are we nominating leaders capable of addressing this crisis?

They don't even acknowledge the problem, how can they be expected to solve it?

    Alas there is good news! A sober, intelligent leader, without the shackles of political debts to pay, could fix these problems quickly and with no more than anecdotal suffering. The anecdotal suffering caveat is just a forewarning of what you will see from the press. This will be your first indication that the solutions are working.

Here is exactly what these leaders must do.

1. Liquidate the bad debt. Bigger bubbles just burst bigger.
2. Cut government spending by at least ten percent
3. Massively de-regulate business
4. Increase and maintain FDR's social safety net (sorry Ron Paul supporters, These are good things).
5. Disentangle the military everywhere possible. (Not as a foreign policy, but as a logical cost savings).
6. Fix the economy now!. (Short-term borrowing is ok, if accompanied with the spending cuts)
7. Find the top of the Laffer curve (Maximize revenues)
8. Drill for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico (There is no short-term alternative.)

The scope of the financial crisis is massive, the complexity is minimal.

Here is exactly what will happen if we do not do these things. The numbers do not lie.

1. Huge increase in the unemployment rate
2. Huge increase in the debt (as opposed to short rise, and drastic falling of the public debt)
3. Minimum of 40% cut in social security and medicare payments
4. Huge cuts in the salaries of teachers and other government workers (leading to worse teachers).
5. A more global war we are not equipped to fight. (global economic depressions invariably lead to wars).
6. Real tangible poverty (hunger mostly, the houses won't sit vacant for long)
7. An increase in the popularity of tyrants with simple solutions.
8. Widespread social unrest as the safety net is de-funded.

If you doubt a single word I've written I invite you to read a few books. I don't take things I read at face value, I research where I have questions. If you do the same, you will see that I'm offering nothing more than what history has already taught us.

Freedom from Fear by David Kennedy
Modern Times by Paul Johnson
Hard Times by Studs Turkel
General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by Keynes
The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek
A citizens guide to the economy Thomas Sowell
A Tree Grows in Brookly by Betty Smith (To buttress your spirits)

Here is what I think should be done.
    We must work together to find a viable third party candidate. This person should have little or no political affiliation (preferably never run for public office at the national level). The reform party is built on the foundation of fiscal discipline. I do not believe a balanced budget amendment is feasible at this point, but other than that, the core is spot on. We should put the ultimate pressure (dollars and votes) on Democrats and Republicans to go to their conventions with an open mind. We must not be afraid to talk about the problem, only then can we formulate the solutions. Many in the media talk about "talking down the economy." If there is a hungry bear in the room, not talking about it won't make him go away.

We really should have hope. The American man and woman have a long history of rising to the occasion. We are much tougher than we believe even in ourselves. But we must open our eyes and start fixing things today. I didn't vote for Ross Perot. I didn't want to waste my vote. I was wrong he was right. The debt train he talked about in 1992 has left the station and it is time to prepare for its arrival.

Author:
Eric Gurr
egurr@intralinkinc.com

Did McCain set up conservative talk show host?

2008-02-27T09:31:22Z

John McCain finally found a conservative talk show host who supported his candidacy, and according to the talk show host, promptly threw him under the bus. Conservative talk radio host Bill Cunningham was criticized for mentioning Barack Obama's middle name in a speech in Ohio yesterday. Obama's middle name is of course Hussein. When John McCain found out about it, he quickly distanced himself from Cunningham. On Foxnews' Hannity and Combs program, Cunningham said the McCain campaign told him to offer up some raw red meat. It appears that McCain knew what was going to happen and used the talk show host to fight the tough fight.
This is potentially a big problem for McCain in the general election. Ohio is a pivotal state, and Cunningham is wildly popular in the southwest corner which includes Cincinnati and Hamilton county. As local commentator Jack Atherton has pointed out, Ohio (and especially Cincinnati) is nothing if not loyal. One need look no further than the Pete Rose incident to see Ohioan's not only have a long memory, they are fiercely loyal and more than willing to hold a grudge.
I guess the other question that begs answering is "Is Barack Obama thick skinned enough to be President of The United States?
Cunningham's side of the story can be found here. http://www.700wlw.com/main.html

Fired up about what?

2008-02-13T11:08:15Z

Barack Obama is "fired up and ready" according to all of his stump speeches.   But what is the electorate so fired up about? The media absolutely love Obama, Chris Matthews admits to being down right giddy. Clearly half of the Democrats love him, and apparently a good deal of independents at least like him.
But why? Obama is a smart guy, and he gives a very passionate speech. But he has exhibited no substance whatsoever. He simply will not articulate a position. As I have mentioned before this is one of the most crucial elections in the nations history. Eighty million baby-boomers are about to retire and have been promised social security and medicare. In all his wisdom President Bush decided to add to this thirty trillion dollar shortfall, by passing a prescription drug plan. There are at least twelve million illegal immigrants in this country, many not paying social security, businesses are increasingly burdened under crushing health care costs, and about one quarter of the Muslim world appears bent on our destruction.
So what say you Mr. Obama?
Let us take a look at this potential train wreck of a presidency.
On immigration he has taken every position and no position. Just like John McCain, Obama has shown that he has no idea at all what the underlying problem is. If we give amnesty to twelve million illegal immigrants, they will quickly be twelve million citizens without jobs. Let me make this clear so that all of the politicians can finally understand why we have illegal immigration. Businesses hire illegal immigrants not because of lower wages, it is because they can skirt regulations. Illegal immigrants don't need get health insurance or unemployment insurance. They usually don't pay social security or other federal taxes matched by employers. Immigrants have a hard time filing suit for being mistreated on the job site. They are cheaper to employ (much cheaper) not because of the dollar wages, but because expensive regulatory and tax burdens are skipped. Obama in his website says the the burden of illegal immigration raids fell on immigrants families. I have no idea what this means, and neither does he.
On Health Care.
Obama and Hillary both would like a national health care plan of some fashion. National health care is an issue of access, not cost savings. The only way a national health care plan can cut costs, (and thus help stimulate the economy) is if it is coupled with tort reform, and rationing. This is exactly what happens in every nation with national health care, and it is still always more expensive. With eighty million people coming in to the medicare system over the next twenty five years, we can't have national health care, that ship has sailed. The candidates should be soley focused on saving medicare.
On the terror threat.
Obama has said we need to talk to Iran. This is bullshit. Talking is a great idea, but it isn't a policy. What does he intend to talk about? Does Obama not understand the issue? Iran wants to exert influence in the Middle East, and they would like the United States to get out of the way. They would also apparently like to nuke Israel.   And what is Mr. Obama's position on Russia? North Korea? Turkey and the Kurds, The missile defense shield? Barack Obama has no foreign policy. He hopes to cover over the issue with flowery speeches about how rough he had it growing up, get your vote, and then make up the policy as he goes. In today's world, I can't think of a more dangerous approach. McCain and Hillary Clinton at least tell you what they want to do, and to some extent how they will go about it. In Iraq Obama simply wants to go home. What that means he doesn't tell us. Hillary Clinton does, she would use rapid response with a small contingent to hot spots. This is a perfectly valid and logical approach. John McCain wants to stay the course and stabilize Iraq and the Middle East. This is again, perfectly valid and logical. Obama, again, has no plan at all.
On the economy
Obama wants to spend more money, much more. This much is clear. But if I may digress a bit, we have about a thirty trillion dollar shortfall ahead of us, and the first bill arrived January 1. My friends we are simply not going to tax the rich and have them pay their fair share to paper over this problem. There isn't enough money available. But even here Obama is not clear on exactly what he will do.

You need not take my word for anything. Visit barackobama.com and look at his website, and listen to his speeches. But you must listen with your brain, not with your heart. I think it would do wonders for this country to have an African-American president. Barack Obama cannot be that president. He is a slick politician, a smart man, and a great speech giver. He also has absolutely no idea what he wants to do when he becomes president. The only thing we can glean from his speeches and website is that he wants everyone to feel good. That may be hard to do with chronic unemployment, no health care for our senior citizens, and social security cuts of fifty to sixty percent. This is what we face, the math doesn't work any other way. I don't think John McCain is much better, and Hillary Clinton is probably still to divisive to lead the nation, but let's give credit where it is due. At least these two offer a position and take their hits. Barack Obama just wants us to feel good.

I think the saddest part of this entire election is that the solutions are well documented. We have seen it done by Adenauer in post World War II Germany, and De Gaulle in France. We have seen it done by Thatcher in England, and Roosevelt in The United States.

Here is what history tells us will work.
Liquidate the bad debt.
That means some people will lose their homes. But it will stop the bubble and strengthen the economy.
Drastically lower business regulations, and I mean drastically.
This will stimulate the economy and we will see GDP growth approaching double digits. This will help pay for social security and medicare for the next twenty-five to thirty years.
Cut government spending by twenty percent.
Coupled with a growth in revenues from an expanding economy this will allow us to pay down a large portion of the debt over the next ten years.
Strengthen the rule of law by protecting private property rights and enforcing contract law.
Free market capitalism cannot function without the rule of law.
Strengthen the social safety net to truly protect the middle class.
We need to give the poor what they need to survive, we are not obligated to make them comfortable. If you want to see this nation ripped apart at the seems, violently, then cut the safety net from under the feet of the very people who have paid for it for the last fifty years. Benefits must be cut for the non-working poor. If the economy slips in to a deep recession, we must offer the same protection to the middle class that we have offered to the poor for decades. They have earned it and deserve it.
Stop complaining about social issues.
Gays are not ruining this country. They are just like you and I. A group of idiots in San Francisco doesn't reflect the entire gay population any more than the KKK reflects the white population. Affirmative action is not ruining this country. Technology has made gun control an issue of the 1960's not the twenty first century. It is time to focus on the truly important issues facing this country.   They are serious, potentially devastating, and relatively easy to fix, if we follow learn from the past.

And most importantly!
Don't vote for people who will not tell you what they are going to do. If Chris Matthews just wants a good looking president he can vote for Britanny Spears, I think substance is more important.

The real race issue in America

2008-01-28T09:27:06Z

Thanks to Bill Clinton, the issue of race in America is again moving to the front pages.
Bill Clinton is putting it all out front for Hillary. Blacks are going to vote for a black, according to Bill.
The truth is, black Americans shouldn't be voting for either of these candidates.
Why? Because the Democratic party has thoroughly abandoned African-Americans in the middle and lower economic classes. In 1865 slavery ended. One hundred years later, blacks finally were able to get off the back of the bus. Voting rights followed along with affirmative action, which allowed many economically impoverished blacks to move in to the middle class, and even the upper middle class and wealthy class.
Two short generations later, Democrats are throwing blacks under the bus. It seems the Democrats (and Republicans to be fair) noticed that Mexicans (You can call them Hispanics if you are politically correct) are a larger voting block, and so the pandering began in earnest.
Now the Democrats are content to throw the economically poor blacks under the bus, all in the name of political expedience.
Most illegal immigrants in to this country are Hispanic. Democrats and a few Republicans would like to give these folks amnesty. The Democrats would very much like to win the Hispanic vote for years to come, and they see amnesty as a sure way to bring these people in to the fold.
At what price?
Vicente Fox (Mexico's former president) commented famously that Mexicans were taking jobs that "even blacks" wouldn't take. Democrats and Republicans alike I think used this as the silent cover they were both looking for. I've heard Republican pundits for years refer to these illegal immigrants as simply migrant agriculture workers. The Mexicans are just lettuce pickers, they're not taking real jobs. The Democrats appear to have fallen in to the same trap. But this is simply not true. If you've ever been to a construction site in the suburbs of any major city, you know it's not true. Mexican are doing framing, drywall, painting, plumbing and electrical work.
The supervisors (and higher paid positions) tend to go to bi-lingual Hispanics (which just makes sense).
The problem thus extends well beyond the low wages of the workers.
But even with the lower end jobs which we are told "blacks won't take" there is more to the story. Of course blacks won't take them, who would? The wages are depressed.
But illegal immigrants are being paid just as much as Americans!
This is misleading. The cost is actually much lower to the employer, and everyone knows this. If you pay an illegal twelve dollars per hour, your cost is, twelve dollars per hour. If you pay an American citizen twelve dollars per hour, the employers cost is actually much higher. He must pay social security tax, unemployment taxes, and he is open to a law suit if the worker is hurt on the job due to the employer's negligence.
Thus wages are of course artificially depressed. This hurts the working poor.
I kid you not, I have actually heard Republicans say, "This is good, it keeps inflation down." This is one of those times in life when you wish you had an old leather glove to slap someone in the face with. Of course it keeps inflation down, lots of illegal activity does this. To be fair, most Republicans don't feel this way, but there are a few.
Here is the real problem
Illegal workers not only are lowering the wages, they are taking jobs from the working poor. And not just the low end jobs. How many lower income blacks and whites have not been able to get a job, because someone who shouldn't be in the country took it? Could the low end job lead to a supervisors position (which pays better)? Or to an middle income black American creating his own drywall business? And yes, I realize the unemployment rate is low. This does not change the economic dynamic of lowering wages, at the low end. It also does not change the fact that even if it were a net positive (which it is not) it subverts the rule of law. The rule of law is not just important in that it is a set of rules to make society more stable. It is the consistency expressed in the rule of law that allows business, and society, to function over the long haul. When the rule of law is not enforced strictly, but by what we believe to important on any given day, there really is no rule of law.
The problem then summarized is this.
If we allow illegal immigrants to take low end jobs, we further depress wages already at the low end.
Then those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder have no first step towards the middle class.
If we then start to roll back affirmative action,
Then we have hit the African-American people on the head twice.
Can there be any doubt that blacks were a repressed minority for the hundred years after slavery? I think not. During the civil rights movement some real progress was made. But is two generations enough to end affirmative action and call it a success? In my opinion, probably not just yet. Some scaling back in the next twenty or thirty years may be a good idea, but abandoning the program after two short generations is not enough of a rising tide to lift all of the boats, so to speak.
If we further aggravate the problem by allowing Democrats to sell out the blacks in favor of illegal immigrants, we are really just setting the entire nation back forty years.
We clearly can't have affirmative action policies forever. This would just feed in to the myth that blacks are somehow intellectually inferior and will need the help of government forever. We have too much evidence that blacks can succeed and compete when the playing field is level.
On the other hand, we are in no position forty short years after civil rights gains, to throw blacks under the bus for the votes of Hispanics. It is not only bad policy, it's downright sinister. What we see emerging is the necessity for policy built from the left and the right. But here, compromise isn't the solution. We don't want to shrink some affirmative action, shrink some illegal immigration. This just muddies the water and results in bad legislation, thus furthering the problem.
The real solution is to follow the law. Stop illegal immigration immediately. The Democrats are clearly of no mind to do this. Black Americans in 2008 have a much better chance of extending affirmative action with Republicans, than they do stopping illegal immigration with Democrats. If a recession begins to take hold, this will become very clear to blacks, and they may be inclined for the first time in decades to abandon the Democrats, and vote for the candidate that best meets the needs of the larger black community.