No San Andreas needed. Californians will destroy themselves.

As if the public employee unions and their fixed guaranteed pensions for life aren’t doing enough to destroy California, get ready for another nail in the coffin.  Governor Jerry Brown today signed a renewable energy bill. He said, “Today we have something that is a real success story. It’s California leading the country, and the U.S. leading the world.” The only thing California is leading is an out of control freight train that is about to take a plummet off the Grand Canyon.

The bill requires California to obtain 33% of its energy resources from renewable resources. Renewable resources such as wind and solar power are notoriously inefficient and also very expensive. California already has the highest energy costs in the union not to mention the highest taxes as well.

 A study produced by the state shows that about 1/3 of the renewable energy will come from wind power. A study from the John Muir Trust (John Muir himself being a famous environmentalist) shows that wind energy policies in the UK have been a complete disaster. “Over a 2 year period the metered wind farms in the UK consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical. The intermittent nature of wind also gives rise to low wind coinciding with high energy demand. Sadly wind power is not what it’s cracked up to be and cannot contribute to energy security in the UK.”

 Millions of dollars of tax payer money were recently wasted on wind turbines for an LA County college. They didn’t realize till after they were built, that there wasn’t any wind there. Their wind capacity on average is only enough to generate enough power for a 60 watt light bulb. If you have a hot windless day and everyone is running their AC and 1/3 of the power is suppose to come from wind, you don’t have any energy on a day that you need it. But don’t hold your breath! Of course the wonderful government has a plan to solve the problem. The government would require electricity users to install devices which would shut down equipment on short notice. In other words, if the wind dies down and we can’t get the power, you’re just going to have to turn stuff off or they’ll make you. So if there isn’t enough power they’ll just take it away from you after making you pay for it!

Natural gas has come down in price and could be the logical answer for California (logic and California never seem to go together these days), but the green crusaders must have it their way. They don’t care what the results are or what makes sense as long as they can feel good about themselves. They don’t care that it will cost California an additional 28% in energy costs over the next 10 years. Why would anyone start a business in California where they are going to charge you 1/3 more power and then turn it off when there isn’t enough?  Turns out you don’t need the San Andreas to destroy California. Californians will do it to themselves.

Whatever Happened to the "Elegant" Michelle Obama?

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, not only did we here from the elites about how brilliant Barack Obama was but also how elegant was his muse, Michelle. It was bad enough that my lousy candidate lost, but to be told everyday that up was down, black was white, good was bad, etc. was like having Preston Lacy of Jackass fame fart in your face while he's on a diet of only pastrami, cheese, and warm beer. The political class went on and on about Michelle's beauty and class. "Look at how she shows off those arms," some said. "She's workin' it!" Maybe it's me...I could be wrong... but even on her best day she looks like something I saw running in the third race at Santa Anita.


During 2010, the Obamas have taken many a vacation and Michelle's elegance may have gone away. Not many elitists mention her beauty and elegance anymore. While on vacation, her hairstyle of choice seems to be the "Samurai First Lady."


I've not heard any mention of it. Perhaps she was inspired by the late John Belushi from Saturday Night Live. Maybe even the pro Obama pundits are so sick of all the vacations while the rest of the country goes down the drain that the best they can do is just report the facts about our First Lady without lathering her in peaches and cream.

Zero for Thirty-One

Last Tuesday, 11/3/09, the voters of Maine voted YES ON QUESTION 1 which voted down same-sex marriage. It was the 31st time in a row that state voters would ban same-sex marriage through a state referendum. After 31 straight defeats, perhaps the gay-rights activists would take a hint. I don't have a problem with gays wanting to be recognized. They claim that they they want equality. My problem is them changing the meaning of marriage:

noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Gay couples have been allowed to have all the same rights that traditional heterosexual couples: Property, insurance, adoption, wills and living trusts, etc. through civil unions and domestic partnerships. What gay couples don't have is the name MARRIAGE which has belonged to traditional couples for thousands of years. Gay activists tell us that their relationships are exactly the same as a man with a woman. I disagree. Two apples are not the same as two oranges.

Having worked in the entertainment business for many years, I've met many gay people. Some were very nice. Some were flamboyant. Some were closeted. Some were complete in-your-face activists. It's those activists we need to worry about.

Back in the 90s, my company was bought by a large entertainment company which in turn merged with an even larger company that recognized domestic partnerships. I was meeting with an HR manager (Bob, not his real name)that was helping us with our restructure. After knowing each other a few months, we started talking about our kids. He told me he was in the process of adopting two brothers. The conversation went something like this:

Trace: "That's awesome. What made you decide to adopt?"

Bob: "We've been their foster parents for awhile. They're great kids who've had it rough and we want to raise them as our own. Because one of them is a little older, most couples want to adopt younger kids. We don't want to see them split up."

Trace: My wife and I talked about it. You just never know what the kids have been through before you meet them. Your wife must be really special."

Bob: "I don't have a wife."

Trace: "Wow, a single man wanting to adopt..."

Bob: "No..."

Trace "I don't understand..."

Bob: "Life partner." (a 90s term)

Right then I had a decision to make. I was genuinely suprised. Bob looked and acted just like any guy I'd known. He was gay, not evil.

Trace: "You've got guts. I'd rather see those kids with two men that love them than be stuck in foster care."

Bob: "I appreciate that..."

I meant it then and I mean it now. Many gay couple live similar mundane, everyday lives like straight couples. Most of them are fine with domestic partnerships. They live their lives pretty much like the rest of us.

I became an adult in the 80s. When I met my first openly flamboyant in-your-face gay guy, it was at work. One lunchtime, he introduced me to his "lover". "Lover" was the term gays used at the time to let you know "HEY, I'M GAY". They invited me to lunch with a few others. since I was new to the company, I went. After talking with the "lover" during lunch, I found that he was a lot like me--he was into playing sports, fixing cars, boxing, and firearms. Big difference--he liked sex with men. I still say that if you're gay, not my issue. If you're a guy who wants to spend his wintry nights in the arms of another man--enjoy.

Later "lover" was switched to "life-partner" to show that they were in a committed relationship. Then one day their terms would no longer suffice. Civil Union--not good enough. Domsetic Partnership--not good enough. They wanted our term, marriage. Two apples are not two oranges.

My biggest problem with changing the definition of marriage is that the great majority of us have to break with time honored tradition to accomodate a tiny minority of a minority. Most gay people don't even want to get married.

Another issue I have is that while some gays want to change marriage so that they can be part of mainstream society, they also want their own community:


LGBT--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgendered. I thought lesbians were gay. Bisexuals--what's their problem? The buffet is always open. The transgendered have their own set of issues which the rest of this group tend to muddy. Gay rights parades make Mardis Gras look tame. Cities in my home state, California, have sizeable gay populations. San Francisco, West Hollywood, and Palm Springs went crazy before the November 2008 election. California voted YES ON 8 to strike down same-sex marriage. These same voters still voted for Barack Obama. So much for HOPE and CHANGE.


I hope to be a grandparent someday. I don't want to be talking with my future 6 year old granddaughter and have her tell me that someday she and her friend Briana might get married because the definition of marriage has been changed...

Cash For Clunkers Didn't Work! NO MORE WASTED TAX DOLLARS FOR POLITICAL SCAMS

An analysis was recently done about the cash for clunkers program by edmonds.com. A total of 690,000 new cars were sold under the program last summer, but only 125,000 of those vehicles would not have been sold had the cash for clunkers program not been available. The average rebate was $4,000 but the majority of the sales would have taken place some time in 2009. That means the government spent about $24,000 each for the additional 125,000 cars that sold. You didn't have to spend $4,000 on the other 565,000 cars because they would have sold anyway! We spent $4,000 on a half a million people that were trading their car and getting a new one without the rebate! The only thing the program really did was it caused some people to wait, and others to speed up their time frame for trading up. Believe it or not the auto industry agrees with the study, but that it still helped the economy (huh). The only thing this did was boost numbers for one quarter by squeezing the yearly sales into a single quarter. This is all the government can do. They can waste billions of dollars of tax money to squeeze a year's worth of sells into three moths so that for a few days they get an artificial higher number for output.

The White House has fired back saying edomonds is wrong. "This is the latest of several critical analysis of the cash for clunkers program from edmonds .com which appeared designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable t.v." What a stupid analysis!. Of course they're going to grab headlines and get on cable t.v. because they're pointing out the truth!  And the truth matches what any rational person would come up with themselves. The White House also said that people were drawn into dealerships because of the program and endued up purchasing cars even if their trade in didn't qualify them for the program. Edmonds said there is no hard evidence of consumers buying cars after they discovered that their car didn't qualify for the rebate.

I Learned the Truth at 21

In October of 2005, I began working for the William S Hart Unified School District as an instructional assistant. I remember my disbelief at the amount of deductions I saw on my first pay check.  There was the usual Social Security and Medicare deductions. I learned that lesson at 16. I remember my father showing me his paycheck and how much was taken out of his check. He told me to get used to it and that it would "only get worse."

The two new deductions I saw were union duties and something called CALPERS. I never signed up for any union, and I was pretty pissed about the whole situation. I went to talk to the HR lady and told her I wanted to opt out of the union. She gave me this crazy look and asked, "Why would you want to do that when the union does so many great things for you?"  I told her that I didn't believe in unions and that I didn't want to be in it. She then told me that there was no way out of the union, that it was mandatory, and part of the agreement I signed by becoming an employee of the school district. So much for individual liberties.

I was now a part of something I despised, a big bloated corrupt public employee union. I had no say in how my union dues were spent. A ray of hope appeared with the 2005 ballot with several initiatives to limit the power of unions. One of them was a measure that would allow public employees to have a say and vote in how their union dues were spent on political campaigns. I thought it was a for sure win. I mean who wouldn't vote for that? Well, the union launched a big media blitz and portrayed anyone voting for the measure as hating teachers and firemen. The measure was defeated, and I was stuck.

CALPERS turned out to be the state public employee retirement fund. I was against Social Security and certainly against this fund. At 21 I needed my money to be liquid. I tried to opt out of CALPERS and couldn't. I even asked if I could set up my private retirement fund instead of CALPERS. I was once again stuck. The government knew better than I did.

Fast forward to today where CALPERS has lost over a 100 billion dollars. CALPERS had  investment losses of over 50 billion dollars for the fiscal year ended June 30th. The difference has to come from taxes, or in wother words, you. The state has already allocated 3.3 billion dollars from the general fund to make up for CALPERS  poor performance, and they're expected to cover fiscal losses in the next fiscal year. 

The investment losses didn't just come from stock market investments. They were extracurricular investments. CALPERS is about to lose a half a billion dollars on a New York real estate deal for an apartment complex. They purchased it for 5.5 billion and now its worth 2.5 billion. The whole deal went bust. Tax payers are of course on the hook to make up the difference. With pensions you always invest conservatively. By November 2006, the market was already looking flimsy. CALSTERS (the teacher equivalent of CALPERS) lost a billion dollars on one bad real estate investment on its own! CALSTERS real estate holdings lost 43% during the year.

All these public employee organizations bribed the legislature and governor Gray Davis years ago and all kind of other officials with campaign contributions and they won these huge pension benefit increases. You can't roll them back unless the union agrees to it. They're federally protected. So we're suppose to divert more and more tax dollars each yeah to make up for the losses of these greedy bozos. As what point do people blow their tops? They have to spend over 3 billion to prop up the state retirement system. The city of Fullerton has been told they have to pay 5.5 million more starting in 2011 to fund the city employees' retirements. Fullerton is already in the red and now they have been hot with another bill.

Al Villalobos, who was on the CALPERS board back on the 90's, acted as a middle man to steer CALPERS to invest in come companies (Arco Financial Ventures) which have had huge losses. Villalobos made over 50 million in fees for arranging these investments. He made his money so it doesn't matter if it collapses. So CALPERS will just ask for more money from the tax payers. Not ask, demand, since they're entitled. It's corrupt. Massive corruption for state employees.

In 2001 CALPERS decided it would allow local govs. to inflate the value of their pension investments by 1/3. They would allow the governments to arbitrarily say, "You know my pensions investments, They're worth a 1/3 more today than yesterday." The gov agencies could the turn to the employees and tell them that they could give them more benefits. In 1999 the state government was spending 160 million in pensions (with tax money) in 1999. They said that 10 years later they would be spending 350 million. Today, the state is spending 10 times the amount at 3.4 billion!!  It's likely to climb to 5 in the next couple of years. 10 years ago, the government hacks thought the stock market was going to explode forever. They took a pencil, erased the old numbers and said that everything was worth a 1/3 more.California employees have the most extravagant pension benefits of any state employee. People are retiring at 50 with more than their salary with annual cost of living raises and life time health benefits.

The retirement age should be raised back to age to 58 when police officers and firefighters retired before the 1999 legislation passed. For regular employees, set the age consistent with social security at 65-67.
The Wallstreet Journal had an article written by Stu Wu and Jim Carlton "The cost of shoring up CALPERS." "The troubled 200 billion dollar pension fund for California public employees will ultimately fall on the state's 38 million residents who are already dealing with increased tax increases and reduced public services." The state and local governments are contractually bound to increase their payments to CALPERS to make up for investment losses of more than 50 billion for the fiscal year ended June 30th. There is no market correction here. There are a lot of public employees willing to work for a $75,000 pensions instead of a $150,00 pension. They'd do a great job too. They should be replaced by people who are willing to earn less money. We can't do that though. There is no invisible hand. Governments destroy free markets. We have an irrational system that is going to collapse.

Halloween Used to be Fun

As a kid of 8 I liked Halloween. It was the only night of the year I was allowed to roam the streets at night. I had to be responsible for my brother and sister, but so what? I was out at night like Batman. My dad figured it was safe enough because we lived on a naval base in Hawaii. Before that, we lived in South Central L.A.(aw, HELL NO), on a country road in Japan, and a naval base in Guam (Dad had to walk with us). After about an hour trick or treating, my sister had enough and we brought her home. My brother and I emptied our bags and went back out. I was dressed in this store-bought fake spider guy costume and my brother was a clown. We walked to the very edges of the neighborhood and came home well rewarded about 10 pm. We thought we might be in trouble since our usual school night bedtime was 8:30. The old man didn't care because it was Halloween and he didn't have to go out with us. He also rifled through our candy and took a few Reese's peanut butter cups.

When I was 9, my parent's bought the family home in Granada Hills, California. My sister didn't want to go out for Halloween. Our baby brother was only 2. So it was just me and Geoff. I don't remember our costumes. All I remember it was cold and windy. Most of the kids wore coats over their costumes. What kind of superhero or monster wears a plaid coat? When I got home, I soaked in the tub to get feeling back in my joints. The next Halloween we wore costumes that kept us warm. I was a USC football fan complete with jacket and beanie.

My dad died of a massive heart attack when I was eleven. After that, Halloween was like any other night except for the costumes. When I was 13, I discovered this trunk my dad had with his gear from Viet Nam. That's right, my dad fought in 'Nam. I found all this authentic military gear--US Navy fatigues, boots, a knife, L-shaped flashlight, and floppy hat--all I needed was an M-16 (a toy version I found at some local toy store). I had extra uniforms for my friends Charlie and Joey. My brother Geoff didn't want to hang with us because he was too busy smoking weed with his friends. Except for our pillow cases, we looked awesome. About an hour into our rounds,
we stop at this house. "Trick-or-Treat" we scream. This long-haired guy comes out and shuts the door behind him. He then proceeds to lecture us about the "baby-killers" we represented and the evils of our troops. Confused, we just stared at each other.
I told the hippie to F*** off. My dad was my hero and nobody was going to bad-mouth
him. This was 1978.

Two years later, I went out on Halloween with Charlie and my friend, Dave. Dave and I just wore our suits we wore for Jr. High graduation. We were modern day pimps complete with gold chains. Country music was all the rage because of the movie, Urban Cowboy, so Dave borrowed a cowboy hat with feathers to be a cowboy pimp. Charlie painted his face to look like Peter Criss from Kiss and wore a brown leather trenchcoat with no pants. He was a flasher. We didn't go out for candy. We just walked around and visited people we knew. Half of them offered us bong hits. Dave and I declined. I'd like to say that was the last time I dressed up for Halloween, but I did it one more time.



In 1986, I stopped at a Halloween party with my girlfriend (now wife) just to say hello. We were not in costume. Charlie was there dressed as a caveman with some cavegirl I've long forgotten. My friends, Gary and Bret, were dressed as Arab sheiks and kept offering to buy my girlfriend. As we observed the crowd, I noticed how skanky the women were dressed: "Head" nurses with knee pads, French maids, schoolgirls, and hookers. We left for dinner and a movie.

In 1988, my wife and I ended up at a Halloween Party in the house they claim Debra Winger, actress from the aforementioned Urban Cowboy, An Officer and a Gentleman, and Terms of Endearment supposedly grew up. The same Debra Winger recently called for the release of child-rapist and fugitive, Roman Polanski. I have no idea who invited us but we got there late and people were hammered. My wife came as Raggedy Ann and I was Raggedy Andy. My costume was designed for someone about 5' 8", 175 lbs. I'm 6' and weighed 198 lbs. at the time so it didn't look good. I wore the sailor hat/yarn wig but I refused to paint my face. I haven't worn a costume since.

My former employer liked for us to dress for Halloween when the psycho employees and their clothes matched. My boss ordered my department to dress up. We said no. She insisted. We compromised. All but one of us wore matching glasses and a red ball-nose. She wasn't happy, but she never asked again. Two employees I can't forget: One was an artist/bodybuilder that most of the women wanted, before he came out of the closet and dressed as a playboy bunny. He might have made some guy happy, but he died of AIDS a few short years later. Another was a girl who showed up dressed to the nines in a black party dress, high heels, hair and make-up. Although she normally sounded like a girl, she dressed like a male college student. After our applause she volunteered she might have looked this way more often if her uncle hadn't repeatedly molested her when she was a little girl. How do you forget that one?


My daughter was born in 1993. She loves Halloween. Over the years she has dressed as Big Bird (twice), Tinkerbell (twice), Snow White (the irony), a dancer, and a Fanta Girl (Orange). This year she wanted to dress as a nun. Yes, a skanky nun with fishnets and high heels. She tried the costume on for us. My wife and I consider ourselves reponsible parents. We fought with her about it. It has since been returned. In two years, she'll be 18, a legal adult. Then it's on her.

Halloween is no longer that one day we get dressed up a play pretend. It has become SKANK IT UP, GET HAMMERED, AND GET LAID IF YOU CAN night. It caters way more to adults than children and it has become a huge business. I'm all for businesses making lots of money. Let's just keep our underage kids of the pole as l;ong as we can....

Conservative vs. Liberal

This was sent to me by one of our readers:

Good Thoughts...

If a conservative doesn't' like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegeta! rian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

Back Off Nanny State! Why Government Doesn't Know What's Best For You

Sigh... People who believe the government should take care of you. That we are too stupid or incompetent to take care or ourselves, that somehow wee need a cradle to grave nanny state. Here's another I told you so! Government forcing companies to put calorie listings on the wall because supposedly when consumers see the amount of calories on the wall they'll start to consume fewer calories which will lead to leas obesity and less health conditions that are damaging to consumers. So all the government slobs who want to control everybody's life and think, "If we just had the proper education, if we just required business to do the right thing, then people will eat more healthy." Guess what? It turns out all the big governrment slobs were wrong. Not just wrong, but DEAD WRONG!

A study was recently done by several professors at NYU and Yale whether or not calorie postings actually changed people's behavior. They tracked consumers of four fast food restaurant chains; McDonald's, Wendy's Burger King, and KFC. They did it in poor areas of New York where there are high rates of obesity. Half of the customers noticed the calorie counts. 28% of the customers that noticed them said it influenced their ordering. 9/10 said they has made healthier choices as a result. The researchers checked their receipts and found out that people had actually ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law had went into effect! Not only where they wrong about how these calories posting would effect behavior, the people that they poled lied.

New York City is one the nanny cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles filled with government officials who know better. They think as they stoke their beards, "I know what we can do with these poor fat people. We'll just inform them, we'll educate them and it will change their consuming habits." NO!

Nobel "Peace" of Garbage

On September 11, 2001, I turned on the TV to see what looked like an abstract picture that made no sense. One of the World Trade Towers was on fire and the other was gone. Someone was giving a report but it sounded like “Blah blah blah” to me. I was transfixed on the image that didn’t make any sense. Fast forward to this morning. Some story was being reported on CNN but all I could focus on was the box in red below: President Obama has just won the Nobel Peace Prize. After I got over the shock, I started laughing.

When I was 13, the award went to Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel for negotiating peace between their two countries. The next year, Mother Teresa won it for work with the poor, sick, and dying in India. Back then, the Nobel Committee cared about results. Today’s award was akin to giving out trophies to kids who just signed up to play AYSO soccer before the season even started. I bet the guy who won for Science just rubbed two sticks together and made FIRE. Was President Obama awarded for his magnificent (We Are the World) rhetoric, great many speeches, and TV appearances and magazine covers? Doubt it—it’s because he’s not George W. Bush. Fear not, this all happened for J-Lo (sans rhetoric and speeches) and everyone got sick of her, too.

Just yesterday, the Obama Administration was having meetings on what to do about the WAR in Afghanistan. By his accepting this “prestigious” award has the Nobel Committee hamstrung the President? It was bad enough President “I will listen to my generals on the ground for real answers , not just what I want to hear” is hemming and hawing on giving General McChrystal the additional soldiers he has requested to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Now he has to worry about being President of the World. I daresay it makes me laugh. Instead of troops, he can send Afghanistan 40,000 blankets—winter will be there soon.

Today the Nobel Committee gave an award for HOPE and CHANGE. Without accomplishing very much, the President HOPE’s to do things to advance peace by doing things that will make America weaker. A weaker America will allow CHANGE for the worse. There will come a day in the world of grown-ups that the President make decisions that will propel our military into action. Our troops will crush whatever opposing force (Iran) is in the way. Then the fickle world who loved him so much will throw him under the bus.

Lastly, I want to give a shout out for former President Bill Clinton. The man was our President for two terms. He’s raised billions through his foundations for humanitarian causes all over the world. He was once called our “first Black President”. One term President Jimmy Carter has a Nobel Peace Prize. Former VICE President Al Gore has a Nobel Peace Prize. Dead terrorist and PLO leader Yassir Arafat received a Nobel Peace Prize. If Vice President Joe Biden gets one before Slick Willy, it would really show what a worthless award it truly has become.

Cap and Trade: How Obama is an economic illiterate

In January of last year, then candidate Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board under his plan of a cap and trade, electricity prices would "skyrocket." He said it would bankrupt coal, gas, and all sorts of traditional power plants. Keep in mind that these power plants actually make power and cheap power. Obama seems to be illiterate on basic economics.

Politicians want to seem like they're "doing something" when in reality all they are really doing is waving around a piece of paper. Not even the Kyoto treaty would detectably impact climate change. They all want to say this did something, but of course they don't want to go on the record of  voting for a direct tax because that's transparent and that threatens the jobs of any member who votes for it. So they come up with a brilliant shame called cap and trade. It's a rationing scheme with a number (the cap). The state decides how much of something the private sector can use. Like nylons or gasoline in WW II, this is is gasoline and electricity from disfavored sources, or in shorthand electricity production that actually works. They set a cap and allocate allowances (rationing coupons) to use electricity. You can sell them if you for fail or move and, you have to buy them if you succeed or stay here.

Now as always on this blog, I disclose all. The cap and trade does not put an electricity limit on every company. However, that's part of the scheme. The Obama admisntiartion says not to worry; that it only covers energy intensive sectors such as energy production, manufacturing, steel, ceramics, glass, chemicals/plastics. What's there to worry about right? None of those things factory into the economy... huh? The same types of companies that have been hit really hard in Euerope with their own cap and trade regulations will be hit really hard here. In order to use the extra electricity they need, they'll have to buy electricity credits from other companies that aren't using their limit of electricity. Those who commit the ultimate sin in America today which is to succeed and those who succeed domestically will have to buy more of these allowances from someone who fails. So the incentive to fail is great, or for example as we saw under Kyoto in Europe the following happens. When cap and trade went into effect in Europe, China reopened old refrigerant factories and said, "Nice treaty you have here, it'd be a shame if you violated it. Of course I could shut down this factory I just reopened for the purpose of being paid to shut it down. If you give me a bag of money, I'll give you a piece of paper saying YOU REDUCED YOUR EMISSIONS. That's all part of the cap and trade scheme, and part of the mess you will always get into when the government sticks its big fat sticky hand into the private sector,

HOW MUCH WILL ITS COST YOU?
The administration expects to raise in revenue from 100-300 billion dollars a year. Just to put this in perspective, the biggest tax in American history, adjusted for inflation was that tax issued to pay off WW II which was $107 billion per year. This will be by far the biggest tax increase in American history. What it does mean to the average household? A CBS reporter said 200 billion lifted from you wallet would be the equivalent of a 15% increase in income tax or about $1761.00 per household on average!

The president's budget director testified recently testified to congress saying, "Consumers pay these taxes. Believe it or not, businesses pass taxes on to the extent they can (did congress really not understand this concept?), and of that they can't, they leave." It's pretty frightening that congress didn't understand a really basic economics principle. But then again, it appears that Obama is an economic illiterate.

So the cost to the average cost to the consumer just for buying the allowances would be that figure. Now you take to the overall loss to the economy and increased prices for everything that has energy in it. Start with energy itself, electronic goods, anything that requires energy intensive manufacturing, appliances, food for example. The cost of everything that has energy in its life cycle goes up. That means it hurts the poor and seniors first and worst because they spend a lager portion of their income of food on electricity and transportation.

Thank goodness that it's currently stalled out in the senate, for now. Most people just don't realize how damaging to the economy this would be. Cap and trade is a horrible idea and another example of the disastrous results of big government.

Absent-In-Chief

The Story of Stuff is a very frightening animated documentary about the product life cycle by political activist Annie Leonard. The video was sponsored by the Tides Center, a non-profit group that provides sponsorship for progressive projects. The documentary is being shown in elementary schools, although it has been banned in some school districts. The video criticizes excessive consumerism which in it self doesn't sound so bad. After all I do think we are a little too materialistic sometimes. Annie introduces the government with the image of a tank "Some people think we should use a tank to represent the government. After all the government spends half our tax dollars on the military. It's the government's job to watch out for us, take care of us; that's their job." (The figure she presents is very inaccurate. She got the figure from the War Resistors League website. The figure is more accurately ranged at 20-25% which I feel is way too low).
 
What!? Last time I checked the job of the government was to protect us. In specific, it's the job of the federal government is to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies. Last time I checked, the job of the president was commander-in-chief, not a spokesman for a government run health care program. So far Obama is doing a pretty good job of getting his voice out there. He's made appearances on David Letterman, ESPN, The Obama Channel (MSNBC), and every Sunday news morning political talk show except Fox News. Fox News is the cable news network with the highest ratings by the way, but that's beside the point. His voice is sure getting out there although the public by a majority is against his proposed government run health care option.

Now when it comes to Obama's job as president, absent-in chief seems more fitting. So far our "commander-in-chief" has managed to have time to schedule t.v. appearances, but was only able to speak with Stanley McChrystal once since his inauguration in January. So far he has cut the defense budget, abandoned our Eastern-European allies with the missile defense shield, tried to close Guantanamo, and has demoralized the CIA. Some how we are suppose to believe we are more safe? When it comes to Obama's most sacred responsibility he clearly is failing.

America is Burning

The unemployment rate hovers at about 9.8 per cent. Home foreclosures are still on the rise. Personal bankruptcies are still on the rise. Heath care “reform” battles take place every single day on television.

General Stanley McChrystal, America’s top general in Afghanistan, is asking for more troops to better fight the Taliban. Iran tests both short and long range missiles capable of hitting Israel, the Arab world, and Europe. America decides to pull missiles for defense out of Poland and the Czech Republic to concentrate on the Aegis System, which was state-of-the-art when I was in high school. All these challenges confronting America and what does the President do? An Olympic run to Copenhagen!

American ideals are burning down all around us (literally in my area of Southern California) and the President and First Lady fly to Copenhagen on Air Force One to persuade the International Olympic Committee to give the 2016 Summer Games to their beloved city of Chicago. First, the First Lady gives a laughable speech about herself and her late father. There were a lot of “I” and “he” statements but not much about what CHICAGO would bring to the table. Then the President spoke and it just got worse. It was a mixture of “I Have a Dream”, “We Are the World”, and “I was in Chicago on election night last November when America chose me, an historic event if you recall…” Again, not much about what CHICAGO would do for the Olympics. Chicago was eliminated in the first round of voting.

As Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer puts it, “It seems to me that a lot of the Obama Presidency is a contest between his intelligence and his arrogance…” Our President couldn’t convince the IOC to grant us the Olympics and he thinks he can convince Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program? Well...yeah!

The worst thing that happened to the Obama’s Administration was rushing through and passing the stimulus bill. We all got to see the President’s arrogance in action. Very few of us were familiar with Chicago-Styled politics but we now can see it on a national scale. It was supposed to save or create jobs and keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. Somehow we got to 9.8. Good thing those earmarks were in it.

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, he made all kinds of promises that constituted HOPE and CHANGE:

Transparency in government
More troops to Afghanistan (the real war of necessity)
Close Guantanamo
End the war in Iraq (the war of choice)
Repeal “Don’t’ Ask, Don’t Tell”



Now the President’s job approval rating is at 49 percent and dropping. Could it be that he might be taking America in the wrong direction? Nah…we’re just idiots.