“The Obama administration on Thursday lashed out at a prominent critic of its Cash for Clunkers program, arguing that the popular trade-in initiative helped give the auto industry and the economy a much needed boost in the past few months.

In a blog post on whitehouse.gov, the administration argued that a report on Clunkers by automotive Web site Edmunds.com “doesn’t withstand even basic scrutiny” and is based on “implausible assumptions.”

On Wednesday, Edmunds.com released a study that argued Cash for Clunkers did not have a great impact on the auto industry. The report said that 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the program last summer, but that only 125,000 of them would not have been sold without the Clunkers rebates.” David Goldman, CNNMoney.com staff writer

Sorry to repost so much of the original article (I try not to do that) but I thought this summed up the point better than I could articulate it. What is even more interesting, however, is the point that is made later in the article, where the White House makes the claim that 1.7% of the 3.5% growth rate in the third quarter is because of the “Cash for Clunker” program. Really!? You mean…people didn’t really want to buy cars (or for that matter couldn’t afford to), however because the automobile industry was one of the “Chosen Ones”, they were artificially propped up? Using tax payers money, at that?! Well, I’m happy that the White House will admit to it.

The “Cash for Clunkers” program has, however, seeped through other industries. For example, the Post-Tribune reported yesterday that Arcelor-Mittal, one of the steel producing “giants”, reported a pretty decent profit for the last quarter. This may have worked to float these industries along for another 6 months or so, but I won’t count my chickens before the proverbial eggs hatch(or another year or so of positive numbers come my way).

End of life counseling has managed to make it’s way into the health care bill, and we will more than likely hear about things like “death panels” in the near future. Now, don’t get me wrong, I disagree with the idea that the government pays for such things on an ideological level, however as I’ve said on my show, the whole “death panels” thing has been a little overblown. The idea behind end of life counseling is that it ”allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death.” (AP, Yahoo! News) Do I think that this is a decision that should strictly be between family members? Yes. Do I think that it is equatable to “death panels”? No.

I also don’t think that this is something that we, as tax payers, should be paying for. I couldn’t even guess what the costs would be, but at this time Medicare is damn near broke and the extra expenses that this will add to the program won’t do anything to help that. Now, as far as “death panels” go, this is where I will agree.

A public option is really just a first step to bringing about a single payer system. Liberal Democrats (most notably Harry Reid) have actually ADMITTED this fact. If a single payer system were to be implemented, that is when I’ll begin jumping on the “death panel” band wagon, because at that point our country (which is already heavily in debt) would be dead broke. The medical field would be forced to ration care and make decisions regarding who would receive the care and who wouldn’t. How long would it take before the “public option” became a “single payer system”? It’s anyone’s guess. I’d hope it wasn’t in my or my sons’ lifetime, but who knows.

However by jumping the gun and screaming “death panel” at the top of our parties collective lung hurts us in the short term. It presents us as kooks and nut jobs and doesn’t help our public image. At a time when the party needs to regroup and prove ourselves on an intellectual level, things like this dampen that image and places our brand into a negative light. There are a hundred different reasons to oppose this health care bill (and I certainly hope it doesn’t pass) however using the “death panel” analogy doesn’t help this cause.

Earlier this month a bullet was fired at Lou Dobbs’ home in New Jersey. Earlier this year, an abortion doctor (George Tiller) was killed while attending church. Rush Limbaugh was stopped from making a profitable investment in the St.Louis Rams because of false accusations regarding racist comments. And there have been a couple arrests regarding plots to assasinate President Obama.

Listen up, everybody, Left, Right, and moderate: KNOCK IT OFF!

If there is something that you disagree with, killing, attempting to kill, or hurting the individual financially is not the answer. To paraphrase the above mentioned Rush Limbaugh, Republicans and Democrats are not equatable to “bloods vs. crips”. This is not gang war fare. The colors red and blue, while on the streets of LA may be gang colors, DOESN’T MEAN that we should be taking pot shots at each other.

I mean, come on! Do I really have to be even typing this post? Has politics really stooped to such a low? On this subject, even Kevin and I are not immune to such child like attacks, although to date these attacks have only been verbal. Please, everyone, before you begin loading guns or making remarkable personal attacks, take a deep breath, think for a minute, and then pound your head into a wall. Will that help? Maybe not. But if you happen to take my advice be sure to put it up on YouTube.

“Rep. Alan Grayson hurled an insult at Linda Robertson last month on the “Alex Jones Show,” a syndicated talk radio program, while discussing the Fed’s resistance to stronger congressional oversight. Robertson is a former top Enron lobbyist and Clinton administration adviser who was hired by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke this summer to help with congressional relations,” from wusa.com.

This, my friends, is hilarious. First of all, where else would a comment like that come from other than that nut job Alex Jones’ show? While I certainly wouldn’t have made a (stupid) comment like this, I have to say that when talking about lobbyists in general using the term “whore” isn’t that off of a definition. The politician “lays down” their ideological beliefs and campaign promises in exchange for money or other “services” (services being special trips and vacations, get your mind out of the gutter!) So it’s not that the description is what bothers me, its the fact that a CONGRESSMAN is doing the describing.

If this comment were made by some talking head or blogger, that’s one thing. This is an elected official and behaviour of this sort is unacceptable. Now, Grayson is known for using theatrics and shooting his mouth off (for example, did you all know that Republicans want us all to “die quickly”?) however to use a derogatory term like “whore” when talking about a woman who is an advisor to Fed Chairman Bernanke is over the line.

In my opinion, Congress should follow the precedent that they have established when dealing with these sorts of inappropriate outburst’s: they should treat Grayson EXACTLY the way that they treated Joe Wilson. They should ask him to apologize to Ms. Robertson, and when he does…berate him and make him apologize again. Then, treat him like crap for expressing his opinion. Now, I know what you all are thinking: Wilson yelled out at the President during an address to Congress, not really the same sort of deal. And in a sense, I agree. However, yelling out “you lie” and calling a young lady a whore…even though the setting was different, the severity of the comment helps to put the two statements on an even keel.

My question is this: just how much about whores do you know, Rep. Grayson?

 

Sean Shepard, Director of Communications for the Indiana group that works hard to help change our regressive tax system over to the Fair Tax, was on my Matters of Opinion show today, and gives a great Q and A on the Fair Tax. I hate to do posts like this shamelessly promoting this or that (well, I don’t hate to, since I’m obviously doing it, but you all know what I mean) but this is too good of an interview for anyone to miss. Kevin and I are supporters of the Fair Tax, and so should you! 

Matters of Opinion Fair Tax Special!

I’d hate to be the person who moves into that rental house next. You know your car is going to get egged.

Does anybody else feel a bit uneasy with these charges? Regardless of whether his flashing was incidental or deliberate, he was in his own home. I suppose you could argue that it would be illegal to paint a naked man on your window, so it should be equally illegal to be naked in your window. This actually reminds me of an episode of Rosanne where neighbors move in next door and walk around their house nude and they can be seen through the windows. The ‘Conner Family’ didn’t call the police or press charges… they politely asked them to either close the shades or put on some clothes. To which the angry couple replied, “Why the heck are you looking in our windows? Perverts!”

Now, I have another question about this as well. Assuming you’re reading this in the day time, look at somebody’s house from the street or sidewalk. Can you see inside? Well, perhaps its atmospheric conditions in Northwest Indiana, but I can’t. I remember when we were house hunting for my grandma, there was this empty place we wanted to see the inside of. I had to put my face against the glass and shade the glass in order to see in there, and even then it was barely visible.

Granted, if the lady and her son did that and this guy pressed his procreation organ up against the glass to respond to her nosiness, I can understand how she would be VERY offended. But otherwise, unless he had every light in the kitchen on plus some extra lamps from around the house, I don’t see how they could have seen him flash them twice.

One amusing thing about this story that’s being overlooked is the reaction of the roommates. I mean, if your friend gets arrested on a charge he’s disputing and a reporter asks you, “What’s your friend like?” The absolute last words out of your mouth should be, “Oh! He was totally plastered when we left that morning! Completely drunk!” With friends like that who will sell you out to the media in a heartbeat, who the heck needs nosy neighbors?

Up until President Karzai of Afghanistan ruled out a power sharing agreement between himself and former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, a lot of people in both Washington and the International Community were hoping for such an outcome to take place. For those of you who think Afghanistan is our enemy in the War on Terrorism, this post is going to confuse the heck out of you.

For those of you who know better, but can’t keep up with international news; here’s the brief version. The Afghan Constitution says that if no candidate reaches 50% in a Presidential Election, there must be a runoff election. Well, in this year’s Presidential Election, President Karzai’s men rigged the polls and put Karzai up over 50%. Unfortunately, his men got caught and an independent Afghan Election Commission adjusted the vote… Karzai now has under 49%, meaning the Constitution requires another election.

As you may have guessed, the reason for this Constitutional mandate for a runoff election was due to the history and demographic makeup of Afghanistan. In every election from now until the end of time, there are going to be at least three and probably at least ten Presidential Candidates… some more serious than others. With so many candidates, there is a risk that the man with the most votes might lack the support of the majority of the population. In America when this happens, people get angry and foam at the mouth for a few months and then casually forget about it until the next election cycle. In Afghanistan, they get mad and foam at the mouth… but then they take it one step further by firing mortars and rifles at each other’s houses. By having a runoff election, it assures that at least 50% of the Afghan population voted for the incumbent President, making it a lot less likely that the losers of the election are going to try killing the majority of the people who support the President.

The problem right now is that Afghanistan is torn by violence and the Taliban makes hosting an election very difficult and very expensive… holding two elections is twice as difficult and twice as expensive. So in order to avoid the violence that will result in a second election, a lot of people suggested that a power sharing agreement be reached between President Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah. This way, both sides can be quelled into supporting the government and the Taliban lose the opportunity to strike the people participating in the new government.

There are two problems with this. One short term, one long term. The short term problem is that there is absolutely nothing in the Afghan Constitution that would allow for a power sharing arrangement. The long term problem is that, although both candidates support the US presence in Afghanistan, a government with a split executive branch runs the risk of becoming incredibly indecisive and inefficient very quickly.

Realizing this, Karzai has made it clear that there is only one way forward from here.

The Constitutionally mandated runoff election.

We’ll see what turnout is like next month, but if the people show up in relatively the same numbers that they have previously, it will signal that the Afghan people are excited enough about their Democracy to expose themselves to the risk of death and mutilation at the hands of brutal terrorists… and that’s a sign that we’re going to win over there.

I’ve done my best to stay out of this lengthy debate (if you are reading this at ktracy.com visit Northwest Indiana Politics for further background information) however one of the last comments pretty much forced me into it.

For anybody that has read any of my pieces about the RTA or the RDA or the MMA or the TNT (you all get my gist) I’m fairly open-minded. I’m caught because there are two very good cases brought up about the triple capital letter thingies, and instead of interjecting my opinion into a topic that I know very little about (or personally care that much about), I’ve left it to those that felt strongly one way or the other to duke out this battle (I’ve been fighting my own, as many of you know, with my piece on unions). Ideologically, I agree with my NWIP friends: I hate taxes, and I hate them a lot. However, I also recognize that certain needs must be met by a communities government, and on top of that particular barb wire fence is where I rest.

So like I said, I’m neutral to the idea and am still deciding exactly how I’m going to vote. With that said, this particular comment by Leyva: “I am sorry that the people in this blog and that are associated with this blog hates the TEA movement,” caught my attention. If you will look at the top of Northwest Indiana Politics blog (I’ll give you all a moment) you will see these words: “The views expressed are those of each author, not necessarily the editors.” JUST because some guy pretending to be the wizard of OZ gives some criticism (criticism that could have been put/received  in a much much more constructive tone) doesn’t mean that everybody that writes or is associated with these blogs are “conspiring” together. I have no personal problems with Leyva, Bonnie, Faith, Steve, Chris, Kevin…or anybody else on either of these two sites, and I can guarantee that there is not one person in this list that I agree 100% with on EVERYTHING. For example, I am involved with NWIP (not as much recently because of my personal undecidedness) and am still supportive, and it wouldn’t be right of me to assume that because there are certain factions of RLC members across the country that believe that 9/11 is an inside job and there are RLC members affiliated with NWIP that NWIP therefore believes in conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.

WITH THAT SAID. This kind of crap is the only thing that will allow liberal Democrats to continue to hold seats nationally and will allow liberals to infiltrate the seats of Northwest Indiana (even more so than they already are). While I have stated the Mr. OZ should have been much more civil in tone about his criticisms, on that same note, with all due respect, those that are willing to put their name out there on such a large level should be prepared to handle those criticisms in a way that doesn’t reflect badly on that individual. For example, after the article that was done by Jerry Davich on my piece about unions, the amount of angry hate mail was enormous (and hilarious, but that’s a whole ’nother story), and it was everything I could do to keep from name calling and ranting; because I still believe in that old adage of “You attract more flies with honey.” Yes, its unfortunate that people can’t talk about these things civilly, but that’s why mother always said don’t talk about religion and politics. Yes, I know that NWIP isn’t about one party or the other and isn’t interested in endorsing candidates, but regardless it still boils into the political soup just the same.

I think everybody needs to take a huge breath and realize that if a group of (generally) conservative people can’t even talk civilly amongst each other without making accusations and personal attacks, then we’re screwed when it comes time for people to step up to the polls.

I usually try to keep this blog away from local news unless it involves a friend of mine getting arrested for something amusing or it could spark a geographically wider discussion. I’m making an exception for this particular post simply because of the massive number of e-mails friends in Northwest Indiana have been putting in my inbox, wanting to know where I stood on the RTA.

Well, some of them have been flat out telling me to oppose the RTA rather than asking for my opinion on it.

Anyway, as the title suggests, I plan on voting “No” on the referendum. To be honest, my mind could still be changed if I could find someone able to make a convincing case for it, but such a person has not been found.

My reason for voting “No” is two-fold.

First and foremost, when the RDA was established, it was established with the idea that the development they’d be involved in would be largely transportation infrastructure. Obviously, if we’re now debating the establishment of a transportation authority, the RDA hasn’t done the job we thought it was going to do. The only thing is that the RDA has failed to bring forth any acceptable transportation solutions and tax dollars are still going to them, forcing me to ask, “Where’s the accountability to the people?” Now, if the RTA is established, will the RTA be accountable to the people? As far as I can tell, no.

Secondly, the approval of the RTA would be the first step to extending the South Shore commuter rail service to Valparaiso. The problem is that the line the South Shore currently runs on is at max capacity. It simply cannot handle any more traffic. If service was extended to Valparaiso with a branch of tracks, we wouldn’t be able to add “Valpo” trains without taking away “Portage, Duneland, Beverly Shores, and South Bend” trains. This raises a debate about the usefulness of public transportation. The solution to this would probably be the continued addition of double-decker trains, which would handle the capacity problem. But with fewer trains running, the time in between arrival and departure times is going to increase, meaning taking the South Shore is going to become less convenient for commuters. And if public transportation isn’t convenient, it’s not going to be used. (As it is, daily commuters will probably tell you the South Shore is inconvenient already with regular delays. We shouldn’t make it worse.)

Although these are the outstanding issues, I’m admittedly irked that Lake, Porter, LaPorte, and St. Joseph Counties are all paying the same flat tax rate, but that most of those tax dollars are going to be spent in Lake County alone. Perhaps that’s fair because of the size of Lake County’s population relative to the other counties (although St. Joseph is no lightweight), but there doesn’t appear to be much in this for the other three counties besides an ill-advised South Shore branch that would add one or two more stops in Porter County.

Still, I honestly have no major problem with public transportation, the 0.25% income tax, or the idea of a regional body to better organize and orchestrate our regional development efforts (in fact, that’s a good idea). But without promises that the leaders of the RTA will be accountable to the people and that the South Shore expansion to Valpo was off the table, I simply won’t support it.

Thus, I’m voting “No” on the RTA Referendum next month.

In very early 2007, my trusted China-built HP laptop died. I needed to reformat the hard drive of that computer I bought with my savings from Basic Training and the DVD player died, making it impossible to install a new operating system. I went computer hunting, but because Vista was being released in 3 days, there weren’t any powerful enough laptops available in the stores.

…

That was the longest 3 days of my life.

The morning of Vista’s release, I waited outside the Best Buy in Vienna, Virginia to take advantage of a really great deal for a powerful HP computer. No, I didn’t get there at 3am, but I was still there before the doors opened with a few other people who had needlessly camped out. I got in, got my computer, put in a full day and overtime at work, went home, and turned on the machine.

I loved it. It was pretty. I thought it was the greatest thing since, well, Windows XP.

Then I plugged in my video camera… nothing happened.

Then I plugged in my TV tuner… nothing happened.

Then I tried exporting video with the S-Video connection… nothing happened.

Then I tried the wireless internet connection… nothing happened.

Then I tried printing a timesheet for work… nothing happened.

Windows Vista was non-compatible with this incredibly powerful computer I just bought! I took it to Best Buy and they offered to buy it back for a “store credit” and another computer – but because I got a good deal on this computer, the other laptops at this price all stunk to high heaven. They installed a few of the drivers so I could at least get wireless internet in my apartment, but with all the video stuff I was doing at the time, it was unacceptable.

Well, my video camera was outdated, so I thought if I got a USB camera, that might work. I went to Best Buy, bought a HDD camera for myself, went home, plugged it in …. nothing happened.

I got a new printer… nothing happened.

How I didn’t punch a hole in the wall of my apartment during this period is beyond me.

Frustrated, I went to the Apple Store and bought the cheapest Mac available.

IT WORKED! EVERYTHING FREAKING WORKED!!!

Eventually, I got a copy of Windows XP and put that on my HP Laptop and most everything worked on there, too. Still, I find myself using the Mac a lot more than the PC (partially because HP’s quality plummeted between 2003 and 2007 and the wireless internet card died).

Technically speaking, I spent $1050 for my MacBook and $700 for my PC. However, I spent another $120 for an old operating system and $500 for a new video camera. In reality, I spent $1320 for the PC when the $1050 for the MacBook would have worked out of the box with everything I had.

Now it’s two and half years later and everybody has had the same problems with Vista that I had. Thousands of mad as hell consumers abandoned Microsoft and went to Apple – maker of their beloved mp3 players – and were not disappointed. Now, Microsoft wants to convince us that we NEED to buy a 3rd computer (Vista computer, Mac computer, Windows 7 computer).

And of course, the media is telling us that we NEED Windows 7, too. Because without Windows 7, we won’t be able to get all the software that’s going to be developed for PC’s on the new operating system. Just like we NEEDED Windows Vista. Just like how it changed how people were going to develop software for PCs before.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I’m sorry. But I am no longer a Micro$oft whore. Just like the quality of consumer electronics in PCs, the quality of Microsoft’s operating systems has become more about style and less about function. Microsoft came as close as they are going to come to perfecting an operating system with Windows XP. Windows XP is not outdated. There is nothing out there that consumers want that Windows XP isn’t stable, fast, or powerful enough to handle. The only reason Microsoft is pushing new operating systems is because they need to improve revenue, which has been stagnant for years and forced them to lay-off 5,000 employees.

All they’re doing, however, is convincing consumers that Microsoft is no longer worthy of their trust or loyalty. And as the old saying goes, “The customer is always right.”

If I get a new computer, it’s going to be another Mac.