It’s How You Play the Game!

Obamanomics seems to be spreading into the corporate boardrooms of America such as AT&T.  Recall that Obama called for a massive new tax on oil companies as a solution to record high gas prices that have created a hardship for many Americans, particularly the poor for whom he professes to be a champion.

For reasons no one can explain, the Columbia-educated presidential candidate doesn’t seem to understand that the new taxes would largely be passed on to consumers thus raising prices, forcing consumers to cut consumption, and ultimately exacerbate the problem - but then again, that’s Obamanomics 101.

Now, one wouldn’t expect a capitalist giant such as AT&T to follow in Obama’s economic footsteps, but that is precisely what is happening in Tennessee.   According to the Tennessean, AT&T lost 33% of its landline residential phone business in the state between 2000 and 2007 because many customers fled to cell phone or internet-based phone alternatives.

AT&T’s response is straight out of Obama’s playbook. AT&T plans to raise prices in Tennessee beginning July 26th with a modest increase in basic services and double-digit increases for supplemental services such as Caller ID and Call Forwarding.  For example, Caller ID would jump from $8 to  $8.99 while Call forwarding would increase from $5.95 to $7 per month.

I could be wrong, but don’t price increases encourage customers to consider moving to the competition?  Oh well, maybe AT&T, like Obama, also believes that any kind of CHANGE is good.

To read the Tennessean article.

Obama-man graphic (without AT&T)

Share This

Tags: at&t, gas prices, obama, obamanomics, windfall tax

The utter lack of common sense among our Congressmen is truly astonishing.  It’s a wonder the country didn’t fall apart ages ago.  For example, take the Foreclosure Rescue Bill which cleared a key Senate hurdle by a whopping 83 to 9 vote, virtually assuring Senate passage later this week.

The AP reports that this plan:

“would let the Federal Housing Administration back $300 billion in new, cheaper home loans for an estimated 400,000 distressed borrowers who otherwise would be considered too financially risky to qualify for government-insured, fixed-rate loans.”

Let’s think this through.  The home mortgage market is now in trouble because banks and lenders over-extended themselves by offering mortgages to people who were bad risks and are now defaulting.  So the government — our Congress — is going to remedy the situation by giving new mortgages to the very same people who are “considered too financially risky to qualify” for the typical government-insured, fixed rate loans.  And they are going to risk $300 billion in the process.

Is that DejaVu I’m experiencing …

But let’s be fair and see what supporters are saying about this legislation.  According to Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd:

“We need to demonstrate to people in this country that have lost an awful lot of faith in almost everything, but certainly in (Congress), that we can get something done, that we can put aside differences and make a difference in their lives.”

So Dodd proposes demonstrating the exceptionally poor math skills of our Congressmen as a way to instill a renewed confidence in the very people who took on risky loans in the first place.  This is so backwards.  Those corporations who gave out and the people who received risky loans should be busting their tail to prove they can handle the financial responsibilities that come with mortgages.

I think Senator Dodd could take a lesson from the film Jurassic Park. You may recall that Jeff Goldblum’s character Dr. Ian Malcom said, ” your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

In other words, just because we can do a thing doesn’t mean we should do a thing.

To read the full AP Story, source of the image above.

Jurassic Park (Widescreen Collector’s Edition)

Share This

Tags: Congress, forclosure, housing, jurassic park, mortgage, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry

So far the Republicans have been on the losing end of the oil debate, which is unfortunate because the Democrats approach is right out of a fantasy land and counter to any measure of common sense. Yet the Republican’s can’t afford to cede the issue to Democrats. O’Reilly is correct in when he says:

This week, Republican senators blocked a Democrat-sponsored bill that would have imposed a “windfall profits” tax on the five major oil companies. Since these companies made about $36 billion in profits in the first quarter alone, “windfall” may be understating it. The GOP says the bill would not have lowered gas prices as any tax punishment would be passed along to gasoline consumers. But let me break this to the Republicans gently: Folks are angry with the oil companies. Unless you guys can help bring some relief to beleaguered American working people, the Democrats will wipe you out.

Yet O’Reilly’s proposed strategy is based on 20 year old arguments that have proven problematic for world food supplies and prices. According to O’Reilly Republicans should:

Congress must mandate by law that American car and truck manufacturers begin to produce a high percentage of flex-fuel vehicles. Once that law is passed, gas stations will begin installing alcohol-based fuel pumps. Congress must also drop import tariffs on alcohol-based fuel so countries like Brazil can sell them to us. We simply have got to get away from the oil cartel. It’s a national security issue.

First, we’ve now seen how problematic flex-fuels based on agricultural products can be. Second, this does nothing to address the public’s anger - justified or not - at oil companies or immediately cut gas costs.

So what do we do? First, we level with the American people and admit that short of cutting taxes on gas there is nothing we can do in the short term to significantly reduce the price of gas. Second, we offer the American public a plan that goes beyond “drill, drill, drill” because that argument alone hasn’t gone anywhere plus it plays into Democratic claims that Republicans are in the pocket of Big Oil.

As O’Reilly noted the Democrat’s well-publicized plan went down to defeat. As I understand it that plan had two primary components: 1) the windfall tax - DUMB - and 2) ending billions in tax breaks for oil companies. I’ve heard several conservative commentators suggest that ending the tax breaks would be fine and doubt the Average Joe is going to complain about ending those tax breaks.

With that in mind the Republican’s should craft a “bipartisan” bill that makes everyone happy, even the Democrats. The bill would have two components:

1. It phase out millions, if not billions of those tax breaks for oil companies over a period of yers, but leave in place any tax breaks that might encourage the development of new refineries, and
2. It would open up a portion of the ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge).

This gives Democrats a win - ending tax breaks on those “evil” oil companies - and it gives our country something it has been lacking for 20+ years - new oil exploration and development.

However, opening up ANWR has always been a tricky sell and Republicans will have to work harder than they have in the past. The Republican’s will need to pull a Ross Perot with some low-tech, easy to understand maps and graphics that demonstration how drilling in ANWR will not significantly affect wildlife. Republicans will also need to forcefully make the argument that energy policy the past 20+ years has not struck a careful balance between conserving the environment and meeting energy needs.

They must argue that if past policy had struck a reasonable balance then we wouldn’t have gone 30 years without a new refinery or more than 20 years without tapping into ANWR or significant new offshore oil exploration .

With all that said, some may ask “why don’t we also go after off-shore drilling?” It’s called compromise: opening up only ANWR and not expanding off-shore drilling let’s the Republicans argue that they aren’t drill-crazy and they are willing to take it one step at a time.

Furthermore, I suspect that drilling in ANWR is an easier sell to the public than off-shore oil drilling due to the fact that we have all seen dozens of stories about oil and gas spills at sea, but how often have we really seen pipelines burst and produce dramatic television images? I suspect the public feels safer with drilling on land than at sea.

So there you go. O’Reilly is correct that Republicans need to come out more strongly on the issue, but he missed the mark on approach. Nobody is perfect.

To read O’Reilly’s Column from Human Events.

Share This

Tags: anwr, drilling, o'reilly, off-short, oil, windfall tax

The last 20 plus years have been dangerous ones for free speech in America.  We’ve seen Political Correctness become the norm in many areas and dominating on campuses.  We’ve seen the use of Hate Crime legislation - one step removed from free speech - become increasingly popular.  More and more we are seeing legitimate debate and commentary - albeit sometimes vulgar - demonized as “hate speech” or “racial politicking.”

Despite these increasing attacks on free speech, American still shines brightly over all other countries in our protection of Free Speech.  This greatness is reflected upon in an extensive article in the International Herald-Tribune which contrasts our traditions and protections with those of other countries - including fellow democracies - that have lost sight of what free speech really means.

This is a must read for any American who values our free speech and wants to arm themselves against arguments that have been used elsewhere to chip away at free speech.   To read the article.

To learn about FIRE - an organization that protects free speech on college campuses.

Share This

Tags: 1st amendment, America, constitution, free speech, hate speech

For once, I must agree with our luvable lefty from Louisiana - James Carville. He has suggested that Al Gore would make a fantastic running mate for Obama:

“I think if I was Senator Obama I would say the biggest economic problem we face is the biggest national security problem and the biggest environmental problem. And if I were him, I would ask Al Gore to serve as his vice president, his energy czar, in his administration to reduce our consumption and reliance on foreign energy sources.”

I think Al Gore is a VP candidate that McCain and Republicans across the country can all support! To read more about it from CNN.

Share This

Tags: Carville, Gore, McCain, obama, vice-president

One of the most disheartening and aggravating aspects of the war in Iraq has been the behavior of liberal leadership among US Senators and Representatives.  I fully expect anti-war crazies such as Code Pink to cross lines that shouldn’t be during a time of war, but I expect a certain statesmanship from elected leadership whether it agrees or not with the war.

I expect differences to be expressed respectfully during a time of war.  I expect the President, our Commander in Chief, to be respected.  I expect arguments regarding the conduct of the war to be kept in perspective.  Why?  Because the dynamics are different at war time.  Right now we have a president with incredibly law approval ratings and it isn’t because he is Richard Nixon, Adolph Hilter, or Vladimir Putin.  It’s because the elected leadership of the left and the mainstream media has focused on tearing him down.

What’s so upsetting is that the elected liberal leadership must know that doing so hurts the war effort and in turn our troops.  They must know this and if they don’t, there must be some disconnect with reality.  Or worse, they do know the harm they are doing to the war effort and our troops, but don’t care.

These leaders should be standing up to shameful and deceitful attacks on the President such as the “Bush Lied, People Died” nonsense.  Senator Kennedy, Obama, Reid and others should have been lined up to defend the President against such outrageous charges.  Inconceivable?  In this day and age, apparently.

On this front the Senate Intelligence Committee has released a report that - according to Washington Post Editorial Editor Fred Hiatt - largely exonerates President Bush from these charges of deceit.  A few samples from his column:

There’s no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into [Sen. Jay] Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

The ultimate point is to demonstrate what the elected liberal leadership has known all along:  that President Bush and his administration got some things wrong (as did many others), but that doesn’t mean they lied or tried to deceive the American people.  That same leadership knows there is a difference between a lie (with includes intent) and a mistake of fact, yet they allowed the radical anti-war left to smear our President during a time of war.  It’s shameful.

To read Hiatt’s column.

Thanks to NewsBusters for the heads up!

Share This

Tags: code pink, iraq, leadership, President Bush, war

Did you see the news?  Didja?  On Friday President Bush signed an Executive Order requiring government contractors and certain others to ensure their employees can legally work in the United States.  Call me Unimpressed!

He could have done this seven years ago?  How about after 9/11?  Or maybe last year after he tried to pass Comprehensive Amnesty?  What has he been waiting for?  Admittedly this should have been done years before President Bush was elected, but surely he could have taken action last year when this was a hot issue.

It really does call into question his commitment to securing our borders, enforcing the law and protecting our country from a quiet invasion.

To read the news story.

Share This

Tags: bush, executive order, illegal immigration

Have you ever been lost in life? Maybe you’ve watched a friend or family member stumble from job to job, endeavor to endeavor with no clear purpose or sense of direction. It even happens to leaders or celebrities who seem to have it all. For example, Sunday’s Tennessean has an extensive story about Jessica Simpson’s return from heartbreak and renewed embrace of her country roots.

Excerpt from the Tennessean:

Simpson talks of the move to country as a full-circle moment for her, and father/manager Joe Simpson says this is the happiest and most confident he’s ever seen his daughter. But the new music also marks the end of a phase of Simpson’s career in which singing made her feel frightened and unsure.

“I had so much fear,” she said of the year-and-a-half that followed her late 2005 split from Nick Lachey, her husband, fellow pop singer and MTV reality co-star in Newlyweds …

“It’s a spiritual thing for me, like ‘I know God has a plan and a purpose,’ ” Simpson said. “For the first time in my life, I take a lot of pride in my talent and in the record I was able to put together. With the writers, I felt comfortable opening up, because the only way this opportunity was going to be a great one was to be honest with myself and with them. If I want to be singing it for the rest of my life onstage, I want it to be honest.”

Read the rest of the story

Share This

Tags: country, heartbreak, jessica simpson