Anyway, here's a great video about the economy and all of its problems from a comedy pair called “The Long Johns.” It takes about eight minutes.
Monday, March 30, 2009
I Still Have A Sense Of Humor - Honest
I hope you don't think that I've lost my sense of humor due to all of my kvetching about policies, government and the economy. I still have a sense of humor, though I admit, when I'm writing about government, I usually leave it in my other pants. There's nothing funny about paying your hard earned dollars for someone else's existence.
U.S. Secretary Of The Treasury Doesn't Believe In Free Markets
This Just In
Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner believes that only government can get us out of this economic mess, because you, dear reader, are too weak to turn the economy around on your (our) own. We got ourselves into this mess; but somehow we are just too weak, dumb and irresponsible to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and kick the ass end of our economy back into business. This is total bunk; and I can explain why. But first, I would like to give you the job description of the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, straight from the Department of the Treasury website.
The job description:
The Secretary of the Treasury is the principal economic advisor to the President and plays a critical role in policy-making by bringing an economic and government financial policy perspective to issues facing the government. The Secretary is responsible for formulating and recommending domestic and international financial, economic, and tax policy, participating in the formulation of broad fiscal policies that have general significance for the economy, and managing the public debt. The Secretary oversees the activities of the Department in carrying out its major law enforcement responsibilities; in serving as the financial agent for the United States Government; and in manufacturing coins and currency.
The Chief Financial Officer of the government, the Secretary serves as Chairman Pro Tempore of the President's Economic Policy Council, Chairman of the Boards and Managing Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, and as U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
With a job description like that, it's very disturbing to hear Geithner's anti-free market statements that came from several appearances over the weekend. On politically-oriented talk shows, he stated that “...only Washington...” can solve our economic mess. He also stated: “the market will not solve this.” But we need to ask, if the market created this, why can it not solve it?
There has been no clear explanation from any economist, politician or banker who can explain why, even if these bad debts are taken off of the banks' books, that people, being as fear-filled as they are right now, will suddenly think everything has gone back to normal, and resume their pursuit of credit cards and loans, and resume living their lives in debt. There has also been no reason-oriented explanation, from any economist, as to why propping up insolvent, irresponsible companies with taxpayer dollars will get us anything less than more of the same economic malaise that we have right now. In fact, the economic policies being pursued by the President and his Cabinet, are right out of the teachings of John Maynard Keynes.
Keynes believed that a government can go into temporary debt in order to “prime the pump,” as he put it, of the economy, to get it rolling again. And once the recession was over, the temporary debt could be paid off – and government size reduced in lock step. (When have you ever known that to happen?) But first, and most importantly, Keynes's treatise on economics has been largely disproven. And second, is in fact, listed in modern economics textbooks as what not to do during an economic downturn. In other words, just like in science, it's an old model of thought that has been disproven with new information. It was a mistake then; and it's a mistake now.
But not only has the Obama administration adopted this outmoded thinking, it has also gone further into debt than Keynes himself prescribed. In short, we have politicos in Washington right now who are like Keynesians on steroids. And they're actually proud of the size and pursuit of their mistake. I've heard many times that trying to do the same activity, the same way, over and over, while expecting different outcomes is the definition of insanity. If that's true, then the most insane people on planet earth right now are the New Keynesians in Washington, D.C.
But let us not stop there. On another show, Geithner said "We came through a period where people borrowed too much and we let our financial system take on much too much risk."
Here I have to ask what I think are some very pertinent questions. What does he mean by “our financial system”? Does it belong to Washington? Or does it belong to the people? Is it Washington's responsibility to fix it, if it does belong to them? Or is it the peoples' responsibility to fix it, because it belongs to us?
I have always maintained that the government should play no role whatsoever in the economic comings and goings of any economy, because it's not the role of government to preside over the financial well being of individuals. That's simply not in their job description. Private well being, rather, is the responsibility of the individual. But collectivists will tell you this is nonsense. “It takes a village,” is one quote that comes to mind. “Sacrifice for the greater good,” is another (coined by the communists).
The true responsibility of government, in my humble opinion, is to provide the safest environment for individuals to interact with one another, not to make sure that everyone either suffers or succeeds equally. I'm sure there are millions, maybe billions, of people who disagree with my view. But in this case, “sacrifice for the greater good,” is just a euphemism for economic slavery. And I've expanded on that view in another post called “Iceland's Government Commits Economic Atrocity.”
I'm frustrated, horribly frustrated, to see my country being torn to pieces by collectivists, who are using ideas that are no longer accepted by any reasonable mind. Geithner has stated publicly that he clearly doesn't believe in individualism. So has basically all of Congress and The Senate. If this is the “change” that Obama promised, then what he really meant to say was “We'll bring more of the same, only much, much more.”
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Obamassiah Speak, With Krauthammer Clarity
For some time now I've thought, if I could write like anyone, who would it be? My answer is some kind of cross between John Steinbeck and Charles Krauthammer. Steinbeck has the clarity, beauty, and sometimes just the pure poetry that I enjoy. But Krauthammer writes intellectually brilliant articles that can sum up very large ideas using very small spaces. And I like that combination. Big ideas, clearly and beautifully made, in small spaces. Nice.
So when I read articles like this one, I have to smile. There are reasons, very good reasons, people like Krauthammer have their positions.
For anyone interested, the article skewers Barack Obama's political agenda, by calling it “The Great Non Sequitur.” I would just call it an old fashioned bait and switch. In case you like Obama, or if you're just not interested in reading the story, I can sum it up pretty quickly.
He tells his readership that Obama says the causes of our economic crises are “...importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy... not reforming health care... and tolerating too many bad schools.” But Krauthammer rightfully points out that Obama's politically-motivated slight of mouth wasn't even noticed. He points out that the real causes of our economic crises are a credit bubble collapse, a housing market collapse (especially Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pushed into ever more risky loans, by the government), “a systemic failure of the banking industry,” Alan Greenspan's “easy money” federal reserve, and debt instruments that economists and financiers with Ph D's can't understand. Ultimately, the whole article comes down to a single quote from Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
I love that kind of clarity. It makes me want to jump for joy. They're big ideas, clearly and beautifully crafted, all in a very small space. Nice.
So when I read articles like this one, I have to smile. There are reasons, very good reasons, people like Krauthammer have their positions.
For anyone interested, the article skewers Barack Obama's political agenda, by calling it “The Great Non Sequitur.” I would just call it an old fashioned bait and switch. In case you like Obama, or if you're just not interested in reading the story, I can sum it up pretty quickly.
He tells his readership that Obama says the causes of our economic crises are “...importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy... not reforming health care... and tolerating too many bad schools.” But Krauthammer rightfully points out that Obama's politically-motivated slight of mouth wasn't even noticed. He points out that the real causes of our economic crises are a credit bubble collapse, a housing market collapse (especially Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pushed into ever more risky loans, by the government), “a systemic failure of the banking industry,” Alan Greenspan's “easy money” federal reserve, and debt instruments that economists and financiers with Ph D's can't understand. Ultimately, the whole article comes down to a single quote from Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
I love that kind of clarity. It makes me want to jump for joy. They're big ideas, clearly and beautifully crafted, all in a very small space. Nice.
Friday, March 27, 2009
The Hidden Costs Of Opening A Business
For years the Apple computer company has used the ad slogan “Think Different.” But they were in for a strange bit of irony when they tried to open one of their super modern-looking stores on Wisconsin avenue in Georgetown, Washington, D.C.. The architectural review board (a.k.a., presentation police) made them redesign their plans four times, in an attempt to fit the new store into “...the fabric of Wisconsin Avenue,” according to board member David Cox. Since the area is considered historic, “The Board” heavily regulates changes to the overall appearance of the town.
Well, with the presentation of the fifth and final set of drawings, Apple finally had a design that pleased most of the members of the board, and all of the plans were approved. As of this writing, the store is probably in its “finish out” stages, with inventory on the way, and new employees wringing their hands at the prospects of good work within a solid company during an economic
downturn. Good for them.
But the board has missed a couple of minor points here and there.
Small businesses employ over eighty percent of the US population. Small start-ups, or even well-established small businesses couldn't afford the cost of five different building designs, just to please the looks police. And let us not even touch on the price of the property itself ($13 mil in 2007).
So several years, and millions of dollars, and who knows how many other profitable small businesses, have been sacrificed, so “The Board” doesn't get its “historic district” sensibilities offended. How pathetic. Yes, it's pretty now. But someone had to change the landscape years ago to make it that way. And it can be equally pretty in the future – maybe more so. Who's to say, if we're never allowed the changes. Someone needs to tell “The Board” that change is good – not bad. Change is progress, and that this peculiar brand of stagnation in the name of preservation is costly.
Ultimately these review boards are nothing more than a hidden tax, in the form of a load of bureaucratic red tape, for any new business that would like to move into an area. Essentially, the only companies that can afford the decent real estate and the biggest changes are the largest companies with the deepest pockets – and the best political connections. The smaller and less connected companies then get pushed out into “business districts,” (the business equivalent of housing projects) which pushes up their costs for doing business, and drives down their visibility, making it even more difficult to start and/or run a small company. Mom and pop be damned; you eighty percent, be damned; “The Board” wants nothing less than multi-nationals. What's worse is they actually think they're doing the city and the people living in it some good.
If only they could learn to think for themselves, they might change their expensive ways, or at the very least, come up with their own slogan. Something like: Think Different – Just Like Us.
Well, with the presentation of the fifth and final set of drawings, Apple finally had a design that pleased most of the members of the board, and all of the plans were approved. As of this writing, the store is probably in its “finish out” stages, with inventory on the way, and new employees wringing their hands at the prospects of good work within a solid company during an economic
downturn. Good for them.
But the board has missed a couple of minor points here and there.
Small businesses employ over eighty percent of the US population. Small start-ups, or even well-established small businesses couldn't afford the cost of five different building designs, just to please the looks police. And let us not even touch on the price of the property itself ($13 mil in 2007).
So several years, and millions of dollars, and who knows how many other profitable small businesses, have been sacrificed, so “The Board” doesn't get its “historic district” sensibilities offended. How pathetic. Yes, it's pretty now. But someone had to change the landscape years ago to make it that way. And it can be equally pretty in the future – maybe more so. Who's to say, if we're never allowed the changes. Someone needs to tell “The Board” that change is good – not bad. Change is progress, and that this peculiar brand of stagnation in the name of preservation is costly.
Ultimately these review boards are nothing more than a hidden tax, in the form of a load of bureaucratic red tape, for any new business that would like to move into an area. Essentially, the only companies that can afford the decent real estate and the biggest changes are the largest companies with the deepest pockets – and the best political connections. The smaller and less connected companies then get pushed out into “business districts,” (the business equivalent of housing projects) which pushes up their costs for doing business, and drives down their visibility, making it even more difficult to start and/or run a small company. Mom and pop be damned; you eighty percent, be damned; “The Board” wants nothing less than multi-nationals. What's worse is they actually think they're doing the city and the people living in it some good.
If only they could learn to think for themselves, they might change their expensive ways, or at the very least, come up with their own slogan. Something like: Think Different – Just Like Us.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
La Cucarachaaaaaagh!
Remember this the next time you think you have a bug problem.
Normally in this blog I write about economics, government policies, political economy and the like. Pretty droll stuff for most people. Occasionally I'll write about my dog, or some other random subject that pops into my head – usually existential. But unless you actually know me, that kind of info is even less interesting.
Normally in this blog I write about economics, government policies, political economy and the like. Pretty droll stuff for most people. Occasionally I'll write about my dog, or some other random subject that pops into my head – usually existential. But unless you actually know me, that kind of info is even less interesting.
But I'm also used to looking for snakes, lizards and other little creepy crawlies pretty much out of habit. I like them for some born-into-me reason. So when something catches my eye, it's likely a crawly. So yesterday morning while walking Lucas, I noticed something out of the ordinary. I found the granddaddy of all the creepies I've ever found. And, believe me, I've found a ton of them. My first thought was: “that's positively Jurassic.”
Holy, cucarachotas, Batman! That's the biggest cockroach I've ever seen. I don't know what genus this monster belongs to, but I've never seen anything like it. I've been here in southern Mexico for almost four years, and it's the first of its kind that I've come across. I was absolutely amazed at its size. If the ordinary cockroach can be compared to a Volkswagen beetle, then this roach is a semi tractor trailer with two trailers. Huge. Just huge.
Anyway, I wanted to put up some photos, because I've already told some people about it, and they didn't seem to believe me. But here's the proof. If you look hard enough around here, you can find these little beasties. I'm still amazed. (And, no, I didn't have the heart to kill it and start my own bug collection. I've only seen one in four years, so I'm assuming their population numbers are fairly small. It seems a shame to take the life of such a rare animal.) By the way, these photos are actual size.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
New Phrases Deserve Clear Understanding
Here's a question for the day. What is a "toxic asset"?
It occurred to me not long ago that the words “toxic asset” didn't seem to properly describe our government taking on so much bad debt. You cannot have an asset that costs you money. That's a liability. Nor can a liability be considered poisonous if it's earning money for its owner. So I paged through my dictionary for some clarity.
Toxic: adj. 1. of, pertaining to, affected with, or caused by a poison: a toxic condition. 2. acting as or having the effect of a poison; poisonous: a toxic drug.
Asset: n. 1. a useful and desirable thing or quality. 2. a single item of ownership having exchange value. 3. assets a. the total resources of a person or business, as cash, notes and accounts receivable, securities, goodwill, or real estate (as opposed to liabilities). b. the items detailed on a balance sheet, esp. in relation to liabilities and capital. c. all property available for the payment of debts, esp. of a bankrupt firm or person. d. property of a deceased that can be used to pay debts or legacies. 4. Slang. An undercover or secret agent; spy.
Oxymoron: n. pl. mora. A figure of speech that uses seeming contradictions, as “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”
From Randomhouse Webster's Dictionary, 1991.
I think the terminology that we should be hearing is "toxic liability."
It occurred to me not long ago that the words “toxic asset” didn't seem to properly describe our government taking on so much bad debt. You cannot have an asset that costs you money. That's a liability. Nor can a liability be considered poisonous if it's earning money for its owner. So I paged through my dictionary for some clarity.
Toxic: adj. 1. of, pertaining to, affected with, or caused by a poison: a toxic condition. 2. acting as or having the effect of a poison; poisonous: a toxic drug.
Asset: n. 1. a useful and desirable thing or quality. 2. a single item of ownership having exchange value. 3. assets a. the total resources of a person or business, as cash, notes and accounts receivable, securities, goodwill, or real estate (as opposed to liabilities). b. the items detailed on a balance sheet, esp. in relation to liabilities and capital. c. all property available for the payment of debts, esp. of a bankrupt firm or person. d. property of a deceased that can be used to pay debts or legacies. 4. Slang. An undercover or secret agent; spy.
Oxymoron: n. pl. mora. A figure of speech that uses seeming contradictions, as “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”
From Randomhouse Webster's Dictionary, 1991.
I think the terminology that we should be hearing is "toxic liability."
Just Call Me Barack Cynical
When I read this rather glowbama article from yahoo news, the cynic in me came out in full force. I had a nasty, little response to everything the President was saying and promising. Here are a few excerpts:
Yahoo news: “In general, his demeanor and message were more upbeat than in recent days when public fury over executive bonuses dominated Congress. 'We will come out on the other side stronger and a more prosperous nation,' he said, acknowledging the nation's economic crisis. 'That I can guarantee you. I can't tell you how long it will take, what obstacles we'll face along the way, but I promise you this: There will be brighter days ahead.'”
My response: Really? You can “guarantee” us that much? Mr. President, exactly whose crystal ball do you have, and where can I get one? I know the job of President takes confidence, but I didn't realize you also had to be a soothsayer. His particular brand of overconfidence is his biggest weakness. Statements like those will come back to haunt that man to a degree that even he isn't prepared for.
Yahoo news: “He told Americans not to expect 'something for nothing' from their government. Improvements to the economy and medical care will take time, he said.”
My response: Really? “Something for nothing”? Isn't that exactly what The Federal Reserve is doing with our money? Printing it? Creating it out of thin air? How much “nothing” has The Fed promised to print? Three trillion? Please. This isn't The Wizard of Oz; and we're not children. We're all smart enough to understand that there IS a man behind the curtain. We're not on the yellow brick road, Mr. President, and Ben Bernanke isn't the great and powerful Oz.
Yahoo news: "Nothing is free," the president said. Responding to a woman's complaint about cuts in jobs and salaries for California teachers...”
My response: But wasn't that the agenda, isn't that the agenda, of “universal health care”? His agenda is coverage for everyone, regardless of ability to pay. So, in other words, he campaigned, at least in part, on “free” health care. “Nothing” is free? Mr. President, say what you mean, and mean what you say. I think what he really means to say is, nothing is free... for the American taxpayer.
Yahoo news: “...Obama urged people not to ask the federal and state governments to cut taxes and improve services at the same time. 'At some point you've got to make some choices,' he said.”
My response: Right. Everyone should “make some choices,” sacrifices, in other words, except the local, state and federal governments. We shouldn't expect THEM to make tough choices, just the people who are already suffering; the loyal, hard working people who are paying their taxes. What choices do they have the ABILITY to make?
Yahoo news: "We are not always going to be right," he said. "And I don't want everybody disappointed if we make a mistake here or there."
My response: “...here or there”? How many “earmarks” were in the “stimulus” package? 9000? Can you say “disappointed by government,” boys and girls? I can. I've been disappointed eight thousand more times in one bill from the Obama administration, than I was in four years of Bush's time in office. I didn't agree with that man on many things. But this “stimulus” package has more cronyism and pork than a mafia-run slaughterhouse. They've treated the stimulus package not as an opportunity to make genuine strides in an economic downturn, but rather as an opportunity to get their back burner pet projects paid in full. The ridiculousness that is bound to come to light in this bill will drive down the president's popularity numbers in a hurry if this kind of spending continues.
So, this time at least, my cynicism seems to be justified. I picked apart this story like I pick apart lots of wire news stories. But this time around, I decided to blog about it, rather than just kvetch about it.
Yahoo news: “In general, his demeanor and message were more upbeat than in recent days when public fury over executive bonuses dominated Congress. 'We will come out on the other side stronger and a more prosperous nation,' he said, acknowledging the nation's economic crisis. 'That I can guarantee you. I can't tell you how long it will take, what obstacles we'll face along the way, but I promise you this: There will be brighter days ahead.'”
My response: Really? You can “guarantee” us that much? Mr. President, exactly whose crystal ball do you have, and where can I get one? I know the job of President takes confidence, but I didn't realize you also had to be a soothsayer. His particular brand of overconfidence is his biggest weakness. Statements like those will come back to haunt that man to a degree that even he isn't prepared for.
Yahoo news: “He told Americans not to expect 'something for nothing' from their government. Improvements to the economy and medical care will take time, he said.”
My response: Really? “Something for nothing”? Isn't that exactly what The Federal Reserve is doing with our money? Printing it? Creating it out of thin air? How much “nothing” has The Fed promised to print? Three trillion? Please. This isn't The Wizard of Oz; and we're not children. We're all smart enough to understand that there IS a man behind the curtain. We're not on the yellow brick road, Mr. President, and Ben Bernanke isn't the great and powerful Oz.
Yahoo news: "Nothing is free," the president said. Responding to a woman's complaint about cuts in jobs and salaries for California teachers...”
My response: But wasn't that the agenda, isn't that the agenda, of “universal health care”? His agenda is coverage for everyone, regardless of ability to pay. So, in other words, he campaigned, at least in part, on “free” health care. “Nothing” is free? Mr. President, say what you mean, and mean what you say. I think what he really means to say is, nothing is free... for the American taxpayer.
Yahoo news: “...Obama urged people not to ask the federal and state governments to cut taxes and improve services at the same time. 'At some point you've got to make some choices,' he said.”
My response: Right. Everyone should “make some choices,” sacrifices, in other words, except the local, state and federal governments. We shouldn't expect THEM to make tough choices, just the people who are already suffering; the loyal, hard working people who are paying their taxes. What choices do they have the ABILITY to make?
Yahoo news: "We are not always going to be right," he said. "And I don't want everybody disappointed if we make a mistake here or there."
My response: “...here or there”? How many “earmarks” were in the “stimulus” package? 9000? Can you say “disappointed by government,” boys and girls? I can. I've been disappointed eight thousand more times in one bill from the Obama administration, than I was in four years of Bush's time in office. I didn't agree with that man on many things. But this “stimulus” package has more cronyism and pork than a mafia-run slaughterhouse. They've treated the stimulus package not as an opportunity to make genuine strides in an economic downturn, but rather as an opportunity to get their back burner pet projects paid in full. The ridiculousness that is bound to come to light in this bill will drive down the president's popularity numbers in a hurry if this kind of spending continues.
So, this time at least, my cynicism seems to be justified. I picked apart this story like I pick apart lots of wire news stories. But this time around, I decided to blog about it, rather than just kvetch about it.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Ed Barnett, Hero, Takes First Shot Over Parasites' Taxes Bow
In a verbatim transcript I've just received from an online newsletter, the very first rumblings of what I've been expecting to see, or should I say waiting and wanting to see, for some time now, have been made perfectly public. A letter sent to the IRS from Ed Barnett of Wichita Falls, Texas, articulates very well what I think many Americans feel about our tax system and ultimately the true nature of our (or, dare I say, any) government. Ed wrote:
"Dear IRS,
I'm sorry to inform you that I'm not going to be able to pay the taxes owed on April 15th, but all is not lost. I paid these taxes:
Accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gas tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, Medicare tax, city tax, school and county property tax up to 33% the last four years. Real estate tax, Social Security tax, road use tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, sales franchise tax, state unemployment tax, federal excise tax, telephone tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle tax, registration tax, capital gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, Colorado property tax, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Mexico sales tax and many more I can't recall and I've run out of space and money.
When you do not receive my check April 15th, just know that it was an honest mistake. Please treat me the same way you've treated Congressman Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, ex-congressman Tom Daschle and, of course, your boss, Timothy Geithner. No penalties, no interest.
PS, I'll make at least a partial payment as soon as I get my stimulus check.
Ed Barnett, Wichita Falls.”
Bravo, Ed. Bravo. Bravo. YOU are the true, original spirit of the first Americans to set foot on this land. They don't control you. You control them. They answer to you.
Every day, I more firmly believe that this administration is going to tighten its own noose to the point of no return, and that taxes revolts are just one early symptom of a much bigger and growing problem. That problem, in my humble opinion, is the distance between who we say we are, and who we actually are and what we really stand for. Whether they will admit it or not, all Americans are fiscal conservatives.
These kinds of letters truly please me. And I'm glad he's from Texas.
"Dear IRS,
I'm sorry to inform you that I'm not going to be able to pay the taxes owed on April 15th, but all is not lost. I paid these taxes:
Accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gas tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, Medicare tax, city tax, school and county property tax up to 33% the last four years. Real estate tax, Social Security tax, road use tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, sales franchise tax, state unemployment tax, federal excise tax, telephone tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle tax, registration tax, capital gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, Colorado property tax, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Mexico sales tax and many more I can't recall and I've run out of space and money.
When you do not receive my check April 15th, just know that it was an honest mistake. Please treat me the same way you've treated Congressman Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, ex-congressman Tom Daschle and, of course, your boss, Timothy Geithner. No penalties, no interest.
PS, I'll make at least a partial payment as soon as I get my stimulus check.
Ed Barnett, Wichita Falls.”
Bravo, Ed. Bravo. Bravo. YOU are the true, original spirit of the first Americans to set foot on this land. They don't control you. You control them. They answer to you.
Every day, I more firmly believe that this administration is going to tighten its own noose to the point of no return, and that taxes revolts are just one early symptom of a much bigger and growing problem. That problem, in my humble opinion, is the distance between who we say we are, and who we actually are and what we really stand for. Whether they will admit it or not, all Americans are fiscal conservatives.
These kinds of letters truly please me. And I'm glad he's from Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)