Obama's plan for the economy

President Obama intends to fix unemployment. This is his plan:
a) raise corporate taxes so maybe more corporations will go overseas or lay off more employees who will then depend on the dear government to take care of them; and then

b) we're going to raise taxes on the wealthy because so many poor people have jobs to offer that we don't need the wealthy anymore.

Of course, this is about as sensible as his refrain that "we're broke, so we're going to spend more money."

As Will Rogers famously said: "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."

Mary Beth Seaha

Redstate.com

I have added a link to www.redstate.com to the list of good conservative blogs in the sidebar of this blog. I recommend that everyone read Redstate on a daily basis and consider subscribing to its daily morning briefing by email.

Local hospital care at risk if University comes to Aiken

Posted below are the beginning paragraphs of a column written by Dr. Ansemo Arthur a highly respected Aiken cardiologist. The Aiken Standard published the column today. Medical treatment everywhere is a highly subjective matter and most negative comments are either based on a single “bad” experience or hearsay.
City Council members are still receiving many comments from citizens who are either for or against the proposed new medical complex in Aiken. The Council unanimously rejected the University Hospital’s original request for a change in the concept plan based on the amount of traffic that the proposed 72,000 sf would create. What most citizens do not know is that the current concept plan for the land allows the University to build at least 30,000 sf. of office space so long as the building architecture is consistent with the original design.My understanding is that University Hospital might submit a new down-sized request for a change in concept plan that would permit them to build just one 17,000sf building. Any subsequent buildings would have to come to Council for approval.



"Local hospital care at risk if University comes to Aiken

2/23/2009 12:37 AM
By DR. ANSERMO ARTHUR

Guest columnist

As a current resident and practicing cardiologist in Aiken for the past 13 years, I, like many of you, have read with great interest the ongoing debate concerning University Hospital's foray into the Aiken medical community.

I will summarize what I believe to be the most salient points concerning this issue from a physician's point of view.

Everyone has a story. Whether it is about good or bad service, most everyone can remember and come up with at least one anecdote detailing some experience they may have had in the doctor's office.

I, as well as my partners, see patients from Augusta with similar stories detailing bad experiences they may have had with a doctor or hospital in Augusta. The fact is that all of this is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Just like those individuals who make a conscious decision to cross the river and choose me or any other doctor in Aiken, so too may a person living in Aiken make the choice to go to Augusta for the same purpose. It is about convenience and not choice! Competition notwithstanding, what price will we really be willing to pay in the long run for convenience?" more

Aiken City Council Meeting - Feb 23

AIKEN CORPORATION WORK SESSION – On Monday February 23 at 6 P. M. City Council will meet with the Aiken Corporation to review the various projects that Aiken Corporation has worked on or is currently working on. We will discuss the charter of the Aiken Corporation to ensure that it relates to current projects. As many residents know, the Aiken Corporation is building the Railroad Depot and supporting the building of the African-American Cultural Museum. In reviewing the information provided by the City Manager, it is clear that City Council, with the exception of Dick Smith and Jane Vaughters, has enthusiastically supported the use of public monies for each of these projects. Since 2004 Council has agreed to provide maintenance of the Railroad Depot, staff the Railroad Depot with the City Tourism Department, and accept the building when it is completed.

BEST FRIEND EXPRESS – We have received the 2008-2009 second quarter report from the Best Friend Express operation by Aiken County. The Lower Savannah Council of Governments reports ridership is up 27% from this time last year. In addition, their Dial-A-Ride program remains very popular, delivering 142 riders a total of 13,252 miles. Citizens, with a doctor’s statement indicating that their patient cannot physically access a regular Best Friend Express stop, can call Dial-A-Ride instead. More that 1/3 of the Dial-A-Ride participants are senior citizens who would not be otherwise able to travel to their medical, educational, or employment services destination.

DOWNTOWN PARKING ISSUE – Public Safety Chief Pete Frommer and his staff have investigated the concerns sent to Council about larger vehicles parking downtown. The particular area of concern they discovered was Richland Avenue between Laurens and Newberry Streets. We are working with SCDOT which owns the road. The problem can be easily fixed if the center lane marker is relocated. Hopefully, this will not take too long to complete.

SILVER BLUFF REZONING REQUEST – Council will consider a request to rezone 1.64 acres on Silver Bluff across from Hamilton Drive from Residential Multi-Family Low Density to General Business. The rezoning would consist of one lot fronting on Silver Bluff Road. The owner’s intent is to sell a portion of this rezoned property for a martial arts studio. The owner is asking that the traffic study be waived in return for him restricting the property to 1,000 or fewer trips per day. At the Planning Commission, many residents in the area were strongly opposed to this request.

FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY OF AIKEN’S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTION AND TO ADOPT THE 10 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT – State law requires that a 10 year Capital Element be adopted as part of our Comprehensive Plan. This plan looks at potential funding for public infrastructure and facilities during the next 10 years and recommends the projects for expenditure for facilities such as water, sewer, and roads. Once this plan is adopted, it would then be coordinated with adjacent and relevant jurisdictions and agencies.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STUDY AREA – The Planning Commission has recommended that the Comprehensive Plan boundary should generally match the city’s water district line unless there is a good reason for a different boundary. They also felt that the Comprehensive Planning Area should expand further to the east. This would include the water district behind Rudy Mason Parkway and a large portion of the area between Toolebeck and U. S. 78.

IDENTITY THEFT POLICY – Council will be asked to approve a resolution establishing an Identity Theft Policy in compliance with recent federal and state legislation and regulation.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – Keep in mind that City Council agendas are available on line. The complete agenda includes supporting documents that we review to determine a course of action. The link for Monday’s City Council agenda is http://www.aiken.net/weblink7/docview.aspx?id=100645.

The Political Battles Have Begun in Earnest

For more on the following Youtube video go to Powerline

Common Sense from Ed Giobbe

The following comments appeared in the Aiken Standard on February 18 and are being posted here in case you missed.

“ONE OF THE GREAT STRENGTHS OF AMERICA IS THE ABILITY OF ITS PEOPLE TO COME TOGETHER IN A TIME OF NATIONAL CRISIS. THE PRESENT ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRISIS IS A TEST OF THAT ABILITY. THERE ARE THOSE WHO WOULD ATTEMPT TO ADVANCE SOCIAL PROGRAMS AT GREAT EXPENSE UNDER THE GUISE OF ECONOMIC STIMULUS.

THERE ARE ALSO THOSE WHO OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT TO REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT AND REDUCE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AS IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING AND SOCIALISM. WE MUST STEER A COURSE BETWEEN THESE TWO EXTREMES. WE MUST REJECT RIGID IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS AND BE PRAGMATIC. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS WHAT WORKS.

THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO STOP THE ECONOMIC DECLINE
CAUSED BY THE COLLAPSE OF HOUSING AND ITS PARAYLIZING AFFECT ON BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. WE MUST HALT THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF FORECLOSURES, FALLING HOUSE PRICES, INSTABILITY IN THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND RESULTING UNEMPLOYMENT WITH IMMEDIATE, MASSIVE, DECISIVE ACTION. THIS WILL REQUIRE BOLD AND EXPENSIVE PROGRAMS TO DEAL WITH THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF THE CURRENT SITUATION.

TAX RELIEF MUST BE PART OF THE SOLUTION IN ORDER TO GET MONEY AND CREDIT TO START FLOWING INTO THE ECONOMY ONCE MORE. ANY ACTION MUST DEAL WITH THE PRESENT SEVERE AND DANGEROUS ECONOMIC DECLINE. WE NEED TAX CUTS NOW NOT LONG TERM. PEOPLE DON’T EAT IN THE LONG TERM, THEY EAT TOMORROW MORNING.

THE CAUSES OF THE PRESENT CRISIS HAVE BECOME PAINFULLY EVIDENT. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS TO ADVANCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH LOW INTEREST RATES AND OVERLY LAX CREDIT STANDARDS WITH BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITIONS ONLY TOO EAGER TO LEND MONEY FOR MORTAGES WTH NO INCOME DOCUMENTATION BETTER KNOWN AS “LIAR LOANS”, LITTLE OR NO DOWNPAYMENT, ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGES WITH LOW TEASER RATES, PICK AND PAY (SKIP THE MONTHLY PAYMENT ANDADD IT TO THE PRINCIPAL). ALL MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE VEHICLE OF LOAN SECURITIZATION IN THE FORM OF HIGHLY COMPLEX MORTGAGE PRODUCTS NO ONE UNDERSTOOD OR COULD CORRECTLY PRICE. THE PREDICTABLE RESULT WAS THE SUBPRIME DEBACLE.

NOW THAT WE KNOW WHAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS, WE MUST MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN’T HAPPEN AGAIN. IT SHOULD START WITH OUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES THAT YEAR AFTER YEAR ENCOURAGED AND PROMOTED EASY MONEY, IRRESPONSIBLE HOME OWNERSHIP AND MASSIVE REGULATORY FAILURE. WHAT JUVENAL, THE ROMAN WRTER OBSERVED TWO MILLENIA AGO IS EQUALLY RELEVANT TODAY: “SED QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES?” (“WHO SHALL GUARD US FROM THE GUARDIANS?”)

FOR FIFTY YEARS AFTER THE BANKING REFORMS OF THE 1930’S, THIS COUNTRY ENJOYED FINANCIAL STABILITY. BANKS LOBBIED HARD FOR MORE FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN RISKER BUSINESSES RESULTING IN THE 1999 REPEAL OF THE 1933 GLASS STEGALL ACT WHICH HAD SEPATATED COMMERCIAL BANKING FROM INVESTMENT BANKING. WHAT RESULTED WAS A FINANCIAL CASINO OF COWBOY CAPTALISM.

MOST OF THE FINANCIAL CRISISES OVER THE LAST CENTURY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY OVEREXTENSION OF CREDIT AND BAD REAL ESTATE LOANS BY BANKS. AS THE OLD TIGER, GEORGE CLEMENCEAU, THE PREMIER OF FRANCE DURING WWI, SAID , “WAR IS TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO THE GENERALS’. IT IS NOW OBVIOUS THAT BANKING IS TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO THE BANKERS. THEY NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM THEMSELVES. BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS CAN NOT BE ALLOWED TO ENDANGER THE ENTIRE NATIONAL ECONOMY BY RECKLESS AND UNREGULATED LENDING.

AMERICA IS A STRONG AND VIBRANT COUNTRY WITH AMAZING RESILENCY. IT WILL OVERCOME THE PRESENT DECLINE AND EMERGE STRONGER AND MORE PRODUCTIVE. IF THERE IS A LESSON TO BE LEARNED, IT IS THAT AS A NATION, WE LOST OUR MORAL COMPASS. WHAT FOLLOWED WAS A RISE IN MATERIALISM AND A REVERENCE OF WEALTH FOR ITS OWN SAKE, THE PURSUIT OF AFFLUENCE UNEMCUMBERED BY VIRTUE.

FOR THE NEXT EIGHTEEN MONTHS ALL OF US, ORDINARY PEOPLE AND LAWMAKERS SHOULD STOP ACTING LIKE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS AND ACT LIKE AMERICANS. WE NEED A SENSE OF NATIONAL PURPOSE AND RESOLVE. THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY AND THE SURVIVAL OF OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM ARE AT STAKE.”

Moses and DeVine Intervention

The Aiken Standard published on February 18, 2009, still another letter from Moses Mims who as usual extolled the countless virtues of the Obama administration. He also exaggerated approval ratings for President Obama and his plans. While Mims says that Obama and his plans enjoy a 76% favorable rating, Rasmussen Reports Obama had 60% approval as of February 18. As for his plans, some of which are nebulous, only 38% believe the so-called stimulus bill will help.

As is customary for all those of the liberal left, Mims indulges himself in obligatory bad-mouthing of Republicans and the Bush administration, which he blames for our current economic problems. This he and his like minded comrades do with the full support of main stream media despite the fact that much of the problem can be traced back to potentially well meaning (I give the benefit of a doubt), but irresponsible pressure on banks to give mortgages to individuals who could not afford them. From that point we started down a slippery slope that may never end.

This pressure for risky loans came during the terms of Presidents Carter and Clinton and their congresses. Long time Congressman Barney Frank (D) and long time Senator Chris Dodd (D) were the protagonists (we need term limits) and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the enthusiastic implementing organizations.

Mr. Mims also takes a swipe at Rush Limbaugh who understandably is hated by the left because he graphically exposes its dubious plans and deceitful practices to the light of day. I don’t listen to Rush everyday and sometimes I don’t agree with him, but thank goodness he is out there exercising his free speech rights just as Mr. Mims does.

Mr. Mims prejudice about the rights of a private citizen to exercise free speech gives fair warning to those who have genuine fears about where our great country is headed. Soon we will see the "Fairness" Doctrine re-instated or a similar bill to hush Rush and all other citizens who share information or opinions which differ from the policies of the Obama administration. 

The Aiken Standard on February 18 also published a guest column by Jack DeVine who has opinions that differ from those of Mr. Mims. DeVine reviews the Obama record after one month in office and discusses his take on The Good and The Not So Good.

Under the Good category he praises President Obama’s active leadership, his looking forward, not back and his assembling of a talented and solid team.

On the Not so Good side he criticized those who continue to dis George Bush., saying it was time to be honest and respectful to our former President. Mr. DeVine said the outsourcing of the stimulus package to the congress was a huge blunder and the closing of Guantanamo and liberal hand-wringing on interrogation tactics were moves that diminish our security in a dangerous world.

I applaud the Aiken Standard for publishing the guest column from Jack Devine and the Moses Mims letter.  I have lived in several countries where the press is closely controlled and citizens who speak or write opinions that differ from those of their government do so at their own risk.

I urge citizens of our great country, of every political persuasion, to write to their elected representatives and demand that they protect our free speech rights. The “Fairness” Doctrine re-instatement or something similar but cleverly disguised must never be approved.

UPDATE; Peach made  excellent  comments to this post and mentioned Senator DeMints article in The Augusta Chronicle today. Go here .

The American Spectator on the Origins of the Financial Crisis

An excellent article. Just click on the title below to read the entire article and the blog comments.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis

By Peter J. Wallison from the February 2009 issue

Two narratives seem to be forming to describe the underlying causes of the financial crisis. One, as outlined in a New York Times front-page story on Sunday, December 21, is that President Bush excessively promoted growth in home ownership without sufficiently regulating the banks and other mortgage lenders that made the bad loans. The result was a banking system suffused with junk mortgages, the continuing losses on which are dragging down the banks and the economy. The other narrative is that government policy over many years--particularly the use of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to distort the housing credit system-- underlies the current crisis. The stakes in the competing narratives are high. The diagnosis determines the prescription. If the Times diagnosis prevails, the prescription is more regulation of the financial system; if instead government policy is to blame, the prescription is to terminate those government policies that distort mortgage lending.
There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the Times edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of the Clinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers--a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the Times, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?
The fact is that neither political party, and no administration, is blameless; the honest answer, as outlined below, is that government policy over many years caused this problem. The regulators, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, were the enforcers of the reduced lending standards that were essential to the growth in home ownership and the housing bubble.
       
THERE ARE TWO KEY EXAMPLES of this misguided government policy. One is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The other is the affordable housing “mission” that the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were charged with fulfilling.
As originally enacted in 1977, the CRA vaguely mandated regulators to consider whether an insured bank was serving the needs of the “whole” community. For 16 years, the act was invoked rather infrequently, but 1993 marked a decisive turn in its enforcement. What changed? Substantial media and political attention was showered upon a 1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study of discrimination in home mortgage lending. This study concluded that, while there was no overt discrimination in banks’ allocation of mortgage funds, loan officers gave whites preferential treatment. The methodology of the study has since been questioned, but at the time it was highly influential with regulators and members of the incoming Clinton administration; in 1993, bank regulators initiated a major effort to reform the CRA regulations.
In 1995, the regulators created new rules that sought to establish objective criteria for determining whether a bank was meeting CRA standards. Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified buyers wasn’t enough. Banks now had to show that they had actually made a requisite number of loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. The new regulations also required the use of “innovative or flexible” lending practices to address credit needs of LMI borrowers and neighborhoods. Thus, a law that was originally intended to encourage banks to use safe and sound practices in lending now required them to be “innovative” and “flexible.” In other words, it called for the relaxation of lending standards, and it was the bank regulators who were expected to enforce these relaxed standards.
The effort to reduce mortgage lending standards was led by the Department of Housing and Urban Development through the 1994 National Homeownership Strategy, published at the request of President Clinton. Among other things, it called for “financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home or to make the payments.” Once the standards were relaxed for low-income borrowers, it would seem impossible to deny these benefits to the prime market. Indeed, bank regulators, who were in charge of enforcing CRA standards, could hardly disapprove of similar loans made to better-qualified borrowers.
Sure enough, according to data published by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, from 2001 through 2006, the share of all mortgage originations that were made up of conventional mortgages (that is, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage that had always been the mainstay of the U.S. mortgage market) fell from 57.1 percent in 2001 to 33.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2006. Correspondingly, sub-prime loans (those made to borrowers with blemished credit) rose from 7.2 percent to 18.8 percent, and Alt-A loans (those made to speculative buyers or without the usual underwriting standards) rose from 2.5 percent to 13.9 percent. Although it is difficult to prove cause and effect, it is highly likely that the lower lending standards required by the CRA influenced what banks and other lenders were willing to offer to borrowers in prime markets. Needless to say, most borrowers would prefer a mortgage with a low down payment requirement, allowing them to buy a larger home for the same initial investment.
The problem is summed up succinctly by Stan Liebowitz of the University of Texas at Dallas:

From the current handwringing, you’d think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards--at the behest of community groups and "progressive" political forces.… For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped rising, we can clearly see the damage done by relaxed loan standards.

The point here is not that low-income borrowers received mortgage loans that they could not afford. That is probably true to some extent but cannot account for the large number of sub-prime and Alt-A loans that currently pollute the banking system. It was the spreading of these looser standards to the prime loan market that vastly increased the availability of credit for mortgages, the speculation in housing, and ultimately the bubble in housing prices.
 
IN 1992, AN AFFORDABLE housing mission was added to the charters of Fannie and Freddie, which--like the CRA--permitted Congress to subsidize LMI housing without appropriating any funds. A 1997 Urban Institute report found that local and regional lenders seemed more willing than the GSEs to serve creditworthy low- to moderate-income and minority applicants. After this, Fannie and Freddie modified their automated underwriting systems to accept loans with characteristics that they had previously rejected. This opened the way for large numbers of nontraditional and sub-prime mortgages. These did not necessarily come from traditional banks, lending under the CRA, but from lenders like Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest sub-prime and nontraditional mortgage lender and a firm that would become infamous for consistently pushing the envelope on acceptable underwriting standards.
Fannie and Freddie used their affordable housing mission to avoid additional regulation by Congress, especially restrictions on the accumulation of mortgage portfolios (today totaling approximately $1.6 trillion) that accounted for most of their profits. The GSEs argued that if Congress constrained the size of their mortgage portfolios, they could not afford to adequately subsidize affordable housing. By 1997, Fannie was offering a 97 percent loan-to-value mortgage. By 2001, it was offering mortgages with no down payment at all. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie were required to show that 55 percent of their mortgage purchases were LMI loans and, within that goal, 38 percent of all purchases were to come from underserved areas (usually inner cities) and 25 percent were to be loans to low-income and very-low-income borrowers. Meeting these goals almost certainly required Fannie and Freddie to purchase loans with low down payments and other deficiencies that would mark them as sub-prime or Alt-A.

Looking for Stimulus in All The Wrong Places

The majority of Americans were looking for change from Obama and now many of them will get some small change that will do nothing for the economy.However all of us will have to live with the consequences. Much more government intrusion into our daily lives and Trillions more in debt that will inevitably lead to serious inflation.What has not changed, despite Obama's promise, is the way politics is played in Washington. Enjoy the Videos! What Kills a Skunk is terrific.





WHAT KILLS A SKUNK?

Do We Need a New Deal?

The following article is from one of my favorite publications. It came in my email this evening. For a free subscription to Imprimis go here.

Hillsdale College

IMPRIMIS

Burton W. Folsom, Jr.
Charles F. Kline Chair in History and Management, Hillsdale College
Author, New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 9, 2009, in Washington, D.C., at a seminar sponsored by Hillsdale's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.

THE NEW Deal has probably been the greatest political force in America during the last 100 years, and Franklin D. Roosevelt has probably been the most influential president during this time. In our current economic crisis—which some have compared with the Great Depression—many critics are calling for more federal programs and a "New New Deal." There are three reasons we do not need a New New Deal from President Obama in 2009.

First, the federal programs in FDR's New Deal did not lower unemployment. Sure, the Works Progress Administration built roads, the Tennessee Valley Authority built dams, and the Civilian Conservation Corps planted trees. But every dollar that went to creating a federal job had to come from taxpayers, who, by sending their cash to Washington, lost the chance to buy hamburgers, movie tickets, or clothes and create new jobs for restaurants, theaters, and tailors.

What's worse, some New Deal programs had terrible unintended consequences. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration, for example, overhauled agriculture by paying farmers not to produce on part of their land. After farmers took the federal dollars, the U.S. developed shortages of the very crops taxpayers were paying farmers not to produce. By 1935, for example, the U.S. was importing almost 35 million bushels of corn, 13 million bushels of wheat, and 36 million pounds of cotton. Simultaneously, we had an army of bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture to inspect farms (and even to do aerial photography) to ensure farmers were not growing the crops we were importing into the country.

Second, the taxes to pay for the New Deal became astronomical. In 1935, Roosevelt decided to raise the marginal tax rate on top incomes to 79 percent. Later he raised it to 90 percent. These confiscatory rates discouraged entrepreneurs from investing, which prolonged the Great Depression.

Henry Morgenthau, FDR's loyal Secretary of the Treasury, was frustrated at the persistence of double-digit unemployment throughout the 1930s. In May 1939, with unemployment at 20 percent, he exploded at the failed New Deal programs. "We have tried spending money," Morgenthau noted. "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

Third, the New Deal divided and politicized the country in tragic ways. Those who lobbied most effectively won subsidies and bailouts even if their cause was weak. Others, who had greater needs, received nothing. Walter Waters, who led a march of veterans on Washington, lobbied successfully for a special bonus for veterans, whether they had been in battle or not. When asked why veterans—instead of longshoremen or teachers—should receive a special bonus of taxpayer dollars, he said, "I noticed, too, that the highly organized lobbies in Washington for special industries were producing results: loans were being granted to their special interests. . . . Personal lobbying paid, regardless of the justice or injustice of their demand."

Thus, as money became available, those with effective political lobbies won the subsidies and others, who sometimes had more just causes and greater need, received little or nothing. In the case of the veterans, in 1936 they won a $2 billion federal bonus—a sum exceeding six percent of the entire national debt at the time. Teachers, by contrast, were less effective lobbyists and won almost no federal subsidies. Silver miners, led by Senator Key Pittman of Nevada, won a silver subsidy that paid almost $300,000 a day each day for 14 years, but coal miners were left out.

In another example, under Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, Illinois lobbied effectively and won $55,443,721 under the first federal welfare grant while Massachusetts received zero federal dollars. Without federal money for welfare needs, Massachusetts valiantly raised its own funds to secure what Illinois extracted from Washington. The Boston Civic Symphony repeatedly gave concerts to benefit the jobless. City officials and teachers raised money and took pay cuts. Massachusetts Governor Joseph Ely believed that no state should receive federal aid and that private charity was the best charity; that federal relief ruined both taxpayers and those in need. "Whatever the justification for relief," Ely said, "the fact remains that the way in which it has been used makes it the greatest political asset on the practical side of party politics ever held by an administration." Ely added that "millions of men and women . . . have come to believe almost that there is no hope for them except upon a government payroll."

Federal dollars always become political dollars, and the Democrats moved to use federal money to gain votes at election time. In Pennsylvania, Joseph Guffey, the successful Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 1934, ran a campaign ad that said, "Compare this $297,942,173 contributed by Pennsylvania to the U.S. U.S. Treasury with the cash and credit of $678,074,195 contributed to Pennsylvania by the Roosevelt Democratic administration." Vote Democrat, Guffey and others proclaimed, and the federal faucet will keep running. James Doherty, a New Hampshire Democrat, said, "It is my personal belief that to the victor belong the spoils and that Democrats should be holding most of these [WPA] positions so that we might strengthen our fences for the 1940 election." One WPA director in New Jersey—a corrupt but candid man—answered his office phone, "Democratic Headquarters."

If history is a guide, we have every reason to believe that if President Obama institutes a New New Deal, then universal health care, federal bailouts, and jobs stimulus programs will be costly, will be politicized, and will fail.

The "Stimulus" Bill

The so-called stimulus bill is moving forward. I fear for our children.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money”     

Alexis de Tocqueviille 1835

Battling for better education

 The following letter from Jet Beckum was published in the Aiken Standard on February 11.

 

"I recently read a book by Richard Neely (a Supreme Court justice of West Virginia) entitled "Tragedies of Our Own Making." In Mr. Neely's book he points out the reasons for the bankruptcy of this nation. However at the time it was written just a few states were in financial trouble, now it is the entire nation. Mr. Neely said the choices we as citizens make determine the financial problems we are currently witnessing.

His conclusion, the colossal medical cost and expensive health insurance along with crime in the streets, failure of the education system, have stressed the financial strength of our nation. The main culprit is the breakup of the American family.

For example the number of one-parent households has greatly increased in the last 30 years. According, to Mr. Neely, although there are advocates for one-parent family in some circumstances such as cruel or violent marriages the fact is divorce is a main cause of poverty in this nation. In general one parent families' children will have more educational problems more problems with crime related activities. Divorces force more financial burdens on society therefore creating more taxpayer funded programs. Government solutions to family problems are substantially more expensive than private family solution because the infamous inefficiency of governmental bureaucracy.

Mr. Neely points out every time we as private citizens failed to care for our children's needs and ask the government to provide them; we not only put our children at risk but we add to the financial downfall of this country.

Most educators when asked for solutions to our dismal graduation rates in our public high schools often respond with "more money" although we spent far more money on education than do many foreign countries and provide less educated children. Many educators also think only the the poor students are failing in our schools. Mr. Neely says no. Many one-parent children come from affluent communities but have all of the problems associated with the poverty of inner-city children.

America is the best in the world educating adults, most foreign countries send their brightest students here for higher education, however, we are one of the world's worst at educating children. Japan for example provides much more proficient students in high school than does the U.S. at less cost. Mr. Neely attributes this to Japan's strong family tradition. The mother in the Japanese family with children stays at home and acts to facilitate their children's education. It is no wonder that America's home schools are providing some of best educated students in the country.

A few days ago I read in the Aiken Standard that the Aiken Board of Education was inviting the public to a discussion on the future of education. A friend and I attended, to my disappointment, the group for discussion was formed in a semi-circle with its back to the public, they seem to be studying ED 101, but I could not hear since their voices were low with their backs facing us. The group was made up of mostly former school educators and insiders. As I walked to my truck to go home, I wondered about South Carolina's graduation rate of 53.7 percent and I wondered how much longer public taxpayers will put up with public education.

Jet Beckum

Aiken"

Stealth nationalized healthcare in stimulus bill

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Feb 9, 2009

AIKEN HORIZONS 2009 – Last week-end the City Council met for its annual seminar on city issues. I thought I might update residents on some of the issues we discussed. Of most importance is that the City of Aiken recognizes the need to conserve resources; no new programs such as the proposed City Hall expansion; delays in filling vacant positions; evaluating changes in trash/re-cycling schedules and a few more. Major revenues are on target for the first six months of the year, but will decrease thereafter. Revenues related to new growth (permits and planning) and police fines are about 75% of last year. Interest revenue is 35% of last year.

Kim Abney, our new Finance Director, is encouraging water users to pay their bills on-line. Bills can be sent by email and payments made by bank draft saving postage costs. You are notified by email before any withdrawals from you bank.

The Planning Department made an interesting presentation on Aging in Aiken – Enhancing Livability. The City of Aiken has a higher percentage of citizens who are 55 and older compared to the nation’s average (33.3% for Aiken vs. 21.3% nationwide). Our median age is 41.3. Council discussed the creation of an Advisory Committee which would help determine needs, develop plans of action, promote communication and coordination, and advise the City Council on senior issues. The issues would include mobility, pedestrian safety, accessibility to services, public safety, housing design, and recreation.

AIKEN WEBSITE UPDATE – The city’s web site (www.aiken.net) can be a valuable tool for residents needing information about the city. In 2008 there were over 400,000 visitors. Some were looking for jobs while others researched business information, zoning ordinances, and current events within the city. Check it out!

ADPS HIGHWAY ENFORCEMENT SUCCESSES – Public Safety Chief Pete Frommer’s special traffic enforcement officers, CPL Chris Carter and PSO Jason Griffin were very active in 2008. Their special units, Highway Enforcement of Aggressive Traffic (HEAT) issued 3,963 traffic citations, 819 warning tickets, and made 126 criminal arrests. Not coincidentally, their work, with the rest of ADPS, saw zero fatal collisions – down from six traffic fatalities in 2007. Our HEAT term looks for alcohol impaired drivers, seat belt violations, and any aggressive driving behaviors that contribute to collisions. Their work especially in cooperation with out Patrol Division and the rest of ADPS has made out city streets much safer to drive.

RECOGNITION OF FORMER BOARD/COMMISSION MEMBERS – At our Council meeting, we will recognize four individuals who have served on various Boards and Commissions. Mary Ellen Kripner (Arts Commission), Bernice Sanders (Accommodations Tax Committee), Stephen Anaclerio (Design Review Board), and Michael McGhee (Community Development Board) deserve our thanks for a job well done.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS 2009-2010 – Council will adopt the goals we set during the Horizons Session, mentioned earlier in this message. There were fourteen goals only a few which will be mentioned:

1. Develop an overall strategy for solving the Sand River storm drainage problems in Hitchcock Woods. This would include development of a joint agreement with the Woods, SCDOT, and Aiken County concerning solutions and funding.
2. Begin construction of the Dougherty Road connector to Publix Center.
3. In Edgewood, begin construction of new homes, and continue purchasing property in Toole Hill and Pinecrest.
4. Identify and prioritize capital projects as a part of implementing the Aiken Parks Recreation and Tourism Master Plan.
5. Implement strategies to redevelop and stabilize Crosland Park.
6. Organize and prepare for the City’s 175th anniversary celebration in 2010.
7. Establish a citizen task force to study issues affecting Aiken’s seniors to determine what measures could be taken to improve and preserve their quality of life.
8. Identify capital improvement projects that would be appropriate for inclusion on the next Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) list, anticipated to be voted upon in November 2010.
9. Expand the City Wellness Initiative into the public domain through an educational program and encourage our citizens toward better public health in Aiken.

There are a few others dealing with such issues as a youth activity center, future missions of the Savannah River Site, the Character First Program, and an evaluation of sustainability-focused activities.


OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA – Our agenda is rather light this week with mostly routine items. We have Second and final reading on leasing property on Price Avenue for Aiken Compounding Pharmacy Building. First Readings on ordinances to modify loans to the Aiken Corporation, an Ordinance to Amend the York Street Water Tower Attachment Lease Agreement (cell towers), and a resolution supporting 175th Celebration Committee.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – Keep in mind that City Council agendas are available on line. The complete agenda includes supporting documents that we review to determine a course of action. The link for Monday’s City Council agenda is http://www.aiken.net/weblink7/docview.aspx?id=100059.

The Ridge at Chukker Creek

Yesterday I had the pleasure of touring The Ridge at Chukker Creek with developer Ron Monohan. I was delighted to see the progress that has been made in preparing this new green neighborhood. To read more about this exciting concept go here.

Senator Graham takes on Boxer

Sen. Graham says Obama is AWOL

According to FOXNEWS Senator Graham lambasted Obama today. Go here to read the story.

Stimulus Bill Bad for Your Health as Well as Your Wallet

On Wednesday the American Thinker reported on a feature in the so-called “stimulus bill” that should alarm all Americans who might need health care now or in the future. They report that:

"On page 151 of this legislative pork-fest is one of the clandestine nuggets of social policy manipulation that are peppered throughout the bill. Section 9201 of the stimulus package establishes the 'Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.' This body, which would be made up of federal bureaucrats will 'coordinate the conduct or support of comparative effectiveness and related health services research.'

"Sounds benign enough, but the man behind the Coordinating Council, Health and Human Services Secretary-designate (and tax cheat) Tom Daschle, was kind enough to explain the goal of this organization. It is to cut health care costs by preventing Americans from getting treatments that the government decides don't meet their standards for cost effectiveness. In his 2008 book on health care, he explained that such a council would, 'lower overall spending by determining which medicines, treatments and procedures are most effective-and identifying those that do not justify their high price tags.'"

Think you can get around this by purchasing your own private insurance? Daschle explained they plan:

"… to expand the Coordinating Council's power even further, allowing the government to deny tax benefits for private insurance that covers treatments deemed too expensive by the Council. Thus, if a handful of government employees deem a therapy not cost effective, no health insurance will cover it and it will become virtually unobtainable to patients at any cost."

Daschle may be gone at least from the front line, but this feature in the bill is not and is just one more reason this ridiculous legislation must not be passed.

UPDATE; http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/02/022749.php

Senator DeMint on the Latest Stimulus Fiasco

Friends ­

We all know that our economy needs help.  But unfortunately, the Congressional Democrats’ bill is not a stimulus. It is a spending spree gone bad and nothing short of fraud.

This massive spending bill will not rescue our economy: but it very well could strangle it.  

Fortunately, there is another way. A better way. A way that will actually stimulate the economy, spur investment, and create jobs. A way that will permanently infuse billions of dollars -- immediately -- in the private sector, by keeping money in the hands of Americans who buy goods, provide services, start businesses, and hire employees.

Please click here and read about Senator Jim DeMint’s "A Jobs Plan that Will Work."

After reading it, please get involved by signing up, writing letters to the editor, and forwarding this email to your friends and family to help spread his conservative message. Thanks!

Sincerely,


Team DeMint

This message was sent from Jim DeMint to dickdonnasmith@gforcecable.com. It was sent from: Wesley Donehue, 1708 Wheat Street, Columbia, SC 29205. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

Message from John McCain

Dear Friend, Yesterday, the Senate began debate on an economic stimulus package that is intended to get our economy back on track and help Americans who are suffering through these difficult times. Unfortunately, the proposal on the table is big on the giveaways for the special interests and corporate high rollers, yet short on help for ordinary working Americans. I cannot and do not support the package on the table from the Democrats and the Obama Administration. Our country does not need just another spending bill, particularly not one that will load future generations with the burden of massive debt. We need a short term stimulus bill that will directly help people, create jobs, and provide a jolt to our economy. I believe we need to evaluate every bit of spending in this stimulus proposal with one important criteria - does it really stimulate the economy and help create jobs - if the answer is no, it does not belong in a so-called stimulus package. Furthermore, the stimulus must include significant direct relief to American workers in the form of payroll tax cuts and programs to help homeowners keep their homes. Finally, we need an end game to this stimulus so that when our economy recovers, these spending programs do not remain permanent and saddle our children with a skyrocketing national debt. I appreciate the discussions President Obama is having with my Republican colleagues, but the time for talking has come to an end and we must now begin some serious negotiation. But as of yet, Republicans have not been given the opportunity to be involved. The House of Representatives passed a stimulus bill without a single Republican supporting it. In the Senate, the Democrat leadership is trying to jam the existing proposal through regardless of reservations from a number of members. With so much at stake, the last thing we need is partisanship driving our attempts to turn the economy around. I have long been a fighter against wasteful spending in Washington and long an advocate for a balanced budget -- that will never change. I realize we face extraordinary challenges with our economy today, but that is not an excuse for more irresponsibly from Washington. I hope you will join me in saying no to this stimulus package as it currently exists by signing this petition. Sincerely, John McCain Chair, Country First PAC

---

Please visit this page if you want to remove yourself from the email list.

Paid for by Country First PAC Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee www.CountryFirstPAC.com

Obama goes back on many promises

The following letter from Mary Beth Seaha was published in the Augusta Chronicle today and it has elicited many comments. To read the article and comments go here.
Letter to the Editor

Monday, February 02, 2009235
Voters wanted change and elected President Obama. Apparently the change is that he can change his mind within days of making promises and statements he clearly didn't mean.

- Obama promised he would veto any legislation that contained pork. The stimulus bill, which Obama supports, is loaded with pork.

- Obama promised he would not hire any lobbyists to work in his administration. To date, Obama has hired 20 lobbyists.

- Obama has said repeatedly that we have to put aside partisan differences and work together to solve the challenges facing our country. Within hours of lecturing others, the president attacked a conservative radio talk show host and made fun of Fox News to a roomful of congressional Republicans. It's hard to imagine a more undignified or partisan attack on the opposition party. Maybe we were naive to believe Obama meant he would practice tough diplomacy with our nation's enemies, not on Republicans.

- In May 2008, Obama said "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say okay. That's not leadership." So you can imagine my surprise when I read in the Jan. 29 New York Times: "The Capitol flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat." Mr. Obama's senior advisor, David Axelrod, said: "He's from Hawaii, OK? He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."

And so another politician joins the ranks of those who have a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.


Mary Beth Seaha, Aiken, SC.


From the Monday, February 02, 2009 edition of the Augusta Chronicle

Authors of Their Own Doom

Their follows an excerpt from a very interesting story about the decline of newspapers.To read the entire blog and the many interesting comments go here.


"Authors of Their Own Doom


By William Murchison on 2.2.09 @ 6:10AM



Just what I needed: more bad news about the news business. My business, one way or another since 1964, when I labored not only as general assignments reporter and feature writer for a small-town newspaper but also took photos and, yes, converted same to plastic engravings via that technological wonder, the Fairchild Scan-A-Graver."