This is breaking news on the Wall Street Journal. Hillary Clinton pledges $100 billion per year out of American tax payers’ pockets to hand over to the Mugabes of the world via the “Climate-Aid Fund”.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the U.S. is prepared to join other rich countries in raising $100 billion in yearly climate financing for poor countries by 2020.

The announcement could give a boost to deadlocked climate talks which have faltered over disputes between rich and poor countries over emissions cuts and climate financing.

Mrs. Clinton said the financing is contingent on world leaders reaching a broader climate pact at the U.N. talks in Copenhagen.

She said the deal must include all major economies, meaningful actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions and a system to ensure all parties’ actions are transparent.

Mrs. Clinton says “$100 billion is a lot. It can have tangible effects.”

via Clinton: U.S. Ready to Join Climate-Aid Fund – WSJ.com.

So, let’s get this straight so I can get back to reading how to survive the coming collapse. We are already borrowing over $1 trillion a year. On top of that, we are going to borrow another $100 billion for this climate change scam. We are going to ask China to lend us money to hand it over to Mugabe. In other words, we are slaves to Mugabe. We are pledging our future and our children’s future labor to give $100 billion now and every year in the future to the Mugabes of the world. Did any of these political pigs want to ask us if we wanted to be enslaved so they could feel good about themselves?

Next time Obama goes back over to China to tell them how bad their leaders are and how they aren’t free, can he take the gun away from our heads first? Without the government gun to our heads, Americans would never fork over $100 billion to hand to tin pot despots.  I believe there was once a revolution over taxation without representation. Maybe it’s time for another one.

In the Wall Street Journal today, Alan Blinder, talks up the economy and show’s his optimism (naivete) of things to come.

By ALAN S. BLINDER

The U.S. economy is digging itself out of a deep hole. You have probably heard a lot of doom and gloom lately, including talk of a jobless recovery, an L-shaped recovery (which means no recovery at all), or even a W—the feared double-dip recession. The Scrooges have a point: There are serious dangers to the nascent recovery. But you’ve heard all that many times. Let me offer instead, in deliberately one-sided fashion, the case for optimism. It is, after all, the holiday season.

The case begins with the “slingshot effect” I wrote about on this page last summer (“The Economy Has Hit Bottom,” July 24, 2009). When the growth rate of any component of GDP rises, it gives overall GDP growth a boost. And going from sharply negative growth to zero is a notable rise. In July, the slingshot scenario was hypothetical—though likely. In today’s economy, it’s a real phenomenon.

During the first half of this year, the investment component of GDP declined at a stunning 38% annual rate. Since the investment share of GDP was then about 14%, this implosion accounted for minus 5.4 percentage points of GDP growth. But since overall GDP declined “only” 3.6% in those two quarters, the rest of GDP (the 86%) actually rose. It was a small but real reason for optimism in a stormy sea.

Then came the third quarter. Like a woozy prizefighter lifting himself off the canvas, the battered investment component of GDP managed to rise (at an 11% annual rate), which added 1.3 points to GDP growth rather than subtracting 5.4 points. That 6.7 point swing was the start of the slingshot effect, which is not yet over.

Investment has three components: business investment, inventory stocking, and homebuilding. Inventory stocks were still declining at near-record rates in the third quarter; they simply must level off within a few quarters because sales are rising and firms will not want to deplete their stocks indefinitely. Business investment remains 20% below its 2008 peak; its likely course is up, not down, because plants and equipment wear out. And housing? Well, you know. Homebuilding is still in the doldrums—limping along at less than half the level of 1960. The only way to go is up.

This is where Keynesians think they have things right by using their assumptions to prove their assumptions. Blinder says while investment decreased, the other GPD components picked up the slack, so GPD didn’t decline as much as it would have otherwise. The problem is the slack was government spending. This is how they reinforce their own assumptions. They believe the government can boost the economy with stimulus, printing money, etc. Then they create a GDP calculation that includes government spending as one of it’s components. Then to increase GDP, they use that component to minupulate the calculation. The problem is that component does nothing to create wealth for our economy. It does not create real economic value. Gross Domestic Product is about production, but the government produces nothing. If this was the way to economic growth, why don’t we just focus on that component of GDP? Why not just quadruple the government spending? GDP would skyrocket!

Of course, the investment slingshot won’t last forever. Sometime in 2010, consumer spending must take over. And this is where the pessimists go into full throttle. Burdened by huge losses of both wealth and jobs, American households will start saving like mad, we are told. Sounds plausible, but it hasn’t really happened. True, the average personal saving rate has risen to 4.5% of disposable income so far this year from 2.7% in 2008. That’s higher, but a long way from the 8%-10% saving rates the doomsayers have foreseen. A saving rate near 5% is consistent with 3%-4% GDP growth in 2010.

Let’s hope consumers don’t listen to Blinder. Our country is badly in the need for savings. Savings are used for investment, which is what creates real economic growth. Yes, ultimately consumers need to spend, because we need to buy much of what we produce. If we don’t, it won’t be produced. The problem is when that consumption is heavily leveraged as it has been. I’m sure the Fed will eventually trick the public into going more in debt as things start to get back to normal.

The second major source of optimism is the amazing performance of productivity during the recession. To be sure, that performance had a downside: While real GDP was falling 3.7%, payroll employment dropped 5%, devastating many American families. But by definition, that discrepancy means that productivity—output per hour of work—rose substantially during the recession, which is pretty unusual.

The last two quarters were even more extreme: Productivity in the nonfarm business sector grew at a shocking 8.1% annual rate. There are two possible explanations. One: The last two quarters were among the most technologically innovative and entrepreneurial in the history of the United States. Two: Fearful businesses pared payrolls to the bone. If the second is closer to the truth, payrolls are extraordinarily lean right now. Which means that firms will need to hire more workers as their sales and production grow. Which means that employment may start growing sooner than the pessimists think.

I have been pointing this out for months, but until the last employment report, it was a hypothesis supported by no evidence. Not anymore. While payrolls continued to decline in November, it was by only a scant 11,000 jobs; and the job counts for September and October were revised upward. The data now show a clear trend that suggests that net job creation may be only a month or two away. We’ll see.

Here again, the problem is Blinder is counting the government as if all jobs are created equal. Jobs do the economy no good if they aren’t producing value to the economy, and government jobs do not produce value. The latest jobs report showed increases in government jobs and temporary employment. All other jobs, the ones we want, were down. More government jobs, used to distort the jobs report, is not a good thing.

There is more to the case for optimism. For one thing, less than 30% of February’s $787 billion fiscal stimulus has been spent to date; over 70% is still in the pipeline. Pessimists dote on the fact that the rate of increase of stimulus spending has probably peaked and will be lower in 2010. True. But the level of GDP will continue to get support from fiscal policy, and a second job-creation package (“Please don’t call it a stimulus!”) looks to be in the works.

Back to increasing the government component of GDP. See why government spending should be taken out of GDP?

Then there is the Federal Reserve’s stupendously expansionary monetary policy. It is well known that interest rates work on the economy with long lags. But the Fed’s last rate cut came a year ago. So isn’t the monetary policy pipeline empty? The answer is no, for at least three reasons. First, history suggests that the time lag is closer to two years than to one. So even the normal policy lags are not over.

But second, and more important, the lags are likely to be abnormally long this time around. As long as the economy’s credit-granting arteries were blocked, they could not carry the Fed’s lower-interest-rate medicine into the economy’s bloodstream. Sadly, some of these arteries remain blocked today—such as for small business lending. But the Fed, Treasury, FDIC and others have created a bewildering variety of stents and bypasses to get credit flowing again. The credit markets are now healing, though slower than we would like. Hence there is still monetary stimulus in the pipeline.

And third, the Fed continues to inject more medicine. Not by cutting interest rates, of course. Zero is as low as you can go, and the Fed arrived there a year ago. But “quantitative easing” is still in play. One example is the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) purchase program, which is adding MBS to the Fed’s balance sheet and providing vital support to the mortgage market. Yes, the Fed has begun to think about its exit strategy. But that is for the future, not for now.

The Fed’s “stupendously expansionary monetary policy” is what we should fear the most. The author may be right on the lag, and that would be the most devasting blow to the economy. Many are predicting massive inflation as the Fed’s stimulus finally leaves the reserves and enters the economy. I wouldn’t call that a case for optimism. As I highlighted in a previous blog, even the best case inflation scenario is not too comforting. If not severely contracted, we’ll have massive inflation. If severely contracted, we could be looking at a serious contraction in the economy. Pick your poison.

I warned at the outset that I would present a deliberately biased case. So let me admit, once again, that serious downside risks remain. The investment slingshot and the fiscal stimulus will both peter out in 2010. Consumer finances and confidence are shaky. Banks are still failing and commercial real estate is a mess. We cannot count on exports to pull us out of this slump. All true. And all reasons not to expect the kind of exuberant boom that typically follows a deep recession—such as the 7.7% growth spurt in the six quarters following the 1981-82 slump. No one expects that.

So my optimism is guarded. The 3%-4% growth rate that I anticipate for the rest of this year and for 2010 is a lot worse than 7.7%, to be sure. But compared to what we’ve been through, it will feel a whole lot better.

Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and vice chairman of the Promontory Interfinancial Network, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

via Alan S. Blinder: The Case for Optimism on the Economy – WSJ.com.

Blinder doesn’t even consider the effects of the health care takeover, national debt, etc. Then again why would he? Keynesians think government spending is as valuable as business investment. Why? Because GDP says so.

When will this nightmare called the Obama administration end? They never question that fact that they got it wrong. They always believe they just didn’t do enough yet. We have close to a 1$1.5 trillion deficit this year, and these idiots can’t stop thinking of ways to spend more money.

In a speech at the Brookings Institution, Mr. Obama avoided calling his jobs push a new stimulus plan. But White House officials acknowledged that the president was taking stimulus components that he believed worked best and extending or amplifying them.

Has anyone seen any part of the stimulus that worked and continues to work? Cash for Clunkers might have give a blip on the GDP chart, but it’s obvious it was not sustainable. Government stimulus in the form of spending never is.

These include putting an additional $50 billion toward infrastructure spending, ramping up Treasury Department lending to small businesses through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, extending tax credits for business investment and offering state and local governments a fresh lifeline.

Other ideas that weren’t in the February stimulus legislation include a tax credit that rewards companies for hiring workers and tax rebates for individuals who make their homes more energy efficient.

Additional wealth must be created in our country for hiring to take place. Infrastructure does not create wealth. Are you wealthier when you trade in an older car for a newer one? No, you still have a car, just like you did before.

Increased lending to small business isn’t going to help either if the economy remains in shambles. Who will want to borrow money when the future is so uncertain?

Tax credits don’t work in the long term. Only long term tax cuts work for ongoing growth. Are you going to change your long term habits for a one time handout? Neither is business. They will change habits if it’s a lasting change such as reduced taxes, just as you would change your habits with a pay increase.

Don’t even get me started on more state bailouts. It’s stealing money from responsible states and giving it to irresponsible states such as California. The responsible states have to pay for the over-the-top government benefits in other states. Would Texas please secede already.

Mr. Obama’s push comes as a partisan debate over the stimulus plan’s effectiveness heats up and Democrats grow increasingly worried about the political price of a stagnant job market. With a midterm election looming in 2010, Friday’s relatively hopeful employment reports didn’t much relieve the pressure, senior Democrats said.

And we wonder why our country is going bankrupt. Politicians try buying their re-elections. It’s all politics, and has nothing to do with what is best for the country.

Democratic aides expect two bills. The first would top $100 billion and would extend unemployment insurance, temporary food-stamp payment increases and subsidies for health-care purchases by the unemployed. That would likely be attached to a spending bill in coming weeks. The second, a jobs bill estimated at about $70 billion, would contain many of Mr. Obama’s initiatives and likely wouldn’t reach his desk until early next year.

Get ready for all the job creating from incentivizing unemployment. It seems like we extend unemployment almost every week now. What’s it up to, half your life?

The hiring tax credit may generate the most controversy. Mr. Obama campaigned on the idea last year, but Democrats abandoned it amid the stimulus debate. Employers, they worried, could fire workers and rehire them to claim the credit, or divide a full-time job into two part-time jobs, cut the wages and hours of one worker, then hire a new, part-time worker to claim the credit.

Ralph Braun, chief executive of Braun Corp. in Winamac, Ind., said a tax credit is meaningless for a producer like him. “If you’re just going out to hire someone just for a tax credit, what kind of job will you put them in that has any longevity to it?” said Mr. Braun, whose 730-employee company produces wheelchair lifts and other equipment. “You have to have a customer for that employee to serve — so I’m confused how a tax credit would stimulate anything.”

Still, there are executives who see merit to the idea. Ronald DeFeo, chief executive of Terex Corp. in Westport, Conn., would like to see such a credit targeted at recent college graduates. “If we had a tax incentive that paid for a third of [a recent college graduate's] wage for two years, then 10% for the next two years, it would be a way to encourage companies like mine to hire,” he said.

via Obama Pushes New Job Stimulus – WSJ.com.

I bet Ralph Braun’s company is much better ran than Ronald Defeo’s. Ralph is completely right. If there is no customer to serve, then there is no need for a new position. Ronald on the other hand thinks it makes good sense for the public to pay 1/3rd of two years wages and 10% for the third and forth year for new hires. Is he smoking crack? This is what he thinks is good for our country? I know he gets to save money for himself, but meanwhile that money has to come from somewhere. If that position doesn’t warrant paying the employee, then the position should not be created. It’s a sham, and only results in a lower standard of living for everyone else, well except for Ronald Defeo.

Local legend, Glen Meakem,  writes an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review about the comparison to what we have spent on wars as compared to entitlements.

Since the beginning of President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” in 1964, American taxpayers have spent $16 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on support programs for low-income people.

In contrast, American taxpayers have spent a total of $6 trillion (again in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars) on all of America’s wars combined.

In return for the $6 trillion America invested in wars, we earned individual and national liberty, an end to slavery, a unified country across the North American continent, victory over multiple totalitarian tyrants and a more secure world.

But what have we earned in return for our $16 trillion investment in poverty programs?

Considering where our current national debt sits at, it is not hard to see that we would not have any debt without the entitlement programs. It would be my guess as well, that we wouldn’t have anywhere near the tax level we have, the government control over out lives, or our current vulnerability (economic and currency collapse) that can be exposed by China any time they choose.

In 1964, there were approximately 36 million people in America receiving aid. By 2007, that number had increased to 39 million. And the amount we are spending per person — in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars — increased from $1,516 in 1964 to $16,840.

Under President Obama’s policies, by 2014 American taxpayers will be spending $1 trillion per year on welfare programs.

Today, people on government assistance in America receive free cash, food, housing, medical care and even cell phones. The standard of living of America’s poor has increased dramatically since 1964. But family breakdown, crime and dependency have exploded.

In 1964, only 7 percent of American children were born into single-parent homes. Today, 40 percent are born to unwed mothers. Children raised without their biological fathers living in their homes are much more likely to be poor and abused than children raised by their mom and dad. This is true across all racial and ethnic groups.

While I don’t think this is completely the fault of welfare, there is no doubt the destruction of the black family has been caused by welfare programs, specifically the incentivization of having more children to receive more money.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 64 percent of children with unmarried parents and 31 percent of children with divorced parents grow up in poverty. But only 8.4 percent of children in two-parent families grow up poor.

Taxpayer-funded welfare in America is marketed by liberals as a “safety net.” But in reality it has become a multigeneration way of life.

I wouldn’t call it a way of life. It is imprisonment. You are imprisoned in your government squalor, and you are punished by any action you take to get out of it.

We need all American adults of able mind and body to contribute to our society by working (inside or outside the home), supporting their own families, and raising their own children. More women and men must step to the plate by getting and staying married.

In the coming years, once conservatives regain control of our government, we must enact policies that enable American adults to take responsibility for their own futures and their own children. We can afford the time and money to win “a war of necessity.” What we cannot afford, what is truly unsustainable, is our growing culture of dependence.

via The dependent class – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

I agree with Glen’s general article, but this is where conservatives start heading in the wrong direction. We do not need to “enact policies that enable American adults to take responsibility for their own futures and their own children.” All we need to do is take away the incentives of not taking responsibility for you and your children. To do that, we should set a path to end all entitlement programs. I know we couldn’t do it cold turkey, but we should set a plan to do it over the next decade. We should make people understand that no one owes them anything, and that they will need to take care of themselves and their families. Families, neighors, and churches will pick up the slack for those who can’t fend for themselves. This is how it used to be done, and people were much better off.

In order to appear as if he’s doing something, Obama held the “Jobs Summit” at the White House. Here are some of the ideas that are supposed to help small business.

On Thursday, about 130 small-business owners, financial experts, union leaders, economists and CEOs from across the country convened at the White House to discuss their best ideas for stimulating job growth — and staving off another uptick in the unemployment rate, which climbed to 10.2% in October.

While many small-business owners and advocates welcome the attention being paid to boosting employment, there were plenty of skeptics in attendance. Some complained that sustained economic recovery — not new jobs bills — are needed to kick-start hiring. Others pointed out that job losses have already moderated in recent months, and called into question the necessity of any moves.

I wonder how quickly the guys who questioned the need for any government involvement were thrown out of the room. Maybe we’ll see them on TV today as the Job Summit Crashers.

Work-Share Tax Credit

A jobs-sharing initiative, which already exists in 17 states, has gained traction among several members of Congress. In August, Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D., Conn.) introduced the Keep Americans Working Act, which would allow employers to reduce their employees’ hours in order to hire new workers to pick up the slack. Although employees’ hours would be reduced, their pay would remain the same, as the government would pay the balance. Notably, Paul Krugman, economist and Nobel prize winner, also backed the work-share idea.

They must be looking to Europe’s job market for this idea. Europe has instituted ideas like this in the past and made it illegal to have anyone work over a certain number of hours. This is supposed to spread the hours out among more workers. It’s a stupid idea. It does not take into account all the cost involved. For example, if I have a guy who has been working for several years, he knows how to do his job. I know what his productivity is. If I cut his hours back and hire a new person, that person needs trained, doesn’t know the job, and is less efficient. My company’s productivity will have declined. Not only that, I have to deal with a new person. I know my current employee and his work habits. I know if he’s late, takes days off, has family issues, etc. I have no clue what kind of person I may be bringing in that has to be able to produce as much as my current employee. I also have to deal with another person’s benefits, health-care, etc. Will this person cost me more in health care when government passes health care legislation? Will he drive up my unemployment, because I’m more likely to have to lay him off if the economy declines again? These are all concerns that this does not address.

What it does do is steal money from tax payers and give it to businesses so one person doesn’t have to work a normal work week. This is just crazy. You take money from people who work full-time to give it to another person who you are taking hours from in order to hire someone who is unproductive. Do they realize wealth is based on what is produced, not jobs.

Jobs Tax Credit

By contrast, jobs tax credits are largely welcomed by small-business advocates and economists. One plan from the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based research organization focused on labor issues, calls for the government to provide refundable tax credits of 10% to 15% against payroll taxes for each new hire over two years.

Isn’t social security and medicare already bankrupt? How does it help long term to take money away from them? I’m all for getting rid of them both, but that isn’t going to happen. Instead, this just leads to more government debt. Also, 15% of a new hire’s payroll tax is not that much incentive. You typically aren’t going to pay a new hire much money, and the company’s share of payroll taxes is 7.5% of their salary. How much incentive is 15% of 7.5% of their salary going to provide? I maybe reading this wrong, but that is how I read this proposal.

If I have this write, here is what it would look like. You hire a new employee and pay him $30,000 a year. You pay $2250 a year in payroll taxes on him. You get a tax credit back in the amount of 15% of his payroll tax, which is $337.50. Wow, let’s start hiring. Even if they are looking at the entire payroll tax, which is around 15%, it still doesn’t provide much incentive. The new hire seems pretty risky in today’s environment, and a few hundred dollars sure isn’t going to change that equation.

‘Cash for Caulkers’

Former President Bill Clinton and others have suggested a cash-for-clunkers style initiative that would task construction workers and contractors with weatherizing homes. By employing unspent stimulus funds, Clinton’s plan, popularly known as “cash for caulkers,” involves weatherizing houses and apartments, as well as commercial and industrial buildings. Depending on how many property owners take up the initiative, the plan could not only provide jobs to the hard-hit construction sector, it would limit carbon emissions and reduce owners’ energy costs.

Does this sounds like money down the drain or what? I can just imagine the scamming that is going to take place by a group of people, that while many are the salt of the earth, many others are about as shady as you can get. Believe me. I’ve worked construction for my dad when I was in high school and when I got laid off in the tech bubble. This is going to lead to scamming old people, the government, and all of society in general. Then again, maybe I’ll start a fake caulking business and make some extra income.

Public Works Projects

Similarly, a range of economists and nonprofits support instituting some form of directed public jobs works programs. Similar to Depression-era New Deal jobs programs, the government could create jobs in targeted places that have high unemployment. The focus would be on rebuilding infrastructure for roads, clean-up or school repair, says Mark A. Price, a labor economist at the Keystone Research Center, a think tank in Harrisburg, Pa.

Can we just admit that the people who want public works all the time are communists. Let’s not act like it’s anything else. There has already been so much wasted money on road projects. They are tearing up and rebuilding roads that don’t even need it. All this does is destroy the wealth of our country by taking money that would otherwise be going into wealth creation and putting it into things that do not increase our wealth. If we have a road before this begins and a road after this begins, but we spent billions, we are not wealthier. While proponents will claim it creates jobs that will lead to personal consumption, they are overlooking that it is taking that money from other consumers. It’s not even a wash, because the government project isn’t as efficient and productive. Government projects never create wealth, unless you are one of the cronies who gets the project and line your pockets with tax payer money.

Payroll Tax Holiday

Leading up to the first stimulus package, small-business advocacy organizations such as the National Federation for Independent Business supported a six-month payroll tax holiday.

I’m all for tax cuts, but I’m getting tired of tax cuts without spending cuts. Also, are you going to hire people for a six-month payroll tax holiday? If you do, there is a chance again, as stated above, that you are going to have to lay the new hires off shortly in the future, leading to increased unemployment insurance. Also, if I’m a small business, I’m going to take savings on payroll taxes to increase my profits. If my clients aren’t demanding more of my goods or services, I’m not going to hire more employees. Also, what is a payroll tax holiday going to do when you have this health care monstrosity hanging over your head?

Capitalizing Community Banks

President Obama has already dispatched calls for giving small companies looking to expand — and, thus, create jobs — greater access to capital by way of community banks. Making it easier for community banks with less than $1 billion in assets to access funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, would give small businesses a greater chance of landing loans, says Obama.

via Small Business: The White House Works It – WSJ.com.

TARP should be called To Anyone Requesting Program. It was passed against the will of the public for a specific purpose, and then the government decided on its own that it will do whatever it pleases with it. One of the best things they could do is announce the end of TARP. That would signal that they believe the crisis is coming to an end. Of course they won’t because they love the power that they can exercise with all the TARP money. Look at the power they have exercised over banks, automotive, etc. Last thing I would want is my community bank being at the end of the government’s leash. We’ve already seen how they change the terms of the agreement after the fact.

While all of these would probably produce some jobs, they ignore the negative consequences of each one. They ignore the jobs that will be harmed now and in the long term. They also ignore the economic consequences for the future with more government debt. Worst of all they presume that the government can fix the economy, create wealth, and is needed for economic growth. This is disasterous for the long term psyche of our country. Ronald Reagan had it right when he said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Apparently, this has been forgotten.

I saw this article in my local paper. While I don’t use drugs, I think our government’s policy on drugs is ridiculous. It’s immoral how many people our government locks up for drug possession. People die from too much alcohol in their system, but I haven’t heard of any deaths from people smoking too much marijuana. The other thing I find funny is how all the sudden states are coming around once they need the money from taxing marijuana and saving money from all the wasted resources that are used chasing after marijuana users. Apparently, it’s not so bad after all.

From Maine to California, muddled thinking over the use of marijuana, medical and otherwise, finally is beginning to clear, giving way to reason over its future use.

Fourteen states are moving to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. In Maine, residents have overwhelmingly voted to allow the sale of medical marijuana over the counter. And in California, signatures are being collected to put legalization before voters next year.

It’s estimated that taxing and regulating pot, much like cigarettes and alcohol, could raise $1.3 billion in California alone.

In Los Angeles, where medical marijuana dispensaries have opened, experts say more violence stems from its prohibition than from its use.

From federal regulators to the American Medical Association, the mind-set over marijuana’s use gradually is changing — and for good reason. Notes a spokesman for one marijuana advocacy group, “(T)here’s a reason you don’t have Mexican beer cartels planting fields of hops in the California forests.”

As we’ve stated before, the production and use of marijuana should be fully legalized with the same prohibitions against use by minors. The only “refer madness” is to continue the indefensible status quo that costs taxpayers billions in related enforcement costs while funding organized crime and violence on a massive scale.

via The marijuana debate: Welcome progress – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

While I don’t think tax payers should be subsidizing other people’s home purchases, this is what happens when the government’s games catch up with them. They are trying to prop up the housing market from the mess they created, but at the same time they are looking at contradictory policies that will harm the housing market.

Shaun Donovan, secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, plans to ask Congress on Wednesday to raise the cap on the annual insurance premium that the FHA can charge borrowers. In testimony before a congressional panel, he will also outline steps the agency is considering to set minimum credit scores, to require home buyers to put more money down, and to make lenders more accountable for loans that the agency insures.

Those measures are designed to begin rebuilding the agency’s depleted capital reserves. An independent audit last month said that the estimated value of those reserves had dropped to $3.6 billion, or about 0.5% of the $685 billion in loans the FHA has insured.

But any sharp crackdown could limit the pool of potential home buyers. Many rely on FHA-backed home loans.

“We have to replenish the reserves and we have to be prepared for a market outcome that may not be as favorable” as one that was forecast by the auditor, said David Stevens, the FHA’s commissioner, in an interview Monday. The audit estimated that the agency wouldn’t need any funds from the U.S. Treasury next year.

Raising insurance premiums could help avert the need for a taxpayer bailout of the agency, but the move would raise borrowing costs for home buyers. The FHA charges an upfront insurance premium of 1.75% of the loan amount. Borrowers pay additional annual premiums of either 0.5% or 0.55%.

The FHA will also limit the amount of money that sellers can provide for closing costs on home sales to 3% of the home price, from the current level of 6%. The agency is also finalizing plans to set a minimum credit score for borrowers, possibly by requiring those making small down payments to have higher credit scores.

via FHA Considers Ways to Boost Its Reserves – WSJ.com.

Many people are calling for a second decline in housing. It’s not hard to figure out why. FHA is looking to make it harder to get an FHA insured loan. Also, come April of next year, the tax rebate will expire and those who were going to buy will have already done so. There will be a decline at that point in buyers. The government should have just stayed out of the housing decline in the first place. The decline would have been quicker, and it would have stabilized leaving a bottom to build on. Instead, it is doing as it always does. It’s delaying the bottoming and leading to a new decline shortly in the future. So, it won’t prevent the eventual bottoming, and it leaves us with massive debt as a reminder of their failed policies.

The Wall Street Journal had an article about how construction companies are going to be laying people off as the stimulus money projects run out.

WASHINGTON—Highway-construction companies around the country, having completed the mostly small projects paid for by the federal economic-stimulus package, are starting to see their business run aground, an ominous sign for the nation’s weak employment picture.

Tim Word, vice president of Dean Word Co., a heavy-construction company in New Braunfels, Texas, said his income is now coming mostly from projects that are winding up. He said that in normal times he has about $100 million of signed contracts in hand. But that number has fallen to $30 million, and the pipeline is empty.

via Job Cuts Loom As Stimulus Fades – WSJ.com.

This is why stimulus does not create jobs. It does not create permanent jobs, because it does not create wealth. Where does the government get the money? It must take it from one area of the economy whether through taxes or borrowing, and it gives it temporarily to another area of the economy. This is temporary, and businesses aren’t stupid enough to fall for it. Yeah, the businesses who receive the money love it. They aren’t going to turn it down. But the other businesses that don’t receive it are either laying off or not hiring because of it. They either don’t have the money to hire because it was taxed away, or they are competing with the government to borrow money. The more money the government is borrowing, the harder it is for small businesses to borrow. After all, who is considered the safest bet when lending, and if the government keeps demanding more money in a slow economy, wouldn’t it be best to lend them the money?

This whole story highlights several things. The government cannot create jobs, create wealth, control the economy, fix economic problems, or help you in anyway that doesn’t hurt you more in other ways.

If you have not read my previous post, Thanksgiving, Statism and Life Outside the Matrix, you may want to do so first. This will be my first post where I will challenge the assumption of public education, which is what provides us our programming to live within the Matrix.

As I said in my previous post, both sides of the Matrix structure argue about how to best improve public education. One argues for more money. The other argues for more localized control. Neither side questions the existence of government controlled education, the results over the long term, or whether we’d be better off with no government education.

To start, why do statists claim we need a public school system? They claim that all children need an education, and only government can make sure all children regardless of race, class, and gender receive an education. That sounds reasonable, but are the children, especially the poor really getting educated? According to The Daily Beast, 7,200 students drop out every day. In some cities (usually ran by socialists), it’s even worse. In Detroit, only 25% of students graduate. According to CNN, the nationwide dropout rate is 16% or over 6 million students.

Every single school day, more than 7,200 kids, on average, drop out of high school—1.3 million each year. In many American cities, including Miami, Denver, Los Angeles, New York and Minneapolis, most public school students don’t graduate. In Detroit, the unhappy poster child for American industrial decline, a study from last year showed that a mere quarter of students earn high school diplomas.

via America’s Dropout Crisis – Page 1 – The Daily Beast.

Nearly 6.2 million students in the United States between the ages of 16 and 24 in 2007 dropped out of high school, fueling what a report released Tuesday called “a persistent high school dropout crisis.”

The total represents 16 percent of all people in the United States in that age range in 2007. Most of the dropouts were Latino or black, according to a report by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Alternative Schools Network in Chicago, Illinois.

via ‘High school dropout crisis’ continues in U.S., study says – CNN.com.

As you can see, the groups most affected by the dropout rate are the groups that socialists claim to champion. Students are dropping out left and right, which does not provide them many options for the future. Then again, why worry? We have a “safety net”. You know if you don’t go to school, you can at least live off the government dole. On top of that, you can partake in criminal activity and receive tax free income. “Cash only please for all drug and stolen good purchases”.

“Yeah, OK Prof, but literacy was horrendous.” Well, let’s take a look at the “improving” literacy. As we all know, slaves were systematically prevented from learning to read and becoming educated, so we can’t really count their literacy under slavery. We can look at how quickly they became literate after slavery ended.

Although the black literacy rate soared from 20% in 1850 to nearly 80% in 1890, blacks were still having a difficult time finding work.

via ljonespage4content.

Wow, that’s damn impressive. Black literacy reached 80% in 1890. Well, what is it now? Hmmm, under our socialized, secular government ignorance programs, it stands at about 60%.

Six decades later, at the end of the twentieth century, the National Adult Literacy Survey and the National Assessment of Educational Progress say 40 percent of blacks and 17 percent of whites can’t read at all. Put another way, black illiteracy doubled, white illiteracy quadrupled.

via Intellectual Espionage – John Taylor Gatto.

White literacy was near 100% at the beginning of the 20th century, and as you can see, it is now at about where the formers slaves were in 1890. According to John Quincy Adams, only 4/10ths of 1 percent of New Englanders were illiterate. Also, I think everyone would agree the books that were read back then were much more challenging.  Isn’t progress wonderful?

How about math and science scores? Well, according to international testing, American children are not what they used to be. The bad news is the longer they are in school, the worse they get.

At science and math, American students trail those in other advanced democracies. The longer students are in school, the worse things get. Among fourth graders, U.S. students rank high on the International Test of Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Despite this head start, by eighth grade, American adolescents have slipped to the midpoint on the TIMSS; by age 17, their scores trail all but those in a few developing countries

via Hoover Institution – Hoover Digest – The Decline and Fall of American Education.

So as you can see, the public schools in our country have failed as all government planned goods and services do. The debate then goes straight to “how do we make them better?” This is the debate that rages inside the statist Matrix. Both sides argue back and forth about how to improve it. The cheerleaders hooray their side and boo the other side, and it’s completely incomprehensible to them that maybe the government should not be forcing people into government schools. All coercive monopolies are bad, and government is a coercive monopoly. If you do not believe so, try to “choose” to keep your children out of government approved schooling. See how long before you go to jail.

What is the solution? Well, let’s start off by agreeing that we should not stick a gun to people’s heads and tell them they are either going to send their children to government schools, or else they will go to jail. Can we agree that is the moral thing to do? I’m sure some will argue that some parents just are too stupid to make sure their kids get educated, so government must stick a gun to your head. The argument goes that because a small group isn’t responsible with their children, the government should stick a gun to everyone’s head and force their kids into public schools. Pro-government school people argue it’s child abuse to not let your child get an education, but then have no problem with the abuse government schools are inflicting on our children at increasing rates as the statistics above show. Let’s not even get into the lunch programs they inflict on children.

Next, let’s let people choose how they want their kids to be educated. If you do not want to send your child to a government school, there is no reason you should have to pay for government schools plus a private school. Do you think this has something to do with why poorer students are worse off? Their parents cannot afford to pay for public and private schools, so they suck it up and send them off the the ignorance factories. You should be able to keep your money. At the very least, you should be able to take your tax dollars to the school of your choice.

Then the government should allow the free market to deliver education options. They should not set standards, because their standards are pretty much useless. They deliver horrible results. Private schools will have to deliver to the parent’s liking, or they will automatically be punished with lost tuition. Government, on the other hand, has no accountability. If you don’t like the results, you still pay for it. If you try not to pay for it, well you know what happens.

Why is it so hard to imagine a world without public schools? It’s hard to imagine because it’s part of your programming. You were brought up in public schooling and taught that you must have public schools. It’s like most of society in the early 1800s, who couldn’t comprehend how former slaves and former slave masters could live in the same society if slavery was abolished.  Instead of admitting it was immoral, abolishing the institution, and letting free men figure their own way out of it, the government legalized slavery every step of the way. They couldn’t see outside the Matrix in which they were living. If the government had not enforced slavery through fugitive slave laws, it’s hard to believe slavery would have lasted long at all. It would have cost plantation owners too much money to chase slaves down when they escaped. They were only able to do so, because government (really the tax payer) ate the cost of chasing them down and returning them. It would have actually been cheaper for plantation owners to hire the slaves or any other workers had they not forced the cost of fugitive slave laws on the society as a whole. What I am saying here is just because you can’t imagine something other than government schools, because you have been programmed to only see it that way, doesn’t mean it’s not possible and better.  When men are free to make choices in their best interest, society progresses more quickly. It is not happenstance that the least regulated areas in our life are all the fast growing and evolving areas, and there is no reason education cannot be the same.

It’s very easy to see how education if unleashed from government shackles could quickly skyrocket in the success it delivers. It’s not hard to envision bountiful options to meet the needs of all children. Does your child excel in math? How about a school that focuses on math, engineering, and computers? Has your child always loved being the center or attention? How about a school that focuses on the arts? Does your child love to fix things and find out how they work? How about a tech school? Do you want your child to focus on reading, writing, and math? How about an elementary school that focuses exclusively on fundamentals? Does your child have special needs? How about a school that specializes in teaching kids with the same needs as your child? Does your child have many interests? How about a school that brings in great teachers from around the country via video conferencing? Better yet, if your child goes to any of the other schools mentioned, how about those schools bringing in the best teachers in their focused area via video? How about sending your child to a school whose competitive advantage is small class sizes? How about a retired NASA scientist being able to teach students without a teaching degree? How about parents, who know their kids best, deciding what school is best for their child. It is not hard to imagine options and schools opening all over the place.

Why would so many schools open? Because there are greedy profiteers out there, and guess what. They have to deliver a quality service in the private sector. According to the 2007 census, the average cost per student in public schools was $9,000. Do you think for one second there wouldn’t be businesses competing for that $9,000 per pupil and driving the cost down? It happens in every other sector of our economy. Well, it does until the government gets jealous and decides to jump into the game.

While I’m sure the diehard statists can never imagine education without Uncle Sam forcing us into a one size fits none system, I hope some of you question your assumptions about our supposed need for public schools. Hopefully, when you hear politicians debating more funding for education, higher national standards, or any other top down school program, you will question it more deeply. You will ask why they would do that in the first place. How does that open up choices? Does not having choices provide better results? Who benefits from this?

Take the Red pill, and ask yourself, “If I could disregard all laws related to education, what would I choose for my child or for myself when I was a child? Would I send them to government schools, or would I send them to schools who must prove themselves in order to get my money?”

PS. Please ignore all spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. I learned those in public school.

Go figure! Business owners who create jobs everyday differ from our President, who never created or worked at a job that had a real economic value to it.

Businesses of all sizes are brimming with proposals they say would spur economic growth. The most commonly voiced are tax cuts and boosting access to credit

The White House, for its part, wants to discuss job growth in the clean-tech sector and shifting some stimulus spending to infrastructure projects. Obama aides are also eyeing a limited range of incentives for small businesses to create jobs.

Business want tax cuts without spending cuts, and Obama wants more government spending. Wonder why gold keeps going up? If businesses weren’t looking for handouts, they’d be asking for the government to get the hell out of the economy and quit “boosting access to credit”. It’s the boosting of access to credit that created the bubble that just burst and now leaves them in the predicament they are in. We really cannot expect any better from Obama than more government spending. He believes all life’s value comes from the hand of government. Besides, the media has told him repeatedly how smart his is. “He’s possibly the most intellectual President we’ve ever had.”

Another point of contention: A number of chief executives say the government should clear up uncertainty over health care, energy prices and financial regulations. “Companies large and small are saying, ‘I am not going to do anything until these things — health care, climate legislation — go away or are resolved,’ ” said Dan DiMicco, chief executive of steelmaker Nucor Corp.

Who didn’t know that government medaling is causing businesses to stand still? How about government drop all this stuff, so businesses can get back to what they do best, which is creating economic value.

“Hiring often takes time to catch up to economic growth,” said Valerie Jarrett, an adviser on business issues to President Barack Obama.

Thanks Commissar Jarrett! When will we have economic growth?

Among those invited are the chief executives of Boeing Co., AT&T Inc. and FedEx Corp., along with the heads of many smaller companies.

Oh boy. I’m sure these big companies will not ask for government money. Do they bring their own money jars, or does Obama hand them out at the door?

For small businesses, the No. 1 issue is credit, which remains tight despite the billions spent by the government helping ailing banks.

Yeah, but just imagine how much worse things would be if we didn’t give almost $1 trillion to Obama’s buddies. Right! We bailed out Wall Street in order to bail out Main Street. I don’t think credit is going to make a dimes worth a difference when you have the Federal governments foot pressed firmly down on your neck. Again, easy credit lead to this mess. Expanding credit will not fix the problem. It will just setup the next bubble followed by more disaster down the future. Then again! The government can step in and take more control when the next bubble bursts.

Ron DeFeo, CEO of Terex Corp., a maker of heavy construction equipment, said tight credit is hurting his customers. “Small businesses are having a tough time capitalizing any piece of equipment.” Terex has laid off 4,000 people over the past 15 months. Mr. DeFeo said he would “hire 100 people right now” if the government offset a portion of the new hires’ salary with tax incentives.

via White House, Business Leaders Split on How to Create Jobs – WSJ.com.

Is this supposed to be a reason to go more in debt? This guy says he’d hire 100 people right now if the government would give him more money? That simply means the employees can’t produce enough value to justify paying them. The only way they can justify paying them is with a government subsidy. While I am all for getting rid of taxes, just saying I’ll hire with tax incentives is ridiculous. What he is saying is all the other average Joes out there should give him money so he can make those jobs justifiable. I wonder if this guy pays for health benefits. Would dropping health benefits provide enough to justify the positions? Has he looked into HSA for his employees? Does he have ancient equipment that makes employees less productive, thus making it harder to justify paying them? Who knows. The point is we should not just hand out money to anyone to justify creating jobs. We don’t know if the jobs are worth creating.

If you want real job creation, the government needs to get out of job creation. The free market when left alone creates good jobs for everyone. The jobs are long term, because they can justify themselves. If a job generates profits, it’s justified. If it cannot, it should not be created. If the government would get out of health care, corporate welfare, entitlement programs, environmental frauds, etc, the cost of each job would go down. Guess what happens? Many more jobs then become justifiable, and then they are created.