THE ENTERPRISE--A Summertime Assortment
Since summertime is time for fun and families, this weekend brings our two grandsons to town (with their Mom). We'll be spending time together, and THE ENTERPRISE will be an assortment of bits and pieces I've assembled that hopefully will be interesting and useful. Enjoy the summer--it's half over already!
A FRIGHTENING THOUGHT ON CURRENT POLITICAL ISSUES
Electing Democrats to fix the economy and balance the budget is like handing out cans of gasoline to fight a fire. The Do-Nothing Congress, Led by the Pelosi and Reid are threatening to set a new record for ineptness in government. TheIR 14% approval rating is even lower than their nemesis--George W. Bush!
WHO TO BLAME FOR $4/GAL. GAS--NOT WHO YOU THINK
Dems' Dereliction
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Energy Policy: Imagine an energy plan that does it all — from allowing more oil drilling to spending billions on alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and nuclear. Well, guess what? Been there, done that.
'Energy has enormous implications for our economy, our environment and our national security," President Bush said in proposing the plan. "We cannot let another year go by without addressing these issues together in a comprehensive and balanced package."
That was in June 2001 — more than seven years ago.
His words came just after he first proposed a comprehensive energy bill that included 105 separate steps the U.S. could take to boost its energy supplies. It was something he promised repeatedly while campaigning for the presidency in 2000. He kept his promise. His first plan included, among many other things:
• New drilling for more oil and gas and new refineries.
• Building of nuclear power plants.
• Revamping the U.S. electricity grid.
• $10 billion in tax breaks to help push energy efficiency and alternative energy.
The fact is, these are remarkably similar to the plans that economists, oil experts and energy wonks say need to be put in place today in order to end our oil crisis.
Yet, those proposals went nowhere — not approved in 2001, not in 2002, not in 2003, not ever. Bush tried repeatedly to get something through Congress. He pleaded. He tried to cut deals with Democrats. It didn't work.
A New York Times headline from August 20, 2003, sums it up: "Ambitious Bush Plan Is Undone by Energy Politics."
----------------------------
NOW YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
I assume you know about the latest outrageous (in)action by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat leadership in Congress. When Americans are canceling vacations because gasoline is over $4.00 per gallon, Democrats plan to adjourn work for a month-long vacation the first of August WITHOUT holding a vote to drill for American oil.
This is inexcusable. I hope you’ll agree with me that there should be no recess without voting on legislation that can help lower gas prices. No wonder the new Gallup Poll today that shows Congress’s approval rating has slipped to an all-time low of 14%. It’s not hard to figure out why. The Democrat Majority in Congress is putting their extremist ideology ahead of common-sense solutions to bring down the price of gas and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources in unstable regimes.
If you are as outraged as I am, I need you to do 2 things:
Send a strong message to Pelosi and the Democrat majority to vote now. Sign our online petition demanding Congress take immediate action to lower gas prices before taking their vacation. You can sign the petition by clicking on the following link --
http://www.nrcc.org/actioncenter/default.asp?ID=288 PLEASE DO IT NOW--DON'T WAIT!
Help us spread the word by forwarding this message and link to everyone on your email list!
I hope you will join the efforts to force the Democrat leadership to act on this immense problem--which goes way beyond gasoline prices, to our national security being at risk of being held hostage for energy by hostile nations. This is not only possible, but a clear and imminent danger. (But then of course the Democratic controlled Congress would go on vacation again before initiating diplomatic actions to talk about the problem with our enemies.)
----------------------
BY NOW, THIS ONE SHOULD MAKE YOU GRIMACE, NOT GRIN--BUT TAKE A LOOK ANYWAY
It's all about how Congress works--or rather--how it doesn't work.
http://www.unclejayexplains.com/2007/09/03/uncle-jay-explains-the-news-september-3-2007/
---------------------
THOMAS SOWELL SAYS IT ONLY TOO WELL--READ ON
Change Means Never Having To Face Facts
By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:30 PM PT
In an election campaign in which not only young liberals, but also some people who are neither young nor liberals, seem absolutely mesmerized by the skilled rhetoric of Barack Obama, facts have receded even further into the background than usual. As the hypnotic mantra of "change" is repeated endlessly, few people even raise the question of whether what few specifics we hear represent any real change, much less a change for the better.
Raising taxes, increasing government spending and demonizing business? That is straight out of the New Deal of the 1930s. The New Deal was new then but it is not new now. Moreover, increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that New Deal policies are what prolonged the Great Depression.
Putting new restrictions on international trade, in order to save American jobs? That was done by Herbert Hoover, who signed the Hawley-Smoot tariff when the unemployment rate was 9%. The next year the unemployment rate was 16% and, before the Great Depression was over, unemployment hit 25%.
One of the most naive notions is that politicians are trying to solve the country's problems, just because they say so — or say so loudly or inspiringly. Politicians' top priority is to solve their own problem, which is how to get elected and then re-elected. Barack Obama is a politician through and through, even though pretending that he is not is his special strategy to get elected.
Some of his more trusting followers are belatedly discovering that, as he "refines" his position on various issues, now that he has gotten their votes in the Democratic primaries and needs the votes of others in the coming general election.
Perhaps a defining moment in showing Sen. Obama's priorities was his declaring, in answer to a question from Charles Gibson, that he was for raising the capital gains tax rate. When Gibson reminded him of the well-documented fact that lower tax rates on capital gains had produced more actual revenue collected from that tax than the higher tax rates had, Obama was unmoved.
The question of how to raise more revenue may be the economic issue, but the political issue is whether socking it to "the rich" in the name of "fairness" gains more votes. Since about half the people in the United States own stocks — either directly or because their pension funds buy stocks — socking it to people who earn capital gains is by no means socking it just to "the rich." But, again, that is one of the many facts that don't matter politically. What matters politically is the image of coming out on the side of "the people" against "the privileged."
If you are a nurse or mechanic who will be depending on your pension to take care of you when you retire — as Social Security is unlikely to do — you may not think of yourself as one of the privileged. But unless you connect the dots between capital gains tax rates and your retirement income, you may fall under the spell of the well-honed Obama rhetoric.
Obama is for higher minimum wage rates. Does anyone care what actually happens in countries with higher minimum wage rates? Of course not. Economists may point to studies done in countries around the world, showing that higher minimum wage rates usually mean higher unemployment rates among lower-skilled and less-experienced workers. That's their problem. A politician's problem is how to look like he is for "the poor" and against those who are "exploiting" them. The facts are irrelevant to maintaining that political image.
Nowhere do facts matter less than in foreign policy issues. Nothing is more popular than the notion that you can deal with dangers from other nations by talking with their leaders. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain became enormously popular in the 1930s by sitting down and talking with Hitler, and announcing that their agreement had produced "peace in our time" — just one year before the most catastrophic war in history began.
Sen. Obama may gain similar popularity by advocating similar policies today — and his political popularity is what it's all about. The consequences for the country come later.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc
---------------------
THE AUDACITY OF ARROGANCE--FIRST THE "FAUX" PRESIDENTIAL SEAL, NOW THIS
Speaking at the Brandenburg Gate? For those of you who support him--aren't some of his recent moves causing just a few doubts? He is for Change--as long as he is the one who can change--his position whenever it's uncomfortable where he was. Typical of a rookie who's never felt the hardships and "heat of the kitchen." I never thought I'd cite Jesse Jackson, but even he can see through Obama's phony appeals (and said so with a "hot mike").
--------------------
SOME INTERESTING RESEARCH FROM A "BIG" RESEARCH FIRM NAMED--BIG RESEARCH!
Presidential Race Tightens in More Ways than One,
According to Latest BIGresearch Survey
Obama Has Slight Lead in Popularity but Losing Promoters
COLUMBUS, OH – (MARKET WIRE) – 7/15/08 – In the race for the White House, Barack Obama and John McCain are just about even, according to BIGresearch’s (http://www.bigresearch.com) July Consumer Intentions & Actions (CIA) survey of over 8,000 people. The candidates can use all the help they can get to make the move to Pennsylvania Avenue and it appears that a greater percentage of Republicans are willing to promote McCain than Democrats are Obama.
By using the Net Promoter® Score* (NPS), respondents were asked to rate, on a scale from 0 (Not at all likely) to 10 (Extremely likely), the probability they would recommend a candidate to a friend or coworker. 10 and 9 responses indicate Promoters, 8 and 7 responses are Passives and 0 through 6 are Detractors. NPS is calculated by subtracting the percentage of Detractors from the percentage of Promoters.
Even though they have a long way to go, McCain is picking up promoters and Obama is generally losing promoters. Here is a comparison of how each of the presidential candidates rank compared to the last three months according to their NPS among all consumers and by political party.
Obama McCain
April May June July April May June July
All -48.8% -51.3% -42.9% -44.6% -56.0% -58.9% -53.0% -47.6%
Democrats -13.4% -17.3% +1.6% +3.0 -82.2% -86.4% -83.0% -82.7%
Republicans -84.0% -85.0% -84.7% -87.1% -9.1% -10.0% -2.1% +11.4%
Independents -51.9% -57.0% -50.6% -53.4% -65.5% -69.9% -63.3% -58.9%
Source: BIGresearch, April 08 CIA (N=8180), May 08 CIA (N=8347), June 08 CIA (N=8351) & July 08 CIA (N=8361) *Net Promoter, NPS and Net Promoter Score are trademarks of Satmetrix Systems, Inc., Bain & Company, and Fred Reichheld
McCain’s score within his own party has increased thirteen and a half points to a double digit number (+11.4% v. -2.1% in June), indicating Republicans are getting the word out about their candidate. Obama’s score has increased only slightly within his party at about a point and a half (+3% v. +1.6% in June), demonstrating a need to ramp up grassroots efforts.
McCain has also gained some momentum among Independents; however, Obama’s score still remains higher.
Regarding which candidate people would vote for if the election were held today, it’s too close to call with Obama getting 37.8% v. McCain’s 36.8%. Independents appear to hold the key with almost one-third (31.8%) still undecided.
If the Presidential Election were held today, who would you vote for?
All Adults 18+ Republicans Democrats Independents
McCain 36.8% 74.7% 11.7% 29.0%
Obama 37.8% 7.8% 66.1% 33.8%
Undecided 20.7% 14.3% 18.6% 31.8%
Other 4.7% 3.2% 3.7% 5.5%
Source: BIGresearch, July 08 CIA (N=8361
ED. NOTE: BIG Research is a Columbus, OH based consumer research firm that uses large, pre-qualified panels of consumers, who they poll regularly on spending, shopping, attitudes, etc. Unless there is a built in bias because these people are "regular respondents," this is a large, demographically neutral sample--which is a good indicator of the population in general.
-------------------------
That's all for this week. Getting things out a day or two early, to make more fun time this weekend. Keep your eyes and ears open. These are important and interesting times.
Remember, it's not doing the right thing that's hard. It's knowing the right thing to do. Once you know the right thing to do, it's hard not to do it.
Best, John
Comments