THE ENTERPRISE--SIMPLE CHOICES--WHY WORRY?

THE ENTERPRISE--SIMPLE CHOICES--WHY WORRY?

WAL-MART KNOCKS OFF NIKE'S "SHOX" SHOES
Nike sues for patent infringement.  I hope they win.  Adidas won against the parent of Payless Shoe Source recently.  The only way to keep these retail bullies from stealing ideas is to fight them.  Only a few companies can fight them because the others rely on them for too much of their sales revenue.  Go get 'em Nike!

GM IS PUTTING HUMMER UP FOR SALE; CONSIDERING A MERGER WITH CHRYSLER
Finally?  DUH.  For every smart thing GM does, it does a dumb one.  Maybe the Chrysler merger is a good idea.  It will allow only one bankruptcy filing in a couple of years instead of two.  Algebraic principle:  add to large negative numbers and the result is an even larger negative number.  Or alternatively, put two sick people in a bed together and hope to get one well person out of the bed.  Mergers almost never create lasting shareholder value.  This one is a joke--or a desperation move by both GM and Cerberus (who owns most of Chrysler).  (Merge Hummer with Jeep--that makes sense at least.)

IF YOU THINK THINGS ARE BAD NOW, HOPE WE DON'T FLIP INTO DEFLATION--THAT WILL BE WORSE
Back in 1999 I wrote a column about the immense challenges of managing in a deflationary environment.  Deflation is a different and dangerous phenomenon.  One of its causes can be massive global over-capacity, which drives prices down regardless of monetary policy.  Another cause can be plenty of capacity, combined with a collapse in demand--the situation we are facing right now.  This cause feeds on itself. With inflation expected, there is a motivation to buy before prices go higher.  When facing deflation, the assumption that prices will be lower in the future causes postponed buying and fuels the collapse in demand.  Over and over the "death spiral" continues.  Reversing deflationary direction requires tremendous effort and discipline.  Let's hope it doesn't become necessary.

WHY AM I STILL WORRIED ABOUT THE ELECTION?
I saw the choice clearly during the last debate.  The intensely determined reformer--the old soldier/patriot trying to right America's wrongs  vs. the articulate slick, young, (black) celebrity, populist politician with a new idea for everything.  I watched the entire debate and it's obvious: Obama has the answer to everything.  How could I be so naive to doubt that?  And if something happens to him, we have Joe Biden.  But Obama is different from Biden--as different as night and day. Biden is very experienced--but as old as McCain.  Obama is startlingly inexperienced--like Sarah Palin.  Before Biden was Obama's running mate, he clearly stated that  Obama was unfit to be president. Maybe he got that one right. 

Obama has a superb command of the facts and his planned programs--which is remarkable given the fluidity with which they change.  He just uses a slightly different vocabulary than most of us.  "Fairness" and "spreading the wealth" means taking money from Americans who have earned it and giving it to those who never have, and will not.  They can rely on Obama's "95% of the people will get a tax cut!" program.  Never mind that 35% of the people never pay taxes at all--so the so called tax cut is simply a new form of welfare.  "And words matter."

John McCain is a feisty old bugger.  He clearly stated it the other night--"I'm not George Bush.  If you wanted to run against Bush, you missed your chance 4 years ago."  He reacts strongly to things because he feels strongly about things.  Obama is the king of cool.  He opines, explains and rationalizes so well, that if you don't listen too closely, it all hangs together. If something happens to McCain, we get an inexperienced  young reformer, Sarah Palin, (but we saw that TV show already--starring Geena Davis in almost exactly that scenario;  It only ran for a season, but there it was.)

SO, WHY AM I CONCERNED
Goodness, why am I so worried?  Obama is moving to the center.  They said it on CNN last night--so it must be true.   He will no longer act like the most liberal voting Senator, or the liberal Chicago advocate for handouts--even when the people he works with and the organizations he aligns with are of questionable character.

SO,  WHY AM I TROUBLED?
Perhaps it has to do with truthfulness, veracity, character, integrity and being a man of your word.  Those are desirable traits in a prospective president, right?  Why am I troubled?

MAYBE  IT'S BECAUSE I CAN'T PIN HIM DOWN BASED ON HIS "WORD" OR HIS EXPLANATIONS?
    Broken Promise #1--Town Hall meetings: Obama says "Any time, any place.."  Until he's the candidate of his party and then it's no time, no place.   When in his life has Obama shown his mettle under the fire of real conflict.  The closest I can think of was tussling with Hillary Clinton--not quite the same level of pressure as Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez and al Qaeda or the Taliban.  But maybe he didn't renege on his promise.  He just "changed his mind."
    Broken Promise #2--Campaign funding:  Obama is all for committing to the government funded campaign limits on spending--until his fund raising blows past it by a couple of orders of magnitude.  Then he decides, "no, I won't do that."  In the process of spending $250 million or more--about three times what McCain will spend, the question comes to mind.  Can you "buy an election?"  Maybe.
    Questionable Association #1--Tony Rezko might have just been a good samaritan, in helping Obama get the house he wanted at a more affordable price.  But wait, didn't Rezko subsidize about $300,000 of value difference?  In return for what?  Goodwill?  Now that we know Rezko is a convicted criminal--it makes you wonder about that kind of "association"--doesn't it--just a little?
    Questionable Association #2--Rev. Wright is off limits per John McCain (who does keep his word).  But Obama did attend his church for 20 years, considered him a spiritual leader (named early in his campaign as that), and somehow in 20 years, he never heard ... or was influenced by...  any of Wright's racist extremist preaching.  That's really hard to believe--isn't it?  But it's just a little lie, perhaps.
    Questionable Association #3--Bill Ayers is ancient history--a bad actor from the past--isn't he?  "He was just a guy in my neighborhood."  "I was only 8 years old when he was a terrorist," like radical beliefs and lawless behavior is something you get over, like the flu.  Then, after further thought, "I thought he was rehabilitated," says Obama.  "And many distinguished Chicagoans, including several Republican CEOs served on that board with him like I did."   I grew up with the belief "that you can judge the character of a person by the company he keeps."  But Ok, maybe none of it rubbed off.
    Questionable Association #4--ACORN, the organization now under extreme legal scrutiny for election fraud was one of Obama's early affiliations.  Perhaps when he was involved, its purposes were noble--and didn't involved stealing votes or an election (but in Chicago?)  Now he distances himself from them, but his campaign recently gave them a large amount of money for a vaguely described set of services.  Maybe there is no illicit connection--any more.  But can a large, well-funded organization help steal the necessary votes that campaign spending can't buy?
    Worrisome Point #1--Obama's Inexperience IS an issue.  Obama has now been campaigning to be president longer than he served in the US Senate before declaring his intention to run.   He has no "record" to fault.  He either did nothing, or did things so "safe" (like voting "present" instead of "yea or nay"), or jumping on the bandwagon for bills that virtually no one could oppose.  The largest organization he ever led was 28 members of the Harvard Law Review staff.  But maybe "judgement" trumps experience in this case.
    Worrisome Point #2--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew who to support while pushing loans that have proven to be criminally irresponsible:  Chris Dodd, Barney Franks, Chuck Schumer AND Barack Obama.  What's a freshman Senator doing in with that bunch of veteran "fund raisers?"  The fact that Obama received the second most donations ($300,000?) makes you wonder what his role was--doesn't it--just a little bit.
    Worrisome Point #3--Obama's wife, Michelle  is a militant, smart and aggressive young black woman--who will have his ear at every important point if he is elected.  Her thesis, her remarks (before the campaign shut her up) and even her demeanor reveals what she things and feels.   Watch her and form your own opinions--if the campaign ever lets her out again--she's been better sequestered than Sarah Palin's early days.
    Worrisome Point #4--Government is the solution, and "fairness" is the excuse.  Every program Obama cites is a government run, funded and controlled program.  Quick:  name all the programs the government runs that work really well.  Stop when you get to 5 or 10.  Got it?  Right.  It's a short list--very short.

MY MOTHER ALWAYS TOLD ME:
"You can judge the character of a person by the company he keeps." AND   "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

Put Obama in the White House and you will get:

• New taxes with creative names, to take money from those who earn it and spend it on government programs for those who don't.  The high tax rates will go higher, and taxes on "business" will simply trickle down through pricing to be a de facto tax on all American consumers.  Leopards don't change their spots; they just use their natural camouflage to lay in hiding until it's time to pounce.
• New Supreme Court Justices who are "sensitive to the needs of all Americans," which means who will interpret the law as they wish, not as the Constitution states it.
• A whole cadre of new Judges who will "legislate from the bench" to alter the laws they don't like, regardless of what the Constitution says.
• New labor laws like The Employee Free Choice Act, which will allow organizers to coerce workers into signing cards, getting a union, and new NLRB members who sympathize with unions; then jobs will flow out of the USA faster than oil money is leaving now.
• A host of new "stimulus packages" designed to use tax money to help jump start the economy, with little or now responsible oversight.
• A raft of new anti-business legislation aimed at the crooks on Wall Street, but which will hit all American businesses and worsen an already tenuous competitive position.  Higher taxes will be an open invitation to foreign competition.
• Protectionism--because once you have weakened business' ability to compete, then it is necessary to protect it from foreign competition.  Export markets will close fast--in retaliation to the US protectionist policies, (Check history--we've been there, done that.) further damaging American business and speeding its exodus.
• Conciliation and feel-good discussions with America's enemies which will leave them publicly singing Obama's praises, while private laughing behind his back at his naivete and weakness.
• Numerous Televised speeches proclaiming victory in all sorts of initiatives while sucking the life blood out of the capitalistic, free enterprise system that makes America the most prosperous country in the world.

AFTER I WROTE THE ABOVE, THIS EDITORIAL RAN IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

A Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.
©THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Oct. 17, 2008

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
[Review & Outlook] AP

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
[Review & Outlook]

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
----------------------

SO WHY AM I STILL CONCERNED?
I actually like some of Obama's ideas.  His education plans are not bad.  His health care plan has flaws, but somewhere between his and McCain's there is probably a good middle ground.    Obama is probably intellectually smarter than McCain.  He's certainly more articulate.  He's also very well connected--especially to money.  He beat the Clinton machine--which is no small task.  I worry about McCain.  I worry about his age, and his often reactionary and one-dimensional solutions, and I worry about Sarah Palin's inexperience too (just as I worry about Obama's equal inexperience)  The Presidency of the USA is no place for OJT! (That's On The Job training)

WHY WORRY?  YOU BUY A ELECTION ... OR STEAL IT... OR LET THEM MAINSTREAM MEDIA "ANOINT" YOU?
Ironically, Barack Obama is poised to win the election one way or another.  His campaign spending will allow him to "buy the election," just as advertising spending can overwhelm a competitor with an equal or superior product--for a while.  The mainstream media so favors Obama that it may "award him" the election.  Even if he didn't have $250-300 million to spend on advertising, they'd support him and keep him on the air    Who ever heard of a candidate buying 30 MINUTE spots on major TV networks to "speak the the American people?  That is almost obscene.  Where Obama can't "buy the election," ACORN is working to help him "steal it"--or at least try to.

WHAT ELSE SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT?
McCain's age; his health; his fiestiness; Sara Palin's inexperience (no worse than Obama's but still a thin resume).
The economic malaise and credit crisis brought on by irresponsible lending/borrowing and total failure of any oversight. 
The impending recession and its effects on all Americans.
The over-stressed US military and the chaotic geopolitical military scene--Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, Lebanon/Syria, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and even China.
Our under protected borders and ports; and our dysfunctional immigration system overall.
The failures in educational systems, particularly primary and secondary.
The convoluted, inefficient health care system and the ultimate unfunded economic problem, Medicare/Medicaid.
The difficulty just running clean reliable elections.
The incredibly inefficient, complex and overgrown tax code.
The desire of all Americans to have rights, but so many unwilling to accept the responsibilities that go with those rights.

I am worried because I think this election ALSO comes down to a very simple question:  WHAT KIND OF CHANGE DO YOU WANT--AND HOW MUCH RISK ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE TO GET IT?

DO YOU WANT AN INTELLIGENT, ARTICULATE, YOUNG, UNQUALIFIED, (BLACK) MAN WITH ALL SORTS OF QUESTIONABLE TIES IN HIS PAST; A CLEAR "TAX  & SPEND" LIBERAL RECORD AND A SET OF BELIEFS AND THEORIES WHICH SOUND GREAT IN SPEECHES AND ON PAPER--BUT ARE BOTH UNTRIED, UNPROVEN AND POTENTIALLY DEVASTATING TO THE USA--ESPECIALLY WHEN COMBINED WITH A DEMOCRATICALLY DOMINATED CONGRESS?  (THAT IS A FORMULA FOR A REAL MESS!)

OR

DO YOU WANT AN EXPERIENCED, BUT CRUSTY (OLD) WAR HERO WHO HAS BEEN WILLING TO STAND UP FOR AMERICA AGAINST ITS ENEMIES, AND WILLING TO STAND UP IN GOVERNMENT AGAINST MISGUIDED COLLEAGUES BOTH IN CONGRESS REGARDLESS OF THEIR PARTY (AND INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT), STRIVING TO BRING FISCAL SANITY AND ADULT RESPONSIBILITY BACK TO WASHINGTON?

ADVICE TO READERS WHO WANT TO HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Find everyone you know and encourage, beg, plead with them to vote Republican for every Senate or Congressional race they vote in.  A Democratically dominated Congress combined with Obama in the White House will spell trouble for all Americans.  It's just that most of them don't think enough or dig deeply enough to understand that.  But then $300 million of TV ads and the massive support of the biased mainstream media can convince Americans of almost anything--why now how our country should be run.

Not the best,
John