Oh Noes! The Scary Claritan-D!

I'm annoyed. I mean, really, really annoyed. Mainly at the idiots that we call state Representatives and Senators. I'll include Governor Barbour in there just for good measure.

Why am I so annoyed? What has gotten my proverbial panties in a bunch you may ask?

Well, it's like this, both the Mississippi Senate and the Mississippi House has passed a bill designed to restrict psuedoephedrine sells to require a prescription. Which means that now to continue with my daily dosage of Clariton D I will need to spend additional money to go to the doctor's office and get a prescription.

This is insane for a number of reasons, among them, and just right off the top of my head:

1. Medicare Costs & Doctor Rationing
   
2. Lessens Quality of Life
3. Unintended Economic Consequencees

None of those things make me happy, and let's look at the reasons why...

Medicare costs & Doctor Rationing. Remember, this bill will require thousands of people to go visit the doctor. Everyone who takes Claritan-D on a daily basis will need to do so. Then anyone who is allergic to phenylephrine will need to visit the doctor whenever they get sick or get a stuffy nose due to the changing season. Medicare costs associated with all these additional doctor visits will skyrocket. The Medicare/Medicaid program here in Mississippi is already taxed to the breaking point. This bill will add thousands of visits to the system per year, and we already don't have the money in our tax coffers to pay for all of the entitlement services that the State provides.

Then there is also the fact that a doctor can only see so many patients in a given day. When a doctor gets innudated with demands to see him just so people can get another year's worth of Claritan-D, that means that that same doctor has less time to see people who are truly sick.

Quality of Life. The thing is that I need this particular drug for my quality of life. If I don't have it, I'm quickly reduced to a phlegm filled monstrosity that is constantly hacking, snuffling and ultimately I have to go to the doctor for a Z-Pack because the crud in my chest and nose has turned into pneumonia. After the Z-Pack does its thing, I'm okay for two weeks, and then we repeat the process. This is how I lived for the first 18 months that I lived in Mississippi. I had more Z-Packs and shots in the posterior to combat pneumonia infections in those 18 months, than in the entire 30 year span prior to moving.

That stopped once I got myself on a daily Claritan-D regiment.

This is what the government is basically saying that they want me to go back to. It's either that or take hours out of my day to wait around at the doctors office to get them to give me a prescription.

Which leads to the third point I made up there about...

Unintended Economic Consequences. This whole thing is an effort to combat a "meth problem," and truthfully, there are areas in this state that has one. In fact in Jackson in 2009, there were more arrests concerning meth, than any other drug.

The thing is that, this is not going to change one thing, and the reason for that is the Law of Scarcity. This law is based upon two propositions:

1. Man has unlimited or insatiable wants, and
2. Resources that are used to produce goods and services are limited.

I'm not going into some huge lecture on Supply and Demand, as frankly, economics is not my specialty. I took enough courses on it in college to be able to deal with it, and know the fundamentals, but I don't particularly like it. But the basics is that the more scarce a product is, the more and higher the cost to sell. Since the production costs will not necessarily change, that means that there will be a higher profit margin for those still willing to create this particular drug.

Anyways, I want you to think about scarcity.

Think about it and especially in relation to Prohibition (or The Noble Experiment). When the government tried to limit the creation and sale of alcohol, what happened? It went underground, and was still made and sold, but the selling involved bullets, a violent black market, racketeering, corrupted law officials, and of course, high profits. The Mafia made huge profits on liquor until Prohibition was ended, and cheap, legal access to it, stripped them of their profits in that particular venue.

During Prohibition, liquor was SCARCE, therefore it could be sold at a high price despite being cheap to make, therefore it was worthwhile for those willing to break laws to produce it, to produce it.

Which sounds amazingly like the illegal drug trade here in the States today.

But I digress, by making the a single ingredient in the production of meth even more scarce, you're creating an environment, where the creation of meth becomes even more economically viable for those willing to break the law to create it.

Also, consider that pseudoephedrine is technically not a REQUIRED ingredient to meth. It's used because it's a cheap alternative, with a chemical similarity to the "actual ingredient." Additionally, the ingredients that can be used, are wide and varied. It's the reason so many people have taken to make it, the formula can use a host of different items, so long as they are chemically similar, and compatible to the end result.

So, are all these other ingredients being tracked and required a doctor's notice to purchase? Why just the one that is most useful to our health? Iodine and salt are also ingredients, why aren't those schedule 1 narcotics? Should we need a note from a licensed painter in order to purchase paint thinner (again, a meth ingredient) or acetone?

We must always remember something, every time the government acts to create new restrictions on us:

Limits on our freedoms, only works on those unwilling to break the law in the first place.

It is the same fundamental reason that "gun control" and airport "security measures" will never work. They are based on the delusion concept that additional laws will keep someone from breaking the law.

And life just does not work that way.

A Sad, Sad Day

Well, Thursday evening was, at the “Cap-And-Trade” bill was passed in the House.  What is saddest is that there were 8 so-called Conservatives (at least they get a little “R” next to their name) who voted FOR this bill.

Those Republican Representatives are:

• Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
• Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
• Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385
• Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
• LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
• McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
• Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
• Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

Now, one may wonder why it is that I despise this particularly bill. After all, the Democrats promise us that it’s ever-so-important in regards to the environment.

What the Dims don’t want you to know, is that this bill will be responsible for raising that cost of energy by thousands of dollars.  And that price tag is even before you factor in the jobs that will be lost, and the 1.6 Trillion dollar price tag attached.

In effect this is a massive tax on every person in this country.

But of course the Liberals don’t want THAT to be the sound bite. They tell everyone that the Businesses pick up the bill. That the “Cap and Trade” in question here are just fines and fees levied against businesses.

But that belays the most obvious thing that any business owner will tell you:

 Businesses do not pay taxes.

It’s simple. They don’t. They never have, and they never will. Anything that comes their way that is labeled as a tax or a fee or a fine, is merely passed onto the consumer. It’s part of the price that you pay for any good or service.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or ignorant. Or both.

But it gets better, those folks who know these things—and I’m including the greenies here –state that this bill will influence the environment by less than 1/10th of a degree in 50 years.

Yes, our “fair” leaders have seen fit to saddle us with massive debt, a program which encourages the wasteful spending of states such as California, and passes that burden onto more fiscally conservative states (such as Indiana) and one which seems to be designed to drive businesses overseas.

They will be driven to counties which produce more “greenhouse” gases than we do, and by driving our businesses to them, they will see no real reason to stop producing the gasses which get an environmentalist’s panties into such a bunch.

In fact, this is what the Heritage Foundation has defined as the end result of this bill if it manages to pass the Senate:

• Compared to no cap and trade, real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the original draft to $9.6 trillion under the new draft;
• Compared to no cap and trade, average unemployment increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the original draft to 1,105,000 lost jobs under the new draft; and
• Peak-year unemployment losses rise by 500,000 jobs, from 2 million under the original draft to 2.5 million under the new draft.

By 2035 the bill will:

• Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion;
• Destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
• Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
• Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent;
• Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
• Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,241; and
• Result in an increase of $28,728 in additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation

Why anyone thought this was a good idea is beyond me, but I guess that’s why I’m a Conservative.

The Taxman Cometh

And apparently he's bringing friends.

In an, at least to me, un-amazing move, numerous state, county and even city governments are dreaming up hundreds of ways in which to tax you their constituent.

Here in Mississippi there is talk of both a new cigarette tax, and a new healthcare tax, all in an effort to keep from having to raise the taxes on automobiles.

And Mississippi is not alone in these things. States and municipalities across the nation are taxing everything from tobacco products to strip clubs. And this is even before the trillions in new taxes which Obama's budget promises to crush us with.

The new law of the land seems to be "if it exists, then it can be taxed."

Every tax that's being proposed, has the sole effect of hurting a business, investor or the population in general (don't believe me? check that budget again, there's a cap-and-trade tax which will raise electric rates).

Yet our elected officials seem oblivious to the simple fact that rather than raising taxes, why don't we cut out the pointless, duplicated and un-needed government programs.

Do we need a Federal Department of Education, when traditionally, education is a LOCAL matter, and we elect superintendents on a per-county basis? No!

Do we need huge swatches of income taken from people, under duress and threat of imprisonment, and have that money be given to other people in wealth redistribution schemes? No!

Do we need a special police force dedicated to alcohol, tobacco and firearms? No!

Do we need state police forces, when each county has a sheriff's office, and most towns a police department? No!

Our governments are big, lumbering bureaucracies in this day and age. This is a bad thing. It is an evil thing, and as such needs to go away.

Now, I'm not encouraging anarchy, but I am encouraging a small, streamlined government presence, with a focus on personal liberty.

After all, that's what the Constitution promises us.

I Wish Today's News Was All Just an April Fool's Day Joke...

I like GM cars. And in fact a majority of the vehicles that I have owned over the years are GM vehicles. So, it saddens me to see them in such dire straights, but such is life in a free-market economy like ours.

At least it was until the Government got into the business of handing out billions of dollars in an effort to shore up bad business decisions.

And much to my dismay, my beloved GM was one of the companies who went begging. Of course they are paying for it now. There are reports that the White House is planning on "reorganizing" the GM board of directors in an effort to make GM continue dancing to the tune it sets.

Not that surprising of a move after the shenanigans that the Treasury Secretary pulled while trying to get the power to seize random businesses and place them into the public domain.

But IT GETS BETTER!

After all the hoopla and the insane tax plans to tax bonuses at nearly 90%, it comes to light that members of Congress handed out 9.1 Million dollars in bonuses.

I wonder if those bonuses are going to be taxed at 90%, after all, that's TAXPAYER MONEY that those dirty Congressional aides cum thieves are receiving. How dare they take that taxpayer money?

Of course, not all the news out there is bad. Walter Williams has a great article up, describing the fallacy of Liberal policy, and points clearly to what is wrong with our society today.

Fundamentally, he proposes two questions which should be answered with a "yes" or a "no" and then defines why he answers the way he does, and also why Liberals (especially Liberal professors and politicians) would try to expound, and explain away their "maybe" answer. Those questions are:

Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?

Good questions. I have to say "no" to both. Now, if only more folks saw it that way, maybe my tax money wouldn't be used for Corporate and Personal bailouts.

Taking Your Business, By Duress

I'm aghast. Utterly, and truly, mind-numbed beyond belief. I have now read something which utterly scares me.

Odd how that seems to happen with more and more frequency these days, eh?

So, what has gotten my proverbial panties in a bunch (does "this time" need to be added?)?

Well, it's Treasury Secretary Geithner, who happens to be Obama's lapdog employee in matters relating to finances and the economy. What's happened is that on Tuesday he went before Congress and "requested" the ability to seize non-bank financial firms (as an aside, the non-political FDIC can seize banks). This power he would then exercise via consultation with the Fed and the President.

So basically, what this guy wants is the ability to nationalize any organization that strikes his fancy.

And how exactly is this not socialism?

Amusingly, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has apparently jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon and started questioning him on just what part of the Constitution allowed for this, and other actions that have been taken since March of 2008, to occur.

Of course, he was only able to point at Congress since no one in the White House is quite certain just what the Constitution says. After all, they had quite a bit of fun rewriting/interpreting the second and fourth amendments (as an aside, as of today (3/25) that bad wording is still up at WhiteHouse.gov site).

This is why our nation is failing. This is why we need major reforms of our laws. This is why we need to go back to our roots and shrink this over-bloated monstrosity which we call a Federal Government.

When the government begins to take the stance that it is all right for it to randomly, and unilateraly take private possessions then you know something is amiss. You know that our freedoms and our liberty are once again curtailed and will suffer.

Additionally, wasn't one of Obama's "promises" to do away with the whole lobby construct? How exactly would this help that? What this does is forces non-bank financial corporations to PUSH money at those they beleive will be in power in order to buy good will so that their business won't be seized by government fiat.

Don't believe me? Then how about this, we know that Chris Dodd is the Senator responsible for ensuring that those $160 Million in bonuses (out of the $107,000 Million in federal "bailout" funds) at AIG were allowed legally. Guess who got the most campaign contributions from AIG?

Here's a hint, it wasn't Ron Paul. Heck, it wasn't even Barney Frank this time.

This is the environment which the Obama administration is creating. Strong-arm tactics designed to force companies to do the will of the administration -- or risk your entire company being TAKEN from you.

Finally, once the government has this power in the hands of the Treasury Secretary what is stopping them from putting it into the hands of the Energy Secretary or the Commerce Secretary? It's a very small step from the government grabbing "non-bank financial companies" to the government grabbing "companies."

We've seen it in Public Domain seizures. Traditionally, properties were only grabbed in Public Domain for roads or schools or other government needs. Today, thanks to the Courts, Public Domain is utilized to seize property so that it can be given to private investors.

Now, imagine this scenario. Say, someone owns and runs a small non-bank financial firm. Now, imagine that AIG has been trying to purchase this firm, but offering a pittance as opposed to a true valuation of the company's worth. Since we know that AIG can buy Senator Dodd in the matter of bonuses, it's not a small step to seem them buying a Secrertary and having this small firm seized, and then given over to AIG, much the same way that Public Domain works today.

Now imagine that being the case for any business anywhere.

With this power, the government will utterly own every aspect of our lives. Everything we have or do, will be at the whims of the government. We will be slaves to this massive monstrosity which is Federal Socialism. Consider the following:

• We rent our land from the government (since we're forced under duress to pay property taxes or be evicted from said land) despite any type of ownership claims
• The government can claim said land, and give it to any organization as they see fit via Public Domain
• The government can seize your finances or non-land property on the suspicision of drug activity thanks to the "War on Drugs" (unless you happen to be a current or former Congressman)
  
• The government seizes your income (and the more you make, the more they take) to redistribute it as the government sees fit
  
• If this new power is given to the Administration, the government can seize any business, and all businesses will run at the whim of the government rather than market forces
  

This is the "Land of the Free" which our forefathers shed their blood and tears for. This is the land which our forefathers threw tea into Boston harbor for.

If only it still was.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

Oh Noes! It's a Bonus!

The American Tax-paying public, and the bottom-feeders that force said public to fund their exorbitant lifestyle, are in a bit of a furor. Mainly, AIG, one of those recipients of the bad-idea called kickbacksa bailout, is paying its top executives, and other important employees millions of dollars in bonuses.

These are bonuses that AIG has had in place for months; long before that last $30 million.

My surprise is that anyone is surprised at this?

These bonuses are paid to those employees who figure out ways to bring money into the company. And someone had the brilliant idea that the government would float them. Regardless of whether or not they SHOULD be floated.

Because let's be serious, they shouldn't have been.

They should have been forced to go through the bankruptcy system, and have their top management stripped and their organization and debt reorganized.

Instead, top management is more entrenched than ever, and they now have proof that the government will cover any bad, or risky, behavior they take on behalf of the company.

When will those... morons? idiots? No, those aren't the right words; the comparison is insulting to morons and idiots. Ah, when will those politicians realize that the best government is the one which governs least.

Let businesses that need to fail, fail. It's the entire point of the bankruptcy court system.

And above that, remove government influences from market places as much as possible. The less there, the better.

Need another example (besides the perfectly justified AIG bonuses of taxpayer money)?

Then, let's look at the small-car industry. These are those "fuel-efficient" ugly atrocities which no one really wants to own. At least not while gas is reasonably priced. Yet government is forcing the auto manufacturers to create these cars, and what's happening is that they're sitting on car lots and just not selling.

So what is the "recommendation" by the car dealers and manufacturers? Raise taxes on gas pushing the price to a minimum of $4 per gallon. Despite the fact that such a price hike would finish destroying the economy, doesn't anyone see the idiocy of forcing taxes to move products?

Why not build cars that people want to drive and sell those? Oh yes, I forget, the government imposes regulations on the manufacturers.

See the vicious cycle?

Too bad there's not more Ron Paul's up there in Washington to break it...

The New Legal

What is the definition of a criminal? When does someone become a part of a criminal conspiracy? These are important questions, and we need the answers today--because some of our lawmakers are flouting the edges.

For the record, a criminal is someone who commits a crime, or has been legally convicted of committing a crime.

The second part of the question, is even easier to understand. According to law, a criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to engage in a course of conduct which is itself a criminal offense.

Now, let's play a role-playing game. Say, you own two houses, and being the good steward of your property, you put up one of those houses as a rental unit. After all, you can't live in two houses, and by making the second a rental unit, you gain income, provide housing for someone, and ensure that the house does not become run down and/or decrepit.

Now, imagine said renter decides that they don't want to pay. They just want to live in your house, free of charge, while you pay the mortgage. What does one do?

Well, you evict the renter of course. Toss them out, and get a new renter. It's a standard procedure, and one should not feel bad about it. I mean, you had a contract that clearly stated that you allowed them to stay within your property for a certain sum of cash on a monthly basis. And that contract clearly had provisions for what happens when one does not pay.

Now, what would you do, if a City Commissioner told every person who decides to not pay their rent, that they should, "stay in their homes. That if anyone is being evicted, then don't leave."

And what if a "community service" organization then made plans to ignore eviction notices, and to forcefully keep an individual within the property.

At what point, do you worry that maybe, just maybe, this dead-beat renter who refuses to pay his agreed upon rental amount, intends to just keep your second house.

Would you care at all? Or would you use the Sheriff's office to enforce the law, and remain in control of the property you own?

I know what I would do.

Now, I used houses there, but in truth, the concept can be applied to any property. You have a car that you rent out, or maybe a TV or a computer. The thing is that one person is in blatant violation of the agreement, and intends to take your property for their own.

It is theft. Pure and simple, and without any other possible interpretation.

If you agree, keep reading. If you don't, I feel sorry for you that you believe it is okay that someone can take what does not belong to them by force.

Now, what would you say, if I told you that that little role-playing, was 100% real?

What would you say, if I told you that a Congressman is encouraging the American population to break the law, and in effect attempt to steal homes?

Because, guess what, it's real.

Representative Marcy Kaptur, on the floor of the House, said this:

What I am telling people right now is, stay in your homes. If the American people, anybody out there is being foreclosed, don't leave, because I will tell you what. If you had a smart lawyer like those banks up there on Wall Street can get, they would take you into court and they couldn't find the mortgage. They couldn't find the mortgage.
So why should any American citizen be kicked out of their homes in this cold weather? In Ohio it is going to be 10 or 20 below zero. Don't leave your home.

Because you know what? When those companies say they have your mortgage, unless you have a lawyer that can put his or her finger on that mortgage, you don't have that mortgage, and you are going to find they can't find the paper up there on Wall Street.

So I say to the American people, you be squatters in your own homes. Don't you leave. In Ohio and Michigan and Indiana and Illinois and all these other places our people are being treated like chattel, and this Congress is stymied. We have the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and our committees are muzzled. Power is given to one chairman or one person.

...

So I say to the American people, stay in your homes. You have earned them. And don't you get out until you get a really good lawyer who can find your mortgage up there on Wall Street. Because, you know what? They won't be able to find it, and therefore they can't prove you should be evicted.

Think about it. Sure, it's a sad thing that all these folks are facing foreclosure, but whose fault is it? Who signed the loan--which is a legally binding contract? And it's not like they couldn't declare bankruptcy.

But instead, we have this Congressman who is encouraging the populace to break the law, and ignore the legal rights of the mortgage holder. Because let's not forget the simple fact that a person does NOT own their house until all the liens are satisfied--the lien holders do.

No amount of claiming that American's have a "right" to home ownership, or a "right" to not face foreclosure, does not mean that those rights actually exist.

That said, Home Ownership is a right, and along side that right is a responsibility to actually pay for the home.

Otherwise, you're just stealing.

Surprise! The Government Wants to Destroy More Businesses

Last year (late 2007-early 2008) there were a number of product recalls on toys made in China due to the presence of lead. Now, I'm not going to go into the health issues regarding items with lead and pthalates because let's face it, those are well documented.

No, what has me flipping out is the government's response which is of course via a consumer protection act.

What this thing does, is demand that every item (clothes, toys, etc) that is marketed to children 12 years old and younger must be tested for lead and pthalates. Additionally, this is such a widely inclusive law that it applies to thrift stores, donations to thrift stores, new sales, consignment shops and even yard sales.

So consider just what is going to happen here, because truthfully, this things are already happening:

• Thrift Stores will no longer sell children's items, or at least won't for many months--a long enough time that they can, and will, go bankrupt
• eBay, and other auction sites, will stop accepting auctions on children's items as the cost of verifying the legality of an item's sale status would be prohibitive
• Individuals could be fined and/or arrested for holding a yard sale
• Hand-made, and other small, mostly family-owned, children article manufacturers will go out of business
• Charitable organizations will be forced to only accept new toys, as the law covers donations and giveaways

And that's just the things that pop into my head right away. Of those, I'm impacted greatly by at least two, as my church is the Salvation Army and they utilize a thrift store and do a lot of donation work, and there are a number of family friends of my parents who are in the business of creating hand-made objects, some of them aimed at children.

And all this because Clinton-era rules which relaxed trade restrictions with Communist China. Because, one thing we learned is that all the lead-tainted items came from China.

So, how do I think this law needs to be fixed? It's actually simple, and needs to involve these following parts:

• Remove testing requirements on items that cannot actually be tainted with lead
• Make it be based on manufacturing date after 2/10 rather than a sales date of 2/10
• Make items wholly made in America exempt from the testing requirements
• Make the testing rules more stringent on items coming from known sources of contaminants. I.e. stricter testing for Chinese manufactured items as opposed to say Mexican manufactured items, until the Mexican ones start showing up with lead in their more random tests

Of course this implies that the Congress would be interested in not running a number of small businesses out of business, or that they see value in thrift stores and consignment shops. Of course, we all know that Congress, especially a Democratically controlled Congress, has no true concern over small business or anyone that is not on welfare.

But hey, I'd love to be proved wrong.

The Power of our Government

The Federal Government of the United States is an odd beast. On one hand it actively protects consumers via programs such as the FDA which enforces standards on food and drugs, and then there are things such as the recent rulings against COMCAST for their deceptive practices in regards to internet traffic by the FCC.

Being the strict Constitutionalist that I am, I understand the Federal Government's mandate to regulate interstate commerce. Though I do believe that on occasion that particular mandate is stretched to nearly the breaking point in an effort to further socialist programs.

Then, there's the FTC. This particular alphabet department has the unenviable position of dealing with trade issues. Well, one would think that it's unenviable, except as in most government dealings, the FTC has found a way to extort moneys from the very constituents it is designed to protect (other examples of this are taxes and the spectacular failure called the "War on Drugs").

Anyways, S. M. Oliva has posted an article on the Mises Institute website detailing the latest in a long line of abuses by this particular alphabet. This article begins with this paragraph:

On April Fool's Day of this year, New Mexico resident Mark Hershiser received a letter from Erika Wodinsky, a San Francisco attorney, demanding Hershiser turn over all revenue from Native Essence Herb Company, a small business co-owned by Hershiser and his wife Marianne. The letter was not a joke or a mistake. It was a premeditated act of extortion by Ms. Wodinsky. She had never met or spoken with Hershiser; her staff discovered Native Essence through its modest website.

Which is as good a description of what the FTC does to small-businesses as anything else I've read.

I grew up in a small business, my parents owned one, and it would have devasted our entire existence. I can only imagine what it would do to the Hershiser's. Of course, they are doing something which most small business don't do when they receive these demands by the FTC to nationalize their business: they are fighting in the courts.

I am ecstatic to see a business standing up for itself like this. Despite my tendency to not do the whole herbal thing, I am tempted to purchase something from them just because the FTC thinks I shouldn't.

Foreclosing Foreclosures

There must be something wrong with me.

I just don't understand something that is apparently a vital aspect of my country.

It boggles my mind; confounds and confuses me.

I don't know why my country men would be willing to do this, yet more and more it seems like I'm in a minority of those people who don't.

What am I talking about? What has me so confused?

Why people take handouts from the government.

What's worse, is why do our elected representatives continue to provide handouts to the people? Though, ultimately I know the reason for that: they want to buy themselves a vote.

What brought this on today was an AP story that I found on MSNBC talking about the Senate's upcoming vote on an anti-foreclosure plan.

Disgusting if you ask me.

No one forced these people to take these exotic mortgages, and as such they should now suffer the consequences of their bad decisions.

I'm not getting bailed out of my mortgage--nor do I want to.

Especially not by the government. I don't want my tax dollars spent bailing people out of their own bad decisions. That's not the purpose of the Federal government. Heck, it's not even the purpose of state or local governments.

That's the purpose of charitable organizations.

Which, despite the Democrat's intentions, is NOT the point of the Federal Government.

At least not the federal government whose Constitution I had studied.

Wal-Mart Made My Wife Cry

I am irate.

No, scratch that, I'm beyond irate. Irate is what I get whenever Wal-Mart accuses me of stealing when I'm walking out of the store with a large box of diapers that I've paid for--and they insist that I submit myself to their inspection.

This goes beyond that, by an order of magnitude.

Apparently, Wal-Mart has a new policy in effect for the Madison area. Basically, as you come into the store with returns, they force you to submit to an inspection of your property that you're taking back into the store for a refund. What happens is that the door greeter takes a horrendously long time in scanning each and every item to create a number of stickers which they print out and attach to the items.

My wife probably wouldn't have been as distraught over this act if she had not been returning some undergarments.

Basically, this is how the trip went tonight.

We walked in, and waited at the door for one of those stupid pink stickers. The greeter informed us of a new policy, which involved a scanner and a printer and the fact that we had to take every item out of the bag we had it in.

Like I said, this wouldn't have been something that horrid, except my wife was returning undergarments. So this greeter forced my wife to more or less debase herself by having her take out all theses underwear not only in front of the MALE door greeter but also in front of the half-dozen or so male customers and employees who were loitering in the foyer area.

When my beloved made the simple request that he pull the printer and scanner around the corner to hide it from the other men, he refused and said he had to be in front of the camera.

Which confounded me, as I know that there's no camera in the foyer area. So I asked him what camera, and he said the black one on top of the door.

Which looked kind of like this:

Yes, that is a sensor from the automatic doors.

After I questioned him about the utter idiotic statement that there was a camera hidden in said device, we finally received the blessed Wal-Mart approval to head to the "Customer Service" desk.

Now, I was thinking, hey, this junk has already been scanned once, there shouldn't be a need to scan it again.

Boy was I wrong.

We get to the counter, my wife tearing up at this point, and I instantly ask to see an Assistant Manager. So, imagine my surprise (or lack thereof actually) when the Wal-Martian had to scan every item in my stack of stuff (as we no longer had them in nice bags).

So, I'm storming, and my beloved wife is trying to keep me from chewing out the poor CSR. When the assistant manger FINALLY shows up (for the record we stood there maybe 5 minutes, but when you're as beyond-irate as I was that does seem like forever) my wife tells him the story, and one kind of expects apologies from the assistant manager over what is in effect a stupid policy.

Again, boy was I wrong.

Which is highly odd, because I remember having to jump through hoops--and not always proverbial ones--to appease irate customers when I was a Wal-Martian, but I digress.

So, as you can see, it was a fun evening, and I'm still beyond irate. Not only did this policy make my wife cry, which made me angry beyond belief, but the process doubles the time it takes to make a return, as each item has to be scanned twice.

I can admit, we've cut back on the amount that we've been shopping at Wal-Mart. After all, Kroger is not that much more expensive and it's closer. Yet there were still things we purchased there--including those boxes of diapers that I'm constantly getting searched over.

Well, at this point, that's enough. Not even the joy of making the idiotic door greeters squirm when I tell them that they are in effect accusing me of shoplifting by requesting me to submit to a search can entice me to return to Wal-Mart now.

I'll drive an extra 10 miles down the road to go to Target.

Actually, I won't even need to drive extra, there's one I can stop at on my way home from work.


At this point, the only thing that will get me back into Wal-Mart is if I go there, buy 100 of those dollar hot wheels, and then turn back around and return them.

At least if I did that, then the door greeter would be tied up with scanning that he couldn't accuse folks of shoplifting.

Anyways, for more reading on the joys of being treated piss-poor by Wal-Mart then you can read this:

• Wal-Mart Holds Your Credit Card and ID Hostage When You Complain
• Walmart Calls You An Idiot, Tells You To Shut Up And Never Come Back
• Walmart Saves You $10 By Refusing To Sell You Anything
• Walmart Stops You And The Assistant Manager For Refusing To Show Receipt
• Detained And Harassed At Walmart For Not Showing A Receipt

The Housing Balloon

The Senate OK'd a bill that would 'help' thousands of home-owners who made the brilliant decision to use Adjustable-Rate and other exotic mortgages. Why do they need this so-called help? Because these exotic mortgages have a bomb built into them. They start their life out as low-interest loans, and after a few years of getting payments applied to them, their interest rate explodes, leading to higher payments. Additionally, the House has already passed a version of the bill, which means that now both sides of Congress will need to hash out the differences and re-vote before sending it onto the President.

Let me be up front with everyone: I do not like this bill.

I firmly believe it is both unconstitutional and goes against the fundamental concepts of the free-market upon which our society is built.

How can I say this? Is this some evil grinch in me that wants to see people lose their homes? Of course not. I feel bad for them. A little at least.

Yet, these people willingly chose to enter into those loans. They KNEW that the interest rate was going to blow up on them, yet they went into the loan anyways. On the other side of things, the various financial organizations which made those loans also knew that once those rates increased, then the borrowers would be unable to make the loan payments.

How exactly am I supposed to feel bad about people who make informed decisions, even if those informed decisions are not in their long-term best behavior?

Why exactly should our government be trying to help out either people or business who made decisions on their own, about their own finances, and are now effectively in that proverbial lake?

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer opined this about this particular bill:

be a source of salvation for those families who were tricked into unaffordable loans

Do what? How exactly were these people tricked? I don't know what type of loan they signed, but my mortgage has the interest rate, including the fact that it does not change, clearly written on the contract I signed. There is no way that these families were tricked into purchasing such a loan--to imply that is at best to be trying to hoodwink the public into accepting another government handout to cover people's own stupidity. And if they WERE tricked into an ARM, by the mortgage lender not disclosing the fact that it was an ARM, then there are already statutes on the books to deal with fraudulent lending practices.

No. This is merely a bailout of people too stupid for their own good, companies too greedy for their own good, and the Federal Reserver which is responsible for it all, by forcing us to go to a wishes-backed currency rather than the gold standard.

Maximizing the Minimum Wage

Well Congress is at it again. They are once more deciding that Market Forces are not enough to run things in our capitalistic society. Yes, it is yet again time for a discussion on raising the Minimum Wage.

Oh joy.

Of course the Liberal side of the blog-o-sphere is ecstatic over this. Or at least they were until House Republicans attached a few riders to the bill, such as lowering the Estate tax, and a Federal Pension bill. Personally I don’t think that even a reduction of the Estate tax is not worth a hike in minimum wage to me. So while the leftie blogs are happy at the potential for a decrease in the price of skilled labor, they are unhappy that the families of the skilled laborers who have died don’t have to give away a huge portion of their life’s savings to the federal government.

The reasons I despise the minimum wage are quite simple. They drive my own salary down. Capitalistic of me I know, but I am a Capitalist through and through. The only reason I get up and go to work everyday is because of that nice paycheck I get. And I have told my bosses this in no uncertain terms. They know without a doubt that I am there for the money, and that is fine with both them and me.

But when we get these increases, I view it as an attack by the Federal government against my livelihood. Don’t believe me?

Then let’s look at some skilled labor versus a burger flipper at McDonald’s. And we’ll not even use college-educated skilled labor for this. An electrician makes somewhere on the order of twenty dollars an hour (this is an average, some jobs get more, some less), and we compare that to the simplified cost of a burger flipper of six dollars an hour. That is somewhere on the order of 333% more for the skilled labor. And that makes perfect sense to me. After all the electrician has spent years as an apprentice before becoming a full fledged electrician, and it will probably be a few more years before they get the higher paying jobs. Now, if we increase the pay which unskilled labor gets to 8 dollars an hour, that drops the percentage difference between skilled and unskilled to a mere 250% more.

While that does not appear to be an extreme drop, it really marks a huge decrease in the purchasing power, as well as the worth of the skilled laborer. Because there are factors besides just that differential between the skilled and the unskilled which affects the purchasing power of an individual.

Minimum Wage Increases are like Tax Hikes, the only thing they do is decrease the GNP. After all, while a large company might consider hiring two or three people at five dollars an hour, they’d come up with a technological solution, which means the need to only hire one at eight an hour. We saw this in the farming industry, and it’s slowly appearing in the retail industry as well (don't believe me? Go to Wal-Mart or Winn-Dixie and look for the 'self-checkout' lanes).

Of course, this is one of the few Liberal Ideas which I would support if they would do it my way. A minimum wage increase, effective immediately, to raise the minimum wage to five hundred dollars an hour for everyone. Oh okay, waitresses can get a mere two hundred fifty still.

If we’re going to slash the differential between the skilled laborers and the unskilled then let’s really kill that, and make it a true level playing field while we’re at it.

And yes, I think that’s a stupidly silly idea. I realize that it would decimate our economy, drive inflation out of control, and make the dollar worth a little bit less than the peso. But I find the entire concept of minimum wage a stupidly silly idea. We’re a free market society, and as such should allow market forces to guide such things as wages and prices.

10,000 Wal-Mart Employees Can't Be Wrong

Maryland is trying to enact a brand new law. One that states that those companies with 10,000 employees (or more) in their state, must pay a certain amount of their payroll into health care.

Of course, only Wal-Mart has that many employees in state, but hey, the Democrats say that this legislation is not aimed at them. Surprisingly enough, I believe them. I think that the Leftists just put that 10,000 number in there, to make their first victim of this un-capitalistic practice Wal-Mart so that the effect would be more palatable to people. After all, it's Wal-Mart with billions in sales, and millions employed. What could making them pay a little extra to employee health care matter?

This is where the Lefties want things to stand. They want the people happy that they are legally forcing companies to give employees a certain amount of healthcare, because once that is legally acceptable, they can then start lowering that number. After all, if it's ok at 10,000 employees, then it's ok for 9,500, then 9,000 and before you know it for 10. One must remember that for this type of law there is no difference between 10 and 10,000. It is a random number, set high to make it acceptable, because it can only affect one company. That that one company is Wal-Mart is just a bonus in the Lefties eyes. In the same way that the minimum wage is set low to make it acceptable to the most people (I'm still waiting for the $2,000 per hour minimum wage, I could get behind that).

Of course the esteemed lawmakers in Maryland have failed to realize the simple realities of business. They are trying to pass a law that states that the business spends 8% of payroll on healthcare. Now, Wal-Mart has a few options for doing this:

• Pay for it out of profits
• Close stores until they are under the magic number
• Pay their employees less

Gee, I wonder which I would do if I were in Wal-Mart's shoes. There is no way I would pay for it out of profits. That is hurtful to my shareholders. Even if I tried to pay my employee's less, there are artificial limits on how low I can pay them, which a higher minimum wage in conjunction with this health care tax would cause me convulsions. So that leaves the close stores until I'm under the magic number.

Yup, to keep from paying this particular tax, I will close stores, stopping jobs, and depriving thousands of consumers a cheap place to shop. After all, I would be in this for the money.

Who knows, Wal-Mart could do something different, after all, I'm not in charge over there. They could even attempt to question the constitutionality of this law. Unfortunately, capitalism, though a corner stone of our society, has no protection in the Constitution.

Sadly the labor unions are pushing this law in other places. If your state has the misfortune to be one of them, I would get in contact with your legislature. This health tax is not a good thing.