I am going to try to stay rational and not emotional in this rant that’s coming.

First I should say that I was not in favor of the bailout. No one bails me out when I get in over my head by overspending or being irresponsible, or being married to stupid policies (read: uniones) that don’t work, are cumbersome, and hinder the bottom line (thank you Big 3).

I bitched during Bush’s administration as he spent and spent and spent and all the republicans spent right along with him. Sometimes I wonder what happened to being fiscally conservative. Most Americans live their lives being fiscally responsible. Why does the government not have to do the same? Why are they not held to the same standard? Why are they not afraid of NOT paying taxes? I have a theory- I think I’ll save it for later- but it boils down to people voting and not paying attention. Case in point- see this video. I could have told you this was going to happen before BHO was elected, based simply on things he said prior to his election. But hind-sight is 20/20, right?

I don’t know how many of you have read the stimulus bill that is being voted on in the Senate this morning. I’ve read parts of it, and you can find it here, if you’re interested in reading it. Frankly you should all be interested in this. I digress.

Hidden in the bill is a Healthcare Provision. People on both sides of the aisle are being quiet about this and frankly, that’s not okay. None of my senators (I’m not registered in SD yet so technically the folks here don’t represent me- though I’ve voiced my dissent for the damn bill to all four senators in the states that I live/vote) voted on cloture. In this bill there is a provision for a new form of medical care- and another government agency. Oh yay. Just what we need. “[The] National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions.” Really? That’s fantastic. I want the government to decide what is good for me. Don’t you?

From the Bloomberg article linked above:

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

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

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

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want this. Not just the healthcare provision either. I don’t want the stimulus. I want the government to stay out of this. Why is this a good idea? Will someone please tell me? Convince me, please.

PS. I did email both the senators in SD to asked them not to vote for this. Thune, I think is not in favor, but Tim Johnson is.

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

In other news this week, it’s being discussed by house Democrats to “overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive”.

Since this system would eliminate the current tax exemptions that workers get when they save money into their 401k(s), workers and employers could no longer write off their contributions to these accounts.

The government would, in turn, for so kindly managing these accounts, give a ROI of 3% annually by investing the funds in government bonds, and a whopping (insert sarcasm here) $600 contribution match. And of course it’s guaranteed. You’re kidding, right? Currently the maximum amount an employee can contribute to their 401k, by IRS guidelines is $15,500 for those under age 50 and $20,500 for those over age 50. If their employer were to match them dollar for dollar and they put in the maximum allowed per year they’d end up with, on the low end, $31,000 for the year even if they only invested in cash. We all know that statistically the market has returned 10% on average since the crash of ’29. If you have an employer that doesn’t match dollar for dollar, but matches 1/4 to a dollar or fifty-cents on the dollar, you’ll still do better than the meager $600 that the feds want to pay you. Social security is already broken, and my generation won’t see any of what we put into it, so this sounds to me, like nothing more than another government sponsored plan- something else they can fuck up.

According to Investors Business Daily, this system has already been implemented in Argentina “under the ruse of ‘protecting’ Argentines from their own decisions, (because we all know that the government can better spend our money than we can) everyone will soon be forced into an involuntary pay-as-you-go program, like U.S. Social Security. Not only will the private assets be managed by bureaucrats, pension-holders will be paid what the government dictates. Not only will the private assets be managed by bureaucrats, pension-holders will be paid what the government dictates...Its stock market lost 23% of its value in two days, for a 57% loss since January. The losses spread to other markets in Brazil, South Africa and Spain…Markets don’t like expropriation of private property — including savings. And this takes away a key source of private capital. Moreover, one quarter of private pension assets were by law invested in Argentine stocks, making up about a quarter of the bourse’s value. So the seizure of pensions amounts to government ownership across the entire private sector.”

I don’t like it either. Really people, do you think the government is better equipped to handle and spend the money you earn and the money you save better than you are?

Sara Palin Is a (Insert C-word here)… Have you heard this anywhere on the news? No, but you heard that a McCain supported called Obama an Arab/Terrorist etc etc didn’t you? And if someone had called him the N-word, all you’d hear about for days is how mean and vitriolic his supporters are, but have you heard about this?

There are more accounts of it Here.

And here…

And here…

Last I checked, I’m a pretty smart woman. But if you read/hear/listen to some of the things these people are saying about her and her supporters, you might begin to think that you’re just plain stupid. To read some of the hateful things that people say about this woman, or Republicans in general, lead me to believe that most Democrats or Liberals (the line is getting blurrier by the moment for me) are not as open-minded as they say they really are.

You’d have thought they’d be excited about Condi being in a position of power. She’s first a woman. And then she’s a black woman on top of that.

I thought people were excited about Hillary. Wrong again.

Someone explain this to me, please.

Nah! (insert sarcasm here!)

On Saturday’s Ballot Bowl 2008, CNN anchor Ed Henry interviewed actor Jon Voight. Henry must have been surprised when Voight very quickly made an important point, one that it’s impossible to deny: Much of the mainstream media has become unabashedly partisan.

He called the anchor at CNN O-U-T!!! I want to know though, why actors get interviewed about politics? Do their opinions count more than yours or ours? Are they smarter than us?

‘Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.’
– Thomas Jefferson

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.
8. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
9. What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?
10. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
12. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
13. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
14. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
15. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
16. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
17. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
18. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
19. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
20. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
21. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don’t make more.
22. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.
23. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
24. It is better to be in court for protecting yourself with a gun then to be in a coffin for not.