Thursday, October 29, 2009

The liberal media

In Fort Wayne IN, we have a local newspaper that leans way to the left. The editorial page tries to think it is very objective in its comments page.

Recently, they took the opportunity to chastise Republican Indiana state Secretary of State Todd Rokita for some of his activities. They accused him of using his office for a possible future run at govenor (at least 2 years away). The newspaper seems to have forgotten a former secretary of state that had used the office as a trial run to his ascendency to governor. That person was Evan Bayh. What makes this all significant is that I sent a letter to editor addressing this issue. The paper states that they may edit letters for printing. I post below first my original letter and then the letter they published. You can decide for yourself how extensive they "re-wrote" my letter. I think more to protect their image than for space issues.

What I wrote:

From the editorial page on October 17th, we find this written by the J-G staff:
There’s a fine line between enjoying the high profile incumbency offers and exploiting the title for political gain. Rokita’s frequent Twitter updates….seem to cross that line.
The state constitution limits the secretary of state to two terms, which Rokita will have filled at the end of next year. Seeking higher office is certainly admirable, but Rokita should be aware that his obligations as an officeholder take precedence over his political future and that his activities raise questions about his dedication to his current post.
Apparently the author is too young to remember a former Indiana secretary of State held the office for only two years, as a stepping stone for his future run as governor. What did he accomplish during his partial term? Every source I looked regarding Evan Bayh’s biography made no mention of any accomplishment as S.of S. They all quickly skip his to his run as governor in 1988. It was no mystery at the time that Mr. Bayh was only laying the foundation for his goal as governor.
Perhaps this newspaper should review Mr. Rokita’s accomplishments in his current office and reserve judgment on any aspirations he may have on other elected offices until the appropriate time.


What they printed:
Regarding the editorial “Office-holder or candidate?”
(Oct. 17): The state constitution limits the secretary of state to two terms,
which Todd Rokita will have filled at the end of next year. Rokita should be
aware that his obligations as an officeholder take precedence over his political
future and that his activities raise questions about his dedication to his
current post.
A former Indiana secretary of state held the office for only
two years and used it as a stepping stone for his run as governor. Every source
I looked at regarding Evan Bayh’s biography make no mention of any
accomplishment as secretary of state. Biographies all quickly skip to Bayh’s run
for governor in 1988. It was no mystery at the time that Bayh was only laying
the foundation for his goal to be governor.
Perhaps The Journal Gazette
should review Rokita’s accomplishments in his current office and reserve
judgment on any aspirations he may have on other elected offices until the
appropriate time.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

The government is upside down

Is it just me or does anybody else notice how topsy turvy the Obama administration is?


First, I see that the Justice Dept. will not pursue the prosecution of illegal marijuana use. We can debate the criminality of such behavior. Is it wise to tell the public that even though "we the government know that marijuana use is illegal according to the law, we are letting you know that we will not prosecute you." Would that not possibly encourage more illegal behavior?


Second, the government has also quietly said they will not pursue pornographers. There is an obvious linkage between pornography and sexual crimes.

What are we telling the criminals?? You go ahead and do what you do and don't fear the government.



Thirdly, the government IS going after highly paid executives in the banking industry and those businesses that have taken bailout money from the government. The "pay czar" is limiting the income of those individuals. Why could not the government see this coming? Companies get government assistance, start to make a profit again and then reward their employees accordingly. There were no ties initially linking pay and performance when the money was distributed. Now they change the rules AFTER the fact. The debate can go on about whether these companies performed the expectations the government originally had for them. Some may very well may not performing as hoped. But there were no expectations put in writing. (That we know of, since the government is not being very open about the details of how the money has been spent.) The government is possibly going after other businesses in the same fields as the original recipients.


I have hard a time accepting the fact that the government can say how much an individual can earn from a private business. This type of government interference is directly contrary to free enterprise. Earn as much as you can for the work you do. This witch hunting the government is involved in is just plain un-American.


In essence, the current administration is saying that criminal behavior is okay, but legal activity that the government deems wrong will be controlled. This is all wrong!

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

The truth of stimulus spending

A couple of weeks ago there was an interesting article in The Wall Street Journal (Oct 1) about government spending that supposedly spurs the economy. While the article was detailed and a bit over my head, the last paragraph did an excellent job at summary.

The bottom line is this: The available empirical evidence does
not support the idea that spending multipliers typically exceed one, and thus
spending stimulus programs will likely raise GDP by less than the increase in
government spending. Defense-spending multipliers exceeding one likely apply
only at very high unemployment rates, and nondefense multipliers are probably
smaller. However, there is empirical support for the proposition that tax rate
reductions will increase real GDP.

What it comes down to is that government spending does not stimulate the economy. Maybe the American populace may begin to understand this. I know the spenders in DC never will. It will need to take a complete change of the Washington guard before this may be accomplished.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

End of time

Let my obituary say:

He had a hard heart and a soft head. He never loved God as much as he should have.

His wife was his very best friend. His children will NEVER know how much he loved each one of them.