This is a posting about the proposed budget that includes a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. If the spirit of this budget fails, then we truly have lost the “exceptional” tag de Tocqueville gave us in the 1800s. I also need someone to find me the author of a theory about empires that endure.
LAS VEGAS, NV (February 27, 2009) – I miss Mike Green, one of my best friends. He died suddenly in 1991 at the age of 46 as Police Chief for Cromwell, Connecticut.
Mike was a big, tough guy with a big smile and always a quick, funny, and bawdy quip. Besides being the town’s top cop, Mike would ump baseball and ref basketball games for the community. He was a cop’s cop who also understood the community side of being a good cop.
Mike was also one of those Americans that de Tocqueville described in the 1800s as “exceptional.” He didn’t tolerate the stupidity or greed of politicians. Heading to the bathroom he would shout, “I’m giving birth to a politician.” (I wonder how de Tocqueville would have written that.)
He didn’t suffer complainers either. If another guy was whining Mike would respond in a most politically incorrect way, “Take off the panties and bra.”
That’s why I wish today’s Republicans and conservatives would have known Mike Green. They need to (with apologies to the feminists) take off the panties and bras or else they’ll be flushed down the political toilet.
Take the whining over the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
First, they won’t take affect until 2011.
Second, they only affect families making more than $250,000 a year.
Third, the tax cuts go back to Clinton era rates. For those who don’t remember, that’s when we had a budget surplus.
Fourth, this is a redistribution of wealth. So were the Bush tax cuts; they took away from the poor and middle class.
Remember when Republicans were fairly smart. For instance, they demanded welfare reform from President Clinton – and they got it. And those work-fare reforms worked.
Their reasoning was: don’t coddle people and they will be forced to find work and sustain themselves. In other words, push yourself to be a better person; that’s the American way. As a result, many people pulled out of poverty. The 1990s became a decade of prosperity.
That theory works for the wealthy too.
Let’s look at it economically. Take Warren Buffet. The wealthiest man in the world says the tax structure is unfair. While he makes $7 billion, he pays fewer taxes than his secretary who makes $70,000.
I’m no Warren Buffet, but I know how to legally cut my tax bill. I have the greatest accountant here in Las Vegas. His name is Matt Swan. And he was brilliant in setting up my corporations – especially when I began my national TV career earning money all over the country.
I have to think there are other people out there with CPAs like Matt Swan or competent tax attorneys.
This is one theory I’ve always had:
No matter what the economic situation, the smartest people will make money and thrive.
I still believe it even in today’s environment.
The whining you’re hearing from the GOP and the conservatives are from what I call the Stupid-Rich. These are people who are just like the loafers who want to stay on welfare and not work.
Sure, these wealthy people made money and admirably risked their own money on ventures. However, chances are they were either lucky to have had the market conditions, the Bush hand-outs, or someone left them with a bundle of inheritance.
Wow. That sounds a little callous.
Not really. If they were smart and they knew what they were doing, they’d simply succeed again. If they can’t, then they were lucky even while while being stupid.
How come after I was a ratings success in TV I was always told, “So what are you going to do for me next?” or “Kid, you’re only as good as your next gig.” It’s the same for the wealthy. You need to go out and earn it again.
What the whiners won’t admit is this. The world economy is changing. And they’re too lazy to adapt. Big business in America continues to complain that taxes are too high, but they don’t want to mention corporate welfare that comes from taxpayers.
Come on, you wealthy and business folks. This is a challenge. This is something to look forward to. These tax increases on the wealthy and the business community will spur innovation – just as the drying up of welfare checks spurred people to go out and find a job.
True, the tax increases will not create new jobs. That’s fine. Most businesses wouldn’t be hiring anyway. As technology evolves, fewer jobs are being created. Technology allows businesses to hire less while being more productive.
The lack of jobs, on the other hand, will spur even more innovation among those who are out-of-work.
Now let’s look at it politically. I’ll need your help here for a reference.
There is a theory about the survival of empires. It goes like this. The empire or society that survives is one where the upper class has as much to lose as the lower class. For example if the poor only live in the lowlands and the flood area while the rich live safely up on hills, then with one massive flood the society is left with only the upper class to do the work.
I think it’s a sound theory. If you know who championed that theory, let me know.
But it makes sense. Look at the social misery Hurricane Katrina caused. Mr. Bush was labeled a racist. I doubt he is; but his policies were.
Let’s take a baseball analogy. If Major League Baseball allowed the teams free reign over how much they could pay players, then most likely only the wealthiest of teams would win or make money.
We saw this in the late 1990s when there was no luxury tax on free-spending baseball teams. The New York Yankees were building another dynasty. The Yankees’ income from the more affluent New York City market dwarfed all other teams, allowing them to sign the best free agents.
Major League Baseball, though not the many myopic Yankee fans (yes I’m part of Red Sox Nation), realized that if this laissez-faire business model continued the Yankees might only be playing a few teams since teams in smaller markets that might not be able to compete. Or if they did compete, the competition wouldn’t be worth anyone paying to see.
In short, to keep baseball thriving the Yankees and other big-spending teams are paying a luxury tax that keeps teams like the Rays and the Royals competitive. My late friend Mike, a Yankee fan, I know would agree with this.
Unfortunately, the Bush years weren’t like that for all of America. We were becoming a nation of have’s and have-not: a few Yankees and too many Montreal Expos – a team which doesn’t exist.
The Obama Administration is boldly trying to change that.
As a result, there will be upheaval over the next ten years. Businesses are already changing the way they produce, market, and distribute products and services. For anyone not preparing for the future or hoping for a return to the Bush years, they will fail miserably. For example, if you’re a bricks-and-mortar business refusing to use the internet, then you deserve to fail.
Will the Obama plan give us record deficits? Absolutely. I’m a fiscal conservative who doesn’t like over-spending. But economic theory tells us now is not the time to tighten government spending.
If in two years when the economy improves and we continue to over-spend, then I have a problem.
If we don’t take care of Medicare and health costs in two years, then I have a problem.
What if it doesn’t work? What if the economy is tanking after all this spending? It might happen.
But by doing nothing, we learn nothing. By doing something, we learn lessons.
I’d rather take the chance of doing something that might work in this new economic matrix rather than sitting and hoping the old failed ways might work.
In short, I’d rather be bold and daring than be a Republican.
This is a posting about the distortions and tactics of extremist right-wing entertainers and lawmakers who keep saying we’re moving toward Socialism. If they’re right, then Major League Baseball and the National Football League are really Communist fronts. Fortunately, the GOP will be punting on these bozos soon.
LAS VEGAS, NV (February 24, 2009) – Answer this. Would you prefer to live in Sweden today or Germany in the 1930s?
For most of us the answer would be Sweden today. Sweden has a high standard of living and it’s a peaceful country. Germany in the 1930, however, began the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich, a totalitarian regime that would terrorize many of its citizens and other European countries.
Why do I ask such a rhetorical question?
Listen to some of the Right-wingers. They could be blindly conservative friends who listen to the majority of GOP lawmakers and the TV news entertainers like CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity. They keep telling us we’re becoming a communist state. We’re running toward Socialism, they say.
These folks are not necessarily wrong, but, as usual, they’re way off base.
It’s typical of their strategy: take a kernel of truth and then twist it for their purposes. They dramatically try to make us think we’re becoming the Havana of today or Moscow in the 1970s. When in reality, these uneducated demagogues are becoming the Fascists of the 1930s.
Furthermore, their behavior has destroyed the GOP and is giving rise to a new GOP that, thankfully, won’t resemble anything like we see today. Let me explain.
Here’s the kernel of truth. We are moving in the direction of Socialism. And what is Socialism? Answers.com gives this definition without bias.
It’s a political-economic doctrine that, unlike Capitalism which is based on competition, seeks a cooperative society in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the government or collectively by the people.
Are we moving toward that today? Yes, we are — but on a short-term basis. It’s the same thing America did in the 1930s. The New Deal was a move toward cooperation where the central government stepped in on a larger scale to help end the Depression. Today, we’re trying to get the credit markets moving again while keeping people in their homes.
We can argue at length if the New Deal worked or not. The truth is this. If the New Deal was implemented in 1929 right after the stock market crash, and not in 1933 four years after so much wealth was destroyed, the economy might have rebounded before World War II and the post-war economic infusion from the government.
The point is this. We leaned toward Socialism for good reason: to rebuild the economy. However, we never became Socialists. The closest we came to Socialism was in 1912 – 20 years before the Depression — when Eugene V. Debs got one million votes or 6% of the presidential vote. Imagine if a Socialist today garnered 6% of the popular vote? The TV news entertainers would be touting the wisdom of Joe McCarthy.
Another reason America failed at Socialism: a strong union movement. Like it or not, the American union movement of the early 1900s saved us from real Socialism. I’m not advocating unions, even though I am a member of AFTRA and SAG; I just don’t think unions will have much of a place in our future entrepreneur-internet society.
So, we’ve never become a true Socialistic state in America. To say we’re Socialists is like saying anyone who has had a glass of wine is an alcoholic.
But this myopic bunch of doomsayers make that case by also distorting what a Socialistic state is. Sweden today is considered Socialistic. Many Americans would be comfortable living in Sweden. The European brand of Socialism offers more worker and family protections we don’t have. Granted, their GDP is not ours and the chance for huge profits are not the same as in America.
Still, you can’t compare Sweden today to the Moscow we witnessed during the Cold War. But many of the TV news entertainers would make you think that Stalin’s Gulags, military May Day celebrations, and long bread lines are happening in Stockholm and other European nations.
What’s worse is that Sweden had a major banking collapse in the 1990s – that they survived by nationalizing their banks. I’m not saying that’s what President Obama should do. But because of the Right-wing loud mouths and their distortions, we can’t even consider bank nationalization as an option now.
I believe the majority of Americans are rejecting these fear-mongers. As much as we want to think the election was a love-fest for Obama, it was just as much a rejection of the previous eight years of the Bush-Cheney reign.
Although I wouldn’t call Bush and Cheney fascists, they leaned toward Fascism.
What is Fascism? Let’s go to the Answers.com dictionary.
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Was George W. Bush a dictator? For six years, he had no opposition since the GOP controlled both houses of Congress.
Did the Bush Administration suppress the opposition through terror and censorship? Well, they certainly weren’t locking up Democrats on trumped up charges or killing them. But go back to the dissent against the War in Iraq. People like Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins were shamed into not attending the Baseball Hall-of-Fame because they disagreed with the march to war. They were considered treasonous and President Bush did little to publicly negate that thinking.
And was there belligerent nationalism and racism? Yes. President Bush told the world, “You’re either with us or against us.” He used the term “crusade” about the war in our effort to bring American democracy to the Middle East.
I’ll give President Bush a break here. I think he had good intentions. I think naively he believed he could change the world for the better – if everyone became American. We discovered that most of the world likes the peaceful, innovative Americans – not the ones on the other end of a bayonet, rifle, or missile.
Mr. Bush was misguided by Vice President Dick Cheney who was frightened to death about another 9/11. Mr. Cheney himself said the biggest accomplishment of the Bush years was that another attack did not happen on our soil. That’s a staggering and stilting fear. Even worse, they failed to place any blame on American foreign policy that had been guided way too much by their political backers who demanded cheap oil prices for our economy. As a result, the Bush White House took on a bunker mentality.
What’s worse, this bunker mentality became intertwined with the oppressive thinking of the Religious Right, a group whose goal is the end of the world and biblical version of The Rapture.
Read the book American Fascists by Chris Hedges. It’s an interesting theory that shows how the Religious Right – and the Bush Administration – took on many of the themes of Nazi Germany: racism, nationalism, fear of the intruder, disagreement is treason, and a rejection of modernism.
Hedges quotes Dr. James Luther Adams, PhD from the Harvard Divinity School who predicted that Fascism would happen in America.
Resentments and bigotry lurk below the surface of all democratic societies and can be roused under the right conditions, to promote a creed that calls for the destruction of democracy. What is evil about these systems of intolerance and persecution is not the foot soldiers who carry out the crimes, but the organization that mobilized and unleashes these dark passions.
Among the thinking was the gospel of Christianity became bastardized into American greed – where you were holy if you were rich. And America’s big business gladly embraced this.
This wave of American Fascism was also embedded in almost every GOP presidential candidate. Even the business-smart Mitt Romney fell for it. His speech on religion that was supposed to be a JFK-like moment turned into an “us versus them” speech: believer versus non-believers. That speech of exclusion sunk what could have been a good campaign.
So, it’s evident that while we have turned toward Socialism, we have also turned toward Fascism in America.
What strikes me is the lack of demagoguery on the political left to use this notion. Why haven’t we heard extremist bloggers calling Bush, Cheney, Boehner, and others Fascists? I think it’s because we associate Fascists with Hitler and anti-Semitism and most GOP are pro-Israel, so the argument would fall deafly.
And frankly, I’m glad no one has made those claims. The GOP is not a group of Fascists – despite leaning toward elements of Fascism.
Furthermore, I think the majority of the nation, though not articulating it, saw those Fascist tendencies in the GOP and rejected them in the previous two elections.
Still, a number of Republicans continue these Fascist tendencies. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby the other day mentioned again that Obama might not have a legitimate birth certificate so he is not eligible to be president. The message is clear: he’s really a Muslim.
However, I think we’ll see the emergence of a different Republican Party soon. Conservative columnist David Brooks wrote about this in May of last year. He says the Conservative Tories in Britain have adopted a new breed of conservative thought that is catching on in the UK, but not yet here.
The British conservative renovation begins with this insight: The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”
That means, first, moving beyond the Thatcherite tendency to put economics first. As Oliver Letwin, one of the leading Tory strategists put it: “Politics, once econo-centric, must now become socio-centric.” David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, makes it clear that his primary focus is sociological. Last year he declared: “The great challenge of the 1970s and 1980s was economic revival. The great challenge in this decade and the next is social revival.”
In another speech, he argued: “We used to stand for the individual. We still do. But individual freedoms count for little if society is disintegrating. Now we stand for the family, for the neighborhood — in a word, for society.”
This has led to a lot of talk about community, relationships, civic engagement and social responsibility.
That’s not what you hear from GOP leaders like House Minority Leader John Boehner and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.
The future GOP leaders are people like Florida Governor Charlie Crist who worry more about the immediate needs of their people, not their own future positions in government or their party.
We will never be a Socialistic state. It’s not in our DNA. Look at our two most important sports – football and baseball.
Like capitalism, these sports thrive on competition. But if you look closely at the business of baseball and football, they have taken on the so-called Socialistic tendencies the GOP extremists have been railing about.
Baseball now has a luxury tax that takes money from big-market teams – like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers – and gives it to the small market teams like Kansas City Royals, Tampa Bay Rays, and Pittsburgh Pirates. That’s a form of Socialism, but I don’t think I’d baseball players secretly call each other “comrade”.
And the NFL does the same. Each team gets the same amount of salaries to spend on players. Talk about a collective. But I don’t see Dallas Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones in brotherhood with Trotsky and Lenin.
But here’s what’s really happening with both sports. They’re thriving. Yes, there are some cutbacks due to the economy. But what both sports have done is create a level playing field.
Look at the recent results of leveling the playing field. We have had different Super Bowl and World Series winners over the past ten years. There has been very little hint of any dynasty: maybe the Patriots in football but their teams have turned over during the three championship years. Literally every team in the NFL has a chance to win the Super Bowl each year. The lowly Phoenix Cardinals were a few seconds away from their first championship in 60 years. And last year, the Tampa Bay Rays, a doormat since their inception, won the American League pennant.
Your thoughts.
This is a posting about not taking the recession lying down. There are opportunities out there. I’ll tell you about one unique and emerging business opportunity – the reverse auction. If you want to see it now, go to www.imarketinggenius.com. And you can see a bunch of successful internet marketers I’ve interviewed at www.realmoneyshow.com. Otherwise, read on and let me explain what’s happening with our new economy.
LAS VEGAS, NV (February 16, 2009) – There’s a great story about Ronald Reagan during the 1980 campaign – a time of another recession.
Jimmy Carter was President and was unable to jump-start the economy. Reagan was trying to jump-start his campaign. So, he told a crowd, “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”
Academically, it was wrong. Politically, it was brilliant.
Ronald Reagan knew the American people wanted action. More importantly, Ronald Reagan touched an attitude of the American people that said I’m not going to take this lying down.
We need to start thinking that way today. We need to stop playing the victim. We need to thrive, not just survive.
Understand that this recession, as horrible as it might seem, is also a time of opportunity for many.
Sure, jobs will be lost for good. Our economy is changing drastically. We’re in the final throes of a manufacturing economy that began in the late 1800s. We’re now in a service economy buffeted by the Information Age. Companies are either evolving or going under.
The economic term, espoused by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, is creative destruction. Schumpeter introduced the theory in the 1950s, but it seems more relevant today. Many businesses can’t compete in this new age without a merger, bankruptcy, or bailout. Even management guru Peter Drucker saw this coming. He said, “The corporation as we know it is unlikely to survive in the next 25 years.”
My recent conversations with many corporate executives – off the record – confirm this trend. One banking executive said the recent layoffs “are an excuse to trim the fat.” An IT manager told me, after he laid-off ten percent of his work force, “I could have kept them, but my orders were to cut back.”
Not very reassuring to folks depending on a job. So, how do you make sure you don’t lose your job?
You work for yourself. You become an entrepreneur. And now is the time to be an entrepreneur on the internet.
Look what’s happening. Retail sales are down overall, but online sales are up. Granted, the percentage of internet sales is down year to year, but compared to sales at brick and mortar stores, internet sales are doing fine.
The next crash in the real estate market is on the commercial side. Analysts are predicting a massive downturn and stores going out of business. It only makes sense.
Read Christopher Anderson’s book, The Long Tail, which tracks the phenomenon of the growth of internet sales. Products can reach more people at a much less expensive cost.
Ann Seig, a well-known internet marketer, says, “The time is ripe.” She recently noted that the first commercial during the 2009 Super Bowl was for Avon. “The key phrases were: ‘I can’t get fired. I can’t get laid off. It’s my business.’ If a network marketing company is willing to pay $3 million for 30 seconds of air time, this should tell you something.”
Let me offer some ways you can, to quote President Obama, “turn this crisis into an opportunity.”
Over the past couple of years, there have been numerous internet marketers who have found ways of making money on the web while still working from home. You can see interviews I’ve conducted with them at www.realmoneyshow.com.
Another ground-breaking idea I recently discovered is called a reverse blind auction. Go to www.johndalyauction.com to see what it’s all about. In short, it’s an auction where the price of the product goes down. That’s right, it goes down. Unlike places like Amazon, the price goes up with every competing bid.
How does the price go down? You, as the consumer, buy credits for 80-cents a piece. Each time you use the credit, the price drops 25-cents.
There are three types of auctions. Again, go to www.johndalyauction.com to see a more in-depth look at these auctions.
One is the Express Auction where you can buy the product immediately if it hits the price you want. You lose the chance to buy the product, though, if someone else buys it first at a higher price.
The second auction is a Zero Auction. The person who is holding the bid at the lowest price gets to buy the product.
The third auction is a Unique Auction. After a specified time, the person with the lowest unique bid – the only one with that lowest bid – gets the product. It could be as low as 90% off the retail price.
A word about the products: if you look at the auctions, you will see the products are all brand names. You won’t be seeing someone selling their old, stinky sneakers. And those products are delivered to you.
Do I make money on this? Yes. Remember the credits. People buy those credits from me for 80-cents with 25-cents going to reduce the price of the product in the auction. The remainder — 55-cents – stays with me.
If you want to look at one of these franchises go to: www.imarketinggenius.com. If you have any other suggestions to avoid being a recession weenie, let me know.
This is a posting about the reality of our economic and banking situation. It comes from a reputable source you should mark as one of your favorites.
LAS VEGAS, NV (February 14, 2009) – Recently people like Larry Kudlow, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh have caught my wrath. These demagogues are merely entertainers masquerading as journalists or unbiased analysts. Watch them for the entertainment, not news and information.
There is, however, someone I highly recommend. You won’t find him on TV. His name is John Mauldin and his blog is called Thoughts from the Frontline.
Mauldin’s latest column, called Time For A Reality Check, can be read here.
Three things come out of the column that you need to know.
First, restoring the banks is more important than the stimulus package.
Second, the banking losses in Europe, according to a not-seen document, are close to a staggering $25 trillion.
Third, the losses for US banks are somewhere between $1.7 and $3 trillion — much more than we know.
And fourth, Treasury Secretary Geithner should not be criticized for his lack of specifics in the banking bailout package. In fact, Mauldin applauds Geithner’s generalities by using some stats from NYU Economist Nuriel Roubini.
What if the number that the Treasury and the Fed are looking at is a lot more than the remaining $350 billion in the TARP program? As in another $1 trillion more, or even the $1.5 trillion that Roubini says may be out there (and other independent analysts, like David Rosenberg of Merrill, say there may be another $2 trillion in losses). Can you imagine what the market reaction would have been if they had announced that this week? The Dow down 400 points would have seemed like a Sunday walk in the park. Congress would be screaming, and the chances for the stimulus package to pass would have materially diminished.
So, maybe the Administration is trying to protect us. I wish they wouldn’t. Let’s bite the bullet: tell us what the bank bailout will cost and get the banks moving again. Still, the shock to the financial system might be too much if investors really knew how bad things are.
Geithner’s continued efforts to protect us are evident during his meetings with the G-7 leaders. He apparently showed his cards to other leaders who were originally skeptical like Wall Street than afterwards had a similar epiphany like Mauldin.
Granted, Mauldin confirms most of my beliefs on the banking industry. (However, I disagree with his belief that a Keynsian-like bailout isn’t needed; I do.) The biggest is that the banking losses – those toxic assets are larger than any of our leaders – political and business – are willing to admit.
I wrote about it last September in this post when I quoted the soon-to-be White House Budget Director Peter Orszag who said, according to the Washington Post on September 9, 2008:
Ironically, the intervention could even trigger additional failures of large institutions, because some institutions may be carrying troubled assets on their books at inflated values. Establishing clearer prices might reveal those institutions to be insolvent.
As Mauldin tells us, too, expect more bailout money – this time from the Fed – and more bank failures.
This is a posting about another news entertainer who continually offers a dangerous mantra that he thinks is funny or helpful.
LAS VEGAS, NV (February 13, 2009) – It’s getting tough to watch CBNC.
The first reason is the economy. The anchors, reporters, and analysts are just as confused as our political and business leaders about how to solve the crisis.
As a result, CNBC turns into Fox News – the TV version of the NHL. The screaming and hollering over each other is annoying. Frankly, the place for business has become a place to turn off.
The second reason is Jim Kramer. He is the Howie Mandell of news entertainers. He’s loud and outrageous. I’m not saying he’s not funny. Watching him for his shtick is fine. But watching him to determine how you’re going to invest is insane. The only way it would make sense is if Kramer has sat with you and he knows your investment goals and exactly where your assets are.
The third and biggest reason to start ignoring CNBC is Larry Kudlow. While Kramer is a harmless blow-hard, Kudlow is a blow-hard that borders on being dangerous.
His constant mantra on nearly every show he appears is this: government is bad; business is good.
The truth is this: we should be as skeptical and optimistic about government as we are about business. We need them both to function with efficiency and transparency.
Kudlow’s constant battering of government fails to understand history and its damaging effect on the nation.
Read The Case for Big Government by Jeff Madrick. It offers a solid argument that big government has done more than smaller government. Big government ushered in new eras of development and economic expansion for the United States. Look at Reconstruction, The Progressive Era, The New Deal and the government spending on domestic programs after World War II.
I’m not saying big government is the only answer. But it has to be looked at — especially during times like these.
Granted, Kudlow is a business reporter. Reporter? Let’s say business analyst. And you can argue he knows his stuff there. Although I would question any journalistic integrity considering the mess we’re in and his constant flag-waving for big business.
The problem with Kudlow is he parades as a journalist when he pushes a political platform.
His tirades – which are uncomfortably flamboyant — fail to understand that our government is made up of Americans. Why are we degrading American workers as useless, evil, or a detriment to the nation?
This battering of government borders on psychological abuse. Most government workers don’t retire with millions. Sure, they get good benefits. But most of these people are working to serve the country. Does Kudlow think the military is loaded with slackers? Would a CEO of a major company treat his employees that way?
What if you disliked doctors. Would you announce to your doctor while he’s examining you that you don’t trust him and you feel like he’s ripping you off? That’s not currying favor with someone you’re doing business with.
A business transaction is a sign of faith. One side agrees to do something in return for money. When it comes to an employer and employee relationship, a good working environment is part of the deal for the employee. But when one of the employers — namely us and Kudlow — browbeats the employee, it creates a poor work environment.
For too long, people like Kudlow and most of the GOP act like Scrooge and treat the government with contempt. Sure, there are abuses in government and workers need to be managed. But as stewards of our government, we need some balance in how we treat the entity which is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. I think most of us want the government to earn its keep while we offer the people who make government run with respect.
Unfortunately, Kudlow is so out of touch with most Americans. I don’t believe Americans have fallen in love with big government as much as we’ve realized how fickle big business is. The financial industry got greedy and they used their smarts to cover up what they were doing.
To punctuate the point further, big business got away with murder. Big business bribed (my word for campaign donations) their way into sweetheart deals with the Bush Administration. As a result, the wealthiest of us got tax cuts and tax credits while the government stood by – with lax regulation — as big business nearly killed our economy. And we saw how well smaller government worked during and after Katrina.
And now the government is the only entity that can jump-start the economy. And according to Kudlow, government is still bad.
Maybe I’m jaded here. When I go to the Nevada DMV, it usually takes longer than I want. But I’m always treated nicely and the job always gets done.
When Kudlow comes on my screen, I do one of two things; laugh loudly or go to the bathroom.
This is a posting about the new way to shop. For guys, I don’t think it will be a big deal. For women who have made the shopping trip an art form, things might be changing. Give me your thoughts.
LAS VEGAS, NV (February 9, 2009) – Each day I drive past a huge warehouse-like store with everything to remodel your home that was once part of the chain store The Great Indoors. It’s empty now. No customers. No employees. This vacant behemoth is a sign of things to come.
The Great Indoors seems more like the Great In Doubt – when it comes to retail stores.
It’s happening all over. Read any local newspaper. Stores are shutting quickly; stores tied to major chains.
Talk to any commercial realtor and they’re bracing for a horrible 2009. One realtor told me, “If you thought 2008 was bad, wait until you see the commercial market this year.”
However, people will still need to buy clothing or appliances. If we have 10% unemployment, that means 90% are still working and need to keep living.
But these consumers will be looking for the best buys – and I don’t necessarily mean the chain store. I mean they’re going to be forced to go online.
And online, I may have found something that will fill the gap – and I don’t mean the clothing store.
I’m talking about a reverse auction. It’s being introduced to the United States from Europe by a German company called Dubli. I have a Dubli site you can view at www.johndalyauctions.com
In short, it’s an auction where the price of the product goes down. That’s right, it goes down. Unlike places like Amazon, the price goes up with every competing bid.
How does the price go down? You, as the consumer, buy credits for 80-cents a piece. Each time you use the credit to check the current price, the price drops 25-cents.
There are three types of auctions that will be fun for the serious shopper.
One is the Express Auction where you can buy the product immediately if it hits the price you want. You lose the chance to buy the product, though, if someone else buys it first at a higher price.
The second auction is a Zero Auction. The person who is holding the bid at the lowest price gets to buy the product.
The third auction is a Unique Auction. After a specified time, the person with the lowest unique bid – the only one with that lowest bid – gets the product. It could be as low as 90% off the retail price.
A word about the products: if you look at the auctions, you will see the products are all brand names. You won’t be seeing someone selling their old, stinky sneakers like you might on e-Bay.
And those products are delivered to you.
Do I make money on this? Yes. Remember the credits. People buy those credits from me for 80-cents with 25-cents going to reduce the price of the product in the auction. The remainder — 55-cents – stays with me.
If you want to look at becoming a franchisee go to: www.imarketinggenius.com.
The upside is that the internet markets directly to the consumer and gives the consumer exactly what he or she wants. Internet marketing also allows the manufacturer to have lower packaging and inventory costs. So, prices of products will be lower.
The downside is that going out shopping might mean a trip to the computer.
This is a posting about the idiocy we’ve elected to represent us in Washington. They don’t represent all of us – only small portions. If we could only rid ourselves of them.
LAS VEGAS, NV (February 8, 2009) – Our last hope was Congress. How stupid was I to think that?
Watch Meet the Press and you will understand. Four elected officials talked incessantly and said, for the most part, nothing. One of those elected officials is my Senator, John Ensign, a good guy and someone who kindly endorsed my book. Even he disappointed me.
Again, I think Republicans are living in 1980. They fail to see that this is the economic equivalent to September 10, 2001.
The best example is Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, one of the most intransigent House members. He, along with the rest of the GOP, wants to tax-cut our way to a deeper recession.
There is a time-honored way to stimulate the economy. John F. Kennedy knew it, Ronald Reagan knew it. When the towers fell in 2001, President George W. Bush knew it. And that is you give the American people more of their hard-earned tax dollars, work–tax relief for working families and small businesses…
He’s wrong and a horrible observer of history and economics. JFK and Ronnie Reagan cut taxes and revived the economy. But they didn’t face what we’re facing today.
Here’s what I’m hearing from folks today that I’m talking to.
People with some means to survive this economic crisis have stopped spending money and are taking all available cash from savings and insurance policies and stuffing it into the 2009 equivalent of a mattress – a home safe or safe deposit box.
Those employers and managers who have laid people off tell me that the layoffs are not as drastically needed and, in many cases, an excuse to cut costs.
The cause of layoffs and lack of economic activity is the lack of credit available. People can’t use credit cards or home equity. And businesses are denied up-front capital to expand or hire.
To think that we’re going to spend ourselves back to prosperity is ridiculous. There is nothing to spend. The consumer is tapped out.
In other words, there is only one entity that spend us back into some prosperity and that’s the federal government.
Sure, it’s going to raise the deficit. That’s what you do in a recession. Now the GOP wants fiscal restraint?
Furthermore, Congressman Pence tries to conjure up the arguments of conservative economist Martin Feldstein – which he gets wrong. Here’s the transcript.
DAVID GREGORY: Conservative economic professor, economist from Harvard Martin Feldstein, who supported the stimulus originally, this is what he said back in October: “The only way to prevent a deepening recession will be a temporary program of increased government spending.” So what’s wrong with this approach?
REP. MIKE PENCE (R-IN): Well, Martin Feldstein now says it’s an $800 billion mistake.
Not exactly for that reason, though. Here’s what Feldstein wrote on January 29, 2009 in the Arizona Republic.
The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each employed person. That’s not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year’s tax rebates led to additional spending.
He says tax-cuts, especially the ones in the stimulus package, make no sense.
Again, I’m no liberal. The idiocy from the extreme left has been revealed as well when the “Buy American” provision was discovered and eventually removed. Talk about an invitation to a worldwide Depression.
And even though I consider myself a moderate, I fear the one thing we moderates become — wishy-washy. President Obama has, unfortunately, done that.
I’m hoping tomorrow in his national nightly news conference he wakes up and wakes us up with some common sense that ignores the extremist wings of both parties.
Aside from that I will call for a National Recall of everyone in Congress. Please join me.
This posting deciphers the silliness on both sides of the political spectrum about the so-called Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters. I’m against bringing it back. Tell me your thoughts.
LAS VEGAS, NV (February 7, 2009) – Newsmax is a conservative news website. It’s not bad, even though it only highlights stories that will hook the right-wingers.
One recent story on Newsmax – but not seen in too many other places was — “Democrats Look to Muzzle Conservative Radio” about Democratic efforts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to broadcasting.
The Doctrine, passed in 1949 and repealed in 1987, calls for broadcasters to give equal time for opposing views. It gave rise to the legions of talkers like Rush and Hannity.
The article quotes Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) from a radio interview with Bill Press, a former Democratic Party leader in California. When asked if the Fairness Doctrine should return, she said:
“I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. Our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.”
Wrong, Senator. You’re merely picking a fight for political reasons. And if Democrats start taunting the morons on The Right, then they deserve all the headaches they’ll get.
First, the conservative right should have their domain in the media. AM Radio is that place.
Some background here: Does that mean cable and mainstream media are left-wing hate machines? No. It does mean the cables and mainstream “lean” to the left. I’ve always said that mainstream media has an inherent liberal bias – because their goal is to reach the masses. The masses tend to be poor and liberal-leaning.
Second, by trying to shut up The Right, you only antagonize them and make the so-called liberal media conspiracy seem more real. And frankly, in Congress there are far more important things to discuss – the economy and foreign policy, for example.
Third, who would dictate what’s fair or what’s not fair? I dislike the Left and the Right, but I don’t want anyone in the government to dictate that. Look at the recent Justice Department under Roberto Gonzalez. Seriously, do you want Rush Limbaugh on the FCC when the next GOP President takes office?
Fourth, the Right-Wing, as we’ve known it for the past two decades, is slowly becoming extinct. They’re the equivalent of the Politburo touting Communism as the Berlin Wall is falling. They are bankrupt of ideas. Even the evangelicals have moved away toward the environmentalists.
Fifth, AM Radio is becoming extinct too. Eventually, the talkers with any audience will go to the Internet where they will be lumped in with all sorts of views – and hopefully get diluted into intelligence. AM Radio is looking more and more like a home for audio infomercials.
Six, the majority of people who listen to talk radio are stupid. Not all of them are stupid. Some listen for the entertainment factor; these guys are hysterically funny because they’re so idiotic. But too many followers – the majority in my opinion — listen to guys like Rush – and this is important – for their only news and information. When I hear someone say, “I get all the news I need from Rush,” then I ask, “So is Lebron as good as Michael yet?” It’s not worth the time.
Now, before you think I hate The Right, think about this. When President Obama met with conservative journalists at George Will’s house last month, notice that guys like Rush and Hannity weren’t there. David Brooks was there – a real conservative thinker.
Have you ever heard David Brooks syndicated radio talk show? No, he doesn’t have one. I rest my case.
Allow the Right-Wing nut cases to have their place. Eventually they will die off.
This is a posting about the Senate’s passage of two misdirected amendments giving tax credits to home buyers and car buyers. These measures should scream to Americans the need for public funding of campaigns. I can already hear the screaming from my conservative friends like Jake The Weasel. And I have two new things for you to read.
LAS VEGAS, NV (February 5, 2009) – The Senate is proving as moronic as the House.
Today the Senate added two tax credits to the economic stimulus package: up to $15,000 for new home-buyers; and the deduction of loan interest and sales tax on new car sales.
Clearly, these additions are high-fives for the housing and auto industries – and the middle finger to the rest of us.
First, the amendments fail to address the core problem of our economic crisis: We can’t get credit. What good is a tax credit if someone can’t buy a house because they can’t get a mortgage? What good is a tax exemption if you can’t buy the car?
We need to unfreeze the credit markets first. See my column on resurrecting the Shadow Banking system.
The smarter thing to do would be to offer relief to people who have mortgages. Lower the amount due on the mortgage, lower the interest rate, and raise the number of years to pay it back.
Second, the goal of economic stimulus was to increase jobs in the energy and conservation sector. The tax exemption should have been for only energy-efficient, hybrid, or non-gasoline cars.
Read a study by Robert Pollin and the Political Economy Research Institute at UMass Amherst. It shows how energy conservation and not fossil fuel drilling creates more jobs and more sustainable jobs.
Why would they pass these silly measures? Because of lobbying efforts by the housing and car industries. Campaign donations by major donors are nothing more than legalized bribery.
If President Obama is serious about removing special interest from government, he will make every election dependent on public financing. This way the people elected will be beholden to us, the taxpayers first; not the energy industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and not the banking industry.
Am I calling for more government intervention? You bet I am. And we need it because no one else will create a level playing field. Without a level playing field, the majority of us get screwed.
Pick up the book, The Case for Big Government by Jeff Madrick. There’s not a conservative out there who would dare read it – just based on the title. But if you’re someone neither liberal nor conservative – in other words you’re smart, pragmatic, and learned – you will at least give it a look.
Madrick shows that America’s gains in standard of living happened when government intervened to increase social and educational programs for lower and middle class folks, while regulating business for equality and transparency.
After the Civil War, the government stepped in with Reconstruction. That led to the Industrial Revolution.
During the Progressive Era, led by Teddy Roosevelt (a real Republican), government intervened by busting the monopolies and expanding democracy with powerful tools we still use today – initiative, referendum, and recall.
The New Deal took us out of the Great Depression with big government outlays which led to the Post World War II era from 1950 to 1980 which saw our standard of living increase.
Since 1980, Madrick argues, our standard of living – along with the notion of less government and lower taxes – has dropped. Most of us baby-boomers didn’t grow up in two income households and we could reasonably pay off our college tuition. It’s a different story today as Mom and Dad must work while Junior takes six years to get a four year college degree and barely pays off his loans well into his 30s.
Historically, if you look at the times in between big government spending and good economic times, we saw other austerity movements and distrust of government; the late 1890s and early 1900s; and the roaring 1920s – which all led to economic crisis like the one we’re living today.
Yes, the stimulus package needs to be bigger and more widespread.
Here’s what needs to be done.
We need to take care of current homeowners and get the mortgages in line with the true value of the homes. We need to remove the toxic assets from the banks and get the Shadow Banking System moving again to finance the mortgages and loans – with more regulation. We need to step up energy conservation including an increase in the gasoline tax. And we need to reduce the cost of education and increase the incentive to get more learning for this new world, meaning more math and science.
Is this expensive? Yes. But if done right, it can lead to more jobs, wider economic growth for more Americans, and expanded tax revenues.
And for all of you out there who will say we can’t trust government, well big business has done little to foster our faith in them lately.
Sure, the deficit will balloon. But we’re in drastic economic times. You don’t ask the price of water when you’re house is burning.
And yes, we need to look at Medicare and Social Security. But we need to create more jobs and more educated high-earning workers that will work in this new era to gain revenues to pay for these entitlements while demanding more from the recipients.
Besides the greed of most lawmakers who cater to their campaign donors, today’s members of Congress fail to see the history that is happening around us.
We are in the midst of massive change. This isn’t the 1980s. 2009 is the equivalent to the Progressive era, the 1930s, and post World War II rebuilding which led to our current interstate highway system.
We’re no longer a manufacturing economy; we’re a service economy. We have to rely on our smarts, not our brawn. This requires education about the new world – and paying qualified teachers. Although we are still a dominant economic power, we won’t call the shots entirely: India, China, Russia, and soon Brazil have enough influence to make us pay attention. And right now two of those countries – China and India – are out-educating their kids compared to ours.
We’re also seeing the world’s distribution system changing. I’m reaching you and millions of others over the worldwide web. We’ll be getting most of our goods services through the Internet and not at our local stores. The Internet has democratized business allowing poor countries to become competitive while dropping the cost of goods. Yet, a measure in the current stimulus bill calls for Buy-American only. And the major broadcast and cable companies continue to fight measures for free wireless service.
If we really want to invest in America only, then we need the government to invest in educating our children and conserving energy, while creating jobs.
Cutting taxes for the rich and big businesses that already get massive tax credits – the 1980s way – is not the answer.
This is a posting about my frustration with today’s GOP. Let’s stop bashing government and asking for gratuitous tax cuts.
LAS VEGAS, NV (February 1, 2009) – If House Republicans had their way, we’d be rooting for the Philadelphia Eagles today in the Super Bowl.
Wait a minute. Today’s Super Bowl is between the Arizona Cardinals and the Pittsburgh Steelers. That’s right.
But imagine if we changed the rules for football. The Eagles lost to the Cardinals, but we allowed the Eagles to play in the big game because, let’s say, they seem to have a few good plays.
Does that sound right? Of course not. It wouldn’t make sense. We wouldn’t really have a true winner.
The same is true for House Republicans who voted against and came up on the losing side of the Democratic stimulus package. Why should we listen to their whining? They’re in the minority and they lost.
Message to House Minority Leader John Boehner: Please sit down and shut up. Like the Eagles, you had your say and you lost. And now like the Eagles, sit back and watch and take your proper place – on the sidelines.
Now, that doesn’t mean Republicans should be forgotten. Let’s go back to our Eagles analogy. There were some key plays and defensive schemes by the Eagles that stopped the Cardinals in the NFC Championship game; and I’ll bet the Steelers use some of them today. So, the Eagles may have an indirect effect on the game.
And that may be true for House Republicans when the vote on the stimulus happens in the Senate – where the rules are different.
I hope Senate Republicans use the rules – 60 votes to end a filibuster — to make some changes and find a consensus on the economic stimulus package. Let’s mix it up. But let’s hope they all realize the eventual outcome is not what political party wins. The goal is stimulating the economy.
Some reality checks here.
First, politics is still a full contact sport. You don’t like the outcome? Too bad. I said the same thing to the Democrats in 2004 and 2005 when they were whining about President Bush.
Second, President Obama said he would listen to GOP ideas. It doesn’t mean he must embrace them. So far, he has far exceeded the Bush Administration’s efforts to reach across the aisle.
Third, Obama is President. Let him have his way like George Bush had his. If he screws up, go after him. But for now, let’s let him tackle the problems on his terms – that means without the House Republicans.
Fourth, the economic stimulus package isn’t perfect. If we gave the GOP their say, we would have all tax cuts.
Fifth, we don’t know what will really stimulate the economy. If anything, it’s time and an infusion of massive amounts of capital.
Sixth, the GOP is largely – not entirely – to blame for the problems we face today. They were in power in Congress from 1995 through 2007 and the White House from 2001 until a few days ago. So, we as Americans have a right to dismiss you.
Now, before you think I’m a Democratic flag waver, let me tell you where I stand.
I would love to be a Republican – the party of small business. But over the years, the GOP has been the party of exclusion. They have catered to big business and taken their money and passed laws to help them – and only them. To me, the GOP leaned toward fascism. The lack of regulation on big business that permeated our economy is the earthquake that has cracked the foundation of our economy.
I’m so tired of hearing how we have to cut taxes. True, tax cuts can stimulate an economy. But you need spending cuts to go with the tax cuts. The GOP while in power only increased spending. And today’s economy is different; the American consumer has no credit — home equity, credit cards, or savings — to buy our way out of this mess. In 2001, Americans had credit. We over-spent then and now we’re paying for it.
Furthermore, taxes help fund the government to do the people’s work. And right now, only government has the ability to create jobs and unclog the credit markets.
So, let’s hope the GOP stops blaming government. We are the government. The government is made up of Americans who serve Americans. Do we need to watch and scrutinize how tax dollars are spent? Yes, but stop making government workers as straw men as punching bags.
Ronald Reagan in 1980 embraced Vietnam vets who had been derided and neglected. He was right. Today someone needs to stand up and embrace government workers. Maybe that’s a good strategy for incoming GOP Chair Michael Steele.
To show you how horrible the GOP is they still got their butts handed to them in 2008 elections even though they had gerrymandered most of the Congressional districts for the decade before. What’s worse, this manipulating of districts has given us too many entrenched Democrats who are too far to the left.
Archives
Categories
RSS Feed