American Citizens News Network

July 18, 2008

The Facts

The citizens of San Francisco, California will be voting on whether or not to rename their water pollution control plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. Supposedly this action is a way to publically voice their disgust with the presidency of George Bush.

My View

If you are familiar with ancient history, you may already know there were several occasions where a new ruler and his subjects would destroy all monuments, writings, and/or symbols of a past ruler. Ancient Egypt is probably best known for this, although there are records of other civilizations doing the same thing. The declared purpose of this by modern man is the new ruler was trying to destroy any evidence that the past ruler even exist. This may very well be the case, but in light of our own political leaders over the past few decades, I wonder if there may have been a different reason. Just like our illustrious CEO’s who are well rewarded financially for poor performance & complete failure, we Americans insist that monuments be built to our political leaders whether they were good leaders or not. All this makes me wonder if ancient leaders had another purpose in mind when they had all those monuments destroyed. Could they have possibly been thinking “I may not be able to rewrite history and make the person not exist, but I’m certainly not going to allow monuments to exist giving praise to a tyrant, a failure, and a destroyer”.

Only a small percentage of Americans think much of George W. Bush. He has been such a terrible president that his own political party, including the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, are trying to distance them selves from him during the Presidential campaign. Of course, once the election is over, all that will change, but they know Bush is a terrible liability now. As for me, I really thought Bush would be a very good president, so I voted for him the first time. But I darn sure didn’t the second time, and the only reason he won his second term is because of the lies and attacks on John Kerry in 2004. That being said, I don’t know if I would go so far as to name a sewage plant after Bush, but he certainly doesn’t deserve any monuments of praise. But you can bet millions, if not hundreds of millions (possibility even billions), of taxpayer dollars will be spent building those Bush monuments once he’s out of office. And we can’t depend on the Democrats to prevent that from happening; they want to do the same thing for their failed leaders also.

July 16, 2008

The Facts

Since the price of oil has increased so dramatically over the past several months, there’s been a lot of lobbying to open up restricted areas for drilling and oil production. President Bush has not failed to mention this each and every time he gets in front of a microphone. Many Democrats are against this, as are most of the environmentalists. Without fail, those who are in favor of opening up the restricted areas justify the need by proclaiming we, America, must become independent of foreign oil, and bring down the price.

My View

Earlier this month I wrote a post entitled “Why Oil Prices Are What They Are” where I addressed the absence of competition in the oil industry. One of the reasons for this absence is that all the crude oil produced in the world goes into a single “bucket”, where the price is set to all countries and customers, regardless of who produced it. With that fact in mind, just exactly why are we suppose to believe America will become independent of foreign oil if we start producing more oil here in America? And just exactly how will this bring down the price of crude oil here in America if foreign countries like China and others continue to increase their consumption?

I worked in the oil and gas industry for many, many years, and just about all of that time was spent offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. And there is one thing I can personally attest to; safety and environmental records have improved so much since the early-to-late 1980’s that it’s almost a non-issue, and will continue that way if current regulations continue to be imposed on the oil companies, including the smaller oil producers. By comparison, onshore plants, refineries, and facilities can only dream of being as good. Therefore, I can not oppose to opening up restricted areas if those same laws are applied AND enforced. But Bush, Chaney, nor any other advocate can convince me we will become independent of foreign oil or the price will come down just by opening up these areas. That argument is nothing but a smoke screen to give the oil companies access to more product so they can grow bigger and wealthier. This fact is more evidence this administration and their supporters are working only for the oil companies and other big business, and have absolutely no concern for the middle and lower class. It’s also evidence they have absolutely no problem lying to the public in order to achieve their goals. Remember their resistance when Congress pushed to curtail adding crude oil to our reserves while the prices were so high? Remember how they said our reserves would dwindle and we couldn’t afford that? Well, the price of crude oil dropped $6 per barrel today when the new numbers came out. Crude oil stocks rose by 3 million barrels; gasoline was up 2.4 million barrels; and distillate rose by 3.2 million barrels. And that’s with refineries operating at just over 87%. Just more evidence of the lying. But why should the lying surprise us; this administration has demonstrated on many occasions they have no problem lying about anything to achieve their objectives. And to think we (including me) called Bill Clinton the biggest liar of them all. Thank God Bush didn’t have sex in the oval office, or we’d really be upset with him.

July 12, 2008

The Facts

Today I received a comment on my original post about the letter that is going around entitled “Big Oil” by Bill Phillips. (In case you haven’t seen it, the letter suggests Bill Phillips is a descendant of Frank Phillips of the infamous Phillips Petroleum Company, which is supposed to qualify him on oil and oil politics.) The comment is by Randy Phillips, who says he is a descendant of Frank Phillips. I use Randy’s name in this post, as he proudly used his name with his comment to my original post, so I don’t think he would have a problem with me using it here. You can read Randy’s comments by linking to my original post, but the following is his comment.

“The assertion that “Bill” Phillips wrote this article under the auspice that he is a relative or more accurately a direct descendant of Frank Phillips the founder of Phillips Petroleum is fraudulent. There is no Bill Phillips born under Frank Phillips. There are only a total of 17 blood offspring to date to the present fourth generation (where it current ends). 14 are still living; I am one of them. None of us has the name “Bill”. Not one of us has EVER worked for Phillips Petroleum or the merged Conoco Phillips. So, if you believe this letter was written by a credible source, I’m afraid you are mistaken. If it’s discussed further it should be noted that this is written with a fraudulent endorsement by a non-existing person.”

My View

I also made a comment on my post in response to Randy’s comments. In that comment I said it was for that very reason I inserted the last paragraph in my post, which suggest that Bill Phillips may not have written the letter and that it may be fraudulent. As I also suggested there are no limits to what many will do to achieve their objectives, and this “Bill Phillips letter” proves that. I have little doubt that Randy Phillips is real, as his location and email address is available to me, and I doubt anyone would make that available if they weren’t genuine. As you may have noticed in the infamous letter (if you’ve read it), no such information was made available to confirm that it’s genuine.

July 9, 2008

The Facts

On CNBC this morning Nouriel Roubini of RGE Monitor said the financial markets credit looses will go beyond $300 billion and reach $1 trillion. (RGE Monitor is a global economic and financial analysis firm based in New York City with additional offices in Asia and Europe, and ranked as one of the world’s best economic web sites.) Roubini teaches economics at NYU, and has an excellent record in his economic forecasting (even Becky Quick of CNBC admitted that, which was surprising). He’s very pessimistic about the future of our economy, and expects the current recession to get worse and “be long & protracted”. Relative to the financial crisis, Roubini predicts it will be the worst one since the great depression of 1929, that hundreds of banks will go bankrupt, and a government bailout will be of little help. Roubini also pointed to the 62,000 jobs that were lost in June as further evidence of an impending bad recession when coupled with the fact that we now have had six straight months of job looses.

My View

Democratic Governor Joe Corzine of New Jersey was also a guest on CNBC this morning talking about the economy, and the differences of how Barak Obama and Joe McCain propose to handle the economic situation. Corzine was pointing out how the Republicans want to spend & spend and not come up with a way to pay for the spending (this use to be the Democrats). It seems the Republicans want to spend the money, but don’t want the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share. They seem to figure if they just “charge it”, the middle class and lower class taxes can pay for it later; if it gets paid at all.

Joe Corzine is a very well experienced economic politician. He is low keyed and doesn’t get rattled by the aggressors. Becky Quick and Joe Kernen of CNBC tried a couple of times to trick him up, but it didn’t work. When Corzine mentioned that incomers of $250 thousand and more weren’t paying their fair share of taxes, Quick said “$250 thousand doesn’t go as far in New Jersey as it does in the mid-west”, implying most people in New Jersey shouldn’t have to pay their fair share of taxes because it cost more to live there than in other places. Corzine shot back immediately saying 90% of the people in New Jersey made $100 thousand or less. Speaking directly to Quick, he went on to say “I hate this trickle down stuff, and that’s what you are talking about, under McCain and the last 7 or 8 years of Bush”. Quick quickly shut up (no pun intended). To support the trickle down economics flaw, Corzine pointed out that in the 1990’s (under Clinton) we had a 22 million job increase, while under Bush we have had only a 6 million job increase. He finished off that portion of his comments by saying “maybe the people who watch your show are not being bothered with the economy, but the vast majority is getting crushed”. The entire interview with Joe Corzine was extremely enlightening. You should go here and watch it. It’s 10 1/2 minutes long, but worth it.

Right after Corzine, CNBC had Mitt Romney on. This seemed to make the host smile with pleasure and delight. Romney was introduced with great fanfare and music. Joe Kernen started the interview by saying “I tried to ask Corzine some questions, but he was so smooth I couldn’t lay a glove on him”, and said to Romney “maybe you could counteract what Corzine said”. And, of course, Romney did, but it was with very flawed facts and disinformation. But to be fair, Kernen did ask Mitt Romney some tough questions, to which Romney answered in typical political fashion, which was really no answer at all. However, he didn’t miss out on the opportunity to mention “reigning in spending”, which was immediately followed up with that dirty word “entitlements”, which means Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; all those things middle and lower class people eventually come to rely on. But he conveniently ignored the fact that tax breaks and other “goodies” given to the wealthy & corporations is also “spending”; which now is also considered an “entitlement” by those recipients. If you like, you can watch Romney’s interview.

Both politicians, Corzine and Romney, were basically promoting their respective Presidential candidates and throwing rocks at their opponents. But when it comes to the proposed tax plan each candidate has officially filed, the facts speak for themselves. I wrote a post on this last month, and once you read that and all the supporting documentation, you to will know the facts, whether you want to accept them or not.

As for CNBC host, with the rare exception of one or two, they certainly come across as supporting the political right. (And to think Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, started his business channel because he thinks “CNBC is too anti-business”.) Any guest who speaks too negatively about the economy, growth, or the market while under a Republican President, they (the host) try to get them to reword their comments or change what they are saying. If they can’t, they just wait until the interview is over and then try to debunk them when the guest is no longer around to defend. And you certainly can’t take the word of the many investment managers CNBC has as guest. They are never going to give the market or the economy a bad report card. If investors stop investing, those managers are loosing big money. Even while the “Bullish” market is at 27.4%, the lowest it has been since 1994, the investment managers are saying the Bear market is over. Most say all will be well in “XX” months, so “now is the time to invest”. Naturally, since no one has a crystal ball to refute them, they have nothing to loose; and if they are wrong, no one will remember what they said.

CNBC often cites the result of their on-line and television polls on these issues. Sure, their polls are going to be positive about the economy and the markets; as I said before, the vast majority of the people who watch CNBC are in that upper 5%, and not only will that 5% not be bothered by the bad economy, they have much to loose if they support the idea the economy is severely damaged. So I put little credence in CNBC polls.

My bottom line on this post is that we are in a recession by its basic definition, regardless of the arguments, and it is going to get much worse. We can thank the Bush administration and the changes in laws he has insisted on for the markets and big businesses. However, if you are part of that 5% who has become wealthy, or wealthier, by those changes, you are happy and not bothered by the recession.

July 8, 2008

The Facts

Henry Waxman, Democratic Representative, is considering legislation that would ban federal money to pay for positions in the White House such as the one that Carl Rove held during President Bush’s first term in office. Waxman says Rove was in charge of campaign politics for the Bush administration, and taxpayers should not have to pay for this kind of position. Waxman said “can you imagine the reaction if each member of Congress had a campaign person paid for with taxpayer dollars?”

My View

Only George Bush and other radical extremist Republicans would have the gall to place a position like that in the White House paid for by taxpayer money. I use to think the Democrats were an underhanded political party, but they are angels now compared to what the radical extremist Republicans have pulled over the past fifteen plus years. Rove’s position was tagged as an “aide”; therefore it could be passed off as a necessary position paid with tax money. But I noticed he left the job after Bush was reelected. I guess he wasn’t needed anymore.

Karl Rove has redefined dirty politics to its lowest form and set a new standard of just how low people will stoop to obtain a goal. We should all be very proud of that. Political office, especially the oval office, has so much uncontrolled power that the likes of Karl Rove will stop at nothing to get elected. If history is honestly written it’s not going to be very kind to Rove. He has had more than his 15 minutes of fame, and he has basked in that glory. Somehow, he has managed to convince himself that the lie’s he spreads is ok, as long as “it’s in the best interest of the country” (which really means in the best interest of the party). When the time comes for his life to end, if he is aware that his time is near, he is going to have a miserable death. However, I say that on the basis that he has a conscious, and it’s hard for me to believe he has one. But most people who live a life without one seem to suddenly acquire a conscious when they are on their death bed.

Over the past six years I have paid close attention to the disinformation and outright lies put out by both major political parties, and the Republican Party and their spokespersons can take great pride in the fact they have won hands down by such a large margin it is immeasurable. They come in form of emails, letters, ads, and in live forums with friendly host who will not challenge them. As much as I despise the people who make up the Democratic Party, I find myself asking if I really want a party in power that has published so many lies. Let’s face it; if they will tell that many lies about their own party and their opponents party in order to get elected, just how honest can I expect them to be once in office; enter George Bush.

July 3, 2008

The Facts

You may have already received an email from a friend (with content inserted, attached, or a hyperlink) of an article (or letter) supposedly written by Bill Phillips entitled “Big Oil”. Or, if you have “googled up” the words “big oil”, you most certainly have found this article. Bill Phillips is a descendent of the infamous Phillips Petroleum Company owner(s) (now ConocoPhillips), and, according to the intro to the article (obviously by someone else), has been in the oil business for “nearly 50 years”. If you read his “Big Oil” article, there can be no doubt that Phillips is casting a vote for the Republican Party and denigrating the Democratic Party. It’s all about which political party is responsible for the oil crisis, the high price of gasoline, the devalued dollar, & other things, and who should be in political control of the country.

My View (& some more facts)

I learn of this article from a friend who included me in an email he sent out to his friends. Of course, my friend is of the “Republican” persuasion, which is fine with me, so I wasn’t surprised to get it from him. But what’s ironic is that people will read these sorts of things and, because it says what they already want to hear, they buy into it hook, line, and sinker without questioning anything or doing any research on it. In this case, since Bill Phillips has “spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas industry”, many will considered him an “expert” on the politics of oil, and on the “facts” about oil production. But once you start doing some research on his “facts”, you find they are very slanted in favor of his politically views, and in some cases, absolutely not true.

Take his quote on royalty percentages; he says outright that the “government collects 25% on the gross oil”, implying that every barrel that comes out of the ground is charged a 25% royalty. (He also implies that he’s talking about the Federal government.) But the actual published percentage’s by the Federal MMS (Minerals Management Services) is 1/6 and 1/8. Some states also charge a royalty, but that is negotiated at a state level and has nothing to do with the Democratic controlled Congress. Some states & private land owners can charge up to 25%, but that is negotiable.  But not everyone pays a royalty. If the cost of production is high, the MMS can, and often does, forgo the royalty. He also doesn’t point out that a large portion of charged royalties never get paid. In addition, oil prices are adjusted upward to offset the royalty cost, just like manufactures adjust their cost upward to include any taxes they pay. (Besides, if all royalties were dropped today, we’d see no decrease in the price of crude oil, and everyone knows that.) So Bill Phillips quoting 25% as a blanket cost for royalties is very, very slanted, and borders very close on being an outright lie. And, of course, he doesn’t point out what the royalty money is used for. For example, The Land and Water Conservation get a huge chunk which is used to acquire parklands and to maintain them. The actual government policies that govern all this is very lengthy and puzzling, just as all government documents are, but this site gives you a brief look at oil and natural gas royalties.

The same slanted “facts” applies to the first several paragraphs of his article relative to his “definition” of big oil. He has slanted these “facts” so bad, they can’t even stand on their own two feet without falling over. To point out all the slants here would take a lot of paper, but you can easily find unbiased facts all over the internet that reveal the real truth.

Another of his “facts” is slanted pretty badly. He tells us “your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-cents”, and blames the Democrats for that. That dollar value is right on as of today, but what isn’t true is his blaming the Democrats for that. Between 2000 and 2006, with a Republican in the White House and the Republicans controlling Congress, the dollar fell from about $1.20 to about $.75 against the Euro. Therefore, using Phillips’ analogy, a Democrat Congress under a Republican President is responsible for a 17% drop in our dollar, but under a Republican Congress and Republican President, the dollar dropped 40%. Can you see any “politics” here?

In my research on this issue, I literally found dozens of sites that address the Bill Phillips article. I was quite surprised at the amount of places carrying his article and the responses to his article. A lot of the responses are opinions, but some actually address the issues of his article. You can find them as well as me, but this one (a blog), although not “official”, takes each of the articles paragraphs (or part of a paragraph) and addresses it. I can only say that it is “interesting”, but not known to be factual.

One other thing I should point out here; the Democrats have not passed one single piece of legislation in the past 18 months that has caused the price of crude oil to rise. (That’s the time they have been in control of Congress during the Bush administration.) Thus, about the only thing Phillips and others can say about that is that prices have risen simply “because Democrats have controlled Congress”. Naturally, they could not produce any evidence of support, but they could say it without fear of anyone producing evidence to the contrary. But there is one fact they can not deny; oil prices have risen 600% over the past 7 years. And guess who’s been in the White House for those 7 years; Republican George Bush. And that party also controlled Congress for almost 6 of those 7 years.

Here’s my point on the Phillips article; it is politically & selfishly motivated. If you already want to believe that the Democrats are bad and Republicans are good, you will like it and believe it; if you have different beliefs, you won’t. If you are like me, and don’t believe either party is taking care of America and its citizens as a whole, including our oil crisis, you will question everything Phillips says, just as you should with any article like this, whether it is slanted in favor of the Republicans or the Democrats.

Just yesterday I wrote this post on politicizing oil, and Bill Phillips has done that very well. And because he has “been in the oil business nearly 50 years”, he has accomplished his goal of convincing a lot of people he has the credentials to know what he’s talking about, and that the only way to go is with the Republicans. However, I doubt he’s made many converts; all those quoting him were already Republican supporters. All Phillips has done is given them more disinformation and lies to spread around to support their preconceived agenda.

Finally, I should point out this “fact”. In the hundreds of sites I researched, I have not found a single one that seems to the “official publisher” of the Bill Phillips article (letter). There may be one, but I haven’t found it. The “letter” is dated May 28, 2008 on every site I found, with only the site publish date differing. So you have to wonder; is this something that Bill Phillips really wrote, or just another of those millions of bogus “fact” articles that is constantly running around the internet and being passed around in emails?

July 2, 2008

The Facts

Wilbur Ross, Jr., Chairman & CEO of WL Ross & Company, told CNBC today that there was no shortage of oil or a supply problem. He also said the fair value of oil is $100 per barrel, but oil was trading as if Israel had already invaded Iran. Ross went on to say that the growth in oil demand was only 2%, which contradicts what many others are saying. (See one article on how Ross makes his money.)

On a different segment of CNBC, John Hofmeister, recently retired President & CEO of Shell’s US Operations, said there was plenty of crude oil for the next 30 years. In that particular segment of the show, he said that the oil industry had hurt itself by being “too Republican”. In another segment, Hofmeister said there was lots of oil offshore in Alaska that is not restricted, but it would be a little expensive to produce due to the environment and sea life, and that an infrastructure would have to be built to move the oil. What he didn’t say was an infrastructure would also be needed if drilling was allowed in Anwar (ANWR). Finally, in another segment, Jeff Kruper, the Department of Energy acting deputy secretary, kept saying that opening up restricted areas was the only answer to lower prices. He works for George Bush.

My View

The real problem in getting to the truth of the matter is that crude oil has become politicized, and since politics has become nothing more than the dissemination of disinformation and outright lies, who can believe them. Maxine Waters, Democratic Congresswoman from California, has threatened to nationalize all the oil refineries so Congress can regulate the price of oil and gasoline. She has support in that from Democratic Representative Maurice Hinchey from New York. Now that’s just what we need; our “efficient & effective” government regulating our oil and gas supply. But this just goes to show you how politicized this has become, with nearly all Republicans doing everything they can to support whatever the oil companies want.

The oil companies and their political supporters seem to be speaking with forked tongue. They keep telling us the reason for high prices is a crude oil shortage. But at the same time they are complaining about being blocked in building refineries to refine all that oil they are producing, yet existing refineries are not operating at full capacity, mostly by choice. Can they have it both ways? It’s kind of like our tax system; if you make it confusing enough that the average person can’t understand it, it then becomes easier to fool the public. And those who believe prices will come back down if more drilling is allowed are complete fools. That is never going to happen simply because more drilling is allowed, although I am a mild supporter of opening up many of the restricted areas just so we can began to become independent on foreign oil.

As John Hofmeister said, by becoming too Republican, the oil companies have not helped the problem. But that’s because the oil companies & other big businesses have convinced the Republican Party that the only way to govern the country is through big business. Naturally, the Democratic Party is going to fight that with every tool they have at their disposal, which, in the end, is no better than letting big business govern the country. We, the people, do have alternatives to both parties’ ideas, but we don’t have time to do anything about it, what with us being too busy supporting our favored party and arguing with each other.

With his retirement, John Hofmeister has started “Citizens for Affordable Energy”. Hofmeister is the Founder & CEO. He talks about it in his “Parting Shots” on the show today. Hofmeister says it is pro-consumer and will be a bipartisan, non-profitable organization that will be exploring alternative and affordable energy, with short, medium, and long term goals. He goes on to say that the citizens will be part of this, because they don’t have a voice now. The citizens, he says, put politicians in office to work for them, but Congress is working for themselves. He calls it “partisan paralysis”. Hofmeister acknowledges there are existing organizations who claim to be doing the same thing, but their membership does not include the average person. He says CAE will not be that way. We’ll see.

July 1, 2008

The Facts

Crude oil prices have more than doubled in the past 15 months. As consumers, we are given any number of reasons for this, depending on who we are listening to. The most quoted reason is supply & demand. However, many of us can not accept that “supply” can decrease so rapidly relative to “demand”, or “demand” can increase so rapidly relative to “supply”, during a one-year period of time that it justifies a 100 plus percent increase in price. Ironically, most who say oil prices are justified or unjustified seem to be divided along political party lines. Those who say price increases are justified seem to be of the Republican persuasion while those who say they are unjustified seem to be of the Democratic persuasion, with very rare exceptions on both sides.

My View

In 1870 John D. Rockefeller started Standard Oil Company of Ohio with three other partners, but later bought them out. Then he became a monopoly through shear ruthlessness. By 1890 his monopoly could fix its own prices and terms of business because it had no competitors (quoted). By 1896 Rockefeller was worth $200 million ($5 billion indexed to 2007). But being a country of laws, one which forbids monopolies, the Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil in 1911. But that didn’t stop Rockerfellow and future business men in our country from aggressively pursuing ways to monopolize their product. About the only thing the action against Rockefeller did was tell these thieves they needed to find “legal” means of monopolizing, and if there were no legal means, bribe the countries lawmakers to pass laws that would circumvent the monopoly laws. And that has been done very successfully.

Not one single person today could make a viable argument that oil companies are competitive. There just simply isn’t any competition between them other than negotiating for sites where they want to drill for oil. Even at the retail market of gasoline, there is no real competition. And where there is no competition, prices are controlled; hence, a monopoly. (Occasionally, the retail owner will vary the price of gasoline a penny or two out of his own profits as a competitive edge, but the price to the retailer is set daily to include all of them.)

Take a look at all the places in the US where oil is produced; Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, the mountain ranges, west coast, etc.; even from abroad. Once the oil comes out of the ground and volumes recorded, it all goes into the same “barrel”. (“Barrel” is described as pipeline, tanker trucks, tanker ships, storage tanks, etc.) One market pays the same for all crude oil produced (by grade), no matter where it comes from. It doesn’t matter what oil company you are talking about, they all get the same price for their oil at any given time. Hence, a monopoly. No incentive to produce oil more economically for the purposes of competition. Now compare that to, say, the auto makers. For every compact car that rolls off any assembly line let’s charge the same sale price; for every full size car that rolls off any assembly line lets charge the same sale price; etc. etc. etc. You get the point. The results? No competition; charge any price you want or what the market will pay. How about appliance manufactures? Refrigerators, for example. All 19 foot refrigerators, same price; all 21 foot refrigerators, same price. How about all 4 ounce chocolate candy bars; lets charge the same price regardless of the manufacturer. (There’s a name for this kind of market, but we Americans don’t use it because it doesn’t coincide with a Democracy or a Republic.)

We must remember one thing; when our constitution and laws were set up, there were a lot of arguments about who should run (control) the country. Was it to be made up from all the citizens, or only the wealthy (people of “means”). Remember, our forefathers had just fought a war to free themselves of an “upper class” tyrannical government. So the majority of our forefathers won out; the country was to be ruled by citizens from all walks of life, not just by the wealthy. However, we have now, over time, silently elected a government that has successfully changed that. The wealthy and businesses control our government, albeit a government “elected” by the rank & file citizens. I demean the word “elected”, because the wealthy & big businesses have been very successful in convincing the rank & file citizens to vote the way they want them to vote through massive disinformation programs, propaganda, and just plain outright lies designed to tell people what they want to believe based on disinformation and propaganda.

Today you hear a lot about letting companies operate in a “free market”, especially in reference to oil companies. Confined to the basic definition of that two-word phrase, I completely support that theory. However, we have migrated to a point where the marketers want selected enforcement of that phrase.

Ever wonder why “a girl’s best friend”, the diamond, is so expensive. Not because of supply & demand based on how many diamonds mother earth produces. It’s because DeBeers controls over 90% of the worlds diamonds, and they put very strict limits on how many diamonds are released to the market over a given period of time. I’m not saying that there is a limitless supply of oil like there are diamonds, but when there is control without competition, you can charge any price you want.

The end results is that if we want to get back to paying a fair market price for crude oil and the products derived from crude oil, we must force the oil producers to move back into a competitive market. Without competition, oil companies are nothing more than a DeBeers, charging any price they want regardless of supply & demand or cost of production. However, we can’t depend on the Supreme Court to do that for us this time, as they are owned by the same people who own our elected officials.

Rockefeller, you won.

June 25, 2008

The Facts

The Department of Justice has evidently implemented a new policy on hiring recent law school graduates. Usually they are hired through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. But according to some career employees of the DOJ, request for interview for certain applicants were turned down. After looking into the matter by some of those career employees, it seems that most of those turned down were of the “Democratic” persuasion. The career employees sent a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy reporting the departments’ action. Harpers Magazine even wrote an article about this called Democrats Need Not Apply.

My View

I suppose firing Democratic Federal Judges wasn’t good enough for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, or at least, for those who pull his strings. Now they want to rid the entire Justice Department of anyone who is not a radical extremist Republican. And they are starting out by refusing to hire anyone who is not one of them.

I am sure there are those out there who think this is a good thing, but they forget one small problem; “if you make a rule, you may just have to live by that rule one day”. And I am sure when a Democrat gets in the White House this fall they will begin to take revenge. That’s what they did after eight years of his highness Ronald Reagan. And we all know what that set off; a war between the two political parties that still rage on today. As a result of this war, the people of this country have suffered greatly, but the two parties don’t care. They are so absorbed of becoming the “King” that they have lost sight of what really matters. And we the people are aiding them greatly by this feuding over “whose party is god and whose is evil”. Way to go America! Our grandchildren are going to be very proud of us. That is, if they and America are still around.

June 14, 2008

The Facts

The TPC (Tax Policy Center) has made a study of the tax plans recently released by Barack Obama and John McCain. They have also released a brief look at the core of the two plans. TPC says in the study that McCain has been mischaracterizing [added] Obama’s plan in that it would “raise taxes for all”. They say Obama’s plan would actually cut middle-class taxes by $1000 in 2009 while McCain’s plan would cut middle-class taxes by just $300. In McCain’s plan, the top 20% of taxpayers would get a 3% reduction, while the lowest earning 60% would get less than 1%. They also report that taxpayers making more than $2.9 million would get almost $300,000 in tax breaks.

According to the report, Obama’s tax plan would raise the debt $3.3 trillion over the next ten years and McCain’s plan would raise the debt by $4.5 trillion over the next ten years. However, there are several who dispute those numbers.

On more than one occasion, McCain has said Obama’s tax plan would raise taxes on “Americans of every background” and that it would be “the largest single tax increase since WWII”. But a New York Times article says “Economists of various ideological persuasions, however, view Mr. McCain’s assessment as inaccurate or exaggerated. Some question whether Mr. Obama’s tax plan can even be characterized as an increase. Some also argue that contrary to Mr. McCain’s assertions, the Democrat’s proposals, if enacted, would actually reduce taxes for the middle class.”

My View

Just so you know, most all of the groups that study the economy and tax laws say they regard the TPC’s assessment as highly reliable based on their past. It must also be noted that people on both sides of the political fence put much value in the TPC’s past reports. So it will be interesting to see how the spin misters handle this one. They will probably stay with their standard strategies; embrace it if it supports their agenda, and spin the hell out of it if it doesn’t.

Another thing must be pointed out here; when Bush proposed the tax cuts in 2001 & 2003, McCain called it a “give-a-way to the rich”. But now that he’s running for President, he seems to have become a true Republican, in that “only the wealthy deserve the governments help”.

June 11, 2008

The Facts

CNN American Morning aired a report today on the plight of the small, independent American dairy farmer. The farmer they interviewed in Maryland says that his cost had gone up over $9 thousand just in the first quarter of this year. But he can not recoup that added cost by increasing his sell price due to a law that was passed several years ago in an attempt to keep the price of milk down for the consumer. However, wholesalers and retailers (and maybe others) are not bound by that law. As their cost goes up, they can increase their prices to compensate.

My View

I really don’t know which political party came up with this “selective free market” law, but just by spending a life time of seeing, & admitting to, both the good and bad in the two major political parties, it’s not hard for me to guess which one did this. But I could be wrong. Still, I’d just love to hear the propagandist explanation today of the idiot(s) that put this one together and getting it passed through Congress. But you can bet that today’s net result of this law wasn’t passed in one bill. On that point, I would guess that the initial bill did not limit the law to any specific group that handles the milk on its way to the consumer. I suspect that, in time, after this law was passed, powerful lobbyist for the wholesalers, retailers (and maybe others) did what they do best, and that was to pay off certain Congressional members to get amendments to the law to exempt them. However, the small dairy farmer doesn’t have that kind of money or power, so he’s stuck.

One of my many quotes is “be careful of the law (or rule) you make; you may wind up having to live by that law”. So here’s my law on this; if we are going to prevent the small dairy farmer, who is a producer, from increasing his price on his products as his cost go up, let’s prevent the oil companies (and others), who are producers, from increasing the price on their product as their cost go up in order to keep the cost down to the consumer. How about that; think that’s fair? Of course you would if you are on one side of the political party line, and, of course you wouldn’t if you are on the other side of the political party line. So let me guess; you will decide if you think it’s fair or not just as soon as you learn whether it was your political party that did this, or that “other” political party, right? Isn’t “Free Market” great?

June 10, 2008

The Facts

Keith Hennessey, Assistant to the U.S. President for Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council, was the morning guest on CNBC’s Squawk Box today. He was pumping up George Bush’s accomplishments relative to the economy, and the latter’s desire to make the tax cuts permanent. But each time he did so, he was very quick to say that it would take 6-9 months before we will see the results. And he was just as quick to say that raising taxes on businesses would not fix our economics problem.

My View

First off, you’ve got to admire Hennessey for leaving the door open for his buddy Bush; “6-9 months before we see the results” of making the tax cuts permanent. That’ll give the old sheriff time to get out of town before everyone knows its all bunk. That little trick has been working for those 3-5 year CEO’s of large companies for 20 plus years now, so why not our President.

Now on to what matters. Let’s understand the difference of “raising taxes on businesses” versus “discontinuing tax breaks”. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE! The first is asking businesses to pay more than their fair share of taxes, which they clearly are not doing when you throw in all those tax loop holes they have. The second is telling businesses that they are no longer going to be on an entitlement program.

I hear so much about how we have to do something about entitlements we are handing out to undeserving people, and no one would agree with that more than I. However, the main difference with me and so many others out there is that I also do not think businesses should be getting entitlements, no matter what kind of “justification” one wants to put on it. Get this through your thick skull; trickle down economics DOES NOT WORK! How many more times have we got to prove that? That’s been tried by every Republican administration since the 1950’s, and some before, and the only thing it accomplishes is making the rich companies richer with near to nothing filtering back into the work place.

That doesn’t make you happy? Ok, let’s do this. Let’s take away all my tax loop holes (which I can’t take advantage of because my income doesn’t qualify me for those) and take away the tax loop holes for big businesses (and the wealthy). Let’s take away all these big business tax cuts that seem to be so important to so many and have one tax law for every individual and every company. Then at the end of every year let’s pass out the same tax forms to everyone, individuals and companies. Now, let’s all do our taxes, but; let’s add an extra box just above the bottom line for big business; and that box will say “deduct 5%”. Now they will be paying 5% less taxes than me. Guess what? I’ll be happy with that. But guess what else? Before the ink is dry on the tax forms, big businesses will be screaming, “no, no, no; let’s go back to the old way and I’ll gladly give up those all-so-important tax breaks”.

Here’s the bottom line; big businesses, Bush, and all those others will not be satisfied until only individuals earning less than $125 thousand a year and small businesses with less than 25 employees are paying taxes in this country. But really, they won’t be satisfied then; after that, they will not want to pay any state taxes, city taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, cost for any environmental damages they cause, etc., etc., etc. I said this many, many years ago; business will not be happy until 100% of gross revenues are coming into the board rooms and 0% is going out. And I have no doubt that, even then, they would be looking for some way to improve on that. But, hey! Don’t misunderstand me here; if you think I am saying that the Democrats are better, you are as wrong as you can be. The only difference between the two is that the Republicans want me to support the wealthy and big businesses and the Democrats want me to support all the worthless people, lazy people, & illegal immigrants in this country, and whole host of other unworthy causes. All I want is a job and for all of us to be treated equally. And trickle down economics, supply side economics, or pro-economy economics, what every phrase you chose to use, has not given anyone below the executive level a job yet.

June 8, 2008

The Facts

On February 7, 2008 a dust explosion in a sugar refinery in Georgia killed 13 people. Since then 52 more dust explosions have occurred here in the United States. There were 281 of these explosions between 1980 and 2005 that killed 119 people and injured 718 more. Democrats introduced “The Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Act - H.R. 5522” that would require OSHA to enforce existing laws, which they clearly are not, and add laws that would accelerate compliance. However, OSHA has advised President Bush to veto the bill when it comes across his desk, and it appears that Bush will do just that.

My View

Two questions; why does OSHA not police these sites and enforce the existing laws, and why would Bush want to veto the new bill? I’m sure a lot of people would have many different answers to the first question, but it’s no secret why Bush will veto the new bill. Anything that’s going to cost big businesses money Bush is going to stop it if he can, no matter what the cost is to the general public, the workers, and the taxpayers. He has demonstrated that policy for seven years now. But I’m sure he will have his propaganda and disinformation experts come up with plenty of “justification” for his actions. And guess what; he will win and the stupid Democrats will back off. They are just as bought off as the Republicans, and all the Democrats are doing is posturing for position for the next election. Wonderful political world we live in, isn’t it?

June 5, 2008

The Facts

Between 2001 and 2003 President Bush managed to get huge tax cuts enacted for big businesses and wealthy individuals. He was able to accomplish this through the Republicans controlled Congress at that time. These tax cuts were made temporary and are due to expire in 2010. Bush and his supporters are trying very hard to sell the American public on the idea that making these tax cuts permanent is a good thing for America and the bottom 90% of working Americans. Presidential candidate John McCain is also in favor of making the tax cuts permanent.

My View

There are literally thousands of web sites that address our tax laws and how taxes are determined. The vast majority of them report on these laws from very biased view points. Few attempt to show both sides. But there is one web site that I consider the very best at pointing out the truth in the pros and cons department. And the articles almost always address the tax laws and facts as they apply to current events. The site is entitled “a taxing matter” 

The owner of the blog is Linda Beale, and after reading her for many months now there is no doubt that she is well versed on tax laws and very aware of what tax laws are good and what tax laws are bad. And she doesn’t just guess at what she writes; she backs up everything with supporting documentation. Linda is a law professor at Wayne State University Law School. Her credentials are unquestionable. If you read all of her posts you will find that she is just as quick to point out the misleading statements by both political parties on tax matters. Her web site is the only one that I have listed on my blog as one of my favorites. So if you are interested in the truth about taxes instead of political propaganda, I suggest you bookmark her site and read it often. I think it is so important, I am putting this second link to her site in this post.

June 4, 2008

The Facts

Scott McClellan, ex-White House Press Secretary to George Bush, recently released his memoires in a new book entitled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”. The book does not speak too favorable of President Bush and many of his insiders. Among other things, McClellan said that “the administration relied on propaganda to sell the Iraqi war”. The radical extremist Republican machine immediately went into action and labeled McClellan as a “disgruntled employee”.

My View

Three friends of mine were recently engaged in a conversation about the current presidential Democratic primary. As each of them expressed their views on the subject, the other two were very attentive to what the other was saying and considered each having excellent views and meaningful comments. At one point, one of them made the comment that had Barack Obama not been getting so many votes from many blacks simply because he was black, Clinton would win the primary. The other two immediately looked at him in amazement. Then one of them declared that he was a racist. From that point on, anything the latter had to say was considered unimportant and not worthy of listening to. He had been tagged as a racist and the other two were going to have nothing to do with that.

It didn’t matter to my other two friends that what the third had said was factual; and that it was based on several credible reports from polls that had been taken during the course of the primary. To them, it only mattered that in their eyes he had made what they considered a racist comment. The ousted friend acknowledged that not all blacks who voted for Obama voted for him just because he was black, but that made no difference. So it is with Scott McClellan. He is now tagged as a “disgruntled employee”, therefore anything he said in his book or anything he has to say now is considered untrue and not worthy of listening to. The justification for it not being true lies in the “fact” that he is disgruntled. The real truth doesn’t matter; the truth has now been labeled as a lie. And with that “fact”, Bush and his ardent supporters have relieved themselves of having to address any questions on the matter.

The fact that these radical extremist Republicans have taken this stand is of no surprise to me; it’s exactly what everyone expected. But what does matter is that there are millions of good Republican voters who will automatically accept this radical extremist explanation and begin quoting this lie as fact. And so once again, “truth becomes a lie simply because I want it to be a lie”.