Sunday, October 21, 2012

Benghazigate and "something is rotten in the state of Denmark":

That question during the last debate where Obama said that he had initially (the next day) declared the Benghazi attack to be a terrorist attack - think that the entire scenario related to this question was a set up. 

Obama's body language, and look of total confidence when he asked the moderator to check the transcript (which I believe someone in Obama's administration told her to have in hand), was all a set up.  Believe that Obama/his staff, knowing that this would be a topic during the debate, looked at exactly what he had said that next morning at his press conference and saw the words" acts of terror", and decided that it would be to their political advantage during the debate to declare that what he really meant during that speech was that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.  However, if you look at the entire 12 Sep speech, it's clear that he was not talking about Benghzai - he was talking about acts of terror in general.  Besides, if you look at main stream press reports from the ensuing week or two - until the Obama administration eventually admitted that this was a terrorist act (vice an out of control protest march over a  movie trailer), you notice that everyone in the administration was saying that this tragedy was related to the movie trailer.  If Obama really meant something different in his 12 Sep speech, he had a week or two to correct his employees/say something different himself.  He should have made sure that Susan Rice who appeared on 5 different news show five days later didn't say it was related to the movie trailer, he should have made sure his his press secretary didn't tie the tragedy to the movie trailer at press conferences, and HE should have said at the U.N. the following week that the tragedy was not caused by the movie trailer, but by Islamic terrorists..  He didn't - why?  Because on 12 Sep he didn't intend in his speech to call the tragedy a terrorist act.

As a related aside, when the moderator agreed (which she retracted after the debate) with Obama that he did say "acts of terror", there was applause.  Later video/audio from the debate showed that it was Michele Obama.  Most likely she knew about the pre-planned set up scenario, and was overjoyed to see how well it turned out for her husband.

Have heard a few Democrats say that Benghazigate is all about Republicans trying to use this tragedy as a means of defeating Obama in the upcoming election.  Actually, they have a point.  Republicans are trying to use this for political gain......... just like Democrats would in a similar situation. 

 However, when you consider what actually happened - the administration turned down repeated requests for additional security forces, and instead actually pulled existing security forces from a site that was obviously a hot spot for possible terrorist action.   Why?  So that security staffing would jibe with a warm and fuzzy Arab spring scenario that the administration was promoting to prove their "Al Queda is on the decline" campaign slogan.  Americans are dead because the Obama admministraion considered political gain rather than the safety of our people, and then engaged in a cover up for same.  The important point is that the electorate needs to know before the election that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark".   

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Benghazi:

Saw on the news last night that Secretary Clinton accepted responsibility for Benghazi.  She said that as Secretary of State, all State Department personnel work for her, and she is the person responsible for their safety.  Therefore, she is the person responsibile for the Benghazi tragedy. 

Actually, would think that the President - as Commander-in-Chief, would be the person ultimately responsible.  Since the President is the supervisor of the entire executive department, and the person responsible for the safety off all Americans, the buck should have stopped there (vice on the desk of the Sec of State).

It is the President who sets the tone of the administration - establishes the goals, the priorities, the climate, and the agenda that become the marching orders for the entire executive branch.  It is the President who has the ultimate responsibiity - based on daily security briefings, to make sure that the embassy was fully staffed from a security perspective.  It was the President who should have ensured that personnel under his cognizance understood that what was is important is protecting our people (and not  attempting to garner political gain by trying to give the appearance of a warm and fuzzy "Arab spring" scenario in Benghazi).

In regard to the cover-up, we need to know who sent Ambassador Rice out to disseminate the storyline rather than admitting it was a terrorist action.  It's almost impossible to believe that by at least the end of the first day that the white house didn't know that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and even if through some incredible lack of competence (inattention to security briefings) they didn't, still, the buck should stop at the same place - the whitehouse.

Hillary:  In general, assuming responsibility for a major screwup is generally an indicator of good character.  However, in Benghazi, Americans died.  If she made the decision to pull security forces (rather than supplement them as requested),  or even if the decision was made by people who worked for her, she should resign.  Likewise, it she was pressured by the White House to make the same decision, she should have gone to the mat for her people, and if she was unsuccessfull, she should have resigned at that time.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Banking Industry -Too Big to Fail, "Mark to Market", and Procurement of Treasury Bonds: 

Too big to fail: We need to fix this situation. Nothing should be too big to fail. If a bank is so big that we (the United States) can't afford to let it fail because of its probable adverse affects on the economy, it needs to be broken up. NOTE: An example of breaking up companies is Teddy Roosevelt back in the early 1900s. Believe they called it trustbusting.

Once the "too big to fail" banks are broken up, banks will know that a bail-out is no longer an option, and they will exercise due discretion in their business transactions.

Housing Bubble:  Indeed, the housing bubble that caused "The Great Recession" was related to overvalued housing prices and bad mortgages - and not George Bush/Corporate greed - as Democrats are prone to say. The over valued housing prices set us up for a fall, but it was the bad mortgages - a plan pushed by our federal government since the Clinton administration that forced banks to make loans to people who would not normally qualify for home loans that caused the recession. While getting people in their own homes is a laudable goal, getting people who can't afford their mortgage payments in a home was a recipe for disaster, and is what caused the recession. Some Democrats like to blame the practice of bundling of mortgages as one of the main causes of the recession. Untrue, bundling good mortgages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.

"Mark to "Market":   "Mark to Market" is an accounting method whereby financial institutions value holdings/loans at their current market value, and utilize these "fair value" determinations to determine whether the financial institutions are solvent or not, i.e., if the bank, based on the values of its debts and assets (holdings) in a positive or negative status?  The problem with this method of accounting is that during tumultuous domestic/international market scenarios, demand can fall way off, and drive market value way down, and this new "fair value" will then be far beneath what it would otherwise be for the bank's holdings (mortgages/stocks).  Based on this dramatically reduced "fair value" of its holdings, the bank may then be in a negative (bankrupt) status on its accounting records.

Tumultuous domestic/international events - such as the housing Bubble bursting in 2008, Katrina in 2005, ..............  like Israel's impending attack on Iran in 2013?,  cause extreme variations - typically reducing "fair values" of bank holdings dramatically, and causing insolvency for many banks.  These financial crises can occur at any time,  for a variety of reasons, and all can have very real and negative impact on the economy of the United States, and of the entire world.  We need to change "mark to market" accounting practices.  We cannot allow every significant  fluctuation in the markets due to unforeseen events to cause a financial crises, loss of confidence, decreased gross domestic product, and potential recessions.  Financial institutions should not be insolvent unless they cannot cover (pay) for debts owed.  "Mark to market" should not be the determining factor for bank insolvency.

 In order to avoid financial catastrophes in economic downturns, it's far safer to use Historical Cost Accounting ("mark to "cost") - i.e., determine asset value based on original cost rather than on current "fair value" ("mark to market").

Procurement of Treasury Bonds:  With our snowballing deficit, the Federal Government is in desperate need of loans to cover our out-of-control spending.  Since it's always preferable to be in control of your own destiny, consider domestic creditors to be far superior to international creditors (e.g. - loans  from China).  However, the practice of the Federal Government giving low interest loans to banking institutions, who then turn around and buy Treasury Notes - which pay a higher interest rate than what the banks got their loan for, is financial insanity.  It's like we're paying the banks a fee to loan us our own money.  NOTE:  Besides, the purpose of the federal government loaning money to banks is so that they can loan money to people/institutions who wish to invest in a home or business - and not to make a profit at the taxpayers expense. 

Regulations on Treasury Notes:  The regulations on Treasury Notes should be amended to prohibit any bank that has been loaned money from the federal government from turning around and using that borrowed money to buy Treasury Notes.

Printing Money to pay our Debt:   Am absolutely not in favor of such.  We need to figure out a way to live within our means (and quickly!).  However, if the only temporary choice to be made is between providing loans to financial institutions who use our money to make a profit when loaning the money back to us -  or, to print money, think we need to opt for the latter.  At least with printing money, we aren't also out the profit the bank made on the transaction.
Energy:

We need to make ourselves energy independent.  We need to be rid ourselves of our dependancy on countries that we are not friends with (middle east countries/Venuzeula).  We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), it's time to garner and utilize this energy.

President Obama says that there is more drilling going on during his term than at any time in recent memory.  True, but this is in spite of him, rather than because of him.  He, and his over regulating EPA henchmen, sign fewer drilling permits than any President in recent memory.  The reason drilling has increased during his term is because the drilling is being done on private (not public) lands.

We need to fully utilize our natural resources - coal, oil, gas.  We need to build additional nuclear power pants.  We need to try to figure out a way to get nuclear fusion to work.   We need to approve the Keystone pipeline. NOTE:  The above actions will have the very important side beneifit of creating an estimated 1 million new jobs. 

If you want to see where the results of low supply and over regulation can take you, look no further than Califormia - they are currently paying an average of over $4.50 a gallon.
Bailout of the auto industry:

True, GM and Chrysler are still alive and kicking, but I'm not certain that it was the best way to have proceeded.  Under Mitt Romney's proposal (that they just let the companies go into bankruptcy proceedings), it's my understanding that such would have lead to a resturcturing of the car companies. Employee salaries, health costs, and retirement costs, all would have been renegotiated.  Typically such would have lead to an even stronger finanical position - and sounder position from which to go forward, than what curently exists under the Obama bailout scenario - which made protecting the benefits of union workers as the priority (vice the financial health of the companies).   As with Obama's bailout, employee jobs would have been saved unders Romney's plan as the revitalized companies came out of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Under Romney's recommended approach, not only would the companies be in a stronger position going forward - and employee jobs saved, but the government wouldn't be out $20 billion dollars that Obama's bailout cost.
Religion:

 I'm an agnostic.  Believe that there is a God, but don't believe in any of the organized religions.  Why do I reject our organized religions, but still believe in the existence of a God?  Largely because of all the science shows I've watched/the introspection I've done since retiring.  Just believe that the universe, and particularly life in general, is far too complicated for everything to be an accident.  Think that there had to be an entity that at least set the framework for life - and for the universe itself .

Typically, where you were born (or what your parents' religion was) is the determinant as to what your religion is.   If you were born in a Muslim country, you're a Muslim, if you were born in a Christian country, you're a Christian, it you were born in India, you're a Hindu, if your parents were Budhists, you're a Budhist, etc, etc.

Most people (and most particularly religious leaders) believe/say that followers of other religions are on "the wrong path", and will end up in "hell" unless they convert to the "right" religion (their religion of course). Everybody thinks they are right, and that everyone else is wrong (and will eventually burn because of it).

I dispute this.  I think they are all wrong.  I believe that religion was created and has been used as a means to control people throughout the ages.  And as the primary means of control, they (religious leaders) use the thing that people are most afraid of - the fear of death.

I suggest that all the religions are wrong.   Think about this - if you were born elsewhere, you would think that followers of your current religion were blashphemers on the road to perdition.  Your religion that you currently so stringently follow was nothing but a random roll of the dice determined by where you were born and that you were indoctrinated in since birth.

Over the centuries, religious intolerance/difference has been one of the biggest causes of mankind"s wars.  Differences that, if your give credence to what I say above, was a totally unnecessary and sad cause of human death and suffering (since it's almost certain that none of the religions were correct in their assumptions and beliefs anyway).

Government's role:  Before retirement, I was a Comptroller of an organization with approximately 800 employees and $400M in revenue a year.  One of our major goals was always to control overhead costs while still performing the overhead functions that were vital to the mission (creating products that kept our customers satisfied and thereby generating revenue) of the organization.

I sort of liken overhead costs at our activity with the function of the federal government.  With the federal government being the overhead to the private sector.  The federal govt has numerous vital functions - national defense, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc.  However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal govt are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country at the lowest possible cost.

When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles.  This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter.  Vital means vital.  If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it.  We need government to be as small as it can be.  Keeping costs down will help with the deficit, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage.  We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficit), not the government sector.  Growing the government sector just increases our debt.

I sort of like M. Romney's statement at the last debate, if it isn't worth borrowing money from China to pay for, it isn't worth doing.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Consolidation:  Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area.  Was kind of shocked at the real estate tax rates for same (at least as compared to where I lived before).  Anyway, was looking at a Pittsburgh county map, and noticed that there were in excess of 50 townships (or they might call them bureaus). 

Started thinking about the above.  It's no wonder that taxes are so high - rather than consolidating, you have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc.  Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible,  huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers of the Pittsburgh area (and other cities, townships and counties across the U. S.).   Probably the most logical consolidation level would be at the city level, or in absence of a big city, at the county level.  Township governments should be avoided to the maximum extent possible.  Most people don't even know who their local township officials are.

Actually, I'd be shocked it Pittsburgh couldn't reduce taxes by at least 50% if they were to consolidate.  Realize that such a proposition would be fought tooth and nail by all the political officials/the govt employees in the Pittsburgh area as consolidation would obviously be a real negative for them.  But - it's what's best for the taxpayers............  Monies could be spent on what people wanted rather than on unnecessary duplication of effort.

We don't need over 50 sets of peoples doing exactly the same kinds of things.  Consolidation could lead to massive tax cuts.  Also, the long term burden for states and localities would be reduced - less employees = less retirement costs (pensions and health care costs)  NOTE:  You can attrition the personnel down, rather than have massive personnel cuts.
Pakistan versus India: 

Pakistan:  While it's understandable that we want to have some influence over Pakistan - because of their nuclear weapons, because of their border with Afghanistan, and because of the supply routes through their country that we use to supply our troops in Afghanistan, it's still amazing how we're  bribing a country who, for all intents and purposes, is basically our enemy to pretend to be our friend.

India:  The situation is really unique - we bribe our enemy (Pakistan) who pretends to be our friend and we largely ignore the largest democracy in the world - a country who - even in an imperfect world, should be a strong ally.  Think we need a little more balance in the U.S./Pakistan/India triangle.  Maybe gently play off India against Pakistan.  Can't see us permenantly favoring Pakistan over India.

Long Term Solution:  No real recommendations to the above, just thinking that the current situation probably won't last as a long term solution.  Probably, the only thing that would really "fix" things is an eventual change to the Muslim psyche - in regard to tolerance for others by the vast majority of Muslims.  However, have to think that that will take a long time...................  Wonder if we need a radio free Muslim world (much like the old radio free Europe), and try, over time, to induce more reasonable (tolerant) behavior.
Putin's Russia

Putin:  It's an incredible shame.  I feel terrible for the Russian people.  After all of those years under the Czars, and then the Communists, they had finally managed to free themselves from the yoke of tyranny.  Things looking bright for them under Yeltsin - and then Putin comes along. 

Dictator:  It's becoming more and more apparent that they have another dictator over there now.  I wonder what rationalizations Putin's using to justify doing this to his fellow countrymen............  Or maybe he's just another power mad individual like so many that the human race has seen over the centuries.

Geopolitical Foe:  Now, instead of having a Democratic ally, it looks like we have - what Romney called, "a geopolitical foe".

Missile Defense:  On a related matter, am deeply concerned with Obama's comment to former Russian President Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility after the election" - particularly in regard to missile defense.  Exactly what is it that Obama is planning on doing that he didn't want the electorate to know about until after the election (when it's too late)?   This kind of thing makes me really nervous.

If you want to see/hear the Obama/Medvedev video, do an internet search on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNxEDomUlXw  Some might suggest that duplicity of this grand a scale might actually be treasonous.

Adoption:   Just heard on the news that Putin is about to sign a law forbidding adoption of Russian babies to United States parents..................  Just Putin tweaking the United States again.  Have to wonder, what his maladustment is.  I mean, can't imagine how he could possibly have a more concilatory/accomodating U. S. President than Barack Obama.  Suspect his main problem is that we are the only world's Super Power - and they no longer are.   Just jealousy, and a bully getting away with whatever he can get away with.    NOTE:  On a very sad note, just because there have been a few cases of adoptons between Russia and the Untied States that have gone awry, doesn't mean he should deny Russian babies the chance for getting adopted into good families.

Putins's Ultimate Agenda: Suspect Putin longs for the days when Russia was a Superpower, and is hoping for an opportunity to reaquire former Soviet Satellites.  Believe his overly developed ego craves such, and only threat of NATO dissuades aggressive actions on his part.
Eric Holder:  Am still Deeply Disturbed over Holder's dropping of charges against two Black Panthers for intimidatiing white voters in the 2008 election at a polling station in Phiadelphia.  If you think about it conversely, I somehow doubt that Holder would have dropped charges against white skinheads intimidating blacks at polling station.  In a situation like that, not only Holder, but the press, would have demanded the maximum penalties possible.................  Whatever happened to "equal protection under the law".



If you're interested in seeing/hearing more about this, just google search http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
Energy costs:  For voters in coal mining states, you might want to consider Obama's 2008 speech on energy costs (specifically coal) before casting your vote.  Some coal companies - under duress from Obama's EPA mandates, have already been closed down - look for more of this if he gets a second term. 

If you want to hear what Obama said in 2008 was his plan for energy costs (and specifically coal) do an internet search on - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4  From the perspective of someone who doesn't have a lot of excess money lying around and available for increased energy costs - it's kind of scary.

See also my blog article on "Utilization of United States Energy Reserves" at "onemanandhisview" for additional information on United States Energy issues



Economic Growth:  Most of the new jobs in the United States are created in small businesses.  In order to create these jobs, we need the upper class (the rich) to invest in new or existing small businesses, and for the middle/lower class to be able to get loans and use it to create small businesses.

For the rich, they need to feel that there is a probability of making a profit, without which, they will not invest.  For the middle/lower class, they need to be able to obtain loans to start their new businesses, and, again, to feel that there is propability of success.  The likelihood of the rich, or the middle/lower class, investing is diminished if there is uncertainty.  One factor of uncertainty is "Obamacare".  A cost driver requiring businesses to provide health care (or pay a penalty).  Another uncertainty would be the administration's proposed increase in the current income tax rate for the upper class.  A third uncertainty, possible capital gains tax increases - which would lower the profit potential (while the risk of losing money on the new investment remains constant) also decreases the likelihood of investment. Uncertainty is not an inducement for investment. 

For the middle/lower classes, they need to be able to get a loan to start their new business.  Excessive banking regulations (Dodd/Frank) that inhibits, or prevents, the ability of people to get loans hurt job growth.  We need to make sure that reasonable business ventures "get a shot" at being created and becoming a success.

Attitude and expectations play an extremely important role in job growth.  Investors need to feel optimistic about the future - that their possible fiscal venture has a reasonable chance of success.  Our goal needs to be to do everything we can to make the climate favorable for investment, business creation, and job growth.  Without this investment, these businesses will simply not get built, and therefore the new jobs won't be forthcoming.  For, in new startups, they "did build that".

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Abortion:

*  Believe that life starts with conception, and am pro life.  Pro choice advocates denying life starts at conception, and committing abortions for reasons of convenience, equates to rationalizing murder.

*  However, don't feel that we should impose our views on others on this issue because forcing a woman to carry a baby to term is way too close too slavery by my way of thinking. 

*  On a totally related matter, after the embryo reaches the point of viability (medical science determination), consider an abortion to be murder - except if necessary to save the life of the mother.