The Solution to Herman Cain's Crisis: Affirmative Action

I have devised an elegant and novel solution to the firestorm engulfing Herman Cain: affirmative action. It's a win for all parties involved.

First, let's break things down. Let's assume I have one president who's a pervert: oral sex in the workplace with an intern, lying under oath, and a history of adultery. By all measures, a successful lecher.

Now let's assume I have another presidential pervert, who in comparison, sucks at being a lecher: He's had his share of inappropriate comments, awkward groping and a failed attempt at a sexual affair with a formal co-worker. But that's it: He isn't good enough to diddle in the workplace, conduct a series of adulterous affairs, or get forced into testifying about his sexual escapades under oath. A pervert fail.

Why the disparity? Simple. The successful pervert is white, the far less successful one is black.

And as a direct result of this inequity, the white pervert is qualified to serve as President of the United States. The black one is stuck selling pizzas.

Although our society has made great strides in breaking down color barriers, when it comes to being a pervert, structural inequities exist.

And thus, my solution: Using affirmative action to elevate Herman Cain to successful pervert.

This is a win for all parties: For Herman Cain, this enables him to be qualified to run for POTUS, and if anything, makes him more -- not less -- palatable to liberal voters who have supported successful perverts in the past.

For his accusers, affirmative action ensures that their claims of sexual harrassment, whether true or not, are now made 100% valid. (In fact, we should encourage more people to come forward and accuse the Hermanator. This would help combat claims that affirmative action is an unfair double standard that penalizes more qualified white perverts).

Finally, for the Al Sharptons and Rev. Jesse Jacksons of the world, we have a chance to prove that affirmative action, in a world of successful white perverts and white accusers, can help fix the structural racism in today's society.

I am serious, let's do this: Affirmative action for Herman Cain.

Ditch vs. Cliff -- Ditch Wins

One of Obama's favorite metaphors is that Republicans drove the economy into the ditch. Fine. Let's pursue that analogy a bit further.

Given the rising deficit, massive debt, anemic recovery, and high unemployment, it seems like Obama, in a drunken spending frenzy, is driving the that car off the cliff.

At least in a ditch, we can tow the car out, and point it back toward the right direction. The car might need some repair, but at least it won't be lost forever.

So next time you hear that metaphor, just remember: If it's your car, and you had to choose ... choose the ditch.

The Hypocrisy of Expanding Consumer Choice

I find it funny that the same people who are passionate about increasing consumer choice in health care via a public option are the same ones who are against increasing consumer choice in managing Social Security.

I would love to actively manage my Social Security assets via a private option. After all, I earned all that money ... why not let me control its future?

So for those who rally for a public option in health care but oppose a private option for Social Security, let me be clear: You are an incredible hypocrite.

It's Obama's Economy Now

July 25 was a momentous day for the Obama administration. According to Democrats, it marks the official date for holding the new administration accountable for the current state of the U.S. economy.

Back in 2001, then Democrat Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle proclaimed that "the [current president's] economy is continuing to worsen, and that's troubling to me." Six months into the president's term, the opposition party was going to hold him responsible for the economy.

In 2009, Daschle's words ring true today: If you didn't believe it before, there's no doubt now: This is indeed the "Obama economy." Enjoy!

American Idiot

OK, I'm neither a political insider nor an economic guru, yet even I have the basic common sense to know that the stimulus bill was a dumb idea when the main driver is public spending rather than private enterprise (the latter via tax cuts and incentives).

Now, it appears that finally our vice president has figured out that perhaps it was too.

The salient question here is this: When will the president figure this out? And since when is "sorry" good enough when billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake?

Obama = Bush x 2

More government math fun (well, less fun when you realize you currently owe the government $37,000-plus dollars right now):

Mark Knoller of CBS News recently reported that Obama's current budget projections show that he’ll run up nearly as much government debt in four years as President Bush did in eight.

So does this make Obama's spending policies two times better -- or worse -- for the U.S. economy and its taxpayers?

Obama's Failure to Defend our Economic Reputation

Obama and his Democrat allies are so hung up trying to repair our nation's reputation overseas ... but they are completely failing at repairing our nation's economic reputation.

Case in point: The U.S. could lose its triple-A bond rating. Note that despite the economy being so bad under Bush, the U.S. never had to worry about its bond rating until the Democrats and budget-busting moderate Republicans (yes, including Bush) began burning through money via TARP and Obama's stimulus bill.

A ratings downgrade would be crippling to the U.S. economy. Foreign investment would flee to "safer" pastures, limiting our nation's ability to raise money. It could also shift control of the world's economic engine to better-capitalized nations, i.e. China.

If Obama fails to preserve our nation's triple-A bond rating, it will be the greatest economic policy failure by a president in nearly a century. Since Moody's started its rankings in 1917, the U.S. has never lost its top-tier creditor status.

The Financial Comedic Genius of Obama

From this Bloomberg story:

President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

Unsustainable deficit spending? Don't you wish Obama was smart enough
to figure that out before he "blew the doors off" deficit spending limits with his massive stimulus plan?

Or is this idea of a funny joke? Too bad the joke's on our future tax burdens.

Why Government Shouldn't Nationalize Health Care...

...or car companies or banks, etc.

Government can't even achieve neutral cash flow on Social Security (nationalized retirement) and Medicare (nationalized low-income/senior health care). Read the link below for the gory details:

Social Security and Medicare finances worsen

Thank god the government doesn't manage my investment portfolio (at least, not yet).

No Job Growth Until 2010: The Change We Need

Obama's administration continues to prove that they lack the initiative, ability and/or desire to policies that will provide short-term relief to the economy, at a time when it is needed the most. The first sentence of this New York Times article says it all:

"President Obama's chief economics forecaster said on Sunday that the country was not likely to see positive employment growth until 2010, even if the economy began to grow later this year."

Later in the article, Obama's team makes the laughable assertion that the slowing rate of job loss is a good sign for the economy. Call me wacky, but I would define a good sign as actual "job creation." And as the days pass, it's becoming more clear that Obama's economic policies are failing the American people when it comes to creating jobs in 2009.

This Week's Undeniable Fact

The economic downturn did not begin until after May 17, 2007, when the Democrat-controlled Congress approved the 2008 U.S. budget. Check the stock market charts if you don't believe me.

Obama has frequently mentioned how he inherited this budget mess. Well, he was apparently dumb enough to vote for it. So did Biden and every other Democrat senator except for one (who abstained). Forty Republicans voted against the budget Obama inherited. And Bush by law could not veto it.

So if Obama is to be believed, he is basically admitting that for the 2008 budget, he and the Democrats were wrong to vote the way they did, and Bush and the Republicans were right for holding the line on spending.

So the next time you hear someone complaining about how Obama's spending his time cleaning up Bush's mess, ask them why Obama and his fellow Democrats aren't cleaning up their own budget mess first.

(P.S. If you're wondering what happened with the 2009 budget, Obama owns it. He signed it in March after it was approved by the ... that's right, say it with me now, Democrat-controlled Congress.)

The Hidden Disaster of Obama's Chrysler Plan

Obama promises to recoup all the taxpayer-funded loans being funneled into Chrysler/Fiat before Fiat can regain majority control of the company. Wonderful idea, right?

Wrong. Obama's plan is built upon one major assumption: That Chrysler/Fiat will re-emerge as a company with value. A company that can make money by selling cars once again.

Suppose any of the following happen in the years ahead:

a) Fiat no longer wants to own Chrysler and tries to pull out of the deal

b) The new company makes cars no one wants to buy

c) The restructuring turns out badly and results in the company losing even more money than before

d) Any combination of the above three

If the new Chrysler/Fiat company loses all its value after we as taxpayers loan them billions of dollars, there won't BE any money left to repay. And that's the kind of change we can't invest in.

How Obama Killed Investment in the Auto Industry

Obama's nationalization of GM and Chrysler effectively destroys all future incentive to invest in American car companies.

Would you invest in any company -- auto or otherwise -- in which the government can confiscate, revalue and redistribute your investment return? Even if you were dumb enough to invest in such a company, do you think it's fair or right for the government to interfere in the first place?

Obama thinks he's saving these car companies, but the raw truth is that his actions will severely prevent free capital from reflowing back into them. The result? Obama will have to use even more taxpayer money (or print it) to subsidize reinvestment back into these companies. (Of course, he's assuming that the companies will once again make vehicles that people want to buy. If they don't, then our tax money will be in an even more dire predicament).

When people who don't have a clue about value investing all of a sudden know what investments are best for America, prepare yourself for disaster.

Stimulus Bill + 2009 = FAIL

The White House has officially confirmed what most of us already suspected: Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill will fail to provide any short-term recovery relief in 2009.

Directly from the horse's mouth: Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council...

"I expect the economy will continue to decline," with "sharp declines in employment for quite some time this year," said Summers as seen this Bloomberg article.

The counter-argument from Obamaists is that short-term relief is irrelevant unless a sound long-term foundation is built. My counter-counter is simple: Why didn't Obama create a bill to do both? Why not reserve a portion of the stimulus to provide for a short-term "holiday" (meaning you don't pay tax) on social security, capital gains and/or income taxes for six months? That freed-up money could be immediately injected into the economy. Instant short-term relief. Instant confidence booster for the stock market.

Or are the Democrats who controlled the stimulus bill-writing process not that bright?

Planned Economy or Planned Destruction?

The famous quote "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" comes to mind when viewing this political cartoon from the Chicago Tribune.

It was published in 1934, and it seems to have some relevance to today, don't you think? (Click on the cartoon for a bigger view)

Today's Morality Test

Which do you believe is more immoral and un-American?

a) Threatening to lock an admitted terrorist in a small box with an insect he is deathly afraid of for the purpose of obtaining intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks (Note: You never actually do it, you just threaten it)

or

b) Ending the life of a baby accidentally born alive because the mother wishes to have it aborted

If one disgusts you but not the other, I'd like to know which. It would be a good indication of your true values. President Obama certainly has shown which he thinks is more immoral...

Explaining the Demise of the Chicago Sun-Times

Neil Steinberg painted this week's tea party demonstrations as anti-veteran movements in a column published on April 17.

Personally, I think he's just trying to generate controversy to gain relevance and help sell his dying newspaper, which is understandable. He's just trying to save his job.

Unfortunately, Steinberg's complete lack of understanding about why the tea parties actually occurred probably will result in drawing more people away from the Sun-Times than toward it.

Mr. Steinberg, the protests were not a condemnation of federal taxes; they were a protest against how taxpayers' money is being misspent by government. If you can grasp that simple concept, Mr. Steinberg, you'll realize that it renders your entire opinion piece invalid.

Of course, I will continue to easily dismantle the rest of your opinion piece. First, I challenge you to find a single protester who does not support the military or taking care of aging vets. National defense is a wise use of taxpayer money. No protester is advocating otherwise.

Second, you totally miss the meaning of limited government. It is not a limitation on the creation of new agencies and services of benefit to Americans; in fact, the Constitution was designed expressly to allow such government growth.

When people say "limited government," this is what they mean: Spend tax money wisely. Don't spend beyond your means. Work within a budget, and don't bankrupt our nation. Unfortunately, protesters are seeing a complete lack of fiscal responsibility at the national, state and local levels, passing debt-creating legislation that will take generations to pay off and leave our country vulnerable to foreign debt holders.

Combining those two points, it's easy to torpedo your entire assertion: Advocating "limited" government spending can easily be accomplished without cutting essential military and veterans services. 

Using your own words, "Where do federal tax dollars go?" -- perhaps you could gain sorely needed readership by answering that question in a future column. Especially if you highlight where federal tax dollars might be perceived by some as being wasted, or adding to our nation's debt load. I'm sure many protesters would prefer to read about that instead of maligning their intentions in a blatant attempt at sensationalizing a news event. 

It's a shame when an unpaid amateur like me can offer more insight on these protests than a paid "professional" such as yourself, Mr. Steinberg ... just one more reason why the Chicago Sun-Times is wobbling on its last legs.

AIG and the Displacement of Anger

Here's what everyone seems to be missing about the outrage over AIG's bonuses:

1. This wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the TARP bill had a simple clause: "This money cannot be used for executive bonus pay." So the blame and outrage should be directed on the legislators who failed to include such a clause. In fact, the truth is even uglier: The stimulus bill that Congress passed (without reading) and Obama signed had a provision that legally protected these bonuses. For the government to get pissed over something they said was OK and signed into law is the height of incompetence.

2. Do you realize that if the $165 million in bonuses had been equally distributed to all of AIG's employees, there wouldn't be this outrage? Ironically, people would be happier if the money went to everyone -- even if they did nothing to earn that bonus.

Of course, none of this would even matter if Bush and Congress didn't meddle and pour billions of dollars into a short-sighted and poorly structured bailout.

Bowling and the Special Olympics

How ignorant, how unpresidential, how irresponsible for someone who represents our nation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE0yAEvVsUo

Even W wouldn't say something this stupid.

And this coming from the party of hypersensitivity and political correctness.

How Warren Buffett is Breaking His Own Investment Rules

Warren Buffett invested nearly $35,000 in donations in the Democrats and Barack Obama in 2008. While that is surely chump change for him, it is interesting to look at this "investment" in Obama in terms of Buffett's own company-evaluation rules:

1. Invest only in great management teams with proven records

2. Invest only in entities with low or manageable debt

3. Invest only in entities that have a business model you like

Considering that Obama:

1. Has very little political experience and an economic management team that hasn't even been assembled yet

2. Has already passed a stimulus bill that tripled the nation's debt load in 2009

3. Has positions that Buffett himself went on the record to disagree with (carbon emissions cap and trade, Card Check and executive jet usage)

Do you think that Obama -- if he were a company -- would be considered a good investment?