Try this on for size....

Senator Clinton, it has become apparent that there are multiple instances when your campaign has planted questions in town hall forums. Based on the facts surrounding this situation including statements from those approached to ask the planted questions, there is not alot of doubt that this occurred over the past two months. We would like to know your thoughts on this matter.

"This is my campaign and I am ultimately responsible for the actions and the practices of those in my campaign. Planting questions in a public question & answer forum is not an acceptable practice under any circumstance. As I stated, this is my campaign and I accept the responsibility for this campaign miscue. I have taken actions necessary to ensure that this practice will not be repeated. I have made it abundantly clear to everyone in my campaign from my senior leadership to the local volunteers in the electoral districts that I will not tolerate this practice moving forward and that this is not the way we want to win this nomination. I have full and unwavering confidence in my leadership team and I look forward to putting these incidents behind us. I am eager to asnwer all the questions voters have about my candidacy, my qualificaitons to lead this country, and my positions on the issues that are important to our future. You have my personal commitment that my campaign will be the most ethical and above board organizatoin in this election. Thank you for your time and thank you for your support."

What would have been so hard about that? If this was that response that Senator Clinton put out in the political arena two things likely would have happened. First, the electorate would have thought "how refreshing to see a leader stand up and take responsibility for the actions of their organization....like the rest us do every day." Second, the political fallout from this gaffe would likely be nearing its nadir instead of its zenith. Clinton's chosen response to this revelation of "It is news to me" coming on the heels of her obfuscation of driver's licenses for illegals issue was probably the worst possible response. Even if it was news to her (hard not to chuckle writing that) the better response would have been to step up and take the heat as the leader of her organization - the buck stops here. Opportunity missed by Mrs. Clinton....big time. Maybe just once, be up front and honest with us...try that on for size, you will be surprized how the truth plays with the ordinary people of America. Here is a great peice of advice I give to my team when any fuzzy issues arise. If you tell the truth, you only have to keep up with one story...it makes life a lot easier.

Two Posers

If someone bought an expensive house with little to no money as a down payment, took out an interest only loan with a teser rate that is now coming due, if that person now has to move, aren't we really talking about someone who just rented a house they probably couldn't afford in the first place? The banks who made this loan knew what they were getting in the first place with this type of investment risk, they are not entitled to any kind of bailout. The more unpopular position however is that the "home owner" or really the renter also knew the rules going into the game as well. As a person who really didn't own a home because they had no equity in the property, but was just renting it over the term of the teaser rate, they are no more entitled than the bank to a government bailout. They were a renter. Renters move all the time. This is not the government's business for crying out loud. Let the market sort this out. The only thing government intervention will do is screw up the process and cost us all a lot of money. Anyone want to take that deal?

A unit if energy is a commodity, just like a sack of potatoes. It really does not matter to the consumer the souce a calorie of energy. The market has determined that the most cost effective source of energy is fossil fuel. We can choose to like this reality or not, but at this point in our technoogical development, fossil fuel is still the cheapest, most efficient, and most abundant energy supply for the world's economic and societal needs. When the cost of fossil fuel begins to rise...as the supply starts to dwindle many years into the future or if hyper demand far out paces supply, then an alternative will appear in the market. Until that time, it would be foolish to spend some factor greater than the market cost of energy for our needs. As stated before, energy is a commodity. Paying more for non-fossil fuel would be like paying Five bucks for a Two dollar sack of potatoes. Why would anyone do that?

Only in America

You know what is both ubiqutous throughout the world and at the same time uniquely American? I think the asnwer to this riddle is human stupidity. Don't buy it? Just look at some of the videos on You Tube. In fact human stupidity has become so pervasive that people make idoits of themsleves, inflict injury on themselves, or take crazy risks just to have something to post on the Internet. One could argue that at least a few years ago people got paid to be morons and it made a little more sense. At least making a movie like "Jackass" provided the....well...jackasses with a little income. Now there are hours of jackass-like video clips posted everday on You Tube just for giggles. These posts come to you from every corner of the Earth, so this idea of human stupidity is truly pervasive.

What is truly American about human stupidity, is that we have legions of people who get to make a living off the stupidity of others, they are called trial lawyers, or more specifically personal injury attorneys. Let's just say that the power mower has yet to be invented. We are going to be economists for a while here and make a series of assumptions, so the power lawn mower does not exist. Let's assume that one day by a stroke of sheer brilliance or complete dumb luck my buddies and I stumble across the idea of a 2-cycle engine driving a whirling blade encased in a container with 4 wheels, a throttle, and a starter. Voila - we now have a power mower. Let's also say that my friends and I are smart enough to know that while very useful and meeting a significant need in the market, we understand that our product can be dangerous if used inappropriately. Therefore, we sell this product with every reasonable warning and direction we can imagine. Do not operate on steep hills, do not operate while intoxicated, do not fill with gas while the engine is hot, keep all body parts away from the blade while running, etc. etc. We have given the world a very useful product that will save untold hours and created a better life for millions.

Let's go back to point number One, human stupidity is everywhere. Even though every human on the planet knows that this is a dumb idea, I bet you anything that there will be some loony-tune out there who will try something stupid with our newly invented lawn mower. Some powered-by-beer fraternity genius will try to do something like cut his hair with the power mower. The result will be predictable...srerious injury to the "user" of our product. Here is where the unique American twist to ubiquitous human stupidity comes in...someone (personal injury attorney) will get to make a living off of druken frat-boy's stupidity. Under strict prodcut's liability, we, as the inventors of the lawn mower, should have had the clarevoyance to see that somewhere, someday, a frat-boy would think that cutting his hair with a power mower was a good idea and we are liable for the serious injury resulted. We will be sued for some one else' moronic behavior. That is where the Americanization of human stupidity kicks in. We allow others to make a wonderful living off the pure unadulterated stupidity of irrational consumers. The personal injury attorney will take us to the cleaners, or will try to take us to the cleaners, because his client is an idiot, we have money based on the value of our invention in the market, and there is no downside risk for him to sue us.

So while there is no corner in the market in human stupidity, there is an American corner on the market letting trial lawyers get rich bacuase of it. Guess what many of our politicians did before they became politicians? Guess what presidential hopeful John Edwards did for a living before entering the world of national politics? Hint: He didn't invent lawn mowers or anything else of value. See the problem now?

Stupid is as Stupid Does - Politics in 2007

I know that most politicians understand the inverse relationship bewteen tax rates and tax revenues. It has been the case multiple times throughout the past 50 years that when tax rates are cut, the economy surges, and tax revenue swell to record levels. This was the case in the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration, and in the "W" administration.

While this is a semi-counter intuitive reality, it is not outside the grasp of all the "smarties" currently in or running for political office. I know that democrats understand this as well as the reverse to this reality which is that higher taxes tank the economy and therefore reduce tax reveues. So if everyone understands this, why are the dems hell-bent on increasing taxes? Why do they want to soak the tax payers who are paying the vast majority of US taxes? Is it punative? Is it that the leading dems truly are socialists?

There are a few other realities that the tax-happy dems should understand before they reach further into the pockets of the "producers" in this country:

1) Most of "the rich" that they laoth (though the dems in congress ironically are all very rich) are all smart emough to find ways around any tax increase plan. The smartest politician cannot outsmart the high end tax payer...who is a likely a high-ender becuase they are smart, motivated problem solvers who understandably want to keep the money they earn. That is how the system works. I have talent/skill, I work hard, I do a very good job, and get the prize. There is no better system in the world. Most high-enders pay a ton of taxes. I think most high-enders know that they earn a lot and will pay a lot. But they are currently taxed to the brink, and if they are saddled with more unfair, redistributionist taxes, they will find ways to avoid them. I am so happy for them in this endeavor.

2) No matter how hard the government wants everyone to be "okay" and to have a middle class standard of living, there are those who will spit the bit. Congress cannot force every American to show up to work on time, to work hard, to save for a rainy day, to go the extra mile on the job. Congress cannot force people to not have children out of wedlock, to stay married when they decide to get married, and to finish high school. This is the simple recepie for a modicum of success in the US. It is not a hard plan to follow, but there are many who will not.

The best intended programs will not lead to "no hardship for anyone". The tax burden imposed by unecessary and overreaching government programs will throttle the economy and kill the golden goose of United States free-market capitalism. The irony in the democratic tax and spend plan is that the folks who the dems allegedly want to help are the first ones to get kicked in the shins during a tax hike induced economic recession. The rich that the dems want to take down several pegs can weather a pretty rough economic ride. How does the paycheck-to-paycheck clerk make it when the recession forces their employers to cut their job.

3) the best thing any politician can do in managing the economy is stay out of the way. The US system is the best in the world. It creates millionaires who started from humble beginnings. It rewards innovation and hard work. It is the only system in the world that is self-limiting. My success in this system is limited by my ability, my work ethic, and the value I bring to the market. I limit my earnings and my worth in the market by the decisions I make. I do not want my economic success limited by decisions of power-addicted weanies in Washington who have never held a real job, never run a business, or had to make a payroll. Our system is the envy of the world, why do the dems want to kill it for government mandated mediocrity? Medicrity for everyone...courtesy of Uncle Freakin' Sam.

The United States tax problem is not a problem of too few revenues, the tax problem is too much spending. The tax problem in the US is a function of careerist politicians from both parties who want nothing more than to be re-elected and use tax-based handouts to buy votes. There is nothing wrong with the free market system in the United States. It works best when left alone. The free market has given us the standard of living we enjoy, the products we use, and the opportunities we leverage. It is our biggest asset. What is seriously broken in our country is the devolution of our republic into system of government handouts where political support is bought and paid for by politicians dreaming up new government guaranteed benefits for things that the free market and free consumers should provide for themselves.

If the government would stay out of the free market, there would be more and better of everything for those who chose to participate in what this country has to offer. I wish there were a politician with the courage to deliver this message to the nation. I guess it is easier to hand out "free" prescription drugs, retirement plans, and health care.