E!!

Two years and one week later, I return to the scene of the crime. It’s time to dig up old bones and resurrect the blog that was. I’ll bring you news and commentary, criticism and snark, kudos and can-you-believe-its on Nevada, the nation and parts yet unknown. You will bookmark the page and visit religiously, always wondering what you will find. It will be a love affair for the ages, Dear Readers. Walk with me and let’s see where it goes.

Clever.  And sobering.

Nearly every argument in favor of universal (socialized) health care includes the premis that it is a “right.”  But according to the U.S. Constiution, this is not so.  Geoff Lawrence over at NPRI explains why by giving us a brief lesson (via the writings of John Locke) about how the Constitution does not in fact support “positive rights.”  If you wish to effectively debate someone on health care reform (or any other entitlement program), you must understand this fundamental concept.  I recommend that you read Geoff’s whole post, but here’s the opener to give you a taste:

In the ongoing debate over health care reform, I continue to hear pundits on the left claim that health care is a right. Yet, this notion that government exists to guarantee “positive rights” such as free health care completely misunderstands the development of constitutional government.

The entire notion of constitutional government can be traced to John Locke’s Second Treatise. Here it is explained that all men are endowed with a set of natural rights which include: life, liberty and property. In order to protect those rights, civilized individuals agree to a “social contract” in order to form a government whose primary purpose is to protect the rights of individuals. This is done by empowering government to restrain the actions of others (such as theft, physical violence, etc.) that might directly infringe on your own natural rights. Hence the expression “Your rights end where someone else’s begin.”

The primary problem with the concept of “positive rights” is that the purpose of government changes from protecting the natural rights of individuals to actively infringing upon those rights. Any requirement for government to provide individuals with a certain amount of goods means that those goods must first be confiscated from society – which is a limit on the natural right to control property.

Just so.

For a wonderful treatise on why the government should not be in the business of deciding whether or how much to take from us in order to give to select others, read this story that was told on the House floor by Davy Crockett when he was serving as a U.S. Representative from Tennessee.  It concerned two votes on spending bills and the temptation of Congress to distribute money that was not their own for “charitable” purposes.

Our federal and state legislatures, as well as the Oval Office, have too long been staffed by too many people who do not understand nor support our rights and protections as they ought to exist according to our Constitution.   Through the increasing willingness of we, the citizenry, to allow government to do what we, as individuals, ought to be doing – helping and giving to the poor and needy as we are able and as we feel called to do – we have permitted our great Republic to become a tax-laden “social democracy” that reduces rather than protects our prosperity and freedom.

On May 23, 1857, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote: “A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Are we there yet?  Not quite, but I fear we are getting dangerously close.  Educate yourselves, good people, and let us find ways to speak out and persuade others before this great Republic devolves into a pitiful excuse for the nation it once was.

I’m nine days late to this post by Reno blogger Ryan Jerz – and the subsequent discussion in his Comments section - on whether internet access to news content is, or should be, a “right,” and whether or not it is moral to charge for it.  With U.S. print newspapers dying in droves and our own Las Vegas papers reportedly suffering, it’s a timely debate.

Here’s Ryan’s sum up:

I think anyone saying that news organizations should charge for access is a complete moron. As soon as there is yet another financial barrier to getting information that’s supposedly important to societies, you lose another group of people that (in the case of important information) should get access to it. If a well informed public is a more active and engaged public, who the hell in their right mind would advocate the taking of information away from that public? Besides politicians, of course.

Comments then ensue about how people have always paid for news via the print media but are accustomed to getting online info free, how news sources need to pay their news reporters but can’t if they aren’t being paid for content or generating enough ad dollars, how stupid it was for newspapers to start bundling their web ads with print ads (which de-valued web ads in the minds of ad buyers), and how to keep non-subsidized news sources independent. Among others.

I’m curious to see how things will work out for the print and online press in the next 5 to 10 years.  Whatever else, I predict that foundations and 501 organizations interested in achieving accountability-in-government though media and journalism will start offering grant money to start up and maintain independent online newspapers.  Newspapers may be dying, but those who love liberty cannot allow journalism to go with it.

If you have an interest and/or an opinon, read Ryan’s post and drop a Comment – or drop one here for me.

Excerpted and condensed from an email from Erick Erickson at RedState:

Obama has proposed sending the International Monetary Fund (IMF) billions of dollars as a quasi-bailout for European banks. 

The word is, House Republicans are going to vote in a block to oppose this, which means around thirty Democrats are needed to defeat the bill.   Blue Dog Dems are the key, along with Dems in districts that tilt Republican.  

Call 202-224-3121. Ask for the members of Congress below and tell them to oppose H.R. 2346, the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Bobby Bright AL-02
Parker Griffith AL-05
Ann Kirkpatrick AZ-01
Suzanne Kosmos FL-24
Walt Mitnick ID-01
Frank Kratovil MD-01
Glenn Nye VA-02
Tom Perriello VA-05Travis Childers (MS-01)
Harry Mitchell (AZ-05)
Gabby Giffords (AZ-08)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Bill Foster (IL-14)
Baron Hill (IN-09)

Apparently there’s a guy working at the Nevada Policy Research Institute who is smarter than the entire Nevada legislature combined.

How so?

He went through the state ledgers line by line and, applying some basic principles and setting a few reasonable priorities, came up with a proposed budget of $5.1 billion.  Which, unlike the budget proposed by the Nevada legislature, stays within our current revenue projections. 

Oh, wait, that’s right:  the state legislature still has not released their budget for public discussion.  Even though they’ve been meeting up in Carson City for months.

Said a legislator who asked not to be named, “I mean, come ON, guys.  This stuff is, like, really hard.”

Says Geoffrey Lawrence, the fiscal expert at NPRI who put the proposed budget together, ”The reason the legislature and governor haven’t been able to balance the budget is that they’ve been unable or unwilling to set priorities.”

Now we wait to hear what the Economic Forum has to say.  We expect they will project lower tax-revenue than previously anticipated.  And that lawmakers will then propose record or near-record tax increases.

If they do, remind them of the four basic principles that provided the basis for NPRI’s budget:  sensible prioritizing, consistent application of government rules and taxes, agency thrift, and “last in, first out” (the elimination of some programs created and funded by Nevada’s record 2003 tax increases – which never should have happened).

If you can stomach it, Americans for Tax Reform has a recap of all the major fiscal and tax-related events since Inauguration Day.

Title:  Obama’s First 100 Days:  Higher Spending. More Debt. New Taxes. Broken Promises.

Yep, that about sums it up.

Just a snippet:

Day 1 — January 20: In his Inaugural address, President Obama makes a noteworthy commitment to the American taxpayer:
 
“And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

Or two:

Day 41 — March 1: The Obama administration foreshadows another broken promise when Peter Orszag, appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, claims the 8,000 earmarks in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 are “last year’s business. We just need to move on.” The statement by Orszag in not consistent with Obama’s campaign promise made in the first presidential debate:
 
“And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” (Sept. 26, 2008. First Presidential Debate, Oxford, Miss.)

RTWT.

the French start sounding more sensible than the Americans on economic policy.

Read about President Sarkozy’s comments on capitalism here.  The Newsmax piece starts with this:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy says that the economic maelstrom that has captivated the world’s attention for the last 17 months is “not a crisis of capitalism” but, in actuality, a breakdown of a system that has “drifted away from capitalism’s most fundamental values.”

For a re-cap of how the U.S. drifted, here’s a pretty good (short) op-ed from the WaPo (August).  Title:  Is Capitalism Dead?  The market that failed was not exactly free.

If  you can, call and urge these NV legislators to vote against the budget:

Sen. Reid       202-224-3542

Sen. Ensign     202-224-6244

Rep. Heller     202-225-6155

Numbers for the “Mod Squad” in the Senate:

Evan Bayh (IN): 202-224-5623
Mark Begich (AK): 202-224-3004
Michael Bennet (CO): 202-224-5852
Thomas Carper (DE): 202-224-2441
Kay Hagan (NC): 202-224-6342
Claire McCaskill (MO): 202-224-6154
Mary Landrieu (LA): 202-224-5824
Joe Lieberman (CT): 202-224-4041
Ben Nelson (NE): 202-224-6551
Jeanne Shaheen (NH): 202-224-2841

Also… these Republicans are on the fence:

Arlen Specter (PA): 202-224-4254
Olympia Snowe (ME): 202-224-5344

Whatever your political leanings, you should give yourself the gift of a quick education and read this 12-page report from Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.  It is an excellent overview and contains many easy to understand charts, graphs, and summaries.

There is no denying that this budget contains enormous spending increases and will lead to unprecedented levels of national debt.  And Obama’s ”spending cuts” are nowhere to be found.  (Where is the promised scalpel, sir?!)  For example: 

– Obama proposes to move some items from the “discretionary” to “mandatory” spending category, but that is just re-arranging chairs.

– About half the total “savings” come from tax increases.

– Another large chunk of “savings” is really just money ($170 billion a year) that won’t be spent in Iraq after 2012.  But the Bush administration never planned to extend anything like the current levels of spending beyond 2012.  It’s not “saving” to not spend money that was NEVER going to be spent.

Fake savings and tax increases aside, this budget is scary because it is a permanent expansion of the federal government as a percent of GDP.  The simple chart on page 12 sums it up very nicely.  De Rugy, an expert in her field, predicts “slower growth rates, higher unemployment rates, lower standards of living, and higher levels of poverty.”

Change is definitely on the way, folks.  And you better hope your family is spared.

Jim Manzi @ The Corner tells us what we all should have been talking about yesterday:

Konichiwa!   [Jim Manzi]

Yesterday, while Congress and the media were obsessed with the $165 million AIG bonus outrage, the Fed decided to create another $1.2 trillion of U.S. currency. Numbers like this can seem absurd. How much bigger is $1.2 trillion than $165 million? Think about what gaining or losing $1,000 would mean to you. $1.2 trillion is to $165 million as $7 million is to $1,000. That’s how much more important the Fed’s action was.

Financiers have a fancy name for what the Fed did — “quantitative easing”. When you hear some kind of gee-whiz phrase in the finance industry that sounds kind of like something you understand, but somehow isn’t really clear, then it’s a lead pipe cinch that that you’re being had. Quantitative easing means that the Fed creates new currency out of thin air, and then uses it to buy assets. The moment after this happens nothing has changed about the real economy except that there is more currency. What do you think happens then? More dollars + the same assets = more dollars per asset = inflation.

If you’re in a deflationary period, the idea is that this is good because you head off some of the deflation. The hope is that this makes banks more likely to lend, “gets the economy moving again”, etc. Does this sound at all familiar to you?

Welcome to Japan.

03/19 04:26 PMShare

Just when you thought your blood pressure couldn’t rise any higher over the ill-conceived, pork-stuffed stimulus bill on-which-the-ink-is-not-yet-dry, Nancy Pelosi says ANOTHER package may be needed.

(Note:  in Liberalspeak, “may” = “will”)

She cites “job growth” as the reason for “keeping the door open” in this extended season of stimulus.  And here I thought saving and creating jobs was the meat and potatoes of Stimulus ~ Part I.

No, silly!  That was just a teaser.  A mere morsel.  A yummy bite-sized bacon-wrapped appetizer.

Pelosi and Friends are now going to start cooking up the next course – the one that will really, Really fix everything – for your consumption.

If anyone feels the need to puke, the bathroom is that way —————->

According to Forbes, Las Vegas beat out the Motor City for the highest vacancy rates in the country in Q4 2008.  The overall rates were obtained by averaging homeowner and rental vacancies.  Vegas had a rental vacancy rate of 16% and a homeowner rate of 4.7%.

The article attributes these statistics to the recent housing bust.  I’d feel pretty safe guessing that major valley wide layoffs were/are a factor as well.

Here’s an interesting developer anecdote from the article:

[Laurence Hallier]‘s $600 million Panorama Towers complex was a tremendous success at its inception three years ago. The first of his four planned residential skyscrapers sold out in six months; the second, which opened in 2007, sold out in 12 weeks. As the third tower neared completion last fall, Hallier had sold 92% of its units. Then the recession hit, and only half the units ended up closing. Hallier says it will take years to break even, and plans for the fourth tower have been delayed indefinitely.

Here’s a little two minute ditty I think you’ll all enjoy.  My complements to singer and song writer Kathleen Stewart and lyricist Steve Jones.

Harry Reid said the following in a newsletter to his constituents yesterday:

“In his budget request for 2010, President Obama will announce plans to devise a new strategy to find another solution to deal with the nation’s nuclear waste that does not include storing it in Nevada.”

This is a shame if so.  The Yucca Mountain project currently employs hundreds of people and stands to employ thousands more, not to mention the nearly $100 billion it would bring into the hurting state economy.

The operation of nuclear energy plants and the transportation, recycling, and storage of spent nuclear fuel can be done quite safely these days - in fact is done safely all over Europe - but apparently Harry Reid is not going to let the facts get in the way of politics-per-usual and a Wednesday press release.  (More on the latest with Yucca here.)

This is the second time in less than three weeks an Obama agenda item has dealt a heavy blow to Nevada’s economy.  What was the first, you ask?  This offhand comment recently made at a townhall meeting:

“You are not going to be able to give out these big bonuses until you’ve paid taxpayers back, you can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”

Rich Becker wrote an excellent piece on the fallout of that comment, which summed up is this:

Companies are now scrambling to avoid the “stigma” of holding company functions in Las Vegas and millions of dollars have been lost due to cancelled rooms and convention events.  (These organizations aren’t really cancelling the events; they’re just relocating them.  To sunny California, mostly.)  And the tremendous loss of room revenue, convention business, enertainment dollars, and gaming revenue is going to lead to even more layoffs than Nevada’s already seen.

So where are Harry Reid (and Dina Titus) with their outrage and big press releases when Nevada’s economy really needs them?  Busy rubbing elbows with a president who clearly doesn’t give a damn about the what’s best for the Silver State.

I guess Nevada is now “blue” in more ways than one.

But don’t just stand there and cry, good citizens.  You can do something:

http://dumpreid.com/

Yesterday 18 free market and limited government leaders released a letter urging the Senate to reject “the Bill.” 

And Rasumussen reported that more Americans oppose the $1.2 trillion (including intest) bill than support it.   Here are some blurbs:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Meanwhile Congressional Republicans doubt whether the bill will save or create the 3 to 4 million jobs Obama and the Dems claim.

The bill is full of pork and nonsense and needs to be scrapped.

Leslie Carbone, on tomorrow’s Stimulus anti-Stimulus vote in the House, that is.

As an alternative to drinking yourself into a stupor and sobbing dejectedly as the D.C. Democrats embark on a major spendfest, how about this:

The Republican Study Committee has introduced the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Relief Act of 2009 as an alternative to the Democrats’ big-spending stimulus plan.  Click through for either the full text or highlights as well as letters of support from Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union.  It includes:

- A 5% across the board income tax cut (all six federal rates would be cut)

- An increase in the child tax credit from $1,000 to $5,000

- Permanently lowering capital gains tax to 15% (the rate cuts from 2003 expire in 2010)

- Repeal of the Alternate Minimium Tax on individuals

- Permanently repeal required distributions on retirement accounts (suspended for 2009, but goes back into effect in 2010)

- Making all withdrawals from IRAs tax and penalty free in 2009

- Increasing by 50% the tax deduction on student loans and qualified higher education costs

- Full, immediate expensing for businesses all costs of assets (uncaps and accelerates exepensing which will encourage capital spending)

- Reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% (for all you contintental types, that would align our rate with the average rate in the EU)

- End capital gains tax on inflation and simplify the capital gains rate structure

- Make the R&D tax credit permanent (originally enacted as part of Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981)

- Extend the carryback period for net operating losses to seven years

This bill contains NO NEW SPENDING, unlike the “stimulus” bill the Dems are pushing which will put us at an unprecedented peacetime deficit (about 8.3% of the GDP).  The bill also contains a one percent reduction to Fiscal Year 2009 discretionary spending, excepting Defense and Military Construction, which is a step toward further spending restraint.

All fiscal conservatives should contact their congressman and support this bill.  It is a no-brainer.

Dear Reader:

Study this.

Cordially,

E.

Don’t miss this Washington Times piece by Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (and thanks to Stephen Dreikorn @ The Pinkston Group for bringing it to my attention).

Shaprio rightly points out that the card check issue is even bigger than worker coercion and forced unionization through the deprivation of secret ballot votes in union elections.  Also at stake are the integrity of our labor laws, the balance of power in American labor-management relations, and possibly our entire economy.

Shapiro reminds us that unions once existed primarily to ensure worker safety, but protections for our labor force are now the law of the land.  Unions today have become more concerned with negotiating above-market wages and benefits for their members, lobbying to block free trade agreements at every turn, and protecting their own power.

When achieved, these three things make companies less competitive.  And companies that cannot compete will flounder or fail, hurting the shareholders and driving jobs overseas while dumping their newly unemployed into the American economy.

Shapiro reminds us that creative innovation is the American way and the best way out of the present situation.  He asks us to realize that the big union bullwhips and our mounting personal and national debt are driving us all into a deep pit that may soon become a mass grave.

Rather than burden companies with heavy tarrifs, big taxes, and too cumbersome regulatory and union restrictions, we should be doing our best to lighten their load so they can be faster and more flexible.  In a global economy that can often turn on a dime, getting around the corner quickly is the difference between keeping up with the pack or being left in the proverbial dust.

Iain Murray recently had a good post on the general arguments for them, and for meddling or not meddling with them.

At a recent meeting of Nevada conservative and libertarian leaders it was interesting to note that although we each came from different points on the political spectrum and disagreed on some things, we found one general policy area in which we all agreed:  fiscal policy.  Namely:  free market, small (and transparent) government, low tax, balanced-budget approaches.

I highly recommend this long but excellent piece, “Wall Street Lays Another Egg,” by Niall Ferguson in Vanity Fair. You’ll be smarter if you read even half.

Hat Tip: Ralph Hancock on the Postmodern Conservative blog @ Culture11

I think this will be the E!! last word on the GM thing:  what Jim Manzi says.

David Frum urges us not to bailout automakers on Marketplace.publicradio.org.

And then on NRO, he posts this:

Time was when General Motors alone ranked among the largest employers in the United States.

Today, UPS employs almost four times as many people as the two big U.S. companies, Ford and GM, combined. While the Big Two decline, Toyota USA, Nissan USA, BMW, KIA are all expanding — and not asking for any bailout.

The Big Two remain important employers. Their troubles are felt up and down the manufacturing supply chain. But of course that is true for every industry.

Last week, the stock of Las Vegas Sands Corporation collapsed. Bankruptcy seems a real possibility. Indeed, the whole casino gambling industry in Nevada is facing the worst crisis in at least a generation, maybe ever. Casino gambling directly employs more people than the domestic automobile industry. Add in the supply chain for both industries, and casinos still employ almost half as many people as the automobile sector.

So what about a bailout for the casino industry? Ridiculous! Right? But why right?

Unfreakinbelievable.

Brace yourself and then then read Larry Kudlow’s post on Paulson today, various bailout stuff, and the auto industry.

Setting aside the fact that Paulson has changed the whole bailout game, is Obama’s first policy decision really going to be a GM bailout? Maybe, because apparently a UAW rescue is favored by Pelosi and Reid.

Before you decide what you think, consider this amazing stat:

Total compensation per hour for the big-three carmakers is $73.20. That’s a 52 percent differential from Toyota’s (Detroit South) $48 compensation (wages + health and retirement benefits). In fact, the oversized UAW-driven pay package for Detroit is 132 percent higher than that of the entire manufacturing sector of the U.S., which comes in at $31.59.

At $73 per hour, GM ain’t gonna be competitive no matter what is done. Let them cut their wages to industry norms.

Like many Americans last week, I tuned in for the 30-minute Barack-o-mercial. 

In between the anecdotal close-ups of struggling American families – a widow working two jobs and raising two kids; a husband and father worried about his job at the Ford plant – I noted that Obama’s megacommercial failed to present hard data on the cost of his proposed programs and said nothing about our huge federal deficit and the corresponding budget pressures he will face once in office. 

Obam’s description of his health care plan – which “includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions, and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year” – sounds very nice, but there has been no independent economic analysis confirming that costs will really be reduced by that (or any) amount.

Obama simply Hopes that spending $50 billion on his proposed Changes over the next five years will save the system money.  But even if his optimistic estimates prove out, Obama’s plan does not stipulate that the net savings by insurance and health care providers will result in lower premiums for consumers.

And then we have Obama’s promises to “cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year…  Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee they hire…  Eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas…  Help homeowners by freezing foreclosures for 90 days… Provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open…”

Independent analysts have estimated that combined with our current budget shortfalls, these and other of Obama’s proposals will likely result in a $1 trillion deficit next year.  That being unthinkable, some purging will be necessary.  But which of his programs will Obama cut, and why has he been promising all of them if he knows at least some must go?

Though much of his infomercial focused on the “hard realities” of life for select American families, Obama seems unwilling or unable to face reality himself.  It seems he could stand to learn something from that widowed mother of two who has to settle for half instead of whole gallons of milk when the money runs short – and doesn’t promise her family otherwise on the way to the store.

An open letter to the newspapers of America by Orson Scott Card.  A little long but full of facts and well worth the read.

Here’s the opening:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

Read the rest when you have the time.

Hat Tip:  The Venerable Mr. Crum (thanks, honey!)

Victor Davis Hanson is always worth the read.  Today’s column is on the basic lessons we can learn from the financial mess.

An excerpt:

The new national gospel became charge now/pay later and speculate, rather than put something away in case of a downturn. To provide more goodies that we hadn’t earned, politicians ignored soaring annual budget deficits and staggering national debt and kept spending.

The lessons:

First, cash really is king. For all the talk of a trillion here or billions there, when the crunch came, many of these investment houses and their once-strutting managers found themselves with a minus net worth. They were desperate to find liquidity — any money anywhere they could find it. Pedestrian passbook savings accounts proved wiser investments than all the clever hedge funds, derivatives, and sub-prime schemes put together.

And:

Second, wisdom and blue-chip college educations are not quite the same thing. The fools in Washington and New York who blew up Wall Street had degrees from our finest professional schools.

And:

Third, we as a nation need to relearn the old notion of shame — as in “shame on you!” Firms like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were once responsible Wall Street institutions, built up over decades by sober men. But their far-lesser successors in just a few months have bankrupted these venerable brokerage houses — with seemingly no shame at what they have done to the image of Wall Street.

Americans used to pay their debts. Somewhere in all the blame-gaming about the crooks and liars in New York and Washington, we never hear that real people borrowed real money that they should not have. And they then defaulted on what they owed to others. Walking away from debts may have been understandable, but it was also a violation of trust — and wrong.

My Uncle David, who lives in the state with the best motto – Live Free or Die – just forwarded this to me; I assume it came to him the same way (not sure the source).

CEO –Chief Embezzlement Officer

CFO– Corporate Fraud Officer

BULL MARKET — A random market movement causing an investor to
mistake himself for a financial genius

BEAR MARKET — A 6 to 18 month period when the kids get no
allowance, the wife gets no jewelry, and the husband gets no sex

VALUE INVESTING — The art of buying low and selling lower

P/E RATIO — The percentage of investors wetting their pants
as the market keeps crashing

BROKER — What my broker has made me

STANDARD & POOR — Your life in a nutshell

STOCK ANALYST — Idiot who just downgraded your stock

STOCK SPLIT — When your ex-wife and her lawyer split your
assets equally between themselves

FINANCIAL PLANNER — A guy whose phone has been disconnected

MARKET CORRECTION — The day after you buy stocks

CASH FLOW– The movement your money makes as it disappears
down the toilet

YAHOO — What you yell after selling it to some poor sucker
for $240 per share

WINDOWS — What you jump out of when you’re the sucker who
bought Yahoo @ $240 per share

INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR — Past year investor who’s now locked
up in a nuthouse

PROFIT — An archaic word no longer in use

 Just received a press release (statement) from the Titus campaign.  Here are some excerpts:

Titus: Bailout Package Is One More Example of How Washington Is Broken

1.  Titus fails to mention that the government policies which birthed the Fannie/Freddie financial crisis were enacted in the Carter and Clinton administrations with the approval of both Ds and Rs in Congress, so she’s either uninformed or being deliberately dishonest.

2.  Titus says Bush and Porter are to blame for the lack of oversight when nearly everyone including the present Democratic leadership was complicit in looking the other way, so she’s either uninformed or being deliberately partisan.

3.  Titus rips Porter for being in favor of the imperfect bailout bill, but then says “with so many critical tax breaks” for Nevada she would have “reluctantly” voted for the inadequate bill also, so she’s either very confused…or being hypocritical.

Porter voted for the bill.  Titus bloviates at length – and then says she would have voted for the bill.  When all the ranting and raving is done, what in Sam Hill is the difference?!

Neither the guy who’s in, nor the gal who wants to BE in, has the gumption to stand on principle and fight for good policy when there are special tax credits to be had.  Of course:  how else could they ingratiate themselves to the voters?  Just look at all they’ve done for you!!

That’s a REAL example of how Washington is broken – and Nevada, too.