Is the economy really this bad?

I love pancakes! Indeed, they are my favorite breakfast food. While I usually refrain from buying pancakes at a fast-food restaurant, I was running late for work yesterday and really craving pancakes. I had no choice but to stop at a McDonald’s I pass on my walk from the parking garage to my office.

Out of respect to my health and my animal rights’ friends, I rarely eat at McDonald’s, but I do visit this particular McDonald’s on an almost daily basis for coffee. As such, the staff is very familiar with me.

I proceeded to order my pancakes and coffee and noticed only one pack of syrup in the bag . Keep in mind, an order of pancakes at McDonald’s consists of three pancakes–one pack of syrup will not cut it.

I asked for a second packet and was told it would cost me 27 cents for an extra packet. I glared at the manager, then at the lone syrup packet in my bag. I noticed a tear in the packaging and brought it to the manager’s attention. She offered to replace the packet and then offered to give me a second packet for–get this–25 cents. A whole 2 cents savings!

Again, I glared at the manager and said, “that is not good enough.” Her expression was if I asked her to give me a New York strip. I reminded her that I was a loyal customer and that they would lose far money by refusing to give me the syrup since I would end my daily coffee patronage. Finally, she relented and gave me the second package of syrup.

Has it really come to this? Is the recession so deep that McDonald’s must charge 27 cents for syrup? Is this really going to drive their food costs up?

What’s the matter in East Texas?

My good friend, Brian Cuban, recently penned an article for his blog regarding the “death of small town America.” In the piece, Cuban opens with details of his recent trip to celebrate Thanksgiving in East Texas and laments the condition of one specific town, Atlanta, Texas, but extends the content of his post to small towns all over our country, where the downtown area is full of vacant buildings and the economy is dead.

Cuban contends that Wal-Mart is to blame for the demise of Atlanta and other small towns all across the land. While Wal-Mart definitely played in a role in the death of small town America, other factors contributed and deserve a full and open discussion.

In full disclosure, my family’s roots in the Atlanta area go back through at least the mid point of the nineteenth century.  Though I don’t live there now, this area will always be “home.”  I know the land and the people and understand all too well the political and economic forces that make the community, and others like it, tick.

What’s happened in Atlanta in has been going on for centuries.

Consider the fact that immediately following the Civil War, as most of the state lay barren and uninhabited, the bustling river port of Jefferson (@ 30 miles south of Atlanta) had a population of around 30,000. This might not sound like a lot by today’s standards, but in the 1860′s and 1870′s only Houston and Austin had a larger population in the state. Legend has it that railroad tycoon, Jay Gould, cursed the city for their refusal to allow him to put his railroad through the town. Historians will tell you it was the Corps of Engineers ability to finally remove the Great Raft from the Red River, resulting in dropping water levels in Big Cypress Bayou making it no longer navigable, that brought around the eventual demise of Jefferson. Whatever the case may be, Jefferson now has a population of around 2,000 and an economy that’s not much better than Atlanta’s. It’s worth noting, there is no Wal-Mart in Jefferson.

Brian and I had Thanksgiving in Kilgore, Texas, an East Texas city with a similar history to Jefferson. In the 1930′s, oil was discovered in Kilgore and other East Texas communities like New London and Joinerville. Soon boom towns sprung up all over the area. The population and economy in the area soared. At one time, over 1,200 oil wells pumped inside the city limits of Kilgore alone.  While oil still means a lot to the economy in Kilgore, the boom long subsided and downtown Kilgore continues to struggle. I lived in Kilgore for a couple of years and residents continually refused to build a Super Wal-Mart for fear of what it would do to the local economy. Finally, after I moved in 2002, Kilgore gave in and they now have a Super Wal-Mart. The economy seems to be as stagnant as it was  before, but no worse than the pre-Supe Wal-Mart days.

The reason that these East Texas communities continue to struggle is not because a large corporation chose to build a discount super store, but rather the absence of real capital.  In the 1860′s and 1870′s, Jeffersonians made the most of their capital–their bustling river port. Once it dried up, many of the investors that contributed to the growth of the city left, leaving those who could not afford to leave to rot in the economic decay. Similarly, the discovery of oil led to an influx of capital from every major oil company in the world into the East Texas region. Once the oil became harder to find, the investors began to pull out, leaving behind a work force largely unqualified to do anything else except work in the oil fields.

The problem becomes worse when people in my generation leave to get an education, establish themselves professionally and then don’t return to the area. It’s similar to the cause of urban decay, where the “have’s” escape to the suburbs, leaving the “have not’s” in the urban core.

In spite of all this, the people of East Texas are persistent as the native pine trees, roots planted firmly in the ground, capable of withstanding all that life may throw their way. Neither the Corps of Engineers, nor “big oil”, nor Wal-Mart will destroy these towns. It would help if the Federal government got off the backs of these good people and loosen regulations on the two industries that this region depends on more than any others–timber and oil–but it’s not in the East Texan’s nature to complain, but rather to deal with life deals them. Just like they have in the past, East Texans will survive this current economic storm and come out better for the most part than their urban counterparts.

—————-
Now playing: Graham Nash/David Crosby – Immigration Man
via FoxyTunes

Question for Obama Supporters #1

I’ve noticed that many people scoff at the idea of certain conservatives calling the current direction the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership are headed, “socialist.”

Personally, I think it’s a bit hypocritical for most elected Republican officials to use the term “socialist,” since the past 8 years were filled with government expansion, an idea often closely associated with “socialism.” However, I have no real problem with the semantics of applying the socilaist term to many of the policies being presented by the current administration. While they may not directly mirror the textbook definition of “socialism,” they do contain many of elements of “nationalization” and involve the intervention of the Federal government in the private sector.

It got me to thinking, if any use of the word “socialist” or “socialism”, as it relates to the current administration, will be viewed as simply a pejorative, what adjective, or what form of government, best describes the intentions of this current administration?

A few facts:

The previous administration began a policy of using the Federal government to engage in problems confronting the financial sector, part of the private sector. This policy was continued and expanded on by the current administration, including the use of Federal funds to prop up privately held financial institutions.

One sector, the automobile industry, received a lot of “hands on attention” from this current administration. Depending on where you get your news, this administration either forced one company (Chrysler) into bankruptcy or strongly suggested they consider it. Either way, the Federal government injected itself into the day-to-day business operations of a company in the private sector.

This administration and Democratic leadership has made clear its intentions to pass legislation regarding health care in the United States, specifically involving the Federal government in seeking out solutions for the uninsured or “under-insured.” Again, depending on where you get your news, this administration either wants to completly nationalize the health care industry or it seeks to establish some form of government run health care for those in need. Either way, it appears this administration and current Democratic leadership will attempt to expand the role of the Federal government in the health care indsutry.

While this may not fit your definition of “socialism,” it certainly does not fit the definition of “free-market capitalism.” My question to those sensitive to the word “socialism,” how do we describe these policies. Is there a particular term or phrase you would choose to use?

Searching for the political Cool Hand Luke

In the movie Cool Hand Luke, Luke Jackson serves time in a Florida prison work camp. From the moment he is introduced to the camp, Luke establishes himself as a fiercely independent spirit, challenging the authority of  the prison guards and refusing to accept the heirarchy of power among the prisoners established prior to his arrival.  One of the movies most memorable moments occurs when Luke (Paul Newman) challenges Dragline (George Kennedy), the self appointed leader among the band of prisoners,  to a prison yard fight.

Dragline uses his size and strength to pummel Luke. However, each time Dragline knocks Luke to the ground, he rises back up to take the next round of punches. At first, the other prioners cheer the fight on, but after a while they begin to see the extent of the beating and encourage Luke to either stay down or start bleeding so that the guards will stop the fight.  Luke refuses, rises to his feet and attempts a weak swing at Dragline who picks Luke up and throws him over his shoulder like a sack of potatos. When Dragline puts Luke down, he takes another swing at Dragline’s face. Dragline looks at Luke tells him “you’re beat” and to “stay down,” but Luke rises back up, as Dragline walks away.

Later that night, Luke manages to win most of the money in camp by bluffing his way through a hand in poker. Dragline looks at Luke and makes the comparison of the way Luke continued to fight him with “nothing” to the way he won a big hand in poker with “nothing.” This prompts Luke to issue one of the most famous lines in movie history, “…sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand.” As the movie progresses, we see Luke defy the authority of the prison guards and that of Captain, seeking to escape from both the literal and metaphorical chains they attach to him, refusing to allow the authority of the prison camp establishment intimidate him.

When I think of Cool Hand Luke, I’m reminded of what the Republican Party currently needs. In the current political clime, Barack Obama plays the role of Captain. Indeed, you can almost hear the words, “what we have here is failure to communicate,” coming out of Obama’s mouth. The prison guards represent Obama’s lackeys in the Democratic Party–Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, etc. Dragline represents the current “leaders” in the Republican Party–John McCain, Sarah Palin, Lindsey Graham. The other prisoners represent the Republican Party and Luke represents the figure the Republican Party lacks.

Yes, the Republican Party needs their own Luke, someone willing to challenge the authority of the political establishment, someone willing to challenge the Captain and his guards, someone willing to take the punches from those in the Republican Party who will tell him or her, “we’re beat, stay down.”  The Republican Party needs politicians,not with policy, but with swagger. The Republicans need someone to energize their party with their dissidence.

Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) understands this, but lacks the eloquence to properly express this philosophy.  Asking a political party to take lessons from a Paul Newman movie is far less controversial than asking a political party to take lessons from the Taliban. I might not agree with everything Sessions says, but I admire his bravado nonetheless. Earlier in the week, Sessions called out Barack Obama, saying that Obama wants to “inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not kill it.”  After that remark, members of Sessions own party played the role of Dragline, distancing themselves from Sessions comments, submitting to the authority of the Democratic leadership.

Instead of standing up beside Sessions, lambasting Obama for his contempt of the private sector, accepting the punishment the White House would surely throw their way, the Republican leadership tucked their tails between their legs and said they did not agree with Sessions. They chose to cut and run, instead of staying and fighting.

We have seen this same cowardice since 2000. Every Republican politician has marched in line with the leadership at top. Every now and then, a few Republican politicians will have a moment of clarity and take a stand like Sessions; however, none of them go far enough.

For example, when Sessions made his accusations about Obama’s attempt to “kill” capitalism, he could have launched into a speech against socialism and took a chance to criticize many in his own party. 

The Republicans taxed and spent the past 8 year like there was no tomorrow and tried to force the government in arenas where the government has no business (gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, etc.). Yes, the few remaining Republicans in Congress are just like their Democrat counterparts. In the words of Bon Jovi, “it’s all the same/only the names have changed.” 

As much as I hate the Democratic Party, the Republican Party is actually more puzzling to me. Why is that they continue to push issues that many, if not most, Americans see as products of bigotry and misogyny. You don’t win elections by telling people “we think this group of people should have these rights, but not these.” They’re free to believe that, but don’t try to legislate it.

The best way for Republicans to win elections is to focus on the economy. “I’ll cut your taxes. I’ll decrease regulation of your business. I’ll let you make as much money as you want and spend that money the way that you want. Other than that, do what you want, just remember your rights end at your nose.” 

Instead, Republicans vote with Democrats on raising taxes, increasing government spending, using the government as a vehicle to fix mistakes made by the private sector. Let us not forget, a Republican president started the Federal bail out program. Three Republican Senators voted in favor of the Federal stimulus program. No wonder the Republican Party is at rock bottom, right now, it has no backbone to support it. Hopefully, before too long, the Republican Party will find it’s Cool Hand Luke and throw a wrench in the Democrats plan to turn the United States into a European socialist state.

Free markets and capitalism Part 1

For me, the NBA season ends when the Mavericks bow out of the playoffs. I’ll devote some time to the Mavs around the draft, but for now, I’d like to get back to some political discussions, specifically something that I have been thinking about a lot the past few weeks.

I find it funny when people attack capitalism and free markets, treating them as the “enemy” of  freedom and liberty. Barack Obama has made this way of thinking chic again, when the opposite is actually true—capitalism and the free markets are the guarantors of freedom and liberty.  Sure, as a young, idealistic college student, it’s fun to think like Mr. Obama, but once you graduate certain realities should start to take shape. 

It’s the free market economic system that allows you the very freedom to sit around and even consider whether or not some third world factory worker is exploited or not. Likewise, it’s the free market system that created and maintains the “middle class” Lefitsts talk so much about (but do so little for). If it weren’t for our free market economic system, you would be farming your own food, raising your own animals, sewing your own clothes and would have very little leisure time to sit around and think.
It’s our free market economic system, which some think exploits our citizens and other countries, that has paved the way for the ambition and innovation that has allowed for the technological innovations that allow you to write blogs, join social networking sites, write and send e-mails.

It’s our free market economic system, which some think exploits our citizens and other countries, that transformed our nation (and world to a certain extent) from a collection of isolated communities into a vast global network, where we are aware of the condition of those outside our own communities. Do you think Cubans are very aware of those outside of Cuba? Does the average Cuban have the luxury of sitting around, thinking about the condition of people in Darfur?

It’s our free market economic system, which some think exploits other countries, that, believe it or not, raises the per capita earnings of residents in Third World countries. Sure, a person working in a sweat shop in Vietnam makes a terrible wage compared to Americans, but compared to other people in Vietnam, they make a better than average wage. 

The role of the Federal government

The United States Constitution acts like a doctor’s prescription.  Instead of medicine, it intructs us on how much government is healthy.  Just as taking more medicine than a doctor recommends can cause harm to the body, so to having more government than the Constitution prescribes can and will cause harm to our great nation. The Federal government is good in the small recommended doses laid out in the Constitution.

The Obama administration seeks to expand the powers of the government outside the parameters set up in the Constitution and risk the health of our nation as we know it.

This is the reason for the Tea Partys.

Politics of fear

Do you remember where you were on the night of March 18, 2003?

I do. I was at Players, a sports bar, located on the physical border of Texas and Arkanas in the town of Texarkana. I remember because on that night George W. Bush commandeered the airwaves of every major television station and issued an ultimatum to Sadaam Hussein 48 hours–leave Iraq or face the Untied States military. Players catered to a decidedly “red state” crowd and I was anything but a “red stater.”

Just that morning, a letter I wrote to the local newspaper had been published expressing my dissent to the planned invasion. I lost a lot of friends over that letter, but I stayed true to my beliefs. That night, the crowd at Players cheered the TV as Bush spoke from his balls and I hung my head in shame. I felt that these people and millions of Americans across the nation were falling to the politics of fear. I never bought into the “fear Iraq” message and was a vocal opponent to the war effort from the beginning. Over time, I was proven right.

The Left attacked George W. Bush over his lies and his “fear mongering.” Imagine my surprise when, barely into his first month in office, Barrack Hussein Obama decided to play the “fear” card as well, this time in regards to the economy. Every time Obama speaks he tries to convince the American people that we should fear the current economic climate and turn to him and socialist, tax dodging pinkos to save us.

Just like I did with Bush, I’m calling bullshit on Obama’s claims. I didn’t fear Sadaam Hussein and I don’t fear this economy. If anything scares me it’s B. Hussein Obama’s attempts to deal with the economy.

Why Can’t The English?

This past week our nation marked the end of an eight year nightmare. The George W. Bush administration betrayed the American people, choosing to govern by truly un-American principles. People around the globe rejoiced as Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Barack Obama as the 44^thPresident of the United States (or did he?) and many spoke of their hopes for the new President. Personally, I hope that President Obama reverses many of the ultra conservative social policies enacted by the previous administration, ends government intrusion in our daily lives, attempts to be more diplomatic in dealing with our foreign allies and negotiates an effective withdrawal of troops in Iraq. However, listening to voices from abroad and from some of the more radical elements in our own country, many have more nefarious hopes for our new President.

Anatole Kaletsky published a very telling piece in the Thursday, January 22, 2009, edition of London’s, The Times, in which he expressed his hope that President Obama would “reinvent” American capitalism. The plan Mr. Kaletsky spells out calls for the United States to abandon the very principles of capitalism that allowed our nation to grow its’ economy and, in doing so, replace the British empire as the world’s super power, and adopt in its’ place a smiley faced, sugar coated version of socialism accepted by most European nations.

Mr. Kaletsky attempts to convince his reader that American capitalism lies at the root of the eight year nightmare known as the “Bush administration,” that American capitalism is the sole cause for the current economic plight facing our world, that American capitalism, like communism, is evil and must be destroyed. I find irony in a Soviet born writer comparing “American capitalism” to the forces of communism that ultimately forced him to leave his home land. While some born in the Soviet Union saw the horrors of their government, defected and embraced our system of him freedom, liberty and markets (e.g. Ayn Rand), others like Mr. Kaletsky cannot fathom an economic system free of the heavy hand of government regulation and intrusion.

Why can’t the English get out of the way and let us save the world the way we have time and time again?

I aim not to dispute all the fallacies in Mr. Kaletsy’s argument, but merely to offer my voice as a supporter of both President Barack Obama and to free-market capitalism. The Federal government cannot cure our economic woes, only the markets can take care of themselves. Indeed, the Federal government will only make things worse. Yes, our nation elected President Obama on a platform of change, but our system of free-market capitalism is one of the few things in our nation not in need of change.

Happiness Is…

I’m happy!

While many investors, media members and politicians lament the defeat of the proposed $700 billion rescue plan, I celebrate this resounding defeat of socialism.  Call me naive, but I believe that as a people and as a country we will be just fine. The United States has always responded well to adversity.

I admit; the economic situation makes an Obama victory more likely. However, House Republicans have shown that they have the intestinal fortitude necessary to stand up to the agenda of socialism pushed by the Democratic Party. Obama now knows that any attempt on his part to put government where government doesn’t need to be (i.e. health care) will be met with dissent.

I’m most proud of the people of this great land. Everyday citizens, like you and me, are the reason that this bill was defeated. We called our elected officials and voiced our opposition and the response was so overwhelming that they could not ignore us. Over the next few weeks, watch as European citizens cower to their government’s financial rescue attempts. I love them, but the Brits will sit around and let their government take control, socialism’s hold is firm and growing there. The French wouldn’t stand up to the Nazis, we know they wouldn’t stand up to their own government. The Germans, the Italians and most certainly the socialists in places like Spain, Greece and Denmark will stand back and let socialism gain even more control over their economic markets. Americans saw something they did not like and spoke up!

At the same time, we’re not caving into the corporatists who have ruined our country and ruined the Republican Party.  We are standing up to community organizers, like Barrack Obama, who use intimidation to force banks to loan money to unqualified home buyers.  We are standing up to the irresponsible consumers, who in an attempt to live well above their means, fell into a pit of debt. We, as American, are standing up and shouting for our elected officials and the rest of the world to hear–we expect people to take care of themselves, that personal responsibility is the only way out of our current economic crisis. It is because of this that I am a happy man today. America has not had this bravado since the tail end of the Reagan Administration.

Oxford, Mississippi Presidential Debate

I like getting political analysis from a variety of sources.  Every media outlet slants one way or the other, an unbiased media does not exist. Therefore, it is imperative to flip around to get the full story.

Personally, I felt John McCain won tonight’s debate and exposed Barack Obama as a one trick pony. Sure, Obama looked debonair, but he continues to fail to comprehend the basic principles of capitalism, either that or he disagrees with the principles of capitalism.  Indeed, Obama admitted that he felt “government regulation” was a major component to solving the ills plaguing the financial world. Though quick to point out the predatory nature of some lending institutions, Obama failed to talk about the role the irresponsible consumer and the tax-happy Federal government played in contributing to our current economic environment. Obama’s failure to understand these basic principles of capitalism prevent him from understanding the very basics of Wall Street.

Not only does he fail to understand Wall Street; he fails to understand “Main Street.”  I grew up on Main Street, literally, 202 West Main Street to be exact.  I’m not upset that Americans wealthier than me receive tax cuts. Other people’s success does not threaten me, rather it inspires me. Obama wants to cut taxes for 90% of Americans? That’s not good enough, McCain’s tax cuts extend even to wealthy Americans, which is only fair.

The one thing Obama continues to prove over and over again is that he does understand one street in the United States–Hollywood Boulevard.  Obama’s foriegn policy script could have been written by any Hollywood screen writer, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, or any other of the radical Leftists in Hollywood. Since we’re talking actors and directors, I feel it’s prudent to quote Shakespeare, “what’s done is done and cannont be undone.” Indeed, we may have gone into Iraq under false pretenses, but Obama and his Hollywood friends fail to acknowledge that once we entered that country, be it right or wrong, we had an obligation to finish what we started. Throughout tonight’s debate, I continued to hear this drivel spill out the mouth of Obama.

As you know, MSNBC decided to reassign their Leftist lightning rods, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann for these debates. Matthews got stuck with the late shift following the debate tonight and I flipped it over to watch a bit of his Obama love fest. On several occasions, I was reminded of film clips of star struck female fans of Elvis and The Beatles from the 1960′s watching Matthews. He sat in a chair, arms cross his chest, as if he was trying to hug himself, his head tilted gently to the side as he stared off into the night, obviously enjoying a case of happy pants as he thought of his ultimate man crush Barrack Obama. He asked two basic questions to his guests, “Wasn’t Obama great?” and “Will  being ‘troll-like’ hurt John McCain?”

Seriously?  “Troll like?” If John McCain is “troll like,” what is Barrack Obama? Fascist like?

Chris, tell me, will being a fascist hurt Barrack Obama? Let’s hope so, because the one thing Obama does understand and embrace is fascism.

Next week, the Vice-Presidential debate: Palin v. Biden, should be a good one, but my money is on the Barracuda.

 

UPDATE: Please, feel free to post your comments. I’m not like the Daily Kos and left-wing blogs; all view points are welcomed here. If you disagree with me, I desire your comments even more.  I will never attack you. I’ll just comment on your comments. All I ask is that you come back to check for my response to your comments. Enjoy!