Tough Love: Why the Federal Reserve Should NOT Cut Interest Rates

by Robert M. Clinger III

With the real estate bubble having burst and the financial system in a tizzy over the attending fallout in the mortgage markets, bankers, investors, homeowners, and CEOs are calling on the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to cut the federal funds rate in an effort to avert a financial meltdown. However, the Federal Reserve should see through these self-serving calls and hold rates steady for the time being.

A cut in the federal funds rate, or several cuts as the futures markets are predicting, may well spur growth in GDP from the tepid rate of the first half of the year. With this, however, comes the risk of increasing inflationary pressures at a time when inflation is likely to remain above a comfortable level for maximum economic output. In addition, increased economic activity resulting from lower interest rates at a time of sustained higher energy prices could result in inflationary pressures spiraling out of control.

A cut in the federal funds rate would also likely result in a long-term strengthening in the dollar. With the dollar currently weak in the foreign exchange markets, consumers here in America may find domestic-made goods less expensive than imported foreign goods. Likewise, foreign trading partners would find American produced goods relatively less expensive than their own domestic goods. Thus, the weaker dollar may well lead to a shrinking of the current account deficit. Cutting rates and strengthening the dollar could lead to an increased current account deficit which could have adverse economic consequences.

Further, a cut in rates now may well lead to increased spending by consumers, many of whom have already spent beyond their means. Higher rates have reduced the proclivity of consumers to make purchases on credit and have prompted repayment of debt and increased savings. This increased savings comes at a time when America has become a nation of dissavers in recent years.

More importantly, cutting rates now is not going to stem the much needed cooling of the housing market. Highly accommodative monetary policy that saw the federal funds rate cut to 1% was what the economy needed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 and likely helped to avert a potentially deep recession. However, the FOMC, as is so often the case, overshot on the downside by cutting rates so aggressively. The environment of virtually free money, credit, and mortgages from 2002 to 2004 created a moral hazard--mortgage companies and banks loaned money for real estate purchases to many individuals who otherwise would not have been able to afford such investments. At one point, exotic mortgages (reverse amortization for example) and interest only mortgages accounted for over half of those underwritten.

Cheap money could not last forever, and, ultimately, the time would come to pay the piper when rates began to rise. Little heed, evidently, was given by lenders to the ability to service the debt obligation when rates increased down the road. By then, the underwriters would have packaged and resold those loans to other investors. Consumers also failed to consider the consequences of when the music stopped and they were unable to pay for purchases made on credit that had been and were still beyond their means. The irrational exuberance that surrounded the noble desire to achieve the American dream of home ownership clouded some consumer's and lender's judgment.

The blame for the current situation has to be shared by all parties. Consumers thirsted for the American dream but spent beyond their means with mortgages and credit cards. Lenders made the American dream sound possible with sales pitches that seemed too good to be true. Investors bought speculative properties and flipped them for quick gains with what was perceived to be no risk, driving up prices in some places and further fueling the exuberance. The FOMC failed to take the punch bowl away whilst the party was still going strong by opting for a measured removal of accommodative monetary policy in twenty-five basis point increments. Whereas their rate cuts had, at times been in fifty basis point increments, their reaction in removing accommodation was weak and timid.

Through all of this, did no one--lenders, consumers, investors, the Federal Reserve policymakers--recall the old adage, "If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn't true?"
Now that the party is over and everyone has a bad hangover, these same partygoers are turning to the Fed to bail them out of the problems that they have created. During the Greenspan era at the Fed, investors and financial market participants manifested in their minds the existence of a protective "Greenspan put"-the notion that the Fed would aggressively cut interest rates to avoid a steep decline in the markets. Indeed, the Fed cut rates in the early 1990s following the savings and loan crisis and again in the late 1990s following the Asian contagion and bailed out the markets following the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management.

The mandate of the Federal Reserve, however, is not to protect the markets from sharp declines. The mandate of the Fed is, as defined by the Federal Reserve Act, to "maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." Whilst working to ensure the stability in the overall financial system is important, this should in no way imply that the Fed should bail investors out of bad investment decisions. Declines in markets (a.k.a. corrections) are a perfectly natural part of a well-functioning, orderly financial system and serve to adjust asset prices towards more fundamental valuations.

To be sure, the Fed should not cut interest rates now. Yes, credit conditions did deteriorate considerably in mid- to late August. The injection of over $69 billion into the system coupled with a cut in the discount rate helped shore up confidence amongst lending institutions. But cutting the federal funds rate (leading to lower interest rates overall) will not stop the pain the real estate market is feeling and the further pain that is to come. To stop the default on loans and subsequent foreclosure on properties with adjustable rate mortgages would require a cut in rates to levels of 2003 and 2004 when the federal funds rate was still under 2.25%. However, consumers who are already stretched too thin and who are buried under mountains of mortgage and credit card debt would still not likely be able to satisfy their debt obligations. Additionally, such a dramatic cut in rates again would start a vicious cycle of loose policy all over, further compounding the situation.

But more importantly, doing so would send a signal to the financial markets that this Fed will bail them out when they get into trouble as a result of bad investment decisions. Thus, the Fed would be obligated to bail out the next hedge fund that goes bust, and the next one, and the next publicly-traded mortgage lender that goes under, etc. Much like a spoiled child whose parents continue to bail him out of trouble without any consequences, the Fed would play this role well for unruly investors. And like the spoiled child, the investors would never learn their lessons. No, what we need is tough love from the Fed. Let the markets and investors sort this one out on their own. The Fed must hold rates steady. After all, the best lesson is a bought lesson, and it appears that investors and lenders may have bought and paid for this one to the tune of $50-$100 billion.

Robert M. Clinger III & Sebastian G. PereyCopyright 2007 Thinking Outside the Boxehttp://www.thinkingoutsidetheboxe.com/
Article Source: http://www.articlecube.com/

Rep. King Enters No P.C. Zone

Representative Peter King of New York made one thing clear, he is not concerned with political correctness. This was obivious after his comments about there being too many mosques in America.

The reaction that such comments would elicit would be highly predictable. But these reactions would simply be reactions to the congressman's statement on a purely superficial level. I think what Rep. King was doing was being a honest politician, the kind of thing we constantly complain that we do not have enough of.

"There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam," King said.

I think his point is an honest assessment of the current situation. When Islamic extremists carry out terrorists acts there is no condemnation or outrage from the moderate Muslim population.

We tend to judge people by their actions or lack of action as in these cases. I think it is entirely appropriate to question the motives of those in our country that have such an association to radical extremism and terrorism. If not, we risk a slow and steady infiltration of unwanted elements that do not wish to live out the great American dream but to destroy it.

Iraq War: to Leave or not to Leave

Author: Josh Greenberger
(September 17, 2007) It's probably safe to say that all Americans, regardless of whether they were for or against the Iraq war, would like to see our troops come home. The problem is, to pull out we need to leave a stable country behind. An immediate withdrawal would leave Iraq with a vulnerable military force, sectarian infighting and a power vacuum that would immediately be filled by terrorist factions.

Calling for an immediate withdrawal, as some are doing, ignores the many lessons learned from middle east politics and turmoil.

After the 2005 Lebanese elections, Hezbollah won 14 seats in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament, and now also has 2 ministers in the government. Hezbollah has since launched thousands of rockets into Israel. On July 12th, 2006, Hezbollah captured 2 Israeli soldiers, sparking a 34-day military conflict with Israel. By August 13, 2006, Hezbollah had fired close to 4,000 rockets into Israel.

In August of 2005, Israel pulled out of Gaza. That territory has been racked with violence ever since. As late as June 2007, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett lamented, "Once again, extremists carrying guns have prevented progress against the wishes of the majority ... "

With terrorists already in Iraq, why does anyone believe things would be different there? Will terrorists just get up and leave if we do? Hardly likely. In fact, Iraq would be a far bigger prize to terrorist than anything they've ever acquired before.

Lebanon has a population of around 4 million, covers around 10 thousand sq km, and has no oil. Iraq, on the other hand, has a population of almost 30 million, covers an area of over 400 thousand sq km., and possesses one of the world's largest proven oil reserves. With such vast resources at its disposal, a terrorists organization could grow exponentially.

We either finish the job today or fight again tomorrow. The difference is, today, as organized and as powerful as terrorists have become, we're still fighting rag-tag cells. Tomorrow we could be fighting a major power.

by Josh Greenberger
from shopndrop.com
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/iraq-war-to-leave-or-not-to-leave-215937.html
About the Author:

Real Clear Politics Latest Poll

Tuesday, September 11
Race
Poll
Period
Results
Spread
California Republican Primary
SurveyUSA
09/07 - 09/09
Giuliani 28, Thompson 26, Romney 14, McCain 18
Giuliani +2.0%
California Democratic Primary
SurveyUSA
09/07 - 09/09
Clinton 51, Obama 27, Edwards 14
Clinton +24.0%
Republican Presidential Nomination
NYT/CBS News*
09/04 - 09/09
Giuliani 27, Thompson 22, Romney 14, McCain 18
Giuliani +5.0%
Democratic Presidential Nomination
NYT/CBS News*
09/04 - 09/09
Clinton 44, Obama 26, Edwards 17
Clinton +18.0%

The First Hsu to Drop?

Scandals and politics seem to go together like peanut butter and jelly. They have been occurring at all periods of time and we have seen a rash of them in recent years. Some involve sex, some involve bribes and money, and others consist of sex and money. What I am saying is that we should not be surprised when scandals occur and a politician is somehow involved in the story. And certainly when we hear the name of one political family and scandal we should be far from surprised. Of course I am talking about the Clintons. Many volumes of books and articles have been written on the Clinton's exploits over the years. And they contain all the salacious parts of a scandal, namely sex and money. Most of attention had been paid Bill in his early political career and during his time residing in the White House. But Hillary herself was not immune to the scandal scrutiny, the Rose Law firm and Whitewater to name a few. You would think that after there time in the White House, having achieved the power and position that they had so ambitiously sought, that the word scandal would have disassociated itself from them. Well so far it has from the former president but not from his Oval Office seeking wife. Ironically it involves an Asian fundraiser not unlike the ones associated with the ex-President Clinton. His name is Norman Hsu and he has been a very prominent Democratic Party donor. His exploits have been released into the public by the media. The controversy involves bundling of contributions and the Paws, a middle income family living in California, who by accounts have contributed $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005. In a bizarre mystery Mr. Hsu was apprehended recently in Colorado after failing to appear in court. The illness he suffered is not known but with the involvement of the Clintons into the story speculations abound. Some of those associated with the Clintons have been known to suddenly die in unusual circumstances amid swirling controversies. This is hardly something that Senator Clinton wants to follow her on the campaign trail but we will have to wait and see if the story gains any traction among the media. Is this the only bump for Mrs. Clinton on her road to the White House, or like her husband is this only the first of many mysteries and controversies to come?

What Experience?

It has become standard for political candidates to try and distinguish themselves from their opponents by touting their experience. Each candidate points to their long public service records and commitment to serving the people as a reason why people should vote for them. This is not anything new in politics nor is it exclusive to the Republicans or Democrats. We have already seen many examples of this in this presidential election campaign season. But I got to thinking about those touted Democrat front-runners who each has declared they are the most experienced and qualified to sit behind the desk in the oval office. One would only have to look at the experience of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards to wonder what experience they are referring to. I start with John Edwards who is in the third position of first-tier candidates. What experience does he have? Well we know that he is a very wealthy man who made his millions as a slip and fall lawyer as Curtis Sliwa might say. I must not forget his forgettable term in the U.S. Senate where he was apart of so much important legislation, none comes to mind of course. Then we have the rock star Barack Obama. We know that he served in the Illinois legislature and is presently serving in the Senate. Certainly he has served the people of Illinois and continues to serve them, but does he have the experience necessary to run a country effectively? And finally we have the leader of the pack, the former first lady, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. I got to thinking about her experience that she claims to have over her opponents. It may be that I am not intelligent enough to understand the complexity of her experience that would make her the ideal person to lead the world's superpower. I know she used to be a lawyer, but with people's opinions of lawyers I do not know if that is something to run on. We know that she has been a spouse of a politician, a first lady of Arkansas and later the United States. Maybe that is the experience Mrs. Clinton is referring to? But I almost forgot that she serves the people in New York as their junior senator. Each of the three is lacking when it comes to meaningful legislation attached to their names. But yet we will constantly hear from the candidates or their handlers that each is more qualified then the other and infinitely more than the Republicans whose first-tier candidates have actually run major cities and states. I am sure this trend will continue as each candidate tries to convince the electorate that they can lead and preside where others cannot. I will continue to ask and wonder and I would hope for others to ask an honest question of these candidates, what experience?

Reconsidering Larry

After a week of heavy press coverage and press conferences we know one thing for certain, that Larry Craig is not gay. And maybe that is up in the air for the moment. It seems as if the Idaho senator has had a change of heart and is thinking about taking back his resignation declaration after people like Senator Arlen Specter have told him to fight on. I will say one thing about this entire situation, I have not come away very impressed with Senator Craig's judgment. We have him declaring he was not involved in a scandal involving pages back in 1982 before names were named and he pleads guilty to some sort of activity in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. I have been thinking about this situation as I turn from channel to channel and listen to talking head after talking head. I realize that lewd or sexual behavior in a public environment is wrong but is that the case in this situation. I am still very much confused with what exactly took place and what the crime was. To me it looks like at the most a man flashing his hands under a stall and touching another man's foot with his. I am not a lawyer but I thought solicitation involved certain acts being performed in exchange for money. With the absence of money being exchanged you have two individuals with consenting feet. It might have helped if the police officer in the other stall had been wearing a camera to record the lewd activity that Mr. Craig apparently exhibited. Or intent might have been better established if the officer had been able to get Senator Craig to enter his stall. I hope if Craig is innocent that he decides to fight on and clear his name. I think his excuse for pleading guilty to a lesser crime to make things go away is troubling. I think if you are innocent you should declare it up front and not take the fall for something you have not done. These people should be able to fight their charges without have to try and hide them for fear of the public hearing about them. In the end their innocence will either be proven or not. I still do not know what the whole truth surrounding this situation is. I think it comes down to two possibilities. You either have an innocent senator with a lousy judgment or you have a politician with a penchant for foot philandering.

Real Clear Politics Poll Average

Republican Presidential Nomination
8/06 to 8/28

Giuliani-27.9%

Thompson-16.9%

Romney-14.1%

McCain-11.1%

Battered Person Syndrome in Liberal Form

Battered person syndrome is a psychological condition resulting from the suffering of abuse at the hands of someone else. This results in the victim having a low self-esteem, believing the abuse is their fault, and seeking out the abuser for comfort. Although this is associated with a physical abuse situation I think some of the same principles can be applied to liberals and their feelings about terrorism. And maybe I would not associate it to all liberals but the far left acolytes of liberalism who seek to blame America first for inviting the terrorists to attack us. It is a mentality that I can not get any grasp of. How someone could blame us for the heinous and evil acts perpetrated by radical Islamists. But we have heard the voices of individuals like a Cindy Sheehan who denounce our actions against the radical Islamic fringe and instead refer to our leaders as war criminals for taking such actions. Even those on the other side of the aisle like Ron Paul want to limit our intervention and instead resort to a policy of stick your head in the sand a.k.a. isolationism. He made the comments during one debate seeming to say that we have brought the wrath of the radicals on ourselves with our policies towards the Middle East. I find it disappointing to say the least that an elected official would claim that we would be to blame for men flying planes into buildings on our shores whatever our foreign policy. I think some of this talk is a result of those on the left who are so concerned with how we as a nation are viewed by the rest of the world. We tell our children early on in life that they should not be concerned with how other people think of them and that they should be their own person. Well the message is not resonating and we end up with individuals who are obsessed with implementing the European model into our country. I think these people need to seek professional help with their infliction. It is not only a disappointing position to take but potentially a dangerous one. That mindset leaves us open to real threats and dangers by simply dismissing them as unreal or even worse our fault.

Nattering Nabobs of Negativism

I think Spiro Agnew had it right when he referred to the media by that alliterative phrase. I think the statement would still apply to today's media which focuses on the negative more than the positive. It might be that the press corps is composed of pessimists or maybe they are unwilling to print the good news because it goes against their biases. It has certainly been hard to find the positive news during this current president's presidency. Two glaring examples of this are the coverage of the war and the economy. To find a news story about Iraq that does not contain doom and gloom is practically impossible. The stories tend to leave out the positive and focus on the negative. We hear about the death and destruction but not the reconstruction and rehabilitation of a country domineered by a tyrant. I do not have to tell you the kind of impact that has on the public back home. Poll after poll seem to suggest that the American support for the war has dwindled over the past five years. The media has done a good job of molding the story to fit their agenda. Even now as we are seeing some improvements with the surge the media is unwilling to give it a chance. You must ask yourself if the media is not vested in our defeat in the middle east from the rhetoric they fill their margins and columns with. The media has also shown a reluctance to report the good news of our economy. The Bush administration's economic policies have brought us out of the Clinton-Gore recession and the devastating effects of 9/11 to our economy. It is those tax cuts which have allowed for the economy to grow and prosper as we have seen in the dramatic rise of the stock market. But all we hear is how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Even the reduction in the unemployment rate to historic lows has not been enough to impress the media enough to report the positives. I think Agnew had it right when he referred to the media as nattering nabobs of negativism but I would include the politicians on the left side of the aisle under that umbrella as well. The Democrats in lock step with their liberal compatriots in the media have had an attitude of negativism since President Bush took office. It seems as if these two groups are opposed to anything with the president's fingerprints on it. This is clearly evident by their reaction to the economy and war in Iraq. The Democrats have made such an issue of denouncing the war in Iraq that with the success of the surge some in their leadership have become worried for their political futures. This would include Representative Clyburn who was worried about what would happen to the Democrat if we were successful in Iraq. And then you have Senator Harry Reid declaring the war lost a couple months ago. They makes these statements from the confines of Capitol Hill. We have seen recently the reports from those that have seen the situation on the ground and have come back with positive news. And not all of them have been conservatives but liberal-minded media and politicians. Maybe the Democrats should try to understand the truth of the situation before decrying the Petraeus report before it is given. I write all of this because I wonder what goes on in the mind of liberals. Those in the media and the politicians of the left have made it clear that negativism is their platform and standard operating procedure. They will continue to try and drive down confidence and support on issues like the economy and the war on terror because it does not fit their agenda. I hope that Americans start to realize this and are not swayed by this propaganda. I think we need more glass half full people in this world. So when you are confronted with these nattering nabobs of negativism confront them back with the truth and positiveness so that we can make them an extinct species.

Bush White House Loses Chief Architect

The man who was described as President Bush's brain has decided to vacate the White House. Karl Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisers and friends, has made the announcement that he is leaving at the end of the month. Rove is the man who is largely credited with helping Bush ascend to the presidency. He has decided that after six and a half years in the White House that he wants to spend more time with his family. It would seem odd that Mr. Rove would not finish out the second term with the president but the long hours and stress that accompany working in the west wing seem to have caught up to him like others before him. Pundits who discussed this on the twenty-four hour news channels felt that Rove could still be an influential voice for the White House and the Republican Party. Rove stated that he did not have a clear plan as to what he would do in the future. A book about his life in the White House is a real possibility. What is known is that the Democrats will not have him to aim their poison arrows at. Rove has been a target of the left and is hated at a level usually reserved for Dick Cheney. He has been a man who has been very successful in his career but liberals would only recognize him as being part of the dark side with some evil grand scheme. The president will now have to leave office is eighteen months with one less ally by his side. The president will now have to survive without his closest political advisor and friend.

Straw Poll Closes With Romney Victory

If you stayed until the end of the Iowa Straw Poll as I did you found out two things. The first being that it took too long to get the results, an hour and a half late, and two the winner was not a surprise. Former Governor Mitt Romney took the victory in yesterday's event with about 31% of the vote. That was not really a surprise as Mr. Romney has been the presumed winner for awhile now and with the lack of participation by the other front runners it was almost an inevitability. One surprise of the day was the second place finish of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Even in a watered down field he was still able to catapult over the other so-called second-tier candidates to a respectable showing in the poll. The question is whether this finish will allow him to increase his fundraising to keep his campaign going. The day may have not had the same feeling though as it did back in 2000. The attendance and vote totals were down from the last Iowa Straw Poll. The overwhelming heat may have had something to do with that or it may be that the event had to compete with the Iowa State Fair going on in Des Moines. Perhaps the reason was that the front runners in the race like Giuliani, McCain, or even a Fred Thompson were no shows and people were not as interested. I was able to make it down to the event and despite the weather I enjoyed the day. I think it gives people a chance to see the candidates up close and personal. I think it goes along with the whole idea of retail politics that defines the process in Iowa. Some may say the the event is not important because it is not a real vote. But it does show the organization of the campaigns and how they are able to mobilize their supporters. It will more than likely have the effect of weeding out some of the candidates like a Duncan Hunter or Tommy Thompson who both did not perform very well in the poll. We will have to see if those who finished near the top will be able gain some momentum and keep their campaigns going into the next couple of months before the caucus.

The Race to the Middle

If you have been keeping up with the politics you know that the campaign season for 2008 has started even earlier than previous election cycles. This year we have a multitude of candidates to choose from on both sides of the political aisle. We have already had a number of debates to find out how the candidates stand on the issues. We are at the point in the campaign cycle where the candidates are focusing their positions towards the primary voters. That means directing your views and comments towards your party's base. The point being to garner as much support from your base to get your party's nomination. So that is why we have the Democrats flying off to the Daily Kos convention to make an appearance. The people that participate on the Daily Kos website are increasingly becoming the base of the Democrat party. These are hard liners of the left that represent the radical views of people like Penn, Sheehan, and Glover. The Democrat's are so afraid of losing the support of these people that they practically let their political lives be dictated by them. I watched the interview between Bill O'Reilly and Senator Chris Dodd and watched as Senator Dodd defended the Daily Kos throughout the entire interview. O'Reilly pointed out the vile picture that had been put on the website but Dodd was unwilling to make even any hint of a remorseful statement about the picture. It revealed all to much to me as I watched the back and forth. That got me thinking about the usual trend in presidential politics. We usually see candidates speak to their base and try to convince them of their credentials but after winning the nomination they run to the middle. This being to attract any individuals in the middle who are undecided about their choice for president. The candidate seems to seek a new tone as they seek to show that they can not just lead the members of their party but the entire country. I wonder during this election cycle if we will see that race to the middle after both parties have chosen their candidates. I would hope that a candidate would stick with what they say along the political trail and not compromise their ideals to reach the masses of independents who ride the fencepost. Otherwise their positions seem somewhat disingenuous. I do hope however that if we do have a race to the middle that the Republicans are first to the finish line to pick up the moderate's vote. Because I fear for what a Democrat president we mean for our country. I think of that old phrase you are judged by the company you keep. One only has to look at the company the Democrats keep to know that they are the wrong choice to lead our country especially at this crucial time.

Pajama Party Politics

I apologize for the lack of updates. I am trying to get through the last couple of days of my online college classes. I did want to make mention of an occurrence that transpired last week. For all of you who paid attention to Congress you witnessed the legislative slumber party initiated by Senator Harry Reid D-Nevada. The futile attempt to try and lead the country towards surrender failed and the Democrats were left with sour faces and an approval rating that reflects their do-nothing agenda so far. It is clear that the Democrats are unable to pull themselves from the radical left that seems to have a strangle hold on their party. For anyone who doubts this you need only to look at the fact that these fringe elements have daily conference calls with the Democrats and their leadership. The exercise last week was simply another attempt by Democrats to show that they were trying to pull us out of Iraq. The Democrats brought in cots to prepare for the long night of politicking. What we know is that even some on the Democrat's side wanted to call it a night and return to the issue in the morning. The whole thing was pointless and a waste of time which would describe the Democrat agenda up until know. These politicians do not even want to give General Petraeus until September to report back the progress on the ground like they agreed to do. I would say that the surge is really in its infancy and will need longer than September to show its full strength. But the Democrats are so anxious to put out of Iraq as they feel we have done enough. They also point out the fact that this war has taken longer than WWII. I would say that the war against Nazism was an easier war not only because it was tied to a country but because we had real support in the world and individuals who understood the threat. We do not enjoy such support in the present except for a few allies namely Great Britain. So the Democrats can hold their all-nighters and dramatic displays of ignorance and stupidity in an attempt to end the war in Iraq. They will not take the means they have to end the war by cutting off the funding. I mean if they were really serious about ending our occupation of Iraq like they tell their frenzied and radical supporters then why not go all the way? The answer is that they are all to comfortable to keep playing politics which is what they are best at. The sad part is that while it may make sense for the support around the world to have diminished considering the changing face of Europe and other countries it is a shame that we cannot turn to many of our fellow citizens for support within our own borders.

The Fourth Necessity?

You check the cupboards and realize that you are out of groceries and badly in need of toilet paper. You wake up to the sound of a buzzing in your ear from the alarm clock you set the night before. You shower, possibly shave, get dressed and head out the door. But what comes next? Well in the world of today you climb into your car and head off to the store or to work. These are tasks that we all participate in on a regular basis. We are constantly traveling from point A to point B within the comfy confines of our vehicles. Vehicles that require gasoline to run and require it too often especially for you drivers of those hated gas guzzlers. But until we have engines that will run off of water or garbage like in Back to the Future, this is just something we have to live with, or is it? We have come to depend on oil, but is it necessary, or better yet is it a necessity? We can all list the basic necessities for human survival. Those would include food, clothing, and shelter. It might be said that oil is our fourth necessity. Our behavior towards oil would certainly suggest as much. We drive to school, work, and sometimes down the street at midnight for a convenience store burrito. We are consumers of energy and the demand keeps growing. The problem is trying to produce enough supply to keep up with demand. And despite what some may say the United States is not the only consumers with India and China producing greater and greater demand themselves. And when we try to create supply we are met with opposition from the left. They fear the impact it will have on the Earth. I understand their sensitivity about protecting the planet. As a Christian I understand the responsibility we have to be good stewards of God's creation. But we must also live in this world and we should use the minds and resources we were given to the fullest extent. This means building more refineries, nuclear plants, and drilling in Alaska and off our coasts. We need to at least explore these options until we come up with better alternatives. And I do not think corn is the answer, and that is coming from someone from Iowa. If we want cheaper energy we need to explore every option. I think of the people who complain about soaring gas prices and how they decry the efforts to build new refineries. I also think about the Kennedy family and their objections to windmills being built in sight of their compound. It is kind of like do it as long as it does not inconvenience me. Or in the minds of liberals, do as I say not as I do. the same statement could be applied to Al Gore. His house consumes great amounts of energy and with his many commitments he has to speak on global warming he flies around on his private jets. Meanwhile he talks about purchasing carbon credits to offset the footprints he is making on our planet. Reducing our dependance on oil would be both beneficial to our national security and to our wallets. But we must come to this rationally and intelligently. Maybe we do treat oil as a necessity. Our lives are built around convenience and driving fits or culture of convenience. It is certainly more convenient to drive a car somewhere then to hitch up the horse and buggy. We must not let the hyperbole about global warming to cloud our judgement. Is oil our fourth necessity? I do not know the answer to that. I think it is as close as it can be and as long as we depend on it to the extent we do we will be asking that question.

Break Down at the Border

Racist, bigot, xenophobe, these are all adjectives to describe Republicans and conservatives. It is the common response of the left to conservatives’ concerns about illegal immigration. This is the same tired response given when concerns are raised on this issue. This is in response to concerns about the immigration bill trying to gain life in the Senate. The main objection is the granting of amnesty to 12 to 20 billion illegal immigrants, and the still unsecured border. These are two common sense concerns that do not seem able to penetrate the nonsensical minds of liberals. The bill failed to garner enough votes in the Senate and looked to be dead but like Lazarus it is being resurrected for another go around. The Democrats are dangling carrots in the faces of Republicans in an effort to boost support. The sad part is we have many on the Republican side of the aisle who are eagerly supporting this bill. There seems to be a divide among the party between those who want comprehensive reform and those who want enforcement of the border first. Unfortunately our president supports the former option. He even went as far, in recent weeks, to question the motives of those who want to secure the border first. Needless to say this had a predictable reaction as congressmen were flooded with calls decrying the move to grant amnesty. To respond to my earlier statement, we are not racists, bigots, or xenophobes, we are concerned citizens. We have a right to be concerned considering amnesty was tried twenty years ago and we now have many times the illegal population residing within our borders. We also sit and wait earnestly for our borders to be secured as promised. How can we expect to curb the flow of illegal immigrants into our country when our door remains wide open? Every day our borders remain wide open we will se an influx of illegal elements crossing into our country, some well-intentioned and some not. I think Congress needs to take advantage of their world-class healthcare and get a prescription to restore their common sense. Instead we are left with a debate going nowhere, as a bridge in Alaska, and two sides unwilling to compromise. It would seem logical to secure the border first and then decide what to do with the people already in our country. Logic, however, seems to elude those in Washington. For all the talk about bipartisanship it would seem likely that both sides would agree that securing our borders would be a first priority. After all they are given this responsibility in the constitution. And we all know how Democrats love to quote and refer to the constitution when they think another right is being taken away from them. Our Congress needs to know our feelings about this and they have begun to hear them. The proof is the lack of a signed bill. This is an issue with great importance like the war against radical Islam. Not only are their national security implications but economic as well. We have all heard the statistics of what the cost will be if we allow the status quo to remain. That cost being left for future generations to pay like social security. The point is this, there are so many things we cannot control but his is one we can solve if we have the right leadership. Unfortunately the halls of Congress are increasingly devoid of such leaders.

The Eighty Mile Struggle

For those of you not from Iowa or most specifically from the Northwestern part of Iowa this post may fall on deaf ears. This is more of a regional story and one that cause my rant level to hit warp factor ten. It involves the completion, or lack thereof, of the four-lane expansion of Highway 20. It is infuriating to know that while the politicians down at the state house argue over meaningless pork projects that the last eighty miles of road remains unfinished. This is not a new story. This battle to complete the expansion of the highway to four-lanes has been languishing for many years and the end is not in sight. That last point is particularly disheartening to someone who makes the journey from Sioux City to Fort Dodge regularly. Not only would the expansion dramatically reduce the travel time from city to city but business expansion is being held back by the hold up. Many a time have I been stuck behind a convoy of big rigs sucking diesel exhaust with little recourse as passing points are as infrequent as a Republican in San Francisco. And the delay in completion is bringing with it more problems as with every passing year the price of the project projects to go up. Right now the figure to complete the undertaking is about five million dollars a mile. I was more than a little amazed at those figures until I saw that the costs will increase if the project is not finished soon. And soon is rapidly becoming a fixture in the rear view mirror as only a fraction of the money needed for the project has been appropriated. I know that in the grand scheme of things this is not a hugely important issue. But if you find yourselves living in the Northwest part of Iowa you will find yourselves drawn to this issue. When you find yourselves behind an endless stream of semis and blue-hairs maybe you will appreciate our plight here in the heartland.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself, and Radical Islam

I think that is probably how the statement would go had it been uttered in today's environment. I say this as a proud American who realizes the greatness of our country and its resolve to deal with any adversity and conquer it. But we must realize the threat that radical Islam poses to our country and democracy around the world. I fear our country's resolve to deal with this danger fell drastically as a result of the results of last November's election. The danger is a nation becoming complacent and fall into a false sense of security. This is especially possible when certain political forces play down the threat from radical Islam. I think that attitude comes from the fact that they do not see the risk of terrorists following us to our shores as credible. The fact is when you have people that want to destroy us and an unprotected border you have an equation with disaster on the other side of the equal sign. But we may not have to wait for those to follow us home from Iraq. As the situation at Fort Dix showed us terrorism can be homemade as terror cells populate within our borders. And if a certain political party keeps attacking and wanting to take away all our tactics to fight these terrorists, the peace we have had these past few years since 9/11 may go up in smoke, literally. If we take this attitude as has been adopted by so many then we really will have something to fear. The best strategy we have is to go on offense and take the fight to the enemy. But we must be willing to go all the way in this fight. Right now we have a leader who understands this, but it may change in the next election cycle. War fatigue is frankly not an option. We will not solve this problem in a year or two. With a seemingly growing crop of new radicals being brainwashed and cultivated our commitment is needed now more than ever. We were once a nation that put democracy on a pedestal as a model for other nations to follow. Unfortunately that pedestal has been losing its support as a result of comments and actions of some, and is not as firmly in place as it once was. We are attacked for wanting to give other nations the security, prosperity, and freedom we enjoy. It may be unrealistic to expect every nation to be our duplicate. But if they can escape the violence and persecution of the evil entities that control them is not our campaign a noble and necessary one? Because planting democracy over there might just save ours over here.

Why Do Democrats Hate Minorities?

Why do Democrats hate minorities? I know many of you are saying to yourself that Democrats do not hate minorities, but embrace them into their party. I believe this is the general opinion of most Democrats because they are the big-tent party of minorities.I would agree with that statement. Minorities, especially African-Americans, have voted more for Democrats than Republicans. Another question I could pose is why do they? I would tie both questions together because they relate to each other in a cause and effect or action and consequence way. I pose this question because I think there is some evidence Democrats do hate minorities. The main reason is the policies they set and try to implement. Not only do they not work but they end up doing more harm then good. I fault the Democrats ideology as well-intentioned but misguided. They set up programs like welfare, social programs that create a dependence on the government. These types of social programs rarely are successful and cost the taxpayers millions if not billions over their lifetime. Why would you work any harder if you knew the government was going to take care of you? This nanny-state mentality is absurd and a wrong course of action.Take for example New Orleans which has been Democrat-run for decades. We all saw the conditions of the town when Hurricane Katrina hit. What should have been a panacea turned out to be anything but. What we got was a city crying out for the government to save them as if the government can really be counted on for much of anything. It seems like Democrats want to keep their core constituents under their thumb never wanting them to fully reach their potention for fear of losing their vote. When you are a party that constantly tells your voters that the government is keeping them from succeeding why would they ever try in the first place.Democrats even fail on one of the most important areas, education. Education is the cornerstone of personal success. But when it comes to school vouchers the liberal teachers union vote a resounding no. As a result many minority students fade away in poor schools. Maybe if we were truly focused on education and responsible choices we would not have the degree of minority teenage mothers that we do. We have children who are having children themselves at an alarming rate. As a result we have mothers with no education and very often no husband to help support them. Basically these women are starting life out with two strikes against them.Another smaller point deals with language. Democrats oppose making English the official language. They call it simply rascist and part of a far-right agenda. How successful a nation can we be when entire towns are unable to communicate with us and do not have enough workers who speak English, the language of success? Unfortunately this is a reality is at least one California town.Do I really think Democrats hate minorities? The answer to that is no, but based on their policies I wonder if they are truly concerned about their welfare as opposed to someone who will blindly vote for them. It might be a corny line but a hand up is better then a hand out.

Giuliani Gives Ground

Some may be glad that the election is so far away, and one of those might be Rudy Giuliani. Tonight was the first Republican presidential debate and the former mayor of New York was a little off his game. All the pundits have said that the front runners in these debates want to hold their ground and not do anything to hurt their position, and the under dogs want to use the opportunity to make themselves known. Well, from many perspectives, including mine, Mr. Giuliani might want to prepare a little more for the next debate.It is now known that Giuliani has slipped in the polls; while still maintaining his first place lead, he has drifted closer to the pack. And tonight's performance might cause the gap to close even more. Giuliani probably had the hardest time during the debate because he had the most to answer for. As a politician of varying degrees of conservatism he looked a little out of sync when trying to account for his past stances on topics like abortion. It was pointed out that Giuliani was not able to navigate effectively through the questions, and at times appeared disinterested. It was also clear that considering his views on abortion and certainly knowing that he would be asked about those views, Mr. Giuliani seem to stumble through his answers.In the presence of the Reagan legacy it is Giuliani who probably has the furthest to come to convince the right of his conservative credentials. I will say that for the time being he is not my candidate of choice. I think his leading of New York after 9/11 was courageous and should be applauded, but I hardly think that grants him the keys to the White House. The polls seem to show that Mayor Giuliani would be able to beat both Senators Clinton and Obama in the election. If Giuliani would end up with the Republican nomination I would support him if he could defeat the Democrat opponent. Because, whatever misgivings I may have about Rudy Giuliani, he is supremely better than the alternative. I would feel much more comfortable with a Giuliani in the White House than two Clintons or someone with no real experience. The presidency is not an internship; on the job training is not an option is the times we live in.