One thing I love about my job is that I get to travel. Over the last couple of months I've been in Plains States and Mountain States. One of the prettiest and friendliest places I've visited is Denver, CO. Not only are the people great but the Downtown 16th Street Walking Mall and LoDo are fantastic, the capitol is beautiful and the mountains are, of course, exquisite!

Even Denver International Airport (DIA) is cool with its stylized snowcapped mountain peaks and all. One of the best features of DIA, however, is free WiFi at the airport! So far, DIA is the largest airport I've found providing that service and all one need do is watch a commercial or two and endure a permanent banner ad. I'll gladly pony up that price for the ability to work and surf while waiting on my flight. Plus, after the ordeal of TSA screening, it seems somehow proper I should get a reward for being a good boy. But am I really all that good? Opinions seem to vary.

You see, earlier this week, on my way to Montana (also an incredibly beautiful state), I had occasion to again pass through DIA and, as I was packing my laptop, spent some time on the web. While checking email and catching up on some reading, I decided to see what the folks at The Next Right were talking about and that's when it happened. Evidently I'm not the good boy I thought. Seems I've been associating with undesirables, malcontents and rabble-rousers - you know - bloggers! And when I entered http://thenextright.com in the address bar, I got the following message:

Notification Bad Reputation Your request to URL "http://thenextright.com/" has been blocked by TrustedSource. The Web reputation score of this URL is 127, which is not allowed by your administrator at this time. generated 25/Jun/2008:21:17:01 -0600

The Next Right is banned in Denver? Who knew??? I'll bet Media Matters in Colorado is turning handsprings! I know Ruffini, Dayton and Henke can get a bit testy at times. I know TNR diarists, including myself, surrender to the temptation to engage in a bit of snark on occasion. But "Bad Reputation"? In the first place, TNR hasn't been around long enough yet to acquire a reputation bad enough to warrant being banned by any source, "Trusted" or otherwise! In the second place, just exactly who is "TrustedSource" and what is their reputation? Who exactly is it that trusts them to tell me who I should trust? Banning TNR isn't inspiring a lot of trust and confidence in me. Is there a place I can go to ban them?

But the ban set me to wondering. Why was TNR banned. Am I missing something? I thought I was on the inside track with these guys. I joined TNR early and post often. Have I not met Jon Henke personally? Did I not grieve at the treatment Soren received from the powers that be? Do I not abase myself before Ruffini in all things techie? Have I been excluded from a special page at TNR that that all the really cool bloggers get access to? Perhaps they're selling calendars featuring pictures of the TNR trio brandishing their keyboards in a menacing fashion above the caption "Armed and Dangerous"! Airports do seem to be more security conscious these days! Maybe the guys aren't wearing shirts in their calendar pics, although Soren as "Mr. June" in a pic like that might actually be enough to warrant a ban (no disrespect intended to the tastes of any current or future Mrs. Soren) .

Of one thing, however, I am absolutely certain. The actual content of the site had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the ban. This is America and no one would think to ban TNR, or any other site, for being a place where folks exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech. There's no way being a tolerant repository of a wide variety of ideas, thought and strategy would get a site banned. It's comforting to know some things are still legal and acceptable, even on the Internet. But that still sheds no light on the reason for the ban.

And what's with the score of 127? Didn't government schools teach us high scores were a good thing? For most of us TNR diarists, 127 will likely be the best score we ever get on any test and should be something to be proud of. I'm thinking of having a t-shirt made up saying, "Jon, Patrick, Soren and I scored 127 at DIA!" or maybe "I went to Denver and all I got was banned and this lousy t-shirt!" In any event, both a few neighbors back home and the parents of a couple of ladies I wooed in my misspent youth have been vindicated. They noted, correctly it would seem, I would likely not amount to much as a direct result of hanging around with the wrong crowd. "A pity!" they told me, "So much potential being wasted!" Who knew that after 35 years spent trying to prove them wrong, I'd be tripped up by hanging around with respectable Washington insiders. I suppose I should have known. I wonder if I'll get time off for good blogging behavior?

Blue Collar Muse

In his first real chance to speak to an issue with seriousness and substance, Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama demonstrated the truth of the charge leveled against him that he is all flash and no bang. The Right has known this from the beginning and the Left has feared it might be true for just as long. Obama can sway a crowd like the worst stereotypical tent revival preacher. He can promise a moon he knows he can't deliver as well as any politician from any party. And he can stay on message as long as no one is asking too many difficult questions. It's this last part that may be his undoing for this election. If Obama cannot do a better job of crafting and explaining his vision for America than he is doing on Energy, he will prove to be his own worst enemy. Consider the following.

Obama says we cannot drill our way out of the mess we are in. I'm curious how he has arrived at that conclusion. For starters, how does he know? Have we tried it? His too ready dismissal of Right of Center ideas is more partisan than practical and may give lie to his credentials as a uniter. Basic Economics tells us the more there is of something, the less it costs. Surely Obama doesn't believe his words alone can change Economic reality.

Perhaps he means drilling will not immediately impact our fuel costs. That statement at least has the possibility of being true. It is also a foolish argument against drilling. In the first place, it means there really is a value to drilling. It's just not an immediate value. It also means the statement, "We can't drill our way out of this!" is false. We can drill our way out of this tomorrow or on one of the many tomorrows headed our way. It just remains to be determined how many tomorrows it will take. But we can drill our way out. In the second place, if there is a benefit to drilling to be derived at some future point, then let's get started! The sooner we begin, the sooner we'll enjoy the results. We may have to do other things in the meantime but let's not ignore a benefit just because it doesn't impact the economy until later. This is tradtional Democratic short sighted thinking at its worst. Do whatever you can to deliver a benefit this afternoon and let the long term chips fall where they may. Operating on the same premise, we would not have built railroads or Interstates because they didn't fix the transportation problems immediately. What do you mean it will be years before we can go from New York to Los Angeles by train?

So much for the drilling solutions Obama rejects. What about the ideas Obama wants to pursue? His solution to high fuel costs is not to increase Supply, it's to reduce Demand. That would actually be a legitimate approach to the problem, IF, Obama could actually control Demand. What Demand is it Obama thinks he will be able to reduce? The only one he has a shot at is US Demand. If, however, his plan is to only reduce US Demand he'll play right into the Right's hands. He'll be vulnerable to charges he's hurting American interests and strengthening foreign interests. Again, that's a legitimate strategy. It's just not one usually found emanating from the Oval Office.

The biggest challenge to his plan to reduce Demand is the limited ability he has to implement a reduction in Demand outside the US. The inconvenient truth for Obama is that the Demand driving up the cost of crude and products made from it is a global Demand. While the US uses more oil than any other nation, increases in demand for oil are not coming from the US market. It's coming from China and India in particular, along with many other nations as they strive to continue and increase their economic expansions with all of its attendant prosperity. Any reduction in Demand from the US market would either not impact global Demand at all or would be quickly swallowed up as global Demand outpaces US reductions. Oil on the world market would continue to cost more and more while we will have given up contracts and agreements that keep crude and fuel flowing our way first. Selfish? Perhaps. It's the way the game is played by everyone. The sooner Obama realizes this the better.

The bottom line to Obama's position is it weakens the US instead of strengthening the country. The problem is reduced energy availability, not increased demand. There are very different outcomes depending on the strategy one uses to combat it. Increasing Supply is a solution that depends on a few entities (oil companies) acting in their self interest. Reducing Demand is a solution that depends on the many (every American) acting against their own self interest. More to the point, while it may be in their long term interest to reduce Demand, Americans will behave just as Obama is behaving and choose what benefits them most now and ignore later. Obama personally rejects proven, long term strategies in favor of untested ideas he claims will fix the problem quickly. But when it comes to how you should behave, he wants you to reject the short term strategies and think in terms of years. He's shilling against drilling and willing to let America pay the price. Just one more reason Obama is wrong on the issues and wrong for America.

Blue Collar Muse

So, I got this letter late last week from the IRS. The only thing worse would have been to hear Mike Wallace and the "60 Minutes" crew were filming on my front lawn. Come to think of it, even that may not be worse ...

The letter was computer generated, thanking me for my recent correspondence with them. It said they had not responded yet as they had not finished preparing a "complete response" and that it would be forthcoming within 45 days. It reminded me the installment agreement I agreed to for payment of my taxes was still in effect and I should still make my scheduled payments. It even helpfully included an 800# I could call if I had any questions.

It was a polite, encouraging and downright personable piece of communication. But there was one teensy-weensy lil' problem. I had not recently corresponded with them for any reason other than to mail a check on April 14 for the entire amount of the taxes they wanted from me. There was no installment agreement agreed to and no scheduled payments. Had this been a business like a credit card company saying I had not paid my bill, I wouldn't worry. I'd just call their 800# and get this straightened out. Did I mention this letter was from the IRS?

Still, it was such a NICE letter and they had included an 800#. I called on Saturday but they were closed. To be fair, I don't remember if they were closed because it was Saturday, allowing taxpayers across the country to breathe more easily, or if I just called after hours on Saturday. Regardless I didn't speak to the nice folks at the IRS that day. I laid the letter in my inbox to call this week. Yesterday, I saw the letter and decided I had the time to spend on hold and to deal with any bureaucratic red tape. I dialed the phone.

After about 15 minutes on hold, a nice lady answered, giving me her name and ID#. I explained about the letter and that there was an important looking reference number at the very top which I felt sure linked to a file with all my details in it and we could get this taken care of quickly. The nice IRS lady told me, "No, I don't need that. What's your Social Security number?" I gave it to her and she explained we would have to do a quick Q&A to establish my identity. 5 minutes later we agreed that I was me.

She asked why I was calling. I explained about the letter and the 45 days and the installment agreement and that I didn't recall doing any of those things. The nice IRS lady told me, "According to my screen, you're right. You don't owe any tax, we've released your stimulus package payment and there's no installment agreement!" Relieved, I said, "Great! So you'll take care of this for me?" She helpfully said, "I sure will. I'll just send an email to the person who sent you the letter and have him call you. It will be sometime in the next 30 days. He'll need to make sure this is not a mistake on our part. Where can he reach you?"

I asked to contact the person myself. I explained my concern that, if it took the full 30 days, and if the IRS decided I owed the money, there would be interest and penalties. Since, if I disputed the decision, I had to prove I didn't owe it, and not the other way around, I'd probably just pay the money. When dealing with people who can padlock your home and business, freeze your accounts and generally make life inconvenient, it is often wiser to simply pay them. It's called the "Let the Wookie win!" strategy.

The nice IRS lady assured me there was no cause for alarm. She could see on her screen I owed them nothing! When I again asked her why, if that was the case, could she not clear this up, she again told me it was to be sure that it was not a mistake on their part. I took this to mean the nice IRS lady was positive I didn't owe any money but the person sending me the letter might feel differently. After all, the letter talked about payments and agreements and such. I again expressed the desire to speak to the person who sent me the letter. The nice IRS lady said she could not give me that person's name or contact information. She could not give me his ID#. She wasn't even sure he was a he. She did have an IRS designator identifying exactly who he was but she couldn't give me that, either. But I was not to worry, she would send that email and he would contact me within 30 days.

I surprised myself with boldness and asked why the IRS provided an 800# which connected to a department completely unable to help me. The nice IRS lady gently corrected me. "But I HAVE helped you!", she said. Baffled, I asked, "You have?" "Yes", she responded, "I sent an email to the person who will contact you!" As God is my witness, I actually waited for her to continue, "Just kidding! Just a little IRS humor!" After a long moment in which she did not, in fact, admit to pulling my leg, I asked, "Do you mean this is the extent of the assistance available to me at this number, which, I feel compelled to add, the IRS itself directed me to call if I had questions?" The nice IRS lady replied in the affirmative.

I noted that, as a small business owner, if a customer might need to speak to me I simply gave them MY number. It tended to expedite things. I allowed while it was possible I might miss his call and need to call back, I would not, in fact, set up an entire department whose sole purpose was to email me that someone I thought might need me, actually did, so I could add a call back to him to my calendar sometime in the next 30 days. There being little more to be said, I wished the nice IRS lady a good afternoon and we ended the call.

This sort of inefficiency, waste and duplication is typical of big government. And yet this is the plan we have for Health Care? For Energy Independence? For Education? For Retirement? For the most important things in life? Only in government could a person be of absolutely no assistance whatsoever and, at the same time, take pride in a job well done.

I really hope my installment payments aren't too much ...

Blue Collar Muse

Few things illustrate Democrat's penchant for preying on people's fears better than Social Security. Proposing changes to Social Security produces hysteria from any Democrat near a microphone. Barack Obama is no different as evidenced by his comments earlier this week. Speaking to a crowd of retirees in Ohio,

Obama ... criticized McCain for being open to letting taxpayers invest part of their Social Security payments in private investment accounts.

"Imagine if your security now was tied up with the Dow Jones," he said, alluding to the recent slide in stock prices. "You wouldn't feel very confident about the security of your nest egg."

Senator Obama misses the point. It is not how well the stock market performs today as opposed to yesterday. There will always be ups and downs in the market and investing is for the long term. Social Security is the same. It is how well the Stock Market performs today as opposed to how well Social Security is performing today! The question Senator Obama should ask is, “Imagine if your security had been tied to the Dow Jones for the last 50 years? You'd be pretty excited about the security of your nest egg!”

Social Security, begun in 1935, is out of date. The financial world is vastly different today. Why then do we depend on an antique product? It's easier to amend the Constitution than to update Social Security. You'd think modernization would be beneficial after so long. You'd be wrong. Just one factor illustrates the problem. In 1935, the age at which one began to receive benefits was 65. This at a time when life expectancy for Americans was 62. Today the terms are the same but people live longer. No wonder the plan is going bankrupt.

In 1935, only the very wealthy owned stock in many companies at once. If a stock or a market segment went bad, the entire portfolio wasn't at risk. Today, mutual funds make that strategy available to virtually any American. It also makes Social Security an antiquated, government run Ponzi scheme. To demonstrate the difference 75 years can make, we'll use Social Security's own benefits calculator and a simple financial calculator.

Meet Sam, our less than average American. Sam began working this year, at age 16, for just $7.50 an hour, $300 a week, $1,300 a month or $15,600 a year. Sam, while quite nice, is pretty much a loser. He is so unskilled he will never get a raise. He is industrious, though, and will work for 49 years, retiring at 65. This scenario gives Sam about $1,500 per year to invest for retirement based on current Social Security rates. Let's see how he does. The actual numbers generated below will, of course, be different based on a number of factors. However, they are accurate enough to make the point.

Using Social Security's own calculator and plugging in Sam's numbers (born 1/1/1992, $15K annually to 65), his total contribution is $73,500. At retirement, Social Security will pay Sam $703 per month. This is barely over half the income he enjoyed while working. Welcome to cat food cuisine! After working 49 years at $7.50 per hour, Sam must retire on $4.50 per hour. Once Sam dies, the benefits Mrs. Sam enjoys are drastically reduced. At Mrs. Sam's death, the benefits die, too. 49 years - $73,500 and there's nothing to pass on. This is what Obama, Democrats and central planning Republicans want for Sam. If that was all there was, the saying "60% of something is better than 100% of nothing!" would apply.

But it's not. If Sam is allowed to invest his money privately the results are astounding. A simple financial calculator shows Sam's $73,500 would grow to $1,975,000 with a 10% return, $920,000 at 8%, $446,500 at 6% and $228,500 at 4%. These sums provide monthly incomes of $16,458 at 10%, $6,133 at 8%, $2,232 at 6% and $761 at 4%. Sam could earn just 4% interest for 49 years and retire with more than Social Security provides. Check with any investment broker for the actual results over the last 25 years. The ones Barack Obama is sure would have been bad for your nest egg.

I've further assumed the principal is left intact so when Sam dies, Mrs. Sam's income stays the same. When she dies, the principal passes to their two children. There's an inheritance to leave on just $15,000 a year! If we assume Mrs. Sam is the same age and does the same thing then the numbers double. $3,950,000 at 10%, 1,840,000 at 8%, $893,000 at 6% and $457,000 at 4%. Barack Obama doesn't think you should feel confident about that.

Privatization's real power is seen when we get to the kids and the grandkids. If we assume the same scenario for the kids and grandkids, by the time the grandkids retire, they are multi-millionaires, even at 4%. And they did it with 3 generations of losers who never made more than $15,000 per year.

Most folks, of course, will make more than that. So much the better! Add in US economic expansion from the infusion of that sort of capital into private enterprise and imagine the earnings potential future Sams will have. With such wealth, questions about affording health insurance and what to do with Uncle Joe who would not save for himself become memories. Americans will take care of themselves and their own. The government is out of our lives on a grand scale. Increases in government revenue insure promises made to those now on Social Security are kept.

Barack Obama won't tell you this. Why? Why don't Democrats, and too many Republicans, want Social Security privatized? Because if you don't need government, you don't need them. It's a matter of personal and political power and nothing more. Their continued insistence that Social Security can be fixed and that they are the ones to fix it is a deception. It's an appeal to your fears stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from you and your family. It's time for that to stop. It's time for someone to remind you of your dreams and tell you the truth about privatizing Social Security!

Blue Collar Muse

I remember when Bob Dole, then a recently defeated Presidential candidate, gained more national notoriety than he did in his Presidential bid by participating in an ad campaign against ED, Erectile Dysfunction.  The first blend of ED and politics, it would not be the last.  A few years later, a New ED garnered national attention.  Eminent Domain.

Old ED may be inoffensively described as the inability of an unhappy man to erect a structure for his own use on his own property.  This unfortunate situation was a private matter and left to the man and his family to correct.  Senator Dole was hawking new construction options for our property owner to consider.  New ED is similar but there are serious differences.  New ED features government unhappy with structures a man is erecting (or not) for his own use on his own property.  This unfortunate situation is being made public as government attempts to seize said property in the name of the People.

For years, the little talked about problems associated with Old ED remained unaddressed and anonymous.  No one knew which of their family or friends may have suffered from the condition's real and unfortunate side effects.  Consequences such as depression and lowered self esteem led to all manner of attempts to fix the problem.  In some cases, the problems led to divorce.  Thus, the very institution designed to address man's need to erect his structure was destroyed by his inability to do so.  Eventually, in a serendipitous accident, a solution to many of the problems presented by Old ED was discovered.  This has resulted in the widespread prescription of a little blue pill for millions of property owners around the world and interesting new career options for retired politicians.

This is where New ED and Old ED part company.  New ED is exactly that - new!  The problems associated with New ED are also new and they are anything but anonymous and unaddressed.  For the 225+ years that our nation has been in existence, the issue of ownership of private property and the rights of property owners to use their property as they see fit were clear and established.  People owned their property and the government had no authority over it.  In fact, government was often the tool used by property owners to defend their property rights.  Government, however, is a dubious partner in any enterprise and the issue of private property is no exception.  Eventually, as it always does, government sought to expand its scope and authority in the matter.

It starts innocently enough.  Governmental expansion may appear reasonable and even beneficial.  For instance, if government helps people defend their property rights, it's reasonable government needs to know who owns the property and what the property's boundaries are.  Thus plot maps and mortgages are born.  If government provides these services, it cannot do so for free.  Fees for registering said documents are also a reasonable thing.  As communities grow, government must know which properties it is responsible for and which are serviced by other governments.  City limits, township boundaries and other demarcations spring up.  These aren't free services either so property taxes, local sales taxes, excise taxes and fees spring up to fund government.  It is about here, however, where property ownership passes from citizen to government. It's the tipping point where people alone stop owning property and government becomes a joint owner.

It's tempting to think otherwise.  However, if you think you alone own your property and you are free to do with it what you will, try any of the following and see what happens.  Try selling your property without paying taxes on the sale.  Try not paying the annual property tax levied by the government on your property based on its value.  Try denying the government Assessor access to your property when he comes to see if it's worth more to you and thus qualifies for a government revenue (read tax) increase, too.  Try making improvements to your property without paying for building permits, codes inspections and the like.  There's more but you get the point.  Still think you own your own property?

Government's expansion of its role in the ownership of private property has grown to the point it is not even pretending Americans own their own property anymore.  The Constitution's framers, knowing there may arise situations in which government might need the use of property owned by individuals, provided for that in the original language of the Constitution.  Now known as 'the Takings Clause', the 5th Amendment states in part, "Private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation."  This has traditionally meant government can buy, at a fair market price, property owned by a person, for public use, and the person cannot refuse to sell.  This has been used to acquire property for Interstate Highways, government buildings and the like.  While it is easy to disagree with the government's decision that this or that property should be the one selected for such a purpose, it is pretty easy to agree that the purpose for which the property is being purchased by government is, indeed, one that will benefit most or even all citizens.  The matter of price is also open to discussion but there are market guidelines that make that task much easier.

That situation applies no longer.  The recent Supreme Court Kelo v New London, CT decision destroyed any pretense that Executive or Judicial branches of government would abide by Constitutional constraints.  New London, CT did not argue government had a better use for the property than the owners.  The government did not argue there was a use for the property providing a specific benefit for its citizens.  The government argued the property owners' taxes were low based on their use of the property.  It argued that deflating the property's value by condemning it; seizing it from the Kelo family and giving it to private developers for $1 with a 99 year lease would increase tax revenues by putting the land to a different use.  Since those taxes would be spent on the community, this seizure of property was justified under the Takings Clause.

Many governments have passed legislation specifically preventing this unconstitutional seizing of private property but it is unclear such laws will stand if challenged based on the Kelo precedent.  Despite some governments behaving well, others have not.  In truth, no American is safe from government ordering him to move because it wants his property for itself.  The New ED creates the scenario wherein the institution designed to protect a man's right to erect his structure is now a weapon used against him.  The protector has become a plunderer.

Unlike Old ED, there will be no accidental scientific fix.  New ED will be eradicated when Americans choose to reclaim their constitutional rights and responsibilities.  We must trust ourselves and our neighbors more than those in government when making decisions about our property.  We must reject the idea government is our source and reclaim the notion we are responsible for ourselves and have specific rights, including to own property.  And we must be willing to defend our Right to private property ownership by exercising our other Rights as needed.  The Right to Free Speech, to Assemble, of the Press and perhaps even to Keep and Bear Arms will be needed to stem the encroachment of government on our Rights.

One can only hope a new politician will rise up (pun intended), like Bob Dole did, with a solution that returns the power and authority to solve the problem to the individual.  If not, the New ED will lead to the same result failure to fix Old ED would have led to; the disappearance of Citizens.  In the case of Old ED, citizens would have disappeared as fewer new citizens were born.  In the case of New ED it will be that our citizens disappear as they are transformed into slaves.

Blue Collar Muse