Presidential candidates on corporate taxation...

The dirty secret neither candidate tells you: consumers pay the corporate taxes, not corporations. It is factored into the price of every product we buy, and therefore, under the banner of "getting corporations to pay their share", Congress continues to increase what we pay for goods and services. ALL taxes are paid by individual Americans, both as a wage-earner and a consumer -- no one else really pays taxes.

Facts, but dark humor nonetheless...

FM*2 is started to help lower income families have easier access to home loans, passed by a Democratic Congress under Carter...

Democrats repeatedly rejected stricter regulations on FM*2...

GOP Congress and President fail to more strictly regulate FM*2, though they had the votes to do so...

The Democrats won Congress in 2006 because the GOP did little to lead, but much to take for themselves...

The stock market starts to decline months after the Democratic Congress is sworn in...

Democrat in charge of FM*2 repeatedly says "no problem"...

The 110th Congress does nothing for its 2 years that anyone will remember...

The least popular president since Hoover has to wake up both parties (i.e., Congress) to let them know that while they were sleeping, our financial business went awry, heavily due to their actions and subsequent inactions toward FM*2...

Every Congressman in front of a TV camera claims they warned everybody else (including the 2 presidential candidates), but no one led Congress to action...

Except the least popular president since Hoover.




You should be equally concerned about who you are voting to return to Congress as you are about who will be president. This financial crisis had more to do with Congress than any president.

No McCain fan, but...

Why doesn't McCain, every time BO decries the "failed policies of deregulation", point to the fact that this crisis was precipitated by the Democrats' demands for deregulation of the lending industry, so that it was easier and easier for people who otherwise would not qualify for loans to not only get loans, but ones that would eventually default through ballooning interest rates?!?!?  Why doesn't he point out that the decline in the stock market began within months of the Democratic Congress taking the oath of office?!?!?  Why doesn't McCain point out that Obama is nothing new, just a plain Democrat who has voted with his party more than Ted Kennedy, and his party leads the least-liked Congress in recent history?!?!?  Why doesn't McCain articulate the hows and whys of Obama's tax plan being damaging to independent businessmen -- the largest employers in the country?!??!  Right now, it just sounds like a lot of fear-mongering, no details, just scary words.  

McCain's got to do better than he has been doing if there is to be a comeback.  IMHO, McCain has run a poor campaign, and his own liberal views, which have come out in the debates, has done nothing to mobilize conservatives.  If Palin is not ruined by her hanging around these conservative pretenders, and she decides to run in 2012, I might vote GOP again.  But I hope, with her national exposure, she runs third party and accelerates the process of putting these two cancerous parties out of business.

Mark

Notes on Prez debate 2...

The first question about specifics of what will be done saw Obama on his soapbox without answering the question, just the same tape-recorded message. McCain was only a little better.

A following question on why either candidate should be trusted led to Obama Bush-bashing, while McCain pointed to organizations who fact-check -- 'don't believe our rhetoric per se, check us against our records'. Obama admitted there was blame enough to go around, distanced himself, and went back to referencing his short recall of history: "8 Years".

On priorities in the economy, Brokaw asked to prioritize energy, health care, and entitlement programs: Obama talked to the government spending for energy. McCain spoke of opening access to drilling and nuclear power and 'all of the above'. I know something about energy, and you do not want the government driving energy, you want opportunity. There are millions of jobs in energy YET TO COME. Remember, when either says "the government needs to fund...", it is YOUR money they are talking about. Obama rightly (IMHO) prioritized energy, which he said would lead to "5 million jobs". He kep talking about us only having 3% of the world's oil supply, but no mention of our much, much higher natural gas reserves and how we can use them better, and how our BTU capacity in coal dwarfs Middle East oil. He wants "government investment" (YOUR tax dollars) in alternative energy, which will only slow the business opportunities and make millionaires off your tax dollars (Mike Skelley of Texas). How about dropping ALL corporate taxes, which are backdoor user taxes anyway? Then, alternative energy will have less a burden to create and be profitable....

Obama keeps running the Bush tape. He is shy on specifics. McCain is not too plentiful on details, either. Obama is a better orator, and actually handles this format well. McCain is almost overly empathetic, but does connect.

Obama does not, however, have a good grasp on businesses and how they work. McCain understands the generalities of economic flow.

Health care a commodity? Obama thinks it s a Bush problem ("8 years"). Keep YOUR plan, if you do not have one, you can buy it from the government. If you do not, you will be federally fined. Well, employers will soon bail, and everyone will be buying the government health care. And I really do not like McCain's plan. People, sell the boat and buy insurance! If your health care is not a priority for you, why should it be for me? Health care a right?!?!? Marxist/socialist thinking.

Note to Obama, deregulation has been supported by Clinton and Carter. Regulation implies some people who will never qualify for housing loans, and that your work with ACORN was part of the problem. Minor regulation is needed, especially in the turning loans. BTW, did you know that candidates keep for themselves money unspent on campaigning? That's one of the ways you become a millionaire in Congress...

USA's down economic situation a hindrance to our role as peacemaker? McCain touts his ability to recognize when and where to apply our military forces. Obama, well, is weak here. Obama, here's the 4-1-1: Iraq invasion was about regime change because of UN violations and the financing of terrorism in the Holy Land, liberating a deadly dictator who committed genocide on 250,000 to 500,000 of his own people, and WMDs, which everyone from 1992 on assumed he had. Brokaw hits Obama with the likes of Rwanda: he then speaks of moral obligation (like preventing genocide)...personally, I find our global interventions draining and would like to see them reduced substantially. Basically the discussion went back to debate 1.

The longer this went on, the more I realized I could have "debated" sides, both fell into their mantras. There was no knockout punch. McCain did not get the much needed win tonight; it was a draw, IMHO. Obama did not need a win, just not a loss. Neither candidate is very strong here, both pursuing expected party lines, with Obama seeking to lead by government "funding and investment and help" (his hand is in YOUR wallet), and McCain advocating a more opening of opportunity access (which will be difficult to take advantage of with such tight money). Both have scary tax policies.

In summary of both underwhelming performances, I am compelled to ask, "Did Texas reserve its right to secede from the USA when it became a state?"

;-)

Note: some news people think McCain "won", but not by enough to be a game changer. I still call it a draw. FYI: I agree with Democrats (according to online tests) less than 5% of the time, with the GOP less than 50% of the time, and with Libertarians and Constitutionalists 80+% of the time)

Big government, Bailouts, and FEMA...

Regarding Big Federal Government...
According to Ron Paul, the Libertarian-Republican-Libertarian, corporate taxes pay 70% of the income received by the feds and we individual taxpayers pay 30%. As you have seen elsewhere here, we really pay all the taxes -- taxes are a part of the cost basis of companies, and that cost is factored into every product consumers buy. Further, it is basically a user tax, which hits lower income people the most.Since we are footing the bill, perhaps we should be honest about this whole mess and pay the rest directly, removing the corporate tax completely, since we pay it anyway. Companies would be free to re-invest and expand, creating jobs. But if you are like me, you suddenly realize you are going really see what you are paying to the government, and you will be fuming at the thought that your visible tax bill will be three times higher. This is exactly what Congress does not want you to see, for then your demands (certainly mine) for a smaller government is going to so much louder. Right now, Congress poses companies and corporations as bad guys, the ones not paying enough, which is just a backdoor blame game to get more out of OUR wallets. Mind you, we really are paying it anyway, and if it were visible, Congress would have no place to hide. This ball-and-cups game Congress plays is a big factor in driving companies offshore -- they can be more profitable even if workers are paid the same.

The government is too big, period. The government is costing us our hard-earned money at an extremely high rate, costing jobs, costing small business owners and large corporations, and shows no desire to squelch its appetite. We need to cut the size of the federal government in half, if not by two-thirds, to a more affordable level for US, the American taxpayers.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Thomas Jefferson

BTW, checkout FairTax.org. Read through it, use its calculator to see how it might impact your household, read about the prebate management. If it works for you, let your Congressmen know (HR 25, S 1025)!

Regarding The Bailout...

To my Senators:
I oppose the economic recovery bill, the idea of it as well as the details because the very idea of it smacks at everything American, it does not allow the market and business to make adjustment, and every other industry that has experienced contraction has done so at the cost of stronger companies buying up weaker companies and their marketshare. The auto industry at one time had American Motors, Nash Motors, Desoto, Hudson, and many others. The oil industry had Skelley, Gulf, Arco, Sinclair and many others. Competition weaned them out, and Congress did not permit the same natural processes to take place in the lending and financial industry.  SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rep. Culberson:
Thank you for representing me and standing against this socialistic bill.

Regarding FEMA...
It is just a big handout anyway. Why should the hard workers of Albany, NY or Kalamazoo, MI contribute, via federal taxation, to recovery efforts here in the Gulf Coast? Why should we on the Gulf Coast pay for the recovery of flooding in Iowa? Why not have each state, which has its own set of natural disaster phenomena, escrow emergency relief money of its own? The amount FEMA "gives" is not full home replacement (Katrina victims got an average of $2300, I recall), and each state and its officials are more adept at handling the local issues than some outsider from DC. 

One more note....
EVERY American needs to visit this site, review the Constitution regularly, and compare how your Congressional team is doing with respect to it. The Constitution is there for YOUR protection, regardless of your political label:
http://www.usconstitution.net

Priorities in policies...

This is a complex matter, because it most greatly affects those who cannot afford it. In energy, for example, due to the advanced age of our oil fields, oil companies, large and small, were given tax breaks to make the oil production profitable, since huge expenditures are required for what we call secondary phase recovery. This oil is very expensive to recover, compared to historical prices, and tax breaks were given so that a production company could make a little profit, and in doing so, kept prices lower for the consumer.

Now, we have the accusation that this is "corporate welfare" and that it is wrong, when it had only two intentions: produce more American oil, keep the same American oil at global market prices and thereby keep gasoline prices lower to the consumer. Now, we have today's prices for oil and gasoline. Even though gasoline prices are really only at inflation-adjusted historical levels, the perception is that the prices are high, because we have been paying below inflation level prices for so long. At today's oil prices (which is headed below $90/BBL, down from $140/BBL earlier this year), perhaps it is time to remove the tax breaks -- but prices will go up to the consumer (the consumer always pays for corporate taxation, because companies have to make a profit to survive), and such increases always hurt the lower economic groups more than anyone else.

Many are pushing for"corporate welfare" for alternative energy, I mean, err, tax breaks. What is the purpose? What is the policy? What is the end game? (If tax breaks are good for struggling businesses, what about us struggling individuals?). That means that we, the tax payer, gets a reprieve for using these technologies by their inherently high cost being kept lower (still incredibly expensive for the consumer). I like tax breaks, and I think tax breaks for alternative energy solutions should extend to individuals who install them. The capital required is still large, but if I can get a huge tax break for doing so, it can make financial sense for me in the long run. At what point, however, do we lift such tax breaks at the corporate level? At what point are we, as individuals, paying more personal tax because these alternate energy corporations are not paying enough?

I prefer no government subsidies or special tax breaks for anyone -- a free, though volatile, market. We both know it is not as simple as that. The more alternative energy is pushed, the more tax breaks (corporate welfare) will be required for it to make financial sense for people like you and me (maybe it will always be a utility level implementation), and if utility companies are forced to a certain level of alternative energy output, the energy bill received by homeowners will increase substantially, again, hurting the lower economic groups the most.

How do we balance all of these factors without creating another expensive bureaucracy in the government (which increases the pain on consumers at all levels due to the tax increases required to support such a bureaucracy)? Maybe alternative energy is served best by competing in a free market (level playing field, no one (meaning anyone in the energy business) getting special tax breaks, higher energy prices for the consumer) where innovation will be the key to profitability. I know the same would happen for the oil production companies, large and small, if their tax breaks were removed.

This is why we must be clear on what we want to accomplish via our energy policies; the same is something you and I need to communicate to our Congressmen and Congresswomen. Is the priority energy independence? Is the priority lower prices? Is the priority alternative energy no matter how high the price? Whichever one of these is first, necessarily shapes a different energy policy. If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. The answer and its repercussions cannot be reduced to a sound bite. Personally, I say shape our policy around independence. Whatever your view, think your view all the way through the economic chain, and let your people in Congress know your thoughts. They work for you.

Blogging Ike

We are riding the storm out. We are located about 60 miles NW of Galveston, so our biggest concern is wind. Our area does not flood. The addage is: "Run from water, hide from wind". We will manage the wind aspect, and keep the highways free for those who need to evacuate. Our biggest concern: power outage. The suburbs are low priority for the power company, and we understand the process. So, now a little of our experience...

We noticed cloud cover settling in about 1300h today. A few extra gusts of wind, but nothing steady. Winds starting getting more intense at about 1930h (15-20 mph, gusting to 25 mph). We prepared by bringing all outdoor furniture into the garage, pulling the plants in large pots next to the house, buying 6 flats of water, storing ice, bringing the coolers inside so they will already be cool if we need to transfer food into them. Tonight, I will case my guitars and store them away from windows, shut down the laptops and store them in closets, secure the desktop in its amoire, and make sure all cell phones are fulling charged.

We had our own hurricane party, just Pam and me (and the dogs, of course). Pam made a chocolate cake, and we watched 3 episodes of House. Now we are making final preparations, and will make notes here as long as we are able...2056h 20080912

Officially, Ike made landfall at 20080913:0210 just east of Galveston as a Category 2 hurricane (winds over 100 mph, see the hurricane scale and the wind scale). We felt the winds hit hard at 0230h, as the rain came and the wind reached howling levels. Our house did not creak nor flinch, and we lost no windows. At 0330h, we lost power for a minute or two, but it did recover. We had a hard loss of power at 0430h, and wind intensity, as well as rain, was high.

We got up with our dogs about 0500. Dogs need to go out and take care of business regardless of the weather. We noted our trees were fully in motion, but still rooted, and the rain was coming down hard. We estimated the windspeed at 40-50 mph (64-80 kph). We have natural gas for our stove, and as one who prefers to use a french press for coffee, boiled some water and had a very civilized cup of joe. The power flickered on and off between 0600-0620, and then went down for good. Water pressure was dropping all this time as well. We had a little battery operated TV, the first official Jeep accessory I received, as a gift from my in-laws. We followed the news and weather maps for a couple of hours.

The wind continued to be strong until about 0800, when the howling could only be heard in some gusts. Pam and I napped until about 1000h. It was still raining, and the winds had died considerably, to about 20 mph (32 kph). Looking outside, we could see small branches everywhere, and lost a couple of large branches in the pine tree on the front lawn. A neighbor across the street had a tree snap in half, and one down the street had a tree uproot altogether, all these discoveries in an informal neighborhood damage walk and sharing of the adventures of the night.

We were surprised by our daughter and her family arriving at our house. They had roof damage that was leaking into the house, and decided to make a run for drier confines. By noon, parents deemed it OK for the kids to be outside playing, and laughter was heard on our street. We still had no electricity, but water pressure had returned and we were doing well.

We cooked a pot of pasta and used spaghetti sauce from the previous week to prepare ourselves an Italian feast, complete with a spinach salad. For dessert, we tapped the chocolate cake from the night before. As it got warmer outside, it got warmer inside. We had opened some windows to get some cross flow, but oddly enough, there was little wind by now. We all knew it could be sooner or much later before power (and A/C) were restored, but we were grateful because we know our coastal Texas brethren had lost much more. At 1554h today, power was restored.

We had experienced severe storm conditions for almost 6 hours, and had been almost 12 hours without electricity. We experienced sustained winds of 45+ mph (60+ kph), and gusts up to 65 mph (104 kph). We lost our NW fence. We do not how much rain fell in our area (note: estimates are 6 inches). So far as we know at this writing, Ike took three lives, nearly miraculous considering the size and power of this storm. Ike is gone, picking up after him remains...

20080913:1630

Town Call Meeting

Technology is useful, even for good things. I was contacted for a "town call meeting" last night with my Congressional representative, along with 100s of others. By pressing "0" on the phone, we queued ourselves to ask questions or comment or both. I kinda broke the lovefest by expressing my views and asking him to clarify his own views versus the actual GOP performance.  

It was great to have this kind of personal access (even though, through his website, I have corresponded with him many times previously), and being able to do so without getting out and driving somewhere. I hope everyone's Congressperson is doing the same, regardless of their label.  

What did I learn? He and I agree on an "all of the above" approach to energy, agree the government needs to reign in its spending and reduce significantly in size (and that the FM bailouts were wrong, WE, the taxpayer, are paying for it), and expand the roadways in Houston to facilitate better traffic flow (use less energy) AND integrate mass transit with these efforts, both bus and rail services. We are both for securing borders as opposed to more immigration legislation.  

I further pushed for a focus away from inefficient wind power (about 1% efficient) in favor of more effort for solar (wind requires sustained high winds, whereas we all get sunshine) and tidal energy (very predictable; it's a physics thing), and to convert our automobiles to natural gas, which is cleaner and significantly reduces our dependence on foreign oil. And, many of us could fill up from our homes! I also told him I want a much smaller government and reduced tax burden, but stated HB 24 was too Draconian.

Cleaning out closets...

Why do we keep the stuff we do? Because it seemed like a good idea at the time, and carried a "waste not, want not" sentiment. Not bad thinking. Now roll ahead several years, and you are cleaning stuff out of a closet, stuff you barely remember having in your possession, and you triple your trash haul for the week. On the other hand, the closets contain treasures, genuine riches, like a picture of my grandmother and her husband, whom none of us knew due to his untimely death while Dad was a child, a picture of mom as a little girl of no more than 4 years, and several other similar jewels. Cleaning out closets: a chore, a treasure hunt.

More political observations...

I was browsing about for political information. real data, not what various pundits are saying (I do not need them to think for me). I wanted to learn something about the voting behavior of the candidates.

Change? Who is the agent for real change in Washington?

Here are facts, interpret them however you like, but keep in mind the President has an approval rating about 3 times higher than the Democratic Congress, and his is bad.

In the 109th Congress (not as disrupted by the primaries as the 110th):
Obama voted more with his party than either Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden, a whopping 94.8% of the time. My editorial comment: real original thinker, huh?

McCain voted party lines 79.4% of the time; he is the seventh least partisan voter in the Senate. My editorial comment: the 'maverick' tag fits better than others might think, that doesn't mean I like him.

Palin as Veep: More executive experience than McCain, Obama, or Biden. Has as many US Senate bills with her name on it as Obama (true, but twisted observation), though a woman who has done everything a woman can do (wife, mother, businessperson, mayor, governor of a state), 'people' wonder if she really represents women. Duh! That is like Jesse Jackson saying Colin Powell wasn't really black...(he really did say that!)

Want change in Washington and your state? Quit looking to the government (which in reality is the the people of the United States) to solve your problems (that's like telling everyone else in the USA they are responsible for helping you), and quit voting for these major parties.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

Calling out BO...

I have no love for either party, but confess I find the fundamentals of the DNC entrenched in Marxist thought (read the Communist Manifesto first, before you argue otherwise). Politicians on either side are going to make statements that sound good when you say it fast -- its what they do best, and I am going to call attention to some of their thinking:

BO claims tax breaks for 95% of Americans -- who only pay 40% of the tax bill. A full 33% pay nothing, another 17% only pay 4%. The one-third do not get tax breaks, because they do not pay taxes -- they might, under BO, get redistributed income, which immediately makes them wards of the state. Why would they vote to change such a system? Taxing the other 5%: they already pay 60% of the tax bill -- only the small-minded would say they are not paying their share already. Go out to dinner with 20 friends, and tell one they MUST pay 60% of the bill for everyone. and if they think that is unfair, the other 19 are considering voting to make them pay more! Raise your hand if you want to be that one with 19 friends like that!

Failed economic policy? Until the screw-up banks making loans to people who historically would not have qualified (why they violated tried and true rules of lending I cannot say for a fact; I have heard merely greed to Congress complaints that the rules were socio-economically biased and the banks had to demonstrate otherwise -- the truth is probably somewhere in between), we were at record highs in the stock market, which fuels businesses, jobs, and retirement funds, and unemployment was under 5%. What is so failed about that? And besides, business is the business of business, not government.

Yes, further investment in offshore drilling is a stop-gap, but necessary to keep energy prices in line with inflation WHILE other energy alternatives are developed. Today though, Democrats have blocked any kind of comprehensive energy plan, crying it only supports "Big Oil", which is not for what Bush has been calling since 2003 (and I am no Bush apologist, this is just a fact). "Comprehensive" means fossil fuels, nuclear energy, solar, hydraulic, co-gen, and wind. The "natural" solutions, which I have followed since my college days almost 30 years ago, remain horrifically expensive. They are only affordable with government tax breaks or subsidies -- which is OUR tax money anyway, so WHY take it from us in the first place? The fact of the matter is this: the "natural" solutions offer low output for high investment, this has been their history. If we want to keep energy prices in check while these are made affordable on the open market for everyone (which I support), then we need to drill in these other areas for the next 10-15 years while these alternatives are developed.

"Restore the United States' reputation in the world": Why do we care? The UN does nothing well unless we are involved. Bush's policy of freedom is the same as JFK's (listen to JFK's inauguration speech). George Washington said, "Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." Who on the planet does not deserve that? You say some cannot govern themselves (Ted Kennedy said this)? The words of Thomas Jefferson, "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion."

Health care? "Free" for everyone? ALL Canadians pay 25% of their income for "free universal health care", whether they use it or not. This is a fact. BUT, the distribution of that health care is not "on demand". You are a number, and you queue for health care, no matter what your condition. Tear your ACL, expect to wait months to get it fixed. Have cancer and need treatment? Wait your turn, even if it kills you. I hear this not from the news, but from Canadians themselves. Same experience in the UK and France.

Then there is Al Gore, who swears things would have been different had he been President. The WTC was bombed under his watch, its instigator (Bin Laden) offered up, and he stood by and did nothing. He has never spoken against Clinton for this egregious failure, like a statesman would have done. He would have done nothing except to say it was our fault. Al also proposed taxing gasoline to a nationwide average of $4/gal to encourage conservation, which would have hurt the 95% he purports to protect. But the free market takes prices to that level, and he says it is wrong. Al "I invented the Internet" Gore is an idiot. Why people listen to him supports the notion that critical thinking among the masses is dead.

When McCain makes his speech, I will likewise comment. They both make stupid and untrue statements, and neither party is fit to govern, IMHO. Viva the third and more parties!

Messy, messy...

Our tax system is a mess, no doubt. Increasing taxes is teetering on robbery, and some already call it "legal plunder". I find the following interesting (gathered from many non-profit, non-partisan websites, and their data over the last 10 years):

Almost 1/3 of Americans pay no federal income tax whatsoever (so how can they get a tax rebate?)

Fifty percent of Americans make more than $31,000 per year (and this groups makes 85% of all income), and also pay 96% of the taxes (are they "the rich"?)

The top 5% of Americans (those whose household income is $150K/year) pay 60% of the taxes, while making 30% of the income in the US

The top 1% of Americans (those making more than $380K/year) pay almost 40% of all taxes, while making less than 20% of all income

Is this fair? Is a progressive income tax fair? Maybe (IMHO) unless there is ANY redistribution of income "just because". Doing so makes people wards of the state, and is indeed socialism. But who are the rich? How you define them and how politicians define them are likely very different. Are "the rich" (whoever they are) already paying their disproportionate share, based on the numbers above? When tax breaks are claiming to "help only the rich", who are they talking about? It certainly doesn't and shouldn't help those who pay nothing. "Tax breaks", by definition, only affect those who pay taxes.

Did you know our corporate income tax rate is twice that of our global competitors? Do you understand the implications of that? It means it is less profitable for companies to stay here than to re-locate overseas. We are not talking about cheap labor. My research of many articles indicates our corporations are paying about 40% in income taxes, and their global competition is paying about 20%. Such a tax burden reduces jobs here, and is a disincentive to expand here. Who is to share the blame for jobs going overseas? Congress, who by their taxation of corporations, take almost half of corporate profits for "the government" in their greed.

Our tax situation is a mess, and who has demonstrated any real will to change it?

Politics today

I do not care what your views are, write your Congressmen/women and make them work for you!

Here is what I wrote mine, recently, regarding energy and Pelosi's recent interview with George Stephanopoulos:

Drilling in new places will take 5-10 years to have an impact (I am in the business and know about such things). The 68 million acres of which Pelosi speaks is not necessarily favorable to hydrocarbon accumulation. The more places drilled without economically favorable results, the higher the prices will be -- like any other product! "Big Oil" is only at most a dozen of nearly 1000 companies drilling for oil and gas today. Did you know that fact? Competition? "Big Oil" has serious competition -- and has to buy from them to feed their refineries ("Big Oil" only controls 10%-12% of the world's supply, a market share too small to control anything)!

Record profits -- rhetoric for the math challenged. XOM profit is at a record high, but still a meager 10-12% net -- their costs are over $100 Billion per quarter. Oil was $12/bbl in 1998, gas was $0.80/gal. Raw product (oil) price rose by 12 times while the retail price only rose 5 times by 2008. I will let you do the math on that one -- it'll be a test.

Further, so few talk about the impact of natural gas for our cars, and nuclear power for our electricity -- augmented by solar, not wind (of solar, wind, and waves as energy sources, wind is by far the least reliable). A move in these directions -- all three -- can break our dependence on foreign oil -- if that is the goal (if cheap energy is the goal, fossil fuels are still the cheapest per output of power). Where is the intelligent talk on electrical cars and the disposal of their batteries (will we want these things in our landfills?), the amount of minerals and resources required to build them (some reports indicate they have a much greater negative environmental impact than conventional vehicles in their manufacturing), the much lower than expected impact of their economy due to the long distances to commute? Where is the encouragement (not mandate, not law, but tax-break) incentives for companies to promote telecommuting on a wider scale? The internet can do so much to get people off the road! Where are the calls for tax breaks for homeowners to install solar panels -- not tax rebates, they carry a cost, but a straight up deduction for the cost of installation (perhaps a helpful percentage of the install cost, or deducting the total cost from annual income).

What about co-gen plants that are successfully generating electricity today, without fossil fuels or resources within the food chain?

The number one driver for conservation -- price. Despite all the rhetoric; not rhetoric, really, but exhortations to conserve, leading up to the recent surge in gasoline prices (which actually only brought gasoline in line with inflation over the last 25 years), conservation did not take place until the prices forces it. Why would the Dems want to encourage more consumption by creating consumer subsidies (redistribution of wealth, a nice communist ideal)? And what are these subsidies she claims the oil industry gets? Why do people think all-electric cars are going to be cheap? Their battery production will be expensive, very expensive, and a disposal nightmare. Further, they will increase loading on our electrical power grid and will increase monthly electrical bills significantly -- and so much of our electricity is fossil fuel powered! We go to more nuclear power, electrical cars make more sense altogether -- except for that nasty disposal thing.

Beware the Animal Farm situation created by the Dems and GOP. Solving problems would liberate their traditional constituencies to go elsewhere, politically. How long have the economically challenged voted Democrat? Even when the Dems controlled Congress and the White House, their situation did not change, and has not. What about the smaller government conservatives? What have they gained by voting GOP? None of us are happy nor benefiting from this two horse race. We need more ideas, more parties. Vote an alternative party. Quit believing the Dems and GOP. Give America more voices with your vote. If you are "left", vote Green or Libertarian; if you are more to the "right" vote Libertarian or Constitutionalist; find other parties to support. Whichever party you decide to support, VOTE!

Solutions are not found in sound-bites, nothing is as simple as the politicians are trying to make it sound; be careful who they are calling villains (when bad guys are calling someone else bad guys, who are the real bad guys and why?).

Family facets...

My family and our experiences are like a multi-faceted jewel. At every turn, you get a different view, but it is the same precious stone. One day we celebrate an addition, the next we are in the hospital having birthday cake with an injured family member. We celebrate weddings and graduations together, we mourn losses together. We share struggles and prayers. All of these things are encapsulated in this multi-faceted precious jewel called family...the wealth of our lives.

The weekend...

"Watcha doin' this weekend?"

"Nuthin'..."

"Yeah, my kinda weekend"

Weekends with nothing to do used to be the greatest curse in my life; now it is a great blessing. Work is demanding, more expected everyday, so sliding into a weekend without Friday night to Sunday night sprint races is relaxing, something to which one can look forward...

Places to live...

What determines where one lives? For many of us, it is simple -- we go were our job is. After that determination, we further refine based on our children's educational needs, then perhaps our own needs in terms of socialization, activities, and other "quality of life" parameters.

What about after the job season of ones life is over? Do we then just move to a mapped location of our dream locale and setup house? What about those friends you've enjoyed for so many years, with most of whom you raised your kids? What about your own children, who are most likely to stay "close to home"?

I have always loved the mountains more than the beach, although I grew to hate winters in the same mountains (snow is fine for playing, not for living, IMHO). Yet, as I have grown older, a deeper appreciation of friends, friendships, and family ties have steered me away from my "young man's dream" of living in the mountains, or even retiring to my beloved Kentucky.

I most likely will die in Texas, and although some multi-generational Texans already refer to me as a "Texan", an honor I am happy to embrace for many very good reasons, I'll always be a Kentuckian living in Texas...

Social Networking

First, we did away with welcoming front porches as a networking device. I guess air-conditioning and telephones are to blame. Telephones dominated the networking scene for decades, but they were fed by actual gatherings of people who, in turn, exchanged phone numbers. Eventually, the Internet came along (and porches got smaller, by the way) and e-mail was all the rage -- in business. A few geeks knew about and used IRC, but AOL brought IM to the masses. Still, one only networked with people they already knew, and short of calling them (on a telephone), it was difficult for people expand their realm of contacts outside what they already knew. Then came social networking on the Internet, beginning (perhaps) with sites like Reunion and Classmates, expanding to MySpace, but perhaps more popularized in Facebook. Now, I can browse networks to which I belong to find people I haven't seen in decades.

This is pretty cool stuff, but I think I will build a big front porch, anyway.