Courtesy of The People

I know we're all busy. But surely we have just a moment to share a little outrage.

The Hill reported yesterday that Nancy Pelosi's net worth grew by 62% in 2010. Compare that to the change in the total net worth of all households and non-profit organizations in the United States which improved by a mere 7.4% during the same period. Or compare it to the Federal Government whose liabilities rose exponentially during the same period. In other words, the Federal Government's net worth declined exponentially while under the fiscal direction of Speaker Pelosi while her own assets increased mightily.

Ms. Pelosi's assets now total $43.4 million (with $8.2 million in liabilities) making her one of the wealthiest members of Congress. So explain to me then why the, former majority leader (now minority leader) spent oodles of taxpayer money on her flights and in-flight service during the first two years of her Speaker-ship. World Net Daily reports that the then Speaker spent "more than $101,000...for "in-flight services" – including food and liquor...on Air Force jets over the last two years. That's almost $1,000 per week."

"Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time."

John Boehner, the new Speaker, flies commercial. Presumably paying for his own liquor. Oh, and his net worth? The Speaker reports a net worth of $2.1 million (up 16.7% over the previous year) and zero liabilities.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosis-in-flight-food-and-drink-costs-101000-2010-1#ixzz1PRii4kYli

Read this from The Heritage Foundation

Morning Bell: Unemployment Is No Laughing Matter

From The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell

As President Barack Obama swung through North Carolina yesterday, he did all he could to show that he cares about the U.S. economy, its 9.1 percent unemployment rate, and the 13.9 million Americans who remain out of work. Well, that is, until he let a bit of honesty slip off his tongue.

During a meeting with his Jobs and Competitiveness Council—a group of CEOs the President created to give him advice on the economy—conversation turned to Obama’s $787 billion stimulus that promised to “create or save” 3.5 million new jobs by 2011 by pumping money into “shovel ready” jobs. Confronting the reality that his stimulus failed, the President quipped, “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” The council, led by GE’s Jeffrey Immelt, burst into laughter.

But for those millions of jobless Americans who have not seen the promise of Obama’s stimulus come to fruition, unemployment is no laughing matter. Still, though, that reality escapes those on the left who continue to cling to the notion that President Obama’s big government, Keynesian policies have succeeded despite all evidence to the contrary.

Case in point: On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” host David Gregory confronted DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz with the cold hard facts—unemployment is up 25 percent since President Obama’s inauguration day, the debt is up 35 percent, a gallon of gas is up 104 percent, and 59 percent of Americans disapprove of the President’s handling of the economy. Wasserman Schultz’s reply that, in all likelihood, is still spinning like a top two days later: ”We were able to, under President Obama’s leadership, turn this economy around.”

Obviously enough, the economy has not turned around. In a roundtable published by Barron’s magazine, 10 money managers and financial market experts were unanimous in their belief that slower economic growth is in store for the second half of 2011. Meanwhile, economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal say that the biggest risk to the U.S. economy’s recovery is a slowdown in hiring. On average, they expect the economy to add just 2.2 million jobs over the next year. And to make matters worse, Bill Gross of the Pimco investment firm told CNBC that the United States is in worse financial shape than Greece when its public debt is added to all the money owed to cover future liabilities in entitlement programs.

Or if you apply simple logic, if the economy had turned the corner, the President wouldn’t need to tour the country to convince America that down is up, night is day, and that he’s doing a great job getting people back to work.

In another bit of unintentional Obama economy comedy, the LA Times‘ Peter Nicholas laments today that “traditional tools to jolt the economy [are] largely exhausted or unavailable” to the President—more spending and tax cuts are off the table, he writes, because Congress is “concerned with reducing the federal debt.” Remember, though, that debt comes from spending, and it’s Obama’s reliance on spending that has helped put us where we are today. Heritage’s James Sherk and Rea Hederman, Jr., write:

The President responded to the recession with the stimulus, which massively expanded the size of government. President Obama now fiercely resists attempts to reduce spending and insists on dealing with the deficit by raising taxes on “the rich”—i.e., successful entrepreneurs and business owners. Increased government spending displaces private-sector business investment.

Other Obama policies that have made America’s economic picture worse include the President’s health care plan (which makes hiring new workers significantly more expensive, while leaving uncertainty over future costs); an increased effort to foist unionization on employers and employees; a refusal to submit trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama (that would create new business opportunities, along with tens of thousands of jobs); and an opposition to increasing domestic energy production, which will leave Americans to grapple with high energy costs.

There are, in fact, things the President can do to help the economy get on the right track. As Sherk and Hederman note, it starts with opening the door for entrepreneurs and businesses to expand and create new jobs by lifting the stifling regulations and burdens that have been created in the past two years.

President Obama might want to joke about jobs or downplay his failures as mere “bumps on the road.” He might also like to blame America’s troubles on the previous Administration or “unease about the European fiscal situation.” The truth, though, is a different story, and rather than joking, downplaying, or blaming, it’s time for the President to get to work on fixing the problem.

High- Minded Hope

(Photo courtesy of Gloria Carlson)

A few weeks ago I attended my son's graduation from the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis. The graduation was everything one would expect: inspirational, patriotic and celebratory. Secretary Gates gave the keynote and focused on the character of leadership that these young men and women would soon be demonstrating. And I thought, we have a chance if these graduates lead us.

As a college lecturer I experience a cross-section of America's youth each semester. I love each and every one of the young scholars I teach. Yet, each semester I am struck by the lack of knowledge they have accumulated in the previous 12 years of their schooling. Last semester in my English Composition class I asked my students to read and evaluate The Declaration of Independence. When I surveyed my class of seventeen how many had read the document previously only two raised their hand. Two of seventeen. The semester prior I asked the same question to my two classes and five responded affirmatively. Previous surveys have produced similar results.

And more remarkable: When they read an excerpt from the 911 Commission Report--a handful expressed their view that the attacks on the World Trade Center were an inside job.

In my Collegiate Seminar of the Great Books we read Aristotle. We discussed his notion of the "high-minded" individual. The high-minded is the man who "thinks he deserves great things and actually deserves them." The counter to the high minded is the fool; the man who "thinks he deserves them but does not" (Nicomachean Ethics, 93). As a group, my students had more trouble accepting the nature of the high-minded man than the fool. They felt he was arrogant and conceited rather than the other way around. I believe this is emblematic of our society. We pity and often exalt the fool at the expense of the high-minded. We're more comfortable with the fool because he challenges us less. Our weaknesses or faults pale in the shadow of the high-minded but shine when compared to the fool. Instead of being outraged by the audacity of the fool claiming the prizes of greatness we seem more intent on putting the high-minded man in his place rather than rewarding him.

Witness the defense of Anthony Weiner by prominent women, fellow members of the Democratic caucus and the media. Charlie Rangel, as reported by the AP, summarized the inside-the-beltway view when he said "that other members of Congress had done things more immoral than Weiner." Rangel's defense magnifies Aristotle's characterization of the Fool. Our political leader's believe they are entitled to the privilege of office, the trappings of greatness, despite their behavior or character.

I, for one, am pinning my high-minded hopes on men and women like the Ensign's and Second Lieutenants of the USNA graduating class of 2011. They, at least, understand the importance of integrity and discipline and...honesty.

Politics politics and more politics

Today's, Heritage Foundation Morning Bell hits the mark when it comes to the Obama Administration's penchant for playing politics with just about every subject under the sun. The President's reckless comments at the border, defiance of two court orders to reinstate oil drilling permits in the gulf and his shameless bin Laden victory tour have shown that nothing is above politics to this Administration.

Though Congress is implementing the bash- the- oil companies strategy, the effort transparently tears a page out of the Democratic/Obama playbook. Heritage focuses on the critical issue in lowering prices at the pump: removing the barriers to production.

"There's much the president and Congress could do if they truly wanted to give Americans a break at the gas pump. For starters, they could provide access to our country's domestic energy reserves, roll back regulatory burdens on companies and lift the de facto moratorium on offshore drilling permits.

Attacking the oil industry might satisfy the left's bloodlust against corporate America, and it might play well in press conferences. But targeted tax hikes against industries one might not like is not an answer to the high price of gas. It might feel good in the short run, but it's not a long-term solution to America's energy problems."

Tax Rates=Incentives=Revenues

About ten years ago, give or take, then California Governor Gray Davis gave a press conference to discuss the Golden State's financial crisis (yes, even then). In that press conference he explained to reporters that it was not that state government spent too much, rather that the revenues weren't large enough. The translation of his remarks for the economically naive is: despite the fact that Californians are among the highest taxed citizens in the nation (exceeding even New Yorkers) they weren't paying enough for the state's services. If they were, we can extrapolate from Mr. Davis' statement, the revenues would be great enough to cover spending.

Thou hath not changed much California.

Except in one regard: businesses and wealthy individuals are fleeing the state. In 2007 according to the Pew Research Center, California experienced net migration of -681,000 individuals. In other words, California, in one year alone lost almost 700,000 taxpaying citizens to other, more tax-attractive states. In one year alone. From 2004-2007 the net loss of California citizens was 1,900,000. That's 1.9 million.

The California revenue problem has continued to deteriorate.

Enter Dr. Arthur Laffer (who also exited California during that period). He identified the importance of tax policy to economic growth illustrated best by the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve demonstrates that lower tax rates increase incentives to produce income and economic growth thereby resulting in increased tax revenues. There are two points on the Laffer Curve--picture a side-saddle bell curve--where tax revenues equal zero: at a zero percent tax rate and at an 100% tax rate. The former equation is obvious--absence of a tax rate will result in no revenues. At a 100% tax rate, zero tax revenues are also collected because all incentives to produce are removed when the government's take reaches 100%.

Economic growth and job creation needs to return to the forefront of our national dialogue. A realistic and economically sound tax policy should be debated. Economic class warfare benefits no one. Dr. Laffer believes, "the 2012 election will be a referendum on the economic policies of President Obama."

I certainly hope so.

Rising Public Sector Costs in California

An informative and shocking video from Americans for Prosperity. Cut and paste.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5FytHY2qhc

Exponentially Expanding Debt Crisis

The Washington budget demagoguery was put on hold when Congress recessed. And now is taking a back seat to the capture and death of Osama bin Laden. Our Navy Seals are the finest in the world--the best investment tax payers make in my view--but we need to hold our elected official's feet to the mounting debt fire. The blaze is raging dangerously out of control.

An unprecedented U.S. budget and debt crisis looms. We cannot afford to look away for even a moment while the Congressional foxes are guarding the national treasury henhouse. The Heritage Foundation reminds us:

"Today’s national debt—the public debt that government has accumulated to finance its out-of-control spending—is approximately $14.3 trillion. To put that into perspective, the government’s annual budget for 2011, which is in itself bloated, is roughly $3.7 trillion. And to put the future health of our economy in perspective, President Obama proposed in his 2012 Budget proposal that we add $9 trillion to that debt over the next ten years."

The most accessible explanation of our mounting debt is available at the following URL. Cut and paste and watch the short video. It is well worth the trouble.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=317827