The Senate now Wants to Save Newspapers

On Reuters, there is this story about a bill that has been introduced in the Senate to save the newspapers. It does not have any sponsors yet. The bill proposes that the newspapers would act as non-profit organizations and be tax exempt.

After attempting to save the auto industry, banks, and insurance companies, the government is now going to try to save the newspapers. Well, they didn't save any of them, so why would they try this. The government cannot help itself at this point. It is drunk with power.

Here is a concept. LET THEM FAIL!

This is Capitalism at work. Newspapers are failing, because no one reads them. Since no one reads them, no advertises in them. They are obsolete. Cable news, talk radio, Internet, and others industries and technologies have replaced them. The sun has set on the newspaper. Please, let them fade away.

On top on that, their product stinks. They are not producing something anyone wants to buy. The news is usually a day or two old. It is wrong, contrived, made up, or biased. Again, no one wants to read Liberal tripe every day, not even Liberals.

The government should not try to help an industry that is obsolete and let this dead wood go. That is what Capitalism does. It lets industries that are slowing down the economy to die off.

For example, look at what digital cameras did to Kodak. Kodak did not get a bailout. They changed their company’s focus. Look at what CDs did to cassettes. Look at what cassettes did to 8-tracks. Look at what DVDs did to VCRs. Look at what VCR did to BETA. The list goes on and on. These companies did not get bailouts. They changed or disappeared because the business environment changed.

So, let newspapers fail. They can go digital or find another niche in our society. They need to change and stop hanging onto past ideas that no longer work. Hey, that sounds familiar. Isn’t that what Liberals do?

Here is the story:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible.

Because newspaper profits have been falling in recent years, "no substantial loss of federal revenue" was expected under the legislation, Cardin's office said in a statement.

Cardin's office said his bill was aimed at preserving local and community newspapers, not conglomerates which may also own radio and TV stations. His bill would also let a non-profit buy newspapers owned by a conglomerate.

"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy.

Newspaper subscriptions and advertising have shrunk dramatically in the past few years as Americans have turned more and more to the Internet or television for information.

In recent months, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Rocky Mountain News, the Baltimore Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle have ceased daily publication or announced that they may have to stop publishing.

In December the Tribune Company, which owns a number of newspapers including The Baltimore Sun, The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times filed for bankruptcy protection.
Two newspaper chains, Gannett Co Inc and Advance Publications, on Monday announced employee furloughs. It will be the second furlough this year at Gannett.

Obama Renames the War on Terror

On the Washington Post, there is story about Obama change another term about terrorism

Political correctness has reared its ugly head again. A few weeks ago, it was reported that the term “enemy combatant” is no longer permitted. Now, the term “Global War on Terror” is no longer permitted. The Obama administration will now use the term “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

I guess the war has changed and needs a new term. Maybe, the Islamic terrorists have changed. No. The President has changed and their philosophy of what terrorism has changed.

Clinton treated Islamic terrorism as a legal issue and not a war issue. Clinton tried to capture, try, and jail terrorists. He did this while they declared war on the U.S. and attacked us. They bombed the World Trade Centers with a Ryder truck. They bombed embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. They bombed the USS Cole.

After 911, Bush changed this policy and declared war on Islamic terrorism and fought back against them. He started to kill terrorists all over the world. He attacked and killed them in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and all over Africa. There are probably other missions that we don’t even know about. During this time, the U.S. has not been attacked. There have been attempts, but no successful attacks.

Now, Obama is changing the philosophy again, except we really don’t know what his philosophy is. Most likely, it is going to revert to mostly what Clinton did and try to downplay and capitulate to Islamic terrorists. They are going to try to arrest and jail them again.

All this does is show our enemy weakness, which is what encourages them to attack. It emboldens them. This is going to make us less safe and encourage future attacks. Again, Obama is showing his naïveté in a dangerous new world. They want to kill us no matter what we do. This is what they have said to us. So, I would say take their word for it and not take them lightly.

That means we need to stay on the offensive and stay on a war stance, not cower behind some new Political correct words.

Here is the Post story:

The end of the Global War on Terror -- or at least the use of that phrase -- has been codified at the Pentagon. Reports that the phrase was being retired have been circulating for some time amongst senior administration officials, and this morning speechwriters and other staff were notified via this e-mail to use "Overseas Contingency Operation" instead.

"Recently, in a LtGen [John] Bergman, USMC, statement for the 25 March [congressional] hearing, OMB required that the following change be made before going to the Hill," Dave Riedel, of the Office of Security Review, wrote in an e-mail. "OMB says: 'This Administration prefers to avoid using the term "Long War" or "Global War on Terror" [GWOT]. Please use "Overseas Contingency Operation.'"Riedel asked recipients to "Please pass on to your speech writers and try to catch this change before the statements make it to OMB."

An OMB spokesman took issue with the interpretation of OMB's wishes. "There was no memo, no guidance," said Kenneth Baer. "This is the opinion of a career civil servant."

Referring to the phrase "global war on terror," Baer said, "I have no reason to believe that would be stricken" from Hill testimony.

By way of history, senior Bush administration officials several years ago wanted to stop using the phrase and switch to something many felt might better reflect the realities of the fight against international terrorism.

One leading option was to change the name to GSAVE, or Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. This was not as catchy an acronym as GWOT, but officials felt it more accurately described the battle. Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld even used the GSAVE abbreviation publicly.

But, in a White House meeting, President Bush ruled that it was still a war for him, and Rumsfeld and everyone else went back to GWOT.

Geithner Reverts to Paulson's Plan for "Legacy" Assets

Geithner finally released his plan to deal with the “toxic assets” that banks have from the housing bust. These assets are supposedly the reason why banks are not lending.

It becomes apparent earlier that it’s not looking good for the plan when political correctness rears its ugly head. They are no longer “toxic assets” but “legacy assets.” Guess what, they are still bad, no matter what you call them.

So, after reviewing some articles some interesting points arise. First, this plan was Paulson’s and they decided it would not work and private investors would not buy into it. So, Geithner, the only guy who was capable of handling this “crisis”, so ignore his IRS issues, is stealing rejected ideas from the Bush administration. Another scary thought is the price tag, over another trillion dollars.

Lastly, the government is giving private investors loans that they don’t have to pay back. The private investors then will buy the "legacy" assets. If they assets go up in value, the investors keep the money. If they assets go down, they keep the money.

Huh? Isn’t that a bailout?

The government is giving the money to risk. Where is the risk? Can I be a private investor and buy some of the “legacy” assets?

Then, the Communist economist on the NY Times, Paul Krugman said he doesn’t agree with it. You know things are bad when he is jumping of the Obama bandwagon. But he makes some valid points in a piece on NewMax:

"The Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt," the Princeton University economist said, citing weekend reports outlining the plan.

"This isn't really about letting markets work. It's just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets," he added.

Krugman called it a recycled idea of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who later abandoned the "cash for trash" proposal.

"But the real problem with this plan is that it won't work," he says, adding that bad loans may be undervalued because there is too much fear in the current climate.

"But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus -- for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to -- will change that fact," Krugman wrote.

While the real economy is being hurt by the meltdown of the financial system itself, Krugman says this is not the first or the last time this has happened. And there are lots of roadmaps to get us out.

"It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books," Krugman said.

"If this plan fails - as it almost surely will - it's unlikely that he'll be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place," he wrote.


Hate to say it, but Paul Krugman is right. Obama is running out of time and with each blunder he is worsening the situation. I am not saying do nothing. There are so many free market principles he and the government could have done and be doing now, but they aren’t and now are the problem.

They could be cutting government spending and stop driving up the deficits. They could have infused the economy with money by giving back the People their money to spend in the market. Instead, they took money out of the economy.

Obama is making FDR and Hoover look like geniuses at this point.

We Should Love the Rich

With the vilifying of the AIG executives, something came to mind. Why does the Democratic Party demonize the wealthy? What is so wrong with people with money?

Before the 1930s, the wealthy were venerated. They were the people who created these great empires of wealth and contributed to society in countless ways. They donated huge sums of money to universities, churches, and health causes. They founded universities, private philanthropic organizations, and hospitals.

The wealthy founded influential companies and corporations that lead America to global prominence. They invented products, processes, and whole industries that became the cornerstone of America. They started the companies that provided steel, railroads, automobile, chemicals, energy, lumber, banking, and on and on without governmental help. They took insurmountable risks and Capitalism rewarded them.

Then, they reciprocated their vast wealth back to society, not because it was a tax write off or because they were forced to, but because they felt it was their duty. It was good for the public interest. It was the right thing to do. These great men of industry had honor. I would say they still do.

Now, I am not a fan of Wikipedia but the list of Robber Barons serves its purpose here. The list is just a small list of men that founded great industries and companies in America. Their legacies are mentioned as well. Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Vanderbilt are the well-known names but there are so many others. Think of your town and the streets and neighborhoods named after these men. Schools, buildings, and hospital wings are named for the wealthy as well. The list goes on and on. These men provide so much to their communities and America without being ask, but because they thought that they should.

When you look at another aspect, there is even more the wealthy provide. First, they employ workers and pay them competitive wages. This provides endless benifits to the society at large. These businesses provide goods and services used all around the world that aid the public interest. They purchase the products and services that start at a high prices, but as they purchase them, they drive down the prices so the less fortunate can afford them. Think of how plasma TVs, computers, hybrid cars, DVD players, etc. came down in price as these goods made it through society. The wealthy made this possible.

The point here is that the rich provide so much to our society and they are vilified. Why?

In the 1930s during the Great Depression, FDR used the wealthy to get elected and started something called class warfare. He used the same political tactic that Hitler, Mussolini, and Lenin used to take power.

They all vilified the have’s (wealthy, landowners, and/or businessmen) and won the votes or the support of the have not’s (poor, workers, farmers.) By splitting the society on the false premise that wealth is limited and playing these groups off each other, these leaders said they would take from the have’s and give to the have not’s, since there is only so much to go around. With the society splitting their votes and support, these leaders were elected or supported by the minority.

Gee, sound familiar? Look at what Obama and the Democrats are doing today.

This class warfare by FDR changed how America looked at their wealthy class forever. No longer were they worshipped but now characterized as greedy, ruthless, and dishonorable, even though they were not. Wealth was no longer look as unlimited and boundless, but as a limited resource that had a finite value. This was and is still completely false.

Look at Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or Jim Walton. These men provide great products or services to the world and donate huge sums of money to countless causes. Yet, they are vilified for their greatest sin, wealth. Keep in mind, Abraham, David, Solomon, and Jesus to name just a few were extremely wealthy men from the Bible. I am quite sure they were not sinning and vilified for it.

As a side note, wealth is not a sin. Envy (covetness) is. That is what all this class warfare is. Think about it.

To this day, the Democrats use this Marxist tactic to create divisions in America to gain power. The have not’s fall for it every time, not realizing they are killing the golden goose. The wealthy provides jobs, services, most of the tax revenue, most of the donations to philanthropies, and countless other things for the common good of society. Most importantly, they create and generate wealth for the rest of us to use, earn, and aspire to.

So, the next time the Democrats start playing this Marxist game, remember that the rich provide jobs, services, products, wealth, and on and on to society. The government and the Democrats do the exact opposite. They ALWAYS destroy it.

Obama's Approval Rating is Now 50-50

It is still amazing to see how far Obama’s star has fallen, since Inauguration. Granted, Obama has trashed the dollar, spent the country into bankruptcy, destroyed the Democratic Party, and then there are the public gaffes.

He sent a letter to the wrong French President, the "overpriced" button to Russia, the comment on Leno, his actions on”60 Minutes,” and the list goes on and on. I have not even gotten to his foreign diplomacy blunders. After all this, no wonder his approval rating has plummeted.


According to Jules Crittenden:

"Zogby poll due out in the morning will be reporting the Obama admin’s latest grim milestone. As many people don’t like him as do. Boston Herald:

The honeymoon is over, a national poll will signal tomorrow as President Obama’s job approval stumbles to about 50 percent over the lack of improvement with the crippled economy.

The sobering numbers come as the president backpedals from two prime-time gaffes - one comparing his bowling score to a Special Olympian and another awkwardly laughing about the economy, which prompted Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” to ask “are you punch-drunk?”

Pollster John Zogby said his poll out in the morning will show Americans split on the president’s performance. He said the score factors out to “about 50-50.”

Some polls show Obama coasting with a 65 percent job approval, but not in Zogby’s tally.

“The numbers are going down,” Zogby told the Herald. “It’s not because of the gaffes, but a combination of high expectations and that things aren’t moving fast enough with the economy.”

Maybe, but the vast presidential gaffe repository Obama is amassing can’t be helping. The guy’s only been in 60-odd days and he’s tripped more than Ford.*

As for the president’s love of the limelight, it could backfire, according to a media watcher.

“I thought he overexposed himself weeks ago,” said Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean of Boston University’s College of Communication.

“I wonder when the public will say ‘Instead of being in front of the camera, be in front of a spreadsheet.’ ”

To judge by Falcone’s reaction, soon, if not already. But we won’t know until the media organizes itself to do some gaffe polling. What’s the holdup?

* All Ford ever bonked was his head. Obama’s stubbed his toe on disabled kids, backed into bonuses, tripped over mullahs, and walked right into the Ivans."

Tea Parties are growing; the People Want to be Heard

This weekend Orlando had a gathering of 4,000 American exercising their First Amendment rights. It was a beautiful sight. The Founders would be proud. There was a story in the Orlando Sentinel, but, nothing really mentioned in the mainstream media.

Unlike Americans marching peacefully in Orlando expressing their disdain for the all the spending and deficits in Washington, maybe 40 angry Leftists with ACORN expressing some anti-American thuggery showed up at some homes of AIG executives. This, of course, is all over the media about a small few, envious groups targeting private citizens over their salaries. They are falling for this lame class warfare ploy by the Left.

This Tea Party drew as many as the Cincinnati Tea Party last weekend. There was a story in Cincinnati Enquire. Again, the media has ignored this gathering of another 4,000 Americans protesting the excesses of our government.

These Tea Parties are growing and spreading all over the nation. They are planning simultaneous marches on Tax Day, April 15th, which is a great idea and symbolic. Then, there is Glenn Beck and his “We Surround Them” and his 912 Project. He has over 190,000 members and growing.

These exemplify how Americans have had it with their arrogant and hubris government and their irresponsibility. This crosses party lines, classes, races and occupations. We are all mad. Obama said he would unite us and he did—in opposition to him and his policies. And, this is great thing, as long as it stays peaceful and orderly.

When you look at how the AIG employees are treated and then look at Orlando, Cincinnati and so many other Tea Parties, they’re huge differences. We must take notice and learn that the AIG protestors are not what we want to become. We want to march and speak our peace about the “government,” not private citizens who just doing their job.

Another interesting point, the Left high jacked the peace marches in the 1960s. The Communists infiltrated and subverted many of the peace groups and filled their heads withMarxist tripe that many, such as Bill Ayers, still believe and preach. Conservatives lead these Tea Parties. They are preaching the principles of Reagan, Goldwater, and others. Ladies and gentlemen, this is irony.

We are peacefully marching and chanting limited government, less spending, and lower deficits. We are demanding the founding principles. We are demanding American values.We want our government, our nation, and our freedoms back from the overbearing government.

Just, when you heard the RINOs saying the GOP needs to change and look to moderate. Just, when the critics say the GOP is in trouble, dying, without a voice, and without a leader. Just, when they said the “Age of Reagan” was dead. Boy, I think there have been at least 8,000 people in the last two weeks who have a voice and know what they believe. They don’t see the GOP dying and they are Conservatives who know what they believe.

I remember only a month ago people were lost and did not know what to do. People did not know how to stop what the Liberals are doing to this nation. Since then, moderate Democrats are breaking from their leadership and the GOP in both Houses of Congress are united. The moderate Democrats are standing up for fiscal responsibilty, gun rights, proper debate of cap and trade and healthcare reform. The People have spoken and have been heard.

Remember, we outnumber them. Only 4-8% of America is the far Left. We who 60-70% are Conservative leaning or solid Conservative. I am not a betting man, but I like those odds.

So, what we are doing is working. We need to still keep spreading the word. We still need to explain to others Conservative principles and values. We can show that they work and Liberalism doesn’t.

We still need to march and gather to show Liberals and the government we no longer are going to take this. We need not be the thugs who are vilifying AIG. We need to stay peaceful and lead by example in how “true” Conservatives act and believe. We need to show how we lead our lives and that the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bible still means something.

We run this nation, not them, and we are taking it back.

Obama Wants to Regulate Salaries

On Drudge, there is the headline, “Regulate!”

Obama wants to regulate executive pay of for all financial institutions, Wall Street firms, and other companies. This move could bankrupt an entire city.

“The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

So, Obama now wants to control the salaries of executives of companies. He has commented that these CEOs and other executives receive too much money and are too wealthy.

Who is he to tell us who is too wealthy and gets paid too much? He is the government and hearing that from him is chilling. This something you would hear out of Communist Russia or China.

If they can “regulate” their salaries, who is next? Well, with their attempt at targeting the AIG bonuses has shown, anybody is next, including you. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

The government has been giving certain people everything with entitlements, bailouts, and the like. Now, it is time for the government to start taking something back. When the People give the government the power to do something, the People lose control over it. They lose that right or freedom.

By opening the door to these bailouts, the government took control over these companies and they lost their freedoms. The government, as it always does, is now expanding their power from the companies they control to all of them.

So, what is going to happen to these companies, if the government regulates their salaries? Well, the worst scenario is all the talent that would have taken these jobs will go elsewhere to find better salaries. So, the place that the economy needs the best talent at the most crucial time would not have it.

The other scenario, which is the most likely, is what happened in the 90s when Clinton regulated executive salaries. He made it that only up to $1 million of executive salary could be a tax deduction. Anything above that could not be deducted as a business expense. The strategy was that these companies would not pay as much. Fat chance.

This gave birth to the stock option and the executive compensation was still high. The market found a creative way to compensate the best talent to stay competitive and still get the tax deduction.

So, Obama’s plan will just force the market to find another creative way to circumvent the government and still compensate the best talent to stay competitive.

Now, there is always the unintended consequence to Liberal policies. What could be the problem here?

Remember a few weeks ago when New York City Mayor Bloomberg was going to create a bunch of new taxes but then suddenly stopped. He reported that they could not raise all the taxes, because it would scare off the taxpayers of NYC. It was revealed that only 40,000 of the over 8 million people of NYC pay the taxes for the entire city. If those 40,000 would leave, NYC would lose their entire tax base.

Who makes up that 40,000 that pay taxes, you may ask? It is not taxi cab drivers, waiters, and bellhops. It is not managers, salespeople, or accountants. Could it be executives of major companies, financial institutions, and Wall Street firms? Why, yes.

Good job, Obama. You lied and the economy died. Now, you regulate and eradicate, an entire city.

Hey Obama voters, is this the “change” you voted for, a bankrupt New York City?