It's been a while

Blogging has been light of late as I take care of issues at work and at home. Sorry about that. Here are some random thoughts about what has been rattling through my pea-sized brain over the last few weeks.

1) That "cease fire" in Gaza has really worked out well for Israel, hasn't it? Only one side has ceased firing (that would be Israel), while rockets and mortars still get launched regularly from Israel. Gilad Shalit is still a hostage, and the public opprobrium against the Jewish state has if anything increased--we now have the spectacle of possible "war crimes" trials starting in Spain against Israeli leaders and officials. Funny how no one on the left seems very concerned about what Hamas did (and is continuing to do). Well, something will change in the next few days, if only because Israel is about to hold an election. Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party currently holds a slim lead, but Ehud Olmert's Kadima Party is rapidly closing the gap. Given Olmert's miserable leadership over the last 3+ years, I have to wonder what Israelis are thinking, but maybe this is more a commentary on the opposition that he is facing.

And we thought that it was bad over here?

2) It's old news now, but the Pittsburgh Steelers won their sixth Super Bowl title eight days ago with a 27-23 come-from-behind win over the Arizona Cardinals. After a fairly dull first three quarters of the game (with the notable exception of James Harrison's 100-yard interception return for a touchdown to end the first half), the fourth quarter featured 23 points, two lead changes and Ben Roethlisberger stamping his name among the great Super Bowl quarterbacks with a defining 88-yard touchdown drive that rivaled any done by Montana, Elway or the other NFL greats.

Here are some interesting Super Bowl Facts: The Cowboys and 49ers have five apiece. The Patriots, Raiders, Packers, Giants and Redskins each have three. That means that a total of eight franchises have won 31 of the 43 Super Bowls played, leaving the other 24 franchises to share the other 12 titles. When you add in Miami's two titles and Denver's pair, that means that the other 22 franchises have combined to win eight titles.

3) The Montreal Canadiens of 2008-2009 are officially the "Hab-Nots". As readers of this blog, I am a die-hard Montreal Canadiens fan. I grew up in Montreal, and being a Habs fan is in my blood. But, this year's team is as dislikeable as any team in recent memory, because it is wildly inconsistent and, more importantly, the players as a group seem to not even care if they win or lose. Right now, the Canadiens are lollygagging in fifth place in the conference, playing well below their potential, and not even within shouting distance of the first place Boston Bruins. In fact, even making the playoffs is lock for this collection of underachieving stiffs. In a year which had so much in the way of expectation, compounded with it being the 100th anniversary of the team, that is simply unacceptable. There will be blood in the streets of Montreal (figuratively speaking, of course) if that happens.........

4) The Iranians have for the first time launched a satellite into orbit. Yes, yes, I know that this is no ICBM, and that the technology used to launch is closer to that which the Russians used to launch Sputnik into space 52 years ago, but the fact that they did it is worrisome to say the least. I know that it won't make a bit of difference to the Obama Administration in its rush to "engage" with the Mullahs who run the Islamic theocracy, but this is a warning shot across our bow, and it is especially troubling--or, it should be, anyway--to Israeli leaders. Iran is not launching satellites and pursuing nuclear technology because it has nothing else to do. There is an end-game for the Iranians, and that end game will, if the Iranians have their way, involve a direct military confrontation with Israel and then the United States. Like it or not, Israel is the canary in the coal mine here, and the Iranians are going to gauge how we will react to its actions by how we respond to what it does vis-a-vis Israel.

5) There are reports out that New York Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids (A-Roid?) in 2003, when he was still with the Texas Rangers, leading a friend to e-mail this to me:

TEXAS RANGERS' ALL-JUICED TEAM

It goes from the position to the player and how they are linked to steroid use:

CF
Gary Matthews Jr.
Mitchell Report
C
Pudge Rodriguez
Teammate allegation
SS
Alex Rodriguez
Media report
RF
Juan Gonzalez
Teammate allegation
1B
Rafael Palmeiro
Tested positive
3B
Ken Caminiti
Acknowledged
DH
David Segui
Acknowledged
2B
Randy Velarde
Mitchell Report
LF
Chad Allen
Mitchell Report

A-Rod of course is the biggest "fish" to be linked to steroid use since Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. He is also the most prominent player on the most prominent franchise in the sport. I guess that if you needed another reason to cheer against the Yankees, here it is.

6) Being an Obama government appointee doesn't mean never having to say you're sorry. What it does apparently mean is that you don't have to pay your taxes (those same taxes that Vice-President Biden told us it is patriotic for us to pay--I guess that Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer aren't very patriotic). The MSM has reported on the story, which has led Daschle and Killefer to withdraw their names from consideration. However, the inevitable tone of the reports has been to complain about Republican opposition to confirming these individuals. You can be sure that if this had been a Republican President seeking to name his/her government officials, this would have been Page One, above-the-fold headlines in virtually every newspaper in the country for days on end. MSNBC would probably have devoted at least one specific show to the story every day...........

7) On Saturday, January 31, I took the oldest BHG child to his first ever Hockey game in Montreal for his tenth birthday. I have to say, even as ticked off as I am at the team this season, there is no sporting environment--none whatsoever--which equals watching a Montreal Canadiens game live in Montreal. The Canadiens won the game 4-3 over the Los Angeles Kings by scoring two goals in the final two minutes of the game. He now has a memory that will hopefully last him a lifetime, and the best thing about it is, so do I................

8) The Australian Open tends to be the least regarded of Tennis' four "Majors", but I always try to watch at least some of it. On the men's side, Rafael Nadal stamped himself as the clear #1 in the world with an impressive five-set victory over Roger Federer. Last year, we witnessed Nadal take two of the four Majors, including the monumental five-set win over Federer at Wimbledon in what many are already calling the greatest tennis match ever. Down Under, they went five sets again, and Nadal emerged victorious one more time. He now has a 5-2 record against Federer in the Majors, and he has proven to be Federer's superior on clay (where he never loses. Period.), grass and hardcourt. He also has six Major titles, and even assuming that Federer does as expected break Pete Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam titles (he's only one away), one has to wonder how long that record will last anyway. Nadal is still in his early twenties, and his best tennis may still be ahead of him.

On the women's side, we saw what happens when Serena Williams is serious about playing tennis. When she is, she wins Majors. Nobody else on the women's side can play with her when she is focused. She now has 10 Major titles, and while I don't think that she'll catch Steffie Graf's record of 19, she may come close.

Thoughts on the DNC

The Democrats wrapped up their convention last night with Barack Obama's official coronation-- I mean, NOMINATION--as the Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States. His speech was all I thought it would be, full of flowing rhetoric and disappointingly short on specifics. Some things I noticed:

1) He is a superb speaker, probably the best I have seen since since Ronald Reagan over 20 years ago.
2) He specifically mentioned "defending Israel", undoubtedly an effort on his part to assure the many in this country who don't trust him on this issue.
3) While professing to honour John McCain's service to the country, he engaged in several sharper-than-anticipated attacks on the presumptive Republican nominee.
4) His speech was excellent, but it was not the Martin Luther King "I have a Dream" speech, ironically delivered 45 years earlier to the day, no matter what his breathless cheering section on MSNBC and William Kristol (!!) may say.
5) He specifically reached out to Republicans and Independents. This was a smart and prudent move on his part.
6) He attempted to answer some of the questions people have about him being a good Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. I don't know that he was entirely successful in is efforts to do so.

I don't think that the attacks on John McCain served him in good stead. He would have been better off outlining some of the specifics of what he would so as the President. For example, how exactly does he plan to pay for the $150 billion in "alternative energy investment" that he promised, especially if he is promising not to raise taxes?

On the Republican side, John McCain is set to announce his V.P. nominee at 11:00 a.m. this morning, and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has just ruled himself out. Speculation is centering around Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. I'm not sure if she's a good choice or not............

Heart At-tax

That's what a Barack Obama Administration would give us if this e-mail I received is in any way accurate:

The following data, taken from the public record, reveals each Presidential Candidate's proposed TAX Plan, if elected. Each taxpayer should become more informed before the November-08 General Election......or be willing to pay the tariff of ignorance, once taxes are enacted.


DATA ON TAXES
Proposed changes in taxes after the 2008 General election:

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN: 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA: 28% on profit from ALL home sales. How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN 15% (no change)
OBAMA 39.6% How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in the stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.'

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
(Your taxes could almost double!)

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax. Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.


NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA
1.) New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.
2.) New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)
3.) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)
4.) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....
5.) New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!


You can verify the above at the following web sites:
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html


http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes


http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_of%20fer_different_visions_%20on_taxes.html


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/

Hellooooo, anyone listening?

Robert Mundell, Nobel Prize-winning economist is speaking. And to paraphrase the old E.F. Hutton commercial, when Mundell speaks, people listen. So, what's he saying now? Why, it's something that no Democrat or angry leftie wants to hear, which is that Bush 43 tax cuts need to be made permanent. IMMEDIATELY: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121400327981993375.html?mod=djemEditorialPage.

I know that Democrats don't want to talk about this. You see, in their world view, I'm rich. They ought to see my house, my mortgage, my credit card bills, etc., but despite all that, I'm stinkin' rich in their view. So, I should be taxed more. A lot more. Again, I'm no economist, but it seems logical to me that in a relatively weak economy where consumer spending is down, it is not smart or good fiscal policy to restrict even further the amount of money that people are spending. But, like I said, I'm no economist..................

What a Dingelling

Congressman John Dingell of Michigan has proposed a 50 cent a gallon gas tax hike in an effort to curb American gas consumption, which he hopes will aid in slowing Global Warming: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298271,00.html.

Hmm, let's see. Who would be hardest hit by this? I don't think that it would be the Hummer-driving suburbanite, who will bitch and moan but can probably afford the higher cost. No, it'll be those same poor people about whom Dingell supposedly cares so much. As well, this hike wouldn't just affect gas prices. Memo to Congressman Dingell: It's Economics 101. If you are a business--let's just say it's a chain of grocery stores--and your costs (shipping, etc.) get driven up by this, to whom are you going to pass the cost? Umm, that would be us, Mr. & Mrs. Public. So, a huge gas tax hike like this would affect not just the cost of gas, but everything that is transported by vehicles or equipment that uses gas (which is to say, virtually all food and consumer goods), airfares, public transportation (what, do you think that buses don't require fuel?) and I could go on and on.

Good idea, Congressman!

Is ANYONE paying attention?

I don't care if it's repetitive, I'm going to keep blogging about the sagging economy and its effect on ALL of us. Oil prices just hit a new all-time high, and much of the reason for this latest spike in prices is the continuing collapse of the U.S. Dollar: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices. This collapse affects virtually everything we do and buy, the price of oil just being the most obvious example. In a domino-like effect, this causes products we buy to become more expensive, as transportation costs rise. No matter what you buy, you'll pay more for it as well as more to go to the place to buy it. This higher cost is most evident in the cost of food, where such staples as milk, bread and fruit are more expensive than they were less than a year ago.

All of this ties directly into the fall of the Greenback, which itself is to a large degree based on our government's incredible state of indebtedness. People around the world (as well as here) have no faith in our economy to pull itself together. And don't get too excited about those "economic stimulus" checks that many of us are supposed to receive at some poin in the next couple of months. First of all, writing these checks will put the government is even more debt, which is the last thing we need. That will cause even further selling of U.S. Dollars, which will in turn drive oil prices up even higher, and round and round we go. Second--and this is a dirty little secret that the President, Congress and the IRS didn't share with anyone--did you all know that those checks will be considered to be taxable income? Yup, after taxing us to get our money, and then holding it, the government gives a tiny fraction of it back to us and is going to tax us on it again. Isn't that special? My advice to everyone is to NOT spend the money. Set aside a chunk of it for taxes, and then put the rest into a savings account. Believe me, you're going to need it.............

And we get what for this privilege?

Absolutely nothing. Those of us blessed enough to live in the Garden State are among the most heavily taxed people in the entire country, and the only ones who seem to derive any benefit from this are our public sector union members: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120372623083687123.html. In the meantime, our debt is completely out of control, and the likelihood is that given that debt, even higher taxes will be imposed on us.

If it weren't for the fact that Mrs. BHG and the little BHG's are so happy here, I would seriously consider moving...............

Tax Cuts

This was sent to me in an e-mail today.

Subject: Tax Cuts

CLEAR EXPLANATION OF TAX CUTS

Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact, without questioning it. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear and/or do not understand this issue, the following should help, if you are a reasonable person.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1...
The sixth would pay $3...
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in t he bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten of you now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% > savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 inste ad of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girl s, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking somewhere else where the atmosphere is friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, PhD
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
CLEAR EXPLANATION OF TAX CUTS