"It's not our obligation in the Senate to make sure the insurance companies make money," said Sen. Jim Wilson, D-Tahlequah.Say what?
My opponents promise that they will improve the city’s “quality of life”, but they do not define the term. They assume that we all know and agree to the same definition of “quality of life”. As used by my opponents, "quality of life" is a meaningless phrase.
Over the past few months I have previewed some of the potential candidates for the Houston Mayoral election in 2009. I have even fantasized about my ideal candidate. But rather than continue to wait in vain for my ideal candidate to emerge, I am now declaring my virtual candidacy for Houston Mayor. (By virtual candidacy, I mean that I am not literally running for Mayor. But I will address the issues as if I were.)The idea of running as a "virtual" candidate is a potentially interesting one, particularly if the "candidate" is able to contrast his ideas with those of his very real opponents by expressing them in terms of concrete solutions to actual, real world problems.
"We live in a time when billions of dollars of market capitalization can be wiped out by a single political speech, statutory command, or regulatory decree; and those politicians consume our lives as much as our dollars . . . "Those are the words of Jim Woods, describing the circumstances and reasons that motivated him to decide to "go on strike".
" . . . the Obama "stimulus" package is bad, and so was Bush's. This is a view rooted in the ideas of liberty, not party politics. I am perfectly happy to condemn Republicans and Democrats alike for violating economic liberty and individual rights."Some of the speakers at the rally made great points, too:
Jim Pfaff: "Stimulus is when individuals and businesses are able to take their own decisions and go out and make a life for themselves. To pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."Overall, Armstrong feels the rally was a mixed bag with too little emphasis on liberty and too much on distracting GOP partisanship. For instance, why was Tom Tancredo there, talking about illegal immigration?
Shawn Mitchell: "If the problem is that people are borrowing too much on credit cards and on home equity, how does it help things for the federal government to shove us aside and show us what a world-class credit binge looks like?" (Talk about dead on!)
Pork Roast Mixes Liberty, Populism, and PartisanshipArmstrong has pics of the event, too:
Stimulus and Partisanship
Pork Roast Rally in Photos
Poor investment planThe online comments - except for mine - are disgusting.
POINT OF VIEW Obama’s strategy punishes Wall Street
BY JOHN PRIBYL
Published: February 18, 2009
Like many, I was impressed with our new president in the early weeks after his election. His ability to inspire hope and communicate effectively impressed even his detractors. However, his actions, words and behavior in recent weeks have given me reason to reconsider his message of "hope."
President Obama has relied upon fear to pressure Americans and their elected representatives to support a plan that presumes catastrophe and doom. As part of this push for passage and acceptance of his partisan spending package, Obama and his administration have continuously blamed Wall Street for the financial and economic crisis we are now experiencing. Certainly, Wall Street (not the place, but the acronym for the financial community as a whole) deserved, and accepted, much of the blame. However, our new president has failed to admonish or even acknowledge Congress for its role in this crisis.
Marginal loans that lenders were required to make were the genesis of our current economic malaise. Now, his solution is to give control of our assets to the same entity that created much of the problem and whose oversight failed us badly.
Policies set forth by the new administration are designed to punish and penalize Wall Street. They propose mortgage debt "cram-down,” onerous new regulations, dilution of current stock ownership that impedes the ability to raise new capital, and congressional hearings designed to embarrass and grandstand. In its zeal to reform, the current administration is crippling our ability to rebound.
I would argue that President Obama’s apparent disdain for capitalism is the compelling reason for skepticism surrounding his unprecedented financial plan. Companies won’t be able to raise capital when stock prices are declining. Without the ability to raise capital, companies will be limited in their ability to buy, build and hire. The success of businesses, large and small, and the employment of the masses requires a functioning Wall Street.
Unfortunately, the rhetoric and action being employed by the current administration is creating class conflict that should not exist. Even those who have no investment in the stock market benefit from Wall Street’s success. When Obama learns, and acknowledges, that Main Street benefits from a healthy and thriving Wall Street, then he will begin to prove that he understands the difference between capitalism and socialism.
I have long held the belief that the financial markets are bigger than the policies of any administration or government. However, when those policies disregard the fundamentals of capitalism, I must begin to question that belief.
"Hope” is not a good investment strategy. Our new president helped launch his meteoric climb with a book titled "The Audacity of Hope.” If it is audacious to hope that we could elect an African-American as our president, why should it be considered audacious to believe that Wall Street can help us to recover from this economic crisis?
Wall Street has functioned well for more than two centuries. Given the chance, Wall Street will lead us, again, to prosperity.
Pribyl of Oklahoma City is senior portfolio manager for Leonard Investment Advisors, Inc.
"Why is the party of free markets, private commerce and individual freedoms proposing this bill?"
In Ben Fenwick's article in the Feb. 4, 2009 issue of the Oklahoma Gazette, "It's a conspiracy!", state Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, is quoted as saying, "The homosexuals get it - it's a struggle between our religious freedoms and their right to do what they want to do."I was dissuaded from actually quoting the Constitution in my letter, but here is the text of the sections I cited (emphases mine):
No reasonable person could think that allowing homosexuals the freedom to be homosexual could in any way possibly interfere with anyone's freedom to practice their religion as their conscience dictates. The Founding Fathers knew the way to ensure everyone's freedom was to recognize that all citizens have the same basic rights - a principle they enshrined in the Constitution in Article 4, Section 2 and the "Equal Protection Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment.
According homosexuals the same rights and freedoms as every other citizen of this country in no way infringes anyone's right to practice their beliefs and to express them accordingly in their own homes and churches, or even in public. It only constrains those who wrongly believe that their religion obligates them to use force to impose their views on others.
In such a case, the line is clearly drawn, as it is in every other situation when coercion and force comes into play: No human being has the right to use force against other human beings, except in cases where another human being has used force first.
It is irresponsible of Sally Kern to be wasting the government's energy and resources on such a non-issue when the country - including Oklahoma - is facing an economic crisis that threatens to deprive all of us of real freedom. I hope this year that we will see even some of Mrs. Kern's fellow Republican legislators getting wise to her.
Rob Abiera
Oklahoma City
Abiera is owner of GayOKC.com.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.14th Amendment - excerpt:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.(Text from The US Constitution Online)
Imagining tech's post-nuke winter? A preview
EXCERPT: "The fact is that Web 2.0 has played out. The VCs who invest in this sort of thing continue to argue otherwise, but I've tuned them out. Nobody's offered a convincing explanation as to why Web 2.0's 15 minutes of fame aren't about up.
At the other end of the spectrum, this horrid economy is creating a paradox: the strongest technology companies are actually doubling down to extend their advantage.
Just this week, Intel disclosed its plans to spend $7 billion over the next couple of years. The investment will go to upgrade Intel's manufacturing technology here in the U.S. (stimulus bill or no stimulus bill) with an eye toward the introduction of 32-nanometer technology. That is quite a sum, but consider that Intel had about $12 billion in cash and investments on its balance sheet at the end of its last quarter. In other words, there's a lot more where that came from.
Elsewhere, pay attention to what's taking place at Cisco Systems. Talking with analysts earlier this month, CEO John Chambers didn't seem overly concerned as he warned sales might decline by as much as 20 percent in the current quarter. In fact, he predicted that a stronger Cisco will ultimately emerge, ready for the recovery.
Maybe he was telegraphing what was in store. On Monday, Cisco announced that it was selling $4 billion worth of bonds in what's the probably prelude to another Chambers shopping expedition. A company representative says that $500 million will go to pay down existing debt. That still leaves $3.5 billion in Monopoly money with which to go on a spree."
Wells Fargo, which acquired Wachovia on Dec. 31, reported that it had reopened lines of credit to some Wachovia customers who had been denied credit. It also reported $22 billion in new loan commitments and $50 billion in mortgages in the last quarter of 2008.Why were these customers originally denied credit? Will they be able to pay these loans back? What if they can't? Won't this put banks in the same situation they were in before the bailout? And how will that build the confidence of the kind of responsible person who does not apply for loans he can't pay back? How does this restore consumer confidence and convince them it's safe to spend money rather than save it?
"And, you know, we looked for the people with the brilliant ideas of what to do, we didn't find them, . . . "That's Chris Anderson, the 'curator' of the TED Conference, on "why the biggest financial crisis of our time didn’t have a more prominent place on the TED agenda." (as reported by Steven Levy on his Wired.com blog)
http://www.newsok.com/letters-to-the-editor-monday-february-9-2009/article/3344315
Risk averse: State control affects insurance market
The Oklahoman Editorial
Published: February 8, 2009
Here’s what happens when governments assume too much control of the property and casualty insurance market: Private insurers are driven out, leaving taxpayers as the insurers of last resort.
Here’s what happens when governments assume too much control of the group health insurance market: Premium prices are driven up, leaving some citizens uninsured.
Florida’s largest private insurer, State Farm, is exiting the state. Hit with huge losses after the hurricane season of 2004, State Farm asked for a substantial rate increase. The state said no. State Farm said goodbye.
Other large insurers had already left Florida, unique in the amount of shoreline property being covered and the potential for that high-dollar property to be destroyed by storms.
Oklahoma also has a property and casualty problem because of wind, tornado, fire, ice and hail events. Unlike in Florida, though, Oklahoma hasn’t — yet — assumed too much control of the market.
State Farm said it’s paid out $1.21 in claims for every dollar of premiums collected since 2000. Florida’s largest insurer is now a state-run, nonprofit company created to offer coverage where private insurance wasn’t available. That area just got a lot bigger.
Group health care premiums in Oklahoma would likely get a lot bigger if the state adds an autism treatment mandate. Lawmakers last week rejected the mandate, but the fight isn’t over. Mandate supporter Rep. Mike Brown, D-Tahlequah, taunted opponents by saying, "Who’s running this, the insurance companies or you legislators?"
He should worry instead about running off insurance companies and running up the uninsured numbers.
Dear Governor Henry,
I am writing to ask you to support the separation of church and state in Oklahoma. As I'm sure you are aware, there are bills in the legislature to give government backing to religious dogma.
HB 1001 would create a climate which would empower religious proselytising in Oklahoma's schools. You vetoed a bill last year which was a virtual carbon copy of this bill. You know how destructive this bill would be if enacted and it deserves your opposition again.
SB 320 specifically attacks the teaching of science in Oklahoma. The bill's sponsors seek to create the impression that important facts about the theory of evolution are being actively suppressed in Oklahoma's schools. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, and their true intentions are to smuggle in creationism under the guise of "intelligent design". This would transform science classes into forums promoting religious dogma. The place for teaching about religion is in religion classes, not science classes. A similar bill was signed into law last year in Louisiana, and already creationists are using the education administration in that state to subvert science classes by turning them into platforms for the promotion of religion. This bill is a profound threat to genuine academic freedom and the integrity of education in Oklahoma and deserves your strongest opposition.
SJR 8 would require prayer in Oklahoma's public schools. This bill is an assault on the rights of religious minorities in Oklahoma - some of which do not believe in praying in public and some of whom do not believe in religion at all. Please do not subject Oklahoma's students to the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing stopping those who choose to do so on their own from praying in Oklahoma's public schools. This bill is obviously directed at students who do not subscribe to the "majority belief" and choose - for whatever reason - not to pray in school. This bill is created by those who seek the power of government coercion to force their beliefs on others. School prayer has been ruled unconstitutional and any attempts to institute it would result in expensive lawsuits and the attendant publicity. This bill must be opposed - even a moment of silence is a dangerous concession that lets them get their foot in the door.
HJR 1009 would place Oklahoma on record as opposing the property rights of pregnant women. A woman's body is her property and she alone should have the final say on what happens to it. The Freedom of Choice Act recognizes this and its opponents know that. They are the enemies of Freedom. You stood up to them last year. I respectfully implore you to stand up to them again.
In your State of the State address you spoke of your desire to see Oklahoma become a leader in the field of biotechnology. This will not happen if Oklahoma's students are unable to receive the kind of education in science and biology that makes them attractive to biotechnology employers. Oklahoma's students will not receive that kind of education if the teaching of evolution is compromised by religion. This is why the separation of church and state is not simply some abstract idea, but something fundamental to Oklahoma's future. For the sake of Oklahoma's future, please help us uphold it.
Thank you,
Rob Abiera
Posts
All Comments
