If ever lived a term that upsets me to my foundation, it’s the implication that discrimination is not a be all when applied to the populous. There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. This would imply that the people you are discriminating against are returning the favor. This would first imply that you are a bigot and actively discriminating against a group of people and then are upset when this minority group of people have the opportunity to discriminate. Really; and this is a commonly used term. It’s obvious that what is truly implied is simply discrimination but the populous has had affirmative action pushed down their throat for so many years that they are seeing this as a way to compensate to faults of a society.

I submit that even in 2009, we are still seeing discrimination but no where near the levels Jesse Jackson would imply. I also submit that anyone can be discriminated against if they are using Race, Color, Creed, Gender (Federal protected classes) in their decision making process. This would include white, heterosexual, middle-aged, men who have college degrees and are working in a traditional white collar industry.

This is why I strongly support the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn the lower courts decision and rule that discrimination was evident in the New Haven Firefighter case. Essentially, the City of New Haven administered a test that was required in order to be promoted within the Fire Dept. Several White and Hispanic men and woman passed the test but no black candidates passed. The city wanted to review test to see if a disparate impact was prevalent and told the Firefighters who passed, they would have to retake a new test once developed. The Supreme Court found that although disparate impact may have been employed, it does not allow for the discrimination of those who passed the test and followed the appropriate process. You cannot discrimination one group of people to avoid the discrimination of another.

Decesion Summary

Full Supreme Court Decision Syllabus

You may have heard these terms being tossed around, liberals claiming we need this to control energy utilization and conservatives rejecting it on merit as a simple veiled attempt to increase taxes. In essence, you really need to look at the bill, state of the economy and political arena to identify what is truly at stake here.

            Its no secrete that Obama is an environmentalist or at least buys into the theory that businesses and the American economy have an obligation to the “green” movement. He is willing to seek alternative approaches to restrict technological advancement and progression of fossil energy resources. Whether of not you believe in the theory of “global warming” you can see that this Waxman-Markey climate bill is intended to be a revenue stream for this administration. Essentially, the bill would introduce a revenue model into the Federal Government capacity (Air) and allows them to tax it. Simply said, that is the intent of the bill. Now the government would use this authority to cap carbon emissions an individual or company could exude in a given year and anyone who exceeded this set limit could either pay a tax/fine or buy caps from other companies. Simply, this creates a market out of thin air for something we all are using today.

            But there are environmental benefits right? The bill aims to cap greenhouse gas emissions at 17% of 2005 levels which climatologists calculate a 5 one hundredths of a degree change by the year 2050. To get this 5/100^th (.005) of a degree change over the next 40 YEARS, we as energy users will need to submit:

• Raise electricity rates 90%
• Raise Gas prices 58%
• Raise Natural Gas Prices 55%
• Raise Avg family energy bill 1,241

*Just the cost to consumers** Additional costs on business who will filter their increased costs onto the products/services we purchase***Adjusted for inflation

 So is this an environmental bill or a tax bill? With the socialized medicine debate just around the corner, and less then 1/5^th of the money allocated to pay for it, I submit that this is a revenue model aimed to filter money to that effort while satisfying the environmentalists with a veiled form of diplomacy.  

 David Kreuitzer @ Heritage Foundation submits:

• Bill will raise energy prices over $1,900 per household for a family of four.
• Generates 5.7 Trillion in tax revenue through 2035

 Since we are in new politics, and special interest cannot be in the White House (in Obama’s own words), this bill marks 85% of the revenue received from this bill will go directly to special interest and not going into treasury. This is called the value of special allowances and accounts for “placing manufacturing” at a disadvantage.

This 1800 Bill with a 300 page amendment will be briefly debated and in a few months when people start complaining about their high energy prices you will hear our Reps say “I did not have time to read the bill”. Well I reject that statement. I elected you to represent me and my family. If it’s so important (just like in TARP) you need to read and understand everything you are asking me to pay for!

I have not met anyone who has not heard of Bernie Madoff who as we recall “made off” with millions of dollars in the highly publicized ponzi scheme. My rhetorical question to you is, was this a bad thing? If his investors were making double digit gains in a market where people were sending their money out with the bath water, is he really the devil? I hate to say it but all of us, the American workers will all be involved in a legalized version of what Madoff just did. How you ask? Your ethics would never allow you to participate in such a travesty? That is what I said until I started researching the American Social Security Program. Now before you dis-engage, take a look at some facts.

• Those paying into the program today and supporting those who are subsequent [The young (new working Americans) pay into the program and the old (retired American) receive money from the program]

• No guarantee of future performance or return

• Returns are paid based on workers payments and not by profit return or investments

A ponzi scheme pays those who began the scheme with the money from new investors. Although this argument has been made time and time again, It’s requires attention in every medium it can. I am not calling for the end of Social Security, just an appreciation to the rhetoric that apposing side may have. Why is it legal for the government and bad for the Private sector? Don’t answer with emotion, try logic.

I am sure almost everyone in America, and for that the World has an opinion on how President Obama is doing in his first 100 days in office. Yes I do have an opinion as well but I am not sure that its as important as another question. What is the evaluation criteria? If it’s are we better off now then we were 102 days ago, then this leaves us to debate the question as its way to broad. I think anytime you inject almost $2 trillion ($2,000,000,000,000.00) into the economy (and that’s about $20 billion a day), we almost certainly will make some people a little better off now (or at least give them the impression) but what does this do to future generations when they have to pay for it? If the criteria is to stabilize the economy, what method do we use? Unemployment continues to rise but GDP seems to be stable.

The point I am trying to make is that in business, we all know the important of establishing performance criteria ahead of time in order to measure success. Without clear measures, this cannot be accomplished and is left to interpretation.

Protestor at Denver TEAm Party Rally

Excitement was raging as the movement grew and collected on Capital Hill. It was clear to see of the thousands of angry protesters, that aimless taxing was not to be tolerated any longer.  I attended the Denver CO. rally for the sole purpose of showing my extreme dissatisfaction with the way Government is treating us. For as long as I can remember, our elected officials have increased the size of Government, spent our tax dollars on frivolous things and claimed to provide a services to citizens (…well that is also an inaccurate statement. Let’s say to people living within our boarders). As a fiscal conservative, I have gravitated to the GOP but after evaluating the “behavior” demonstrated on the issue, collectively no politician is fulfilling their obligation to their constituents. As the clear intention of the crowd was to communicate our displeasure with all government, taxes and massive spending, unfortunately many seized the “large crowd” opportunity to advance their own agenda. Colorado Right to Life was there with their graphic shock value anti-abortion signs (claiming “murder comes first”), GOP faithful ranting NObama (not realizing the stimulus was started during the Bush administration) and many others anti Democrat propaganda (forgetting that debt grew in the ‘90s when the GOP ran Congress). My main dissatisfaction was when I learned that GOP Political leaders spoke at the rally. How can you have members of Congress (albeit State government) who represent the very thing we are protesting, speak about being fiscally responsible? This is an outrage!

This movement cannot fail. So much that in the above picture, the guy to the left, as I took the picture, was ranting “You should go in front of the Denver Public Library and close it down [since you are against government].” He clearly did not understand the true message we were protesting for. Limited government means individual freedom, not anarchy. Government provides a valuable service but overtime, it has risen to insurmountable sizes and the people we elect to represent us are not listening and its breeding corruption.

National TEA Party Headcount

This is an A-political rally in that it does not matter if you are a GOP, Conservative, Democrat, Liberal, Green party member etc. This rally should be for Constitutionalists who are sick and tired of all the waste in Washington and or local/state governments.

5am-9am: The Peter Boyles show broadcasts live
10:00 Volunteers arrive, Setup
11:00 Speaker Meet & Greet

11:00 Tea Bag Sign Up Begins,Send a pink slip to your officials,Join Hear US Now! sign up!
12:00 Greeting by MC Brian T Campbell, Sr
12:05 Pledge of Alegiance – Led by Brian T Campbell, Sr.

-Castle Capella’s Patriotic Singing

Guest Speaker – Gunny Bob
Guest Speaker – Tom Lucero

-Bubbafly Barney performing early American patriotic song

Guest Speaker – Jon Caldera, The Independence Institute
Guest Speaker – Mike Kopp, CO State Senator

Guest Speaker – Rob McNealy
Special Guest Speaker – Josh Penry, CO State Senate Minority Leader

- Bubbafly Barney performing early American patriotic song

Guest Speaker – Keith Peterson
Guest Speaker – Ken Buck, Weld County District Attorney

- Bubbafly Barney performing early American patriotic song

April 1^st 2009 marks yet another example of blatant disregard for the rights of the average American. Just because something is unpopular does not give you the right to do something.  I hate how I have to give a prelude to give me creditability but I am NOT a smoker. I have not touched the stuff in almost a year and I feel great. I am never going back to smoking almost a pack a day (although the temptation is still there). Tomorrow, the Federal tax on a pack of cigarettes will increase from 35 cents to $1.01 a pack. Notwithstanding, in Colorado, the State/local tax adds an additional 89 cents to the cost totaling $1.90 per pack. Does that seem excessive to you?  When I bought my first pack of cigarettes, the total bill was a buck fifty and now the tax more?

            Word on the street seems to be against the average smoker, the tobacco companies and establishments who are sympathetic to the average smoker. In Colorado, a ban was enacted preventing anyone from smoking in public building, bars restaurants etc. Although now as a non smoker I love the NON smell, clean air etc, I still hold the idea that this decision should be left to the proprietor of the establishment. It is my decision to spend money and if I, the customer, decide that I do not want to tolerate the smoke; I will take my business elsewhere. Well anyway this decision was deemed not mine to make and the government made it for us.

            This new Federal tax is earmarked to provide all children in America with Health Care. A noble cause but with a price tag of over 35 Billion. That’s right, they expect to gain 35 Billion in tax revenue to fund children healthcare. Since most packs now in Colorado will be closer to $5.00 a pack, I expect the quantity of cigarettes to start residing. This will cause, in a few years, a strain on the system and spark another increase somewhere to make up the revenue. This is very familiar to Social Security where a separate bill has only one income measure to support it.

            Please think to yourself and eliminate your pre-conceived notions about tobacco. Should one small group of people pay in some cases 2500% (yes twenty five hundred) increase in a product to pay for something else? If so why not the following products: Scotch, thong underwear, Tampons, Fast Food etc. Arguments have been made that each of these cause either health problems, are only used by certain people and or is class warfare. It could be coming…don’t laugh!

Today the Government ousted Wagoner, the CEO of General Motors (GM) after a meeting of automakers in Washington over the weekend. I have mixed feelings about this as I am sure many Americans do. On one hand, we (taxpayers) have relinquished and are being asked to relinquish tens of billions of dollars to GM, Chrysler etc to keep them afloat. I think, in this instance, Wagoner has driven his company into the ground and needs to be held accountable for said action (reducing his salary to $1.00 was a start but not enough). The company requires a massive restructuring (including a complete cultural change with the labor Union) and my vote, if anyone would listen, would include the same action to introduce new leadership.
However; is this power we want to give government? Is this something we can sanction for our elected leaders to invest their will on the private sector? Can government change the boards and executives at any company that is unwilling or unable to do what they want in order to gain traction on some fabulous new “flavor of the month” program? We are treading murky water when we as a society allow a government to take control of who can and who cannot lead a private sector company.
I agree with the decision to push him out of office but who gets the right to select a new CEO? Will it be the shareholders of the company? No, it’s the government who, most likely, who will ensure Hybrid’s are the staple for the American consumer. You do not want a Hybrid…you will “buy” one anyway as we the taxpayer will subsidies this historical failing business model.

Following are the top 10 Senate earmark recipients — 6 Republicans, 4 Democrats: 
1. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.): $122,804,900
2 Richard Shelby (R-Ala.): $114,484,250
3. Kit Bond (R-Mo.): $85,691,491
4. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.): $76,899,425
5. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.): $75,908,475
6. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): $74,000,750
7. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa): $66,860,000
8. James Inhofe (R-Okla.): $53,133,500
9. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $51,186,000
10. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii): $46,380,205

I am as upset as the rest of you regarding the millions of bonuses these AIG executives received but, Congress really, a 90% tax on the proceeds. Do you actually believe that this makes me feel any better. What happened to the core concept of getting to the root cause? Why can’t you see that you are not fooling anyone. Yes, this “tax” does get the money back into your hands (for which you will spend it on turning the Hudson River from brown to blue or something) but this veiled anger you are supposedly feeling is disingenuous at best. You had several opportunities to stop this but Sen. Dodd, Rep Frank and others had to add provisions into the “Generational Theft Act” aka The Stimulus.

Now I want to be one of the first to tell you, or at least document, that you have “Bailed out” over 100 banks. Please be more proactive this week and remember that they can also give stimulus money away as “bonuses” (I love that word in this analogy as a bonus rewards for something done well HA!.