What I enjoyed about voting last week (besides the 3 minute commute to my polling place) was that I had a chance to vote for candidates that will have some level of impact on me and my immediate community. Again, as a guy who has been voting in Morris County for the last 15 years, the people that I’ve been voting for have largely not been the Mayors, Town Councilors, Board of Education members, State Legislators, and Congressmen who have a direct impact on the community where I actually live. Last Tuesday, the votes that I cast were different in that they have a direct relationship to my daily life.

And the American in me enjoys the fact that I get to vote in the first place! Unlike most folks out there, I enjoy voting for people from both sides of the aisle – which I did last Tuesday. One of the great things about this country is that we have a choice. Frankly, I wish we had more that two viable choices and I really wish that the Libertarian and Constitutional Parties would grow to become larger players in American politics. But that’s okay – the people are beginning to realize that there are more than two answers to every political question and that it’s not such a bad idea to get people with different ideas involved.

As for the results from last week’s elections, well I didn’t think it was any big surprise. Of course the Republicans were going to run away with the Senate and increase their lead in the House – the majority of the places and states in this country are center-right and every political map proves that point. Yes, the cities and urban areas vote heavily Democratic and that’s where the President has his most ardent supporters, but most of this country isn’t filled with cities and urban areas. Thus the results from last week are no big surprise.

Plus, I’m a big believer in divided government. We have a Democratic President and I think it’s a good idea to have a Republican Congress to check his power. I thought the same thing when President George W. Bush was in charge – a Democratic Congress was good for him to have to collaborate with the other side (which he did very well at the beginning of his first term as well). The biggest “check” that I think will come out of the Republican Congress is their ability to conduct fuller investigations in the Senate. The talking heads on television suggest that there are a variety of scandals brewing from Benghazi to the fast and furious gun running issue to immigration and now to the fact that there were blatant lies told to the American people in order to get the Affordable Care Act passed.

While those are all issues that deserve fuller investigations, what I’m looking forward to knowing more about is the IRS targeting scandal. Folks, if the accusations are true – that the IRS targeted individuals and groups that they disagreed with politically – then that is going to be the biggest scandal in the history of American politics up through our lifetimes, I guaranty it. This is the exact type of issue that the colonists rebelled against back in the late 1700s and it’s the exact type of issue that makes our government ineffective in the 2010s. So… that’s what I’m looking forward to from the new Congress: a true investigation into the IRS targeting scandal.

The Manhattan Skyline Before the September 11th Terrorist Attacks

The first thing I remember is my Mom waking me up by calling me on the phone. I was only living in the fraternity house for a few weeks and school only just started the week prior. I didn’t have class until a little bit later that day so I was sleeping in. Anyway, I didn’t have a cell phone yet so my Mom called me on my house line (I was the only one in the fraternity house with a house line – more on that later) and wanted to know if I was watching the news. I said no, but flipped on the television to see what she was talking about. I hopped from MSNBC (my channel of choice back then) to CNN and finally to FOX News to see what was going on. And what I saw was pretty amazing – one of the buildings that comprised the Twin Towers was burning… and pretty high up, too!

I asked my Mom what was going on and she said a plane flew into one of the towers. We talked for a few minutes and then hung up. I kept laying in bed watching the television wondering if they were going to show a replay of the plane going into the building. And as I laid there watching the television screen, it looked like I got what I was looking for because I saw a plane fly directly into one of the buildings. Except, as I was watching the television I focused in a little bit more and noticed that there was already a building burning – this must have been a second plane! It was shocking to see that happen on live television. Absolutely, utterly shocking to witness.

Now, I don’t want to go through a minute-by-minute recap of that day, but needless to say that within an hour or so the entire fraternity house was awake and all classes had been canceled on campus. But unlike other days off from school, the guys didn’t rush out to get some food and drink to enjoy the day – we were all glued to the large screen television in the living room waiting to see what would happen next. Right after the plane flew into the Pentagon, I remember thinking and saying out loud that the airspace over the Pentagon was restricted and no one could get over it in the first place (I was wrong). I remember flipping through all of the channels on the dial and, remarkably, every single channel on the dial was either broadcasting news coverage of the terrorist attacks or on standby with a message of condolence related to the attacks. And folks, when I say that every channel was covering the attacks or on standby – I mean every channel on the dial. Every single one. It was truly a moment in television history, for sure.

One of the guys who lived in our house was a volunteer fireman. Somewhere around midday – after both towers had fallen – he jumped in his car and went to New York City to help with recovery efforts. When he came back later that night not only were we all still glued to the television, but he had the World Trade Center dust on his fireman boots and gear. It was unbelievable.

Another one of my vibrant memories of that entire situation was how poorly one of my professors handled the situation. I don’t know if I’ve ever written about this particular professor, but he was straight out of the 1940’s university setting – down the ultra elitist attitude and tweed elbow patches on his jacket. Anyway, what I remembered about this first class back on campus (the day following the attacks) was that this professor opened the class by saying, “Notwithstanding the events of yesterday morning, we are here for a different reason. So, let’s open our books to chapter one and begin reading about Cain and Abel.”

I was amazed at how cold and callous that professor was that night – especially considering that he was talking to a room filled with scared, horrified college students. This was a British Literature class where, over the course of the ensuing semester, we talked about traditional literary themes like good versus evil and the loss of innocence. Looking back, I shake my head at the lost opportunity that this professor let slip through his fingers. Here he had a chance to not just talk about these themes, but to show real world examples of these themes occurring all around us.

Anyway, the guys I lived with and I stayed up all night watching coverage of the cleanup and recovery efforts in New York City. We had news coverage on all day, every day. Everyone – including me – started caring a lot more about politics and who was trying to do what in our political leadership. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of the guys I lived with as well as the students on campus either became Republicans or began voting Republican. It was the general feeling of the nation and that feeling was alive and well on Monmouth University’s campus.

It was a scary and yet fascinating time to be a college student.

And it was only ten years ago. On the one hand, it feels like September 11th happened yesterday. But on the other hand, the world has changed so much since then. It makes me wonder where we’ll be in another ten years. Hopefully, terrorism will continue to decline over the next ten years and we can – as a global society – begin working towards a stronger world peace. No, not the hippie version of world peace where we’re all holding hands and singing Kumbaya. Instead, I hope we can move towards a real, workable peace that serves to advance the human race as a whole.

Moving in that direction seemed impossible ten years ago. But today it seems like a totally reasonable expectation for the future. What an amazing ten years…

Frankly, in 2010 in America – that’s disgusting.

I’ll be watching the speech on FOX News and probably listening to their post-Address wrap up and thoughts. The reason why I choose FOX News is because they will at least bring on both Democrats and Republicans to give their points of view. While their standard slate of commentators (note – commentators) tend to lean to the right on most issues, at least I know that by watching FOX News I’ll be able to hear both sides of the story and that I’ll have a greater chance of getting a news person acting as a fair and impartial arbiter of the discussion. You can’t find that on MSNBC or CNN (though CNN has come a long way).

As for the speech itself, let me turn to the Asbury Park Press which published an article today that said the following:

It has been widely reported that Obama will announce programs aimed at the middle class on issues such as student loans. However, those measures will have limited appeal if unemployment remains high.

“He can do all he wants on college loans. But for those in dire straits, he has to go farther,” Greenberg said.

FYI – David Greenberg is an associate professor of history at Rutgers University. I’m interested to hear what Obama has to say about student loans. Those of you who frequent this blog know that I write about my student loans – a lot (see yesterday’s post). While I have created a plan of my own to repay this debt, by doing so I am effectively taking myself out of the for-sale housing market for the next two years.

Now, a few years ago I would say that I was an extreme example of how student loan debt could possibly hurt and stifle the middle class economy. Today, however, I think there are a lot more people in my situation (albeit at lower dollar amounts) than people may think. Sure, one guy in New Jersey who is handcuffed by six figure student loans is an extreme example of how one person can’t contribute to the economy’s recover…but when you multiply that times let’s say one person in each state, you now have 50 people that aren’t contributing. Then when you consider that there might be 10 people in each state in this situation (a likely figure), now you’re at 500 people that have good paying jobs, but cannot contribute to the economic rebound. Up that to maybe 1,000 people per state (again, not unreasonable when you consider the total population) and now you have 50,000 people not participating.

Simple math: 50,000 people x $250,000 (cost of each person buying one home) = $12,500,000,000 in new home sales

That’s a lot of zeroes, huh? And those are just numbers that I’m pulling out of the air. I’m confident that there are more than 50,000 college graduates who are stifled by their student loan debt and I’m sure that people would be buying more/other things besides new homes – like new cars, clothing, electronics, etc.

Also from the Asbury Park Press:

Recent Republican victories have been attributed in part to economic issues, with unemployment in double digits.

“The challenge is to frame a policy to create jobs, while cutting the deficit,” said Joseph Patten, an associate professor of political science at Monmouth University.

“Traditionally, you stimulate the economy by spending more. It’s difficult to do that when you have a spending freeze,” Patten said.

I had to include Dr. Patten in this entry because he used to be one of my Professors at Monmouth and the guy knows what he’s talking about. I wouldn’t want the task set before President Obama – find a way to generate new jobs while cutting the deficit and still finding a way to appease your ultra-liberal base by spending more money on more programs. Good grief!

Let’s see what Obama has to say tonight.

Again, I’m as American as the next guy in this country and I love the fact that an American won the award. Yet, I can’t help to wonder the basis of President Obama’s nomination or his award. What…exactly…has he done to warrant such a prestigious award?

Could President Obama be the spark that creates great forms of positive change in the world? Well, yeah, I guess. But then again – you or I could be that same spark. Some would argue (successfully, too) that President George W. Bush was such a figure. Others might say that the work that President Bill Clinton has performed since he left office make him a clear choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. But President Obama?

Hmmm…

I think the folks behind this award are suffering from a form of premature exasperation. That’s right. I think that they hear President Obama speak about good will and their hearts flutter. I used to work for a guy who was absolutely euphoric over President Obama winning the White House (he was later fired from the office due to incompetency). It appears that the folks behind this award are absolutely euphoric, too.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to let President Obama actually become the force for good that everyone thinks he can be and THEN reward him for it? Oh wait, I forgot that he’s a liberal minded politician leading a world power during the localization of the globe. In other words – he can do no wrong in some people’s eyes… which is a damn shame.

Congratulations, President Obama. I hope that you live up to this award.

Before I begin, though, I want to mention that I took these notes in an effort to compare the communication styles of the three candidates. In other words, I was looking to see if they connected with the audience, what their demeanor was like during the forum, and how they were adjusting to the changing environment as the questions rolled along.

Loretta Weinberg (Democrat)
Loretta Weinberg came off as very tired in the beginning of the debate. The impression that I got from her was that she would rather be doing anything else in the world than sitting up on that stage answering questions. Her tone wasn’t really that of a privileged person who felt that the debate was beneath her, rather it was the tone of someone who was tired and exhausted.

To Senator Weinberg’s credit, she initially appeared very knowledgeable on the various issues in this campaign. Unfortunately, though, she was the first to throw out a negative attack on the opposition (against the Republicans). In the beginning, Senator Weinberg connected very poorly with the audience that was in the theater. This changed at different points throughout the night, but the worst example of this was when she attempted to use the tried and true strawman argument of the Democrats – blaming President George W. Bush. To the audience’s credit, they booed Senator Weinberg ferociously when she attempted to make the lame connection between New Jersey’s problems and President Bush. Once or twice later in the debate, Senator Weinberg did what all Democratic politicians seeking election this year are doing – she tied her campaign to President Barack Obama. If my memory serves, she commented on how the Governor has worked with the President to bring stimulus dollars to New Jersey.

Early in the debate, Senator Weinberg was hammered by the moderator from NJ 101.5 for constantly going off topic. I also noticed that when she answered questions, Senator Weinberg had a knack for bringing up outside issues that framed her opposition in a negative light. This is what drove the moderator nuts, I think, and is what he kept getting on her case about early in the night.

Senator Weinberg showed a clear knowledge of Governor Jon Corzine’s legislative history. In fact, I think you could say that she has mastered Governor Corzine’s record and his time in politics. Many of her arguments were strong based solely on her ability to recall the Governor’s successes while in office. At times it appeared that the Senator was relying too heavily on the Governor’s record and she seemed to be blurting out talking points. However, that changed as the night went on.

For her part, Senator Weinberg did not engage in usual debate practices. She did not take notes during her opposition’s responses nor did she take notes while questions were being asked. Both of her opponents were jotting down notes furiously throughout the forum. The best comment that I heard from Senator Weinberg was her rebuttal on corruption in New Jersey when she specifically cited the Governor’s legislation banning pay-to-play. Very powerful stuff.

The worst thing that I saw Senator Weinberg do in the debate was her question to her Republican challenger about what items – specifically – she would cut in the upcoming budget. By doing this, she allowed her opposition to directly answer a question that she had, herself, sidestepped. Not a good move in terms of debate.

Overall, I’d rate Senator Weinberg a 7 to 7.5 on a 10 point scale.

Kim Guadagno (Republican)
Monmouth County Sheriff Kim Guadagno was the strongest of the three debaters. She had a very direct, confident speaking style that connected with the audience in attendance and those listening at home. While Senator Weinberg was the first to attack her opposition, Sheriff Guadagno was the first to attack a specific person (the Senator). However, Sheriff Guadagno only attacked the Senator after the Senator continued to repeat an untrue statement regarding the Republican campaign’s stance on mammograms. The audience responded very well to this early exchange (and eventually booed the Senator when she continued to bring up the issue throughout the night).

Sheriff Guadagno used a very extemporaneous style of speaking which connected well with the audience. She didn’t stick to a prepared statement on any of the topics that were discussed and the people in the theater responded well to this style. The tone of the Sheriff’s voice was passionate and inflamed at the same time.

When the topic of campaign finance laws came up, Sheriff Guadagno spoke directly to the audience – a very effective move. She followed this up a few minutes later by clarifying a question regarding illegal immigration and some piece of legislation called 287g. Sheriff Guadagno was very clear on her stance towards documented and undocumented workers, which earned her the praise of the audience.

A few moments after this show of strength, though, I believe that Sheriff Guadagno faltered a bit when she tied the Governor to a question about whether or not she would support raising the gas tax. Not a good connection for the Sheriff and something that I think most of the listeners and the audience gave no real credence.

Sheriff Guadagno appeared to be the strongest about midway through the debate when she answered a question on corruption. Her and Chris Christie’s record on busting corruption are impeccable and really something that can’t be contested logically. Sheriff Guadagno was also strong, though to a lesser degree, on her answer to shared services and the very real example that she gave with the 911 system in Monmouth County. Audiences like to hear about real examples and that was a good one.

My favorite discussion throughout the entire night regarding the charter school support from all of the candidates. Sheriff Guadagno was very smart to incorporate the financial pressure that suburban districts are feeling by having a great deal of their tax dollars flow to urban districts with no results from the traditional public schools. Charter schools, on the other hand, are generating real success by breaking the stranglehold that the unionized teachers have on the New Jersey taxpayers and their precious property tax dollars.

Overall, I thought that Sheriff Guadagno won the debate and would rate her performance an 8.5 or 9 out of 10.

Frank Esposito (Independent)
Dr. Frank Esposito spoke in general terms throughout the debate. This was a tactic that eventually began to work against him as the discussion progressed. Dr. Esposito seemed knowledgeable on a few issues, but not well-versed in all of the major issues in the campaign. Yet, I can’t help but to feel that the Independent ticket will receive some type of bump from Dr. Esposito’s performance. New Jerseyans are looking for something different and voting for someone without an R or a D after their name might be the answer this election cycle.

For much of the beginning of the debate, Dr. Esposito relied on humor and one-liners to connect with the audience, which was effective. However, that approach quickly lost its impact once the topics began to dive into specific policies towards the middle of the debate. The one area where Dr. Esposito was the strongest was the discussion on campaign finance reform. Clearly, an Independent candidate running for Lieutenant Governor in a state where big dollars rule the day has a lot to say about campaign finance reform. Again, Dr. Esposito was very strong in this portion of the forum.

The weakest part of Dr. Esposito’s performance was his outright support for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. I admit that I have a personal grudge on this issue as student loan debt and college affordability are my hot button issues (which no one else cares about, but they mean something to me). I thought that Dr. Esposito’s brief discussion and stance on this issue really detracted from his performance on the night.

On the other hand, Dr. Esposito was very strong and hit a common chord with the audience when he suggested that politicians busted in corruption rings should automatically forfeit their pensions. The audience loved that – but they loved hearing his comment that while the current administration passed a ban on dual office holding, they exempted themselves from the legislation at the same time. That was clearly Dr. Esposito’s home run of the night and he hit it out of the park.

Overall, I’d score Dr. Esposito with a strong 5.5 out of 10 and, on some answers, I’d give him a solid 7 out of 10.

As you can see from my meager scoring table, I thought that Sheriff Guadagno clearly won the day with both Dr. Esposito and Senator Weinberg coming in at a tie for second or at least with Dr. Esposito coming in at a very close third.

From time to time I read through the editorials and opinion pages online. The reason why I normally don’t read through that portion of the newspaper is because the bulk of the writers’ views are slanted so far to the left that to call their opinions those of the Democrats or even the far left would be an insult to both groups. However, hate-monger Maureen Dowd wrote such a hate-filled, racist piece of garbage yesterday that I felt compelled to post about it in this space.

The idea of Dowd’s hate-filled column is that she thinks Representative Joe Wilson yelled, “You lie!” to President Barack Obama during his speech the other night due to being a racist. She even pulls up some old information on the Representative that she believes proves her point. Frankly, reading her piece made me physically ill. Here are some of her hate-filled, racist rants:

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

In this quote, Dowd admits that she hears and sees the world through the ears and eyes of racist. How someone can insert “boy” into what they hear is beyond me. It’s reprehensible and gives us a window into Dowd’s true hatred of white men. Why didn’t she hear, “You lie, honey!” and claim that Wilson was gay instead of racist? Oh, because she’s a racist and hate-monger.

Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.

No, you racist, sexist asshole. Wilson heard a man who has – by the President’s own words – been unclear about his position on healthcare and he reacted. Did Wilson react correctly? Not at all. He reacted like a child and he ought to be ashamed of himself. But what type of hate-mongering moron could have listened to that childish outburst and interpreted it as racist? How pathetic?

I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.

What a complete scumbag Dowd is! She says that the protests over the summer were efforts to paint Obama as a socialist, fascist, etc? And that it is based in racial politics? What type of crack is this idiot on? Did some people at those rallies have inappropriate signs? Yes. Did MANY more people at the anti-Bush rallies have worse signs? Yes. Did this filthy hate-mongering fool Dowd chastise them? No…she joined them. Talk about being a racist and a sexist pig.

But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

Here we have a two-fer! First, Dowd shows that she’s a liar by claiming that no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at President Bush. What a crock of shit. They may not have done it in the Capitol building, but anyone who has 1/4 of a brain knows that the Democrats had a field day calling President Bush a liar over Iraq! Need we forget the false, “Bush lied, people died,” crap? How does the New York Times employ this idiot?

And then she goes on that some people just can’t believe that a black man is the President. Are you fucking serious? How about the fact that some people can’t believe that President Bush was President? Or that a guy with the lack of morals like Bill Clinton was President? Or that a guy who was an actor like Ronald Reagan was President? Talk about making a mindless point…Dowd’s hate-filled column is flush with them!

You can read the rest of her racist, sexist tirade here, if you want. But the real kicker in all of this stuff is that the White House – President Obama’s White House! – completely disagrees with Dowd.

Now, what will it take for Maureen Dowd to be fired? She spouted off on a racist rant against Joe Wilson. Both Republican Joe Wilson and the Democratic White House have indicated that she was wrong. Her rants are clearly those of a demented person who views the world through a racist and sexist lens. And the New York Times is going to allow her to stay on their staff?

For shame.

Of all the reports that struck me, the one that made me go wide-eyed the most was the one of the woman from CNN who claimed that she was being harassed at the tea party which was anti-tax and, “anti-CNN.” Anti-CNN? Really? If you watch the video, you’ll notice that this woman was being rude and arrogant to the people in the crowd – not letting them finish answers to her questions and cutting them off. Frankly, she was being an all-around asshole. The term “self-important bitch” comes to mind when I watch the video. And for those of you who suggest that she had every right to berate the guy with the anti-Obama sign remember two things. First, she’s a journalist and what she believes is best saved for an op-ed, not a news report. Second, this same woman attended a parade a few years ago held by those on the far left of the political spectrum and laughed and condoned an image of President George W. Bush as Adolf Hitler.

Fair and balanced? Definitely not so on CNN.

As she was saying this I couldn’t help but think of that episode of Family Guy where Peter secedes from the union and founds the country of Petoria. At one point during the episode, Tom Tucker is reporting live from the scene and starts saying how bad it was and how it was a full-out war between the United States and Petoria…then the camera pans towards him and you see him making the gunfire noises with plastic bubble paper and rocket noises with a slide whistle! It seems that the fictional Tom Tucker and the real world “reporter” from CNN went to the same journalism school!

Anyway, the Constitution Party came out with an e-mail to those on its e-mail list saying the following:

We suggest you now send your emails to CNN Executive Vice President Ken Jautz : ken.jautz@cnn.com and Philip Kent, the Chairman and CEO of CNN: phil.kent@turner.com

Let Susan’s boss know you’re not going to let off the hook a left-wing activist with a mic who was denouncing a legitimate and honest political movement by hard working Americans. Remind the CNN honchos that there were close to one million attendees at the tea parties.

Now, I normally don’t go putting up these types of e-mails on this blog, but I think that this particular message has some resounding value. It’s really ridiculous that CNN would put such a biased, arrogant report on the air. I was one of the many people who moved away from FOX News’ coverage of the Presidential campaign and over to CNN because they just had better coverage this year. However, now that I see such blatant bias, I really can’t stick with CNN as my “flip to” channel. It’s back to FOX News for me – where, believe it or not, they are much more “fair and balanced” than the dummies at CNN.

Any for the brainwashed leftists out there, understand this – just because someone speaks with a definitive tone (which Obama clearly speaks in) doesn’t mean that they are a good speaker! It means that they are confident, yes. But interrupting the free verbal flow of one’s ideas with constant, “iii” and “aaaaahhh” blips is indicative of a speaker who is unsure of the intellectual weight of his words.

As someone who supports this President (and all Presidents, by the way), I really hope that Obama invests some time and resources into practicing how to speak in public. When he stutters and stammers his way through a press conference like he did tonight it does NOT show this country the strong leadership that it voted for during the election.

Oh, and enough of the “I inherited this” crap already. You’ve been President for two months – you’re no longer “inheriting” the initial problem, but you’re now dealing with pieces of the recession that have been created on your watch! And what, exactly, did you create? There is a mess with this AIG thing, right? Hey – didn’t YOUR Treasury Secretary create that mess before you were President? Does that mean that your administration is inheriting its own mistakes? Can you rightly blame that on Bush?

Here’s hoping for more from President Obama and his administration. Where is the change that America voted for?

As a presidential candidate, Obama criticized the detention center that human rights groups and many in the international community widely condemned for harsh treatment of prisoners during the Bush administration. The military has defended its actions, saying prisoners have been treated humanely since the center was set up after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The report found the camp to be in compliance with the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3, the international rules that require the humane treatment of prisoners taken in unconventional armed conflicts, like the war on terrorism. The camp’s controversial force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strikes was also found to be compliant with the Geneva guidelines, a second government official confirmed.

I can appreciate that Obama will probably read this report and change his position during the election on whether or not Guantanamo is/was a humane place to keep prisoners. In fact, I would assume that the President is privy to higher levels of information now that he’s the Commander in Chief and that, in this role, he knows things about Guantanamo that we will never know about. I get it – he’s the President, he should know those things.

But what gets me is that you’ll never hear about this story being covered en masse by the mainstream media. You’ll never hear the political extremists come back and say, “Oh golly. Looks like we goofed on that whole ‘inhumane’ thing down at Guantanamo Bay. Our bad!” Not going to happen. However, if this report for President Obama proved the opposite – that Guantanamo was a disaster and that it was an inhumane place to keep prisoners – then you’d have people calling for President Bush’s head right now!

Isn’t that annoying? Isn’t it annoying that we have extremists in the mainstream who will call for the prosecution of a President based solely on their own ideas and thoughts? However, when those ideas and thoughts are proven wrong by the administration of their favorite son, the extremists won’t turn around and say, “Wow. We were mistaken. Our apologies.”

What a sad commentary on the loud voices…

Sesit suggests the following:

Early last year, Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed, a $168 billion stimulus bill whose centerpiece was about $100 billion in personal-tax rebates. Only about a third of the rebate checks, which ranged from $300 to more than $1,200 for some families, were spent, Mishel says. Others put the unspent portion as high as 80 percent.

“It was not an effective way to get the economy back on track,” Mishel says,

A survey of people eligible to receive tax rebates of $300 or $600 in 2001 found that only 22 percent of households receiving the money spent it, according to a study by Matthew Shapiro and Joel Slemrod at the University of Michigan.

You can learn a few things from this, some of which we might have already assumed. First, is it a surprise to anyone that nearly 80% of the people who received a check last year put it in the bank and didn’t spend it? Americans are hurting for money. Any middle or lower income family will tell you that they probably used the money they received last spring to either buoy their savings accounts or pay down some of their debts.

By the way, I have to bring up an odd coincidence here. How interesting is it that Americans used the checks to strengthen their savings accounts much like banks used their bailout money to strengthen their balance sheets? The purpose of the checks last spring were to get Americans spending money – it didn’t happen. The purpose of the bailout dollars to the banks was to get them making loans again – it didn’t happen. Just thought I’d point that out.

If you get a chance, I suggest reading Sesit’s op-ed – it’s interesting and presents a more “what do we need now” point of view. For what it’s worth, I think the economy needs many things, but most of all we need a readjustment of costs. Take housing, for example. There are homes on the market that are selling for 20% – 40% below their listing price and they are still too expensive.