Dems Once Again Paving the Road to You Know Where with Good Intentions

Earlier this year our benevolent leaders in Congress, lead by the majority party, heralded what was called "Credit Card Reform." We have to protect consumers they said, and the way to do that was, of course, more regulation. What could go wrong?

Not surprisingly, Congressional good intentions notwithstanding, the legislation has had the opposite effect. As the Wall Street Journal and several other MSM outlets are now reporting, the new regulation has in fact actually hurt consumers.

Why? Because the new law artificially limits how much credit card companies can charge in late fees.

Now at first blush, this may appear to be a good thing. Credit card companies, along with big oil, the insurance industry, indeed all of Corporate America is evil right? Why these guys only care about profits and sticking it to the little guy!

Except the limits on late fees are hitting Credit Card companies hard. How hard? Billions hard. And they're passing those costs not onto people who DON'T pay their bills to those who DO pay their bills!

Want proof? Consumer interest rates are up to 14.7% from 13.1% only last year. Credit limits are down too. And because the banks are much more limited on adjusting rates after an account is opened, they are forced to charge higher rates- up front.

Thus once again we sadly see, as so often is the case, that despite the best intentions of our friends on the left, they end up hurting the very group of people they intended to help.

Honestly I truly do believe Congress had good intentions. I mean, Congress wouldn't really set out to deliberately punish consumers who are responsible just to help out those who don't pay their bills? Liberals wouldn't seek to hurt those who are successful would they?

You bet they would. It's called a progressive tax system.

Did the Bailout Save Ford? No Mr. President, Ford Saved Ford

Perhaps no decision of President Obama has been more responsible for his low poll numbers than the bailout of the auto industry - namely Chrysler and GM. If you read the data, you'll find a majority of liberals and conservatives who didn't buy the "too big to fail" justification for dumping 60 billion taxpayer dollars into the auto industry.

The irony is that this program, like President Bush's Troubled Asset Relief Program have been by largely successful. Today's WSJ reports that the new General Motors is now talking about going public again. If GM is successful in selling stock, taxpayers may actually come out ahead.

Today President Obama was at a Ford plant touting the bailout of the auto industry. What's wrong with this picture?

Ford didn't take any money from the Federal Government. In fact, Ford outright rejected bailout money instead raising capital the old fashioned way: they offered stock.

Because of this Ford has a higher debt than either Chevy of Chrysler (both of whom had their debt wiped out by bankruptcy). But Ford actually has been making huge profits. They have also made substantial gains in market share. And they are bringing back some 2,000 jobs that were originally outsourced. How many companies can claim that?

Ford owe's it success to old-fashioned business sense and capitalism.

At the Ford plant, the President today not only took credit for saving GM and Chrysler, he attempted to take credit for saving Ford. He argued that, in essence, by saving GM and Chrysler, essential suppliers to the industry were saved. In essence: "I saved you by saving your competitors."

Logical limitations aside, why is it politicians feel the need to make these outrageous claims? We all remember the mockery made of Al Gore's infamous declaration that he invented the Internet.

The President today ironically said he'd supported the bailout because he supported American workers.

But it's Ford who showed the President what American workers can do. And they didn't need the Federal government to do it for them.

What The World Doesn't Need: Another Flavor of Doritos

I like having a choice as much as anyone. Today, after exhaustive research I've determined that there are fifteen flavors of Doritos. I believe that is about thirteen more than necessary.

Now, I'm like everyone else. I have tortilla chip needs. But I'd like to meet the person who, scratching his or her belly decides their in the mood for chips, but not just any chips. No, they need Sizzlin Picante and they need it now! Does Subway make flavor suggestions based on the type of sandwich you buy? (British accent) Spicy Sweet Chili will go excellent with that ham and cheese sir.

Below are the flavors.

* Blazin' Buffalo & Ranch

* Cool Ranch

* Fiery Habanero

* Nacho Cheese

* Natural White Nacho Cheese

* Poppin' Jalapeño

* Ranchero

* Salsa Verde

* Smokin' Cheddar BBQ

* Spicy Nacho

* Toasted Corn

* Zesty Taco

* Cheeseburger (X-13D)

* Sizzlin' Picante

* Spicy Sweet Chili

Fictional Account:

Wife: Did you get the chips?
Husband: Yeah I got the chips.

Wife: Did you get Doritos?

Husband: Yep.

Wife: Natural White Nacho Cheese Doritos?

Husband: Uh, sure I got Nacho Cheese.

Wife: Nacho Cheese or White Nacho Cheese?

Husband: I don't know... I got Nacho Cheese.

Wife: (Screaming) You know what regular Nacho Cheese does to my complexion. I specifically told you White Nacho Cheese. How hard is it for you to get White Nacho Cheese Doritos?

Husband: I hate Frito-Lay.

Is the Far Left Joining the Anti-Obama Movement?

When it comes to those who oppose President Obama, it makes sense that the Tea Party crowd has received most of the attention. I don't consider myself a member of the Tea Party, if there is such a thing, but I respect their efforts and see it as one of the most genuine grass-roots movements of our time.

Well known liberal Robert Reich, former Sec of Labor for Clinton, has a provocative and I think largely truthful piece today on the increasingly louder criticism of the President and Democrats that is coming not from the right but from the far left.

Tea Partiers are getting all the press. But the anger on the left, including much of the Democratic base, is almost as intense. And it spells trouble for Democrats a few months from now.

What are they so upset about? The Dems frankly are ignoring the far left agenda. While Tea Partiers are upset about Obamacare, the far left is livid because the plan doesn't go far enough. And they don't like our continued involvement in Afghanistan (which I support). They also see the President as being too quick to compromise.

Secretary Reich doesn't mention it, but similar criticism has been coming from the Latino community. While there is support the Administration's legal challenge to the now infamous AZ law, many are furious that Obama has not come through on his promise of comprehensive immigration reform. Frankly, before the AZ law, they felt like they were being ignored.

What does this all mean? Well in terms of politics, it's a rare politician who manages to enrage everyone. And the signs are there that this combined with the blow back from a right that is more galvanized than ever could really be trouble for the Dems.

Ask Jimmy Carter. He knows.

Stark Article on What Afghanistan Faces if We Leave Too Soon

Time Magazine this week features a provocative photograph of a young woman who had her nose and ears sliced off by her own husband under the authority of the Taliban.

I continue to strongly support the President's policy in Afghanistan. This article underscores the need we have to continue our efforts there. Maybe we can't reshape Afghanistan the way we were able to mold Iraq. But we can at least make sure that the murderous likes of the Taliban are kept in check.

Leaving prematurely will have dire consequences. Want proof? Ask the South Vietnamese.

If He Really Wants to Help...

Loved this headline in the New York Times Today:

"To Help Democrats in the Fall, Obama May Stay Away"

Besides the obvious - like just how bad things are for your presidency when the NY Times is printing articles like this - I thought of how much good the President could do by staying away: from the country.

No I'm not calling for his resignation. I'm thinking of how much good he, and the Federal government at large, could do by staying out of things. Out of the auto industry, out of healthcare, out of our personal lives, out of job market. Leave us alone (and our money too)!

Obama is willing to help Democrats by staying away. Why can't he do the same for the country?