Does anyone know the exchange rate for thirty pieces of silver?  I don’t mean today’s market price.  I was actually thinking of what it would have been worth around the year 33 AD.  Anyone know?  Only reason I ask is, I am curious to see if the final estimated amount ended up in either Senator Olympia Snowe’s or Susan Collin’s bank account recently.  I’m just asking!

We all know that politics is a dirty business.  It is not that far fetched to believe that two liberal-leaning republican senators could have been promised money to fund their pet-projects in order to give their vote to the health care bill.  Those two votes, if indeed they vote that way, cover for a few ‘blue-dog’ democrats that don’t want to loose their jobs next election-cycle.  They give the comfort zone necessary to pass the bill, and the excuse for Obama and the congressional democrats to say this bill is passed with ‘bipartisan support.’

Sorry Mr. President, but two liberal republicans out the whole mess of them serving in congress currently is hardly bipartisan.  The military refit programs under President Reagan, an the Welfare Reform Acts under President Clinton would be far better examples.  While I identify with President Reagan much more than Clinton, I can at least respect Clinton for his pragmatism and his ability to look beyond his ideology.  When that man had his back against a wall, he knew when to bargain and when to shift.  That’s how someone who is a leader of a people gets things done.  You don’t keep hitting your head against a brick wall, hoping the other side will give in.  We pay our leaders to work together, and sometimes that means bargaining and compromise.

President Obama is a different animal all together.

I firmly believe that President Obama is willing to commit political suicide to pass health care reform.  While the numbers of support keep slipping, I have no doubt he will ’sacrifice himself’ for the greater good.  By the way, anytime you hear leaders talking about the greater good, be prepared to hum the old Soviet anthem.

I’ve said before that it takes a great amount of arrogant presumption to believe you know what is best for 300 million people.  Every leader wants to try and do what is best for their people, but they she never cross over into “I know what’s better for you than you do.”  Suggesting a good idea and winning over public support is one thing.  Ramming it down their throats when they say no is another thing entirely.  They have tried the moral argument.  They have tried the urgent one.

Soon it will be ‘we’re going to make it very financially hard for your employees to not dump you onto the public option.  Then it will be mandatory ‘volunteering’ and community service.  Then it will be illegal to homeschool your children.  After all, how would they learn their Barack Hussein Obama songs at home?

Soon they may have a White House Communications Director who lauds the works of Chairman Mao.  Oh!  Sorry!  Too late eh?  Oh well, at least they aren’t trying to discredit a news organization and have a public enemies list.  What’s that?  I’m too late on that also!  Ugh!  Just when I think that President Obama cannot be beaten for the newest whacky-leftist leader, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown opens his mouth again.  He spoke recently about ‘climate change,’ saying that the world MUST come to an accord in Copenhagen.  Why so soon?  Well, in fifty more days it will be too late.  Thats right folks!  We only have fifty more days to save the world.  I’m guessing if we don’t, then there will be some sort of horrendous space kablooie!!!!  ACK!  RUN!!!

What a bunch of nutjobs.  Oh well!  At least our dear leader isn’t keeping our troops on the battlefield without proper funding, orders or reinforcements.  What?  Oh man!!!

Vote in 2010 and 2012 people.  This has to end with this term.

The dreaded “trade deficit” is shrinking…let’s celebrate! Wait a minute, this is happening in the context of the worst unemployment in a quarter of a century, a jump in inflation, and a period of protracted economic decline.

The balance of trade — the amount of goods imported versus goods exported — has been a tool used by those who are shallow in their economic knowledge and deep in their fear of competition. We are told by many politicians that trade deficits (importing more than we export) is a “terrible” thing and demonstrates an economy in decline. As a result of decades of trade deficits, the US is a “debtor” nation, we are told.

So the recent news stories should be good news: “Trade Gap Continues to Narrow.” This narrowing is because the amount of goods we are importing each year is actually shrinking. There are few, if any, who would argue that this economy is anything but weak and has been in a downward spiral. This reality should not be a surprise to any student of history. When the economy is weak, we can’t afford to buy. Our trade deficit shrinks with our spending power.

In 1928 Republican Herbert Hoover was running for President of the United States against Democrat Al Smith of New York. Hoover, the Secretary of Commerce under one of the most successful Presidents in US history, was running against a very popular governor. It was easy for Hoover to defend the record of the President he served, Calvin Coolidge, as virtually every indicator pointed to an administration noted for its prosperity. “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” was a message that rang true to most voters.

During the 20s, Coolidge and his allies took a tax rate that was as high as 70 percent under their predecessor and lowered the top rate to a low of 5 percent. Coolidge opened economic trade with countries and unleashed a level of prosperity we had not seen in generations. The number of people who made six digits (a very high income in the 1920s) increased four fold. Inflation was less than 2 percent and unemployment was at a comparable amount. They called it the “Roaring Twenties” for a reason.

In spite all the glitter, there were signs of “rust” for those who cannot look beyond the surface. That was the trade deficit that grew rapidly during his administration. This area fell under the Secretary of Commerce and Hoover was taunted by his opponent through out the race as the man who over saw this area of “decline.” Finally Hoover got on the protectionist bandwagon and told voters that if Smith or he were elected, there would be quotas and tariffs placed on trade. Hoover won and by the Fall of 1929, he was sticking to his guns and pursuing protectionism in the form of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

That law did exactly what it intended to do — slash the import of goods. Within a few years, the US had its first trade surplus in decades and also one of the highest unemployment rates in history. The Stock Market crash that proceeded the Depression was fueled by this trade protectionism. Wall Street knew that, if we penalized imports, foreign countries would retaliate. That led to the Market crash because investors knew that the value of goods would decline as the trade markets would shrink.

The high unemployment rate was associated with the trade surplus for a very simple reason. We imported more goods than we exported because our buying power had declined dramatically. Through out our nation’s history over the last century, our periods of highest prosperity were accompanied by eras of trade deficits. Meanwhile, trade surpluses accompanied economic decline. In our prosperity we were buying more, from everywhere.

Today, the trade deficit is shrinking because the economy is weak. Our national buying power is in decline. Trade deficits continue to do what they have done for centuries — indicate strength and not weakness.