add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

Posted at my new blog App-lesauce:

By: iPhone FLOSS
Site: http://www.iphonefloss.com
Release Date: June 2, 2009
Click on the icon to download app.

Screenshots:

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

I attended the Richmond Area Tax Day Tea Party this week. I expected to come home and find coverage of the events on the news, and was disappointed to see that only Fox even bothered to cover the actual events. Not surprised, just disappointed. We had a good turnout - about 3,000 people. Richmond is a pretty staid community, with many of us preferring quiet evenings at home. So 3,000 Richmonders attending anything outside in the rain on a Wednesday is pretty good.

In the Richmond Times Dispatch the following day, the event earned a blah article below the fold on the front page. At the end of that article they ran the following quote from Hari Sevugan, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee:

"While we support the right of Americans to petition their government, what's clear is that the overwhelming majority of folks support President [Barack] Obama's plan to get the economy back on track and provide 95 percent of working families with tax relief, because they are no longer going to accept 'more of the same' as an answer."

CNN - Though financial-industry and automotive bailouts were launched at the end of George W. Bush's presidency, many demonstrators aimed their words and signs at the Obama administration, criticizing it in part for the recently passed stimulus package.

CBS - Of course, the tea party that seems to have inspired the comment - the Boston Tea Party, that iconic 1773 protest in which Massachusetts colonists dumped tea into Boston Harbor - was tied largely to taxation without representation by the British government. That’s no longer an issue for most Americans.

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

I read a very thought provoking and rather well thought out post today at DemConWatch. With the burst of the housing bubble, multiple industry bailouts, and loss of jobs, government at every level is looking at cutting services and raising taxes. But which services to cut? Which taxes to raise? Taxes are, after all, a necessary evil as our government needs to get funding from somewhere.

That article asked for comments from the readers, and I am doing the same. If taxes have to be raised, or services cut, which do you feel are necessary? Below is the comment I posted on their site. Just a little setup: the commenter before me posted a list of things like tax on gasoline, taxing incomes of the wealthy, and sin taxes. Here is my comment:

I heard something today...

The sin taxes might actually be detrimental to a budget in the long run. When they impose a sin tax, it is usually a little more about changing behavior rather than making money. In Virginia, Tim Kaine is proposing doubling the tax on cigarettes in order to offset the cost imposed on medicare and medicaid when smokers develop emphysema/lung cancer. If they didn't smoke, though, chances are that they would live much longer. We would have many more people living many more years and the cost of general health care for all of them, even if all they required were routine checkups and treatment for minor illneses, would equal more than the outlay under the system where individual freedoms may mean that people choose to live a little more recklessly.
As far as what services to cut? I agree with Karen-Anne in that there is a whole lot of waste that needs to be cut before any essential services lose a penny. They should look at expense accounts and future contracts, and they should definitely look for more efficient ways to govern before raising any taxes or cutting any services. If our leaders tell us that sacrifice is essential, they need to set that ball rolling by setting an example.

In the business that I am in, I have seen expenses in certain areas swing to the good by large amounts simply by stressing to the employees the importance of "best practices". I have seen the same accounts swing back terribly when those same practices are allowed to fall by the wayside. The difference? Better management led to the good swings while poor management led to the bad. Our leaders, no matter what the level of government, are being paid to manage their local/state/federal governments. It is time they start doing so.

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

10) David Petraeus

Although ordinarily a good candidate, I can't see anyone directly linked to Bush being elected, barring a dismal Obama failure or a massive terrorist attack here at home.



9) Mark Sanford

Sanford has gained a popularity bump from conservatives by turning down any kind of state bailout for South Carolina. He has good experience in fixing a budget, as well, and we all know that the next president will need that.

In 2003, South Carolina was in an almost $1 billion financial hole in addition to a $155 million unconstitutional deficit. After years of engaging in a tug-of-war with the Legislature over the issue of spending, we’re starting to see signs of progress - the 2007 budget process started in the black for the first time in 16 years.



8) Micheal Steele

Has called for the repeal of federal gasoline and diesel taxes as an immediate, short term solution for our energy crisis. He also supports tax breaks on green automobiles and repealing the death tax.




7) Tim Pawlenty

Balanced the Minnesota budget not by raising taxes, and not by cutting spending, but rather by slowing the rate of funding growth for state services.




6) Mike Pence

Pence describes himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." He supported no amnesty immigration reform, a ban on embryonic stem cell research (he cites the viability of adult stem cells.



5) George Allen

A former governor of Virginia, and a former US senator, George Allen definitely has the credentials required. His loose lips are a detriment, a la the "Mucaca" quip.



4) Bobby Jindal

The governor of Louisiana is actually my favorite in the list, but he recently batted down any talk of him running for president when he announced his bid for re-election in 2011 in Richmond, VA. Jindal is currently experiencing the same kind of buzz created in 2004 by a certain senator from Illinois.



3) Newt Gingrich

Any credit for Bill Clinton's bi-partisanship taken by the Democrats needs to coupled with Gingrich and the "Contract for America". Gingrich is a conservative's conservative. He also posesses national recognition that no other person above him on this list can claim.



2) Mike Huckabee

Huckabee was the favorite amongst conservatives during the primaries. He is curently hosting his own show on Fox News. The only thing holding back Huckabee is his poor comedic timing.




1) Sarah Palin

Round 1 may be over, but Palin thrust herself into the national political spotlight with her no nonsense approach and her appeal to regular folks. Like her or not, there is no denying that she is the superstar of the party right now.

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

Gov. Jindal also spoke very highly of the man he was there to support Attorney General Bob McDonnell. They both talked about McDonnell’s recent trip to Louisiana and Jindal specifically spoke about McDonnell’s commitment to public safety and fiscal responsibility.

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

An article at Right Wing News about Vallejo, CA says that union deals for fire department retirees is a big part of the reason that Vallejo has declared bankruptcy. The main cause of Vallejo's failing is that they have followed the Democratic playbook to the letter. Anti-military, anti-business, anti-industry, and pro-union policies have led to Vallejo's downfall, and now, other cities across the country will be watching this town's bankruptcy proceedings very closely.

The start of Vallejo's woes came in 1996 when the Mare Island Naval Shipyard was closed. At the time of its closing there were 9,000 civilian employees.

In 1994, Wal-Mart proposed building a supercenter in Vallejo. Company officials at the time estimated that the store would provide about 400 jobs and would generate somewhere near $600,000 annually in sales taxes.

Area residents, of course, fought the construction by forming VALLEJOANS FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH. In an open letter to Lee Scott, they state their case for opposing the Wal-Mart:

Dear Mr. Scott:

This is an open letter – i.e., copies to the press - on behalf of the hundreds of Vallejoans, who have already signed our petition to this effect. I would like to inform you that Vallejoans for Responsible Growth:

Opposes any Wal-Mart “Supercenter” within the Vallejo city limits
and, in particular, at the old K-Mart site at Sonoma Boulevard and Redwood Street.

Urges Strict Adherence to the White Slough Specific Area Plan as approved by the Vallejo City Council on November 28, 1995 and the Solano County Board of Supervisors on January 9, 1996.

Simply put, a Wal-Mart “Supercenter” does not, in our view, comport with the economic interests of our city, proper land use, nor our vision of Vallejo as a desirable place to live in and to visit. We will do all in our power to ensure that Vallejo remains “Supercenter”-free.

After four years of wrangling with the city and vocal opponents, Wal-Mart on Friday withdrew its application to build a supercenter in Vallejo’s White Slough area, a company spokesman said.

“Wal-Mart had hoped to open a new store in Vallejo, but current growth plans, coupled with the increased costs since the project was first proposed in 2004, have made the project infeasible at this time,” spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said.

One year after the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter in American Canyon, business is good for the retail giant according to store manager Mike Sellick.

“We’ve exceeded all our (sales) goals,” Sellick said last week.

Mayor Leon Garcia pointed to the burgeoning growth of retail in American Canyon, and associated sales tax revenue, as a big reason for the city’s financial stability.

“It’s huge,” Garcia said of the store’s economic impact. “Development of Napa Junction took off, consequently we’re on an even keel. We’re on sound footing as a result.”

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

I caught this post at Right Wing News

In the entire history of our country, I'm not sure there has ever been a presidential honeymoon period as tender and loving as the one that Barack Obama is experiencing today.

In Perry County, Alabama they have already voted to create a paid holiday called "Barack Obama Day." That's an honor not bestowed on "lesser Presidents" like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Teddy Roosevelt -- whose accomplishments, though great, surely will not eclipse those of "President Government" after his time in office. But, that's just a county holiday. Topeka activist Sonny Scroggins, with the support of the NAACP, is actually working on a national holiday for Obama.

Given the way that our mainstream media is fawning over Barack Obama, we shouldn't expect much resistance to the idea of creating a holiday to honor a man whose only real accomplishment so far is winning elections.

For example, MSNBC anchor Alex Witt was so taken with Obama that she was shocked that the mere fact that he was elected didn't end terrorism worldwide,


..."There are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought -- at least hoped -- would be dampered down."

Then there's Chris Matthews who said it is his "job" to make "this new presidency work," a sentiment that seems to be widely shared in the media, even if most of them aren't foolish enough to share that view of their "job description" with their audience.

That's part of the reason why Obama's hard core supporters, which would include most members of the mainstream media, haven't had much to say about the fact that he has already started rapidly backing off his campaign promises on everything from the windfall profits tax to the Bush tax cuts, to a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. Of course, many of Obama's supporters were so ignorant of what he stands for that they probably have no idea he's breaking his promises in the first place.

Heck, the Presidential honeymoon has gotten so gushy that even a lot of conservatives have been writing mash notes to Obama of late because some of his cabinet picks aren't to the left of Michael Moore. Of course, the real question about his cabinet at this point is what's Dennis Kucinich doing these days? After all, since Obama seems to be trying to bring everybody who ran against him into his administration, he might as well create a Department of Peace for Kucinich to run, put Chris Dodd in charge of HUD, and hire John Edwards to be Bill Clinton's wingman at sorority parties. Speaking of the Clintons, with all the Clinton staffers Obama is hiring, you have to wonder how many of these people will ultimately be loyal to Hopey McChange and how many of them will secretly support Slick Willie and the Wicked Witch of New York? The first time something goes wrong overseas and either the Secretary of State or the President has to take the blame, the leaks will tell you where the staffers' loyalties really lie.

But, that brings us back to the crux of the matter: Barack Obama hasn't actually started governing yet. We have a rookie senator who's never made a tough decision in his adult life getting ready to enter the White House in what may be the toughest time to lead the country since Jimmy Carter was wrapping the country around a telephone poll.

The economy is now officially in the toilet and is likely to remain so for at least a year or two -- and the bailouts? They've just started and they're already unpopular. How is that corporate welfare on steroids going to look as more and more companies come to Congress with their begging bowls? How about when we're running trillion dollar deficits? What happens after the unemployment rate cracks 8%, large numbers of Americans are really worried about paying their bills, and they're reading about the latest round of hand-outs to companies? How can Obama possibly fulfill his campaign promises, many of which are staggeringly expensive, when the country is in a recession and the government is running record deficits? It's not a pretty picture.

We're also still in the midst of a global war on terror. In Iraq we're winning, but Obama has to finish the job or be "the President who lost the war." In Afghanistan, things aren't going as well, but Obama has promised to get us back on the right track. Plus, we can't forget that Al-Qaeda is looking to hit the homeland, Iran getting perilously close to a nuclear weapon, our ongoing negotiations to disarm North Korea -- and Obama's squawking, bratty liberal base that will demand we forego necessary security measures, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP, and oppose military action against foes of the United States -- while demanding we send the troops to places where no American interests are at stake.

Speaking of Obama's base, they may be quiet now, but they certainly will not remain so. They're looking at the size of the Democratic majority in Congress and expecting Obama to dramatically tilt the country to the left. Woe be unto him if he doesn't meet those expectations. Meanwhile, the Democrats who have to run in red states or districts will urge Obama to remain in the center, lest the party take a beating in 2010. Then there are the competing Democratic interest groups and the people who projected their own hopes and dreams onto Obama and now expect him to pay up. Remember the Obama supporter who famously said she was backing him because,


"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, If I help him, he's gonna help me."

That's the problem with promising to be all things to all people in order to get elected: if you actually win that way, they expect you to pay up.

On January 20, 2009 -- Barack Obama is going to face an extraordinarily difficult situation that would test the most capable of Presidents. It's not quite a "I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy" spot, but it's going to be tougher than a Waffle House steak, particularly so for Obama because you can't vote "present" in the White House.

So, before we carve Barack Obama's face right there on Mt. Rushmore beside of Abe Lincoln, perhaps we should wait to see if he's as good at tackling this country's very real problems as he is at raising money, reading speeches off a teleprompter, and chucking his former friends and allies under the bus.

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

CNN) -- When struggling homeowner Eddie Morrison heard about the government's $700 billion bailout plan for banks and Wall Street firms, he felt left out.

But the Morrisons were saved when their mortgage holder, California-based IndyMac, was seized by federal regulators recently. The new administrator of the failing bank, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair, put a freeze on foreclosures, giving people such as the Morrisons a chance to create a loan payment they can afford.

Bair has proposed giving homeowners who are 60 days late on their mortgage a chance to reduce high interest rates and extend the length of the loan if they qualify.

But the Morrisons say they like the plan. Bair's IndyMac loan-modification program dropped their payment from $3,200 per month to $1,900 per month for five years. After that, the payments start to go back up.

add to del.icio.us saved by 0 users

SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Shoppers lured by money-saving deals filled U.S. stores on Friday, but the annual kick-off to holiday shopping appeared weaker this year as worries about a deep recession kept purchases down.


Just to rebuke the drive by media, which has been saying that Black Friday sales were down today, I thought that I would tell you my experience.

I work at Wal-Mart, and every year for Black Friday I go out and help in Electronics. I work in the office, but my background is in Electronics. We beat our last year sales by 11 am. We sold out of all the televisions that were in the ad for the first time ever. Usually we have a couple dozen left over. After the sale merchandise was gone, the public just kept buying. By the time I got off work at 1:00, most of the regular merchandise televisions had also been sold. One couple bought two 32" Sharp televisions at $498 each, a Philips 19" at $298, and would have bought a $798 37" Sharp television as well if it were in stock.

You would think that an order like that would have gone on the credit card, but to my surprise, when we rang them up they processed the transaction as a debit, so they were actually spending real money.

Why did we do so well? Number one, NO UNION!! Number two, LOW PRICES!! Number three, an executive board that is smart enough to maintain about $7 billion in liquid assets so that credit is not a problem. If you noticed, Wal-Mart also had the foresight to pretty much revamp their business model a few months before the financial crisis really hit. Their message of "Save Money, Live Better" was rolled out at the perfect time to actually capitalize on the situation. (Oh great!! Now we sound like Rahm Emanuel!) I can't believe the company has done as well as it has considering the Secretary of 3am Phone Calls used to sit on the board.

See also:

More Black Friday News
So, who was right about Black Friday?