* Today, President Obama will be hosting a fiscal summit to address fiscal discipline and how to reduce the nation's debt by half over the next four years.
I think he should have done this PRIOR to signing a bill that increased the debt by $1.2 trillion dollars, don't you?
* If people think something similar to the Fairness Doctrine needs to be re-instituted because liberal talk radio isn't as successful and conservative talk needs to be 'balanced,' I would ask them how widespread conservative talk radio was when it was only a few years old.
Conservative talk radio has been around for about 30 years now - why would anyone expect that a product be at the same place after only about 5 years as its competitor is after 30?
Liberal talk radio is in its infancy as a product. As people learn about the availability, they'll 'purchase' it more (by tuning in and advertising). It will then expand and grow.
And if it doesn't, it just means that liberals need to come up with something better - not eliminate their competition or insist that the customers of conservative talk be forced to 'purchase' something they don't want.
* If one of the problems with talk radio is the licenses, why is further regulation of the license holders the solution? Why isn't elimination of the need for a license even considered? You don't need a license to start a newspaper, and that's seemed to work okay. Would there be some challenges to address? Of course, but eliminating the government control of licensing is as viable an idea as the alternative.
* There's been some talk about insisting that states hold special elections whenever they need to replace a senator. Instead of creating further laws about the election of this particular public office, let's just repeal the 17th Amendment and go back to letting the state legislature pick. Maybe, if our senators were beholden to the state, we wouldn't have a federal government that was so intent on eroding states' rights.
* Last Tuesday - a full week ago - Toledo City Council approved funds to assist in a study for a planned intermodal facility. Today the paper has a story on this action. Is it just me - or is this old news?
* If the government 'acquires' a 40% state in Citigroup, will they then mandate more of the types of loans that caused banks to have such problems with their balances sheets in the first place? Will political considerations trump fiscal ones?
* As I asked in numerous forums when the auto bailout was being debated in Congress: what happens if, after getting the federal money, they can't get things under control and move back toward profitability? Will the government give them even more money? Or will they be forced into a bankruptcy, which is what many experts were suggesting was the right course to begin with?
* It's getting closer to spring and that makes me happy. Our bedroom has a window that faces south and one that faces east. Today, there was more brightness from the rising sun through the east window than from the south window. Always a reason to rejoice!
Monday, February 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I am stunned by the Obama promise to reduce the deficit by 1/2 in the next four years. I know a way to reduce it by 60% in ten minutes! Don't implement the stupid stimu-less bill that he just signed.
If he does reduce the deficit by 1/2 by 2012 it will still be higher than when he took office in 2009. People are too easily misled in this country.
Maggie,
Random Comments ...
How can anyone, with a straight face, talk about fiscal responsibility after signing the porkulus package (unless they are two-faced and always keep one straight).
Those against the Fairness Doctrine should demand that all forms of media be treated with the same fairness ... and in keeping with the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. In other words, hands off.
Each state has the right to change the process of mid-term elected official replacement, and a process by which to do it. Let them.
The city is looking at Intermodal studies! OMG! What a great idea! Wherever did they come up with that?
If the government takes a 40% stake in Citigroup, I want a charge card that I don't have to pay back until they pay back the taxpayers.
As for the automakers, I guess that I will think more closely about buying a Ford. You have to respect a company trying in every way to avoid taking Federal money and interference.
And as for the light in your windows, as pleased as I am in your discovery; I would be more pleased to see a light at the end of the tunnel, something I suspect we both know is much further off.
Tim wrote:
Each state has the right to change the process of mid-term elected official replacement, and a process by which to do it. Let them.
Actually, The Constitution used to mandate:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,...
The 17th Amendment changed that to the direct election of Senators by the people.
All the questions, laws and rules about how to fill vacancies could be avoided if we repeal the 17th Amendment.
That was the point - not whether or not a state could choose their method of replacement now that the 17th Amendment was in place.
Additionally, if a Senator was beholden to a state legislature, would they be more apt to protect the authority of the state? Would they be more likely to reject federal government intrusion into state rights? etc....
Post a Comment