This is a Bad Bill and Thus Must Fail

The lies about the current state of this economic stalemate are everywhere. They are all over the media and in the halls of Congress. President Bush who avoided the cameras for days in the early stages of the stock market problems have made public addresses two mornings in a row. Congress who planned to be home telling us how good they are and why we should send them back are now stuck in DC finding a solution. The common reference line is that this crisis is the worst since 1929. What? 1929? Do we all not remember the economic crisis of the Carter and Reagan administrations?

During this current crisis less than 100 banks have failed. During the crisis of the 80’s more than 3,000 banks failed. Every single bank in the state of Texas failed and shutdown. Not only that but at the time the national interest rate was more than 21%! However that problem was resolved by two administrations, a liberal democrat and a conservative republican without a federal bailout. The FDIC and leaders in Congress and the White House worked with the markets to bring about a solution that saw the market bailout the situation. Will banks fail? Yes. Will people lose their jobs? Yes. However they deserve to. These are banks that played on the dream that we had as people and sold many Americans into deals we all knew they couldn’t afford.

Where was the bailout when home prices in states like California, Florida, Maryland Nevada, New York, and cities like DC tumbled by hundreds of dollars at the same time their interest rates and mortgages rose by double digits?

Where was the bailout when many of these companies loaned millions to unpatriotic companies to move overseas and take away good paying jobs from hardworking citizens?

Time and time again on issue after issue of this type the response was we couldn’t afford it. Guess what? We still can’t. Congress should turn down this bill again and start again with a plan that focuses on getting Americans back to work. Our problem isn’t that banks need public money but that we need people to work to get paid to pay their bills. When they pay their bills the banks will then have the money they need to lend to each other to save the market. I said it before and will say it again. No, no, and hell NO. However that comes with an extension and a promise. A promise not to vote for any candidate who does vote yes on this package without protections for the people and real help for the out of work Americans. Yes that is any candidate including a President. We have paid our share for this crisis and we need help ourselves. Where are those leaders who will stand for those who sent them to DC, remember the people on main street who don’t command around the clock media attention when our community falls? The House of Representatives took the first step and now is the time to ensure that the Old Boys Club of the Senate follows suit.

Tha-Kid JK

tha-kid@revkitchen.com

In support of the “empty check”

The United States economy is clearly coming to its worst state since the 1929 depression; and the only way to keep us out of a mild depression is to bailout mortgage companies and loan banks. We made a mistake by letting Lehman Brothers fail, and we made the mistake by not bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac months ago. We have to stop threatening companies such as Country Wide with federal and state investigations that have no base or cause and affect on the American citizen; thus making stockholders pull out.

I am a fiscal conservative, but in a time of economic turbulence we need the government to get involved to avoid another severe recession.

The free market can not always bail itself out.

The opinions stated in this post are the views of Koko Chassid and not necessarily those of ThinkYouth.org

Suspending the Presidential Campaign. A Good Idea But Badly Executed

Senator John McCain shook the politcal world when he announced that he would be suspending his campaign for President and returning to Washington to work on a solution to the economic crisis we are facing. I am in the minority of my friends when I say I think it is a good idea. Just think what if the United States faced an attack before the election. Wouldn’t we expect two members of the United States Senate who are now the official leaders of their parties to return to DC and prepare the national response? Earlier this week while watching CNN Roland Martin an announced Obama supporter hit it on the head when he said that, “both these men are Senators. They are elected to serve their constituents in Washington.” I doubt Martin expected that within days McCain would do just that. However as is often with McCain he dropped the ball because he didn’t carry out the plan well.

Tomorrow Senator John McCain and Barack Obama are expected to debate in Mississippi on foreign policy. While America faces a financial challenge unheard of in modern times the two people most likely to become the next President will be talking about foreign policy and America’s role in the world. We need to hear our leaders talking about America’s role here not over there. So if John McCain was sincere in his actions I’d say he was right but he wasn’t. If John McCain really believed that as a Senator and leader of the GOP he needs to be in Washington instead on the stump then I admire him. My problem is that he can’t. Why? Because if so he would’ve done it with Obama as a partnership that really put partisanship aside. He didn’t. Not only that John McCain was returning to Washington without a clear plan on what he wanted to have done and what he was going to do. Still to this day John McCain hasn’t or won’t tell us what he has done so far to move towards any plan that would show what he has done there. I am one to believe that both candidates should return to the Hill and work with their parties on a resolution. It is too bad that at a time to show real leadership ambition got in the way.

Tha-Kid JK

tha-kid@revkitchen.com

Rep. Kucinich offers a Main Street recovery plan

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past several weeks, you will know that the United States economy has continued its decline. This September 15th, Wall Street suffered its greatest losses since the September 11th terrorist attacks, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average slipping down 500 points in one day. Since then, the Dow Jones has fluctuated in between losses as large as 450 points and gains of over 100 points, and other major aspects of the Stock Market have behaved similarly. These economic problems on Wall Street has sent our leaders and those others in power scrambling for a solution. The “economic recovery plan” put forth by the Bush Administration was one offering a $700 billion bail-out to corporations on Wall Street. This economic recovery plan will use the tax-dollars of those working on Main Street to bail out those speculating on Wall Street, and it, in my view, demonstrates that the dynamic of corporate engagement is strong in Washington. Though this number may be cut slightly by Democrats in Congress, it is very likely that hundreds of billions of dollars will still be spent to bail out Wall Street. In opposing such a Wall Street recovery plan, Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich has been working on an alternative, comprehensive plan for a “Main Street economic recovery”, in which, it is stated, both the economy will be stimulated and a fair deal will be provided to the American people.

Read more

Repealing CAFE Standards Would Be…Stupid

With the economy reeling from the effects of Wall Street some fools have been attacking what little progress America has made to move the country into a new future and better economic avenues. One of those successes have been stronger CAFE standards and moving America off of dependence on the international oil industry that is draining the economy of $700 billion dollars. Ironic isn’t it that the estimated cost of our bailout plan is exactly $700 billion dollars isn’t it? So to even consider repealing CAFE standards would be STUPID!

Our CAFE standards are in the progress of doing wonderful things for America and Americans. Is it making it harder for the old boys in states like Michigan? Yes. However Congress and the American people have made great concessions to the industry in many different methods such as putting off standards that by all means most feel if to be effective must start now until 2020. Another concession is making loans available to Motown in order to assist in their transformation to producing lighter and more gas friendly cars.

Some have argued that to raise CAFE standards means that people will only drive more. The argument is as stupid is one that says to make our money easier to carry means we will spend more. People aren’t moving their job because their car will get more gas to the gallon. Many of that gang will also fail or decide to omit from their writing that the real reason that CAFE standards was created and passed was to make us energy independent, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce pollution, save consumers money, create jobs and spark economic growth.

• Our old standards and the new set that the Congress just passed takes America to a new road for real energy independence. Why? Because the bill that passed doesn’t just say you act and we watch but pumps billions of dollars into the market to increase our own home made engery, calling for billions of gallons more in ethanol. It is time to wake up people and realize the fact that the world is running out of gas. This is a non-renewable resource that when you use it all it is gone. You can’t grow it anymore. The bill to call for more CAFE standards understands that and works to fix it by investing in renewable and sustainable resources that will help the world reduce greenhouse gas emissions that will KILL US. More and more American children in places like Fresno, California where I grew up and other cities are being diagnosed with things like asthma.
• It is important that you don’t let those who rail against CAFE standards to forget the RES portion of the bill that has the potential to jump-start new clean energy economy and create tens of thousands of new, good-paying jobs for things such as wind and solar manufacturing and installation. This is why people like for God sakes the United Steelworkers are backing the laws. RES will create thousands of megawatts of new clean renewable electricity generation, decreasing the amount of natural gas we use—lowering prices for consumers on their home heating bills and also benefiting industrial users. Even more important is that RES is doable and a star we can reach. More than two dozen states including my home of California have already put in our own Renewable Electricity Standards. In these states they are reaching for 30 percent or more so please tell me why the federal 15% is so far off the mark?

Now if more than any is time for the nation to think outside the box and revamp our economy, environment, education and employment systems. The world of yesterday is over and if we keep trying to keep up with just today then how will we ever get to tomorrow? Any mention or attempt to repeal CAFE standards would be shortsighted and as said before just plain stupid.

Tha-Kid JK

tha-kid@revkitchen.com

Chevron Realizes Transit is Good For the Earth

I’ve talked before about the energy and auto industry pretending to be green, but in the end all they encourage consumers to do is nice (and undeniably important) things like recycling and stream cleanups, while they keep pushing their environmentally harmful products like cars. In some instances they even bash using cleaner alternatives like buses.

Well there’s one company that seems to finally understand being clean is more than just buying a low energy light bulb. The company I wish to salute is Chevron, for their ad which simply says “I will leave the car at home more.”

Since I often bash said companies for being anti-transit and anti-urban I thought it would be good to point out one that seems to support alternatives.

Repeal CAFE, Save the Auto Industry

[cross-posted at Michigan Youth Political Alliance]

I stumbled upon an interesting Wall Street Journal article, “How to Save Detroit and Save $50 Billion,” and not to indulge in nostalgia over the auto industry’s golden days as I would never do that without feeling repusive, but this article (along with others I found in my research), convinced me that CAFE or Corporate Average Fuel Economy is bunk for the most part and that scrapping it could salvage whatever dignity automakers still have left.

CAFE was a policy first established in 1975 to force auto makers to meet fuel-efficiency standards (e.g. so many miles per gallon) in light of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. It’s purpose was to ween ourselves off from foreign oil dependency, to create more fuel-efficient cars, and to satisfy the American consumers. Fast forward 33 years and auto makers are begging for $50 billion from Congress to help them cover the $100 billion in costs they need to pay to meet CAFE standards.

I never considered mileage standards to be at the root of the problem, but it is awfully close. In other nations, auto makers are not forced to meet mileage standards. Instead, they make fuel-efficient cars because it is profitable. In the market, consumers have a high demand for light, compact, fuel-efficient cars. However, making fuel-efficient cars in the United States have only recently become profitable with the high gas prices. Previously, the hottest cars on the market were the SUVS, pickup trucks and minivans. I’m not saying that their gas guzzling qualities are good, but if that’s what Americans want, then let them have it. By forcing auto makers to meet mileage standards, they had to divert billions of dollars worth of capital from designing, manufacturing, services, and the likes towards researching and developing fuel efficiency, an ultimately unprofitable area for the long term.

CAFE was instituted with auto safety and reducing consumption in mind. However, it has failed on both fronts. Mileage standards have forced auto makers to develop smaller, more lightweight cars that are more suspectible to crashes. The Heritage Foundation delivers some reliable and powerful data on this issue:

More than 25 years ago, research established that drivers of larger, heavier cars have lower risks in crashes than do drivers of smaller, lighter cars. 7 A 2000 study by Leonard Evans, now the president of the Science Serving Society in Michigan, found that adding a passenger to one of two identical cars involved in a two-car frontal crash reduces the driver fatality risk by 7.5 percent. 8 If the cars differ in mass by more than a passenger’s weight, adding a passenger to the lighter car will reduce total risk. 9

The Evans findings reinforce a 1989 study by economists Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution and John Graham of the Harvard School of Public Health, who found that the weight of the average American automobile has been reduced 23 percent since 1974, much of this reduction a result of CAFE regulations. 10 Crandall and Graham stated that “the negative relationship between weight and occupant fatality risk is one of the most secure findings in the safety literature.” 11

On the issue of consumption, consumers have obviously not reduced their gas consumption in the last 33 years since CAFE was passed in Congress. By purchasing fuel-efficient cars, the consumer mindset is thinking that it is perfectly justifiable to drive those cars more than normal. Thus, extended driving leads to a ton more gas being burned. This is the case in most instances because of something called the “rebound effect,” something that makes sense with all technology. As things get easier to do, people want to do it more. The same Heritage article highlights this as well:

Advocates of higher CAFE standards argue that increasing miles per gallon will reduce gas consumption. What they fail to mention is the well-known “rebound effect”–greater energy efficiency leads to greater energy consumption. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal noted that in the 19th century, British economist Stanley Jevons found that coal consumption initially decreased by one-third after James Watt’s new, efficient steam engine began replacing older, more energy-hungry engines. 13 But in the ensuing years (1830 to 1863), consumption increased tenfold–the engines were cheaper to run and thus were used more often than the older, less efficient models. In short, greater efficiency produced more energy use, not less.

The same principle applies to CAFE standards. A more fuel-efficient vehicle costs less to drive per mile, so vehicle mileage increases. As the author of The Wall Street Journal article notes, “[s]ince 1970, the United States has made cars almost 50% more efficient; in that period of time, the average number of miles a person drives has doubled.” 14 This increase certainly offsets a portion of the gains made in fuel efficiency from government mandated standards.

In result, our dependency on foreign oil has grown, our own auto industry has declined to the point of near failure and our consumers are, well, not doing too badly. Well, except for the fact that their tax payers are going to be paying for the auto makers struggle to meet mileage mandates. We should seriously rethink how we can pull auto makers out of their pit of despair, and abolishing CAFE standards can be a start.

[cross-posted at Michigan Youth Political Alliance]

My Answer to George Bush on Bailout…Hell NO!

Does it not amaze you like it does me that President George Bush is asking that the average American voter dig down in our pockets to bail out the big banks on Wall Street. However listen to what happened as Americans faced a number of issues:

When gas prices started to shoot up Hillary Clinton and John McCain proposed a tax holiday and the response was we can’t afford it because it would reduce the highway trust fund. Barack Obama proposed a $1,000 emergency energy stimulus check to help families pay their gas and energy bills. It would out right be too expensive.

When Americans started to be forced out of their homes because of the unfair and outright bogus loans these very banks issued and Democrats called for restructuring power for judges in bankruptcy courts the GOP called for leaving the free market alone.

Now that big bank billionaires on Wall Street are in trouble we are “days away from our very economy clasping” and must approve $700 BILLION DOLLARS in aid. To them I say not just no but HELL NO!

Congress should send this bill back to the White House and demand a billion dollar financial plan to protect and bail out the American tax payer who doesn’t have tax shelters that cut into our share of the pot for the federal coffers. We need a new stimulus package that brings jobs to the out of work and not just a shopping spree to get Americans back to work and able to pay their own debts. That is real reform and real help. This bill is just a blank check to Wall Street after a “good talking to” by the Principal and then let go out and play. These plans don’t call for the firing of the directors who got us into this mess. These plans don’t call for executive compensation reform to ensure that our hard earned dollars don’t end up in the pockets of the CEO failing banks. This is a bad plan, a bad deal, and therefore a bad bill. For the record I agree with Senator Sanders if a bank is too big to fail then it is too big to exist.

Tha-Kid JK

tha-kid@revkitchen.com

Thirteen Cars and Seven Houses?

It looks like John McCain has been caught in another lie, he has previously said he only owns American built cars, but government records show he owns thirteen cars, and two of them are foreign made, one is a Honda, the other is a Volkswagen.

In addition to the foreign made cars, McCain has a lot of gas guzzlers including a 2007 half-ton Ford pickup truck, a 2008 Jeep Wrangler, and a 2001 GMC SUV.

How many cars do the Obama’s own? Just one, a Ford Escape Hybrid. They also own only one house, yet for some reason they still call Obama the elisist and McCain the workingmans man.

I Demand She Apologize

I wonder how many people join me in being shocked and outraged by the comments Sandra Bernhard made about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin? In a routine Bernhard issued a gang rape threat that in and of itself is wrong but then included outrageous and racially motivated stereotypical rants. For instance the Hollywood star said and I quote, “gang-raped by my big black brothers” should she enter Manhattan as expected this week for the opening of the UN General Assembly. The statement a direct relation to the large crime in New York’s urban downtown and used race to make it that much worst and also Alaska’s ranking as the state with the largest number (per capita) of force rape complaints in the nation.

In poll after poll we are starting to see that Barack Obama, America’s first black nominee of a major political party, faces an uphill battle even amongst democrats strictly because of his race. These people aren’t refusing to vote for Obama because of his stance on the issues or what he wants to do for America but because he is black. It is comments like these that make that battle harder to achieve. So what should be done?

1) Sandra Bernhard should issue an immediate apology not only to the governor of Alaska but all African American men who already face racism everyday for people who think her “jokes” are actual reality. To use the image of the big black urban brothers ganging up on the small, slender, pretty, white girl from a small town plays directly into those unfounded fears that set so many blacks behind.

2) Barack Obama should condemn and return any money she has raised or given to his campaign. For the most part the Obama campaign has made a practice of being a clean and on the issue campaign. It is attacks like these that damage that change armor we all hope that the junior senator from Illinois will bring to Washington. Time after time his campaign has fired or distanced themselves from supporters who cross the line. This is one of those times.

Tha-Kid JK

tha-kid@revkitchen.com

Michigan Blogger On Board

Hello! My name is Dexter Zhuang, and I am a new Think Youth blogger hailing from the ‘burbs of Southeastern Michigan. I am excited to help out the cause! A senior of Novi High School, I avidly participate in lovely activities such as of Debate, Forensics, Model UN, City Youth Council and others. Debate is the one that takes up the most time but has helped me achieve the most success.

I am the Editor-in-Chief of the Michigan Youth Political Alliance, a youth community blog much like this one that I started no more than two months ago. Blogging is my passion and has afforded me opportunities I could not have found anywhere else. For example, through blogging I have collaborated with MiVote, a student political YouTube for my state, to increase student political awareness and participated in the Emerging Leaders Forum, a discussion between young adults 16-35 years of age on how to make progress in our beloved state, at The Center For Michigan.

In the summer of 2007, I attended Operation Bentley, a city and state government program at Albion College. In the summer of 2008, I attended the Ben Franklin Transatlantic Institute, an international student diplomacy program at Wake Forest University, as one of 12 Americans. There, I took a class on media and blogging taught by Dr. Ross Smith of Wake Forest and was hooked immediately. Since then, I have become extremely active in the blogging world.

My political opinions are mostly liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. However, I hardly consider myself a libertarian. I just think that the engine of economic growth lies with the private sector though the government should sometimes prime the engine a bit. I am a big fan of Thomas Friedman’s economic concepts.

In my past time, I love playing ultimate frisbee and going out for sushi. I enjoy going to rock concerts and large social events. My hopes and goals for the near future include traveling the world–namely European countries–and finishing up my college applications. In the far future, I would like to work in some field related to business, government and law, perhaps as a lawyer or professor.

If These Are Our Friends Than Who Needs Republicans?

Freshman Representative Travis Childers in mainly his first victory in the House of Representatives took to the floor of that body to advocate for the most anti-home rule, undemocratic, and big brother intrusion on the residents of Washington, DC in the history of the body. New to DC and from Mississippi Childers wasn’t happy with the restrictive gun laws of the DC. However earlier in the year the US Supreme Court threw out most of those laws and the elected members of the City Council have been working on new one’s to “comply” with the order. This happens in Congress all the time. They pass a law and then the court strikes it down. Congress then works to comply with it. That is how this democracy works. Not for the newly minted member of Congress from Mississippi eager to show his voters that despite being a democrat he would buck the party if he wants. Even more he was emboldened by the eager support for the NRA and the lackluster of an effort by Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn.

For those who might not be aware of what is going on in the Hall of Congress, the US House of Representatives passed a bill today that overruled the laws of the District of Columbia governing hand guns in the city. Now only that but it passage of their bill overturn local laws but it took extreme measures right out of the NRA hand book.

1) For instance the new bill Childers says he wrote would allow for the carrying of military style, long guns that are similar to AK-47s, and concealable Uzis on the streets of Washington, DC. Can you imagine a city full if residents armed to the teeth with Uzis?

2) This bill would cancel the current ban in DC from interstate travel of gun purchases into the city. This is not out of line with many states that prohibit the sale of guns into their state or city from other jurisdictions. Now of course there are countless loopholes in those laws, however this bill would gut that law totally and it in direct words encourage residents to seek guns from Maryland and VIRGINA. Why does Virgina cause alarms so much? This is a state that is being sued by many cities because the large number of guns made and sold in those states that violate other state laws and end up in crimes committed in those states.

3) Finally an issue that greatly shocks me is the complete dump of any gun registration at all. Childers would make it illegal for the city to require residents with guns to have to register those guns. These are the same requirements in place in almost every other state in the union.

Childers is from Mississippi. His state just went through a massive hurricane that reaped large damage in the numbers of billions of dollars all over the state. The economy is falling right in front of our eyes while gas prices continue to be on the rise. So what does Childers use more than a day on? Gun laws in the District of Columbia even though it is well known that the DC Council was working hard to comply with the order from the court.

Childers is only one of the focuses we should look at. The other is where the hell was Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Majority Whip James Clyburn? Not once could they take out three minutes of their night to come to the floor and address this issue? Where was the leadership in blocking from a vote this substitute bill that Childers wrote? Where is the outrage at the 80 something party members who jumped ship to side with the GOP? On almost every other issue the party fights to ensure the leadership wins these battles.

Since the Democrats have come to power two years ago the Speaker has used parliamentary procedure to protect and uphold party values. On issues of equal pay, the war in Iraq, health care, you name it. She has rewarded members for their staunch support of those values and dared others to cross her. However when it comes to a majority black city with crime through the roof all of the sudden it is time for members to “vote their values”. Give me a break.

If these people are our friends then trust me we don’t need the Republicans.

Tha-Kid JK

tha-kid@revkitchen.com

A Moment of E-Silence

At lunch today, a good friend of mine asked our table what we all thought about having a moment of silence during school for the victims of 9/11. Everybody agreed that it was a good idea, but I didn’t say anything. Not because I didn’t agree with everybody else, I just thought the question had a pretty obvious answer. Then he turned to me specifically and said “And I’m guessing that you have something wrong with that…”

I’m not that cynical that I don’t believe in moments of silence, and my friend isn’t stupid, he’s just been sucked in by the Fox News style propaganda that anybody who is liberal or doesn’t support the George Bush 90% of the time is a bad person whose dissent supports terrorism. Of course, that’s crazy talk.

Just in case, let me make this perfectly clear: I support moments of silence on September 11th. In fact, right here I’ll have an emoment of silence. Please take some time to reflect on all the tragedies throughout the world: Iraq, Darfur, Israel, Palestine, and all the rest, but more importantly, let’s remember September 11th, 2001. And not for trying to pin the blame on somebody, but to make sure we don’t forget what that was like to be attacked, and to remember the victims who’s lives were cut short so unjustly.

I was helping a friend the other day write a story which mentioned September 11th, and we couldn’t think of the right verb for the attacks. Finally, we settled on describing it like a cancer invading the towers that day. And it was certainly settling. I’m not sure that anybody is ever going to find the right words.

America did learn one thing from 9/11 though, and it is something that we need to remember in the coming months as the election approaches and our words get ever more vicious. We can unite as one people, and we are more the same than different.

Crossposted at We’re Quite Hostile

Barack Obama, President

For months I have been mulling a Bob Barr endorsement. But after some consideration, I will reluctantly support Barack Obama.

In the first months of the primaries, I supported libertarian Ron Paul, since I am a libertarian. If Ron Paul would have won the Republican nomination, I am confident he would win in a landslide. But once it was inevitable that Paul had lost the nomination after loses in Iowa and New Hampshire he did fairly well in Nevada and won in Louisiana - people will tell you McCain won it, but Paul did - I endorsed Bill Richardson.

Shortly after that Richardson dropped out, and I endorsed the last good candidate left in the race, Hillary Clinton. I felt Hillary had the executive experience, and that Senator Obama’s only executive experience was on the board of Chicago’s Annenberg challenge, which is not presidential.

Obama was a state Senator, only active in the US Senate for 146 days, whoever supported him in the primaries (nearly 18 million voters) must have been high on something! But Hillary Clinton (a little over 18 million votes) had the experience to be president. But once Joe Biden was picked, I knew Barack Obama was walking away from just saying “change” and “hope” to focusing on the issues like Hillary Clinton.

Bob Barr seems like a good candidate with seven percent of responders in today’s Rasmussen tracking poll choosing someone besides Obama or McCain. But he still seems like a waste of a vote.

And so I reluctantly support Senator Barack Obama for president.

Next Page »