Housing Stimulus

Watching politics is akin, in my mind, to watching one of those teen horror shows, spoofed by movies like "Scary Movie."

One by one, kids are getting killed. As a member of the audience, we can see the killer skillfully gliding through the background, chainsaw or machete in hand, hacking and hewing his way through a cast of good kids who just made a bad choice. With a dollop of gratuitous nudity from time to time.

This is the best analogy I can come up with for the current political season. In the foreground you have a lot of people with good intentions, and in the background you have folks with the ability to kill jobs and industry skillfully gliding through the background, killing and killing again. Which brings me to the topic of housing stimulus.

As counter-intuitive as it may seem--given the recent housing bubble "pop"--your politicians are talking about introducing programs to create more demand for housing. The guy with the mask and the chainsaw did so well for us earlier, they want to extend his contract.

Is there any wonder that financial markets are in disarray?

Our financial system is a lot like the human body. Damage a part, and the body begins the process of repair. Some damage might be life threatening. Some may threaten the viability of a limb, finger, ear. The body doesn't care. It sets about attempting to fix the damage. New capillaries are formed. New veins are formed. The body attempts to set right what damage has been done.

Of course, there are times when you are best served by seeking help. But there is a huge difference between the code of ethics of medicine than that of politics. I think we are brought up on the Hippocratic Oath, to never knowingly do harm.

Politicians aren't so limited.

Rather than taking responsibility for creating the recent financial havok, they are now in the mood to create more mischief. Whether it's at your state level, or at the federal level, politicians are attempting to help by increasing artificial demand for housing. So, whether it's returning to sound financial practices, or simple energy policies that increase supply and reduce prices, we see politicians with Vision increasing the harm.

So, let's look at the latest fiasco afoot, "Independence Station."

Out of the box this Housing Solution is going to lose money. Happily, it will be a "fortunate few." This is just another example of the elite planning that goes into losing money. Go to their website. They don't even understand the irony of their sales pitch. "An hour's drive..."

Sheesh.

I usually end up rooting for the guy with the mask and chainsaw. It's just a movie, after all.

A Commentor's Note:Electoral College

I really want to thank Uncle Walt for his comment posted here.

He wrote to his State Senator, the man who is currently serving in "Sid Snyder's Seat" in Olympia.

Here is the response by Senator Brian Hatfield:

"The electoral college has already been change(sic) by Maine and Nebraska, which proportion by Congressional district. Because those states are small, few people are aware of the 'unlevel playing field' that is being created.

"If California proportioned by Congressional district, we'd NEVER elect another Democrat President. If Texas did it, the same could be said for Republicans. It's not about "taking away Washington's voice." It's about uniformity.

"If I could vote to force Maine and Nebraska to go back to the old way, or force ALL 50 STATES to proportion by Congressional district, I would. Unfortunately, we can't do that so the National Popular Vote compact is the only way we can get to uniformity and a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. "Frankly, I can't understand why others can't understand this argument. >> -BH"

Here is Uncle Walt's response to the e-mail he received from Senator Brian Hatfield:

"Perhaps I can explain why others "fail to understand" the arguments you put forth.

"The Electoral College is NOT about a 'level playing field' or 'uniformity'. It never was. Nor was it ever about the popular vote. I refer you to the Federalist Papers on the subject. In them, you will discover it was about putting a 'check and balance' on the popular vote. Basically, it was intended to prevent an unqualified, but charismatic, candidate from attaining office.

"Unfortunately, the Founders left the method of setting up the Electoral College to each state. Which, btw, is further proof that it was never intended to be about a 'level playing field' nor 'uniformity'.

"If the Founders had intended it to be about 'uniformity', they would have set the Electoral College up as a federal standard ... rather than leaving it up to each individual state how to run it."

"If they had intended it to be about a 'level playing field', they wouldn't have created it in the first place ... and left elections up to the popular vote."

I get the feeling that Senator Hatfield is trying to play this both ways. You've read the above, do you read a shift in meaning? "...it was never intended to be about a 'level playing field' nor 'uniformity'."

Then, "...we can't do that so the National Popular Vote compact is the only way we can get to uniformity and a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD."

So, what is it Senator? Maintain the advantage that remains with the States in their role in our Electoral College? Or, adoption of the National Popular Vote Compact?

It seems the Senator is advocating for a "level playing field."

So, thanks to Uncle Walt. But...what is really being said? (Or, hidden?)

(Corrected post, thanks for the clarification, UW.)

It Takes A Village

Watch this with your kids. The critical question comes at minute :34. The answer comes at minute :41.

There is a reason why your public schools can't teach our kids about American exceptionalism, but instead teach "Students will be citizens of the earth, embracing responsibility for self, family, community, and democracy."

They are Leftists. And, they won.

I just imagine schools where ideas are examined, not taught.

Thanks to a Simple Tootsie.