Election Time Again

CONGRESS, STATE ASSEMBLY, STATE SENATE:

In elections past, I could just say “Vote Republican or Die!” However, now, with the new “jungle primary” system, you may have two Democrats running against each other in many places. So use your best damage control judgment.


GOVERNOR: Neel Kashkari

This is probably futile, as Governor Brown is too entrenched. And in fairness, “Governor Moonbeam” has not been as bad as I had feared. Still, I will protest vote for Mr. Kashkari on these issues:
1. Judicial Appointees (see “California Supreme Court Judges” section below)
2. The “high speed rail” (sic) boondoggle
3. Neel Kashkari hasn’t signed onto a “Transgender Bathroom Bill” or other such nonsense.
4. The 2nd Amendment
5. Prison realignment / early prisoner releasing (see also Proposition 47 below)
6. “Cap and Trade” Tax Increase and other “Climate Change” fraudulent “science” (no, fudging data to make it fit your computer model is NOT science), in order to bilk us proles filling up our gas tanks
7. Pension reform of state workers

What is sad is that apparently back in the Republican Primary, the GOP Establishment pushed Mr. Kashkari over the Tea Party favorite, Tim Donnelly, because Mr. Donnelly dared address the Elephant In California’s Room—the illegal alien problem. And the GOP Establishment is too afraid, or perhaps too greedy for cheap gardeners and maids, and doesn’t want to address that.


LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Ron Nehring

For the same reasons as Governor above, plus Gavin Newsom’s truly smarmy character.



SECRETARY OF STATE: Pete Peterson

The Issue: Voter IDs.

The Democrat Dishonesty here, claiming “discrimination”, is enough to make any sensible person disgusted. Although I suppose we are discriminating against key voting blocs such as Non-Americans, Deceased Americans, Fictional Americans, Canine Americans and Feline Americans. All important Democrat voter groups.

On a lighter note, I am reminded of the classic 1980’s teenage movie “The Breakfast Club”, where, when the Jock high school character asks the Nerd high school character why he has a fake ID, since the Nerd is shunned by the “in” crowd at school and can’t drink and party with them anyway, the Nerd replies, “So I can vote!” As a kid in the 1980’s, I understood that well.


CONTROLLER: Ashley Swearengin

While her opponent, Betty Yee, has done nothing particularly Demunistic or Commiecratic, Ms. Swearengin deserves massive kudos for her financial acumen as Mayor of Fresno, keeping the City Of Fresno in the black—at a time when most San Joaquin Valley cities and towns were and still are on the skids.


TREASURER: Greg Conlon

Given the term limits rules, California politicos have to play “musical chairs”. Current Controller John Chiang is now trying to make the jump to Treasurer.

However, Greg Conlon has championed realistic pension reform, something badly overdue in the state government.

ATTORNEY GENERAL: Ronald Gold

Current Attorney General Kamala (Commie-lah) Harris has a hostility to self-defense and a propensity to coddle criminals if they are the right color, and it is nauseating. We are lucky not to have a Ferguson, Missouri incident in this state yet.

And lest you think Ronald Gold is just another crusty conservative Republican, he has actually talked about legalizing pot, on the grounds that the Prohibition laws we now have are not realistic.


INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: Ted Gaines

A former State Assemblyman and now State Senator in my area, and all around good guy. He also opposes Propositions 45 and 46 (see below).


CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT JUDGES:

This issue has not been discussed much, but this up or down, yes or no plebiscite is probably *the most important matter* on this ballot, given the Left’s propensity to appoint judicial tyrants who impose their whims upon us all. We must remove judges who read into the Constitution what blatantly does not exist, and read out of the Constitution what blatantly *does* exist. Hence, I have this bolded.

Where I do fault Governor Brown, it is mostly *here*. Brown’s appointments have been abysmal.

We must restore the Rule of Law, rather than continue the Rule Of Whims that we have had ever since the overturning of Proposition 8. Even if you DO think homosexual relationships deserve the *exact* same legal status as a marriage, then such matters are to be hashed out in the legislatures, not imposed by tyrants in black robes. The Constitution is utterly silent on this matter. There is NO reference to sexual orientation whatsoever in the Constitution. Not even so much as "I'm a little bi-curious..."

However, the Tenth Amendment tells us that the powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That means this issue needs to be hashed out in the legislatures, not subject to Roe-style hijacking.

See also: http://www.judgevoterguide.com for judges in your local area. Meanwhile, for the state as a whole:


Justice Goodwin Liu: NO!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps the most nauseating and Rose Bird like justice we have now is Goodwin Liu, appointed by Jerry Brown after the Republicans in the US Senate blocked Obama from appointing him to a Federal Bench. Ever wonder why we can’t get a death row murderer the execution he so righteously deserves? You can thank Goodwin Liu and his ilk for that. See also Affirmative Racism and forced School Busing.

“Liu's criticism of Judge John Roberts and especially his statement during Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination: "Judge Alito's record envisions an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse; where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance, where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man, absent [an] analysis showing discrimination, is not the America we know. Nor is it the America we aspire to be"[25] was targeted by Senate Republicans as proof of his lack of judicial temperament and partisanship. Liu later apologized and said that his words were "unduly harsh".[26]

Enough said. Kick this tyrant in black robes out.


Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar: NO!

Goodwin Liu’s understudy.


Justice Kathryn Mickle Weredegar: YES

Has been there since the days of Governor Dukemejian, and she has not let the Power Of The Bench go to her head.


COUNTY COURT JUDGES:

For Santa Clara County:

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 6
Miguel Marquez–  NO
Adrienne M. Grover–  NO
Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian–  YES
Franklin D. Elia–  YES
Eugene Milton Premo–  YES

Judge – Superior Court; County of Santa Clara; Office 24
Matthew S. Harris-- YES
Diane Ritchie-- YES

For Sonoma County:
Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 1, Division 1
Jim Humes–  NO
Kathleen M. Banke– YES

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 1, Division 2
Therese M. Stewart–  NO
J. Anthony Kline–  NO

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 1, Division 3
Stuart R. Pollak–  NO
Martin J. Jenkins–  YES

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 1, Division 4
Ignazio John Ruvolo–  YES

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 1, Division 5
Terence L. Bruiniers–  YES
Mark B. Simons–  YES


For Sacramento County:

Justice, California State Court of Appeal; District 3
Vance W. Raye–  YES
Louis Mauro–  YES
Andrea Lynn Hoch–  YES
William J. Murray, Jr.–  YES
Jonathan K. Renner–  NO
Elena J. Duarte–  NO
Ronald B. Robie– YES


SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: Marshall Tuck

Mr. Tuck may be talking a Big Reform Talk, and we shall see how well he walks the School Reform walk. Still he is much better than Teacher Union Stooge Tom Torlakson.


STATE BALLOT INITIATIVES: 
I am increasingly of the mind to get rid of these, since they seem to be very prone to manipulation and take the onus away from our elected state representatives to actually legislate as they should. However, since they do in fact exist, here we go:


Prop 1 – Water Bond: YES, albeit qualified.

This is a long way from a perfect measure, but it’s as good as it gets in California these days: a $7.545 Billion water bond that spends $2.7 billion of that bond for new water storage!!! In other words, Real Dams! This is much better than the “bait and switch” of the so called “water bonds” of the last decade or more, which were environmental initiatives in disguise. However, the latter still exist in this initiative.

The rest of the bond? It consists of:
--$725 million for water recycling and possible desalination—sort of useful.
--$810 million for “regional water projects”—sort of nebulous, as the wording of the initiative includes environmental gimmicks, but the wording also includes rainwater capture and wastewater reuse. See “Text Of Proposed Law, Chapter 7, sections 79740 to 79747”
--$1,495 million (or $1.495 Billion) for “Watershed protection and restoration”-- wildlife programs in disguise
--$1,420 million (or $1.42 Billion) for “Water Quality”—environmental gimmicks in disguise.
--$395 million for flood protection—perhaps worthy, but not increasing water supply!

If that sounds breathtakingly underwhelming, remember that’s $2.7 billion more than the multi-billions of dollars of “water bonds” that were nothing but wildlife programs in disguise that we’ve spent in recent decades.

Sadly, this initiative doesn’t overhaul the environmental laws that vastly inflate costs and it squanders a great deal more that won’t be used for storage, but it is a step away from the lunacy of the Watermelon Left (or “Green” Left) that adamantly opposes it (see “Arguments” section) and this alone merits support.

While I tend to regret bond financing because it is more debt rather than pay as you go, and the actual costs turn out to be about double the actual price tag, at least this initiative finally *builds more dams*, something long overdue,. So I must say YES, albeit a qualified YES.


Prop 2 – The Rainy Day Fund, a.k.a., Stop Us Before We Screw Up Again: YES.

This repeals much of Prop 58, a vat of Schwarzenegger snake-oil sold to voters as the panacea to the state’s budget woes. It wasn’t. Prop 58 promised an iron-clad reserve, but in reality, the governor could suspend it any time he wanted. He did.

What I like most about Prop 2 is that to raid the required budget reserve, both the governor AND the legislature must agree and then, only for a specifically declared emergency. In a nutshell, it requires the legislature and governor to do what they did voluntarily during the Governor Deukmejian era in the 1980s. Still plenty of loopholes, but better than what we have today.

The opposition to this initiative is coming from the school boards who like the spending straitjacket we were put into by Proposition 98 of 1988. Prop 98 means that a minimum percentage of the state budget *must* go to Education spending—regardless if California has a natural disaster that year, regardless if a serious crisis happens in this state’s economy, no matter what. I oppose spending mandate “budgetary straitjackets” in general.

NOTE: I do, however, support mandates that *additional*revenues get spent in certain ways. For example, since the California Lotto was sold to us as “for the schools”, then by gum, the revenues from it should go *to the schools*, and not get raided for other government programs. Since fuel taxes were sold to us as “for roads and transit”, then by gum, the revenues from them should go *to the roads and transit*, and not get raided for other government programs. Surplus from the Lotto? Then dole out more prizes. Surplus from fuel taxes? Then lower the fuel taxes. You get the idea.


Prop 45 – Price Controlling Health Insurance, a.k.a., If You Thought Obamacare Was Bad: NO!!!

This is a trial lawyers’ measure that give the state insurance commissioner the power to set health care rates. Sound good? Doctors and other health care providers are already opting out of Obamacare because of artificially low rates; this compounds the problem for California. The good news it you’ll have cheap health insurance. The bad news is you won’t have a lot of providers accepting it.

This kind of mentality was what led to California’s Car Insurance Fiasco of 1988, where people thought they could just *price control* car insurance without addressing why car insurance was and is so costly in the first place. Price controls are indeed the Demunist mentality at its most Commiecratic. And surprise, surprise, one of the major backers of this terrible proposition is “Pee Wee Harvey” Rosenfeld, who also brought us the Car Insurance Price Control Fiasco that was Proposition 103 in 1988.


Prop 46 – Trial Lawyering Health Care, a.k.a., If You Thought Prop 45 Was Bad: NO!!!

Another trial lawyers’ measure that quadruples the amount they can get for pain and suffering awards. Prop. 45 means lower provider reimbursements and Prop. 46 means higher provider costs. It also requires drug testing for doctors, which is a stupid idea but I appreciate the poetic justice in making THEM pee into little cups for a change. Anyway, it won’t matter because your doctor will be out of state.

Prop 47 – Decriminalizing Property Crime, a.k.a., Rose Bird’s Revenge: NO!!!

We have gone overboard on drug-related offenses, which makes *part* of the Proposition a good idea.

However, this Proposition can only be described as a drug-induced hallucination, in the way that it *decriminalizes* many crimes against property. Sorry, property rights matter. Robbery, Burglary, Theft and Grand Larceny are serious “strike” crimes and deserve serious time. This initiative reduces many grand-theft crimes to misdemeanors and would release an estimated 10,000 incarcerated criminals back on the streets. Basically, it is a burglar’s get-out-of-jail free card. Good news for alarm companies and the handful of 60’s radicals nostalgic for Rose Bird – bad news for the rest of us. Hide the silver.

But this Proposition, along with recent moves by Governor Brown and the Legislature, is part of a disturbing trend: the watering down of the “three strikes” felony laws. When the Brown Administration boasts of keeping within the budget, even while building the “high speed rail” (sic), keep in mind that they are achieving this by moving some state inmates down to County Jails, and letting some County Jail inmates out early. This will come back to bite us all in the future.


Prop 48 – More Indian Gaming: NEUTRAL / Undecided.

Argument For: This ratifies Indian Gaming compacts for two tribes in economically depressed regions of the state that would allow those two tribes to open a casino near a major highway. This will be an economic boon to the struggling local communities there.

Arguments Against:
1. Opponents see this as a gateway to letting *any* tribe move its casino wherever it wants.
2. Is encouraging more games of chance just encouraging more of a “something for nothing” mentality in general???

Observations:
1. One of the big contributors to the NO campaign is—surprise surprise—ANOTHER Indian Casino! Gee, I thought the gaming tribes were supposed to share revenues with the non-gaming tribes, because not every tribe is lucky enough to be near the main highway.
2. Let us once and for all debunk the notion that somehow those lofty “Native Americans” have deep respect for the land more than any of the rest of us: “We found the bones of our sacred ancestors on that parcel when they were building the freeway by it—so naturally we put a casino on top of them!” :-D

Mountain Lions and Foothill Suburbs

Mountain Lions are definitely on the upswing and are more and more bold with their range. They are prowling my old neighborhood.

Contrary to sentimental belief, it is NOT the the suburban foothill developments are intruding on the mountain lions' traditional range. On the contrary, the mountain lions are *coming down from the mountains* to explore what food the suburbs have to offer.

The ranchers and fruit growers in days gone by, who used to occupy the places where the foothill subdivisions are now, had no qualms about shooting the big cats. Moreover, the ranchers and growers were not likely to leave food out for them.

The growth of suburban areas that are not keen on firearms discharge, combined with increased pet food left out (and sometimes the smaller pets *themselves* as mountain lion food) and scraps to forage, have ironically led to more mountain lions.

Another key fact is, contrary to the oft repeated saw that "we are shrinking their land" - given the vast green belts and open space preserves surrounding the Bay Area, *lobbied for by the environmentalists*, and the conversion of hinterland usages from things like logging, ranching, farming and mining, to things more like second homes, primary homes and "country estates" for wealthy Silicon Valley people, the habitat for Mountain Lions and all other large mammals has become a lot less challenging than it was 40 years ago.

A lot less lead flying at the critters (not to mention, a lot fewer traps).

It is ironic. The more citified (or more properly, suburbanized) the Bay Area became, the more bold and overpopulated some of the wildlife became.

Suburban shrubbery attracts more deer, and suburban gardening and garbage cans attract more skunks and raccoons, as well.

Contrary to the notion that increased homes mean decreased wildlife at all times, for some species, the arrival of Suburban Man is a downright boon.

When the "Planners' complain about "Sprawl", what do they really mean?

"Sprawl" = affordable pleasant single family homes with yards for people, and the commercial enterprises that come along to serve people and employ some of them. Industrial parks can sometimes come along too, but usually the industrial site came first, which caused population influx (see below).

"Sprawl" draws the wrath of wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners", more on them later.

However, "sprawl" is a simple result of population influx and The Two Out Of Three Rule.

The Two Out of Three Rule is the simple principle that while buyers want homes that are (1) affordable, (2) convenient (usually to/from work), and (3) safe and pleasant, in the Real World most people can only have Two out of those Three.

(3) Safe and Pleasant, for most people, means (a) no or at least minimal criminality, (b) a yard for themselves and their families, (c) a park nearby that is also non or at least minimally criminal.

"Sprawl", therefore, is the result of homebuyers giving up, or going short on, convenience (usually to/from work), in favor of having, or going long on, affordability and safety and pleasant conditions.

This is anathema to the wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners", who would rather demand that we the people (who they view as Petty Bourgeois or Aspiring Proles) give up our desires for a yard for ourselves and their families.

The even more extreme wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners", insist that we Petty Bourgeois or Aspiring Proles give up our desires for no or at least minimal criminality, and forget or never mind a park nearby that is also non or at least minimally criminal. Why, that's ray-cist!

The wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners", pay lip service the "alternative" idea that "New Urbanism", or "infill development", meaning more dense development in the inner city, can house us, the Petty Bourgeois or Aspiring Proles. However, when it comes to *actual* infill development, the same Commissars who claim to want it often *then* turn around and call it "Manhattanization", and end up *curtailing* it, in favor of a "People's Park" here, or a "Community Garden" there, or just restricting denser development in general. And yet they still tut-tut and cluck-cluck about the "Sprawl" that is exacerbated as a result.

Meanwhile many families still want a yard for themselves and/or their families. While dense infill development *can* appeal a good many people, most notably the childless, the single, and the non-heterosexual, a good many people are still simply *not* served by the "New Urbanist" model.

But of course, we are Petty Bourgeois and Aspiring Proles, and our petty bourgeois aspirations must be snuffed out in the warped minds of a good many of the wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners".

When New Urbanist infill developments do succeed, they become pricey, because they are convenient and nice and pleasant (at least they are to the the childless, the single, and the non-heterosexual anyway), and so, they are *no longer* affordable.

The Two Out Of Three Rule still holds in any area with significant population influx.

A good many inner city neighborhoods remain definitely *not* pleasant, and thus they fail. They often fail because the same wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners" have ideological bents, such as:

--the view that the "authentic" behavior of people in said inner cities is to behave like thugs and criminals because they are racial/ethnic group X, and those of us who are not racial/ethnic group X have some kind of "privilege" that makes us behave like decent citizens. This is known as Turning Crime Into A Civil Right.

--the view that we Petty Bourgeois or Aspiring Proles must not arm and defend ourselves against thuggery and we must depend upon the benevolence of the same wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners". This is known as "gun control".

The solution is to tell the wanna-be Party Commissars who euphemistically call themselves "urban planners" to "Put up or SHUT UP."

The Donald Sterling kerfluffle

So the Left media noise machine is generating outrage about Donald Sterling's stupid remarks (and yes, they were rather stupid). But no one asks the real questions:

1. Gee, maybe Mr. Sterling doesn't like being cuckolded? Although the douchebag's cheating on his spouse with this mistress of his certainly does not say much for him. Can't say which side of "too much" she is on the enhancement surgery scale. What is evident, though, is that she could suck a bowling ball through 50' of garden hose.

2. Mr. Sterling may be the greatest douchebag alive at the moment, but it is somewhat amusing to see that somehow saying something somewhat "racist" now trumps at least misdemeanor wiretapping laws. Didn't we once impeach a president over wiretapping? Of course, he was an evil white guy, but...

3. It is also amusing to see liberal douchebags like Mr. Sterling dole out millions to the NAACP and other black liberal politicos. How did that work out for him?

4. What about all this kerfluffle makes me think that this was a shakedown by a jilted ex at her former sugar daddy? This girlfriend who was sued in court by Sterling's wife to return the Lamborghini and Ferrari and pricey apartment given to her by Sterling.

Sterling is an old fool, to think that his girlfriend would NOT be cheating on him massively with various Alpha males, never mind the blackness of Athletes like former Rihanna boyfriend Matt Kemp.

At any rate this seems a way to generate some quick TMZ cash ... listening to the full tape, you can just sense her lawyer coaching her to bait Sterling into saying "Black" when frankly, he's really concerned more about the Athlete/Alpha Male part. I really doubt Mr. Sterling would be happy with his trophy hootchie cheating on him with a strapping *white* athlete either.

All that said, It's impossible to feel sorry for the old fool, being a stupid old man thinking some young "Adventuress" would actually be interested in him for anything other than his money.

Mr. Sterling may be a despicable person, but his former trollop is far worse.

“Clinton Library Reveals CRA Fueled Subprime Bubble”

The Community Reinvestment Act is the gift that keeps on giving....

Newly released memos from the Clinton presidential library reveal evidence the government had a big hand in the housing crisis. The worst actors were in the White House, not on Wall Street.

During the 1990s, former Clinton aides bragged that more aggressive enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act pressured banks to issue riskier mortgages, lending more proof the anti-redlining law fueled the crisis. 

A 2012 National Bureau of Economic Research study found “that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks,” with “a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam, (and) the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or low-income and minority areas. 

To satisfy CRA examiners, Clinton mandated “flexible” lending by large banks. As a result, CRA-approved loans defaulted about 15% more often, the NBER found. 

Exhibit A in the 7,000-page Clinton Library document dump is a 1999 memo to him from his treasury secretary, Robert Rubin.

“Public disclosure of CRA ratings, together with the changes made by the regulators under your leadership, have significantly contributed to … financial institutions … meeting the needs of low- and moderate-income communities and minorities,” Rubin gushed. “Since 1993, the number of home mortgage loans to African Americans increased by 58%, to Hispanics by 62% and to low- and moderate-income borrowers by 38%, well above the overall market increase.

“Since 1992, nonprofit community organizations estimate that the private sector has pledged over $1 trillion in loans and investment under CRA.

”Other documents reveal how the community-activist group ACORN and other organizations met with Rubin and other top Clinton aides on “improving credit availability for minorities.”

Clinton’s changes to the CRA let ACORN use the act’s ratings to “target merging firms with less-than-stellar records and to get the banks to agree to greater community investment as a condition of regulatory approval for the merger,” White House aide Ellen Seidman wrote in 1997 to Clinton chief economist Gene Sperling.

“Community groups have come to recognize how terribly powerful CRA has been as a tool for making credit available in previously underserved communities,” Seidman added.

Seidman later boasted that Clinton’s 1995 CRA revisions created not only the subprime mortgage market but also the subprime securities market. Of course, subprime loans and their high default rates ruined minority neighborhoods when the market crashed.

Memos also reveal how Clinton aides held repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act hostage to strengthening the CRA. They gave Republicans deregulation of banking activities in exchange for over-regulating how those banking activities applied to low-income communities.

[...]

In 2000, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo lit the fuse on the subprime bomb by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase subprime, CRA and other risky mortgages totaling half their portfolios.

A 1993 memo, “Racism in Home Lending,” captured the tone of Clinton’s affordable-housing crusade. It proposed coordinating with the Washington Post and Congressional Black Caucus on bank investigations. 

These White House papers are smoking-gun evidence of Clinton’s culpability in creating the subprime bubble. The mainstream media’s silence is deafening.

 Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom asks,

It consistently amazes me how the American people re-elect to office the very kinds of people who cause them so much harm, be it to liberty or property. Maybe we’re a nation of masochists.

What we are is a nation that can be race-baited. This was all about the “Affirmative Action” in home lending.

And as long as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were underwriting it, why should any thoughtful banker care?

Go along to get along, or face shakedown lawsuits from the race pimps.

The Dow Paradox

How is it, despite the utterly counter productive and business bashing moves of this Obama Administration, is the stock market reaching new highs?

First, we must understand that these highs are *nominal* highs, and they are achieved with "Quantitatively Eased" dollars. In real terms, a 16,469 Dow closing today simply *does not* mean what a 12,000 Dow meant in 2006, let alone what an "irrationally exuberant" Dow of 14,000 meant in 2007.

And what of the irrational exuberance of today? What is truly underpinning this economy? And more importantly, what isn't?

For all the Leftist Rhetoric about the "99 percent", it is the politically connected 1%, like big time Obama donors at General Electric for example, who are making out big in this easy credit driven market boom.

Rahm Emanuel famously said that a crisis should not be wasted. Well, the Obama administration has made a very good use of this one. By relatively shielding the wealthy and the educated, the Obama bureaucracy loving elite has used the crisis to make the less prosperous and less educated poorer and more dependent on government largess. How? By using tax payer money to employ the grad school educated in more and more government administrative jobs and by pumping money into the stock markets through near zero percent bank lending.

 

The result? Two Americas. (1) A mostly employed graduate degree America increasingly drawn to secure, well paid, prestigious if unproductive government jobs, and (2) the increasingly underemployed rest.

How come? The promise of continued low interest rates emboldens those who have gobs and gobs of money to afford risking losing it, i, e., hedge funds and other professionals.

 

Meanwhile, other individuals with just a little bit of savings are too worried by the dire economy (high unemployment, poor housing markets and record national debt) to risk what remains of their funds. So, they missed the bull market.

What do they do with their money? They put it in the bank for very little return. For as Charles Schwab poignantly notes, Low Interest Rates Punish the Savers and the Prudent.  To make matters worse, American saw their personal income decline by by 3.2% during the Obama presidency. Not to mention that “At the end of last year, debt averaged $43,874 per American, or about 122% of annual disposable income,” though economist debt should exceed 100%.

Ironically, to jump start the economy, Americans, and not merely wealthy ones, are encouraged to spend more, not less of money many do not have. Some fear their money is going to be worth less and less not to mention the probability that an increasing percentage of it will be lost to regressive taxes. They are getting more and more dependent on food stamps, unemployment checks and soon to come government health care.

 

The big question, of course, is when all these quantitatively eased chickens come home to an inflationary roost.