Here's an art show you Atlanta area folks will want to check out.

Steve Penley
The Reconstruction of America

March 28 - June 13, 2009

Opening Reception
Saturday, March, 28, 2009
6 - 9 p.m.

Marietta / Cobb Museum of Art
30 Atlanta St SE • Marietta, GA 30060 • (770) 528-1444

The ObamaBots really like this line, don't they? Rambo E. was the first one to come out with it: "you never let a good crisis go to waste." We've actually heard those words from the Leader of the Free World as well. Yesterday it was the tax cheat in chief ... Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. He was testifying before some group of self-important legislators in Washington when he uttered the line again, though in slightly different form. Said Geithner: "We have a moment of opportunity here, and we don't want to waste this opportunity." What was he talking about? Regulation. Getting the government more and more involved in regulating the private sector.

I know you hate it when I bring this up, but how else are you going to learn? What sort of economic system do you call it when industry, businesses and financial institutions are privately owned but government controlled? The word would be "fascist." Never let a good learning opportunity go to waste.

Talked about this on the show today ... but I recognize that there are a lot of people who read these notes who don't hear my show. Besides ... though I don't really mind, I know that there are quite a few talk show hosts out there who use these notes as their own. No problem. If you say or write something I want to use on my show, you can bet I'll use it.

So ... here's the deal. Federal Express has a contract to purchase 30 Boeing 777s. These airplanes are a bit pricy. I'm going to guess around $180 million a shot for the cargo version. I'm told that the total price for these airplanes would be about $7 billion. Maybe more. When you're talking about 30 of these flying machines you're starting to talk some serious money.

When FedEx negotiated that purchase contract with Boeing they put a little clause in there about unions. Background: Battle between UPS and FedEx. Fedex is organized as an airline. UPS started as a trucking company. Different labor laws apply. It was easier to unionize UPS than it would be to unionize FedEx. For one thing ... Unions can unionize individual locations of UPS .. not so FedEx. The unions want this changed. They want to be able to target FedEx as easily as they did UPS. They're hoping their Democrat buddies in Washington will do this for them.

Then we have the insipid card check bill. Unions actually think that the Democrats are going to give them the right to unionize workplaces simply by intimidating workers to sign a petition. No secret ballot. Just sign the petition. Unions are experts at intimidation .. they know how to get the signatures.

So ... we have FedEx battling unions on both of these fronts ... so they made sure they were covered in the Boeing contract. FedEx knows that if the unions win their business model will suffer. Efficiency at the Memphis FedEx center will be lost as unions start to bog down the process. Business will slow. Money will be lost. Grand plans for growth will be shelved as FedEx tries to deal with a unionized workforce. Soooooo .... FedEx has a clause in the contract which gives FedEx an out .. and yesterday FedEx announced that they would do just that. If congress passes and PrezBO signs a law making it easier to unionize the FedEx workplace, the contract to purchase that $7 billion worth of new 777s will be cancelled.

Here's an email I received from a FedEx employee yesterday:

"I am in my 14th year with Fedex. Union organizers used to come around every year. Employee would throw stuff at them, scream at them telling them to have sex with themselves. Have not seen the organizers for the last 5 or 6 years. My message to them: the day I quit is the day Fedex becomes unionized."

Well said, my friend ... and way to go Federal Express! Maybe the Democrats will seize Federal Express and force them to unionize! All for the public good, you know.

I feel like I have been asking this question a lot more lately. But honestly .. read this quote from Nancy Pelosi. It is about health-care legislation that will include an option for a government-run program that would compete with private insurers.

"This is not only about the health of individuals in our country, which will be justification enough ... It's about the competitiveness of our businesses to make them globally competitive because they are competing with companies and countries where the federal government -- their governments -- pay for health care. They don't have to bear those health care costs."

Hey .. Nancy .. newsflash. It is not the government that will be paying for this healthcare. The government does not generate an income to pay for healthcare. It seizes money from its taxpayers. Money that was earned by the taxpayers. So if the taxpayers have earned the money, and the government seizes it to pay for Democrat dreams and schemes like healthcare .. then the taxpayers are really the ones "bearing those healthcare costs" now aren't then?

Back to the Tax Cheat in Chief. Timothy Geithner laid out his plans yesterday for more government control over financial institutions. And Barney Frank says that while the industry is likely to have their boxers in a bunch over these regulations .. there is nothing they can do about it. He says, "The ability of the financial community to block any of this legislation is diminished completely."

As usual, Jamie Dupree has the full text of the plan.

I make my living from advertisements. Sitting here and criticizing ads, then, would seem to be a bit self-defeating. Sorry, can't help it. Some of the stuff I see on television and hear on the radio is so stupefyingly idiotic that I just can't help myself.

I've been commenting for years about loud, screaming car commercials. I have many friends who are car dealers and work in dealerships. This goes from Chevy to Jaguar ... one end to the other. If you will listen to commercials for the various types of cars you will notice that the louder the commercial, the cheaper the car. Now here's my theory .. and it's a bit insulting, I'll admit. The more educated you are the more money you're going to make, and the more money you make the more expensive car you are likely to buy. So .. education dictates how you roll. Now since the loud and obnoxious commercials are ALWAYS for the cheaper cars, this must mean that the louder the commercial the dumber the advertiser thinks you are. I've actually heard a commercial lately where the announcer keeps yelling "BAM!" at the top of his lungs. Trust me, they're not trying to sell you a Mercedes.

By the way .... I just bought a Chevy Equinox, so don't give me a hard time here.

What brings this on? Well, I was watching the tube today when I came across one of those spots asking you take all of your old gold and shove it into an envelope; then mail it to someone and they'll send you a check. In ordinary times it would be difficult to convince me that someone would actually dump a bunch of their gold into a mailing pack and send it off to people they don't know .. and then sit back and see if they get a check. I say in ordinary times ... but these aren't ordinary times. We have people who voted for a man with absolutely no experience and a cute slogan about "change" to be the president. If you'll do that, you'll send your gold off to someone you don't know and hope you get a check in return.

My guess is that there are more Obama voters driving the less expensive cars than there are driving Jags.

April 15th is getting close! Please remember to pay your taxes. Someone has to pick up the tab for the Treasury Secretary.

Did any of you catch Barack Obama's online town hall meeting? Yeah, neither did I. Apparently the way it worked was that you could submit questions to the White House blog, and then people voted on their favorite questions in different categories. And with everything that is currently happening in our economy and abroad, do you know what the most popular questions were? What is really on Americans minds?

Whether or not Obama supports the legalization of marijuana. Yep. That question topped those on financial stability or the budget or "green jobs." Obama's response was punch-drunk laughter and then, "I don't know what this says about the online audience." And then, to a lot of people's disappointment, Obama said that the legalization of marijuana is not a good strategy for growing our economy.

Actually, Obama is wrong on this one. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars we spend every year on this absurd war on drugs? I know you don't want to hear this, but we can do a better job of reducing drug usage and save a bunch of money in the process by decriminalizing drugs. That money could be left in the hands of the people who actually earned it ---- my kind of economic stimulus.

The IRS has decided that it wants offshore money to come back to the United States. Thrilling news, Americans! Your IRS is willing to give you a HUGE break if you will bring that money back home to work in our economy. The plan being drafted would significantly lower penalties for Americans that keep their money overseas.

Now read that paragraph again. It would lower the PENALTIES! Not the tax rates. Right now the IRS nails you with a 50% penalty on the average balance you had in that overseas account for the past three years. That's just the penalty. When you bring the money back to work on our economy you also get nailed with the regular income taxes. And then, of course, there's the interest. Take the penalty, the taxes and the interest and you have virtually nothing less.

So what is the grand new IRS plan? Well, they'll reduce the penalty - and only the penalty - to either 5% or 20%. If the money was inherited the penalty will be less because you aren't actually the one who sent the money over yonder.

The plan is "intended to lure out of hiding scores of wealthy people who must come forward and declare their accounts in order to take advantage of the lower penalty."

There's a better idea. How much money are we talking about here? Trillions. A lot. I can't see why anyone would be anxious to take part in this plan. Leave the money over there and wait for better times. But what would happen if the government suddenly announced that all of this money could come home with no taxes and no penalty! Just bring it back to work in our economy and there will be no taxes due. I know, taxpayers with their money already in the US will scream about unfair treatment ... but if the goal here is to put more money into our economy without raising taxes or having to borrow the stuff ... then here's your solution. Trillions waiting to come home. Just say the word ... and the word damn sure isn't "we'll reduce the penalty but you'll still have to pay taxes and interest."

There is a problem here ... a problem crystal clear to the political class. If we did declare a tax amnesty, and if those trillions of dollars did come streaming back across the pond and into our economy... guess who gets to spend it? Well, it wouldn't be government. It's private sector money and the private sector would be spending and investing it. This does not please the Democrat mind. The government, and only the government, should be spending this money. When this is over you want to be able to credit the government with bailing us out .. not the private sector. Empower government, not the private sector. Don't you know who's in charge here?

... only if you are "middle class." Not a real shocker here, but basically the Democrats are planning on extending and/or lowering tax rates for middle class Americans. Meanwhile, they will "allow the Bush tax cuts to expire" .. which is just government-speak for "increase taxes."

Senator Max Baucus says that middle class taxpayers will permanently benefit from a 15% tax rate on capital gains taxes. However, higher income tax brackets would pay a capital gains tax of 20% by 2010.

You do realize, of course, that middle class taxpayers aren't generally investors. This means nothing to most of them. The investments come from people with money to invest (duhhhhhhh), and for them ... the capital gains tax rate goes up.

Last week, all of America had their pitchforks ready for the roast .. of the evil AIG employees who received retention bonuses. The House passed a bill that would tax the bonuses at a rate of 90%.

Fast-forward one week later .. the House Financial Services Committee adopted a milder version of the bill. The new legislation allows bailout companies to pay bonuses so long as the government feels the compensation is not "unreasonable or excessive."

Oh. That makes me feel so much better. So it will be Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and tax cheat Tim Geithner who will determine what is considered "unreasonable or excessive." We all know that government would make such a good judge of the unreasonable and the excessive ... like spending taxpayer's money on butterfly gardens, for instance ... or lobster sex.

Question: How long will it be before these power hungry DC Despots decide that their ability to regulate bonuses and executive pay for some financial institutions is so durned fun that it ought to be expanded to the entire private sector? Isn't having power fun!

A little fun for anything goes Friday.

This morning, Obama will announce that he is sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Some Republicans are having buyer's remorse over their votes last week in favor of the AIG bonus taxes. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin says that he would have voted against it if he had known it was unconstitutional. Oh, that's just wonderful. What do you think those aids you have swarming around your office are for?

Not sure why this is coming back into the news, but Rahm Emanuel made $320,000 serving two years on the board of Freddie Mac.

Here's a little preview of nationalized health care. You're begging for it .. here is what you are going to get.

Is it possible to already have a 'vintage Obama'? The guy has only been in office something like 70 days.

You may not have realized this, but if you're white .. especially if you have blue eyes ... then you are the cause of our worldwide economic problems. Clearly you (my eyes are hazel) need to pony up all of the money necessary to solve this problem.

We have a mall in the Atlanta area that has banned teenagers on weekend nights. Wanna hang at the mall? Take yo momma.

The United Nations is now onboard with the idea of a global currency. But Rep. Michele Bachmann has already proposed a bill that would "bar the dollar from being replace by any foreign currency."

Private Swiss banks are banning their executives from traveling abroad because they are worried that they will be detained as part of a global crackdown on bank secrecy.

Barney Frank is concerned about the about the Federal Reserve's emergency powers? Are we talking about the same Barney Frank who is more responsible than any other living human being for the mess we're in right now?

Puppies and kitties cause about 86,000 falls a year. Time to put OSHA in charge of these furry little critters.

The Los Angeles city council is working on a package of tax incentives to keep film and TV productions in Los Angeles. Hollywood wants everyone ELSE to pay their fair share ... certainly not us.

American farmers are urging Barack Obama to make carbon a cash crop under the guise of global warming.

We know that any project funded by the economic stimulus plan is beholden to wage requirements. What is this going to do? Drive up prices for these projects and cost the taxpayers more money!

The Obama administration is going to force automakers to restructure their companies before receiving any more bailout money.

According to a Rasmussen poll, 66% of Americans believe that Barack Obama will raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 a year. Well, he has to pay for his dreams and schemes somehow, doesn't he?

Have you heard about this Serve America Act? Apparently it will do nothing more than add more Americans to the government dole. Let's get these kids used to serving the government interest as quickly as we can.

More cities are considering imposing criminal penalties on kids who are out in public when they should be in school. Can anyone please explain to me how this is Constitutional? Yeah, didn't think so.

This is what Great Britain considers a good use of tax dollars .. spending $6,000 to help relatives contact the dead.

A teen-skank has been charged with child pornography for posting nude pictures of herself on the Internet.