Ken's Comments

Earlier some Republican Governors announced they would decline Federal Stimulus funds and the media and political opponents were highly critical. The State of PA is quietly considering whether to do the same thing. The Philadelphia Inquirer does a nice job of laying out the issues that point to why a state should consider rejecting "free money" to help unemployed workers. The gist of the Inquirer article (cited below) is essentially this - the PA Unemployment Fund is broke. The downturn in the economy has outstripped the funds available. A panel was appointed to figure out what to do. One of the things they were asked to consider is whether the state should accept $273 million in federal funds from the Stimulus package. Why would PA, or any state, reject free money from the federal government? Well primarily because it is not free. It will cost the Pennsylvania $300 million to get $273 million in federal funds. As the Inquirer article does a good job of describing, to

President Obama did a very good thing yesterday. He took executives of credit card companies to the woodshed in a private meeting with them. The President then outlined a list of practices he wants to see credit card companies implement. Congratulations to President Obama for doing a very good thing. Credit card companies have long used scads of small print to mislead consumers and to be able to change terms at a whim from those the consumer agreed to at the time of entering into the contract to borrow. These have included shortening payment cycles, raising interest rates, and imposing penalties. The result is that some Americans are deeper in debt merely because of these changes and not because of their borrowing habits. There is a proper use for government regulation and this is it. President Obama has called for clear disclosure of credit card terms, ending the unilateral ability of credit card companies to change the contract terms with little or no notice and, most important

I was moved to post my thoughts on President Obama's economic policies in order to, in some small way, counter the comments of pro-Obama media persons. Specifically, Janeane Garofalo ranted (I believe on MSNBC) that everyone who opposed President Obama is a racist. She said a lot of other things derogatory about such opponents too -- tea-bagging, rednecks I think was another term used. Paul Begala, a CNN commentator, said on the Don Imus radio show that everyone who opposed President Obama's tax policies were unpatriotic. He added a variety of other derogatory comments as well. Well, if not wanting to see a return to the economic conditions that existed during the period of 1979 to 1982 makes me a racist or unpatriotic, then so be it. Unfortunately, pro-Obama commentators don't seem to want to discuss rational arguments, they just want to resort to name calling. p.s. Page back to my discussion of what is a conservative point of view if you wonder why I say "Pro-Obama

I am very concerned that the President's policies are going to lead this country into more serious economic problems than we have today. This is not to say that all aspects of the Obama Administration's policies are wrong. However, the fundamental premise of these policies is wrong. I have not heard anyone in the Obama Administration admit the difficult truth that the economy is changing nor does it seem that the goals they are pursuing reflect that. If the economy does not recover along the lines they project, then the massive expenditures being made will come home to roost in the former of significant inflation. The Obama Administration has called for spending massive amounts of money over the next few years. These amounts will raise the national debt to staggering new levels. Some of the things they are spending on are good ideas -- green technology, improving the environment, more mass transit, supporting Amtrak. All of these are good ideas. However these are merely