“The Latest Hyp-O-crisy: Czars” by StairwaytoKevin

August 3, 2009

President Obama spent much of his presidential campaign running against, not John McCain (the Republican nominee and his ACTUAL opponent), but George W. Bush.  Uttering the outgoing Republican president’s name – which was actually banned on university campuses, high end cafes, and inner-city parks for fear of inciting riots – was a key component of Obama’s electoral strategy and stump speeches:

Obama: Government Run Health Care…

Puppets: Yeh!

Obama: Wall Street

Puppets: Boo!

Obama: Change

Puppets: Horrah!

Obama: George Bush

Puppets: Lock and Load!

Since taking over the reigns of the White House, the Obama administration has even devoted a significant amount of time to denouncing policies of the Bush administration.  Obama has either used the anti-Bush defense to justify his own shortcomings (“the previous administration spent a lot of money, too, you know?”) or to win concessions otherwise thought unattainable (“Hey, Ahmadinejad, I won’t take up too much of your time.  I know you have to get back to brutally suppressing your insolent people.  But I just wanted to apologize for the previous administration calling you evil.”).

Kenneth Feinberg, President Obamas pay czar, (featured above) has control over several companies Executive Pay.

Kenneth Feinberg, President Obama's "pay czar," (featured above) has control over several companies' Executive Pay.

Occasionally, Obama has quietly continued Bush-era policies – much to the dismay of the left.  For example, Obama has either preserved or tweaked Bush’s approach to state secrets, military commissions, targeted military killings, rendition, and warrantless wiretaps.

One particular case of glaring hypocrisy overlooked by the mainstream media pertains to Obama’s overwhelming reliance on “czars.”  These administration officials have been appointed to develop, implement, and manage federal programs and policies.  They are basically cabinet secretaries; except they bypass the traditional constitutional advice and consent of the Senate, and Obama already has cabinet secretaries.

We all remember the left’s shrieks anytime it was reported Dick Cheney and his “shadow government” coughed.  Candidate Obama decried Bush’s executive branch consolidation of power.  Not only did he blame our nation’s biggest problems on such consolidation, he vowed to reverse the trend when he became president.  I would say “we’re waiting,” but it has become abundantly clear that Obama has established a potent executive consisting of officials that have bypassed legislative and public scrutiny.

Appointing czars is not a novel concept.  Previous administrations have employed this tactic to utilize respected policy experts – typically for a narrow objective (drug czar).  The Obama administration, however, has expanded the role of the czar – numerically and structurally.  There is not even a consensus on the number of czars, but it’s within the 32-35 range.  They range from the consequential (intelligence czar) to the minute (dog czar…ok, not really.  But let’s wait and see if they can come up with the “racism in the Cambridge police department czar.”).

In a cabinet that would make Ivan the Terrible’s blush, Obama also relies on a car czar, compensation czar, and green jobs czar.  These particular czars play a critical role because they dominate sectors no longer deemed capable of abiding by free market principles by the left.  The auto, financial, and alternative energy industries now fall outside the purview of rationale consumers and can only be properly administered by a single individual within the White House.

It’s not enough to have a Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, we also need an urban czar.  Perhaps when urban czar Adolfo Carrion Jr. figures out the intricacies of approving public projects for his private architect or taking donations from real estate agents that benefited from his rezoning, Carrion will truly be able to redress America’s cities.

The newly established Rise of the Machines czar

The newly established "Rise of the Machines czar"

We now have a non-proliferation czar and a war czar, not to be confused with the Secretary of Defense.  Why not merge the non-proliferation czar with the war czar (and throw in the infotech czar to form the long-overdue “Terminator Rise of the Machines Czar”?  Or just bring back the nostalgic “Secretary of War” title to confer upon Robert Gates.

What if you cannot get Tom Daschle confirmed as your Secretary of Health and Human Services because of his tax issues?  No worries, there is a back door.  Just appoint a health-care czar to spearhead your universal government health-care push?  That way, you are not just a hypocrite for the shadow government charge.  By bringing in Nancy-Ann Min DeParle, who made millions in the health care industry after her service in the Clinton administration, you are also a hypocrite on the “no lobbyists in my administration” boast.

We are told that these are perilous times that call for drastic measures.  We have heard this claim before, as far back as President Franklin Roosevelt and as recently Senator Palpatine (http://www.starwars.idv.tw/story/character/dark/senator_palpatine.jpg).  But it is precisely because we face such national uncertainty that we must practice prudence and enhanced oversight.  Health care, finance, manufacturing, and alternative energy comprise trillions of dollars worth of our annual GDP.  Displacing oversight of those industries from officials accountable to the President, Congress, and American people to officials answerable to only the President is an alarming practice.  For it’s one thing to steal a couple of men’s shirts at JC Penney, it’s another to steal our free market and fundamental constructs of our democracy.

StairwaytoKevin usually isn’t this bitter, but with the Yankees playing good ball, he has to switch the focus of his sarcasm and angst.  All comments welcome, but “LOL”s encouraged.


Will the Blame Game Backfire for Obama on National Security?, by StairwaytoKevin

July 19, 2009

While the office of the presidency carries with it immense difficulties, it appears the Obama administration has identified at least one useful loophole.  On an array of issues, ranging from national security to economic policy, the administration has been able to escape defending its positions by merely uttering “Bush-Cheney.”  Such a standard poignant response is obviously intended to evade valid policy concerns by shifting attention to the unpopular previous administration.  “This is Bush’s economy,” or “Iraq is Bush’s War” are just a few we have heard.

This week’s revelation that the post-9/11 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) planned to develop anti-terrorist assassination teams is only the latest installment of the Obama vs. Bush presidency.  Congressional Democrats feigned disbelief that they were kept in the dark on such a significant program.  Plans were sporadically devised to train assassins to take down Al-Qaeda operatives in friendly and not-so-friendly nations.  The Obama-Panetta CIA reportedly discovered the Bush-era program and reported it to Congressional representatives hoping to avoid another Pelosi-CIA showdown.

Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA and Reluctant Assassin

Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA and Reluctant Assassin

Many Americans logically responded: isn’t that the mission of the CIA, don’t we want our nation’s national security agencies killing our enemies?  Others wondered: why the fuss over a program that was never actually implemented?  It has been argued that by blowing the whistle on the CIA program, Obama strengthens his hand by steering clear of a Congressional quarrel and placating the international community, while once again reminding Americans that he is not George Bush or Dick Cheney.

This assumption is misguided for several reasons.

Obama’s overtures to the U.S. Congress or foreign leaders has yet to pay dividends.  Obama’s congressionally-deferred health-care, energy, and stimulus bills have all been politically loaded at the expense of functional legislation.  This is frequently the case when the executive branch cedes too much authority to legislative interests.

On national security matters, the executive branch is the indisputable leader.  Pre-constitution scholars such as Locke and Hamilton recognized the need for strong executive government in state security.  The constitution, therefore, primarily vested powers with the executive branch.  Over the past two-plus centuries, the president’s role in national security has swelled (I will gladly defer the constitutional arguments to my more legally-seasoned blog colleagues).  Excluding Congressional Democrats from intelligence and security decisions seems even more prescient when considering the regularity with which the nation’s secrets have since appeared on the pages of the New York Times and Washington Post.

Dick Cheney - Sith Lord and vocal proponent of killing terrorist leaders.  There were no terrorist attacks on U.S. Soil post-9/11.

Dick Cheney - Sith Lord and vocal proponent of killing terrorist leaders. There have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. Soil post-9/11.

Obama has consistently stated that he intends to pursue a less abrasive and more inclusive foreign policy than the maligned Bush administration.  And while many of our allies around the world are undoubtedly relieved to discover they will not have American hitmen operating on their soil, here too the costs to our national security greatly exceed any benefits.  International terrorism is just that, international.  Terror networks extend to friendly and belligerent nations alike.  It is doubtful that had the program become operational, American assassins would be operating on the streets of London.  It is assumed (because the program was top secret…and because the New York Times has not yet published its details) that the program was meant to supplement previously-existing policies whereby we relied on cooperation with allies to disrupt terror cells in their territory.  But what of quasi-allies like Pakistan or non-aligned, wannabe states like Sudan or Somalia, where diplomatic deference rarely delivers security payoffs.

On national security issues, the “blame Bush-Cheney” card is proving less effective for the Obama administration.  Cheney’s favorability ratings jumped after he engaged Obama on terrorism policies such as interrogation.  Regardless of its final approval ratings, the Bush administration can credibly boast of protecting the country from terror attacks for the duration of its tenure.  Even critics acknowledge the Bush administration’s primary concentration was preventing terror attacks.  Critiques of the administration centered upon it doing too much to avert attacks (warrantless wiretaps, interrogation, Guantanamo/military tribunals).

However, much of this liberal condemnation never resonated with the American public.  Surprisingly – almost eight years removed from 9/11, after electing a President vowing to reverse many of Bush’s policies, during a recession where an increased focus has been paid to the economy – Americans still err on the side of overprotecting against terrorism.  The latest Rasmussen poll showed Republicans leading Democrats 49-40 percent on national security.  I would venture a guess that should Democrats or the Obama administration dwell on the CIA assassination team issue, that gap will only widen.  Americans believe in a strong executive that is willing to do whatever it takes to protect our homeland.


StairwaytoKevin can be found tapping your phone wires, or reading your emails.  However, it saves him a lot of time and effort if you comment on this blog.


Give Him a Chance! by David Teesdale

July 13, 2009

Since Barack Obama was nominated in January, much of his presidency has, unlike that of—well, any of his predecessors–been spent attempting to escape blame for the results of his policies, by reminding America that he has “inherited” any of those ill conceived ideas which have gone awry. Many Democrats and Republicans alike have pleaded from very early on for Americans to “give him a chance.” A chance, they say, for Obama’s policies to succeed. My question is: how long should we wait?

In the immediate aftermath of the throngs of American Idol voters who swarmed to the polls and swept Obama to victory last November, the American electorate overwhelmingly granted Barack Obama his grace period, nearly 70% supporting him in Gallup polling. Those who voted for Obama dismissed as rabble rousing and partisan politics ,the cries from many on the Right who warned of Obama’s socialist influences, dangerous associates and liberal voting record. Obama supporters and Republican pundits hailed Obama as a post-partisan uniter and a ‘centrist.’

Obama himself dismissed these accusations, promising static tax rates for anyone making under $250,000, or $200,000, or $100,000—depending of course on which day it was on the campaign trail. Obama laughed at charges of “re-distribution,” nationalization and class envy. Those who listened closely enough to Obama could see through the rhetoric, however, such as when Obama told Joe ‘the Plummer’ that he just wanted to “spread things around.” Astute individuals and students of history knew that for Barack Obama to succeed in implementing his agenda spelled trouble for generations of Americans. However, the rest of America gave him a chance. Barack Obama quickly set about reneging on many of his milk and honey campaign promises.

As of July, Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress have already passed a massively unpopular “stimulus” bill, are pushing the massively unpopular national health-care and cap-and trade legislation, and have tripled the national deficit. Obama promised while on the campaign trail to have all legislation available online for five days prior to votes in Congress. Now fully into Barack Obama’s presidency, this has been discarded. 1,000 page leviathan after 1,000 page leviathan have been passed by a punch-drunk Congress, who have enacted these bills without ever posting them online, and without reading them.

These are not the result of the “failed policies” of the Bush Administration. These are deliberate choices and Statist pet projects, which have been fermenting since the 1960’s and are being pushed now for the sake of ideology. Meanwhile, instead of cyclical sequences of events unfolding and the economy recovering naturally, the recession has deepened beyond the Administration’s worst case scenarios. Obama’s promises of the stimulus halting unemployment at eight percent were illusory, and the ranks of unemployed may in fact broach eleven or twelve percent. The stock market, recovering in early 2009 on the wings of “hope” and “change,” is again crumbling at a startling speed.

Stimulus money, supposedly designed to urgently ignite the sagging U.S. economy (definition of a stimulus), is being diverted to frivolous pork projects. Despite the fact that counties which voted for McCain in 2008 pay an inordinately higher amount in taxes than Obama voters, the money that is actually being dispersed prior to 2010 is going to Obama voters in absurd quantities. Stimulus money received by the counties which voted for Obama averages out to $69 a person. Counties which voted for McCain received an average of $34 a person. Nothing like rewarding your constituencies, right? Of course, elections have consequences, but using the vote to steal from future generations and to redistribute already borrowed wealth to your own voters is a little ridiculous if you ask me.

The general public is also becoming wary of proposed tax hikes by Obama and Congress. Cap and trade represents nearly $1,000 in additional taxes on each American each year despite the fact that northern states are experiencing a year without summer and have not seen a temperature increase in eight years. The Congressional Budget Office has revealed the stratospheric costs of Statist health-care and others have pulled the curtain back on the farcical claims of fifty million uninsured Americans (more likely there are seven to eight million). Americans, despite their personal affinity for Obama’s person, are now beginning to overwhelmingly disapprove of his policies.

Most Americans, according to Rasmussen, now view Obama as less ethical than most politicians, and only 30% trust Obama in dealing with the economic crisis. Majorities of Americans disapprove of Obama’s policies on Iraq and Afghanistan, while support for Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and his health-care plan is wavering. On the foreign policy front, dictators in Iran, Venezuela and North Korea are running amok unchecked and Obama’s limp diplomacy is transparently weak, emboldening nations such as Russia, China and even India to expand their spheres of influence.

Obama’s teleprompter crashing to the floor yesterday may be a metaphor for the state of things currently.  A teleprompter, which, with great eloquence, assisted in foisting untruths wrapped in sweet sounding rhetoric–with only the occasional slip.  A teleprompter is transparent to those at the right angle, just as Obama.  Though I’m sure TOTUS will be replaced, Barack’s beloved Cyrano de Bergerac’s untimely demise gave us a glimpse of an Obama exposed.  Perhaps now, with the curse lifted, Americans will continue to awaken from their hypnosis and will blow away the chaffe of lies they have thus far believed.

Seven months into Obama’s presidency, Republicans now lead Democrats on generic ballots 41-38% and Obama’s approval rating, while still at 51%, is slipping quickly and is well below George Bush’s approval rating at the same point in his presidency. Americans are waking up from their Obama induced slumber. Still, the Administration and Obama-apologists alike continue to try to attach Obama’s failings to Bush, with waning success. Liberals wanted us to give him a chance. Seven months is enough. Obama has spent the doubt in that benefit, and barring an incredible turn of events, the writing on the wall is clear: Obama is a one-term president.

David Teesdale, wonders who buys Twinkies, and are they still manufactured–or is the current stock what is left over from the Cold War? Comment here or e-mail him at david.evans.teesdale@gmail.com with the answers to these and other life questions


Health Care Reform and the Spending Hangover, by StairwaytoKevin

June 24, 2009

Are Americans finally coming off the prolonged binge of spending and government intrusion characterized by the first six months of the Obama administration? Recent polls indicate that as the nation tackles a host of policy issues, with health-care at the forefront, perhaps we have entered a collective hangover with the noticeable symptoms of guilt and utter confusion. Far be it from this timid conservative to triumphantly declare victory. But let’s hope that last night – or the past six months of trillion-dollar spending sprees, rather – was simply a one-night-stand, and that the next time we’re feeling a bit drunk and lonely – or we as a nation confront uncharted economic and political territory – we don’t resort to the same failed tactics of government encroachment and spending.

Curiously, despite the political weakness of the Republican Party as well as the sheer popularity of the President, Americans are heavily skeptical of another supposed “fix” that contradicts fundamental principles of equity, fiscal prudence, and free market economics. A $787 billion stimulus bill, hundreds of billions in TARP funds, and billions more in auto bailouts have taken their toll on the American public. They have been burned by this administration’s penchant for spending now while asking questions later.

A Wall Street Journal poll from last week found 58% of respondents believe government should keep the deficit down even if it slows economic growth. Unfortunately for those advocating a massive health-care restructuring, Americans understand any type of restructuring will likely be permanent. It will also grow as benefits are added and costs skyrocket, as has been the case with nearly all public programs.

Health-care reform emanating from both the Senate finance and health committees do not meet the Congressional Budget Office measurements of being revenue neutral over the course of the next decade or reducing country’s long-term health care burden. Even bi-partisan plans such as the Wyden-Bennett plan, which would eliminate the tax exemption on employer-provided health benefits (it is worth noting that Obama has reversed his campaign rhetoric that denounced McCain’s support of such a plan as the largest middle-class tax hike in history) have met political resistance. Unions are feeling mighty after their electoral triumph in November and subsequent financial triumph in the Detroit bailout/bankruptcy. They are not quite ready to relinquish hefty benefits packages that would be affected by the Wyden-Bennett plan.

While compelling, many other arguments against liberal health-care reform have fallen flat. Nevermind that 17 million uninsured Americans live in households with income greater than $50,000; or that 40 percent of the uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 34 (a demographic where health care is not a necessity); or that nearly 14 million uninsured Americans are already eligible for taxpayer-funded insurance. Similarly hollow are the calls from the nation’s leading health-care experts such as the American Medical Association. They have opposed aspects such as the public option due to glaring shortcomings in Medicaid and Medicare, which they fear would be duplicated. Under those programs, which like the current debate began with promise of a hybrid public-private model – private plans were engulfed by government plans. Reimbursements have also shrunk as bureaucrats look for ways to trim the bloated operating costs of a government monopoly.

However, these arguments have not resonated with the American public. Thus far, opposition to health-care expansion and a public option has proven most effective when targeting Americans uneasy with any further deficit spending and the nation’s rapidly-expanding debt. It is certainly encouraging to see the nation responsibly recuperate from its spending hangover with a more modest approach to health-care reform. In addition to the stimulus package, bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit are costing Americans trillions for years to come. Many are finally ignoring the annoying friend who maintains “the only way to cure a hangover is to drink more,” or in this case the Paul Krugmans who insists “the only way to overcome a deficit or achieve any policy goal is to spend your way out.”

StairwaytoKevin hides behind his anonymity because he fears reprisals from tie-dye-wearing teacher’s Unions, and because he is a coward beyond measure. He can be reached by comment on this article.


Better Off Today Than Tomorrow Under Barack Obama by David Teesdale

June 22, 2009

In November of 2008, Americans in record numbers voted for dubious terms such as “hope” and “change.” In doing so, we’re told, those who elected Barack Obama as the 43rd president of the United States (Grover Cleveland served twice—should we really count that as two?) declared eight years under George W. Bush an utter failure. But was it? What if we were to ask ourselves that infamous question from the Ghost of Elections Past: “Am I better off today than I was eight years ago?”

When Bill Clinton took the walk of shame in 2001, most Americans didn’t have a cell phone. Today, not only does every family have one, but nearly every grade schooler has a cellular appendage, and our mobile phones are now used to browse the Internet, play movies, and for your teen to send risqué pictures of his girlfriend to the entire senior class. When the dust had finally settled from Al Gore’s post-recount Ben & Jerry’s binge, most Americans’ web access consisted of a shrieking dial tone connecting them to something called Geocities.com or Yahoo.com. Today, we connect wirelessly to Google, Facebook, Youtube, and we twit at an alarming rate.

George Bush’s presidency was a relatively safe one for Americans, both at home and abroad. This after enduring regular militant terrorist attacks during Bill Clinton’s rambunctious tenure, ranging from attacks at the first World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings to the embassies in Africa, and from Mogadishu to the U.S.S. Cole. September 11th, 2001 marked the only major attack on U.S. soil. From that time to present, the American intelligence community has thwarted attacks on Los Angeles and Fort Dix among the cases of which we are aware, and reduced the number of international terrorist attacks on Americans to almost zero.

When Republicans stop letting Democrats dictate the terms of the debates, Republicans will find that they will more often win them, since history is the best ally of Republican policy...

When Republicans stop letting Democrats dictate the terms of the debates, Republicans will find that they will more often win them, since history is the best ally of Republican policy...

Bush’s actions deposed of two oppressive regimes, one of which was responsible for the genocide of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. Today, Iraq is the lone Arab democracy in the Mid-East, and subsequent iterations of the Bush Doctrine have sent shivers down the spines of terrorist harboring nations world-wide. As a result, Libya, Pakistan and Syria have all made attempts to join the international community, making Americans safer.

Eight years of George Bush abated the coming calamity of global warming. Despite the success of Hollywood and Captain Planet in convincing Americans that the debate is over regarding man-made global warming, the planet has apparently missed the memo, as the global temperature has actually cooled since 1998 and parts of the northern U.S. are in 2009 expected to experience a year “without summer.” Someone should tell the polar bears.

All the while, Americans enjoyed an average unemployment rate well below the average rate under Clinton. The middle class today is smaller than it was in 2001—as the result of an expanded upper class, not because those middle class Americans became poorer. Bush inherited a recession exacerbated by the events of 9-11, and our Nation, stimulated by tax cuts, did not experience another for seven years. Even after a financial crisis, caused largely by government intervention, today the Dow Jones Index stands only slightly lower than the peak of the Internet bubble. In January 2001, unemployment stood at a higher rate than when Bush left office, as 2 million jobs were created (many more may have been “saved”). Under Bush, even standardized test scores of American students have improved against their peers in other countries.

African Americans were employed at a higher rate under Bush than under Clinton, the "first black president." Likewise, Barack Obama can probably credit George W. Bush and the "most diverse administration in history" with his subsequent employment as POTUS...

African Americans were employed at a higher rate under Bush than under Clinton, the "first black president." Likewise, Barack Obama can probably credit George W. Bush and the "most diverse administration in history" with his subsequent employment as POTUS...

There are certainly areas of American society which have gotten worse. The flood of illegal immigrants and chain migration has continued to balkanize parts of the south-west. Our government has edged even closer to bankrupting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The U.S. Treasury isn’t far behind. Industry continues to be strangled by the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, and the national debt ballooned under George Bush as a percentage of GDP. These problems are all to be exacerbated in order to obtain Obama’s hope and change.

Liberals like Obama claim to want to make the U.S. more like the “older, wiser nations” of Europe (neglecting that the U.S. is governed by the oldest of constitutions). This means turning the entire nation into one with very little growth and an expansive social safety net . Yet, here in America, even the average poverty-stricken American has a better standard of living than the average European. American per capita individual consumption dwarfs that of the EU-15 by nearly 50%. Remind me again why we should be more like Europe (the birthplace of communism, socialism, and fascism)? In states where liberals have dominated for decades we have witnessed the not so subtle foreshadowing of America’s future: In California, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, for starters—and New Jersey, Illinois and Louisiana for clinchers.

In November, many people never asked the question—am I better off today than I was eight years ago? Apparently more people should have asked that question, because in eight years, they may not like the answer quite as much as they would today.

David Teesdale works for the bloated bureaucracy of government and milks the sweet nectar of taxpayer dollars on a daily basis. He is also a classic self-loather. Add comments here to contact him.


Open Letter to Barack Obama, by David Teesdale

March 24, 2009

The Following is an Open Letter to President Barack Obama:

President Obama,

My name is David Teesdale. First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your historic election to the office of President of the United States of America, and upon your swift legislative victories in your first sixty days in office.

Among these victories, the economic stimulus bill, aimed, as the Congressional Budget Office states, to “boost economic activity during periods of economic weakness by increasing short-term aggregate demand.” This, the largest single government expenditure in American history, is intended to “save or create” 3.5 million jobs (your advisers only expect a 2.1 million increase in jobs), at a cost of $789 billion. This means the government is spending roughly $225,000 per job created or “saved.”

The public is poignantly aware that the government never comes in under budget. The Capitol Visitors’ Center was just completed at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., late and over budget. Ground was broken in 2000 and the project was slated to cost $71 million. Completed in late 2008, the building cost a stupefying $621 million. At this rate, the “stimulus,” programs expected to break ground in 2010-11 should begin somewhere around 2020 and should actually cost around $9 trillion.

Even if we use the conservative estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, which peg the true cost of servicing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (HR 1) at $3.27 trillion, the cost per job will ring in at $9.3 million per job.

I don’t mean– by any stretch–President Obama, to sound at all disrespectful, but this seems like a terrible waste of public tax dollars. I have the utmost regard for your desire for good stewardship of Americans’ dollars, so I have confidence you will find the following proposal much more palatable.

You’re a pretty smart guy, O. Can I call you O? Anyway, you’re pretty smart, and I am pretty smart too. I recently graduated with a degree in Political Science from Syracuse University and interned at the White House, before you took up residence there. I’m not Ivy bred, but I am strongly confident that I can create–yes, create, not save–jobs for you at a rate below $9.3 million per. In fact, I am confident that I could create jobs at a rate under one million dollars per.

In fact, O–I mean Mr. President–all I ask is to be provided with 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% of the stimulus bill’s $789 billion dollar price tag. Roughly $79 million, tax-free, low-denomination, unmarked bills, preferably in little black briefcases. With this much tax money, I can assure the creation of hundreds or thousands of jobs, or I will pay back every red (no commu-puns intended) cent.

As a driven and hard working recent graduate, I feel I can bring youth and energy to the stimulus package. Even by any Keynesian measure, you’ll be getting more bang for your buck than the $600 million used on digital TV converters, $50 million for cemetery repair work, $1.7 billion for the National Parks Service, $2 billion for groups like ACORN and $300 million to fund cars for bureaucrats in the Federal government.

I assure you that the businesses that I create will be much more effective in creating lasting jobs, even if those jobs are as my housekeeper and butler (though, I will need a bigger house to accommodate more servants–which should probably cost no more than $1 million dollars–but will create one landscaping, and two housekeeping jobs at the very least). This plan is clearly what America needs right now, especially in my home city of Knoxville, TN, where unemployment is becoming a problem.

If I can’t, I won’t even ask for a bailout.

I am sure you, Mr. President, as a person who can see a great deal when it is presented to him, can see the virtue in my plan. I save the government money, I make a whole bunch of money, and I save the government further embarrassment when the public finally realizes that government cannot create wealth it can only spend it (First Law of Government Dynamics).

You may call my office (leave a message after the beep if you can’t get through, I screen calls from the ‘202’ area code) with any questions you or your 40 person economic team at Treasury may have, or if you wish to see a business model.

All the Best,
David E. Teesdale


David Teesdale, delights in poking at millions of dollars of sliced ham subsidies as part of the economic stimulus.  Comment here or contact him at david.evans.teesdale@gmail.com