On Thursday, the California Supreme Court ruled that  domestic partnerships  were not an acceptable alternative to marriage and that California would need to allow gay marriages.   The decision overturned a previous voter approved ban on gay marriage.  

Groups opposed to gay marriage indicated that they had enough votes to put the issue of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the November ballot.

In a poll done immediately following the announcement, SurveyUSA found some interesting perspectives amongst California Voters.

When asked the question:  

The California Supreme Court has struck down the ban on gay marriage in California. Do you agree? Or disagree with the court’s ruling?

the response was nearly evenly split between those who agreed with the decision and those who disagreed.

However, when asked:  

Do you support? Or do you oppose amending the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman?

a majority, 52% said that they supported the amendment. 36% said they opposed the amendment and 12% were still unsure.

What I found particularly interesting was the response split on age. Looking at a split of over or under 50 years old, those supporting, opposing and unsure, nearly mirrored the overall population. Another split that took 18-34 year olds found that even this age group’s response looked similar to the overall population. In fact, the only split that looked different, and slightly so with an error margin of 4.5%, were those 65+ where 62% approved of the amendment, 25% opposed and 13% were undecided.

Each generation is concerned that the one following them doesn’t share their values and will somehow dismantle what was held dear. At least on this issue, it looks like the generations are pretty well aligned. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out in California.

Fannie Mae relaxing loan down payment requirements

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Fannie Mae, the nation’s largest source of home financing, said on Friday it is lowering the amount of down payments required on mortgages it purchases, even in areas where home prices are falling.

Starting on June 1, the new requirements of 3 percent or 5 percent, which replace rules set in December, will apply nationally to loans on single-family primary residences, it said.

But wait, it gets better….

Fannie Mae also said it will continue to allow loans with Community Seconds, one of various assistance programs, for up to 105 percent combined loan-to-value ratio.

With Community Seconds, a borrower has a second-lien mortgage to help cover down payment and closing costs, with funding usually provided by a state or local housing agency, employer or a nonprofit organization.

“We recognize that down payment assistance programs remain a viable tool for borrowers who can afford a mortgage long-term, but might need a little help getting started,” Sullivan said.

Are you flippin’ kidding me? The only piece they’re missing is giving loans to folks who can’t afford to pay them! Oh wait…

On May 6, when Fannie Mae reported first-quarter results, it announced other initiatives, including a plan to provide up to $10 billion to help Housing Finance Authorities (HFA) serve first-time homebuyers “of modest means.” In some cases, Fannie Mae said, it will buy HFA mortgages that have greater than 97 percent loan-to-value ratios.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

It’s time to start buying gold and burying it in the back yard.

Why do we have people like Ben Bernanke, people who study economics, trade and monetary policy, handling the  Nation’s economic affairs  when we could have someone like the latest Governor of New York, David Paterson.

Paterson has come out against the gas tax holiday. A position which I agree with him on. My disagreement with the holiday is based on a fear that any reduction in the price will allow Congress to think they’ve actually accomplished something to solve a long term issue. Governor Paterson’s issue is that he things the gas companies are greedy. For his evidence he points to what happened following Hurricane Katrina:

At a press conference about a personnel matter in his midtown office, Paterson told reporters to go to the oil companies and "ask them why, the week after Katrina"”the Katrina Hurricane"”August 29, 2005, ask them why the gas prices went up in that week.

“It couldn’t have had anything to do with the gas,” Paterson charged. “Because gas delivery took place three weeks before then. They sold you the same gas that was in their tank the week before at"”at some points"”10 to 15 percent higher."

Paterson thinks that because the gas was put into tanks at one price, that should dictate what price the gas should come out of the tanks.

David, have you ever been in an area prior to a hurricane hitting? If you have, you would know that plywood has this nasty habit of increasing in price right before a hurricane. That plywood didn’t cost more coming in just because the hurricane was coming but it did cost more going out. Another thing David, plywood is also rationed when a hurricane is coming. Yup, the day before a hurricane you could have bought every single piece from your local home building supply company but the day the hurricane is announced, rationing starts.

How about another example David? After a hurricane generators get more expensive. Those generators were all sitting there prior to the hurricane at the same cost but lower price than after the hurricane where the cost stayed the same but the purchase price goes up.

The point David, is that increasing prices are the mechanism that free markets use to help manage demand for products that are, or are expected to be, in short supply.

I think we should test all political candidates for their knowledge of Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations.” If they fail the part about supply and demand, they don’t get to run, pure and simple.

Instituting the test may not get us any better politicians but we would at least know that they do know better and not have to wonder whether they were lying to us or just flat out ignorant.

Typical elections, especially Presidential elections, are usually focused on how to get the largest portion of the populations to vote for you.   Yes there are nuances due to the electoral system that makes a Presidential election a bit more like a bunch of individual state elections, but at a macro level, it’s still about getting more votes than your opponent.

The 2008 election, one that now appears likely to be between John McCain and Barack Obama, is shaping up to be nearly the opposite of traditional focus.   Rather than getting the most people to vote for you, the McCain/Obama contest looks to be more about getting the fewest number of people to not not vote at all or to not vote aganist you.

On the Democrat side we’ve been seeing stories for a few weeks about one camp’s voters not voting for the other candidate if they should win the nomination.   The exit polls from Tuesday’s West Virginia primary continued the trend as the AP reported:

Barely a third of Clinton supporters say they’d vote for Obama over John McCain in a November matchup. As many claim they’d vote for Republican John McCain and a quarter said they would not vote for president. If that horse race were Clinton vs. McCain, half of Obama backers say they’d vote for Clinton, about three in 10 say they’d back McCain and the rest would stay home.

On the Republican side while initially rejected, there had been a gradual acceptance of McCain as the nominee.  As various blog sites still had animated discussions about whether McCain was a conservative or if his various cross party endeavors had eliminated him from the use of the “True Conservative” moniker, most who did not originally support McCain had come to a point that they believed the greater good was served by supporting McCain. But then McCain made his environment speech in Oregon. Subsequent to that speech, the conservative blogs have become littered with comments such as:

His speech was the last straw. I am a conservative and John McCain WILL NOT get my vote. His global warming position is down right scary. I’ve tried really hard to get in the he’s “my guy” mindset and it’s just not going to happen. Every time I get close he opens his mouth.

So who will win? Well, it looks like it will be the candidate who gets the fewest of the folks who can’t stand them not to not vote for them.

Ain’t politics great!

On Wednesday, the Chicago City Council reversed its ruling  of two years ago and again allowed foie gras to be served in the city.

The ban two years ago was argued for by animal rights advocates who said the process of creating the foie gras was inhumane.   The vote to ban foie gras was passed 48-1.

Leaving the animal rights folk infuriated, the Council voted this time 37-6 to overturn the ban.

OK, truth be told, I’ve never eaten foie gras, at least that I know, so it’s not like I’m rushing to Chicago or dropping my boycott of Chicago restaurants.   No, the reason I see hope in this story is based on the Alderman’s reason for bringing the vote,

“Supporters of this legislation have accomplished their goal by raising awareness of this issue,” Tunney said in a statement. “And while I respect their viewpoint, this is clearly a matter the council should stay out of and let the educated consumer and chefs make their own menu choices.”

Most elected officials are happy to opine and weigh in on any issue presented to them. It doesn’t seem to matter anymore whether the issue is even within their constitutional purview. In fact, Congress is known for taking on nearly any topic they want by simply swiping it with the “interstate commerce” pen.

When was the last time you heard an elected official say that an issue was none of their business?

How refreshing! There may be hope after all!

If Barack Obama wants to run as a populist he needs to get a better pulse of the people or maybe start reading some polls.

I wrote here  about Barack’s confusion about what he wants to do with Capital Gains taxes and that a majority of Americans are against any increase in those taxes.   In fact they go so far as to say that they believed that a President who raised Capital Gains taxes would raise other taxes as well.

It appears the American folks can still see how 2+2=4.

In a Rasmussen Report poll released Tuesday, 60% of Americans believe that tax increases will hurt the economy. As you might expect, 74% of Republicans agreed with that statement. What Barack needs to pay attention to is that 49% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliated voters believe the same. Contrary to his primary results, this is an issue that truly crosses racial lines as 61% of White voters and 57% of African-American voters agree with the statement. In the “Can you hear me now,” observation of the poll, a significant majority of 70% of those under 30 believe that increasing taxes will hurt the economy.

With the economy now the number one issue in the Presidential campaign and McCain being more trusted to handle economic issues, Barack needs to figure out whether to lead, follow or get out of the way. Continuing to provide confusing, non specific tax and economic proposals are not going to help Barack reach his goal.

As oil and in turn gas, prices continue to increase and no action or plans in sight that suggest any near term reduction, I’m seeing articles and comments along the lines of, “It’s not uncommon in Europe to pay $7 for a gallon of gas.   If they can stomach it, so can we.”

An example of this logic is in this opinion piece  by Paul Krugman.   Krugman takes what is otherwise a thoughtful argument i.e. all the talk about speculation driving an “oil bubble” may not be based on  well reasoned economics but rather on wishful thinking, and destroyed his credibility with:

The consequences of that (oil) scarcity probably won’t be apocalyptic: France consumes only half as much oil per capita as America, yet the last time I looked, Paris wasn’t a howling wasteland. But the odds are that we’re looking at a future in which energy conservation becomes increasingly important, in which many people may even "” gasp "” take public transit to work.

Why is this kind of logic silly? How about a quick geography lesson.

France has an area of approximately 250,000 square miles, about the size of Texas which is approximately 269,000 square miles. France has a population of 64M people which means they have a density of approximately 256 people/Sq. Mi. Texas has a population of 24M people which means they have a density of approximately 164 people/Sq. Mi. Beginning to see an issue? Let’s extrapolate that to the entire United States. To be generous, I’ll exclude Alaska and Hawaii. The continental US has an area of 3.2 Million Sq. Mi. The continental US population is approximately 302 million people. That translates to a density of only 94 people/sq. mi. I won’t even drag you through the densities that exist west of the Mississippi and east of the Pacific coastal states. To suggest that a European country that is a fraction of the size of the US with a population density nearly 3X the US is comparable in energy use is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

OK, let’s try a different tact. Let’s assume we could get rid of all those nasty, hydrocarbon burning, carbon dioxide spewing personal vehicles. If tomorrow we banned the use of all personal vehicles we would at most, reduce our oil per capita consumption by 40% (it would be less than 40% because of course, we’d have to provide transit solutions for those people and many of those solutions involve petroleum as the fuel). Even with a 40% reduction, we’d still be using 10% more per capita than France.

My point in all of this is that trying to compare the US to a European country, especially one that is a fraction of the size of the US with a population density nearly 3X the US, as comparable in energy use is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

The only way that we are close to being comparable to Europe is in the taxes and other costs waiting to be imposed to “solve” our energy “problem” by forcibly removing our need for oil. Oh, and another way that we’ll be like Europe, we’ll be heading for our own “Dark Ages.”

Sorry I’m late on this…..

What do the following have in common?

• The Pillsbury Doughboy
• Bob Dylan
• Spam
• Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox
• Whoopee John Wilfahrt
• Judy Garland
• The Jolly Green Giant
• Betty Crocker
• James Arness
• The Hamm’s Bear
• Terry Gilliam
• Post-it Notes
• Kensington Runestone
• The Andrews Sisters
• The Replacements
• Joe and Ethan Coen
• Jessica Lange
• Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis
• Mary Richards
• Prince
• The Mississippi River

Answer:   They all began or are from the state celebrating its 150th birthday today, Minnesota!

Documented here, the Democrats have  instituted yet another social program to garner votes for the upcoming election.   In an unprecedented move, party leadership has taken to the streets in the area of targeted voting blocks, to personally hand government assistance to the desiring population.   While the assistance was actually acquired by fleecing “Rich” citizens, the party leadership, while delivering it, was heard telling the assistance recipients how they personally felt their pain and were personally doing something to assist.   Not only did they not point out that the assistance actually came from other concerned citizens but,  during the distribution, the leaders denigrated the actual providers as uncaring, cold hearted and Conservative.  

YANGON, Myanmar – Myanmar’s military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with the names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week’s devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise.

We have already seen regional commanders putting their names on the side of aid shipments from Asia, saying this was a gift from them and then distributing it in their region,

What? Huh?

I’ve just been told that this wasn’t the US Democrats handing out more government relief.     It looks like this is  an international franchise that has purchased  and applied the Democrats  patented “Voter Management Module.”  

The local fish wrapper, The Star and Sickle in Minneapolis is reporting that scores of songbirds were killed in the northern 2/3 of Minnesota over the past few weeks.

They apparently starved to death.

No this wasn’t due to the use of pesticides. It wasn’t due to excessive feral cats. No, the cause was an extended winter that climaxed 10 days ago with 15″ of snow. Bugs did not survive so neither did the birds.

Oh, if only we had kept our incandescent light bulbs and built a few less wind turbines and belched that final snow off our driveways with nasty fossil fuel burning snowblowers, we may have kept the winter to more normal temperatures and even now, we would be hearing the lyrical songs.

Al, Al Gore, have you no compassion for these helpless songbirds? At what temperature will you be satisfied?

I chronicled here,  Barack Obama’s confusion over whether and how much he will raise the Capital Gains tax.   I also noted that the Rasmussen Report survey showed a majority of Americans thought it would be harmful if the tax rate was raised.

Rasmussen has done some follow up work.

In a new survey, 58% of those surveyed identified Barack Obama as the Presidential candidate who wants to increase the capital gains tax.

That kind of name recognition is not going to help Obama.

Political Office In Alec Baldwin’s Future?
Now That He’s 50, Actor Tells 60 Minutes Political Office Is Looking More Appealing

Let’s see, another empty headed, egomanical liberal with anger management issues.

Baldwin could make Franken look nearly mainstream.

House Democrats are working to pass a “Housing rescue package.” The main provisions of the bill are similar to those that have been reported for the past few months including:

• Giving the Federal Housing Administration $300 billion in new lending authority and the ability to relax its standards to rewrite existing loans.
• Permanently increase the size of loans the FHA, Freddie MAC and Fannie MAE  can insure to $729,750 in high cost areas.
• An assortment of “money dumps” to local and state governments that ostensibly help them with low income, first time home buyers and blighted neighborhoods.

I won’t carry on about why this bill is bad policy except to refrain the words “bail out” and remind  Nancy Pelosi  that a majority Americans do not want this legislation.   President Bush has said he will veto the bill.

No, I won’t carry on about BAIL OUT but there was one provision in the bill that I found particularly appalling coming from the Democrats (sorry for the redundancy):

To ensure that lenders participate and support the bill the Democrats have added a provision that creates a safe harbor from investor lawsuits for mortgage holders who modify loans to borrowers who are in default or about to default.

So the Dems want to grant immunity for legal issues to the companies that comply with the desires of Congress.   Hey, wait a minute.   That sounds a lot like granting of immunity for the telephone companies that comply with FISA!   Isn’t that immunity issue the major sticking point with reenacting FISA?

Are Pelosi and company telling us that they believe it is more important to bail out people who made poor individual  choices than to allow intelligence practices that have been essential in providing national security?

John McCain originally said that he opposed any housing bailout.   I know he is strongly supportive of FISA.   The  blatant hypocrisy over corporate immunity would be a great opportunity for  McCain to draw a bright line of separation so voters can see which party will actually do something about national security and  which is  just pandering.

It’s funny how some people are so easily offended.

Putting aside Mr. Kings errant understanding of the constitutional right to free speech, perhaps Mr. King was genuinely concerned about those who have had or were contemplating an abortion when he added: “Do not put this in front of all of us!”

Do you think Mr. King was as concerned for families who had lost loved ones in Iraq when Cindy Sheehan had her infamous campout in Crawford Texas?

I’ve documented Franken’s problems with obeying tax laws his accountant here and here.
Some folks have been skeptical that these issues would impact Franken’s bid for Senate. I however believe that while we from Minnesota are politically confused, our compasses point pretty much north regarding ethics and integrity. It appears my knowledge of Minnesotans is proving out.

In a new poll, SurveyUSA  is showing that Franken’s tax issues are having a negative impact on his campaign. 59% of those surveyed say that Franken’s tax problems make them less likely to vote for him. Perhaps worse, 51% say he should step out of the race.

Obviously things can change but Franken is one of those guys who is difficult to find anything likable about. With 59% saying they are less likely to vote for Franken,  I’m hoping it won’t  be too long before he is referred to as “Former Senate candidate, Al Franken.”

OK, this isn’t Bordello of Blood but still, this is pretty funny.
From the website:
Barackula is a short political horror rock musical about young Barack Obama having to stave off a secret society of vampires at Harvard when he was inducted into presidency at the Harvard Law Review in 1990.

If you have 10 minutes…take a look!

The real life parallels are amazing:
Barack leading blood suckers!
Barack negotiating with the undead!

On March 31st, the USDA released  its crop estimates for the year.   Included was an estimate that acres planted with corn were going to drop 8% from the 2007.   Even with the reduction in acreage the overall crop yield should be about the same as 2007 which was 13.1 billion bushels.

So we’ve got lots of corn, that’s good news.

Here’s the bad news.

in 2007, approximately 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol was produced. The 2007 Energy Security Act requires that 9.0 billion gallons of ethanol be produced in 2008. 2.8 gallons of ethanol come from each bushel of corn. That means that nearly 1 billion additional bushels of corn will be required just for ethanol production this year.

What do you think will happen to food prices when overall corn production is flat but corn demand for ethanol increases by nearly 50%? They sure as heck aren’t going down!

In a recent Rasmussen poll, 54% of Americans finally understand that burning food is hurting their pocketbook.

Maybe we aren’t a nation of sheeple afterall.

PETA pushes for tribute to honor cows killed at stockyards

An animal rights group wants a memorial to slaughtered cows erected at the site of South St. Paul’s stockyards.

In a Monday letter to Greg Miller, president of the company that is developing 27 acres of land vacated by Central Livestock last month, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals urges that he “recognize this site’s historical significance and honor the millions of cows auctioned off for slaughter.”

This is one place where I’m happy to jump in with the Darwinians…we evolved further therefore we get to make the rules, we win.  

The following charts so the price activity for the three largest US grain products.

In the face of these commodities having increases of at least 60% in the last year, Congress is looking to dramatically increase farm subsidies.

Congress is debating a farm subsidy bill  that would be $300 billion dollars over the next 5 years.   For those of you keeping score, that amounts to $2,678 for every American family.   In Barack Obama’s world, this amounts to nothing as it’s only $45 per month per family (He thinks $30 savings each month from the elimination of the gas tax is “nothing”).

While the Democrats and sympathetic Repulicans cry that these subsidies are for “the family farm,”  Citizens Against Government Waste did the legwork for the 2007 farm bill and not only dispelled that myth but give other  the reasons why a continuation of farm subsidies is wrong for America. Here are a few of their findings:

• The largest 10 percent of grain farmers, with an average net worth of $2.4 million, receive 50 percent of all grain subsidies.
• First, 60 percent of farmers don’t even produce crops that are eligible for subsidies. More than 90 percent of farmers either receive no subsidies or receive less than $2,000 annually.
• 80% of farms GROSS $50,000 or less making it unlikely that they are farming as sole source of income.

• 60 percent of sugar program benefits go to the wealthiest one percent of sugar farmers.

If at a time when many agricultural products are at record prices we need to not only continue but increase subsidies, is there ever a time when we don’t need them?  

It’s time for Republicans to show some backbone and tell Americans why this is bad for the country, bad policy and that they won’t vote for it.  

Here’s a video of Stephen King, who I used to think had a pretty good brain, slandering our military personnel:

Sounds very familiar to another “Elite” John Kerry who in 2006 said that if you don’t get a good education “you get stuck in Iraq.”

From now on, those of us that can read can buy books from author’s whose name isn’t Stephen King.

“There’s no difference between Hillary and Obama!”
“McCain’s no conservative, he’s Democrat Lite!”
“Bush sold himself as a Conservative but has turned out to be just another RINO”

In the most thorough review of the topic that I’ve seen, Keith Poole and associates at the University of California, San Diego have compiled a review of all member of Congress, House and Senate, and analyzed who’s who in the political zoo.

In this first graph we see the confirmation and correction, to several of our “Truths.”

1. Hillary and Barack are “Change you can Xerox.” Contrary to what Hillary’s campaign is trying to tell people, this study shows that Hillary’s record is to the left of the Democratic party and is imperceptibly different from Obama.
2. McCain is clearly from the left side of the Republican Party. As I posted in my first post on this site, McCain touts his lifetime Conservative voting record. However, if you look over the past few years, and especially the most recent, McCain’s voting record has moved to the left. The study has a great animated graph that shows how McCain’s voting record began squarely in the middle of Republicans but over time has become an outsider of the Republican members.
3. Contrary to the feeling of many Conservatives, Bush lines up to the right. The question that this raises for me is “To the right of what?”

Side note for MN and WI readers, Wellstone and Feingold were nearly identical and (dramatic pause for the launch of a surprise statement) they are WAAAAAY to the left of the spectrum.

(more…)