Why buy Gold when you can own Oil? Reply

This is not an advice piece.  I like to think out loud through my blog.  Any investments you might undertake should be consulted with your financial advisor.

With that said, I cannot understand why people would put money into gold when they can buy oil at a huge discount.  As I type this, WTI oil is pricing at $80.91 per barrel.  We haven’t seen this level since Feb. of 2009. That was the midst of the biggest financial crisis our generation has seen.  Guess what, since then our economy has improved.  I know it may not feel like it, but it has.  Matter of fact, usage is up since January where oil was trading well over $100 per barrel.  It is a fact that most oil production companies and countries cannot make a profit selling oil below $80 per barrel, so it is in their best interest to keep the prices at these levels.  Believe me when I tell you that they have the power to do so.  The only exception to this rule is Saudi Arabia.  They can make money all the way down to $70 per barrel.

I don’t want to confuse this situation too much.  The real comparison is to gold.  Gold traded up to about $2k per ounce and has since traded back down to the $1,600 level.  That is a potential of 20% upside from here and will really only materialize if the dollar falls off a cliff with that of the Euro.  Remember though, that is the only real catalyst for gold… hell breaking loose.  As for oil, there are many factors that can contribute to it going back over $100 per barrel which is a 25% gain.  U.S. growth, improved employment numbers, a resolution of the “Euro crisis,” any strife in the middle East, or the upcoming trade embargo with Iran can shoot prices back up.  I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking if I have to pay $4.00 at the pump I would rather have at least made some money on its climb in prices.

July 1st is the deadline for the Iran situation.  Any lack of complete agreement with them will result in a trade embargo which will significantly decrease the world’s supply of oil.  I honestly hope that things don’t deteriorate, but it is a catalyst that can raise prices. If someone would like an idea of how to play it, one could buy the ETFs USO or UCO.  UCO is trading at $25.63.  It is a leveraged ETF and should return to $40 per share if oil trades back up to the $100 range giving you a 56% increase if you hold it that long.  USO is trading at $30.49 and was trading at $40 plus when oil was in the $100 range.  That would give you an approximate of 33% should oil trade back up to $100 levels.    The beauty of all this is that there is a pretty damn good chance that oil will return to $100 per barrel at some point.  I wouldn’t bet against it!

Again, so that no one tries to sue me, this is not an advice piece.  You should consult your advisor before making any decisions based on this information.

Natural Gas exhonerates Speculators! 1

Ok, I have conversed with many via twitter that think speculators are the devil.  While I agree, as a speculator, that they are a part of the problem, I disagree that they drive price.  Instead, speculators only carry the momentum that is already pushed upon it by outside factors.  I am excited to point out the latest example of speculators being neutral when it comes to price.  Natural Gas is a commodity that is played just like oil.  There are a hundred different ways to play this commodity, but the most important point is that it is at multi-year lows.  Has demand gone down? No, but supply has gone up.  Due to fracking (no comment on the legitimacy of this process here) they are finding it under every rock in the U.S.  I exaggerate this on purpose.  Because the notion that it is everywhere is speculation.  Speculators are getting out of the trade because of an assumed over-supply.  They are correct!  This lowers the price to unheard of levels.  It is almost a 1/3 the price is was in 2010.  Where are the Senators now?  Why aren’t they out congratulating us?..  Hypocrites!

The major difference between Natural Gas and Gas at the pumps is that there are more factors for gas at the pump.  When it comes to gas, we are far more subject to feuding countries that supply it, and profit lines of major refiners here in the U.S.  Remember that it is Oil that is speculated, not the price of gas at the pump.  Big oil companies are profiting huge on the difference between the price of oil per barrel and what they can get at the pump.  Here is what I mean: Last April price of light sweet crude was $125 per barrel and oil companies were still able to make a good profit at $3.25 per gallon.  Now that oil is only $103 per barrel, they are able to charge over $4.10 at the pumps.  This isn’t speculation, but profit.

The GOP Conspiracy 1

Before I begin, I must be very clear that I am not a conspiracy theorist kind of guy nor an anti-Republican!  Therefore, it is an internal struggle to put this out there, but after several months of introspection I feel it is time.  The Republican Party seems to have conspired to keep Buddy Roemer out of the race for president.  He would never come out and say it because it opens him up for an all out attack from the party.  He would then have an even smaller chance to win an election.

What are the facts?

Buddy Roemer has all the experience you would want for a commander-in-chief.  At Harvard, he earned a BS in Economics and later an MBA in Finance.  From 1981 to 1988 he served as a Congressman.  From 1988 to 1992 he served as Louisiana’s Governor.  While there he cut the unemployment rate in half, reformed their campaign finance laws, and balanced the state’s budget.  I don’t mention this to get readers to vote for him, but to show how qualified he is to have been a candidate.  The problem isn’t what he has done, it is what he hasn’t: He has never accepted Super PAC, or special interest money.  Matter of fact, this has been his platform to get elected.  The fact that he doesn’t accept this money makes him an enemy of the state, if you will.

Imagine running Buddy out there when his platform of campaign finance reform and getting SuperPAC’s out of politics could make your party look bad, as a whole.  Fox News network, a GOP slanted news network, hasn’t even hinted that Buddy Roemer exists.  He was left out of all debates.  Why you might ask?  At first they told him he wouldn’t be allowed in the debates until he officially signed on as a candidate.  That makes perfect sense until you realize that several others hadn’t that they allowed in debates.  So, Buddy officially announces his running.  Then they told him that he had to have at least 2% of the votes of a given state to qualify.  Again, you might think that this is a fair request.  We cannot have everybody and their brother in a debate, but you have to know that when they required this from Buddy, John Huntsman, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry didn’t have 2% yet they were invited into these debates.  Despite the hypocrisy of the situation, Buddy attained the 2%.  Then they said he had to have 5% of the votes.  At this time only Perry and Bachmann didn’t have the 4% but they were allowed in the debates.  Matter of fact, Buddy was ahead of both of them in the polls.  You still saw no mention of his existence on Fox News and he wasn’t allowed into the debates.  Buddy Roemer was working hard to get the 4%, and then they dropped the bomb.  They told him that he had to have a minimum amount of money raised for his campaign to get in the debates that was far beyond what he had raised to that point.  This, they knew, went directly against his platform.  He will not accept more than $100 per campaign donation.

As a result, Buddy Roemer has dropped out of the GOP race and decided to run as an Independent via the American’s Elect process.  Although I’m voting for Governor Roemer and love his platform of Campaign Finance Reform, this is not my point.  I hate the fact that politics has come to this.  Republicans snubbed one of their own because he was a threat to their pocket-book.  Democrats would have done the same thing if the situation was reversed.  It is a bi-partisan problem.  They will do anything they can to “keep the money in.”  This is why we, as a Republic, have to fight our own apathy and do something about it.  We have to support someone like Buddy.  Even if you don’t plan on voting for him, you should want a man like him in upcoming presidential debates.  His take on money in government shouldn’t be silenced or big corporations will continue to own our democracy.  We have to get the money out, and supporting people like Buddy is a way of going about it.

 

 

 

Apathy vs. misdirection: Winner kills the Republic 1

Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another.  Apathy is a lack of enthusiasm or energy, lack of interest in anything, or the absence of any wish to do anything.

You have political ADD, prove me wrong and read the entire article.

I was watching a GOP debate in Florida a few months back.  Newt Gingrich had been taking heat from Mitt Romney because of his payments from Freddie Mac for his “historian” expertise.  Mitt was calling him out as an unregistered lobbyist without using the words.  Being that they were in Florida made it extremely poignant because of their high foreclosure rate.  Many people in the audience and in the state are/were profoundly affected by the economic crisis and inclined to hate big banks such as Freddie Mac.  Newt, came prepared, so he thought.  He attacked back.  Gingrich said Romney had personal holdings in “a part of Goldman Sachs that was explicitly foreclosing on Floridians.” He did; it’s called a blind trust. A blind trust is  a trust managed by third-party: a legal arrangement in which a trustee manages funds for the benefit of somebody who has no knowledge of the specific management actions taken by the trustee.  Assuming Newt had done his homework, he already knew this.

Why do I even point this out? It is a game of misdirection.  Government officials of all types are pointing out flaws on the other side to distract us from the big picture.  Democrats are turning the Treyvon Martin shooting into a political debate.  It shouldn’t be a debate of Republican versus Democrat.  It should simply be about convicting a murderer.  Republicans are doing everything in their power to bring down “Obama Care.”  They have turned it into a life-style choice.  Instead of the benefits of this program, they are looking at the fact that traditional medicare generally covers some sort of birth control.  “Why should I have to pay for this person’s sex-life?”  It shouldn’t be a question about paying for a sex-life, but instead about the logistics of paying for a nationwide health plan.  Debate that to death instead of trying to distract us from real issues like the fact that millions are without.  They have a very good argument when it comes to funding it, why not stick to that?  It’s not sexy enough!  They have to have multiple bullets in their distraction roulette game in the hope that one of them will hit their mark.  Democrats have, in turn, turned the Republican raised issue about paying for someone elses birth control with tax money into a “war on women.”  It is a beautiful spin making Republicans look rather sexist.  No matter how you look at it, it is a spin game.  Everything is to distract us from issues they don’t want in the headlines.

The issue that neither Republicans or Democrats want to focus on is campaign finance reform.  What?  You might say that is a huge leap.  You’re right, but hear me out for a moment.  Nothing in government is left untouched by the almighty dollar.  It is campaign dollars that push, manipulate, stall, and even write legislation.  The amount of money it takes to win an election these days is crazy, and it is getting crazier!  To keep their jobs, and their standing within their respective political parties is pushing politicians to continually fundraise.  Literally, they spend 30-60% of their time trying to put money in the war chest.  If you think that campaign donors expect nothing for their money, you are sadly mistaken.  Just looking at earmarks, there are hundreds of examples where donors are getting earmarks.  Matter of fact, I find it hard to find where an earmark didn’t benefit a campaign donor, or someone who spent millions lobbying and the lobbyist contributed to an earmarks sponsor.

If you think it is just earmarks just look at Greg Walden, Republican Congressman, who just introduced the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012.  This act would significantly reduce the FCC’s ability to govern big media companies.  He receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from the very media companies that would benefit from this legislation.

Here is where the apathy comes in.  Your eyes have probably rolled back into your head and I’ve lost your attention.  I was talking to a buddy of mine about this stuff the other day and he said, “that’s just business as usual.”  It killed me! It is only business as usual because we allow it to happen.  We allow them to distract us with topics unrelated to their pay for play government.  We didn’t do this, but it is our job to collectively stand up and say no.  It isn’t ok to sell legislation to your biggest campaign donors.  We need to take our ADD medicine and stay on point.  We need campaign finance reform more importantly than any thing else.  Once real reform is done, we can focus on other important issues.  That way they are not tainted with corporate dollars.

 

Profit, not speculation, driving gas prices! Reply

One year ago Crude oil was $120 per barrel and never broke $3.25 at the pump. Currently, Crude Oil is resting at $102 per barrel and the average price at the pump is over $4.00.  Therefore, since April 2011, oil companies are saving $20 a barrel while gas prices have risen 23%. This equals a profit increase of 40%.  Real demand has been very steady, so we have to assume that prices are merely profit based.

Several Senators and Congressmen and women have come out to attack “rampid speculation.” Senator Bernie Sanders has gained popularity just for his stance against Wall Street on this issue.  Sanders is sponsoring the End Excessive Oil Speculation Now Act.  Now I don’t see any problem with this idea, but they are so far off the point here.  It is like Papa Bear getting mad at Mamma Bear because Goldilocks ate Baby Bear’s breakfast.

Speculation does have a piece of the blame here, but it is minute compared to the almighty profit of big oil companies.  Also, speculation drives the price down just as much as it drives the price up.  The major fault with speculation is that it swings the prices more dramatically than it would otherwise be.  For example, at the end of 2008 we thought the financial world was collapsing.  Because everything in speculation is anticipation, speculators figured that demand would diminish further than it actually had.  This assumption led to the price of oil to fall to $32 a barrel.  In actuality, it had dropped, but only minimally in the grand scheme of things.  Within a year, prices had gotten back to $80 a barrel.  At that price, everyone was pretty happy.  You see, $80 is the breaking point for big oil companies to make money.  They were returning to big profits and we were still under $3.00 per gallon at the pump… a far cry from being over the $4.00 we were seeing in the summer of 2008.

Exxon Mobile, a company I love, makes 17 billion dollars a year before taxes.  Knowing that they are losing money in Natural Gas, where do you think they are getting record profits?

 

What if OWS had a single goal? Reply

Protests used to mean something.  We would protest Vietnam, equal rights, and equal liberties. I think that OWS peeps are onto something.  Just as our forefathering protestors before us, we have real issues at the heart of this movement.  Because these issues are not as overt as a sign outside a restroom door saying, “whites only” it doesn’t mean they aren’t extremely important.  The difference is that our government no longer has our best interests at heart.  They are far more concerned about justifying the huge donation they got from Corporation X.  They are in debt to their campaign donors.  It is dividing our country.

When Occupy Wall Street first began, I immediately thought of them as misguided.  Why? Because they are protesting the rich in general.  What good is that?  I’m not mad at my neighbor because he has more money than I do!  Just the same, I’m not mad at the stock broker on Wall Street if he is successful enough to drive a Lamborghini.  Who we should be mad at is our elected officials for allowing our country to be bought off.  Heck, they didn’t just allow it, they encouraged it.  They paved the way for eliminating the Glass-Steagall Act, increased the potency of Super PAC’s, forced lenders to lend to unworthy candidates, etc. etc.   In the never ending quest for campaign funding, they have sold our Republic’s soul.

I understand the frustrations of Occupiers, I just wish they focused their attention on the “fix.”  If OWS decided they wanted real change, they can force it.  If every occupy movement started communicating with each other, they could come up with common goals.  They all agree that money has corrupted our system, so why not take up campaign finance reform.  If they were to put together a piece of legislation and bring it to a Congressman/Senator that agrees with them, they could use their vast voting leverage to push it through congress.  They could call on media to help spread a single message and reach every single state.  The power of Twitter and Facebook is at their finger tips to help get this message across.

My message to you Occupiers: Stop talking about what is wrong, focus on a goal, coordinate your voting leverage, and try to get legislation into effect that “fixes” the issues.

Understanding Oil and Gas Prices Reply

Because understanding the price in oil is a bit of a specialty of mine, I thought I might share (in the simplest of terms) why the prices are what they are.  There has been so many wild accusations and finger-pointing that I feel it is time for some rational explanations.  To quote just a few people and media comments: “Speculators are strangling America.” “Obama has no energy plan.” “A vote for Newt, is a vote for $2.50 gas.” “Drill baby Drill.” “We have to make ourselves energy independent from the middle east.”  While all of these comments have grains of truth in them, they are really founded in misconceptions about the oil markets, where we get our oil, and how much policy can even affect prices.”

Let’s start with speculation.  Speculation does drive up the price of oil, but remember it also drives down the price of oil!  Speculation is just that, speculating on demand.  This really just makes for greater swings in oil, not a simple driver to higher levels.  Here’s what I mean: Summer of 2008 we had oil hovering just under $150 a barrel.  Prices at the pump were in the $4.25-$4.50 range. People trading futures, options, and companies that represented oil were looking at problems in the middle east and possible limited supply.  That December the price of a barrel bottomed at around $32 a barrel and at the pump around $2.65 a gallon.  This right there is a very telling point.  People were not decreasing demand of oil by 4.5x.  In fact, actual supply/demand ratio didn’t fall by much, yet the price per barrel tanked.  This was a result of insane speculation.  It was a much larger swing than was warranted due to fears that our entire economy was swirling around the toilet.  This important fact is also an explanation of price gouging.  Realize the price at the pump has moved significantly less, percentage wise even though it is much cheaper for them to purchase the oil.  This is a very important realization.  The price of refinement hasn’t changed.  Only profit margins increased.  Oil per barrel is only 21.33% of what it was, yet they are able to charge 58.88% of what they used to. I assure you they were making a killing even though the price of oil was at $150, now we’ve just increased their profit margins.  The only ones losing are the people who actually take the oil out of the ground.

Let’s use the Saudi Arabians as an example.  When prices were at $150 a barrel, they were rolling in money, but they didn’t set that price.  Matter of fact, they were actually increasing supply as much as they could to take advantage of the prices.  If you speak to anyone in the know about oil, you will find out that they need prices to be $80 or more to turn a profit, so $70 above is great for them.  There are a multitude of reasons why it is dangerous to become dependent upon some of the middle east countries for their oil, but it is important to note that none of them have ever even hinted at the fact that they would decrease supply.  We are their life-line.  When I say we I am including China and all major oil consuming countries.  We get more than 20% of our oil from Canada, we are increasing our Brazil Oil connections, and have always been a large oil supplier ourselves.  So, in summation, we don’t rely too heavily on middle eastern countries for oil.  They are just a player and do everything they can to keep us happy.  They know they are not a necessity in this game, much like Coke tries to appease their vendors.  They are the biggest and the baddest, but it comes down to keeping your customers happy.

The idea that Obama has no energy plan is hilarious to me almost as much as Newt Gingrich saying he will give us $2.50 per gallon gas.  Both are ridiculous.  Obama does have a plan, and you cannot simplify it too much by saying he just wants to use “green energy.” What he has is plenty of supply, but two strong forces working against him.  Exxon Mobile is one of the largest players in the game.  They are going to sap every bit of profit out of a gallon of gas that they can.  I don’t blame them because they are beholden to their stock holders and, after all, it is a profit driven business.  Are we to assume that they should take losses so that you can drive to the grocery store on the cheap?  No, that is ludicrous.  There is the chance that companies would go out of business.  The fewer refineries, the higher prices.  You get the drift.  Not to mention, that there is no way Obama has the pull to completely rid the stock market of speculation.  Republicans are “free-market” and pro-capitalism.  Is there a chance in hell that they allow him to pass legislation limiting the amount of speculation on Oil as a whole?  For both of these reasons, Newt doesn’t have a chance of bringing gas down to $2.50 a gallon on his own.  Why?  If he proclaims “Drill baby Drill” it will only be a temporary fix.  Speculation will drive prices down because people will assume that Supply will go up… This is not the case!  They will only drill what is economically feasible.  Exxon is NOT going to drill themselves out of a profit!  As supply maintains virtually what it does already, the prices will eventually reach a norm and be subject to speculation about the next middle east squabble.

Bottom line.  Speculators, big oil companies, and politics all play their role, but the only way to get prices low and keep them low is to find an alternative forms of energy (which I know is a sin to say out loud), or the government has to get into oil production itself because it is a for profit game.

Earmarks are a Microcosm of how Government Works 7

Corporations have bought off our government.  Below is a list of some of the earmarks for 2010 that went to campaign donors.  You have to see a list like this to see the gravity of the situation, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.  I cannot show you every single earmark that went to campaign donors.  I would to make a point, but it is simply too much raw data.  I know no one will read this line item by line item, but the extent will grab attention.  This is just to illustrate how bad it really is.  Also, I understand that earmarks are just a small percentage of the National Budget, but you have to remember they are a microcosm of how government works.  Tax loopholes, subsidies, tariffs, anti-competition laws, etc. etc. are all written in this same manner.  They just aren’t as clearly stated that they were written for Company X that might have donated to Congressman Y’s campaign via straight donation or Super PAC.  Enjoy:

Tim Bishop Rep. (D-NY) got $13.5k in donations from STIDD Systems and gave them a $3.6mil earmark.

David Dreier (R) Rep of Cal. received donations from Chang Ind. and rewarded them w/ a $3.2mil earmark.

• Aerovironment Inc: Donation to Dreier equals $1mil earmark.

Rich Shelby (R) Senator of Alabama gave 23 earmarks for $90mil to campaign donors or companies that lobbied him.

Sam Johnson (R) of Texas: L-3 Comm. donated to his campaign, and he gave them a $3.04mil earmark.

• SVTronics Inc also has a cozy relationship w/ Johnson that took the next step to a $2.72mil earmark (3rd base)
• Rockwell Collins Inc, gets a $2.4mil earmark for their efforts in lobbying and donating to his campaign.
• Raytheon Co. donated heavily to his camp and was rewarded w/ $1.6mil earmark.
• Mustang Tech., Sam Johnson campaign donor, got a $800k earmark.

Tim Murphy (R) of PA received campaign $ from Curtiss-Wright Corp via PAC’s and rewarded them w/ $2.88mil in earmarks.

• Converteam Inc., a campaign donor of Murphy’s, also got an earmark.  This one only $1.6mil.
• PPG Ind. donated directly, through PAC, and lobbied him to get their earmark of $1.6mil.
• Eaton Corp., another Murphy donor, got a $600k earmark sponsored by Murphy.
• National Center for Defense Mfg & Machinery donated to his campaign and was rewarded w/ a $1.6mil earmark.

One of Ed Pastor’s, (D) of AZ, biggest campaign donors is Honeywell Int.  He sponsored 2 earmarks of $4mil and $3.2mil.

• United tech. lobbied/donated to campaign and got a $4mil earmark courtesy of Mr. Pastor.
• Robertson Aviation dropped 100k on lobbying, much of which on Mr. Pastor.  They got a $2.4mil earmark via Pastor.
• BAE systems, a Pastor donor, also got a $2.4mil earmark.
• Goodrich Corp.  donated through PAC’s and received a $2mil earmark.

(R) Robert Aderholt AL congressman gave a $6mil earmark to Victory Solutions.  You guessed it, they’re donors to his camp.

• QinetiQ North America spent a ton of $ lobbying Aderholt and was rewarded w/ a $3.2mil earmark.
• Miltec Corp supported his campaign, and he supported their bottom line w/ a $3.2mil earmark.
• Peopletec Inc.  Same deal.  Donated/lobbied and got an 3.2mil earmark.  Goes around comes around, I guess.
• J2 Technologies donated to his campaign and got a mere $3mil in earmarks.  Wonder were their .2mil went.
• SUMMA Technology spent 30k on lobbying Mr. Aderholt, and was the recipient of a $2.4mil earmark.
• Intergraph Corp. donated to his campaign and magically got a $2.32mil earmark.
• Raytheon Co: 1 of Edward J Markey’s (D. Representative of MA) 10 biggest donors got a $4mil earmark.
• Foster-Miller spent 32k lobbying Markey and got a $3.2mil earmark.

Cerus Corp. dropped over 160k lobbying Edward J. Markey D. of Mass. and was rewarded w/ 2 seperate earmarks of $2.4mil.

• ‎123 Systems: Edward Markey of MA, a $2mil earmark. Oh, ya they donated to his campaign too.
• QD Vision lobbys Edward Markey for a Nanocrystal Source Display: They get an earmark.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D) of Conn. biggest campaign contributor was General Dynamics… Yes they got a $4.8Mil earmark from him.

• Honeywell was a big contributor & Lobbied him, they got a $4mil earmark sponsored by Courtney.
• United Tech., his 4th largest donor, got a $4mil earmark that he sponsored.
• Alion Science & Tech., donated and lobbied Courtney,  weird how they got a $3.6mil earmark via Courtney.

IN (R)Dick Lugar got camp. $ from Altair,Flagship Ent, AmeriQual, and Allison Trans. Each got their own earmarks of $3mil or more

Steve Buyer (R) of IN received donations from Society of Indep Gas Marketers, BP, Bridgestone, Marathon Oil, and XCel Energy Pac.  No wonder  he twice co-sponsored: Disapproving a rule submitted by the EPA relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

Mark Souder (R) of IN sponsored $3.6mil in earmarks for Raytheon Co.  and yes they were one of his biggest donors.

Andre Carson (D) of IN sponsored $9.8mil in earmarks.  1/2 of that money went to campaign donors or peeps that lobbied him.

David Loebsack (D) of IA earmarked $9.6mil for Rockwell Collins Inc. after they donated to his campaign.  $9.6mil.

R of Kan Representative Todd Tiahrt’s biggest campaign donor was Boeing.  He got a $6mil dollar earmark just for them.

• Hawker Beechcraft, a Tiahrt donor/lobbyer got a $7mil earmark courtesy of Mr. Tiahrt’s sponsorship.
• Kaman Corp. Lobbys him and donates to his campaign to get a modest $3mil earmark.
• Curtis-Wright Corp is a big donor and receives a measley $1.6mil earmark.

Steven Rothman D of NJ set aside $5.6mil in earmarks for Stevens Inst. of Tech. You guessed it, they were campaign donors.

• Dynamic Animation Systems: Yup donated to his campaign and hired lobbyists to get in Rothman’s ears and they get a $3.5mil earmark.
• Covanta is yet another down the line where they donate and get an earmark.  This time, $2.5mil.
• Absecon Mills donor gets $2mil in earmarks
• Phacil Inc lobby’d Mr. Rothman and gave to his campaign, they were rewarded w/ a $2mil earmark.
• General Dynamics too donates to his campaign and lobbys his office and is rewarded yet another $1.68mil earmark.

Bill Young earmarked $4mil for Alliant Techsystems after they contributed to his campaign and hired lobbyists to pull his ear.

• Alakai Consulting and Engineering donated to Billy and only got $1.6mil in earmarks.
• Contributor Honeywell got $1.6.
• SAIC donated to the campaign and got 2.4mil in earmarks from him.
• Bill Young R of FL co-sponsored 64 earmarks totalling $128million.
• Raytheon Co. a $4mil benificiary contributed to his campaign.

John B. Larson D. of CT received $87k in contributions from United Tech. and rewarded them w/ $4mil in earmarks.

• Honeywell contributed to his campaign and got another $5.6mil in earmarks.

Jim Moran has been a naughty boy.  If you look at ITT Corp, one of his donors, he granted them a $1.6mil earmark for their support.

• Argon ST got 2.4 million and donated to his campaign.
• Dynamis Inc. same story.  Donated to campaign; got $2mil in earmark money.
• ObjectVideo Inc. same story: Donated and got $2mil in earmark money.
• Innovative Defense Tech. Same-Same.. Donated to get $2.0mil in earmark money.
• Dynamic Animation Systems then next in a long line of earmarks for this guy.  Donated and got a $2mil earmark in return.
• Progeny Systems donated to him and only got $1.6mil in earmark money.
• ITT Corp. got 1.6mil for their campaign contributions.
• EM Solutions, another $1.6 million dollars in earmarks.
• DDL OMNI Engineering.  $1.6 million and a donor.
• MobilVox Inc. 1.6mil
• SyTech Corp got $1.6 mil for radio inter-operability system from earmark money after donating to his campaign.
• SAIC Inc dontated and got 1.6mill too.
• Curtiss-Wright Corp secured 1.6 mil in earmarks through their contributions to Jim Moran.
• Jim Moran (D) of VA also gave ManTech Int. a $2mil earmark; they too a big donor to his campaign.
• BriarTek Inc. was Jim Moran (D) of VA 5th biggest financial campaign supporter and was rewarded w/ a $2.4mil earmark.
• IR-Vascular Facial Fingerprinting is what they are getting the earmark for.  via the defense spending.

(R) Doc Hastings sponsored two seperate earmarks of $2.4mil that went to Honneywell and Infinia, both were top donors to his campaign…

(D) Adam Smith co-sponsored $3.5m in earmarks for Lockheed Martin.  Lockheed is one of his top five campaign contributors…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to restore our Republic Reply

I understand the concept of limited government, and in many cases agree.  There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.  Since, Citizens United (PAC) v. FEC in ’10 allowing Corp.’s the same rights as individuals in donating, election spending is up 460%.  This was considered a “win” for freedom of Speech and limited government conservative republicans.  Unfortunately, there are unintended consequences for this freedom.  We can now voice our free speech by spending unlimited amounts of money on behalf of the government officials of our liking.  Great thing huh?  Constitutionalists feel that this is adhering closely to our forefathers intentions, but this is absolutely not the case.

Our forefathers saw this coming and tried to write into the constitution checks and balances to combat this.  In early United States history they saw it could be a problem for foreign ambassadors accepting gifts from foreign countries:  “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”  Bottom line, they were worried that these men would become corrupted.  They couldn’t foresee the possibility of Super PAC’s being established, or that contributions from campaign donors would someday purchase legislation.  I guarantee that they would never consider money as free speech.

8 of 10 congressman & senators have given earmarks directly to campaign donors.  That’s just earmarks.  Think of all the legislation that is put into law that is tailored specifically for a donor, or the tax loopholes that are insisted upon on behalf of a campaign donor.  Lobbyists are not allowed to take congressmen to dinner, unless they bring donor checks and call it a campaign fundraising.  Why would we make it law that they cannot take them out to dinner if we didn’t realize there is a corrupting influence there.  Because money is involved, we allow them to get around the rule.  Thinking rationally, it become obvious who makes the laws.  It is almost as if they are stating, “you can’t take me to dinner… unless you bring me a whole bunch of money.  Otherwise it would be unethical.”

Proposal to fix the before mentioned problems:

1. Limit campaign contributions to $250 annually.
2. Eliminate all middle man donations.  (A lobbyist can’t show up w/ a stack of donor checks)
3. Eliminate SuperPAC’s as they are already borderline illegal.
4. Cap fundraising to 500k per election.  (this can be tailored to the office)
5. Government match all donations up to the previously mentioned cap.

These five things would eliminate Quid Pro Quo because no person in their right mind is going to write legislation for a $250 donation.  It would cut down on the time lawmakers spend fundraising.  Currently they spend 30-60% of their time just fundraising.  The elimination of bundled donations would ensure that lobbyists don’t have undue leverage on their lawmaker.  It would really limit them to educators on issues which is all they should be.  There is a term that Buddy Roemer uses: Free to Lead.  If no one entity had donated to a congressman/senator more than $250 they would be “Free” to govern with their voters in mind instead of the Corporation that put the most into their campaign.