I was listening to the radio this morning and the topic was the expectations of new college graduates. In essence, their excessive expectations. The conversation started with a report, a complaint, from a recent graduate. He couldn’t find a job!

No, that’s not right. He had a number of interviews, he couldn’t get hired. There’s a difference.

The grad’s expectation, fed by his school, was that all the grad needed to do was to wave his degree in the face of interviewers and he’d magically get hired.  Surprise! Surprise! Real world intervenes.

I worked for a large telecommunications provider, first as a team leader, then a manager, later as a design engineer and project manager. I was as high as I could go in the company without being an executive. During that time, I interviewed prospective employees, hired some and had to fire some as well. One of the activities I liked was screening college students who recently graduated or would be graduating within months.  Most were bright, knowledgeable and eager to commence their post-school  real-world life.

Then there were the others.

A tactic my employer used was called the “carousel.” Prospective employees would arrive enmass. They were given a stanard benefit package and then sent, in sequence, to managers and engineers for interviews. That allowed each potential employee to be interviewed by a half-dozen managers and engineers. At the end of the day, we interviewers met and discussed the applicants, selecting those for the next round of follow-up interview.

Those meetings were instructive. Some of the applicants would be very surprised with their impression on potential employers.

Case in point: one applicant that I still remember. You could say he did everything to not get hired. We received his resume some days earlier to allow us to be prepared for the interview. From this applicants resume and transcript, I noticed that he attended a number of universities—six as I remember. He had been in school eight years starting at age 19. He had changed majors at least three times.

He arrived in my office wearing jeans, sneakers—no socks, a pullover shirt, and a wrinkled sportcoat. We reviewed his resume and I asked my usual questions to determine what he’d learned in school. “What projects did you complete? What extra-curricular activities were you involved in? What were your priorities in school?”

The job slots open were for entry-level engineers. Instead of answering my questions with engineering examples, he spoke of all his “social awareness” activities.

Apparently, he was anti-war. 9/11 had occurred only months previously. He was against retaliation—“violence never solved anything!” was his response as I remember. I controlled my usual response to such inanities by reminding him of Rome and the Carthaginians. Rome still exists. Carthage doesn’t.

I asked him what he brought to the table that would be an asset to the company. I received a lecture on fairness, the evils of capitalism and the “banker’s cabal.”

At the end of the day when we reviewed the applicants, this character was on the bottom of the pile. We ordered the applicants in order of preference, the best on top. When his name finally appeared, the lead reviewer asked for comments. Silence. No one spoke. Finally, one reviewer ventured, “he has a heightened awareness for politics.” Translation: troublemaker. He wasn’t hired.

Flash forward to the present day. I listen to comments from present day graduates. They are being taught to…fail. Reading comprehension is low. Universities are teaching at a high-school level. The educational curricula has been trimmed to a point of being useless. But applicants are still being told that jobs will miraculously appear by waving a degree before the interviewer.

Nothing could be further from the truth. What graduates should be taught is that the job market is for buyers, not for sellers. Applicants need to impress employers. The first opportunity to impress is the applicant’s initial image. Yes, first impressions are important.

When coming to an interview, be prepared. Get a haircut. Shave. Wear a suit, or at least a sportcoat and tie. Be neat. If you don’t have a suit, there are many thrift stores that have good, well care for suits at a low price. At least do your best with what you have. If you arrive with a scraggly beard, tattoos all over, you will not be hired. Your freedom to acquire tattoos and piercings doesn’t extend to your prospective employer. You can not force him to accept your lifestyle. 

Ladies, don’t come to an interview wearing a top that is open to your navel. Don’t wear shorts or skirts so high that you can’t sit without exposing yourself. The interest you elicit will not get you hired. Not fair? Well, it’s time you learned the world is not fair. Live with it.

Bring copies of your resume and school transcripts. You resume MUST be accurate, clearly written without typos and misspellings. Your history WILL be verified. There are companies out there whose business it is to verify resumes and transcripts. Most importantly, don’t lie on your resume. You will be found out.

If you have a police record, don’t bother applying to any position that requires you to handle or manage cash nor any position that requires a security clearance or a bond. That includes the military as well.

The last point for an applicant to remember is this: your expectations are worthless if you can’t fulfill the expectations of your employer. You must work to meet his expectations. If you don’t fulfill his expectations, he can easily find someone who will, who can fill your vacant slot.

If you have interviews but can’t get hired. Look in the mirror. That’s where you’ll find the problem.

Last post

Oh!, I’m not stopping my blog. It’s the last post of the year, 2012. It’s New Years Eve. Snow is falling lightly outside. The temperature is hovering at freezing and the forecast calls for more snow throughout the day and into tomorrow.

My wife ran some last minutes errands this morning and we’re set for whatever may come—snow, ice or blizzard. Every year I promise to get an emergency generator and every year I don’t. I just hate to spend money on something that I may never use. I keep reminding myself it’s like insurance and I always forget. We’d need at least a 5KW generator at minimum. Then add the wiring necessary to have it perform properly and venting for the exhaust when it does.  

Not cheap.  And, I’m cheap; a holdover from my Depression Era parents and grandparents.

Truthfully, I’m not concerned about the weather. I have a strong tendency towards Cabin Fever. Before, if I started getting jumpy, I’d just get in the Tahoe and go somewhere…anywhere. The “where” didn’t matter. That’s not a real option at the moment. Saturday, the Tahoe’s transmission started slipping between gear shifts. Manual shifting appears to work but I’d rather not push it. I’ve phoned for an appointment at my friendly auto mechanic. He’ll return my call Wednesday, I expect.

I could drive my wife’s car, a rollerskate, in an emergency but I’d need a shoehorn to get in and help to get out. Not a viable option. So I’ll sit here, waiting for Wednesday and a callback.

Happy New Year!


The crazies come out at the end of every year. There were some examples in my American Thinker newsletter this week.

Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change ‘Deniers’

It is as inevitable as the rising of the sun; the Left, when thwarted in their quest for power, suggests the use of lethal force to compel those who disagree.

There is a nauseating litany of murders done by our betters in their pursuit of the Benthamite vision of “the greatest good for the most people” — which in their minds equates to collectivization and socialism. You have Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Margaret Sanger, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot. Now we can add one more name to the list: Professor Richard Parncutt, Musicologist at Graz University in Austria.

Parncutt has issued — and later retracted after it the public outcry — a manifesto calling for the execution of prominent “Climate Change Deniers”. What is interesting is that Parncutt hates the death penalty and supports Amnesty International’s efforts to end it.

This would be a shocking thing for a college professor to do were it an isolated incident, but this call has been made a number of times in the past. For instance, an anonymous poster at the liberal website Talking Points Memo called for similar action, as did Climate Progress editor Joe Romm, who called for “deniers” to be strangled in their beds. Grist magazine writer David Roberts called for Nuremberg trials for “deniers” and NASA’s James Hansen has likewise called for similar trials.

A common denominator of this kill-crazy proclamations is that they all are made by public employees…state-supported academics and government employees. They all hide behind their tenure, unions, government employee regulations that makes it nearly impossible to fire them; as long as they don’t embarrass their boss…too much.  You see, their bosses agree. That’s the real issue. Imagine the uproar if we declared the same for anyone supporting unproven pseudo-science as do these wackos?



Every once in a while an article appears that really invokes thought.  This is such one.  The title attracted me and then I read more. It’s really true that fiction is more often accurate than reality.

There is No Escape

Every once in a while we try to escape to one of those rare, childlike, stay-in-your-pajama’s, popcorn-munching days when we can block out the fear of a collapsing economy and hide from a repulsive culture that seems to embrace everything that is bad. Lately it just doesn’t work.

Settling in for an original “Star Trek” TV series episode called “A Piece of the Action,” I was shocked as it seemed more like a mocking commentary on our current crises.

Searching for a space vessel lost 100 years earlier, the crew of the USS Enterprise arrives on the planet Sigma Iotia II. The planet has been “contaminated” after salvaging a book from the lost vessel called Chicago Mobs of the Twenties; a book they now venerate and base their civilization on. Conventional government had broken down and society was now a tumult of mob bosses, crime, death, and revenge; it could operate no other way. One can’t help but think what an appropriate Rahm Emmanuel/Barack Obama scenario it was; similar to when Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals contaminated our own civilization.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/there_is_no_escape.html#ixzz2Gf6aVkRD

It’s a long article but I urge you to follow the link and read the entire column.  The parallels draw in it are astounding, amazing and incredibly accurate.


Y’all have a great New Years! Make sure you survive it.


Obama’s chickeeeens have come hooome!

I was listening to a news item on the radio this morning and this paraphrased quote came to mind. “Obama’s chickeeeens, have come hooooome, to roost!” It seem that the Detroit city council, now that they’ve delivered 75% of Detroit’s voters to Obama, want pay-back. They’re demanding the Obama bail out their city.

Detroit councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out

Posted: Dec 05, 2012 6:00 AM CST, Updated: Dec 05, 2012 7:39 AM CST

DETROIT (WJBK) — The city of Detroit faces a major financial crisis and one member of city council thinks President Barack Obama should step in and help.

City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month’s election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city. (Click the video player to listen)

“Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson. “Of course, not just that, but why not?”

Nearly 75 percent of Wayne County voters pulled the lever for Obama in November.

“After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young, he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon,” said Watson. “That’s what you do.”

I would like you to note that Councilman JoAnn Watson is NO relation of mine. Obama was re-elected, in part by promising everyone the moon. Now those voters want Obama to keep those promises.  The response from the White House on these demands is…  ** crickets…crickets **.


The democrats continue with their agenda to marginalize the military and military veterans. The dems added an amendment to a defense bill passing through the Senate. The amendment would allow the Veteran’s Administration to rescind veteran’s 2nd Amendment rights if those veterans are deemed “mentally incompetent” by the VA or the military services.

How long do you think it’d be before every serviceman who ever served overseas in a combat zone, or a potential combat zone, or sailed in or close to a combat zone, or flew over a combat zone, is deemed to suffer PTSD and therefore sufficient cause to prohibit them from owning and/or purchasing a firearm? Senator John McCain was upset that Senator Rand Paul promised to filibuster the amendment and threatened to vote with the dems.

Change on veterans’ gun rights lights fire

Coburn wants decisions by judge rather than VA for impaired troops

By David Sherfinski, The Washington Times, Monday, December 3, 2012A major defense-spending bill hit an unexpected bump on its journey through the U.S. Senate over an amendment on veterans’ gun rights, which devolved into a heated floor debate and foreshadows a potential battle over Democrats’ vows to tweak the filibuster rules in the clubby, traditionally collegial body.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, wants veterans who have been deemed “mentally incompetent” to have their cases adjudicated by a judge — rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, as happens currently — and argued that veterans who simply cannot support themselves financially are needlessly given the label and, as such, cannot buy or possess firearms.

“We’re not asking for anything big,” Mr. Coburn said Thursday evening on the Senate floor. “We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights … they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.”

The late-night tussle served to pick at the scab of the ongoing debate over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bid to reform the chamber’s filibuster rules to place limits on the minority party’s ability to hold up debate on legislation, however.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, objected to Mr. Coburn’s proposal once he found out it was part of a package of amendments to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act the body was to vote on.

“I love our veterans; I vote for them all the time, they defend us,” Mr. Schumer said. “But if you are mentally ill, whether you’re a veteran or not, just like if you’re a felon, if you’re a veteran or not, and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”

Note Senator Schumer equating veterans to felons.  The veterans have committed no crimes, other than to serve the country, but Schumer wants them treated the same as convicted felons.  The difference is that the veterans have committed no crime, never been convicted and are only declared incompetent by the VA. The veterans, under the amendment, would have no recourse—except through the VA—Judge, Jury and Executioner all in one federal agency.  Totalitarianism at its best. Veterans, call your Senators if you want to retain your 2nd Amendment rights. Your 1st Amendment rights are under fire from the dems as well.

Real world vs. Union fantasy

There’s been a reprieve, perhaps a short one, in the liquidation of Hostess Brands. The bankruptcy judge is giving the union one more chance to come to an agreement. I don’t think it will happen.

The Bakers & Confectionery union has created a picture of Hostess being a wastrel and bad manager of the company. Hostess opened their books to the unions and invited them to audit them. The Teamsters looked and agreed to a new contract. The B&C union looked, said, “Ah, ha!” Hostess is giving executive bonuses! They used that as an excuse to go on strike.

While it makes good press for the MSM, bonuses are a normal method of executive compensation.  Have you ever noticed when unions criticize management pay they include those bonuses ignoring the fact that bonuses are not guaranteed income?

Here’s the reality of executive compensation. Executives are paid in two forms—straight salary and bonuses. While that salary component is higher than the entry level trainee, it’s not the multi-million dollar figure in most corporations that the press passes around. That bonus, a performance bonus, is what really makes up the large part of an executive’s salary. Often the structure of those bonuses are documented in employment contracts.

You see, contrary to union claims and Hollywood fantasies, executives don’t sit around in executive offices conniving, chasing secretaries, and playing mind-games.  No, they work and work hard. They’re given goals to meet from higher executives or the Board. If they don’t make those goals, they’ll shortly be shown the door.

Usually those goals fall into three categories: Market Share, Revenue, and Expense Control. The Board determines the overall goal for the corporation. The chief executives refine those goals and determine methods to achieve those goals. Then it’s all passed down to each level of the company down to managers, down to the individual employees.  The consequences of failure to meet those goals differs from level to level. Making or failing to make the goals will determine whether pay raises and/or individual bonuses will be forthcoming. During last years with Sprint, some of the company didn’t make their goals. My division did but no one in the company received any merit raises.

The bottom line is that to acquire those bonuses or pay raises, each level of the company must produce. The results of bottom levels feed upward to the top.

If I remember correctly, Sprint, my former employer, went through four or five CEOs in the last decade. Why the turnover? They didn’t make their goals. That failure to meet goals fed downward from the CEO throughout the corporation. Mid-level executives were fired and layoffs of salaried employees occurred every year.

The unanswered question in the Hostess example was twofold: did bonuses actually get paid and what were the goals that needed to be met to win those bonuses. For example, it could have been that the goal segment was Market Share; to maintain  the existing market share. If the executive in question lead a division of the company, perhaps his goal was expense control: to keep expenses level or reduce them by a given percentage. He might have met his division goal while other divisions of the company did not. If so, then the company may have been obligated to may him and those in his division the bonuses they earned while other divisions who did not meet their goals received no bonuses.

But that doesn’t matter to the union. It was an excuse to strike and strike they did. Approximately 1/3 of the employees of Hostess were union. That third was divided into two unions, the Bakers and Confectionery workers and the Teamsters. The Teamsters agreed to a new contract. The B&C did not. One-fourth or one-fifth or one-sixth of the company, whichever percentage that actually belonged to the B&C union, controlled the fate of all the rest.

Who is the reckless and wastrel party? It isn’t Hostess. The union had to create a fantasy to feed their members to justify their actions.

The unions claim someone will buy Hostess and they’ll all keep their jobs. That, too, is a fantasy. Why would some future buyer want a union intent on killing it’s host? No, if there is a buyer (and Hostess has been looking for one for several years) they would likely retain only those facilities in Right to Work states, or in the case of the Mexican company, buy the brand and move the bakery jobs to Mexico. A new buyer would not want to acquire the same troublemakers that brought Hostess down. The union fantasy has no relationship to the real world but it sells well with Hollywood and the MSM.

It Ain’t Fair!!!

Life. It’s not fair, nor will it ever be.

I came across a column by John Stossel titled, “Making it Fair.” In his column, he quoted a Michael Moore interview where Moore declared…

Filmmaker Michael Moore took this notion about fairness to its intuitive conclusion during an interview with Laura Flanders of GRITtv, saying of rich people’s fortunes: “That’s not theirs! That’s a national resource! That’s ours!” As is typical, Moore was confused or disingenuous. In our corporatist economy, some fortunes are indeed made illegitimately though political means. The privileges that produce those fortunes should be abolished. But contrary to Moore, incomes are not “national resources.” — Washington Examiner.

To the collectivist, what is your is his, and in the case of Moore and others like him, what is theirs, is theirs.  In reality, they’re a pack of thieves. Fairness, to them, is taking the assets, hard earned assets, of others. Fairness, to such as Moore, is equal outcome…as long as that same rule isn’t applied to them. I haven’t seen Moore, nor any of the Hollywood libs, donating their fortunes to those in need.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals. — NY Times.

When we examine the differences between the “fairness” liberals preach, and the “fairness” liberals practice, we discover that liberals really do not believe in fairness.  No, they’ll do whatever they can to insure “fairness” is biased in their favor.

Liberals complain that conservative principles and actions are unfair. In Obama’s last State of the Union speech, he mentioned “fairness” at least nine times.  Why is there such an emphasis on “being fair” by the libs? One possibility is their inability to understand that there is no fairness in life.

Life is not fair. There is no guarantee of fairness. If life was fair, no child would die through accident or illness. Pediatric diabetes would disappear. Every mother, father and child would be happy and healthy.

But life is not fair. Some families are not happy while others are. Some children die in accidents, such as the man and two children who died in a fire this week as the mother, who had just returned home from work, watched.

If life is not fair, why are conservatives, when interviewed, judge themselves happy more often than liberals?  In an exchange on PBS Newshour host Jeffrey Brown, correspondent  Paul Solman, Lori Sanders of the American Enterprise Institute and others, the topic was happiness.

PAUL SOLMAN: How happy are you, scale of one to four, one not at all happy, four very happy?

LORI SANDERS, American Enterprise Institute: I’m a four.


LORI SANDERS: I’m very happy.

PAUL SOLMAN: Lori Sanders works at the conservative Washington think tank the American Enterprise Institute. A few blocks away, Occupy D.C.er Eric is on the more liberal end of the spectrum.

What number would you give yourself?

MAN: A one.

PAUL SOLMAN: Are you unhappy, do you think, because of the inequality, economic inequality in this country?

MAN: Well, yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: Study after study, it turns out, finds conservatives happier than liberals.

Yale social psychologist Jaime Napier has a theory as to why.

JAIME NAPIER, Yale University: Economic inequality really does affect people’s subjective well-being.

PAUL SOLMAN: Napier’s work has convinced her conservatives are happier than liberals because they think there’s equality of opportunity in America.

JAIME NAPIER: One of the biggest correlates with happiness in our surveys was the belief of a meritocracy, which is the belief that anybody who works hard can make it. That was the biggest predictor of happiness. That was also one of the biggest predictors of political ideology. So, the conservatives were much higher on these meritocratic beliefs than liberals were.

PAUL SOLMAN: Liberals like the folks we found at Occupy D.C., who don’t think the opportunities out there are equal these days. Their message is clear: The system is not fair.

WOMAN: Everybody here at this Occupy movement is here because they have had enough. So, they’re angry. And chances are, you know, people here are very unhappy with the way that our society works.

WOMAN: I believe that things should be equal, or people should have more of an opportunity to become closer to the 1 percent, because, right now, it’s like the 1 percent is the 1 percent, the 99 is the 99, and we kind of don’t stand a chance.

PAUL SOLMAN: The conservative AEI staffers, on the other hand, think we do.

How many of you, on average, think Americans get what they deserve they deserve economically?

Reza Jan, who grew up in Pakistan, believe in Horatio Algerism for all, sort of.

REZA JAN, American Enterprise Institute: I would say not everybody is able to pull off those kinds of success stories. But, in this country, more than any other, for the work you do, you are able to better yourself.

PAUL SOLMAN: That’s true no matter who you are, said Jesse Blumenthal.

JESSE BLUMENTHAL, American Enterprise Institute: The “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” notion works here more than really anywhere else in the world.

PAUL SOLMAN: Now, optimism alone doesn’t determine contentment. Religion boosts happiness. So does marriage. But Napier’s research accounted for that.

JAIME NAPIER: We adjusted for education, for income, for marital status, religion, people who lived urban vs. rural, all kinds of things. So, you know, on average, just your ideology alone is an independent predictor of your subjective well-being.

ARTHUR BROOKS, American Enterprise Institute: It is true that conservatives tend to be less concerned about income inequality.

Arthur Brooks, president of the AEI, and the author of “Gross National Happiness,” agrees with Napier about the conservative happiness edge.

ARTHUR BROOKS: Conservatives think that fairness is one in which outcomes are based on merit and people start with more or less equal opportunities, or at least we’re working for equal opportunities. If you believe those things, and you see that some person makes more than others or the top 1 percent is breaking away than the bottom 99 percent, that’s not going to affect your happiness very much at all.

Look closely at that last statement. “Conservatives think that fairness is one in which outcomes are based on merit and people start with more or less equal opportunities, or at least we’re working for equal opportunities.”

That is the primary difference between conservatives and liberals.  Conservatives take action—personally, to better themselves. Liberals wait for someone else to take action so they can take advantage of the results. The conservative governs, through his own actions, his life. The liberal subordinates his life to the governance of others.

No, life isn’t fair. No one in touch with reality believes that. Fairness and happiness is what we create for ourselves.

Creating Jobs and other Liberal Myths

I have a list of editorial cartoons that I check each day.  Most are good, some are so-so, some I haven’t a clue to their point.  But usually, it’s very clear what they are trying to say.  Glenn McCoy below is a good example.
Debt Star One
Liberals continue to perpetuate the myth that government creates jobs.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  They point to the increase in governmental employment as if that was something to be proud of.  The truth is that each government employee is paid by money taken out of the private sector.  When there is less money in the private sector, there are few jobs.  Money has to go INTO the private sector to create jobs and the opposite is happening.

I glad those government employees aren’t in the unemployment line.  But I do resent it when it is at the cost of MY job.  I’d much rather see them employed in the private sector at my side.

Instead, they are an impediment to private sector job growth and employment.

The DrudgeReport headline at this time is: Vacation Time: Jobless Claims Up. Recently, earlier this week, another Obama administration talking head made the claim that unemployment payments helped the economy by putting money in circulation.  As best that I remember, he said, “The unemployed can’t afford to save so they have to spend their payments. That puts money into circulation.” 

This quote, among others, is from a liberal front man urging the government to lengthen unemployment payments another 99 weeks.  If I remember correctly, unemployment already can be stretched out to about three years and this money-grabber wants another 99 weeks added to that!

The fallacy is that putting money into circulation creates jobs and increases employment.  They continue to ignore that the funds for those added payments must come from somewhere.  In effect, the trail of the taxes that pays those additional unemployment payments takes money out of the economy.  At every step from the taxpayer’s check, through the IRS, through the bureaucracy, money is lost through waste and duplication.

I note that last weeks unemployment is once again above 400,000.  Who knows, once the previous week’s 399,000 figure is examined a bit more closely, it too will be above the 400,000 mark…just it did about about month ago.

Obama is on a road tour with his two Canadian built and purchased buses and at a stop a farmer complains about the amount of federal paperwork he must complete just to farm.  In response, Obama blames Washington apparently clueless that HE is Washington. He and his bureaucracy is the reason why this farmer is inundated with federal regulations.

Clueless.  I tried to find a better adjective to describe my opinion of Obama.  Arrogant? Yes. Uninformed? No, I can’t really say that.  Information is readily at hand nor can be be said to be ignorant for the same reason.  It isn’t ignorance when he refuses to even acknowledge facts that are contrary to his beliefs.

Obama’s approval ratings dropped below 40% this week. There’s been rumblings in the DNC about him among rumors of a primary challenge.

But perhaps the worse slap of all came from Maxine Waters and the Black Congressional Caucus who complained that Obama wasn’t helping Blacks enough and that the Caucus would drop their support if something wasn’t done.

When the BCC drops their support, you know Obama is in trouble at home.  At this point, ANYONE could beat him in the next election.  I can not imagine anyone who’d be worse.

Well…Ron Paul would come close.

The Time of the Long Knives

Representative Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget committee, is expected to release his 10-year budget plan. Supposedly it will do three things. First it will freeze the federal budget to the 2008 level. Second, it will include a major overhaul of federal entitlement programs. Third, it will cut $4Trillion dollars out of the budget over 10 years.

It’s about time.

If that second item occurs, Mrs. Crucis and I WILL be affected. We’re both retired and receive Social Security money.  We’re not old enough for Medicare. I’d prefer to retain my health insurance, if possible, from my old employer.  It’s much better, although much more expensive, than Medicare.

I haven’t seen Ryan’s proposal yet. I think I’ll wait until I can hear the lib screaming here in my basement office.

In the mean time, here’s a little something by Bob Gorrell for your viewing pleasure.