Why not the auto companies?

They were directly affected by the rise in oil prices that occurred over the last two years. After 9/11 auto makers were the first to start the effort to move the economy with lowered prices and 0% financing. Banks adjusted their standards and types of loans, but that was often worse for the borrower when they took on an ARM or interest only product. Lower payments today but a bigger total debt. $25Billion is such a small amount compared to the $850Billion total and at least they are making something other than money for themselves.

It was warned that several large industries would follow suit once the bailout was passed for the banking industry. It should be no surprise that the auto companies are following. Or, at least no surprise to those of us outside of Washington, DC. More and more the "bitter" middle Americans will see the voting of the masses in urban areas laying hold to our hard-earned, frugally saved money. Sharing the wealth it is called. Of course, looking around one might ask, what wealth are we sharing?

But the amounts are so big that people don't notice how it affects them. $850 Billion / 300 million people (not the number of taxpayers the number of people) = $2,833 per person. A family of four makes that $11,333 for the family. Assuming that is a one-time deal, you could buy a 2002 Chevy Tahoe, fully loaded, I just bought one, for what the government is going to give away on your behalf. Or a brand new small sedan. At least when you had given a car company nearly $12K in the past you got a car out of the deal. Now you get to pay for their kickbacks and be happy because we may save the economy in Detroit.

Of course, the fact is that from 2006 IRS numbers there were 92,713,707 tax payers (people who actually paid income taxes). Split the 850 Billion by those actually paying income tax and you get $9168 per person to pay for the bailout.

It's too much and it will only grow. At what point does the money come back? It doesn't. We pay off the car companies debts, and mortgage company debts, but can't pay off our own debts. Car companies won't turn around and help you pay off your car debt. Banks won't reduce your principal, despite what Obama suggested during the campaign of promised hope. If it is just a sacrifice we have to make, let's get the car companies back on track. At least I will eventually buy a car from them. Maybe they can even use it to build a flying car, I wouldn't mind paying an extra $10000 for a flying car.

Prejudice Against Appalachians or Overweight People? The Nanny State's War Against David Felinton

It's not often that we here at the Potomac Highlands Conservative stand up for a Democrat, but Huntington Mayor David Felinton has taken an undeserved beating lately.

Felinton has been mayor of Huntington for over seven years. He ran fresh out of college and defeated the incumbent Jean Dean. Over the past seven years Felinton has managed to attract business to what was once the dead core of a fading city. Huntington has tried to use the federal funds steered by Senator Byrd to not only help Marshall University, but also revitalize the center of the city. During revenue shortages he repeatedly refused a pay raise offered to him by the City Council. In an era where we see CEOs laying off thousands while accepting bonuses of millions, that is refreshing.

Felinton's tenure has not been perfect, recently he offended citizens by allowing park bridges to be painted pink. However he has tried to do the best job possible with one of West Virginia's most troubled large cities. Like or dislike him, he does not deserve the trashing handed out to him by the media this week.

Someone, somewhere dubbed Huntington, West Virginia the most overweight city. With great places to eat like Jim's Spaghetti House that might be understandable. The national media picked it up because a rat in the media named Mike Strobbe decided to make an issue not only of Huntington, but also of Mayor Felinton. Felinton is a bigger than average guy and the writer decided to affix the description "obese" to his name. Another outlet remarked that the area also scored poorly in dental health.

Honestly, are we not supposed to be living in a new age where stereotypes and prejudices are left behind? Why is it STILL acceptable for liberal media outlets like MSNBC to ridicule Appalachia? Beyond that, Huntington is much like the rest of the region. People in Appalachia are far less judgmental about physical size than other places. That should be a positive instead of a slam. Also people are free by the grace of God to eat as much as they want and exercise as little as they see fit. The Nanny State lovers needs to butt out of the City of Huntington and out of the physique of its mayor.

Apollo and Dionysus Revisited

In 1969 Russian immigrant intellectual Ayn Rand wrote an essay called "Apollo and Dionysus." At this point, Rand had emerged as a leader among those seeking to defend the free market and fight the encroachment of Leftism. Her positivism resembled conservative movements in its embrace of liberty, but diverged on the issue of religion. Many of Reagan's speeches from this period show a powerful influence by Rand, except for his sincere Christianity.

She wrote this piece during a summer that witnessed man landing on the moon and the Woodstock concert. Rand noted that 300,000 attended the $7 concert while over a million traveled to Florida to watch Apollo 11 blast into space. To her these events represented the two possible paths of the United States and mankind in general.

Rand talked about Apollo's symbolism as a Greek god. He represented a realistic viewpoint as well as the determined individual spirit. If one theme underlies her novels and essays, it is the power of the individual to do great things when unfettered by law or convention. Dionysus, the half-brother of Apollo, represented the power of the collective experience. He was the god of wine and fertility, but represented delusion. In other words, Dionysus was the god of feeling good whereas Apollo represented harsh reality.

Intellectuals did not "feel good" about the triumph of American ingenuity in 1969. Column after column reminded readers how much more could have been spent on the welfare programs that we now know ruptured the social fabric of much of the nation. Few intellectuals applauded the amazing achievement or understood the wider value of the technology created by NASA to get men there and back. Certainly few remembered that this was a dream championed by a president, Kennedy, whose liberalism did not fully overwhelm his belief in the power of the individual nor the greatness of his nation. Of course today's liberals cite his belief in America's space program as a reason for his greatness.

On the other hand, Woodstock, to read accounts in Newsweek and the New York Times "who called it the 'Nightmare in the Catskills'" was a disaster. Planners had underestimated the need for sanitary facilities, food, water, or health care. Cars were parked in residents' yards and farms. Concert goers destroyed property, and used porches and yards as bathrooms. They shared a vision of seeking a grand collective experience that would validate or at least help them understand their rootless individualities. Rand called them a party looking for a Fuhrer.

The problem, according to Rand, lies in a culture and society that believes happiness is the absence of struggle. Avoidance of individual problems and the maintenance of self-esteem become paramount. People feel strong not through personal achievement, but by the power of the group. National Socialism was built by people who were perennial losers in life, who could only rise by using brute force to steal from and smash those who had done well for themselves.

It is imperative that we remain vigilant as believers in liberty. Freedom means that we have natural rights to keep the rewards of our work, that we can satirize the president-elect without being called racists, that we can proudly talk about our accomplishments since 1981 in making this country great. That includes the effectiveness of President Bush.

Just because liberals have won an election does not mean they can force us to go along with their ideas on how to redefine America. This is a country of individualism. Collectivist ideals are meant to control society, not better it.

A Party of Neville Chamberlains

West Virginia is somewhat of an anomaly on the geopolitical landscape of the United States. In Presidential elections we vote like the Republican conservative south and on a state level we vote like the Democrat liberal northeast. We soundly rejected the liberal philosophy of Barrack Obama with 56% of the people voting John McCain, but we voted for the very same liberal philosophy on a state and regional level. So why do we have a voting split personality? Simply many conservatives in the state think like Neville Chamberlain.

On September 30th, 1938 after signing the Munich Agreement to stop German expansion through appeasement, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared, “Peace for our time.” A little less than a year later Germany broke the agreement and invaded Poland. The world was plunged into war for the next 6 years.

70 years later many Republican leaning, pro-business and conservative, individuals and organizations lined up behind Democrats running for office in West Virginia, candidates that in many cases openly opposed the ideas of conservatives. Their idea is to stop the expansion of bad liberal policies through appeasement rather than direct confrontation, all the while declaring “Prosperity for our time.”

It didn’t work in 1938 and it doesn’t work today. While we are not going to enter into a war, it does insure that we are continuing with the same bad economic policies out of Charleston that have been destroying West Virginia. We conservatives and business leaders need only look in the mirror to see who is to blame and I include myself in that group.

So what needs to be done? We need to stop trying to have influence in the state government through a process of appeasement of candidates that do not wholly support a conservative pro-business agenda. We can no longer pick and choose who we think will win. We must fund conservative candidates at the expense of trying to buy influence with liberal candidates we think might win. We will make mistakes at times, but more often then not we will begin to pick up seats across the state. When our funding of appeasement stops, liberal candidates will begin to fall short of funding just as conservative candidates funding begins to rise.

Many in the state fear retribution from the left if they stop funding appeasement, but consider as the balance of power shifts to the conservatives in the state, then the power of retribution shifts with it. West Virginia is a conservative state and should be a solid Red state, but it is not the liberals that keep themselves in power. It is appeasement funding conservatives that keep the liberals in power. We need to make a change.

PEIA Rate Hike Announcement Well Timed

West Virginia's Public Employees Insurance Agency plans to raise employee premiums 9% and retirees 11% while also expanding the copays on vital necessities such as prescription drugs. The plan also proposes a built in financial burden placed upon members that go to out of state hospitals.

A plan only a bureaucrat or a state hospital could love.

It is true that private sector premiums are rising higher. It is also true that salaries in the private sector also go up more quickly. Some state employees, even with raises, make the same now as they did three years ago because of the last rate increase. Factor in inflation and they are doing worse. Union officals cite the 1/3 of a billion dollar budget surplus as a reason why increases may not be necessary.

The Potomac Highlands region will suffer more than others. The major hospitals that serve this region are located in Cumberland and Winchester. For significant health problems, people in these areas would have to travel to Morgantown to save money. What sense does that make?

As bad as the proposals will seem to a state worker, the timing of this announcement was interesting. Doing it after Election Day means that the political blowback on legislators and the governor would be minimal. Would state workers have supported their local Democrat if they knew this was in the pipeline?

Of course rate increases cannot take place without public hearings. Conveniently, most of these meetings take place during the workweek, minimizing the ability of employees to attend.

It's not so much the increases, although state workers are being squeezed by inflation and infrequent raises, because these happen to everyone. It is the way this announcement was made and how the meetings are scheduled. I would suggest that all state teachers and other workers call off sick one day to travel to the Charleston or Morgantown meeting en masse. Of course state workers and teacher unions will gripe and complain, yet continue to vote for the same Democrats that run this kind of show when we hit 2010.