Obama vs CC Pushers

Back in the 60s, a drug dealer was called a "pusher," a term not heard much anymore. Pushers preyed upon the unsuspecting youth, often succeeded in getting them hooked on addictive substances, usually heroin. Pushers would often give away product to the uninitiated, knowing that if they got these potential customers hooked, they would have a steady flow of income for a long time to come. A pusher knew that, once hooked, his victims usually stayed hooked.

The parallels between drug pushers and credit card companies are many. You can easily replace terms above, substituting "pusher" for "credit card company" and the drug mentioned for "credit." And it will read true. Except, I believe, credit is even worse than an addictive drug. To get hooked on an addictive drug, one is usually encouraged by ones less-than-savory peers, by their nature, a group that exist on the margins. But to get a credit card, one needs little more than a pulse, and the offers come from all directions, continually. The promise of credit shines bright, completely obscuring the dark shadows of debt, one of the worst four-letter words I can think of. And debt is worse than addiction: an addict can kick the habit and expect at least some chance of recovery, but a debtor can't kick the debt habit in the same fashion. The equivalent of "going cold turkey" doesn't exist anymore. Congress has rigged the system now such that even if one declares bankruptcy, not all credit card debt can be discharged. And if one simply stops paying, one is hounded continually by creditors, who will eventually take the matter to court and have judgments filed against them. Bank accounts and/or property seized, etc. How about these offers from debt-reduction agencies one constantly sees and hears about? Most of these outfits are run by the credit companies themselves, and is just another debt collection method. Those that aren't -- as soon as they contact the CC companies in an attempt to work something out -- the CC companies are immediately on the phone to the debtor, making all sorts of threats and demands. And usually at the same time, they'll zero out the remaining available balance on the accounts, and increase the interest rate to 29% or so.

I'm not a big Obama supporter. Heh, I'm not a supporter of Obama at all. I am diametrically opposed to his political views and philosophies. But when he comes out either for or againts a cause on the same side as me, hey, I'll support him. And, lemme tell ya, he's gonna need all the support he can get. I remember the last time the Congress tried to reign in runaway credit card interest rates. I don't remember exactly the month or year this happened, but I want to say it was close to 20 years ago. The response was immediate -- the banks played the market, and managed to get the DJIA to plunge the day after Congress made its announcement. The market plunge was a message -- a shot across the bow, as it were -- and Congress got it. They dropped the matter and promptly forgot all about their suffering constituents. I'm sure many of our elected representatives also received irate phone calls from big campaign contributors, telling them to back the hell off.

So, I can't help but wonder if Obama knows what he's getting into. Maybe because of the trillion-dollar bailout he'll have more leverage. I'm not so sure, though. Chances are, because of the way Congress works, by the time any bill on this issue manages to pass both the House and the Senate, it will have been rendered ineffective, and will be little more than lip service and window dressing.

Something really does need to be done about the credit card mess, though. But what can I, as an individual do? Not all that much, but if more folks joined the bandwagon, so to speak, we could have an effect. What you can do: cut up your credit cards and double up on your payments. Pay those balances off. Teach your children about the evils of CC debt, and explain clearly why it's so bad. Show them a statement which shows the minimum payment, then the interest rate, and the actual amount that goes against the principal. Explain to them how, if they play the CC game, even a small debt will take many years to repay, and the actual amount paid will be much more than the original amount owed. Encourage saving, and lead by example. Instead of whipping out the credit card next time you're faced with an unexpected expense, dip into your savings account instead. That's what it's for, among other things. What savings account? Why the one you've been paying into every month with the money that used to go to finance credit card interest rates, of course. Yeah, it takes discipline. So, what else is new. Don't expect Obama to come to your rescue because, polished rhetoric aside, there is little he can do.

-M

Perry, Texas, and Secession

Following is a post I uploaded to another blog of mine, using other blog software that I'm thinking seriously about abandoning. Blogger seems to work much more intuitively -- for me, at any rate. This post was written a couple weeks ago. Since then, I've begun seeing bumper stickers that show the word "SECEDE" with the Texas flag as a background. Interesting. Beginning in the early 90s, I began to believe that certain states would clamor to secede, but I'd always figured it would be Hawaii and Alaska, and probably in that order. Hawaii wants its monarchy back, and Alaskans are a mighty independent lot. Almost as independent as us Texans :) But for whatever reason, I just never thought I'd have seen or heard the first signs of secession coming from Texas. Guess it makes a large amount of sense that it would, in retrospect. Anyway, here's the earlier piece:

I live in Texas. Houston to be exact. I was born and raised a Texan. But shortly after I turned 21, I moved to California, and spent the next 24 years there. Served a hitch in the US Army, and while in the Army, also lived in Monterey, CA, Olympia Washington, and briefly, Ft. Wainright, Alaska, which is just outside Fairbanks. So, I have something that many Texans -- and Californians, for that matter -- don't: perspective.

The recent news of Texas Governor Rick Perry taking a stand for Texas and against the ever-encroaching federal government had me fired up. But I have found it amusing and predictable that most media outlets and much of the blogosphere choose to misquote and misrepresent what Perry said. If they can twist a conservative's words so they can slam him and rake his butt over the coals, they'll do it in a heartbeat. So predictable. And for those of us who bother staying informed, all it does is further reduce their credibility. As if it could get any lower.

I also find it predictable that Perry is talking tough at this time, since he's facing a powerful challenge to his job from Texas' popular Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Seems like the only time he starts talking tough is when an election is approaching.

But what Perry said needed to be said. He understands something that a lot of other folks in government don't get: he governs, he doesn't control. We Texans are an independent-minded lot, and the more independent among us tend to think of the federal government as little more than a necessary evil . . . one that is, in fact, becoming a growing liability as each day passes. Regarding his comments on secession, it bears reading the comments themselves, without all the spin attached. First, let's look at what led to his comments -- (HCR)50, a resolution passed by the Texas House, which Perry supports.

From Texas Governor Rick Perry's website (April 9th):

Gov. Rick Perry today joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

Very clear and straight-forward, seems to me. This sort of thing needs to be said to the federales, and said often just in case they weren't paying attention the first few dozen times the States have protested. But resolutions have no teeth to them, so the federal government will do what's predictable -- it'll ignore the protests and warnings like an old man with his hearing aid intentionally turned down.

Now, let's have a look at what Perry specifically said that set off all the furor. Following his speech at the April 15 Tea Party held in Austin, Texas, in talking with reporters, Perry said:

“There’s a lot of different scenarios. Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that . . . My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot."

I have a couple of degrees in Linguistics, and I can parse English grammar as good as the next guy. Hell, better than the next guy, if you want to know the truth. What's the first thing he said? He mentions different scenarios. Different possible paths that a government or the people who consent to be governed by it may take. Then he reminds folks that Texas entered the Union with the specific right to leave if it wanted to. But he then states his unconditional support of the Union, meaning the federal goverment system. Meaning he has no desire to push this secession thing. Then his warning: not only is the federal government willfully ignoring the concerns of the states, but it is forcing them to comply with unconstitutional legislation and regulations. Further, there's the possibility that if this irresponsible behavior continues, disaffection will grow into something more severe and tangible. Finally, Texas is a state like no other in the union: it was established as an independent sovereign country after its people fought for, and won, independence. Texas proved it could go it alone before, and there are many Texans who believe that Texas can go it alone again, if push comes to shove. That, my friends, was his message.

-M

"You might want to give some serious thought to thanking your lucky stars that you're in Texas."

Hello World

I've been using another type of blog software for a while now, but I'm not a geek. Seems like even the most basic routines one needs to do with that software requires a certain geek level, below which no explanations are available. I'm tired of floundering around with it. I liked it a lot better when it was HTML, but now it's php. I don't do nor do I understand php. Heh. Blogger probably uses it too. No matter, I guess. If I find blogger easier to use, then that's what I'll go with.

-M