Image credit: Richard A. Bloom/Corbis

Blah, blah, blah. Stop talking about health care for 15 seconds. You have until at least March 18th to analyze Speaker Nancy Pelosi and streakerciser Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel bludgeon Congress to vote for Obamacare.

Let’s talk about the stories of legal manipulation and scandal that this administration is happy you aren’t paying attention to while you’re focused on jobs and health care.

President bashes Supreme Court

It takes uber gall and immaturity to lambaste a comrade. The current administration is well endowed in both deficiencies, so it was smashingly successful in breaking with American history, decorum and the Constitution during the State of the Union Address.

Supreme Court endures the President's chiding words during the State of the Union address. Image credit: latimesblogs.latimes.com

We have yet to hear an apology from the President for ganging up against the Supreme Court and chiding justices for doing their job. The President arrogantly and inappropriately used his State of the Union address as a bloody pulpit to bash the third branch of government and mischaracterize the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Thankfully, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts had the confidence to denounce the President’s actions this week. When a University of Alabama law student asked him about the occurrence, he responded: “I think anybody can criticize the Supreme Court. On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

Image credit: Jay Reeves, AP

Pointing out the obvious fact that the Supreme Court justices only attend the State of the Union address as a courtesy to the President, and the justices rarely even applaud throughout the speech to maintain an appearance of impartiality, Roberts said, “I’m not sure why we’re there,” particularly when the President treats the High Court with disrespect and hostility.

Eric Holder’s secret ‘al Qaeda 7′

Last week, Keep America Safe ruffled feathers by demanding maturity, transparency and respect for the law from an administration that just held a casual health care summit where the President rolled up his sleeves and addressed congressmen by their first names.

Since President Obama appointed Eric Holder as the U.S. Attorney General, legal ethics has taken a tumble. Holder completely mishandled the Christmas day underwear bomber national security threat, and he has been unwilling to disclose his previous viewpoints on mirandizing terrorists that differ greatly from those he holds under Obama’s watch. He has also been less than forthright on his work with the infamous Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Now, the Attorney General has refused to release the names and associations of seven of the nine attorneys who represented Guantanamo detainees. This led Keep America Safe to produce the video above. It certainly is not common practice to withhold the identities of either attorneys or clients, so Holder’s silence has led conservatives such as Ann Coulter to question whether there is a political agenda or association to hide.

Federalist Society co-founder, David M. McIntosh, stated: “Was the [Justice Department] person acting merely as an attorney doing their best to represent a client’s case, or did they seek out the opportunity to represent them or write an amicus brief because they have a political or personal agenda that made them more interested in participating in those [terrorist] cases?”

Federal judge lines ACORN’s pockets

This week, U.S. District Judge Nina Gerson unconstitutionally declared that a rotten little nut called ACORN had a “constitutional right” to taxpayer money to continue its “important” work for the community including voter registration fraud, and other nefarious deeds.

I try to think the best of people, so I’m happy to see that Judge Gerson legislates from the bench to keep our President’s pet radical group alive with taxpayer money during a recession. Plus, it looks like you can be a sexy Acorn for Halloween again in 2010! Or, you could be boring and go as Obamacare. Blah, Blah, Blah.

Image copyright Amie Kieffer 2009. All rights reserved.

If you want to make more money than your private sector peers, get a job in PR or broadcasting for the government.

Warning: You will make more money, but you will lose all creativity, input, control and ownership over your work.

PR and broadcast professionals generally fall into three important camps – news managers, news relaters, and news interpreters. They help preserve the rights and freedom of all Americans when they work independently of government pressure.

This month, USA Today released a report showing that federal employees make significantly more than private sector employees in comparable occupations. The biggest public-private pay variances exist in the average annual salaries of public relations managers and broadcast technicians.

NO MORE BULLDOGS

Let’s take a look at the monetary “treats” that the federal government is offering private media “watchdogs” (broadcast professionals) and news managers (PR professionals) to turn them into federal lapdogs:

The government seems bent on eliminating investigative journalism, specifically watchdog journalism. At the end of the day, many decisions come down to money. Particularly during a recession, people will choose careers and employers based on the size and stability of their paycheck.

So, by creating such a large pay variance between private sector and public sector PR and journalism professionals, the government will remove “unsavory” viewpoints from the public arena. And, even if a few stubborn private media moguls, such as Rush Limbaugh, Jason Lewis, Michael Savage or Laura Ingraham persist in their watchdog roles, the government will eventually be able to squelch their voice with its army of highly paid federal PR and media employees – unless this trend is stopped.

We can already see this happening with The Associated Press (AP), which has become an agent for The Man. Remember how the AP assigned 11 reporters to Sarah Palin? Remember how AP reporter, Calvin Woodard, wrote a “Fact Check” article claiming that small businesses do not create jobs?

Remember how the AP conducted its own poll to show that supposedly, “More Americans believe steps taken to reduce global warming pollution will help the U.S. economy than say such measures will hurt it?” Here’s the shocking truth: The AP conducted this study in Nov., 2009 but withheld release of the “results” until Dec., 2009 during the same week as the Copenhagen Climate Conference.

Additionally, the AP study was conducted by allegedly independent firm, GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media, which boasts a cozy polling partnership with the AP since 2008. Rush Limbaugh reported that, “In contrast, the New York Times/CBS News poll was conducted between December 4th and 8th, and it doesn’t show the same results and details.”

President Obama presents at Copenhagen. Image: AFP/Attila Kisbenedek.

GfK also recently conducted a study indicating that PBS (which operates through federal funds from the innocent-sounding Corporation for Public Broadcasting) is “the most trusted and unbiased source for news ahead of Fox News Channel, CNN and other commercial networks.”

Let’s connect the dots: The AP has a reputation for construing the facts in favor of liberalism and the current administration’s agenda to expand government. The AP also partners with a not-so-independent research firm that conducts polls favoring man-made global warming myths and federally-funded broadcasting.

USA Today’s report reveals that it “pays” to work for the government. So, unless the public becomes aware of these facts and demands media watchdogs, not treat-plumped lapdogs, expect to see more PR and media giants follow the AP and GfK’s trend of construed news.

John Mayer copycats beware. You may think you are playing the field, but your field is limited. If you’re a Playboy fan, you might be missing out on an entire species of spectacular women. Playboy is not the bare-all industry you thought it was.

You may need to go on a safari and wear your night vision goggles to find the type of woman I describe. She doesn’t have a blaze orange spray tan or flaunt a Playboy Bunny cotton tail. She’s elusive, confident, strong, independent and smart. And, yes, she’s intimidatingly attractive.

The type of woman I describe is a ravishing conservative woman. Playboy hates this type of woman because she is a threat to the image of women it wants to portray. A conservative woman is independent. She does not rely on a sugar daddy – male or Congressional – to make her decisions. She believes that her body is her own property and no one, especially the government, has the right to tell her what to eat, how to eat or when she should abort her children.

This past June, Playboy released – and then quickly pulled – an article by Guy Cimbalo entitled: “So Right It’s Wrong: The Top 10 Conservative Women We Love To Hate,” lambasting opinionated, outspoken, and gorgeous conservative women including:

• Michelle Malkin, described by Cimbalo as,“This highly f—able Filipina.”
• Michele Bachmann, for whom Cimbalo violently announces,“Chemical castration has begun to look appealing.”
• Laura Ingraham, judged by Cimbalo to be an “insipid” “racist and sexist.“
• Mary Katharine Ham, regarding whom Cimbalo warns, “You get this one pregnant, she stays pregnant. Karma’s a bi—, isn’t it?“

My assessment is that Playboy cheats men by pushing them to “hate fu–” conservative women and look for these key attributes in partners:

1. Immature and girlish. As your girlfriend(s) grow old, be like Hef and trade them in for a new, younger set, preferably twins for double hanky-panky. According to Playboy, women should live in Neverland and never grow up, along with Peter Pan and the Lost Boys. Women should tether themselves  to men 50 years their seniors who serve as R-rated “grandfathers,” not soulmates.

   

   Image from “The House Bunny” starring Anna Faris.

2. Stupid. Take it from a few of the Las Vegas Club Palms Playboy Club Play Bunnies themselves:
   • What is your favorite way to waste an afternoon?
     HOLLY: Watching Divorce Court – and eating.
   • What is your favorite book?
     JANNAH: Jennah Jameson’s autobiography.
   • Who is your biggest inspiration?
     JANNAH: My mother…and Hugh Hefner, of course!
   • What was the hardest part about learning to become a dealer?
     MELISSA: Counting all the numbers; they all started looking the same!!!
3. Apathetic. No opinions please, just shake your bunny tail and bring me a cocktail!
4. Submissive. Sure, they might have their own reality show or modeling agent, but at the end of the day, women are the property of Playboy Enterprises, Inc. Playboy upholds women who flaunt their looks and make themselves objects so that Hef can profit. Playboy is helping men idolize “yes-women” and despise women with true intellectual and physical appeal. Playboy needs a new model of women that is based on reality, independence and equality.
   

   Jacuzzi in the Hugh Hefner Sky Villa, Palms Casino Resort, Las Vegas

British models. Image by Tim Walker for British Vogue.

Across the pond, the ministers of the Crown have a competition going on. A competition with the U.S. Congress. It appears that Westminster is downright determined to show Washington that it can grow government faster.

Her Majesty’s government appears to be a bit threatened by the way American politicians are acting like aristocrats. Keen on maintaining its reputation as the most proper “modern monarchy,” the British government has decided to go off its trolley in a mad attempt to expand its power over citizens.

The Brits are reminding wannabe aristocrats like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid who the real aristocrats are by bringing the power of government into the realms of fun and vanity. While American politicians try to control health care and the environment, the British, who have already regulated these “fundamentals,” are hastily taking steps to regulate the frivolous.

Don’t hit me with that pint glass!

Count on an aristocrat to come up with a cosmetic solution to Britain’s binge-drinking culture. The land of starched Buckingham Palace guards is deft at creating an image of control and perfection. This month, the British government revealed that it had designed two new shatterproof glasses for pub drinkers. Government officials praised their investment of time and research in developing these new glasses as a way to save billions in health care costs from glasses that couldn’t “double as a lethal weapon,” the Associated Press reports.

British Home Secretary Alan Johnson showcases prototype shatterproof pint glasses. AP Photo/PA, Stefan Rousseau

According to the British government, “‘glassing’ attacks cost the National Health Service roughly $4.3 billion per year.”  Unfortunately, the government seems more concerned with aesthetics than with actually saving money on health care or ending pub violence:

Consider that the British government would not even consider advocating economical plastic pint glasses because the look and feel would not appeal to drinkers, admitted the government’s design squad creative director, Matt Cotterill, of Bridge Design. Consider also that the new rock-solid pint glasses could still be used as deathly weapons to knock out fellow pub patrons – without having to contend with glass shards flying up in your own face during the act.

Elephant's Head Pub in Camden, North London.

Creating shatterproof glasses almost seems like a way to enable rowdy pub crawlers to see what they can do with the new glasses. When Brits get rat arsed, they are still going to be inclined to violence. If they can’t use their pint glass, they’ll use their plate, chair, purse, or cell phone. Should the government encourage bars to strip patrons of all belongings at the door, bubble-wrap counters, and replace high-top stools with bean bag chairs to eliminate pub violence?

Government-sponsored shatterproof glasses are a waste of taxpayer dollars and a step toward insanity. The government has better things to do than design glasses that won’t break in the hands of drunken sailors.

Britain’s Design Council chief, David Kester, maintains that “We are launching the redesign of a British classic, the pint glass. We tried to find ways to make life better while saving money. We’re a creative nation.” Leave the creativity to private small businesses, Britain. You will save money and free up time to focus on core government functions.

There’s no way she can be that hot

Apparently, flawless models are a menace to society. If you gaze upon too many airbrushed models in magazine ads, you may be duped to believe that these people are physically flawless. And, this belief will cause you undue distress. Apparently, a mistakenly over-altered Ralph Lauren image, like the one below, causes disproportionate psychological distress in young women, say the Brits.

Problems to such a proposal include:

1. How do you enforce this? What are the limits? Will advertisers be forced to include a disclaimer for minor alterations like crops or lightening the sky behind a model?
2. How detailed does the disclaimer need to be? Anyone familiar with Adobe Photoshop knows that there could be hundreds of changes made to a single photograph before it is published, so the disclaimers themselves could be pages long. Are we going to start seeing ads for clothing and makeup that have two-page disclaimers similar to ads for drugs to treat depression?
3. Advertisers will find ways to avoid posting disclaimers on their ads, such as using models that do not require airbrushing, as London-area fashion photographer, Paul Cable, warned. Models will be forced to take even more drastic dieting and plastic surgery measures to compete in the industry.
4. Just in case you still think this British proposal has an ounce of credibility to it, consider that this study was authored by “psychologist and media personality Linda Papadopoulos, (who) said that “when girls evaluate themselves against unrealistic airbrushed images it cultivates a feeling of falling short, of not being ‘good enough.’ She recommended that ratings should be affixed to such images to make clear if and how models had been altered.” So, yes, if this proposal passes, Brits will see two-page disclaimers attached to a simple ad showing a model wearing a Ralph Lauren sundress.

   Let me introduce you to Dr. Papadopoulos herself, star of the UK documentary, My Big Breasts and Me, who you can see has it all “together” when it comes to class and fashion (see below). Let’s learn from this aristocratic nonsense and demand election reform, limited government, free market principles and adherence to the Constitution from our U.S. elected officials. We do not want to give up our freedom to live in a regulated cocoon like our European neighbors.

   

   Dr. Linda Papadopoulos. Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images.

I predict medical professionals will see an uptick in bankers with government-induced drinking addictions. The government is driving bankers into depression. It doesn’t help that bankers have no one to vent to. The public has turned on bankers since the liberal media has painted them as greedy trolls who drove the U.S. into recession.

I want to shed some light on the ways that the government is driving a stake into our economy by attacking banks.

Government squeezes banks out of business

1. Banks are failing, failing everywhere. 140 banks failed in 2009 – the highest number since the peak of the S&L crisis in 1992. We are barely into March and 22 banks have already failed in 2010. In contrast, just 25 banks failed in all of 2008 and only three failed in 2007.

   In Oct., 2009, Timothy Koch, president of the Graduate School of Banking at Colorado, told bankers at the Bank Holding Company Association’s Fall Seminar that government regulators are implementing policies that will drastically reduce the size of the banking industry. Koch said that regulators are lowering banks’ “profit potential” by raising capital levels to 10 percent, causing the banking industry to “self-select.”
   Whereas most banks “used to be able to operate comfortably with 8 percent capital,” they now need “10 percent or more, ” Koch said. Bankers are having a difficult time meeting these needlessly high capital levels.

2. While federal regulators are cracking down on community banks that provide small business loans necessary to drive the economy, they are nurturing a set of “political banks” that take orders from the government. Political banks are banks with poor business models that the government bailed out, and, now has a political interest in overseeing.

Government has kind words but harsh fieldworkers

On  Oct. 30, 2009, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council released a document titled the “Policy Statement on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Loan Workouts.” FDIC Chairman, Sheila Bair, described this regulatory document by saying it, “encourages banks to continue making good loans to commercial real estate borrowers, many of which are small businesses…” and “examiners are instructed to take a balanced approach in assessing an institution’s risk management practices for workouts.” This document sounded nice, but has achieved little by way of unfreezing the markets and helping small businesses – the fuel of our economy – obtain loans.

FDIC Chairman, Sheila Bair

As ABA Banking Journal put it, “Some bankers are simply not ready to believe that a policy statement will bring meaningful change in the field.” Take it from the experts:

• Walt Moeling, banking partner for Bryan Cave LLP in Atlanta states, “Appraisers in this environment aren’t going to step up and give you any big numbers. They have every incentive to protect themselves.”
• Patrick O’Keefe, real estate consultant for O’Keefe & Associates in Grand Rapids, Mich. says, “Having been accused of overinflated appraisals [in good times], they now err on the other side – almost useless.”
• Kate Marcum, president of Millbury National Bank, contends, “They were aggressive about writing down the values and I’ve had some appraisals that were extraordinarily low (area values have fallen around 20% recently). Appraisers are really afraid to say anything positive.” She says that the examination process has “decimated guarantors. Quite frankly, [examiners] don’t want to be caught with a bank with a problem they didn’t identify.” So, they identify nearly everything as a problem.

Former California regulator, Walt Mix, sums the government’s new regulatory document this way, “And the real problem, that can’t be addressed in the guidance, is the bid-ask differential for the [commercial real estate] property. No regulatory document is going to improve the market’s view of underlying collateral.”

Government pushes banks to bail out negligent clients

Effective July 1, 2010, the Federal Reserve has prohibited banks from charging clients with deficient money management skills fees for over-drafting at ATM machines or on debit cards unless the client agrees to pay such charges. Clients with poor money-management skills are probably the least likely to agree to a fee that would crimp their ability to spend beyond their means. Overdraft fees are a practical way for banks to compensate for the risk of loaning money to negligent clients.

Granted, some ATM machines will allow consumers to withdraw beyond their account balance without informing them. A simple “consumer-protection” solution would be to inform consumers rather than to prohibit overdraft fees.

But, our government, high on spending steroids, sympathizes with citizens who suffer from similar spending addictions. Thus, the Federal Reserve has decided to slash up to $20 billion in revenue from banks by barring overdraft fees. Smart bankers at Wells Fargo & Co., Fifth Third and U.S. Bancorp are trying to recoup these funds by offering clients short-term loans called “checking advance products” comparable to “payday loans.”

These loans are certainly risky and expensive debt, and even though they inform customers of risk, banks face scrutiny from consumer protection groups who claim that these products are “debt traps.” A “trap” implies that one is an innocent victim. Negligent consumers are not innocent victims. They are negligent consumers who won’t take the time to check their account balance before they go shopping for cash at the ATM machine.

Let’s get the facts straight: No one has a right to spend beyond their means. No one has a right to take more money out of their bank than they put in. If consumers wish to act irresponsibly, and the Federal Reserve strips banks of the ability to charge overdraft fees, then banks will need to find another means to penalize and rightly profit from the risk they assume from lending money to fiscally irresponsible consumers.

Let’s all give bankers a little love and focus our energy on limiting the size of government so that the economy can fully recover.

Helen of Troy by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, 1863, oil on panel

I’m sure you’ve heard of Helen of Troy from Greek Mythology. After Paris of Troy abducted Helen from her husband, Menelaus, the Greeks launched the Trojan War to win her back. Her beauty and power were undeniable. She crushed and melted the hearts of the strongest men.

In Greek Mythology, heroes were mortals who overcame the fear of death, typically during a heroic battle such as the Trojan War, to achieve “kleos” or glory. Helen of Troy is a Greek myth. “Hell in Troy” is a Greek reality. Let me tell you the tale of Hell in Troy.

Greece is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, surrounded by the Ionian, Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. It is rich in history and culture. All this is about to come tumbling to the ground. Greece has roughly $72 billion in debt due in 2010 and the world markets are concerned by Greece’s downturn.

Hell in Troy is the “battle” that Greece faces today. I am pointing out Greece’s economic challenges in hopes that they might help us understand the U.S.’s economic situation and avoid Greece’s pitfalls.

1. Government growth:
   On Feb. 24, about 50,000 Greek union workers went on strike in the streets to protest the Greek government’s proposal to cut their salaries in a desperate attempt to control the country’s debt debacle.

   Meanwhile, the average federal government employee in the U.S. makes over $75,000 and President Obama has approved a 1.4 percent salary increase for federal workers. In the private sector, the average employee only makes around $42,000 – if they haven’t already taken a pay cut or been laid off.

   The U.S. needs to be careful because the Greek union workers are comparable to U.S. federal employees. If the U.S. government tries to reduce its debt by legitimately cutting federal employee salaries, there will be a Greek-style strike. The U.S. is setting itself up for problems by irresponsibly bloating the federal payroll.

   

   Greek rioters clash with police officers during a worker's strike in Athens on Feb. 24, 2010. Image credit: EPA/BGNES

2. Poor government fiscal policy: As I proved here, the U.S. recession was caused by loose government policy, not greed on Wall Street. Similarly, the primary source of Greece’s economic downturn is the Greek government’s (i.e. the European Union’s) loose communal fiscal policy and the Greek government’s wild spending habits.

   The media, the U.S. government and many European officials are blaming Greece’s misfortunes on Wall Street’s “most successful” bank, Goldman Sachs. It is unfair for the U.S. government and the European Union to lambaste Goldman Sachs for participating in a 2001 currency trade that effectively acted as a loan to help “Athens meet Europe’s deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means.” Here’s why:

   

   Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein. Image: Smialowski/Bloomberg

   Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently announced that the U.S. would be strictly scrutinizing Goldman Sachs’ business relations with Greece. What Bernanke failed to admit is that Goldman Sachs absolutely did not create the loose rules of the game – in the U.S. or in the European Union – the U.S. government and the European Union created them respectively.

   Goldman Sachs is “the most successful bank on Wall Street” because it takes risks and plays the existing rules to the fullest. In 2001, this swap was considered legal under loose European Union policy. The European Union previously approved of similar swaps by other banks including JP Morgan and Merril Lynch for Italy and Greece.

   Goldman Sachs is receiving an undue amount of attention and blame for ineffective rules and systems within the European Union. Certainly there were unscrupulous Goldman Sachs employees who took advantage of loose government monetary policies, but they did not cause Greece’s woes. At the end of the day, Greece spent herself into debt on her own.

   You start to question the credibility of the Federal Reserve, which stubbornly resists full transparency and audit itself and works hand-in-hand with a Treasury Department that revised its benchmark reports on Feb. 26, 2010 to show that, “China’s holdings of U.S. Treasury securities stood at US$894.8 billion at the end of December, keeping it in first place ahead of Japan. On Feb. 16, the government reported data that showed China had been surpassed by Japan.”

   It seems a bit strange that this revision came out in the wake of reports that China is losing interest in buying U.S. debt. Will the government soon announce that the “revised” U.S. unemployment rate is three percent?

3. Reliance on a common currency and an economic union: The U.S. does not want to follow in the EU’s or the euro’s footsteps if she wishes to climb out of recession. A common currency and economic union have teed Europe up for communal economic disaster. The British politician and Member of the European Parliament, representing South East England for the Conservative Party, Daniel Hannan, recently discussed Europe’s financial woes with Glenn Beck:
   

   Daniel Hannan

   The United Kingdom would be in financial peril, Hannan said, “if we had joined the Euro. Thank heaven we kept the pound. Because, like I say, Greece’s deficit is 12.7 percent. Ours is 12.6 percent. The only thing that saved us from a Greece-like collapse is the fact that we were able to have a devaluation of our currency instead of having that devaluation in output and jobs. You guys wouldn’t want to swap your problems for Europe, as severe as your problems are with the way things are going there. But I’ll tell you another thing. The war cry of tax without representation doesn’t really apply so much these days in the U.S. Yes, your taxes are too high and they’re rising but at least they’re set by people you can vote for. Increasingly, the European Union is starting to levy, if you like, federal taxation, and so the protest of no taxation without representation is now much more relevant in Europe, because we feel that we have impulse being levied on us that we can’t get rid of.”

   In order to end this “Hell in Troy,” and win the “glory” of overcoming economic death, Greece needs to bring out its Trojan Horses: Free market principles and small government. The U.S. needs to learn from Greece’s mistakes and to do the same.

   

   Trojan Horse

Does this sound familiar? You were two peas in a pod. You wanted to grow old together. You never fought. About anything. Except money, that is. Now, the two of you are history.

Quit throwing darts at your ex’s photo. Pull up a chair in my office,  and I’ll give you some therapy.

May I trade you a cup of coffee and a tension ball for those darts before we begin?

Now that you’re relaxed, let’s get down to business. Here’s my message for you today: If you feel like your love life is doomed to failure, you may be putting too much blame on yourself.

I’m not saying that you aren’t responsible for your character and actions. If you’re immature, manipulative, dishonest or unfaithful, then you are largely to blame for your romantic detours. On the other hand, if you are a genuinely good person, and finances were the main source of tension between you and your former partner, you may be justified in blaming big government for your breakup.

I saw your eyebrow go up. You think I’m trying to connect big government to everything. Well, I wouldn’t have to if it weren’t so pervasive. First, I want to tell you about a recent study commissioned by PayPal called “Can’t Buy Me Love,” that found:

1. “Money and finances are the No. 1 reason participants said they argued with their significant other.”
2. “Forty-five percent of couples fight at least once a month about finances, and for those ‘traumatized by the current economy,’ the arguments are more frequent.”
3. “One-third of people said they’d wait to marry someone until that person’s credit score improved.”
4. “More than one-third said they would consider not marrying or moving in with someone unless he or she ‘makes a fair amount of money.’”
5. “65%, said they wouldn’t want to date someone with significant debt.”

So, by this study, financial compatibility issues and financial hardship can tear an otherwise strong relationship asunder. The PayPal study’s findings are relevant today since the U.S. economy is experiencing one of the darkest financial downturns in history.

Here’s the story of government intervention that most media professionals won’t tell you about: It is the story of Clinton-era loose home ownership policies. While there certainly were unscrupulous real estate brokers, lenders and mortgage bankers who took advantage of loose government policies and exacerbated the recession, they did not cause the recession. The entire recession and the woes of any industry can be traced back to government intervention, not capitalist greed on Wall Street.

This story of government intervention that spiraled into a residential real estate crisis, and eventually an economy-wide recession begins in the Clinton era, when President Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Henry Cisneros, persuaded Clinton to drastically ease mortgage restrictions for first-time home buyers.

Rather than increasing home ownership, these loose policies, including relaxing appraisal rules, eliminating the five-year stable income requirement for first-time home buyers and lowering the standards of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, opened the doors to home ownership to an additional 10 percent of the U.S. population that did not qualify to become home owners.

Clinton was able to tinker with the economy because he had the luxury of coming into office after Reagan, a staunch believer in the free market system. The Reagan administration prepared a wonderful gift for the Clinton administration, a vibrant economy. The nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research reported that the Reagan era unleashed the “longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century” from 1982 to 1999.

Clinton’s policies had a devastating ripple effect on the entire economy. Foreclosures sprang up, consumer spending went down, the credit markets froze and jobs disappeared.

There is an uncanny parallel between the foreclosure-related relationship strife and community unrest that traumatized Cisernos’ pet real estate development in San Antonio, Lago Vista, and the results of PayPal’s study, conducted during a recession.

Cisernos’ failed experiment shows that government intervention induces financial hardship. PayPal’s study shows that financial hardship leads to romantic strife. Thus, if you were one of the unlucky or naive souls who thought that government was your friend – and now have a foreclosed property and a text message from your ex that says, “We r over” on your hands – you can feel free to swap your ex’s photo for an image of Congress on your dart board.

Well, that concludes our therapy session. Have fun hitting the Congressional bullseye.

Taylor Swift

Do me a favor and turn on your radio. Wait five minutes and you’ll probably hear a DJ venting about the recording industry’s push for legislation that could effectively tax the next Taylor Swift or T.I. off free local radio.

I think local radio DJs are right to question this proposed legislation, since this hefty “tax” or fee would make it difficult for new artists to emerge. It would work as a financial disincentive for radio stations to take on the risk of featuring new artists.

The fee that current legislative proposals ask radio stations to pay in order to air a record would be split between the performer and the copyright owner. While some performers own the copyright for their record, often times a foreign-owned record company owns the copyright. So, in addition to moving cash away from the emerging artistic community, the performance tax would move capital out of the U.S. during a recession.

On the other hand, it is difficult for me to sympathize with music-based free local radio. Similar fees are already imposed on the more technologically advanced digital radio broadcasters, but traditional analog radio broadcasters think they deserve a break. Music-heavy local analog radio cannot expect to receive special treatment and exclusions from music distribution fees because it offered the “first” broadcast format. There should not be “squatters’ rights” in music distribution.

Local radio frames its concern over the proposed performance tax legislation thus: “The recording industry wants to impose a performance tax that would financially hurt local radio stations, stifle new artists and harm the listening public who rely on free local radio.” I think local radio needs to offer up a more convincing argument, or at least prove that the “listening public” will be harmed if “free local radio” disappears.

Free local radio should have to compete – and I mean really compete – with digital radio. If I can listen to the songs I want, when I want, on my iPod or computer, local radio needs to show me why I should tune into a local station with commercials and self-aggrandizing DJs that repeat Top 40 hits all day long.

Unless you are an antique radio collector, you’re probably not going to sit down and stare at a refrigerator-sized radio (like the girl below) when you could be multitasking with your sleek iPod playlist at the gym or blasting your personal set of tunes from Pandora on your laptop as you make dinner.

Image credit: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library Public Domain Photographs

There is no Constitutional right to listen to free music on the radio. There is also no evidence of inevitable “public harm” if the crass DJs who monopolize the local morning airwaves with ridiculous games and “news” consisting of celebrity gossip suddenly disappeared.

The public might breathe a sigh of relief if blasé local radio stations went extinct. Silence might be better than having Bad Romance perpetually in your head because it was played for the umpteenth time – in one hour – on multiple stations. Clearly, free local radio needs to make a better case for why it deserves an exclusion from the performance tax.

That said, government intervention will not resolve the issues facing the radio industry and the recording industry today. The government negatively intervened in satellite radio by severely restricting the number of radio spectrum licenses to two. This is why we only have one major mass-market broadcaster of satellite radio in the U.S., Sirius XM Radio, Inc., when there could have been multiple competing providers.

It is inconsistent for many elected officials to protest performance tax legislation where local radio stations would pay a fee to air records, while they seem to have no issue with fees imposed on digital radio, the modern broadcast format.

Let’s bring radio broadcasting back to a free market system where internet radio and free local radio compete with each other on a level playing field, and consumers can vote with their ears. In talk radio, the results just rolled in: Of the top ten radio talk show hosts, nine have conservative leanings.

Top conservative talk radio hosts, Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh. Image: Diamond/WireImage; Corkery/News; Lovekin/Getty

Neither the government nor the recording industry should be able to stalemate the future careers of up-and-coming young artists with a performance tax, impose a monopoly on new forms of radio or have a double standard for local and internet-based radio.

Katie & Amie's 'Big Trade Up.' Art copyright Amie Kieffer 2010.

There is always a better and more efficient way to do things, including donating to charity. During this recession, many non-profits are hurting. Government grants and private donations are beginning to dry up. But, local creative entrepreneurs and real estate professionals, Tony DelDotto of NorthMarq Real Estate and Chad Commers of Roseville Properties, have taken on the challenge of raising funds for charity in a down economy.

The concept is called the Big Trade Up. It raises money for Mind The Future scholarships that help inner-city students graduate from high school and move on to college. I want to promote the Big Trade Up’s goal for two reasons:

First, this is a non-profit venture that is overseen by two guys with a lot of business sense. Many non-profits fail to execute their mission, as BusinessWeek reports, because they spend more money than they bring in. Some executive directors and board members think their charity will survive on the mission alone, and consequently lose sight of financial management.

Whereas the Wise Giving Alliance recommends nonprofits limit fundraising expenses to 35 percent of their budget, some non-profits are literally going into debt to woo donors. The Big Trade Up is an efficient, low-cost idea to maximize revenue donated to charity and minimize the cost of attracting donors. This is because the Big Trade Up is spreading by word of mouth and viral online marketing – no costly postage, high-gloss pledge cards or rubber-chicken dinners needed.

Second, I applaud the Big Trade Up because it is an example of what the Cato Institute has shown: The private sector is better at solving social problems than the government. While our government is racking up debt to pay for social programs, the Big Trade Up is successfully raising funds for charity independently.

So, when Tony and Chad called and asked the Kieffer sisters to support the Big Trade Up, we were happy to help. My sister, Amie, painted a majestic, patriotic eagle soaring over a lake against a sunset and offered it up for their sixth trade.

Art packed up for delivery to the Big Trade Up. Copyright Amie Kieffer 2010

I would encourage you to participate in the Big Trade Up. It is a fun and effective way to help inner-city youth become high academic achievers. Tony and Chad have created a short video that explains the story behind the Big Trade Up. Please take a few minutes to check it out:

Image credit: Red Bull

Wouldn’t it be fun to shred the U.S. recession into oblivion the way a skier shreds the Jackson Hole gnar gnar? It would be as exhilarating as finding a cure to cancer – on an economic level.  Well, the U.S. does have a nearly fail-proof template to follow for ending the recession and creating jobs: Lindsey Vonn.

Vonn is often hyped for her amicable personality and good looks. Lost in this hype is the bigger story: the tale of sheer American grit, rugged persistence, sacrifice and goal-focus. Vonn’s story shows that America can shrug off her recession if she acts like a champion.

Many athletes at one point appeared to be all-around champions, and then disappointed, such as Tiger Woods, Mark McGwire and Marion Jones. But, Vonn is the template we’re looking for. Below is her recipe for bouncing out of recession. Let’s rip.

Champions race when it hurts.

There is a disease in America called apathy. Symptoms include a lack concern for anything deeply meaningful. Apathy is different from liberalism. It is disengagement from the entire civic arena. When you hear someone say something like,”I don’t get into politics. It stresses me out. Besides, Jersey Shore makes me happy,” they’re probably apathetic. We cannot bounce out of recession if we sit and widen our bums while China’s economy grows. We need to get up and take action. A fall, even as big as our economy has taken, is no excuse to disengage.

When Vonn crashed in the 2006 Torino Olympics and was helicoptered away, she was visited by her life-long idol, three-time Olympian, Picabo Street, in the hospital.  Street bluntly told Vonn, “A real champion would get up and race.” Vonn proved her metal by racing two days later in excruciating pain and still finishing eighth overall.

When Vonn fell again in the Feb. 2, 2010 pre-Vancouver Olympics practice run in Austria and badly bruised her shin, she didn’t have a bailout. As loved as she is, there was no sponsor, no coach, no friend who could do it for her. Last week in Vancouver, she was not even able to take an injection to fully dull her pain, but has had to suffer through with ordinary painkillers to avoid violating Olympic antidoping guidelines. Still, she plans to grit her teeth, and race.

Likewise, the U.S. can stand up and race her way back to the top if she is able to handle some pain and stops trying to mask it with government stimulus packages, proven to fail.

Champions are coachable

“Don’t hunch over,” Street recalls telling the young Vonn. “Stand up straight. Stand tall. Be proud.” Vonn has made a concerted effort throughout her career to reach out to other champion skiers, like Street, and model her game after their success. Once-respected champions like Tiger Woods fell from favor with fans and sponsors partly because they became so self-absorbed that they forgot to listen to reason and wisdom.

Vonn is almost always accompanied by her husband, coach and spokesman, Thomas Vonn. Rather than imitating Woods and filling her mobile phone with the contacts of hot ski-patrols, Vonn works hand-in-hand with Thomas Vonn to achieve success. Vonn also has a deep respect for other members of her “team,” including her ski technician and communicates frequently and openly with them.

Lindsey and Thomas Vonn. Image: Clive Rose/Getty Images North America.

Similarly, the U.S. could recover from economic wipe-out if our elected officials would start listening to their best coaches, constituents. Americans are tired of government spending, bribery and growth. We want the government to start listening to us, and to our small businesses.

Champions work hard

Lindsey Vonn celebrates her World Cup victories with her ski technician, Heinz Haemmerle. Image: Doug Haney/NYDailyNews.com

Lindsey Vonn does a lot of behind-the-scenes hard work for her big wins. Vonn’s professionalism and work ethic are extraordinary. Her “ski man,” Heinz Haemmerle says, “She’s very focused on where she wants to get. She wants to win every race,” he says. “I get so many informations from her about skis.”

Unlike many super-star skiers, Vonn goes the extra mile and provides her ski trainer with detailed notes every day. Vonn has made notes after skiing in different weather conditions and she tried between 20 and 25 different skis in 2009. In skiing, even a fraction of a second can make a difference, and she puts in the work necessary to conquer time. “I never had anybody else do this,” says Haemmerle. “After each run on the chair or whatever, she writes it down. It’s very professional. Every day she makes her notes.” And, Haemmerle is no newcomer to the sport. He is the “best available” ski technician.

Washington could take a lesson from Lindsey’s work ethic. Instead of blowing up the budget, Washington needs to do its homework, treat the American people like a team, as Vonn treats Haemmerle, and be transparent about new legislation instead of bribing Senators to clandestinely pass unfavorable health care “reforms” on Christmas Eve.

The U.S. can take inspiration from Vonn’s willingness to put in the extra effort to come up from behind to become the strongest female skier in the world:

Some argue that Julia Mancuso, another member of the U.S. Ski Team, who won gold in the giant slalom in Turin, was the “naturally gifted junior, a fine all-round skier who occasionally took her talent for granted.“ Today, “Lindsey Vonn” is practically a household name and Mancuso has faded to oblivion. I think this is because Vonn spent the past four years working hard in a challenging Austrian-based training program, mastering men’s skis, and focusing on developing as a skier, while Moncuso proclaimed that, “I think underwear is my calling” and channeled part of her time away from the slopes to develop a lingerie line called Kiss My Tiara.

Image: Getty Images/AFP-Fabrice Coffrini.

Unsurprisingly, rugged grit and persistent hard work proved a better strategy than living like a ski princess since Vonn, not Mancuso, emerged to become the most decorated American female skier in World Cup history, winning back-to-back overall World Cup championships in 2008 and 2009.

Likewise, the U.S. can no longer flaunt herself as the “biggest and the best” – she has to go out there and prove herself again on the world stage. But, in order for this to happen, big government needs to step out of the way and give individuals, banks and small businesses breathing room.

Champions make sacrifices for their goal

Luck is not a strategy to win. Having fun is not a strategy for success. Blood, sweat and tears are.

Think of how much sacrifice goes into being an Olympic skier. You never have an off-season. For four years you are working towards a few minutes on the slopes. Vonn often sacrifices leisure to achieve her goals. According to Parade, ‘Between practicing, competing, eating, and sleeping, it’s tough to work it (watching other Olympic events) in. “I highly doubt that I’ll have time to watch any other events, but if I get a chance, I would really like to watch figure skating. Or maybe speedskating. We have a lot of pressure, a lot of obligations.”‘

Like Vonn, the U.S. can use setbacks to grow stronger. “It is important to note that Vonn always comes through. She has skied with an injured hand taped to one of her ski poles and still won. Her back was a mess after the fall in Turin and still she competed. If she can stand up, she’ll attempt to make it down the hill,” the Pioneer Press reports.

Americans have something special. We have a unique Constitution that provides opportunity, independence and freedom for all. As long as we uphold the Constitution and respect the proven success of capitalism and the free markets, our economy will flourish. But, if the U.S. continues to increase its dependence on unnatural governmental supplements, such as bailouts and stimulus packages, it will perpetuate its floundering economy.

Similarly, Vonn’s sacrifice and focus has made her so strong that Street says of Vonn’s Olympic odds, “As embarrassing as it is for the rest of ‘em, I’m sorry but, yes, she can spank you on 80 percent.“

Even now, with a severely bruised shin, Vonn “spanked” the rest of the competitors on the slopes this week. She tore up the gnar gnar and brought in the fastest time in the women’s training run.

Similarly, America is bruised and her economy is in a sling, but she need to grit her teeth and deal with some of the pain of this recession in order to move forward. As Glenn Beck implies nearly daily on his radio show, it will hurt Americans a lot more if we allow government to grow bigger and rely on Washington to patch up our oozing economic wounds with freshly printed junk dollar bills.

Ultimately, whether Vonn, who is still experiencing “throbbing” pain when she skis, but plans to “grit my teeth and fight through it on Wednesday,” wins five, one or zero gold medals in Vancouver, she has proven herself on the world stage. Vonn is a champion.

Take on the recession like a Vonn, America.

Additional articles cited for this piece:

St. Paul Pioneer Press: “Vonn will try to ski today,” by Frank Fitzpatrick on Feb. 2, 2010. “NOT AGAIN!,” by Tom Powers on Feb. 11, 2010, “Shin injury and all” by Tom Powers and “Street: Vonn can still win” from the Associated Press on Feb. 12, 2010.