CRITICAL FAILURE TO HAWK, HAGGLE AND DICKER CAUSED ECONOMIC CRASH: REPORT

YOUR ECONOMY TODAY

In a groundbreaking report issued yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission conclusively revealed the reasons behind America's persistent economic woes.

"Basically, sellers are not hawking, peddling, pushing, scalping and mongering enough," explained Commissioner Jon Leibowitz.

"But sellers aren't the only ones to blame," he continued. "Buyers, too, have critically failed to haggle, bargain, dicker and lay out cash. Combined, these selling and buying behaviors led to today's catastrophic economic climate."

Economic experts expressed shock over the report. "For several years now, we thought that the Great Recession resulted from risky loans, rising debt levels and an imploding housing market. Now, however, we see the real reasons for our hard times: A colossal failure to hawk, hock and dicker," wrote eminent economist Paul Krugman. "This is really mind-blowing news."

Commissioner Leibowitz pointed out that economic recovery will not happen until people understand why the economy failed in the first place.

"People need to see that we face a multifaceted problem. We are not just talking about mongering and haggling. True, we need car salesmen to monger more and first-time homebuyers to dicker more. But just a little mongering won't cut it. We need full-scale mongering and hawking, as well as nonstop dickering to get moving in the right direction. Americans need to start driving bargains again; and that means that sellers need to start stepping up their hawking game, too."

President Obama praised the Commissioner's report. "I'm glad we have a sense about where we need to go with our economy," he said. "For all this time, we've been quarreling about stimulus, job creation and spending limits. But now we see that what we really need to do is get people dickering again. I'm confident that Americans will be able to put country before party and really start mongering, pushing, scalping and laying out cash. This is America. We have a long history of haggling, bargaining, hawking and peddling. We have been doing these things since our earliest colonial history. We know how to hawk and haggle. We even know how to hock and pawn. This is the greatest country in the world because we have the greatest peddlers and dickerers. It's time to find our stride again."

According to the Commissioner's report, economic progress depends on more than increased mongering, haggling, bargaining and hawking. Instead, other factors will play a role, namely, behaviors within the financial services industry.

In analyzing the Recession's causes, the report also noted that reduced mongering, haggling, bargaining, hawking, pushing and scalping were matched by rampantly negative bank practices, including chicanery, hoodwinking, bamboozling, hornswoggling, rooking and wheedling. The report also observed that banks repeatedly pulled contractual wool over customers' eyes between 2004 and the market collapse in 2008.

"Put simply, our financial crisis involved unprecedented hornswoggling," Mr. Leibowitz explained. "While our free market economy has always provided ample room for hoodwinking and bamboozling, banking practices between 2004 and 2008 saw a meteoric increase in hornswoggling and wheedling. Combined with lower levels of consumer dickering, haggling and mongering, this created a perfect economic storm. We just couldn't handle it."

Despite the gloomy analysis, Mr. Leibowitz expressed hope for the future. "Understanding a crisis is necessary to solving it. Since 2009, the Federal Government has taken steps to eradicate rooking in the financial industry, and data show that wheedling has fallen dramatically. The Commission has also set up a special department to decisively root out hornswoggling. Once we eliminate that, we are confident that consumers will return to robust dickering and mongering levels."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner concurred with the Commission's findings on the financial industry. "As a former Wall Street banker, I know that hornswoggling was the straw the broke the camel's back in 2008. When we eliminate it, I am certain that the banking industry will return to customary--and acceptable--hoodwinking and bamboozling practices."

Republicans disagreed with the Commission's analysis, claiming that hornswoggling is absolutely vital to job creation.

"I come from a background in business, and I can tell you that uninhibited hornswoggling is what made us strong," said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. "You can't run a business or make money if you tie a manager's hands behind his back. In business, you need the freedom to hoodwink, rook, bamboozle, and most of all hornswoggle in order to deliver the highest quality goods and services. And if a business doesn’t make money, it can't create jobs."

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann objected to the report on liberty grounds. "We're a nation of liberty and laws, and you can't take away liberty from people," she explained. "People in business need more liberty than most, because they're job creators. And to be a job creator, you need all the liberty you can get. That includes the liberty to hornswoggle, hoodwink, rook and bamboozle. When government starts taking away those liberties, it's trampling our free enterprise spirit. The bottom line is that hornswoggling creates jobs and pays a lot of salaries. And it's flat-out tyranny when the Federal government says it's going to take it away."

Texas Governor Rick Perry disagreed with the Commission's findings in less abstract terms. "Look, I don't believe a word that comes from any Federal agency, least of all a Federal agency controlled by President Obama. It was President Obama who made the economy bad, and it's President Obama who has to pay for it. Simple as that."

Overall, markets responded well to the Commission's report. The DOW rose 1.9% on data indicating a modest rise in dickering, a strong rise in haggling, an encouraging rise in hawking and a remarkable rise in bamboozling.

For their part, consumers expressed hope for the future. "If all it takes for me to me to help the economy is to haggle and dicker a little more, I'm willing to do my part," said freelance handyman Willie Williams of Ozone Park, New York.

"PLEASE BOMB US," OBAMA PLEADS

NEWS FLASH

Exasperated following months of fruitless partisan gridlock in Washington, President Barack Obama has officially requested foreign aid to reverse America's economic downturn.

"Please bomb us," the President begged world leaders during a live television broadcast.

Noting that a foreign attack or invasion is the only way to divert public attention from a stagnant economy and despicable political infighting in Washington, President Obama took his case to the world stage.

"We cannot create jobs or spur domestic development unless we get the American people to rally against a devious foreign enemy," the President remarked. "I've tried my ass off to make economic changes peacefully, but I've broken my head against the wall one too many times. We need someone to bomb us ASAP."

President Obama observed that Americans need to hate someone other than him in order to balance the budget, reduce unemployment, overhaul health care and curtail spending.

"I've tried to solve our problems by letting the American people hate me," the President explained. "But the simple fact is that the American people need to hate a foreigner in order to really get the economy rolling again. The bottom line, my friends, is that we're never going to get below 9.2% unemployment unless one of you motherfuckers steps up to the plate and bombs our ass. Please, if you care about America, attack one of our naval bases without delay. We've got tons of them all over the world. Take your pick. It's on us."

President Obama appeared confident that his plan would work. He cited historical precedent to support his position.

"Look, FDR did all he could to reduce unemployment in the 1930s with domestic spending. But he didn't really beat the Great Depression until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and people started really hating the Japs. And George W. Bush wasn't going anywhere until Osama bin Laden bombed the World Trade Center and people started really hating Muslims. Once that happened, Bush got to do whatever the hell he wanted. I am confident that if you would be so generous as to launch missiles against a military installation of your choosing, America could easily solve its economic woes."

President Obama insisted that his plan was not just another greedy American power grab. "I understand that many of you may suspect a selfish motive in my request for an attack on us. I assure you, however, that if you bomb us, you, too, will benefit. After all, by bombing us and saving our economy, global markets will strengthen. When the US economy thrives, so does the world economy. Thus, if you bomb us, your economy, too, will improve. And everyone loves good economic times."

"True, we might flatten a couple of your cities or overthrow your government. But all benefits have their price," the President concluded.

President Obama also pointed out that favoritism played no role in his decisionmaking. "America does not discriminate," he said. "While some of you might think that we only go to war with Muslims, brown people or communists, the time for stereotypes is over. We are perfectly willing to allow Caucasians to bomb us, too. We just need somebody to help us out."

Speaking directly to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the President pleaded: "Come on, Angie, blow up one of our air force bases. They're right on your territory. You have no idea how much that would help. Please, I'm begging you."

Despite the President's confidence in his plan, Republican leaders remained unconvinced.

"It wouldn't work," responded Tea Party candidate Michelle Bachmann. "We won't rescue our economy without completely eliminating all government spending and abolishing taxation once and for all. If an enemy attacks us, we'll have to spend money and raise taxes, so I can't support the President's plan."

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney agreed. "No way. If the President drags us into another war, that just means more job-killing regulations. It doesn't matter if we're the ones who get attacked. War means regulations, and regulations kill jobs."

Sarah Palin was more specific in her response to the President's plan. "Nope, wouldn't help," she said. "To fight a war, you need government. And we're not going to solve our problems until we get rid of all government for good."

For their part, world leaders were split on Obama's request. Fidel Castro said he would love to attack the United States, but that he wasn't willing to expose his people to retaliation that would devastate his country.

Vladimir Putin praised the President for his wisdom, but refused to commit Russia to an invasion because he knew war with a foreign enemy would strengthen America, just as Obama predicted.

"Their own economy will kill them. There's no need to hasten that by risking Russian troops," Putin concluded.

Chinese Premier Hu Jintao summarily rejected the President's request. "Absolutely not. If we attack you, we'd never collect all the money you owe us."

As of press time, President Obama still held out hope that other powers--such as Turkey, Uzbekistan or Somalia--might decide to attack the United States.

A LITTLE ENCOURAGEMENT FROM NIETZSCHE

A REFLECTION

Sometimes I wonder what all my writing will lead to. I never intended to make a career from my writing. People tell me: "Go write a book." But then they say: "You need to have a story that people will like, etc., etc." In other words, to be a successful writer I need to stop wandering and get focused. If I want a bestseller, I need to Grishamize.

If you read my blog, you know I'm no John Grisham. I simply write what occurs to me. But my writing is thematically consistent. An identifiable core runs through everything I write here. I think it's possible to glean my life philosophy from the topics I choose to discuss. That might not be a recipe for bestselling commercial writing. But what have I ever cared about commerce? If anything, I recoil from it. I'm an Aristotelean in that regard: Philosophy and commerce just don't mix.

Still, it's a lonely road sometimes. I look at authors who achieve commercial success and wonder why no one ever notices me. Maybe I am just too weak or too preoccupied to promote myself. On the other hand, I know that most Americans really don't care about--or care to think about--the issues I typically address in my writing. So my commercial non-viability is really twofold: (1) I do not promote; and (2) My substance is largely unpalatable.

To be clear, I am not complaining. It is exciting to write only about things that stimulate me. For the longest time, I lived life without commenting on it. Commentary simmered in my mind all the time; work just never gave me a chance to write it all down. This blog has given me the chance I always craved. It has transformed me. So even if this blog does not pay me in U.S. dollars, it pays me in emotional satisfaction. If I die tomorrow, people would know who I am. My voice would not be lost. This blog is as much a testament as it is a forum.

I always find inspiration and encouragement when I need them most. Yesterday, I sat thinking about the fact that no one will ever read what I write, at least not in my lifetime. It frustrated me a little bit. I even thought about my philosophical archetype, Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche never achieved commercial success in life, either. His books barely sold a thousand copies. When he was 45, he lost his mind and never recovered. He died young. I don't think I'm losing my mind yet, but I identify with what happened to Nietzsche: I am defiantly proud of the fact that I am anti-commercial; but it nonetheless hurts to know I will likely never receive wide recognition.

So I felt a little down yesterday. It was cold, gray, windy and rainy outside. I reflected on how poor I am. I can barely pay my rent. In fact, this month I can't even pay it at all. I need to budget out my money to buy food. Plus I need to care for Steve, who is incapacitated. It pretty much sucks. I still experience joy these days. But it only peeks through like tiny patches of blue sky on a very cloudy day.

I decided to crack open Nietzsche's Human, All-too Human. I paged through the aphorisms. I stumbled on this one: "121. A Vow--I do not want to read any more authors about whom people say: 'He set out to write a book.' Rather, I only want to read authors whose thoughts became a book by accident."

Is this me? It sure sounds like it. I just write my thoughts. I never set out to write a book. I simply allow myself to pour out impressions on things that fascinate me or incite me. There is consistency in my thoughts. But they do not reflect a conscious plan to "write a book" in the conventional sense. Could they "accidentally" become a book? Perhaps. As a whole, I like to think that this blog resembles a collection of Nietzschean impressions. Nietzsche's unconventional thoughts transformed into books. Perhaps mine can too.

That was encouraging. Without even trying, I fit into the category of "authors" whom Nietzsche might have wanted to read. I am not one of those authors who "set out to write a book." I do not sketch plots or try to cram my writing into a conventional format that people like. I am not John Grisham. John Grisham's thoughts do not become a book "by accident." No, when he sits down to write, he knows what book it's going in. He's just fleshing out the formula he laid down before he starting writing.

I'm glad I stumbled on Nietzsche's aphorism when I did. I was feeling low and worthless. I was losing hope. But after discovering that Nietzsche, too, faced similar struggles in his time, I felt encouraged to face mine. I felt freshly secure in my writing. It did not bother me that I am not a bestseller. Rather, I felt hope that perhaps one day--like Nietzsche--my thoughts would "accidentally" transform into a book. That thought brightened me, even if the "book" appears after I die. I do not really value my life too much anyway. I would rather have people remember my thoughts than my "too too solid flesh." As the Germans say: "Wer schreibt, der bleibt" : "He who writes remains."

I blog because it is the only way for me to publish without editorial control or commercial pressure. Nietzsche wrote longhand and hoarded his writings in his desk. He found a publisher who printed a few editions. I can publish over the internet, even if my audience is small. At least it's something. And I will continue. That is my vow.

AMERICANS UNITED TO RESOLVE EVERY SINGLE LIFE PROBLEM BY CUTTING A CHECK IN THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT

By : Mr. Sidney J. Bookings, C.P.A., Chairman and Senior Spokesperson; Graduate, University of Pennsylvania (Accounting Program 1982); Consultant in Wealth Management, Morgan Stanley & Co. (1983-2002); Founder, Bookings, Holderman & Petty, P.C., an Accounting Firm servicing Fortune 250 Companies; Statistics Enthusiast; Married.

According to an old adage, "money can't buy happiness." Throughout our society, we learn that emotional satisfaction only derives from human contact and genuine spiritual fulfillment. But we, Americans United to Resolve Every Single Life Problem by Cutting a Check in the Appropriate Amount, disagree. We do not believe that happiness is about emotion. Nor do we believe that happiness is difficult to obtain. Rather, we believe anyone can find happiness as long as he or she receives a sufficiently large check in the circumstances.

Unhappiness stems from problems. In many cases, money causes problems. In those same cases, problems go away when the person obtains a sufficiently large monetary amount. Checks represent a written instruction to a bank to pay a person ("the payee") a fixed amount of money at a definite time. See, e.g., Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) Article 3, § 3-104(e). In that light, it is not necessary to supply "emotion" or "comfort" to a person suffering from a problem. Rather, the person merely needs to receive a check in an amount necessary to alleviate the problem. Once the problem dissipates, so does the unhappiness. And when unhappiness disappears, happiness replaces it. That is why we believe that checks in the appropriate amount lead to happiness.

Evidence supports our position. Consider the unhappy man who struggles at two jobs to pay rent, child support, medical expenses, credit card debt and a car note. "If I only had $15,000 next month, I would be able to pay these back charges. I would feel so much better if I wasn't so worried about these bills, etc." This man is unhappy because he has not paid identifiable financial obligations. In these circumstances, emotional tenderness or even love will not make him feel better. He needs money. Thus, a check for $16,987.23 offers him an almost magical gateway to happiness. Not only will a check in that amount redress his problem in full, but it will also give him an additional $1,987.23 to spend on himself. In this way, we see that checks in the appropriate amount not only dispel problems, but also bring genuine happiness.

But checks can only bring happiness if they authorize payment for the appropriate amount. This inquiry depends on the circumstances. For example, if a woman gives birth at a hospital without insurance and racks up a $2,987,712.65 bill, a check for $45.00 will not redress her problem. In this sense, a check alone does not resolve her problem; only a check in the appropriate amount will resolve her problem. As much as we like checks, we acknowledge that a check's happiness-inducing qualities only arise to the extent it authorizes payment in the appropriate amount. Problems exist when people owe a particular amount. Unless a check authorizes payment for that amount--or a greater amount--it does not yield its maximum happiness-inducing effect. As Americans United to Resolve Every Single Life Problem by Cutting a Check in the Appropriate Amount, we insist that our checks pay us the right amount, every time.

Despite checks' proven ability to solve problems, there are those who claim that a check--no matter its amount--cannot solve certain problems. These critics say that no check can make a crippled man feel better about his body, nor can a check repair the emotional pain that flows from heartbreak, loss or depression.

We disagree with all these assertions. For one, a check might not restore a legless man to health. But a check can symbolically make him whole. If you can't get your legs back, it's better to be legless with a $50,000 check in your hand than legless with no check in your hand. Second, while a check might not completely repair the emotional damage that flows from human relationships, it certainly can mitigate any emotional problem. For example, the most heartbroken man would feel a lot better if he unexpectedly received a $10,000 check in the mail. It is always nice to receive an unexpected check. It can brighten anyone's day, no matter how many problems they face. And if the check pays the appropriate amount, it can dispel any problem.

Although checks in the appropriate amount can solve any problem, checks paying an inappropriate amount occasionally cause unhappiness. For example, let us assume that a man suffers an automobile accident and pays $5,797.23 for repairs. He then receives a check from his insurance company paying only $500.00; the check will not induce happiness. To the contrary, it will induce anger, frustration or even unhappiness. But this is not the check's fault. Checks only cause negative reactions when they pay an inappropriate amount. By contrast, if the check in this man's case had paid $5,900.00, he would not have been angry, frustrated or unhappy. Rather, he would have felt relieved, excited and joyful. In essence, this illustrates a key fact about checks: They induce happiness and solve problems when they pay an appropriate amount, but induce negative reactions--and even unhappiness--when they pay an inappropriate amount.

We support checks' happiness-inducing qualities. We believe that checks should be a force for good in our society, not worry. To that extent, we stand for checks in the appropriate amount. As all the examples above show, Americans have problems. In all those examples, we saw that a check in the appropriate amount solves those problems, even when the problems apparently have nothing to do with money. Sufficient money sums always generate happiness, no matter the circumstances. A check for $9,000,000 will make even the saddest man happy, even if his mother, son and wife died on the same day. Greater amounts transcend any life adversity. We reject any claim that "money can't buy happiness." True, money might not literally buy happiness: There is no "Wholesale Happiness Warehouse" or "Happiness in a Box" for sale at a local outlet. But checks in the appropriate amount always remove obstacles blocking Americans' path to happiness. In our view, that is tantamount to happiness.

Tell the world that you can prevail over adversity as long as you receive a check in the appropriate amount. Stand up for your own well-being and comfort. Refuse to feel depressed any longer. Get your hands on a check in the appropriate amount. Every problem has a price; do not fool yourself into thinking that a check can't solve it. Checks can solve problems. They simply must pay the appropriate amount.

Stop making life so complicated. You just need enough checks to make your problems vanish for good. And when your problems are gone, you will be happy.

Stop the madness. Stop the delusion. Get back to basics. Join Americans United to Resolve Every Single Life Problem by Cutting a Check in the Appropriate Amount.

Don't worry. The check is in the mail.

MAKING STIMULUS WORK : AMERICANS WOULD RATHER HAVE JOBS THAN ART

ECONOMIC POLICY CONTRIBUTION

By : Mr. Cornelius D. Zimmerman, Ph. D., Senior Fellow, The Employers' Coalition for Effective Stimulus Through Greater Executive Compensation; Former Director, Gerstein Industrial Paint Co., Inc.; Author, "Money Talks : Paying for Loyalty is OK" (Bantam Business Publications 1997); University of Pennsylvania Business School (M.B.A. 1969).

For over a year now, our government has assumed an unprecedented role in our economy. Following the disaster that befell Wall Street last autumn, Washington has literally foot the bill for private investment losses. If employers need extra cash for operations, they just need to ask the government for it. If a corporation is running low on money for executive bonuses, it just needs to fill out some forms claiming "economic difficulty" and it gets a fat federal check. Washington calls these measures "economic stimulus." Still, many companies feel embarrassed about taking government handouts. But as business owners and employers, we say this: Do not be ashamed to take free money.

As a general rule, we believe in hard work and earning your keep. When we raise our children, for instance, we teach them that nothing is free. We teach them that traditional, daily employment is the only way to respectably earn money. We even teach them to feel ashamed for accepting too much help from other people. After all, a good, zealous worker needs no extra help. If he does, that means he has failed somewhere. Put simply, we do not appreciate government efforts to help people who are too lazy to work, or people who fail. When you fail, that's your problem.

Still, we relax our stance when we benefit from government spending. Workers should feel ashamed to receive government help, but we do not feel ashamed when the government bails out our companies. After all, our companies are necessary to the economy. Employees are less necessary. Anyone can type data into a spreadsheet. But not everyone can sit at a Directors' meeting and ask blustering questions about finance. We are different. Without us, employees would not have a place to work and earn. In that sense, it is perfectly acceptable for major companies to receive government aid without any shame at all. In fact, we deserve it. When government gives major corporations money, it acknowledges our vital role in the national economy. We salute the Federal government for its recognition that private corporations must remain profitably funded in order to maintain our free market system.

Yet government's willingness to spend money to support private employers introduces new issues. How can businesses benefit most from government's new largesse? We founded The Employers' Coalition for Effective Stimulus to answer exactly that question. If government wants to spend money to help pay our bills and our executive salaries, we think it is important that government spend effectively. Effective spending means cutting away needless expenses and putting money in the right places. That means guaranteeing two basic things: (1) That executives continue to receive their pre-2008 salary levels; and (2) That companies can employ more people at livable wages. Executives must receive their old pay because no business professional will take risks without it, and companies must hire more people because more employees mean more profits for executives, particularly when government pays for them. Without profits for executives, the whole system collapses. Who would want to run a business without profit? Thus, when government spends money on private companies, it must bear these two goals in mind.

Stimulus is still a relatively new concept in Washington. We believe that Washington can benefit from executive consultation on stimulus programs. First, we insist that Washington increase stimulus for our companies. Americans want jobs. We can give them jobs if Washington gives us money to pay them (less a service fee payable as executive compensation). Washington knows that Americans want jobs. Yet it sabotages its own stimulus efforts by wasting money on things Americans don't want, like art. At present, Washington spends billions on extraneous initiatives like the "Federal Writers' Program," the "National Endowment for the Humanities," the "Federal Performing Arts Fund" and many other "artistic" endeavors. This is pure waste. Americans could care less about art. However much they cared about art in rosier times, they don't want it now. No one wants to look at paintings when they are unemployed; they want a job. In a word, jobs are more important than art.

By targeting useless spending such as the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Federal Sculpture Society, we free up cash for job creation. By streamlining Federal aid, we ensure that money goes where it is needed most: To private employers. When more government aid fills corporate accounts, that means more jobs. Yet when government wastes money on photography, essays and art history lectures, that means less money for private employers. And when that happens, Americans lose jobs. It is no answer to say that private employers can pay their own employees. That is not the point: The point is that more money for companies means even more jobs for Americans. Neither we nor the American people will further tolerate government spending that prevents Americans from getting jobs. Put simply, every time the government spends money on art, it costs thousands of American jobs. This must stop.

Art does not pay medical bills. It does not send children to private colleges, nor does it pay mortgages. Art does not buy furniture, groceries or electronics. In a word, it is useless. In difficult economic times like this, Americans do not need useless things. They need jobs. They need things that will save them from bankruptcy and ruin, not pornographic sculptures and left-wing theater pieces. The Coalition understands the American people: The American people want jobs, not art. We know that Americans would much rather have a job at the local insurance company than free admission to an exhibit on splatter painting. Stimulus will not reach its full potential until government halts competing support for art.

America does not need art. America needs stimulus that works, not decadent luxuries like painting and novel-writing. Cutting arts funding will help us on the path to universal private employment. But there are other ways to create jobs beyond effective stimulus for private employers. For example, the Federal government can provide funding to private entrepreneurs to round up and burn existing art. Just as government created ready jobs for unemployed workers in the 1930s, so too can it create ready work for the unemployed in 2009. There are millions of artworks in the United States. Unemployed people can immediately get back to work looking for them, seizing them and destroying them. Even more Americans can stack up paintings, while still others can feed them into fires--all for decent pay. Skilled contractors can build furnaces for artworks, keep them fueled, clean them and maintain them. Thousands more can drive trucks transporting artworks between furnaces. Unemployed accountants can count how many artworks are burned each day at each furnace, then draw up ledgers detailing trends and productivity. These measures will provide immediate relief to millions and pay them a dignified wage. Furthermore, they will give unemployed people hope and a new sense of national pride.

We can do this. We must simply start rounding up and burning art. This is stimulus that works.

Americans can do anything they put their minds to. When Americans have a purpose, they are stronger than anyone else on earth. We can survive this recession by reevaluating what it means to live in America. There is nothing wrong with accepting government assistance. When stimulus stimulates private spending on employment and executive compensation, everyone wins. Additionally, when government shows the people that it cares about their jobs and even creates work for them, they feel proud to live in a country that cares for them. We can accomplish all these goals by cutting arts funding and destroying existing art. Thousands of Americans need work. Millions more need hope. Effective government spending will ensure that they all get well-paying, private sector jobs within the next twelve months. Anyone who wants a job will have one. After all, anyone can burn art. Even disabled people can play a part by telling able-bodied workers where to find hidden art.

For over two hundred years, artwork has accumulated in the United States. Destroying it will take years. During that time, millions of Americans will receive excellent wages. They will be able to afford their own health insurance, feed their children and even buy homes. Destroying art will provide all these benefits. And what will we really lose? Americans would rather work than look at sculptures or drawings. Employers would rather make suitable profits than cut jobs. Yet this is precisely what they will have to do if government does not streamline its stimulus efforts. In today's economy, government cannot afford to waste money. It must ensure that every dollar results in job creation.

Let us move forward. We can overcome this depression without socialism. We must merely spend money where it counts: On private employers, not art. Spending money on art led this country into despair and depression. Let us take our prosperity back. It is time to spend money on things that Americans want: Jobs. By paying executive compensation and destroying art, Americans will get all the jobs they want.

Let us get back to work. If you are out of work, tell your Congressman to abolish arts funding. And mention that you are ready to help look for paintings, sculptures, sketches and picture books. We have a new mission as a people: To work, not to hoard wasteful art. Burning art will unite us all.

Better days are coming. That means more jobs and less art.

SALAZAR TO OBAMA : TANKS AND RHETORIC CAN STAMP OUT RIGHT-WING REVOLTS

MEMORANDUM

TO : President Barack H. Obama

FROM : Kenneth Salazar (D-CO), Secretary of the Interior

RE : “Big Government Protests” in Washington, D.C. and Proposed Response

As you no doubt saw, throngs of angry people marched through Washington last week. They came from all over the country to denounce the Administration for “expanding government,” “raising taxes,” “dishonoring the military,” “destroying marriage,” “chastising banks,” “championing fairness” and “providing health care to all Americans.” Thankfully, our allies in the Press downplayed these disturbances. When they did cover the marches, they called them “insignificant,” “misguided” and pointed out various grammatical and syntactical errors on the protesters’ placards.

Yet our control over the media cannot conceal the fact that many Americans do not want our reforms. Our approval ratings are in decline. Protests such as this will continue to erupt out as we push health care reform and mortgage relief through Congress. The more help we give the American people, the more we can count on Republican protesters to march against socialism. And in the future, these revolts will not be so peaceful. After all, these are not environmentalists or gay rights advocates. These are guys from Nebraska who have known how to assemble a rifle blindfolded since before Kindergarten. Put simply, we must draft contingency plans for containing dissent against economic relief efforts. Whenever we try to help Americans get through the depression, we outrage millions.

This memo is intended to outline a plan for dealing with right-wing revolts. I understand that you always adopt a conciliatory—even cerebral—approach to dealing with dissent. I applaud your trust in reason and rational debate. But I must point out that there is no point reasoning with those who think that any action undertaken by a Democratic Congress amounts to “communism.” There is no point reasoning with people who are prepared to shoot you for daring to “expand government.” You may think this is mere error, and that your law school-style rhetoric will correct it with deft logic. You may think it is dignified to simply ignore this foolishness. Yet rhetoric is insufficient to neutralize the danger. And it is even more dangerous to sit idly by, dignified or not.

When dealing with right-wing protesters, we must speak to irrationality in a language it respects: Force. As Secretary of the Interior, it is my duty to ensure domestic tranquility and to preserve this Administration’s commitment to reform. We are not Sarah Palin; we do not think in absolutes. Nonetheless, our opposition does think in absolutes. Unless we fight fire with fire, they will infect the whole country with irrationality, rendering reform impossible.

To stop irrational disturbances, we must be prepared to show our strength. I advise against appealing to “unity” and “the national good” in order to defuse Republican outcry against reform. Rather, I advise a more aggressive approach. If the protesters think we’re advancing socialism, let us deal with them socialist-style. History provides several examples. When protesters rose up against the Chinese government in 1989, China did not grovel. It did not try to explain itself to the protesters. It did not address their concerns with respect, understanding or dignity. No, it sent in tanks and drove over anyone who still held a placard. Similarly, when the Czechs rose up against the Soviet Union in 1968, the Russians did not condescend to “explaining” why the protesters were wrong. They merely sent in tanks and arrested anyone who complained.

True, we are not a totalitarian government. But the lesson remains: When dealing with protesters, the best way to solve the problem is with tanks. If protesters think that every government initiative is “socialism” or “big government,” let us show them how big our government really is. Tanks are big, too. They can squash people too ignorant to see that we are not advocating socialism. If these protesters are unwilling to listen to our explanations about health care reform and mortgage relief, then let us reason with them with tanks.

I sincerely hope that we do not have to resort to these measures. I am confident that Americans will see that our reforms will not outlaw private employment, nor will they make it impossible for people with private health insurance to see doctors. I trust the American people. But recent disturbances do not bode well. From town hall meetings to the march in Washington last week, dissent is becoming ever more strident. Protesters say that we plan to outlaw money and create a Federal Wealth Redistribution Board that gives white taxpayers’ money to black mothers with at least seven children and two felony convictions. They say that we plan to commute all black criminals’ sentences and appoint them to high positions in the Federal government. They say we plan to force Burger King to give any American a free Whopper® if he asks for one. They even say that we plan to close down all retail stores and replace them with “government handout shops,” in which every American must wait in line for every single consumer commodity.

How can rhetoric correct these misconceptions? How can we possibly set the record straight with people who believe these things? You can orate until you are blue in the face with disgruntled Republicans. But if they believe that you plan to abolish the Supreme Court and create a new Court composed solely of illegal aliens, what can you say to change their minds? They will call you a liar or worse. Then they will say that you plan to make every Friday “National People’s Worker Day” and force all white children to sing “The Internationale” before saluting the flag in the morning. You might think these are imaginary fears. As Secretary of the Interior, however, I have information proving that protesters believe all these things. They even think you plan to create an African Assistance Fund that will transfer all the profits of the Fortune 500 to the Zambian National Treasury. To top it off, there is a substantial number who believe that you are neither an American citizen nor even an earthling; rather, they think you were born on the dark side of the moon. Put simply, you cannot trust your oratory or your knowledge as a constitutional scholar to prevail over people who believe these things.

Mr. President, you must trust tanks. If you wish to contain ever-growing Republican dissent against your vision for a more just America, you cannot depend on principle alone. You cannot depend upon reason or compassion. You cannot depend on goodwill or brotherly love. Republican protesters will label any effort to help the poor “socialism,” and they will call you a “moon-born, un-American communist dictator who wants to steal service sector jobs and give them to illiterate Mexican peasants.” You must be prepared to force these dissenters into line. If they think you want to “take away their freedom to contract,” tell them: “No I don’t,” but back it up with tanks. There’s nothing quite like tanks to reinforce your arguments. In a word, you’re not in Harvard Law School moot court anymore. You’re dealing with Republicans who bear arms. Logical arguments are all well and good. But logical arguments supported by tanks and artillery are even better.

Please consult with me as you plan your response to ever-growing Republican dissent. Discord is rising quickly. The more you talk about compassion, care and equality, the more resistance you will face. The more you talk about fairness, justice and peace, the more violence you will provoke. The more help you offer those crushed by economic disparity, the more unrest you will engender. There are strong forces arrayed against you, Mr. President. They are boiling over. They fight you now with words and recriminations. They are prepared to say anything about you, even that you were born on the moon. It is just a matter of time before their words transform into action. Today they march and call you Stalin. Tomorrow they will not be so civil. Only tanks will save you.

I am a practical man. Successful Presidents combine vision and theory with practical knowledge. Let me help you. As Secretary of the Interior, I know how to make crops grow and how to save pine trees. These are practical skills. I know nature. And I know how to deal with dangerous animals in the wild. Just as you must show force against a rabid grizzly bear, so too must you show force against rabid Republican protesters who call mortgage relief “communist big government tyranny.” When faced with a raging bull, you do not give a power point lecture about social justice or wealth inequality. Rather, you get a gun and shoot it before it kills you. These are practical skills. This is survival.

Do not give another inch, Mr. President. Enforce your vision with arguments and tanks, not just arguments. I know you do not wish to condescend to this, but this is the only practical way to avert disaster. You must defend yourself. If you continue to simply ignore those who label everything you do “socialism” and “big government,” you risk open revolt. To prevent this, simply use tanks when you must. I am certain that you will change at least a few peoples’ minds with tanks. In short, you have an opportunity to turn dissent into support. Tell the protesters: “No I am NOT obliterating the free market…and if you don’t believe me, here’s a tank in your face to prove it.” Or: “No I am NOT going to take away your private doctor…and if you don’t believe me, here’s another tank in your face.” This is not repression. This is merely “tank-assisted reasoning.” If protesters will not listen to reason alone, throw in some tanks to make your point.

There is no time to delay. You must no longer sit by while protesters make outlandish claims about your plans for America. I know you think it is dignified not to respond to these arguments. But you must start fighting back. As soon as the Republicans assemble to protest again, send in the tanks first, then make a speech about fairness and equality.

Do what is necessary. Reason with tanks. In short, Mr. President, sometimes you need to be a little irrational yourself if you want to triumph over irrationality.

PEOPLE WHO LOVE TO GO SHOPPING PARTY

POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD

By : Mr. H. Langdell Kauffing, Party Vice President and Former Chairman, American Retailers for Maximum Credit Renewal Notwithstanding Minimal Income, Inc., a For-Profit Lobbying Group, Washington, D.C.

America knows how to bounce back. When tough economic times knock us down, we get back up like a scrappy underdog. The Depression knocked us down in the 1930s. We got up with a vengeance in the 1940s. Since then, Americans have navigated several major recessions. Through them all, they stayed strong. Even when life looks hopeless, Americans stay on top.

Today, we face yet another financial crisis. This time, they say it’s for real. The talking heads all squawk about “imminent collapse,” “unemployment,” “bread lines,” “bankruptcy” and “looming economic disaster.” They say Americans are paying the price for free money and bad decisions. They say Americans can’t even buy homes or get loans anymore. They say that unless the government steps in to rescue American businesses and insurance companies, the whole country will descend into anarchy.

Why did this happen? The talking heads say that Americans “spent irresponsibly,” “borrowed irresponsibly” and “lived irresponsibly.” In a word, they blame credit cards, banks and undisciplined consumers for casting the economy into peril. America, they say, brought this misery upon itself. They say Americans should have saved instead of shopped. They call on government to help save America from spendthrifts. Now, they say Americans must hoard their cash and stay away from shopping centers.

We cannot do this. Americans love to shop, and we stand for them. We are the People Who Love to Go Shopping Party. We speak for millions of Americans from coast to coast. We believe that we can beat the financial crisis in the same way Americans have beaten every recession that has come down the pike since 1932: By shopping, spending and consuming. Our economy gets nowhere when people bury their cash and hide jewels under the mattress. Rather, our economy will only recover when people dare again to spend. Spending is patriotic, not saving. We have a short answer to the talking heads: Sure, we’ll stop shopping—in hell.

We agree that our economy needs a boost. The housing collapse should not have happened. Shoppers need homes. Shoppers could not shop if they did not first have comfortable homes in which to place all the merchandise they buy. Shoppers also need a place to sleep in between shopping sessions. To that end, we agree that the government must bail out shoppers so they can pay their mortgages. After all, a homeless shopper is no shopper at all. We also promise to lobby for additional bailout money for more shopping. What good is bailout money if shoppers are afraid to spend it? We need to send a clear message to Americans in these dark times: “Life is back to normal. Start spending like it.” We want people to go out and buy new cars, tires, stereo systems and power lawnmowers. We want them to buy gifts for Mom and new furniture for sonny before he goes off to college. In short, we believe the naysayers border on treason when they suggest that Americans should sit on their money. No. Patriots spend. Traitors save.

There is only one way out of this hole. We need to spend our way out. And the clock is ticking.

Spending is not easy when you have no money. It is impossible to purchase a $7,500 kiddy Go-Kart® when you only have $1,323 in your bank account. Yet without immediate consumer spending, our country will slide further into the financial abyss. To that extent, we promise to reinvigorate consumer credit opportunities. For the last few years, evil legislators have launched a concerted propaganda campaign “warning Americans” about “credit dangers.” They say that credit companies prey on weak consumers and tyrannize hard-working Americans with interest charges. They say that runaway credit leads to poverty, homelessness and bankruptcy.

We must stop these lies. Consumer credit is the only way most Americans can buy things they can’t afford. When Americans buy things they can’t afford, the economy improves. Bearing that in mind, we must encourage Americans to spend money they don’t have. To do that, credit must be available to all, not just those with jobs, income and real estate. In America, all men are created equal. We believe it is only patriotic to demand that all Americans have equal opportunities to obtain credit. We see no reason why a rich man should be able to buy a power scooter on credit, but a welder cannot. Our economy suffers when only rich men buy power scooters. If we want to escape recession, both welders and doctors must buy power scooters—no matter how much each man has in the bank.

We have faith in American consumers. We do not treat them like children. We do not scold them for shopping. We trust them to do what’s best. Put simply, we believe that American consumers like to shop. History shows that when Americans shop, the country prospers. Additionally, Americans are happy when they shop. We do not believe the fearmongers who claim that runaway shopping caused the financial crisis. We refuse to allow the fearmongers to stop Americans from doing what they love. We refuse to allow them to blockade our shopping strips, malls and boutiques. We demand access to shopping centers. We want to shop. We can take care of ourselves. As the People Who Love to Go Shopping Party, we are united in our belief that shopping is a right. And it is a good, public right, because when we shop, the economy improves.

Can anyone really claim that saving money will rescue our economy? What good will saving do for Motel 6®? What good will saving do for Toys-R-Us®? What good will saving do for General Motors? Our economy will continue to wither if important companies sell nothing. They will not sell anything if officious government policies frighten people from spending money. Saving keeps money out of the economy; spending pours it in. A river cannot run without water. Spending provides healthy flow to the economic river. By contrast, saving causes economic drought. Without new money flow, the river dries up and parches. Is this what the government suggests? Saving and so-called “responsibility” will lead to further drought. And when the economic river dries up, everybody loses. We all drink from the river. If it runs dry, we will all die on the dusty riverbank.

We must pour our money into the river, not hoard money away from it. When we shop, we pour money into the companies that make the river flow. When the river flows, the company passes money along to employees. When the river flows, Americans get jobs. When Americans have jobs, they have more money to add to the river. And when the river flows, the company can pay taxes and make charitable donations. But none of these things will happen if Americans do not shop. Shopping is like the spring rain that cleanses the earth and strengthens the stream. Shopping is the lifeblood in economic life, just as the river provides lifeblood to all the plants and animals around it. In America, our economy is our habitat. We can only maintain our habitat if we give it water. Thus, it is only natural to spend. We must protect our economic river. We can only do that by shopping.

We promise to defend American shoppers against all encroachments. Put a party in power that will protect your right to go shopping. Do not let naysayers stamp out your rights with admonitions to “save your pennies.” We did not overcome the Depression by scrimping and hoarding. We overcame the Depression by pouring our money back into the economic river, even if we had to take out loans to do it. We can defeat this crisis by shopping, just as our great-grandparents did. Unlike the fearmongers, we have faith in our shoppers. We believe that government should encourage shopping, not frustrate it. To that end, we promise to make both money and credit available to all Americans.

Shopping is not a crime. In fact, it is the best thing an American can do to save the country from economic disaster. At the same time, shopping makes the individual consumer feel good. It is not a one-way street. The retailer gets the consumer’s money, but the consumer gets a video game cartridge, a refrigerator or a desk. These things make consumers happy. In this sense, shopping is both an individually joyful and patriotic activity. Shoppers sacrifice their money. But they get a welcome reward for it. Most patriotic sacrifices are not so pleasant. Shopping is unique in the sense that it saves the country at the same time it pleases the consumer. In that regard, it is hard to understand how anyone could think that shopping is bad, let alone irresponsible.

We believe that it is more responsible to be patriotic than parsimonious. Only shopping will save this country. Saving the country is patriotic, not saving money. Saving money will not save the country. It will cause the money river to run dry. If that happens, the United States will fall further into economic turmoil. How is that patriotic or responsible? The fearmongers say that “saving money” is “responsible.” Yet saving money will lead to national collapse. Again, we ask: How is it “responsible” to drive America to destruction? Put bluntly, the fearmongers are wrong. Saving money is not responsible because it is not patriotic. Patriotism means protecting and rescuing the United States from economic disaster. Only shopping can do that. In that sense, shopping is patriotic—and patriotism is responsible. We therefore assure all Americans: It is not “irresponsible” to shop, nor should you castigate yourselves for spending your savings at a car dealership. When you spend money, you are protecting this country. You are not betraying it.

We are confident that Americans will see that saving is not the answer to the financial crisis. Rather, we are confident that Americans will come to their senses and start shopping again. We, the People Who Love to Go Shopping Party, are dedicated to ending the lies about spending money. We promise to doggedly protect Americans’ right to shop, and that means confronting all the gloomy rhetoric about “saving,” “responsibility” and “ prudence.” In our view, Americans have a responsibility to be patriotic. To be patriotic, Americans must fight to rescue the United States from economic turmoil. That is true responsibility. And that means spending money—today.

Americans will overcome this menace by buying expensive merchandise every day without fear. Saving money got us into this predicament in the first place. It is time to fight back and buy what we want. It is time to end the fear. Let us join hands and tell the world: “We are not afraid to go shopping, even if we have no money in the bank, no job and no income.” We are the People Who Love to Go Shopping Party. We will fight for your right to shop--always and every day.

Be patriotic. Get out there and buy something.