Someone at Vimeo was kind enough to upload the video in its entirety. While I might normally ignore CPAC, I made sure to catch Beck's speech. For those of you that spew hatred at Beck - typically for simply being on Fox News or disagreeing with Obama - this is a must watch. Both parties are to blame for the fiscal irresponsibility. Common sense is crucial. There is no blind hate being pushed by Beck, only a desire to learn from history and past mistakes.

Calculated Risk posted their weekly summary and a look ahead for next week with two troubling charts.

First, the percent of jobs lost - not unemployment rate - is hovering around 5.2%, making it the worst of any recession since figures were recorded in 1948. That is to say, that this recession has had the most dramatic effect on our work force.

Second, and perhaps more troubling, is the statistic of workers unemployed for more than 26 weeks. Currently, the percentage of unemployed for this long is at a record 4.0% with 6.13 million workers. The early 1980s recession was the next highest, with 2.5% unemployed for more than 26 weeks.

The recession has not only hit hard, but it has been sustained. Unemployment levels can flatten, but until we see those out of work for a long period of time finding work, the economy has a long way to go.

Well it certainly has been some time. As the Nationwide commercials say - "Life comes at you fast."

Politics are still a major interest of mine, but the economy, both personally and for that of the country have far surpassed the petty political jabs lobbed back between the two parties. The two parties, which I might add have worked in conjunction to bring us to the brink of collapse we are at today. In any event, I've shifted from politics to economic matters. My core beliefs have not changed, but the intricacies have been refined and have evolved.

From a personal standpoint, I've fully embraced the financial planning of Dave Ramsey. He is the quintessential guide to personal finance and getting out of debt. Ironically, much of the criticism levied against him is that his solutions to complex problems are often too simplistic. But isn't that the case most of the time? We overcomplicate everything as a way to justify our own action, or to place the blame on others. The first tenant that Ramsey speaks of is the "Baby Steps" to get out of debt.

1. $1000 Emergency Fund
2. Pay off all debt using the "debt snowball"
3. Expand the Emergency Fund to include 3-6 months of expenses
4. Invest 15% of household income into Roth IRAs and Pre-Tax retirement
5. College funding for children
6. Pay off home early
7. Build wealth and give - invest in mutual funds and real estate

In addition to the Baby steps listed above, there are a couple ideas that I consider to be core principles. The first is in relation to home mortgages and of buying "too much house." Dave's rule of thumb is to get a 15 year mortgage that is no more than 25% of your take home pay. This succeeds in doing two things - First, you aren't burdened with a 30 year mortgage that will cost excessive amounts of interest over the term of the loan. Second, the payments are low enough that you have the ability to save money for the future, be it retirement, college funds etc...

The other core principle is one which hits close to the heart of my fellow Michiganders and is in relation to the automotive industry and that is to avoid buying new cars, and more importantly - leasing cars, or as Dave refers to them - "fleecing" cars. I'll quote Dave's book directly on this to put car payments into perspective:

Taking on a car payment is one of the dumbest things people do to destroy their chances of building wealth. The car payment is most folks' largest payment except for their home mortgage, so it steals more money from the income than virtually anything else. USA Today notes that the average car payment is $464 over sixty-four months. Most people get a car payment and keep it throughout their lives. As soon as a car is paid off, they get another payment because they "need" a new car. If you keep a $464 car payment throughout your life, which is "normal," you miss the opportunity to save that money. If you invested $464 per month from age 25 to age 65, a normal working lifetime, in the average mutual fund averaging 12 percent (the seventy-year stock market average), you would have $5,458,854,45 at age sixty-five. Hope you like the car!

So while I come off as boring to many, I'm simply using logic and looking to the future. It is human nature to want it and want it now; it is also a sign of immaturity. Being willing to delay pleasure for a greater result is a sign of maturity. However, our culture teaches us to live for the now. Don't live for the now, but rather, the future.

Newspapers have existed for thousands of years dating back to the time of Julius Caesar, although perhaps not in the form that we are familiar with, which didn't exist until movable type was invented with the first modern newspaper being published in 1605.

A little more than four-hundred years is quite a run I'd say. The sad truth is that newspapers are becoming obsolete, both as a medium for information and as a business model. As nearly everyone has access to the Internet, television or radio, the printed newspaper just doesn't cut it.

Environmentalists can celebrate the reduction in the usage of paper. Impatient folks can jump for joy with not having to search through the paper for a story and the techies can be giddy with the advancements made during the last few years.

Newspapers hold some nostalgic value - I recall saving papers of important sporting events when I was younger - Championships by the Red Wings and Pistons, Presidential elections and record setting events. People naturally want to hold on to things and not embrace change, but that is, unfortunately, what we must do.

Newspaper circulation is down across the board, Senator Ben Cardin's proposed Newspaper Revitalization Act simply delays the inevitable. In a nutshell, the bill allows newspapers to become a tax-exempt non-profit organization, prohibited from making political endorsements.

What's puzzling is that Senator Cardin agrees with the same logic I'm using, but still finds the bill to have merit:

"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy."

Like anything else, the newspaper industry needs to find a way to reinvent itself. Many papers are voluntarily reducing circulation or moving to an online business model. Singling the industry out for something like this makes no sense. When looked at from afar, it can be substitued with other industries such as the horse and buggy manufacturers or steam engines - both of which seem preposterous - but are valid comparisons because all of the industries are obsolete from a technological perspective.

Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but I'm also skeptical of the political endorsement clause as well. Lets face it, the newspaper media isn't known for being unbiased in reporting stories, so the lack of an endorsement would simply make the message more covert. In addition, when government funds and tax-exempt status is placed upon a private industry or institution, it opens the door for corruption. A puff piece here or some extra digging here to receive extra funds and completely twist and distort the media's purpose from checking government to working hand in hand with them as a mouthpiece to further an idea. The same works for rich donors offering a tax-deductible donation for writing or not writing certain stories.

Corruption, technology, whatever - The newspaper industry should be allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits, rather than be supported while failing as that only enables the same poor decision making to continue and pushes back the inevitable failure.