by Watch Dog
Ronald Reagan told us, “The government is not the solution to the problem! Government is the problem!”
Nowhere is this more evident than in our ‘Energy Policy‘! It is a fact that the current ‘Energy policy’ is a NO energy policy.
There is talk of “renewable” ‘Green Energy ‘; these include Biofuels, solar, wind energy and some wonderful yet to be found unknown. Science tells us that Solar and Wind can reliably supply about 4% of the nation’s energy needs. Technology is not even close to a having method of producing a viable Biofuel in any significant quantity. If or when a new fuel is discovered or created, it will take 20 to 30 years to build the infrastructure to distribute it and the machines that will use it.
There is a Corn to Ethanol program, the Ethanol is used as an additive to gasoline. This program is said to reduce our need for oil by up to 15%; but at what cost? The Ethanol is subsidized to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year and it is 20% less efficient than gasoline! Many studies have also indicated that when one includes the process of fermenting and distilling, Ethanol pollutes more than gasoline. Furthermore, using corn in this manner has contributed to world food shortages and higher food costs here in America. Because Ethanol readily absorbs moisture, it cannot be distributed via regular channels and must be trucked.
Some politician and others claim that all we have to do is fund a “Manhattan Project”. The Manhattan Project” was not the result of giving scientists million of dollars and sending them off to create an awesome unknown weapon. Scientists already knew that if you could create the chain reaction needed, that the Atom Bomb would produce tremendous devastation. Their job was to make a well founded theory in to a working bomb. We have no well founded theory for a new fuel.
The Obama policy is to ban the use of ALL fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) without first finding a replacement. How stupid is that?
Even if a ‘miracle’ fuel is discovered, it will take decades to transform from current systems to new systems. If you want to drive a car, work at a job, or get quality pharmaceuticals over those transition decades, you need oil. A friend told me that she thought that Obama’s plan was akin to doctors removing an ailing heart in the hope that a new one might be found.
If your goal is to destroy the economy and reduce America to the status of a third world power, it makes perfect sense to shutdown all viable energy sources now; otherwise, you would have to be an idiot!
In truth, there is absolutely no reason to ban fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuels does not add to the Earth’s temperature. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is an insignificant contributor to any greenhouse effect. CO2 makes up far less than 1% of all ‘Greenhouse Gases” while water vapor makes up more than 95% of all greenhouse gases.
One of the things left out of Global Warming discussions is the fact that during the ‘50’s, ‘60’s, and early ‘70’s industry pumped 1000’s of tons hydrocarbons and CO2 into the atmosphere. Pittsburg for example, was so polluted by smoke from coke ovens and steel mills that if you were on the outside looking in, it appeared as an amber dome. The air was so thick that if you were in the city you could look directly at the Sun without hurting your eyes. At the time Pittsburg was pretty typical of hundreds of similar cities and towns the world over. If CO2 and hydrocarbons were a problem, that would be the time for holes in the Ozone and man caused rising temperatures.
In addition to the false claim that we are creating ‘Greenhouse Gases’, the naysayers tell us that we do not have enough untapped oil or coal to last more than a few months. They also claim that we only have enough natural gas to last a few decades.
The governments own reports show that in we have enough coal, oil, and natural gas to supply our projected needs for several centuries in to the future. The truth is that the United States has more known and yet untapped energy resources than the rest of the world combined. By some accounts, we have enough resources to carry us well into the next millennium. If the reader wishes to confirm these claims, he need only read earlier articles which are posted on this blog. Those articles go into detail and identify the sources of the data. All of the data is also available on U.S. Government websites.
The U.S. has billions of tons of Coal reserves. Coal can be converted to petroleum and in mass production, be competitive with crude oil selling at $35/barrel. We call this product Synfuel. The technology has been around for a long time and has been very well tested.
The Germans used Coal based Synfuel for 50% of all their fuel in WW-II. All most all of their aircraft, tanks, and military trucks were using it.
The U.S. has trillions of cubic feet of Natural Gas which can also be converted to Synfuel.
Our Air Force and Army have conducted extensive testing of Synfuels---their findings are that the Synfuel functions as well as regular petroleum products, but the Synfuels also produce greater energy and burn cleaner; which means less pollution, longer engine life, and better efficiency.
A Synfuel based Energy Policy offers many advantages over anything proposed to date:
1. It can be done without any tax dollars. Industry has made the investments toward developing these products and if government would just get the hell out of the way, these same companies will be happy to complete the task.
2. It will create 100’s of thousands of real jobs and at all skill levels.
3. These jobs cannot be exported.
4. It will help bring our balance in trade under control.
5. It will increase the strength of the dollar
6. It will create 100’s of billions of new taxes without increasing tax rates.
7. Synfuels can be distributed through existing systems.
Nuclear Energy also has a place in a sound energy policy, but we save that discussion for another day.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Boehner Must Champion Congressional Pay Cuts
By Austin Hill
You can’t say they’ve been slow to act.
Since the 112th Congress first convened on January 3rd of this year, the U.S. House of Representatives has been aggressively pursuing an agenda of cutting government spending. With the passage of bills that repeal Obamacare, de-fund NPR, and discontinue federal subsidies for special interest group Planned Parenthood (just to name a few), the House has demonstrated that it “got the message” in last year’s election.
And now it’s time for Speaker of the House John Boehner, the man who has led this frenetic charge, to take direct aim at the most obvious form of political self interest. It is time for Speaker Boehner to move forward on cutting the salaries of elected members of Congress.
Boehner’s leadership in the U.S. House has been front-and-center in a much larger story that has emerged nationwide. Led by state Governors Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Snyder of Michigan, and C.L. Butch Otter of Idaho, elected Republicans around the country have been getting back to doing what Republicans should have been doing for the entire last decade – cutting government spending, and reducing government intrusion in private sector business matters. As such, the Republican Party has initiated a very healthy and necessary debate about the proper role of government in society, and has also provided an attractive and distinct alternative to President Obama’s “the state above all else” vision.
And now, as he goes about the people’s business day-to-day in the national spotlight, Speaker Boehner can add a new level of depth and richness to this national debate, and demonstrate that real statesmanship is capable of real self-restraint and real self-sacrifice. If he would champion the idea of congressional pay cuts and make it a legislative priority, he would likely find that the idea has broad bipartisan support among the American electorate, would create lots of “good will” on behalf of the Republican Party, and – most importantly – would move the federal government further in the correct fiscal direction.
To be clear, there has been chatter on Capitol Hill about congressional pay cuts for quite some time. Last year for example, Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Arizona) proposed the idea, but with her own party in charge in Washington the idea went nowhere. However, Kirkpatrick also pushed the Obamacare agenda on a less-than-agreeable Arizona electorate, while at the same time she pledged to forego the lavish healthcare plan afforded to her as a member of congress and agreed to instead participate in the President’s government-run health plan herself. While cuts in congressional salary and benefits were certainly noble ideas, Ms. Kirkpatrick nonetheless managed to get herself un-elected last November as she became one of the infamous one-termer Democratic freshmen who rode the Obama wave to victory in 2008, only to crash with him two years later.
But at the start of this year another Arizonan -and a much more moderate Democrat - Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords took up the mantle. Introducing the “congressional pay cut act” on January 6th, Ms. Giffords attracted co-sponsorship of her legislation from such diverse House members as the big-spending Rep. Jim Costa (D-California), and the always-looking-for-leaner-government Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The Giffords bill calls for a meager 5% decrease in congressional pay, yet seems to be stalled for the time being as Ms. Giffords herself continues her miraculous recovery from her own horrific shooting that occurred two days later.
And herein lies the opportunity for Mr. Boehner. If the Speaker of the House would take the baton and move forward while at the same time making cuts in both congressional pay and benefits even steeper, he could demonstrate that American statesmanship is capable of self-sacrifice, and truly operating in the interests of the “common good.”
And imagine the impact that Speaker Boehner could have on Republican leaders at the state level. If, for example, Governors across the country were inspired to self-impose their own salary and benefits reduction, it could go a long way to demonstrate that teachers and law enforcement officers are not the only government employees that are being asked to “do more with less.”
Owing to the reality that the U.S. Senate is still controlled by the Obama Democrats, many of Boehner’s legislative achievements have been dismissed as “merely symbolic” (the Senate, for example, will never agree to de-funding National Public Radio). To this, the House Majority has rightly offered a very succinct response: “give us more Republicans in the Senate, and we’ll make our spending cuts a reality.”
But Speaker Boehner has the power, right now, to demonstrate that recipients of some of the most lavish salaries and benefits in the world (all of which are funded with our tax dollars) are capable of self-sacrifice. Mr. Boehner, this is your time -are you ready?
Email Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
You can’t say they’ve been slow to act.
Since the 112th Congress first convened on January 3rd of this year, the U.S. House of Representatives has been aggressively pursuing an agenda of cutting government spending. With the passage of bills that repeal Obamacare, de-fund NPR, and discontinue federal subsidies for special interest group Planned Parenthood (just to name a few), the House has demonstrated that it “got the message” in last year’s election.
And now it’s time for Speaker of the House John Boehner, the man who has led this frenetic charge, to take direct aim at the most obvious form of political self interest. It is time for Speaker Boehner to move forward on cutting the salaries of elected members of Congress.
Boehner’s leadership in the U.S. House has been front-and-center in a much larger story that has emerged nationwide. Led by state Governors Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Snyder of Michigan, and C.L. Butch Otter of Idaho, elected Republicans around the country have been getting back to doing what Republicans should have been doing for the entire last decade – cutting government spending, and reducing government intrusion in private sector business matters. As such, the Republican Party has initiated a very healthy and necessary debate about the proper role of government in society, and has also provided an attractive and distinct alternative to President Obama’s “the state above all else” vision.
And now, as he goes about the people’s business day-to-day in the national spotlight, Speaker Boehner can add a new level of depth and richness to this national debate, and demonstrate that real statesmanship is capable of real self-restraint and real self-sacrifice. If he would champion the idea of congressional pay cuts and make it a legislative priority, he would likely find that the idea has broad bipartisan support among the American electorate, would create lots of “good will” on behalf of the Republican Party, and – most importantly – would move the federal government further in the correct fiscal direction.
To be clear, there has been chatter on Capitol Hill about congressional pay cuts for quite some time. Last year for example, Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Arizona) proposed the idea, but with her own party in charge in Washington the idea went nowhere. However, Kirkpatrick also pushed the Obamacare agenda on a less-than-agreeable Arizona electorate, while at the same time she pledged to forego the lavish healthcare plan afforded to her as a member of congress and agreed to instead participate in the President’s government-run health plan herself. While cuts in congressional salary and benefits were certainly noble ideas, Ms. Kirkpatrick nonetheless managed to get herself un-elected last November as she became one of the infamous one-termer Democratic freshmen who rode the Obama wave to victory in 2008, only to crash with him two years later.
But at the start of this year another Arizonan -and a much more moderate Democrat - Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords took up the mantle. Introducing the “congressional pay cut act” on January 6th, Ms. Giffords attracted co-sponsorship of her legislation from such diverse House members as the big-spending Rep. Jim Costa (D-California), and the always-looking-for-leaner-government Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The Giffords bill calls for a meager 5% decrease in congressional pay, yet seems to be stalled for the time being as Ms. Giffords herself continues her miraculous recovery from her own horrific shooting that occurred two days later.
And herein lies the opportunity for Mr. Boehner. If the Speaker of the House would take the baton and move forward while at the same time making cuts in both congressional pay and benefits even steeper, he could demonstrate that American statesmanship is capable of self-sacrifice, and truly operating in the interests of the “common good.”
And imagine the impact that Speaker Boehner could have on Republican leaders at the state level. If, for example, Governors across the country were inspired to self-impose their own salary and benefits reduction, it could go a long way to demonstrate that teachers and law enforcement officers are not the only government employees that are being asked to “do more with less.”
Owing to the reality that the U.S. Senate is still controlled by the Obama Democrats, many of Boehner’s legislative achievements have been dismissed as “merely symbolic” (the Senate, for example, will never agree to de-funding National Public Radio). To this, the House Majority has rightly offered a very succinct response: “give us more Republicans in the Senate, and we’ll make our spending cuts a reality.”
But Speaker Boehner has the power, right now, to demonstrate that recipients of some of the most lavish salaries and benefits in the world (all of which are funded with our tax dollars) are capable of self-sacrifice. Mr. Boehner, this is your time -are you ready?
Email Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, March 14, 2011
We All Must “Sacrifice” (Except The President’s Friends)
By Austin Hill
We live at a time when all Americans must sacrifice.
All, that is, except those of us who can be politically helpful to our President as he seeks re-election.
Last month, President Barack Obama addressed a gathering of the National Governor’s Association, wherein he suggested that “shared sacrifice” should become a new catch-phrase, of sorts, for America. “If all the pain is shared by one group,” the President noted, “that’s not good for anyone.”
In that same engagement, the President went on to address his healthcare “reform” legislation from last year. “I "I am not open to refighting the battles of the last two years or undoing the progress we've made," he noted, but then explained that he wanted a bipartisan group of Governors to work with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to make Obamacare “even better.” "I will go to bat for whatever works,” he claimed, “no matter who it comes from."
Before we move on to the broader issue – this insincere notion of “shared sacrifice” – let’s look carefully at some of the “straw man” arguments and erroneous insinuations that the President articulated to the Governors, just based on the portion of his speech recorded above. Why, for example, would the President suggest that the “pain” of the economic downturn is only being felt among “one group” of Americans?
The Great Recession has been felt in nearly every sector of the economy, among people from nearly every socioeconomic category. Even the wealthiest among us (a group President Obama so often disparages as being “greedy”) have had fewer opportunities in which to invest and with which to expand their wealth – and de facto that has meant fewer employment opportunities for others.
In reality, the “one group” of people that has been most successfully sheltered from the “pain” that the President wants us all to “share” is government employees, themselves. And on that matter, President Obama told the Governors that "I don't think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified.”
Here are the facts of the matter. In the state of Wisconsin, state taxpayers pay nearly 100% of the costs of government employee retirement pension contributions, and well over 90% of government employee’s healthcare insurance costs. The uproar in that state has not been about Wisconsin indiscriminately firing government workers or cutting the workers’ benefits, but about the necessity of government employees taking more financial responsibility for their own retirement and healthcare. This, of course, led to Wisconsin school teachers storming the state capitol and chanting “tax the rich – don’t cut our benefits…”
But never mind the disparity between the economic realities of the private sector, where most of us pay for a good bit of our healthcare and contribute our own earnings to private retirement accounts, and the comforts of the government sector where tax payers foot the bill for these things. According to our President, holding government employees responsible for modest portions of their own retirement and healthcare costs is “villifying” and “denigrating,” Sacrifice ought not be shared among “them.”
And now, back to Obamacare. From 2007 (when his presidential campaign began) to March of 2010 (when the bill was signed into law), Mr. Obama insisted that his plan for national healthcare “reform” would expand healthcare access. And it would save the federal government from going bankrupt. And it would produce a higher quality of healthcare. And it would save state governments money. And it would “bend the healthcare cost curve downward.”
Today there is no evidence that any of these things are even remotely on their way to happening. Over half the states in our union (26) have filed law suits to prevent the implementation of Obamacare. And over 1000 private organizations have been granted waivers from having to comply with the mandates of Obamacare,
And note the disingenuous essence of the “waivers.” While the President created this healthcare monstrosity that is supped to be good for all Americans, his Administration has been busy “waiving” groups that can be politically helpful to the President himself.
The list of waiver recipients includes hundreds of local labor unions; McDonald’s restaurants (a company that employs over 30,000 hourly workers nationwide who earn less than $11,000 a year), Carlson Restaurants (owners of “TGI Fridays” – again lots of low wage workers); and the General Electric Corporation, whose C.E.O. Jeff Immelt was a large cash contributor to the President’s first presidential campaign. Interestingly, Mr. Immelt also received another nice political favor from our President when G.E. was granted a waiver from complying with federal environmental regulations surrounding a G.E. power plant project in California.
So the call for “shared sacrifice” only applies to those of us who are not politically helpful to the President. Government employees enjoy the benefit of President Obama seeking to shelter them from economic reality, while private groups that can help with the 2012 campaign are now blessed with Obamacare exemptions.
America must make a better choice in 2012, and put an end to this corruption.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
We live at a time when all Americans must sacrifice.
All, that is, except those of us who can be politically helpful to our President as he seeks re-election.
Last month, President Barack Obama addressed a gathering of the National Governor’s Association, wherein he suggested that “shared sacrifice” should become a new catch-phrase, of sorts, for America. “If all the pain is shared by one group,” the President noted, “that’s not good for anyone.”
In that same engagement, the President went on to address his healthcare “reform” legislation from last year. “I "I am not open to refighting the battles of the last two years or undoing the progress we've made," he noted, but then explained that he wanted a bipartisan group of Governors to work with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to make Obamacare “even better.” "I will go to bat for whatever works,” he claimed, “no matter who it comes from."
Before we move on to the broader issue – this insincere notion of “shared sacrifice” – let’s look carefully at some of the “straw man” arguments and erroneous insinuations that the President articulated to the Governors, just based on the portion of his speech recorded above. Why, for example, would the President suggest that the “pain” of the economic downturn is only being felt among “one group” of Americans?
The Great Recession has been felt in nearly every sector of the economy, among people from nearly every socioeconomic category. Even the wealthiest among us (a group President Obama so often disparages as being “greedy”) have had fewer opportunities in which to invest and with which to expand their wealth – and de facto that has meant fewer employment opportunities for others.
In reality, the “one group” of people that has been most successfully sheltered from the “pain” that the President wants us all to “share” is government employees, themselves. And on that matter, President Obama told the Governors that "I don't think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified.”
Here are the facts of the matter. In the state of Wisconsin, state taxpayers pay nearly 100% of the costs of government employee retirement pension contributions, and well over 90% of government employee’s healthcare insurance costs. The uproar in that state has not been about Wisconsin indiscriminately firing government workers or cutting the workers’ benefits, but about the necessity of government employees taking more financial responsibility for their own retirement and healthcare. This, of course, led to Wisconsin school teachers storming the state capitol and chanting “tax the rich – don’t cut our benefits…”
But never mind the disparity between the economic realities of the private sector, where most of us pay for a good bit of our healthcare and contribute our own earnings to private retirement accounts, and the comforts of the government sector where tax payers foot the bill for these things. According to our President, holding government employees responsible for modest portions of their own retirement and healthcare costs is “villifying” and “denigrating,” Sacrifice ought not be shared among “them.”
And now, back to Obamacare. From 2007 (when his presidential campaign began) to March of 2010 (when the bill was signed into law), Mr. Obama insisted that his plan for national healthcare “reform” would expand healthcare access. And it would save the federal government from going bankrupt. And it would produce a higher quality of healthcare. And it would save state governments money. And it would “bend the healthcare cost curve downward.”
Today there is no evidence that any of these things are even remotely on their way to happening. Over half the states in our union (26) have filed law suits to prevent the implementation of Obamacare. And over 1000 private organizations have been granted waivers from having to comply with the mandates of Obamacare,
And note the disingenuous essence of the “waivers.” While the President created this healthcare monstrosity that is supped to be good for all Americans, his Administration has been busy “waiving” groups that can be politically helpful to the President himself.
The list of waiver recipients includes hundreds of local labor unions; McDonald’s restaurants (a company that employs over 30,000 hourly workers nationwide who earn less than $11,000 a year), Carlson Restaurants (owners of “TGI Fridays” – again lots of low wage workers); and the General Electric Corporation, whose C.E.O. Jeff Immelt was a large cash contributor to the President’s first presidential campaign. Interestingly, Mr. Immelt also received another nice political favor from our President when G.E. was granted a waiver from complying with federal environmental regulations surrounding a G.E. power plant project in California.
So the call for “shared sacrifice” only applies to those of us who are not politically helpful to the President. Government employees enjoy the benefit of President Obama seeking to shelter them from economic reality, while private groups that can help with the 2012 campaign are now blessed with Obamacare exemptions.
America must make a better choice in 2012, and put an end to this corruption.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Who Is “Pro Business” In Washington?
By Austin Hill
Has the Obama Administration turned the corner, and become more “pro business?”
News about the economy and business growth has been getting better. Claims for unemployment benefits, and unemployment itself, seem to have dropped. And while unemployment and “under employment” figures remain painfully high, a look inside the latest data on American businesses suggests that many of them have mustered about as much productivity as they can with their current arrangements. Presumably, many of these American businesses will likely need to either begin hiring new employees, or at least begin deploying more independent contract laborers in the months ahead.
That’s all good news. And the fact that the American economy is showing signs of new growth after a near total collapse of the financial system less than three years ago is a testimony to the American work ethic, and American ingenuity.
If, however, America is to have a sustainably prosperous economy over the long haul, then America must demand a smarter government. It is always to be expected that Washington politicians (the President included) would have lots to say about “job creation,” and being “pro business,” and this is especially true given current conditions. But mere rhetoric is not enough.
In truth, the President and the Congress must always maintain a healthy dose of respect for what is entailed in both “job creation,” and “wealth creation.” Yet much of what emanates from Washington conveys not only a profound sense of disrespect, but completely cluelessness as well.
Some of the gravest signs of trouble with our President began long before he was elected. Back in 2008 while he was campaigning for the Presidency, candidate Obama made it a point to chastise American businesses nearly every time a robust earnings report was published. In the summer of that year, speaking to a stadium full of adoring followers, his disdain for the oil industry, in particular, became evident:
“First of all,” candidate Obama stated, “you’ve got oil companies making record profits…no… no companies in history have made the kind of profits the oil companies are makin’ right now…They..they…….one company, Exxon Mobil, made eleven billion dollars…billion, with a “b” ….last quarter….they made eleven billion dollars the quarter before that…makin’ money hand-over-fist…makin’ out like bandits…”
“Makin’ out like bandits” – that’s an amazing assessment of a successful business enterprise, to suggest that a company stole something in order to post “profits.” Of course at that moment in time, the early signs of a recession were appearing, and it was politically viable to send the message that “if we can’t all prosper right now, then none of us should prosper right now.”
Yet Mr. Obama’s disdain for business “profits” has continued throughout his presidency. Fast forward to February 7th of this year, when the President addressed an audience of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Speaking of the improving balance sheets at many American companies, President Obama stated: “The benefits can’t just translate into greater bonuses and profits for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standards of living, as well as your bottom line…”
The President seems not to understand that “profits” don’t’ simply benefit “those at the top.” Profits are necessary for employment, itself, to be sustained, and expanding profits are necessary for expanded job creation.
Yet President Obama also seems to ignore the fact that over half the American population is invested, in one fashion or another, in the stock market. Corporate profits, as distasteful as Mr. Obama may believe them to be, actually do create a “return” for investors – and that helps everybody.
But along with President Obama’s consistent disgust for people earning “profits,” his Administration’s contradictory policies towards business are equally as troubling. On the one hand, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced late last month that his department would be launching two new small business loan programs, to try and stimulate small business creation.
Yet at about the same time as Mr. Geithner’s announcement, a new “program” emerged from the Department of Labor that was immediately characterized “unprecedented” and “controversial.” The White House has now set up a venture with the American Bar Association, wherein workers who feel they have been “treated wrongly” by their employer can call a toll-free number, and get “free” assistance from an attorney who will represent them against their employer on a contingency basis.
Some people, including our President and Vice President, see this as a pathway to “justice” for middle class workers. If a worker feels that they have been “treated wrongly,” then it must be true – or so the line of reasoning goes.
Yet the Obama Administration seems not to realize that sometimes lawyers and plaintiffs make wrongful accusations, and using the force of government to empower these attorneys to go after businesses creates a very hostile environment for “job creation.”
Politicians can (and will) talk endlessly about being “pro business” and about “job creation.” But Americans need better leaders for our future.
Email Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send Feedback to: WatchDog
.
Has the Obama Administration turned the corner, and become more “pro business?”
News about the economy and business growth has been getting better. Claims for unemployment benefits, and unemployment itself, seem to have dropped. And while unemployment and “under employment” figures remain painfully high, a look inside the latest data on American businesses suggests that many of them have mustered about as much productivity as they can with their current arrangements. Presumably, many of these American businesses will likely need to either begin hiring new employees, or at least begin deploying more independent contract laborers in the months ahead.
That’s all good news. And the fact that the American economy is showing signs of new growth after a near total collapse of the financial system less than three years ago is a testimony to the American work ethic, and American ingenuity.
If, however, America is to have a sustainably prosperous economy over the long haul, then America must demand a smarter government. It is always to be expected that Washington politicians (the President included) would have lots to say about “job creation,” and being “pro business,” and this is especially true given current conditions. But mere rhetoric is not enough.
In truth, the President and the Congress must always maintain a healthy dose of respect for what is entailed in both “job creation,” and “wealth creation.” Yet much of what emanates from Washington conveys not only a profound sense of disrespect, but completely cluelessness as well.
Some of the gravest signs of trouble with our President began long before he was elected. Back in 2008 while he was campaigning for the Presidency, candidate Obama made it a point to chastise American businesses nearly every time a robust earnings report was published. In the summer of that year, speaking to a stadium full of adoring followers, his disdain for the oil industry, in particular, became evident:
“First of all,” candidate Obama stated, “you’ve got oil companies making record profits…no… no companies in history have made the kind of profits the oil companies are makin’ right now…They..they…….one company, Exxon Mobil, made eleven billion dollars…billion, with a “b” ….last quarter….they made eleven billion dollars the quarter before that…makin’ money hand-over-fist…makin’ out like bandits…”
“Makin’ out like bandits” – that’s an amazing assessment of a successful business enterprise, to suggest that a company stole something in order to post “profits.” Of course at that moment in time, the early signs of a recession were appearing, and it was politically viable to send the message that “if we can’t all prosper right now, then none of us should prosper right now.”
Yet Mr. Obama’s disdain for business “profits” has continued throughout his presidency. Fast forward to February 7th of this year, when the President addressed an audience of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Speaking of the improving balance sheets at many American companies, President Obama stated: “The benefits can’t just translate into greater bonuses and profits for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standards of living, as well as your bottom line…”
The President seems not to understand that “profits” don’t’ simply benefit “those at the top.” Profits are necessary for employment, itself, to be sustained, and expanding profits are necessary for expanded job creation.
Yet President Obama also seems to ignore the fact that over half the American population is invested, in one fashion or another, in the stock market. Corporate profits, as distasteful as Mr. Obama may believe them to be, actually do create a “return” for investors – and that helps everybody.
But along with President Obama’s consistent disgust for people earning “profits,” his Administration’s contradictory policies towards business are equally as troubling. On the one hand, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced late last month that his department would be launching two new small business loan programs, to try and stimulate small business creation.
Yet at about the same time as Mr. Geithner’s announcement, a new “program” emerged from the Department of Labor that was immediately characterized “unprecedented” and “controversial.” The White House has now set up a venture with the American Bar Association, wherein workers who feel they have been “treated wrongly” by their employer can call a toll-free number, and get “free” assistance from an attorney who will represent them against their employer on a contingency basis.
Some people, including our President and Vice President, see this as a pathway to “justice” for middle class workers. If a worker feels that they have been “treated wrongly,” then it must be true – or so the line of reasoning goes.
Yet the Obama Administration seems not to realize that sometimes lawyers and plaintiffs make wrongful accusations, and using the force of government to empower these attorneys to go after businesses creates a very hostile environment for “job creation.”
Politicians can (and will) talk endlessly about being “pro business” and about “job creation.” But Americans need better leaders for our future.
Email Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send Feedback to: WatchDog
.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
What Is A Legal War?
Politian’s, Political Writers, and others claim that an undeclared war is an illegal war.
Are they correct?
What does the Constitution have to say on the matter and what is the History of American Wars?
Article One, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution says 'Congress shall have power to.. Declare war'
That is all the Constitution has to say. No specific format or terminology is defined or specified, nor is the term "Declaration of War" found anywhere in the Constitution.
Furthermore, despite the constitutional requirement that only Congress declare war, it does not require that a war must be declared. In practice, throughout history the United States has fought wars based on 'authorizations' and only used the term 'Declare War' at the specific request of the President.
The term 'Declaration of War' has been used for 5 events:
War of 1812 under James Madison
Mexican-American War (1836)
Spanish-American War (1898)
World War I (1914)
World War II (1942) had muliple declarations
Authorized wars, not using the term 'declaration' include:
Quasi-War (1798) under President John Adams
First Barbary War (1801) under Thomas Jefferson
Second Barbary War (1815) under James Madison
Raid on Slave Trade (1820) under James Monroe
Retaliation on Portugal (1859)
Korea War (1870)
Philippine-American War (1898)
Intervention in Russian Revolution (1918)
Protection of Lebanon (1958)
Viet-Nam War (1964)
Multinational force in Lebanon (1983)
Invasion of Panama (1989)
Persian Gulf War (1991)
War in Afghanistan (2001)
Iraq War (2002)
The Korean War (1950) was not authorized by the U.S. Congress, but was fought under authority of a United Nation resolution.
There have also been a number of ‘Police Actions’ in which U.S. Armed Forces have been deployed, such as Clinton's use of troops in the Kosovo War.
Note that the first two wars were not 'declared' wars. Surely, those early Presidents knew the wording and the intent of the Constitution.
Congress, after World War II, limited its own power to 'Declare War' to using 'Authorizations of Force'. The reasoning behind this action was that a ‘Declaration of War’ gave unbridled power to the President to wage war in any manner and with any weapons as he deemed appropriate. Whereas, an 'Authorizations of Force' would permit Congress to set limits.
The 'War Powers Resolution of 1973' limits the power of the President to wage war. This act clearly defines how many soldiers can be deployed, and for how long without approval of Congress. The constitutionality of this act has never been tested, but with the sole exception of President Clinton's use of troops in the air campaign during the Kosovo War, all Presidents have received Congressional authorization as required under the act.
The wording of the Constitution and the historical actions of Congress indicate that any Act, either 'Declared' or 'Authorized', that provides funding and approves the use of deadly force meets the requirements of 'Legality' for the President of the United States to wage war.
The remaining question on a ‘Declaration of War’ is; Does the President, need authorization from Congress before he commits the Armed Forces to battle?
From a practical standpoint-- It can be reasoned that the Constitution grants full power to the President to wage war without prior approval of Congress.
The Constitution prohibits the states from engaging in war without the consent of Congress, unless the state is actually invaded or is in imminent danger. There are no such constitutional restrictions placed on the President
The Constitution charges the President with the protection of the nation and its citizens. One can envision many scenarios in which to fulfill that obligation the President would need to act immediately. When the Constitution was enacted Congress was part-time and could takes days or weeks to convene. It doesn't seem reasonable that the Constitution would have tied the President's hands to act for that long. Today, Congress could convene in far less time, but warfare has also changed; modern long range weapons may require the President to act in minutes.
The 'War Powers Resolution of 1973' indicates that the Congress recognizes the Presidents’ unilateral power to engage in war and with this act Congress attempts to limit that Presidential Power.
There is another serious issue. Sadly, Congress leaks like a sieve! Congress has probably always had leaks, but in the 1800’s it took weeks for a leak to spread. Today you can't tell Congress a secret because the New York Times will publish it, mainstream media will broadcast it, and it will be on the Internet before it stops echoing off the walls of the Congressional chambers.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Are they correct?
What does the Constitution have to say on the matter and what is the History of American Wars?
Article One, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution says 'Congress shall have power to.. Declare war'
That is all the Constitution has to say. No specific format or terminology is defined or specified, nor is the term "Declaration of War" found anywhere in the Constitution.
Furthermore, despite the constitutional requirement that only Congress declare war, it does not require that a war must be declared. In practice, throughout history the United States has fought wars based on 'authorizations' and only used the term 'Declare War' at the specific request of the President.
The term 'Declaration of War' has been used for 5 events:
War of 1812 under James Madison
Mexican-American War (1836)
Spanish-American War (1898)
World War I (1914)
World War II (1942) had muliple declarations
Authorized wars, not using the term 'declaration' include:
Quasi-War (1798) under President John Adams
First Barbary War (1801) under Thomas Jefferson
Second Barbary War (1815) under James Madison
Raid on Slave Trade (1820) under James Monroe
Retaliation on Portugal (1859)
Korea War (1870)
Philippine-American War (1898)
Intervention in Russian Revolution (1918)
Protection of Lebanon (1958)
Viet-Nam War (1964)
Multinational force in Lebanon (1983)
Invasion of Panama (1989)
Persian Gulf War (1991)
War in Afghanistan (2001)
Iraq War (2002)
The Korean War (1950) was not authorized by the U.S. Congress, but was fought under authority of a United Nation resolution.
There have also been a number of ‘Police Actions’ in which U.S. Armed Forces have been deployed, such as Clinton's use of troops in the Kosovo War.
Note that the first two wars were not 'declared' wars. Surely, those early Presidents knew the wording and the intent of the Constitution.
Congress, after World War II, limited its own power to 'Declare War' to using 'Authorizations of Force'. The reasoning behind this action was that a ‘Declaration of War’ gave unbridled power to the President to wage war in any manner and with any weapons as he deemed appropriate. Whereas, an 'Authorizations of Force' would permit Congress to set limits.
The 'War Powers Resolution of 1973' limits the power of the President to wage war. This act clearly defines how many soldiers can be deployed, and for how long without approval of Congress. The constitutionality of this act has never been tested, but with the sole exception of President Clinton's use of troops in the air campaign during the Kosovo War, all Presidents have received Congressional authorization as required under the act.
The wording of the Constitution and the historical actions of Congress indicate that any Act, either 'Declared' or 'Authorized', that provides funding and approves the use of deadly force meets the requirements of 'Legality' for the President of the United States to wage war.
The remaining question on a ‘Declaration of War’ is; Does the President, need authorization from Congress before he commits the Armed Forces to battle?
From a practical standpoint-- It can be reasoned that the Constitution grants full power to the President to wage war without prior approval of Congress.
The Constitution prohibits the states from engaging in war without the consent of Congress, unless the state is actually invaded or is in imminent danger. There are no such constitutional restrictions placed on the President
The Constitution charges the President with the protection of the nation and its citizens. One can envision many scenarios in which to fulfill that obligation the President would need to act immediately. When the Constitution was enacted Congress was part-time and could takes days or weeks to convene. It doesn't seem reasonable that the Constitution would have tied the President's hands to act for that long. Today, Congress could convene in far less time, but warfare has also changed; modern long range weapons may require the President to act in minutes.
The 'War Powers Resolution of 1973' indicates that the Congress recognizes the Presidents’ unilateral power to engage in war and with this act Congress attempts to limit that Presidential Power.
There is another serious issue. Sadly, Congress leaks like a sieve! Congress has probably always had leaks, but in the 1800’s it took weeks for a leak to spread. Today you can't tell Congress a secret because the New York Times will publish it, mainstream media will broadcast it, and it will be on the Internet before it stops echoing off the walls of the Congressional chambers.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
