by Austin Hill
Breaking news: some of America’s largest corporations have begun to report declining profits. For those that are offended by highly profitable corporations, this should be really great news.
But nobody is celebrating. In fact, the sagging profits reports are thought to be such a bad thing that some believe they sent the Dow sliding downward last week, for fear that a global recession has arrived.
If profits are such a terrible thing, why aren’t we relieved by their decline?
For the record, I have no idea whether or not a recession is eminent. And to the extent that economic activity is nearly impossible to predict with precision, nobody else knows either.
But regardless of whether the economy is moving up or down, Americans need to grapple with this “love-hate” attitude towards profitable enterprise. And let’s start with a couple of philosophical questions: Are profits always a good thing for a company to produce? And is it okay for one company to be really, really, profitable, even when other companies are not?
In some spheres of life – collegiate and professional athletic competitions, for example –Americans have no problem accepting the fact that with each match-up, some will succeed while others fail. Yet when it comes to business, success in producing profits is often seen as merely a necessary evil – and only acceptable if the profits aren’t “excessive.”
Part of the dilemma may well be that far too many Americans assume economics to be, as the term goes, a ‘zero-sum game.” Just as it is the case in many sporting events that one team wins and the other loses, so also it is assumed that if one individual or group is profitable, it necessarily causes somebody else’s unprofitability.
That, of course, is a false assumption. In our competitive free market economy, success with one enterprise often creates new markets in which other companies can succeed.
An easily understood example of this is the coffee house industry. In the 1980’s, Starbucks took the concept of the local coffee house where people meet and spend time together and drink beverages, and turned it in to a global business phenomena. And since the earliest beginnings of Starbucks, several other coffee house chains have been launched - Moxie Java, Tully’s Coffee, and Caribou Coffee to name a few - as an effort to capitalize on the burgeoning coffee house market. While today Starbucks remains the largest chain of its kind, these other newer and smaller companies have nonetheless benefited from Starbucks’ success, in as much as Starbucks essentially created the market for the modern-day coffee house in the first place.
But economic realities are one thing, and people’s perceptions are something different. And at present America is surrounded by an ever-present hostility towards profitable businesses – much of which emanates from the highest levels of our government.
Some of us saw this era of hostility coming. Back in 2008 while he was campaigning for the presidency, Then-Senator Obama made it a point to chastise American businesses nearly every time a robust earnings report was published. In the summer of that year, as an example, speaking to a stadium full of adoring followers, the President-to-be made it clear his disdain for the petroleum industry:
“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…”
Imagine that! “Makin’ out like bandits” – that’s an amazing assessment of a successful business enterprise, suggesting that posting profits is tantamount to thievery. 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,” and his vitriol over the profitability of the Exxon Mobil Corporation played well with the crowd.
Yet Mr. Obama’s disdain for business “profits” has continued throughout his presidency. Fast forward to February 7th of 2011 when the President addressed an audience of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Speaking of the improving balance sheets that were emerging within many American companies at that time, 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…”
Of course, we’re talking here about our Ivy League-graduate President. Surely he, of all people, understands that profits aren’t simply “shared” - they are “earned.” And surely he realizes that when a company is profitable, it’s not merely the C.E.O. that benefits (investors, employees, and customers benefit from profitability as well). Certainly the President of the United States understands these most basic concepts of free market enterprise.
But we never hear that from our President. Nor do we hear much praise at all for successful, profitable enterprise from anybody in our government. It’s usually anger and disgust when profits are good, and promises of intervention and “stimulus” when profits are bad.
It’s a very self-serving and destructive game that our politicians play. And they will keep on playing, until Americans come to terms with profits.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Showing posts with label Jobs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jobs. Show all posts
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Monday, January 7, 2013
“Education Is The Key?” Assessing The Value Of A College Degree In A Tumultuous Economy
by Austin Hill
Half of recent college graduates can’t find employment. Those who find a job often settle for something less than a “college level job.”
So what good is a college education, anyway, in our very unstable economy?
As 2013 launches with more federal government debt and American businesses guessing when the next punitive regulatory show will drop, most Americans are ignoring an area of societal upheaval that is poised to get more intense. Increasingly, Americans are wondering how essential it is for one to possess a college degree.
The upheaval transcends what you’ll read in the occasional “top paying” and “worst paying college degrees” articles. In fact, the presumption that a particular college degree will land one in to a particular job with a particular salary is actually part of our problem (such presumptions don’t adequately allow for the fact that our economy, and, thus, the relative value of skills and services, is always subject to change).
The most obvious manifestation of this problem is found in the pain of ever-rising tuition costs, and student loan debt. This isn’t anything new, but the recessionary conditions of the past five years have brought college degree price tags, and the debt they engender, under the microscope.
President Obama has spoken to this concern over the years, and-not surprisingly- he has proposed more “free” and reduced-rate student loans (all to be subsidized by taxpayers). His main challenger in last year’s presidential race, Mitt Romney, campaigned on policies to spur job creation as means of putting young graduates to work. Yet both candidates ignored the real problem: no matter how the economy performs or what the labor markets are doing, the price of a college education always moves in one direction-up.
So, why does this happen? Why, when the prices of other products and services either remain flat or decline, do tuition rates steadily rise? At least part of the answer is found in one very important fact. It is a consistent agenda within institutions of higher learning to offer as many low cost, and even “free” tuition programs as possible. Whether you’re examining state run colleges and universities, or private institutions, look in to the details of their budgets and the agenda becomes clear. It is a point of pride when, year after year, college and university leaders can report that they issued more “scholarship” programs that were doled-out according to ‘financial need.”
This is to say that colleges and universities are often set up to function like their own little economic re-distribution systems. And while the goal of getting lower income Americans enrolled into college is noble, the cost of it is usually balanced on the backs of middle class students and parents who are trying to earn their way through life. If a student isn’t “poor enough” to qualify for needs-based assistance, then the student will face ever-rising tuition rates.
The less obvious component to the college education dilemma directly involves changes in the nature of our American economy. Although it doesn’t fit conveniently in to the various narratives of our national political dialog, the fact is that our country may very well be – believe it or not – on the verge of a manufacturing renaissance (gasp!). And it may be happening without the permission and blessing of the AFL CIO (gasp again!).
For most of the past forty years, the U.S. has been a place where great things are invented and designed, but the actual building of those things has happened on other continents. Yet last year, the General Electric Corporation began once again to build refrigerators and dishwashers in the U.S., reversing a nearly two-decade long trend. Last fall, the Deloitte global consulting firm published a report suggesting that nearly three-quarters of a million jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector remain un-filled, because employers can’t find workers with the correct skills. And Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, even suggested that the U.S. is poised for a sizeable “in-sourcing” boom – the opposite of “out sourcing” – where manufacturing jobs that were once “sent overseas” return home.
This scenario also challenges the importance of a college degree. It suggests that we may be on a trajectory where people who know how to weld, operate a lathe, and run a drill press, could one day be in higher demand than those with accounting, engineering, and computer science degrees.
An “in sourcing” boom. A manufacturing renaissance. Some would call these things wishful thinking, yet the beginnings of such phenomena are here, right now. Americans should be preparing for it – and we should all be asking the leaders of colleges and universities why their prices only go up.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Half of recent college graduates can’t find employment. Those who find a job often settle for something less than a “college level job.”
So what good is a college education, anyway, in our very unstable economy?
As 2013 launches with more federal government debt and American businesses guessing when the next punitive regulatory show will drop, most Americans are ignoring an area of societal upheaval that is poised to get more intense. Increasingly, Americans are wondering how essential it is for one to possess a college degree.
The upheaval transcends what you’ll read in the occasional “top paying” and “worst paying college degrees” articles. In fact, the presumption that a particular college degree will land one in to a particular job with a particular salary is actually part of our problem (such presumptions don’t adequately allow for the fact that our economy, and, thus, the relative value of skills and services, is always subject to change).
The most obvious manifestation of this problem is found in the pain of ever-rising tuition costs, and student loan debt. This isn’t anything new, but the recessionary conditions of the past five years have brought college degree price tags, and the debt they engender, under the microscope.
President Obama has spoken to this concern over the years, and-not surprisingly- he has proposed more “free” and reduced-rate student loans (all to be subsidized by taxpayers). His main challenger in last year’s presidential race, Mitt Romney, campaigned on policies to spur job creation as means of putting young graduates to work. Yet both candidates ignored the real problem: no matter how the economy performs or what the labor markets are doing, the price of a college education always moves in one direction-up.
So, why does this happen? Why, when the prices of other products and services either remain flat or decline, do tuition rates steadily rise? At least part of the answer is found in one very important fact. It is a consistent agenda within institutions of higher learning to offer as many low cost, and even “free” tuition programs as possible. Whether you’re examining state run colleges and universities, or private institutions, look in to the details of their budgets and the agenda becomes clear. It is a point of pride when, year after year, college and university leaders can report that they issued more “scholarship” programs that were doled-out according to ‘financial need.”
This is to say that colleges and universities are often set up to function like their own little economic re-distribution systems. And while the goal of getting lower income Americans enrolled into college is noble, the cost of it is usually balanced on the backs of middle class students and parents who are trying to earn their way through life. If a student isn’t “poor enough” to qualify for needs-based assistance, then the student will face ever-rising tuition rates.
The less obvious component to the college education dilemma directly involves changes in the nature of our American economy. Although it doesn’t fit conveniently in to the various narratives of our national political dialog, the fact is that our country may very well be – believe it or not – on the verge of a manufacturing renaissance (gasp!). And it may be happening without the permission and blessing of the AFL CIO (gasp again!).
For most of the past forty years, the U.S. has been a place where great things are invented and designed, but the actual building of those things has happened on other continents. Yet last year, the General Electric Corporation began once again to build refrigerators and dishwashers in the U.S., reversing a nearly two-decade long trend. Last fall, the Deloitte global consulting firm published a report suggesting that nearly three-quarters of a million jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector remain un-filled, because employers can’t find workers with the correct skills. And Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, even suggested that the U.S. is poised for a sizeable “in-sourcing” boom – the opposite of “out sourcing” – where manufacturing jobs that were once “sent overseas” return home.
This scenario also challenges the importance of a college degree. It suggests that we may be on a trajectory where people who know how to weld, operate a lathe, and run a drill press, could one day be in higher demand than those with accounting, engineering, and computer science degrees.
An “in sourcing” boom. A manufacturing renaissance. Some would call these things wishful thinking, yet the beginnings of such phenomena are here, right now. Americans should be preparing for it – and we should all be asking the leaders of colleges and universities why their prices only go up.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, December 17, 2012
In Washington, The Goal Is Control Of Private Wealth
By Austin Hill
Are the President and the Congress trying to send our economy in to a recession?
They’re probably not trying to, no. But with the current governing philosophy in Washington, a recession has become an acceptable means to a necessary end. And the intended “end” doesn’t necessarily entail economic growth and prosperity.
That sounds harsh, I know. But think it through with me. Because as the nation’s media has been obsessed about the “fiscal cliff” and whether or not the President and congressional Republicans will work out an agreement to forestall it, insufficient attention has been paid to how the President and congressional Democrats have augmented their agenda in the past couple of weeks. Journalist Ron Scherer was, as far as I can tell, the first to catch on, with a story he published at Yahoo! News and in the Christian Science Monitor.
Sherer noted in a November 30th news story that in the midst of the “fiscal cliff” tax rate negotiations, President Obama had added a little extra talking point to his campaign for higher taxes on “rich” people. While promoting his tax hike plan in Ohio that day, he slipped in a little “oh, and by the way let’s do another $255 billion stimulus package.” Scherer surmised that the President was proposing more stimulus spending as a means of “offsetting” the impact of his own proposed tax hikes.
But what, precisely, would need to be “offset,” if President Obama’s tax hike agenda prevails? The President just completed a successful re-election campaign claiming that raising taxes on “rich people” would be good for the economy, yet it now appears that he wants more stimulus spending as a means of saving our economy from his own economic policies. This would seem to be, at the very least, a tacit admission from the President that raising taxes on individual people – even those awful “rich people” among us – does, indeed cause a slowdown in economic activity, and may very well bring about a recession.
So what if officials in our government chose to pursue neither of these agendas? That is, what if we did not deploy governmental power to confiscate greater proportions of wealth from private individuals (that is, what if the government didn’t raise income taxes), and what if our government didn’t spend more tax dollars to “stimulate” the economy? If the tax hikes were eliminated, then perhaps the need for a stimulating “offset” would be eliminated, as well.
That’s a plausible idea, if the country’s agenda is economic growth and prosperity. But that is not the agenda of President Obama and his party. By taking more money away from “rich”people and by spending more money on “stimulus projects,” the President is able to control more wealth that is currently in possession of private individuals, and then re-distribute that wealth to people whom he believes are deserving of it and spend it on things that are important to him.
Shortly after the President began his new stimulus push, former Democratic National Committee Chairman (and former presidential candidate) Howard Dean made some extraordinary remarks of his own about the economy. In an interview at MSNBC, Dean stated that he wants the across-the-board income tax increases entailed in the “fiscal cliff” scenario, and welcomed the resulting outcome. “Will it cause a problem?” he asked rhetorically. “Yes. There will be a short recession, and it will be painful.” Yet despite this “painful recession” that Dean believes will ensue, he nonetheless expressed exuberance for the higher tax rates and the cuts in military spending that will result as well.
That was an amazing admission. For Dean, it seems that a recession is an acceptable means to the intended end: government control of private wealth. In this scenario, it doesn’t matter so much that working individuals and families often lose jobs, careers, and homes in recessions. Those are unfortunate things, sure, but when the goal is government control of the economy, personal prosperity ceases to be a priority.
If this sounds far too conspiratorial, consider the report last week about the President’s squabble with non-profit charities. In a December 13th news story, the Washington Post reported that the Obama Administration was leveling a threat to the leaders of high-profile charity groups: either publicly support the President’s tax hike plan, or face the possibility that the President will seek to reduce tax deductions for charitable contributions.
We’re talking here about long-standing, reputable groups like the American Red Cross, United Way, the Salvation Army, and World Vision. And yes, if charitable donors couldn’t deduct the amount they donate from their income taxes, they probably wouldn’t donate as much – which would hurt charitable groups. But again, the goal of the Administration is controlling private wealth, and the prosperity of private individuals and organizations is not a priority.
A majority of Americans seem oblivious to the President’s economic control agenda in Washington -either that, or they’re comfortable with it. Multiple polls show the President is regarded as more trustworthy on economic issues than his political opponents in Congress are right now. And pollster Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports recently found that only 54% of Americans still believe that economic prosperity is more important than economic “fairness” (“fairness” being the promise of politicians who seek to control private wealth and re-distribute it).
Will America return to a pathway of prosperity? Or have we resigned ourselves to the President’s will for our lives?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.l
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Entrepreneurs Weigh-In: What Do We Need Over The Next Four Years?
by Austin Hill
“…What the hell is he doing asking for another four years?”
Governor Chris Christie (R-New Jersey) was speaking on behalf of Mitt Romney in Virginia last week. He was talking about, and to, Barack Obama. “…If you don’t think you can change Washington from inside the White House, let’s give you the plane ticket back to Chicago you’ve earned.” With President Obama and his challenger running so close – and with so many states in-play – fiery rhetoric from the campaign trail is to be expected.
Yet Governor Christie raises a legitimate question. Besides the obvious reasons – first term Presidents are eligible to run for a second term (and most of them to), and President Obama thinks he is better suited to be President than Mitt Romney –what, really, is another four years of Barack Obama supposed to be about?
Americans who are the least bit interested in anything remotely resembling economic recovery and prosperity – yes, even Democrat Americans – should take a look at the facts. The evidence is overwhelming that President Obama’s policies over the last three and a half years are stifling our economy now, and will likely send us in to a slowdown in 2013.
That’s not mere partisan political rhetoric. Last week Reuters business news reported that Americans will face a “tougher 2013,” economically speaking, and they identified two of President Obama’s policies as the direct reason for the added difficulty.
For one, payroll taxes are set to rise on January 1. President Obama agreed to a temporary payroll tax cut back in 2009, but he insists that it needs to be raised again, and has insisted that he’ll let this lower payroll tax rate expire at the end of this year. According to the analysis reported by Reuters, this will take an estimated $125 billion out of our private sector economy, and will likely mean less consumer spending, less profitability for businesses, and a lower GDP.
And then there’s Obamacare. The President himself isn’t even trying any longer to pretend that his “health reform” law isn’t a tax, and thoughtful analysts in the world of business news can’t pretend either. According to Reuters, the new taxes on healthcare providers, insurance companies, and employers that provide health insurance to their workers will cause healthcare costs to shoot up nearly 7% in 2013 alone. This, combined with already stagnant wages, and the estimated $125 billion taken out of private household budgets because of the President’s payroll tax increase, all add up to more economic hardship for middle and lower income Americans.
In the same week, CNN Money published a report entitled “Entrepreneurship Is Weaker Than Ever.” The report noted that across the country, local government regulations are damaging small businesses and new start-ups. But it also claimed that “uncertainty in the market” – fears of rising taxes, IRS agents penalizing individuals and businesses for alleged Obamacare violations, and the lack of investment capital – were creating huge disincentives for would-be business owners to jump in.
And then there was The Atlantic, and Yahoo! Finance, that both jointly published an in-depth article with a striking title: “What Kills Small Business? Let’s Ask Them.”
The article states that “69 percent of small business owners and managers say that complicated government regulations are ‘major impediments; to the creation of new jobs.” The article also provided this analysis:
“When over two-thirds of job creators tell us how to create jobs in an economy that desperately needs them, candidates and elected officials should not only listen, they should also tell us precisely where they stand on these ideas. How government regulates commerce -- and not just whether government regulates commerce -- should be a major issue in this election. It would tell us a lot about how the candidates, if elected, would make critical day-to-day decisions that shape law, regulation, and, ultimately, the economy.”
These are some powerful words. And they are not emanating from “conservative” media outlets – if The Atlantic has any ideological leanings, it’s generally regarded as “left of center.” And while Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer is well known for her unquestioning support of President Obama and the Democrat Party, even the business news division of her media content operation can’t ignore that the President that she has helped to bankroll is doing serious damage to the economy (that’s how bad things have become).
Back in January of 2011 (after the President’s self-described “shellacking” at the polls in November of 2010), President Obama spoke at a General Electric plant in Schenectady, NY and tried to convey that he really does support free market enterprise, stating that “we’re going back to Thomas Edison’s principles… We’re going to build stuff and invent stuff…” The sad irony was that the speech was made days before the Obama Administration officially outlawed one of Thomas Edison’s greatest inventions, the incandescent light bulb.
Now, as he campaigns for re-election, the President clings to his “Forward” and “We can’t go back” phrases, and reminds us that he killed Osama bin Laden. Yet the stifling of our economy from the Obama Administration’s legacy of threats and fees and fines and taxes and bans on businesses, is undeniable.
Entrepreneurs and business owners are crying-out to be saved from the Obama oppression. Do American voters care?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
“…What the hell is he doing asking for another four years?”
Governor Chris Christie (R-New Jersey) was speaking on behalf of Mitt Romney in Virginia last week. He was talking about, and to, Barack Obama. “…If you don’t think you can change Washington from inside the White House, let’s give you the plane ticket back to Chicago you’ve earned.” With President Obama and his challenger running so close – and with so many states in-play – fiery rhetoric from the campaign trail is to be expected.
Yet Governor Christie raises a legitimate question. Besides the obvious reasons – first term Presidents are eligible to run for a second term (and most of them to), and President Obama thinks he is better suited to be President than Mitt Romney –what, really, is another four years of Barack Obama supposed to be about?
Americans who are the least bit interested in anything remotely resembling economic recovery and prosperity – yes, even Democrat Americans – should take a look at the facts. The evidence is overwhelming that President Obama’s policies over the last three and a half years are stifling our economy now, and will likely send us in to a slowdown in 2013.
That’s not mere partisan political rhetoric. Last week Reuters business news reported that Americans will face a “tougher 2013,” economically speaking, and they identified two of President Obama’s policies as the direct reason for the added difficulty.
For one, payroll taxes are set to rise on January 1. President Obama agreed to a temporary payroll tax cut back in 2009, but he insists that it needs to be raised again, and has insisted that he’ll let this lower payroll tax rate expire at the end of this year. According to the analysis reported by Reuters, this will take an estimated $125 billion out of our private sector economy, and will likely mean less consumer spending, less profitability for businesses, and a lower GDP.
And then there’s Obamacare. The President himself isn’t even trying any longer to pretend that his “health reform” law isn’t a tax, and thoughtful analysts in the world of business news can’t pretend either. According to Reuters, the new taxes on healthcare providers, insurance companies, and employers that provide health insurance to their workers will cause healthcare costs to shoot up nearly 7% in 2013 alone. This, combined with already stagnant wages, and the estimated $125 billion taken out of private household budgets because of the President’s payroll tax increase, all add up to more economic hardship for middle and lower income Americans.
In the same week, CNN Money published a report entitled “Entrepreneurship Is Weaker Than Ever.” The report noted that across the country, local government regulations are damaging small businesses and new start-ups. But it also claimed that “uncertainty in the market” – fears of rising taxes, IRS agents penalizing individuals and businesses for alleged Obamacare violations, and the lack of investment capital – were creating huge disincentives for would-be business owners to jump in.
And then there was The Atlantic, and Yahoo! Finance, that both jointly published an in-depth article with a striking title: “What Kills Small Business? Let’s Ask Them.”
The article states that “69 percent of small business owners and managers say that complicated government regulations are ‘major impediments; to the creation of new jobs.” The article also provided this analysis:
“When over two-thirds of job creators tell us how to create jobs in an economy that desperately needs them, candidates and elected officials should not only listen, they should also tell us precisely where they stand on these ideas. How government regulates commerce -- and not just whether government regulates commerce -- should be a major issue in this election. It would tell us a lot about how the candidates, if elected, would make critical day-to-day decisions that shape law, regulation, and, ultimately, the economy.”
These are some powerful words. And they are not emanating from “conservative” media outlets – if The Atlantic has any ideological leanings, it’s generally regarded as “left of center.” And while Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer is well known for her unquestioning support of President Obama and the Democrat Party, even the business news division of her media content operation can’t ignore that the President that she has helped to bankroll is doing serious damage to the economy (that’s how bad things have become).
Back in January of 2011 (after the President’s self-described “shellacking” at the polls in November of 2010), President Obama spoke at a General Electric plant in Schenectady, NY and tried to convey that he really does support free market enterprise, stating that “we’re going back to Thomas Edison’s principles… We’re going to build stuff and invent stuff…” The sad irony was that the speech was made days before the Obama Administration officially outlawed one of Thomas Edison’s greatest inventions, the incandescent light bulb.
Now, as he campaigns for re-election, the President clings to his “Forward” and “We can’t go back” phrases, and reminds us that he killed Osama bin Laden. Yet the stifling of our economy from the Obama Administration’s legacy of threats and fees and fines and taxes and bans on businesses, is undeniable.
Entrepreneurs and business owners are crying-out to be saved from the Obama oppression. Do American voters care?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Yes, Atlas Will “Shrug,” Eventually
by Austin Hill
“People call this the ‘new normal.’ Let me assure you there is nothing normal about this at all. It’s the new ‘abnormal,’ and it won’t last, because as free people we won’t stand for it…”
With those remarks, business magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes drew thunderous applause from his audience last Wednesday. Headlining the “Power Up!” business and motivational seminar with Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and Indian-born Zig Ziglar protégé Krish Dhanam, Mr. Forbes was speaking before a crowd of ten thousand at the Idaho Center indoor sporting complex.
Forbes had just finished explaining why a confluence of cheap credit, billions of dollars in stimulus spending, lots of new taxes and government regulations, and the ensuing government debt have all failed to stimulate our economy. He was confirming with his technical explanation, what many of us know instinctively in our hearts: the reality that no organization- no individual or family, no business, no government – can spend its way out of debt and re-distribute its way to prosperity.
We should all hope that Forbes is right – that “as free people, we won’t stand for it.” Because if we continue to vote for politicians who viciously take expanding portions of wealth from our society’s producers and selfishly redistribute that wealth to those of their choosing, eventually the politicians will run out of other’s people’s money to redistribute and we will all suffer the consequences. The social disorder and collapse of Greece and Spain could be our future in the U.S., if, “as free people,” we don’t choose more wisely.
For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, examples abound in this present day of how not to construct a national economy. Greece and Spain qualify, yes, and so does Venezuela. Yet even within the last week the news from France, another bureaucratic, debt-laden, and not-so-free-anymore part of the free world, should be a wake-up call to all Americans.
After five years of service from President Nicolas Sarkozy who sought to reduce government controls of the economy and to stimulate private enterprise, French voters tossed him aside last May in favor of a presidential candidate who was nominated jointly by both the French Socialist Party, and France’s “Radical Left Party.” Francois Hollande campaigned with a set of 60 propositions - referred to as his “manifesto” – which included raising taxes on corporations; raising taxes on banks; raising taxes on “rich” individuals; lowering the official retirement age back down to age 60 from 62; hiring 60,000 new government school teachers; and establishing government subsidized “youth jobs programs” in regions of high unemployment.
Today, many French citizens seem horrified that – shock! – President Hollande is doing precisely what he pledged to do. “The situation is very serious” noted Laurence Parisot, head of France’s largest labor union MEDEF in an interview with the London Telegraph last week. “Some business leaders are in a state of quasi-panic” he claimed, as the Telegraph reported that “France is sliding into a grave economic crisis and risks a full-blown ‘hurricane’ as investors flee rocketing tax rates.”
In less than six months, President Hollande has managed to raise capital gains taxes from 34.5% to 62.2%. According to Reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the London Telegraph, this compares to 21% in Spain, 26.4% in Germany, and 28% in Britain (capital gains taxes reach as high as 35% here in the U.S.).
Mr. Parisot claims that President Hollande has yet to understand the “extreme gravity” of the nation’s “crisis.” Additionally, a private enterprise coalition has launched a nationwide protest movement which they call the “State of Emergency For Business,” claiming that President Hollande’s “confiscatory tax rates” threaten lasting damage to their country.
So let’s be clear about what’s happening in France. A major, national labor union leader (Laurence Parisot) – arguably a counterpart of Teamsters leader James P. Hoffa here in the U.S. – is upset because a Socialist President is taking more money from “the rich” and re-distributing it to others via government employment programs. Such policies would seem like a dream come true for the AFL-CIO, yet the union leader in France seems to understand that the “rich” in his country play a vital role in other people’s livelihoods, and simply seizing more of their money is damaging for everybody. Mr. Parisot takes his criticisms further, stating that “aligning taxes on capital with those on wages is a profound economic error; it is scandalous that the French have been left in such economic ignorance for years” (a stinging indictment on France’s unionized public education system).
So is Atlas “shrugging” in France? When labor union leaders panic over taxes being too high, it suggests that, yes, the trains may soon stop running, in a matter of speaking.
Here in the U.S., it might not be so much of a proactive “shrug” right now as it is a more passive abandonment, a “sitting on the sidelines,” “waiting to see what happens” phenomenon with those who could otherwise be starting new businesses (a subtle “death by a thousand cuts,” perhaps). If he’s re-elected, President Obama will get his “Francois Hollande moment” as he can allow income and capital gains taxes to skyrocket on January 1 (which he has pledged to do) and watch lower and middle income Americans reel from the infliction of Obamacare taxes and penalties.
Let’s hope that Steve Forbes is right – that this is not our “new normal;” that we will reject politicians who are vicious with society’s wealth creators; that we will choose to remain a “free people” – and that we will reject President Obama in November.
Comments a invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
“People call this the ‘new normal.’ Let me assure you there is nothing normal about this at all. It’s the new ‘abnormal,’ and it won’t last, because as free people we won’t stand for it…”
With those remarks, business magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes drew thunderous applause from his audience last Wednesday. Headlining the “Power Up!” business and motivational seminar with Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and Indian-born Zig Ziglar protégé Krish Dhanam, Mr. Forbes was speaking before a crowd of ten thousand at the Idaho Center indoor sporting complex.
Forbes had just finished explaining why a confluence of cheap credit, billions of dollars in stimulus spending, lots of new taxes and government regulations, and the ensuing government debt have all failed to stimulate our economy. He was confirming with his technical explanation, what many of us know instinctively in our hearts: the reality that no organization- no individual or family, no business, no government – can spend its way out of debt and re-distribute its way to prosperity.
We should all hope that Forbes is right – that “as free people, we won’t stand for it.” Because if we continue to vote for politicians who viciously take expanding portions of wealth from our society’s producers and selfishly redistribute that wealth to those of their choosing, eventually the politicians will run out of other’s people’s money to redistribute and we will all suffer the consequences. The social disorder and collapse of Greece and Spain could be our future in the U.S., if, “as free people,” we don’t choose more wisely.
For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, examples abound in this present day of how not to construct a national economy. Greece and Spain qualify, yes, and so does Venezuela. Yet even within the last week the news from France, another bureaucratic, debt-laden, and not-so-free-anymore part of the free world, should be a wake-up call to all Americans.
After five years of service from President Nicolas Sarkozy who sought to reduce government controls of the economy and to stimulate private enterprise, French voters tossed him aside last May in favor of a presidential candidate who was nominated jointly by both the French Socialist Party, and France’s “Radical Left Party.” Francois Hollande campaigned with a set of 60 propositions - referred to as his “manifesto” – which included raising taxes on corporations; raising taxes on banks; raising taxes on “rich” individuals; lowering the official retirement age back down to age 60 from 62; hiring 60,000 new government school teachers; and establishing government subsidized “youth jobs programs” in regions of high unemployment.
Today, many French citizens seem horrified that – shock! – President Hollande is doing precisely what he pledged to do. “The situation is very serious” noted Laurence Parisot, head of France’s largest labor union MEDEF in an interview with the London Telegraph last week. “Some business leaders are in a state of quasi-panic” he claimed, as the Telegraph reported that “France is sliding into a grave economic crisis and risks a full-blown ‘hurricane’ as investors flee rocketing tax rates.”
In less than six months, President Hollande has managed to raise capital gains taxes from 34.5% to 62.2%. According to Reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the London Telegraph, this compares to 21% in Spain, 26.4% in Germany, and 28% in Britain (capital gains taxes reach as high as 35% here in the U.S.).
Mr. Parisot claims that President Hollande has yet to understand the “extreme gravity” of the nation’s “crisis.” Additionally, a private enterprise coalition has launched a nationwide protest movement which they call the “State of Emergency For Business,” claiming that President Hollande’s “confiscatory tax rates” threaten lasting damage to their country.
So let’s be clear about what’s happening in France. A major, national labor union leader (Laurence Parisot) – arguably a counterpart of Teamsters leader James P. Hoffa here in the U.S. – is upset because a Socialist President is taking more money from “the rich” and re-distributing it to others via government employment programs. Such policies would seem like a dream come true for the AFL-CIO, yet the union leader in France seems to understand that the “rich” in his country play a vital role in other people’s livelihoods, and simply seizing more of their money is damaging for everybody. Mr. Parisot takes his criticisms further, stating that “aligning taxes on capital with those on wages is a profound economic error; it is scandalous that the French have been left in such economic ignorance for years” (a stinging indictment on France’s unionized public education system).
So is Atlas “shrugging” in France? When labor union leaders panic over taxes being too high, it suggests that, yes, the trains may soon stop running, in a matter of speaking.
Here in the U.S., it might not be so much of a proactive “shrug” right now as it is a more passive abandonment, a “sitting on the sidelines,” “waiting to see what happens” phenomenon with those who could otherwise be starting new businesses (a subtle “death by a thousand cuts,” perhaps). If he’s re-elected, President Obama will get his “Francois Hollande moment” as he can allow income and capital gains taxes to skyrocket on January 1 (which he has pledged to do) and watch lower and middle income Americans reel from the infliction of Obamacare taxes and penalties.
Let’s hope that Steve Forbes is right – that this is not our “new normal;” that we will reject politicians who are vicious with society’s wealth creators; that we will choose to remain a “free people” – and that we will reject President Obama in November.
Comments a invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Get A Grip: Americans Must Demand Better Government In November And Beyond
by Austin Hill
Barack Obama is beating Mitt Romney.
Wait- Romney and Obama are tied in Pennsylvania.
And how about all those bungled calls from the NFL fill-in refs?
Americans are seriously pre-occupied as we enter the fourth quarter of 2012. Obsessions about the football season and “Dancing with The Stars” are a pleasant diversion from our present hardship and gloomy future, and frustrations over the logic-defying presidential polls makes for interesting talk show fodder.
But after the election – and after the close of 2012 – Americans will need to grapple with myriad problems in our government. Whoever wins the White House will face an avalanche of trouble in the months ahead, and the ways in which these problems are addressed will reverberate for generations.
Americans must begin to see through the rhetoric of politicians and the slant and soundbytes of the media, and demand better government from those elected to serve. The “pass the bill and then figure out what’s in it” approach is unacceptable. So let’s start with our “get a grip” agenda with this: Americans must sober-up about our economic and fiscal condition.
At present it would seem that we’re taking the upcoming election about as seriously as a football game. Team Obama has the home field advantage, while Romney and company are the visitors trying to upset Obama at his homecoming. The make-up of the Congress will then round-out each team’s roster, but the “players” are thought to be all essentially the same.
Yet America is in serious trouble. Private industry is suffering shell shock from the flurry of demands and restrictions placed upon it in the last three years, most of which have stemmed from environmental constraints, so-called “banking reform,” mortgage restrictions, and Obamacare. Our currency is being debased by the minute, as our government’s debt exceeds 70% of our GDP and the Federal Reserve continues to print money while keeping interest rates artificially low.
President Obama is committed to making matters worse- he promises higher taxes and more government spending, and has offered no vision for undoing the disastrous and damaging components of Obamacare. Mr. Romney is moving in the correct direction by proposing an expansion of free trade and modest spending cuts, but does not (and in political terms perhaps cannot) come close to where we must go.
So Americans must decide – do we want prosperity and opportunity for the long-term, or do we want the short-term yet unsustainable pleasure of politicians satiating our petty jealousies towards “rich people” and dolling-out lots of free goodies? If it’s the former we want, then we’ll have to seriously change some things: freeze income tax rates where they are; cut corporate taxes; raise the Social Security eligibility age to 72 (for, say, American workers age 45 and younger) and allow for private investment of portions one’s withholdings; gut Obamacare and start over; and cut taxes on small businesses and restrictions on small business lending.
And here’s another agenda item: America must begin utilizing its own resources again. While the currencies of Europe, Japan and the U.S. have fallen in to varying levels of disrepute over the past four years, the dollars of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have remained relatively strong. And these three countries share something else in common as well- they all harvest and export their own natural resources.
Canada exports oil and natural gas. Australia exports iron ore. New Zealand uses its land to produce and export food, wood products and heavy machinery. Americans must decide – do we want to be more prosperous and secure, or do we want to feel like we’re doing something nice for plant and animal life by not using our natural resources?
A radical environmental agenda has co-opted the national dialog to the point that we only talk about drilling and refining when gasoline surpasses four dollars a gallon. And as for manufacturing and farming – plenty of us blindly accept the notion that these endeavors do nothing but rape and pillage the earth and consume “too much” energy (if you don’t believe this, ask a farmer in California). It’s time to utilize our resources and unshackle our farmers and manufacturers – and to do this we have to demand change with our government.
And agenda item number three: Americans must respect private enterprise as the necessary engine of our sustenance, instead of allowing it to be co-opted for political agendas. President Obama’s “renewable energy” agenda sounds noble and makes people feel good. But after running up untold billions of dollars in debt with the financing of “green energy” companies (over 80% of which were headed-up by Obama campaign donors), there has been no such energy produced and a majority of these companies have already lapsed into bankruptcy. What masquerades as the “green energy industry” is nothing more than debt for future generations spent financing the President’s environmental politics of today.
A similar phenomenon took hold last decade. Despite President Bush’s attempts to slow things down, both Republican and Democrat leadership in the Congress enabled the cheap credit, lax lending, and “affordable housing” policies that supposedly drove “home ownership” to an all time high (it’s hard to say no when “everybody gets a house”). It made the politicians popular in the short-run, but it drove us to the brink when the bubble burst. Government co-opted the real estate and lending industries, and it failed us in painful ways.
We are not helpless victims of politicians. But will we demand better?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Barack Obama is beating Mitt Romney.
Wait- Romney and Obama are tied in Pennsylvania.
And how about all those bungled calls from the NFL fill-in refs?
Americans are seriously pre-occupied as we enter the fourth quarter of 2012. Obsessions about the football season and “Dancing with The Stars” are a pleasant diversion from our present hardship and gloomy future, and frustrations over the logic-defying presidential polls makes for interesting talk show fodder.
But after the election – and after the close of 2012 – Americans will need to grapple with myriad problems in our government. Whoever wins the White House will face an avalanche of trouble in the months ahead, and the ways in which these problems are addressed will reverberate for generations.
Americans must begin to see through the rhetoric of politicians and the slant and soundbytes of the media, and demand better government from those elected to serve. The “pass the bill and then figure out what’s in it” approach is unacceptable. So let’s start with our “get a grip” agenda with this: Americans must sober-up about our economic and fiscal condition.
At present it would seem that we’re taking the upcoming election about as seriously as a football game. Team Obama has the home field advantage, while Romney and company are the visitors trying to upset Obama at his homecoming. The make-up of the Congress will then round-out each team’s roster, but the “players” are thought to be all essentially the same.
Yet America is in serious trouble. Private industry is suffering shell shock from the flurry of demands and restrictions placed upon it in the last three years, most of which have stemmed from environmental constraints, so-called “banking reform,” mortgage restrictions, and Obamacare. Our currency is being debased by the minute, as our government’s debt exceeds 70% of our GDP and the Federal Reserve continues to print money while keeping interest rates artificially low.
President Obama is committed to making matters worse- he promises higher taxes and more government spending, and has offered no vision for undoing the disastrous and damaging components of Obamacare. Mr. Romney is moving in the correct direction by proposing an expansion of free trade and modest spending cuts, but does not (and in political terms perhaps cannot) come close to where we must go.
So Americans must decide – do we want prosperity and opportunity for the long-term, or do we want the short-term yet unsustainable pleasure of politicians satiating our petty jealousies towards “rich people” and dolling-out lots of free goodies? If it’s the former we want, then we’ll have to seriously change some things: freeze income tax rates where they are; cut corporate taxes; raise the Social Security eligibility age to 72 (for, say, American workers age 45 and younger) and allow for private investment of portions one’s withholdings; gut Obamacare and start over; and cut taxes on small businesses and restrictions on small business lending.
And here’s another agenda item: America must begin utilizing its own resources again. While the currencies of Europe, Japan and the U.S. have fallen in to varying levels of disrepute over the past four years, the dollars of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have remained relatively strong. And these three countries share something else in common as well- they all harvest and export their own natural resources.
Canada exports oil and natural gas. Australia exports iron ore. New Zealand uses its land to produce and export food, wood products and heavy machinery. Americans must decide – do we want to be more prosperous and secure, or do we want to feel like we’re doing something nice for plant and animal life by not using our natural resources?
A radical environmental agenda has co-opted the national dialog to the point that we only talk about drilling and refining when gasoline surpasses four dollars a gallon. And as for manufacturing and farming – plenty of us blindly accept the notion that these endeavors do nothing but rape and pillage the earth and consume “too much” energy (if you don’t believe this, ask a farmer in California). It’s time to utilize our resources and unshackle our farmers and manufacturers – and to do this we have to demand change with our government.
And agenda item number three: Americans must respect private enterprise as the necessary engine of our sustenance, instead of allowing it to be co-opted for political agendas. President Obama’s “renewable energy” agenda sounds noble and makes people feel good. But after running up untold billions of dollars in debt with the financing of “green energy” companies (over 80% of which were headed-up by Obama campaign donors), there has been no such energy produced and a majority of these companies have already lapsed into bankruptcy. What masquerades as the “green energy industry” is nothing more than debt for future generations spent financing the President’s environmental politics of today.
A similar phenomenon took hold last decade. Despite President Bush’s attempts to slow things down, both Republican and Democrat leadership in the Congress enabled the cheap credit, lax lending, and “affordable housing” policies that supposedly drove “home ownership” to an all time high (it’s hard to say no when “everybody gets a house”). It made the politicians popular in the short-run, but it drove us to the brink when the bubble burst. Government co-opted the real estate and lending industries, and it failed us in painful ways.
We are not helpless victims of politicians. But will we demand better?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Is This What Democrats Want For Our Future?
By Austin Hill
Terrorist threats are on the rise, government debt threatens the world, and the value of our currency is being questioned almost daily. Is this the “fundamental change” that Democrats wanted from President Barack Obama?
Like it or not, President Obama sets the agenda for the Democrats. And it’s time for every elected Democrat – especially those in Congress – to answer some questions. Is this your idea of the American future? Is this your vision for the United States? We should be asking these questions in light of two broad areas of domestic policy:
National security policies that ignore trends of murderous behavior:
Within the first eighteen months of the Obama presidency, the United States sustained no less than three terrorist attacks on American soil. The first one quickly became known as the “Ft. Hood Massacre,” an inside job wherein Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army Major, a psychiatrist – and a devout Muslim - killed 13 Army service members and wounded 29 others, all within the confines of the otherwise “secure” Fort Hood Army Base in Killeen, Texas.
At the memorial service for the murdered service members, President Obama noted that “no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts” – implying that the Islamic faith had nothing to do with Mr. Hasan’s murderous behavior – this, despite the fact that Hasan himself claimed that he was acting in accordance with his religion.
Weeks later Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was permitted to board a Northwest Airlines jet in Amsterdam and fly to Detroit on Christmas Day, despite repeated warning signs that the passenger intended to do harm in the U.S. While the explosives that the now-famous “underwear bomber” was able to smuggle on to the flight did not detonate to their intended extent, they did nonetheless cause an in-flight explosion.
After the attack – and after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that “the system worked” (she admitted a day later that our air security system had failed), we were to learn that the man about whom repeated warnings were ignored was a “devout Muslim” and claimed to be operating at the direction of Al-Qaeda.
On May 1st 2010, NYPD officers were able to disarm an ignited bomb planted in a parked vehicle in Times Square. Two days later federal authorities arrested Faisal Shahzad in connection with the attack, whereupon federal agencies rushed to point out that Shahzad was an American citizen and that the attack was “home grown.” The authorities also tried to downplay the fact that Shahzad had only been a U.S. citizen for 14 months, was originally from Pakistan, and was also a self-described Muslim.
While seemingly ignoring the proliferation of terrorist attacks carried-out by people who call themselves Muslims, President Obama and members of his Administration have largely refused to acknowledge the pattern. Even this past week the Obama Administration officially classified the Fort Hood Massacre as merely a matter of “workplace violence,” as though the immense security breaches of a military compound were to be taken no more seriously than an angry outburst at any other business establishment.
Economic policies that encourage dependency and malign productivity:
President Obama’s speech at Osawatomie high school in Kansas last week is being heralded by some as his most profound speech thus far. But few of the President’s supporters have bothered to question if his rhetoric bares any resemblance to reality.
Prior to his inauguration, he claimed, America had been a nation where “those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments…but everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t.”
Really? Do the President’s supporters realize that over half of the American population has private investment and savings accounts, and that such items are not merely luxuries afforded only to those “at the top?”
Elsewhere in the speech, the President noted that the upcoming election will be, in part, about “whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure a retirement.” Yet the very fact that any of us can even hope for these things demonstrates the functionality of American-styled capitalism over the past many decades.
The President, of course, ignores these economic realities. Instead, he insists that our pathway to prosperity is higher taxes, and more governmental spending of our resources – in short, more of his control over our nation’s wealth. Policies of these sorts have been painful failures for years in Venezuela, Indonesia, and his father’s homeland of Kenya. Yet the President who has positioned himself as a de facto CEO of huge chunks of the economy – with authority over everything from banks to car companies – is still vying for more control. Is this what Democrats envision for another four years – an economy that revolves around the selfish needs and desires of one man?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
end feedback to: WatchDog
.
Terrorist threats are on the rise, government debt threatens the world, and the value of our currency is being questioned almost daily. Is this the “fundamental change” that Democrats wanted from President Barack Obama?
Like it or not, President Obama sets the agenda for the Democrats. And it’s time for every elected Democrat – especially those in Congress – to answer some questions. Is this your idea of the American future? Is this your vision for the United States? We should be asking these questions in light of two broad areas of domestic policy:
National security policies that ignore trends of murderous behavior:
Within the first eighteen months of the Obama presidency, the United States sustained no less than three terrorist attacks on American soil. The first one quickly became known as the “Ft. Hood Massacre,” an inside job wherein Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army Major, a psychiatrist – and a devout Muslim - killed 13 Army service members and wounded 29 others, all within the confines of the otherwise “secure” Fort Hood Army Base in Killeen, Texas.
At the memorial service for the murdered service members, President Obama noted that “no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts” – implying that the Islamic faith had nothing to do with Mr. Hasan’s murderous behavior – this, despite the fact that Hasan himself claimed that he was acting in accordance with his religion.
Weeks later Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was permitted to board a Northwest Airlines jet in Amsterdam and fly to Detroit on Christmas Day, despite repeated warning signs that the passenger intended to do harm in the U.S. While the explosives that the now-famous “underwear bomber” was able to smuggle on to the flight did not detonate to their intended extent, they did nonetheless cause an in-flight explosion.
After the attack – and after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that “the system worked” (she admitted a day later that our air security system had failed), we were to learn that the man about whom repeated warnings were ignored was a “devout Muslim” and claimed to be operating at the direction of Al-Qaeda.
On May 1st 2010, NYPD officers were able to disarm an ignited bomb planted in a parked vehicle in Times Square. Two days later federal authorities arrested Faisal Shahzad in connection with the attack, whereupon federal agencies rushed to point out that Shahzad was an American citizen and that the attack was “home grown.” The authorities also tried to downplay the fact that Shahzad had only been a U.S. citizen for 14 months, was originally from Pakistan, and was also a self-described Muslim.
While seemingly ignoring the proliferation of terrorist attacks carried-out by people who call themselves Muslims, President Obama and members of his Administration have largely refused to acknowledge the pattern. Even this past week the Obama Administration officially classified the Fort Hood Massacre as merely a matter of “workplace violence,” as though the immense security breaches of a military compound were to be taken no more seriously than an angry outburst at any other business establishment.
Economic policies that encourage dependency and malign productivity:
President Obama’s speech at Osawatomie high school in Kansas last week is being heralded by some as his most profound speech thus far. But few of the President’s supporters have bothered to question if his rhetoric bares any resemblance to reality.
Prior to his inauguration, he claimed, America had been a nation where “those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments…but everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t.”
Really? Do the President’s supporters realize that over half of the American population has private investment and savings accounts, and that such items are not merely luxuries afforded only to those “at the top?”
Elsewhere in the speech, the President noted that the upcoming election will be, in part, about “whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure a retirement.” Yet the very fact that any of us can even hope for these things demonstrates the functionality of American-styled capitalism over the past many decades.
The President, of course, ignores these economic realities. Instead, he insists that our pathway to prosperity is higher taxes, and more governmental spending of our resources – in short, more of his control over our nation’s wealth. Policies of these sorts have been painful failures for years in Venezuela, Indonesia, and his father’s homeland of Kenya. Yet the President who has positioned himself as a de facto CEO of huge chunks of the economy – with authority over everything from banks to car companies – is still vying for more control. Is this what Democrats envision for another four years – an economy that revolves around the selfish needs and desires of one man?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
end feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Will Obama Attempt A “Spread The Jobs Around” Scheme?
By Austin Hill
Yes, you read correctly.
“Spread the jobs around.”
You’re probably familiar with Barack Obama’s well documented intentions to “spread the wealth around.” In a discussion about his vision for economic recovery back during the campaign of 208, he expressed that intention using those precise words (do a web search with the President’s name and the phrase, and see what pops up).
Today, the President struggles with the political consequences brought about by the stifled economy, which has been brought about his own “wealth spreading” ways. Yet within the Obama worldview, it makes sense that a President who has displayed no vision for wealth creation – he has only championed ways in which to re-distribute existing wealth – would likewise have no real vision for job creation, and would instead attempt to “spread around” the inadequate number of jobs that already exist.
Enter Dean Baker, an Economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. As if perfectly timed with the President’s upcoming address on the economy, Mr. Baker has proposed what he calls a national “work sharing” program, calling it a “quick route to full employment.”
A quick visit to the “Center’s” website provides a brief description of Mr. Baker’s academic paper on “work sharing.” Describing the overall program, the website indicates that what is being proposed is a “system of work sharing that would give employers an incentive to maintain workers on their payroll at reduced hours as an alternative to laying them off. The system would be attached to the existing system of unemployment compensation, with short-time compensation as an alternative to unemployment compensation. This means that work sharing would require no new government bureaucracy…”
While recently being interviewed about his “work sharing” concept on the Fox Business Channel, Mr. Baker further elaborated, stating “"...we're talking about a situation where workers would work somewhat fewer hours, and make somewhat less money…” As an alternative to being laid-off altogether, Mr. Baker surmises that “alot of workers would take that in a second..."
Indeed, what Mr. Baker is proposing is best described as a “spread the jobs around” approach to employment. And no doubt it has some of the same appeal, mostly emotional appeal, that candidate Obama’s “spread the wealth around” ideas did three years ago. But just because it “looks good on paper” doesn’t mean that it’s good, functional, or even “fair” public policy. In reality, the “spread the jobs around” idea is flawed on multiple levels.
For one, the idea of making public policy of this sort erroneously presumes that businesses aren’t already “spreading around” the workload at times. Politicians, government bureaucrats, and many academicians don’t understand this, but actual business owners and managers have to make difficult decisions with their staffs every day.
If one worker is productive and another is not, an owner or manager has to make tough choices to maintain and bolster productivity. If budgets shrink, a business must make move so as to maintain productivity while at the same time trimming expenditures. This may involve “spreading around” the workload and employee compensation, re-assigning workers to different tasks, or in some unfortunate cases laying-off workers. But when layoffs must occur, a business will generally try to retain the most productive workers, while sacrificing the least productive.
An arbitrary government policy that would force businesses to “spread the jobs around” would likely undermine businesses quite severely. Rather than prioritizing productivity, as business owners and managers must, “spread the jobs around” establishes as its goal the reduction of the unemployment rate. So what if the most competent and productive workers get their hours and wages cut, as a means of providing hours and wages to less productive workers? When desperate incumbent politicians are running for re-election, spreading the jobs around becomes an attractive policy idea if it can help reduce the unemployment rate in the short run. Thus the needs and interests of the politicians are dramatically different from those of businesses.
Another problem with “spread the jobs around” is that it begins with the wrong question in mind. Asking “why is the unemployment rate so high?” is worthwhile. But a better question is “why are so many American businesses experiencing strong profits and all time high levels of productivity, and still not hiring new workers?” Those questions are related, but they are not the same. Politicians and liberal think-tank operators don’t want to ask the “why no hiring” question, because the answer traces back to some of their favorite policy creations.
The worst part of “spread the jobs around” is that it makes mediocrity acceptable. It says “America can no longer create wealth and opportunity for all, so we must force some of that opportunity out of the hands of certain individuals, and arbitrarily place it in the hands of certain others.”
“Spread the jobs around” implies that for some people to win, others must fail just a bit. This is consistent with the Obama worldview, but it is repugnant to a majority of Americans.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Yes, you read correctly.
“Spread the jobs around.”
You’re probably familiar with Barack Obama’s well documented intentions to “spread the wealth around.” In a discussion about his vision for economic recovery back during the campaign of 208, he expressed that intention using those precise words (do a web search with the President’s name and the phrase, and see what pops up).
Today, the President struggles with the political consequences brought about by the stifled economy, which has been brought about his own “wealth spreading” ways. Yet within the Obama worldview, it makes sense that a President who has displayed no vision for wealth creation – he has only championed ways in which to re-distribute existing wealth – would likewise have no real vision for job creation, and would instead attempt to “spread around” the inadequate number of jobs that already exist.
Enter Dean Baker, an Economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. As if perfectly timed with the President’s upcoming address on the economy, Mr. Baker has proposed what he calls a national “work sharing” program, calling it a “quick route to full employment.”
A quick visit to the “Center’s” website provides a brief description of Mr. Baker’s academic paper on “work sharing.” Describing the overall program, the website indicates that what is being proposed is a “system of work sharing that would give employers an incentive to maintain workers on their payroll at reduced hours as an alternative to laying them off. The system would be attached to the existing system of unemployment compensation, with short-time compensation as an alternative to unemployment compensation. This means that work sharing would require no new government bureaucracy…”
While recently being interviewed about his “work sharing” concept on the Fox Business Channel, Mr. Baker further elaborated, stating “"...we're talking about a situation where workers would work somewhat fewer hours, and make somewhat less money…” As an alternative to being laid-off altogether, Mr. Baker surmises that “alot of workers would take that in a second..."
Indeed, what Mr. Baker is proposing is best described as a “spread the jobs around” approach to employment. And no doubt it has some of the same appeal, mostly emotional appeal, that candidate Obama’s “spread the wealth around” ideas did three years ago. But just because it “looks good on paper” doesn’t mean that it’s good, functional, or even “fair” public policy. In reality, the “spread the jobs around” idea is flawed on multiple levels.
For one, the idea of making public policy of this sort erroneously presumes that businesses aren’t already “spreading around” the workload at times. Politicians, government bureaucrats, and many academicians don’t understand this, but actual business owners and managers have to make difficult decisions with their staffs every day.
If one worker is productive and another is not, an owner or manager has to make tough choices to maintain and bolster productivity. If budgets shrink, a business must make move so as to maintain productivity while at the same time trimming expenditures. This may involve “spreading around” the workload and employee compensation, re-assigning workers to different tasks, or in some unfortunate cases laying-off workers. But when layoffs must occur, a business will generally try to retain the most productive workers, while sacrificing the least productive.
An arbitrary government policy that would force businesses to “spread the jobs around” would likely undermine businesses quite severely. Rather than prioritizing productivity, as business owners and managers must, “spread the jobs around” establishes as its goal the reduction of the unemployment rate. So what if the most competent and productive workers get their hours and wages cut, as a means of providing hours and wages to less productive workers? When desperate incumbent politicians are running for re-election, spreading the jobs around becomes an attractive policy idea if it can help reduce the unemployment rate in the short run. Thus the needs and interests of the politicians are dramatically different from those of businesses.
Another problem with “spread the jobs around” is that it begins with the wrong question in mind. Asking “why is the unemployment rate so high?” is worthwhile. But a better question is “why are so many American businesses experiencing strong profits and all time high levels of productivity, and still not hiring new workers?” Those questions are related, but they are not the same. Politicians and liberal think-tank operators don’t want to ask the “why no hiring” question, because the answer traces back to some of their favorite policy creations.
The worst part of “spread the jobs around” is that it makes mediocrity acceptable. It says “America can no longer create wealth and opportunity for all, so we must force some of that opportunity out of the hands of certain individuals, and arbitrarily place it in the hands of certain others.”
“Spread the jobs around” implies that for some people to win, others must fail just a bit. This is consistent with the Obama worldview, but it is repugnant to a majority of Americans.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Soros/Obama Conspire To, “End America as we know it!”
A few weeks ago, George Soros hosted a major economic conference, called the Bretton Woods Event, whose purpose was to change the entire global economy. The main objective is to remove America as a key player in the world’s economy by destroying the Dollar. The major media paid little attention to the event.
What can George Soros do to harm the Dollar? You may ask.
It was the billionaire Soros who crushed the British pound through currency trading. He has declared that he plans to reform the world’s currency system. The America hating Soros has publicly stated, America must end its reign as the world reserve currency. In 2009, Soros wrote, “The dollar no longer enjoys the trust and confidence that it once did, yet no other currency can take its place.”
In October 2009, Soros founded the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) with a donation of $50 million of his own money. The founding of INET was a major move toward undermining the dollar.
Long time Soros friend, Nobel Prize Winner, Joseph Stiglitz chairs the ‘UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System.’ Stiglitz is arguing for a new 'global system,' saying the current one is 'fundamentally unfair because it means that poor countries are lending to the U.S. at close to zero interest rates.'
It has only been a few weeks, since the Bretton Woods event, but the move against the dollar has gained momentum rapidly. In 2009, Soros wrote “The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system to ensure that they will be active supporters.”
Those rising powers have begun to join together--
The BRICS member nations - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – held a summit meeting one week after Soros held his. The BRICS nations are calling for “Restructuring of the World War II-era global financial system and an eventual end to the long reign of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.”
One of the options being considered is called “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs). SDRs are essentially a mix of - the Euro, Japanese Yen, Pound Sterling and U.S. Dollar. A switch to the SDRs would result in the decline of the U.S. economy.
There is also considerable support to include the Chinese Remimbi in the SDR’s.
The odds on favorite to become the new leader of the “International Monetary Fund is former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. This is significant because Brown is a Soros believer and attended the Bretton Woods Event.
Brown’s major contribution to that conference was the line, “American and European dominance is no longer a fact.'
Soros once pledged that he was willing to spend every penny of his vast fortune to bring America to her knees. He is working hard to make that desire a reality.
For years, Soros has used his billions to influence elections, fund radical anti-American organizations including ACORN, La Raza, MoveOn.org, NOW and the Center for American Progress -- an organization that is feeding progressive talking points to the Obama administration.
There is a great deal of evidence that indicates that Soros, through his many organizations, bought the 2008 election for Obama.
Obama, who also hates America (read his damn books) is repaying Soros big time!
Just look at what Obama is doing to undermine the economy and the dollar:
1. Extremely high fuel prices cause by the administration!
2. Bankruptcy as the result of government spending
3. A total moratorium on any new Oil and Gas production
4. Destruction of the Coal Industry and forcing the shutdown of Coal fueled power plants
5. The pushing of Cap and Trade regulations by the EPA
6. The government seizure of corporations, with more to come
7. The massive redistribution of wealth
8. The takeover (and destruction) of the healthcare system
9. The absolute refusal to recognize the need for budget-cuts
10. He has done absolutely nothing to help create jobs.
All of these have led to a major reduction in the United State’s bond rating, as announced by Standard and Poors, this week.
That reduction in our bond rating has greatly strengthened Soros' hand, and you now have the makings for “The End of America as we know it!”
“The End of America as we know it!”; wasn’t that an Obama campaign pledge?
Obama's answer to everything is a big speech packed with lies.
-- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
What can George Soros do to harm the Dollar? You may ask.
It was the billionaire Soros who crushed the British pound through currency trading. He has declared that he plans to reform the world’s currency system. The America hating Soros has publicly stated, America must end its reign as the world reserve currency. In 2009, Soros wrote, “The dollar no longer enjoys the trust and confidence that it once did, yet no other currency can take its place.”
In October 2009, Soros founded the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) with a donation of $50 million of his own money. The founding of INET was a major move toward undermining the dollar.
Long time Soros friend, Nobel Prize Winner, Joseph Stiglitz chairs the ‘UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System.’ Stiglitz is arguing for a new 'global system,' saying the current one is 'fundamentally unfair because it means that poor countries are lending to the U.S. at close to zero interest rates.'
It has only been a few weeks, since the Bretton Woods event, but the move against the dollar has gained momentum rapidly. In 2009, Soros wrote “The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system to ensure that they will be active supporters.”
Those rising powers have begun to join together--
The BRICS member nations - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – held a summit meeting one week after Soros held his. The BRICS nations are calling for “Restructuring of the World War II-era global financial system and an eventual end to the long reign of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.”
One of the options being considered is called “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs). SDRs are essentially a mix of - the Euro, Japanese Yen, Pound Sterling and U.S. Dollar. A switch to the SDRs would result in the decline of the U.S. economy.
There is also considerable support to include the Chinese Remimbi in the SDR’s.
The odds on favorite to become the new leader of the “International Monetary Fund is former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. This is significant because Brown is a Soros believer and attended the Bretton Woods Event.
Brown’s major contribution to that conference was the line, “American and European dominance is no longer a fact.'
Soros once pledged that he was willing to spend every penny of his vast fortune to bring America to her knees. He is working hard to make that desire a reality.
For years, Soros has used his billions to influence elections, fund radical anti-American organizations including ACORN, La Raza, MoveOn.org, NOW and the Center for American Progress -- an organization that is feeding progressive talking points to the Obama administration.
There is a great deal of evidence that indicates that Soros, through his many organizations, bought the 2008 election for Obama.
Obama, who also hates America (read his damn books) is repaying Soros big time!
Just look at what Obama is doing to undermine the economy and the dollar:
1. Extremely high fuel prices cause by the administration!
2. Bankruptcy as the result of government spending
3. A total moratorium on any new Oil and Gas production
4. Destruction of the Coal Industry and forcing the shutdown of Coal fueled power plants
5. The pushing of Cap and Trade regulations by the EPA
6. The government seizure of corporations, with more to come
7. The massive redistribution of wealth
8. The takeover (and destruction) of the healthcare system
9. The absolute refusal to recognize the need for budget-cuts
10. He has done absolutely nothing to help create jobs.
All of these have led to a major reduction in the United State’s bond rating, as announced by Standard and Poors, this week.
That reduction in our bond rating has greatly strengthened Soros' hand, and you now have the makings for “The End of America as we know it!”
“The End of America as we know it!”; wasn’t that an Obama campaign pledge?
Obama's answer to everything is a big speech packed with lies.
-- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Saving America From Greedy Politicians
By Austin Hil
“…Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles…”
Without explanation, that quote may seem like the ramp-up to a joke. It might be part of a Jay Leno monolog. Or you could follow it up with the famous Jerry Seinfeld “…not that there’s anything wrong with that” line.
But that analysis actually appeared in last Friday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal. In an editorial entitled “We’ve Become A Nation Of Takers, Not Makers,” Senior Economics Writer Stephen Moore noted that among a large portion of America’s college students and recent graduates, government employment is viewed as superior to private sector enterprise because of the “near lifetime security” that government agencies offer their workers.
“When 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks” Moore noted, “we have a real problem on our hands…”
To help make the case of our “real problem,” Moore noted that there are presently more Americans working for their government than there are Americans working in the private sector construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities industries combined. And when you compile this bit of information with the reality that government agencies don’t produce wealth at all – they merely “collect” portions of the wealth that is produced in the private sector as tax revenue and then spend it to produce government services – then, yes, one can see a bit more clearly why Moore concludes that we have moved decisively from a “nation of makers to a nation of takers.”
The “takers” and “makers” analysis is powerful, and hopefully makes sense to lots of Americans. One doesn’t have to think too deeply to understand that if an insufficient number of us are “making” things and producing economic value, and too many of us are merely “taking” and consuming the insufficient amount of “things” that are made, well, then, eventually a nation runs out of things to “take.”
Yet understanding the vicious cycle that keeps our nation on this very destructive path is quite challenging for some. It requires one to understand some very basic things about economics, yes, but also requires one to care enough to understand a few things about our nation’s politics – and “politics” and “economics” are two subjects that many Americans find distasteful.
But consider this: many of the politicians that set policy regarding government employment have a personal self-interest in continuing the trend of creating more government employee “takers” – even if to do so is, in the long run, bad for the country. Mayors, County Supervisors, Governors – and yes even our President – can generally count on grass-roots volunteerism, campaign contributions, and votes from large blocks of government employees, as long as they protect and enhance the ranks of government employment and shelter government workers from the ups and downs that the private sector experiences.
President Barack Obama leads the way with this destructive and self-serving politics. He has made it a central theme of his presidency to speak often of the need for “shared sacifice,” noting that we all must be willing to “give a little” in order for our nation to fully recover from the “great recession.”
Yet when the government of Wisconsin sought to let their state employees “share” in the sacrifice, President Obama intervened and insisted that government employees were being “maligned.” In reality, state taxpayers in Wisconsin pay nearly 100% of the costs of government employee retirement pensions, and well over 90% of government employee’s healthcare insurance costs. The uproar in that state was never 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.
But President Obama will have nothing to do with government employees being made to sacrifice. The more lavish their employment, the more they will vote for Mr. Obama and his party. And so our President, instead, maligned the Government officials of Wisconsin that were trying to save their state from insolvency.
A similar situation is unfolding in California. Governor Jerry Brown presides over the absolute worst statewide fiscal mess in the history of our country. He prides himself in “cutting government spending” his first ninety days in office, yet most of the “cuts” came from the elimination of taxpayer funded mobile telephone and vehicle privileges for government workers (most of us in the private sector don’t get “free” mobile phones and cars anyway, but this had apparently become the norm for a good many California state employees).
But Governor Brown absolutely must cut state spending further, and to do so requires that he reduce California employee retirement and healthcare benefits. Yet government employee labor unions bankrolled Brown’s campaign last year, and they now “own” him. Thus, Governor Brown has chosen to treat his fiscal mess as a “revenue” issue, rather than a “spending” issue, and is now pursuing a “raise taxes on the rich” solution.
Will America reverse course, and move away from being a nation of mere takers? We must first reject the self-serving politicians who are the greatest benefactors of the “taking.”
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
“…Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles…”
Without explanation, that quote may seem like the ramp-up to a joke. It might be part of a Jay Leno monolog. Or you could follow it up with the famous Jerry Seinfeld “…not that there’s anything wrong with that” line.
But that analysis actually appeared in last Friday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal. In an editorial entitled “We’ve Become A Nation Of Takers, Not Makers,” Senior Economics Writer Stephen Moore noted that among a large portion of America’s college students and recent graduates, government employment is viewed as superior to private sector enterprise because of the “near lifetime security” that government agencies offer their workers.
“When 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks” Moore noted, “we have a real problem on our hands…”
To help make the case of our “real problem,” Moore noted that there are presently more Americans working for their government than there are Americans working in the private sector construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities industries combined. And when you compile this bit of information with the reality that government agencies don’t produce wealth at all – they merely “collect” portions of the wealth that is produced in the private sector as tax revenue and then spend it to produce government services – then, yes, one can see a bit more clearly why Moore concludes that we have moved decisively from a “nation of makers to a nation of takers.”
The “takers” and “makers” analysis is powerful, and hopefully makes sense to lots of Americans. One doesn’t have to think too deeply to understand that if an insufficient number of us are “making” things and producing economic value, and too many of us are merely “taking” and consuming the insufficient amount of “things” that are made, well, then, eventually a nation runs out of things to “take.”
Yet understanding the vicious cycle that keeps our nation on this very destructive path is quite challenging for some. It requires one to understand some very basic things about economics, yes, but also requires one to care enough to understand a few things about our nation’s politics – and “politics” and “economics” are two subjects that many Americans find distasteful.
But consider this: many of the politicians that set policy regarding government employment have a personal self-interest in continuing the trend of creating more government employee “takers” – even if to do so is, in the long run, bad for the country. Mayors, County Supervisors, Governors – and yes even our President – can generally count on grass-roots volunteerism, campaign contributions, and votes from large blocks of government employees, as long as they protect and enhance the ranks of government employment and shelter government workers from the ups and downs that the private sector experiences.
President Barack Obama leads the way with this destructive and self-serving politics. He has made it a central theme of his presidency to speak often of the need for “shared sacifice,” noting that we all must be willing to “give a little” in order for our nation to fully recover from the “great recession.”
Yet when the government of Wisconsin sought to let their state employees “share” in the sacrifice, President Obama intervened and insisted that government employees were being “maligned.” In reality, state taxpayers in Wisconsin pay nearly 100% of the costs of government employee retirement pensions, and well over 90% of government employee’s healthcare insurance costs. The uproar in that state was never 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.
But President Obama will have nothing to do with government employees being made to sacrifice. The more lavish their employment, the more they will vote for Mr. Obama and his party. And so our President, instead, maligned the Government officials of Wisconsin that were trying to save their state from insolvency.
A similar situation is unfolding in California. Governor Jerry Brown presides over the absolute worst statewide fiscal mess in the history of our country. He prides himself in “cutting government spending” his first ninety days in office, yet most of the “cuts” came from the elimination of taxpayer funded mobile telephone and vehicle privileges for government workers (most of us in the private sector don’t get “free” mobile phones and cars anyway, but this had apparently become the norm for a good many California state employees).
But Governor Brown absolutely must cut state spending further, and to do so requires that he reduce California employee retirement and healthcare benefits. Yet government employee labor unions bankrolled Brown’s campaign last year, and they now “own” him. Thus, Governor Brown has chosen to treat his fiscal mess as a “revenue” issue, rather than a “spending” issue, and is now pursuing a “raise taxes on the rich” solution.
Will America reverse course, and move away from being a nation of mere takers? We must first reject the self-serving politicians who are the greatest benefactors of the “taking.”
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
A Sound Energy Policy Could Solve A Lot Of Problems
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
.
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
.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Has Obama "Stimulated" The Economy Yet?
By Austin Hill
President Obama has a need to further stimulate the economy.
But does the economy really need more Obama-styled stimulation?
Speaking in Paris, France this past week, Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers noted that "It would be wrong to tighten fiscal policy immediately, as that would nip the nascent economic recovery in the bud.” During a week when President Obama was busy raising campaign cash for Senator Barbara Boxer in San Francisco, taking photos with the Duke University basketball team at the White House, lunching with Bill Clinton, and – yes – holding his first press conference in ten months to talk about the gulf oil spill, Ms. Romer traveled to Europe as the President’s representative to the annual meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a 31-nation watchdog that includes the world's richest economies.
While there, Ms. Romer astutely observed that “unemployment is still painfully high,” and that "nothing would be more damaging than a protracted recession that brought about permanent high unemployment.” She further noted that the President was planning “further targeted fiscal actions” to stimulate the U.S. economy, after the President’s current economic stimulus plan “winds down” next year.
Ms. Romer’s remarks, innocuous and non-substantive as they were, nonetheless were consistent with the Obama Administration’s overall public posture on the economy. Yet her comments also serve as an additional reminder of two extremely important truths – truths that at times seem all but forgotten, in the midst of the ongoing economic hardship.
For one, President Obama’s “need” to stimulate the economy, and the genuine needs of the economy itself, are not the same thing. Elected politicians like the U.S. President generally always have an immediate need to appear as though they’re doing something constructive, and to make people feel good about the economy (or at least as good as they possibly can) right here, and right now.
In the past sixteen months, Mr. Obama’s immediate, short-term political need has produced a lot of public policy that positions the President to appear as though he’s rescuing people – rescuing them from the economic downturn, from “greedy bankers” and “rich executives,” from the threat of home foreclosure, from credit card debt, and so forth. And part of the political calculus involved with this kind of policy is the assumption that as long as the President gives away enough “things” to the American electorate, and appears as though he’s doing enough to “protect” them, the electorate will continue to vote for him and his party, regardless of what the economy does. This is a big gamble, to be sure, but we don’t know yet if the President’s approach will produce either political or economic success (he could up with both, neither, or one without the other).
Yet, another important truth in the midst of the murkiness is that far too much of this type of economic policy is built upon the “false assumption of government goodness.” The “false assumption of government goodness” stipulates that greed, scandal, and injustice only happen in the private sector economy at the hands of “rich people,” while those in the public sector – elected politicians and bureaucrats alike – always “do the right thing,” always manage economic resources to their best possible ends, and always act selflessly in the interests of the common good.
Thus, it is presumed, everything that President Obama seeks to do with our nation’s economic resources is for the good of everybody, done out of the benevolence of his heart. A government take-over of General Motors and Chrysler? That was done only for the sake of “saving American jobs,” right? Except that the President violated U.S. bankruptcy laws with the ways in which his Administration forced Chrysler’s secured creditors to accept pennies on the dollar as a bankruptcy “settlement” (among the secured creditors were a retirement fund for school teachers and police officers in the “red state” of Indiana), and our tax dollars are continuing to subsidize both companies even when they’re not selling adequate numbers of cars to make ends meet.
But yes, Obama “saved American jobs.” In particular he “saved” jobs occupied by members of the United Auto Workers Union, a major political supporter of President Obama and the Democratic Party. Indeed the assumption of “government goodness” is clearly false with the “government motors” scenario.
And nationalized healthcare was all about Obama blessing us with goodness, right? Well, Obamacare is so good that over half the states in our union are suing the federal government to prevent the implementation of the President’s “plan,” and nearly 70% of the American electorate now wants it repealed.
It probably doesn’t even cross Christina Romer’s mind (or Barack Obama’s, for that matter) that the constant extension of federal unemployment benefits (that have now been “extended” in some states for over two years), the likes of which she was advocating in Paris last week, might actually be giving people a dis-incentive to get back to work. But that leads us back to “truth number one,” which I’ll state here in a slightly different way: good politics does not always amount to good economic policy.
May America elect to “stop the stimulus” – before it kills us all.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
President Obama has a need to further stimulate the economy.
But does the economy really need more Obama-styled stimulation?
Speaking in Paris, France this past week, Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers noted that "It would be wrong to tighten fiscal policy immediately, as that would nip the nascent economic recovery in the bud.” During a week when President Obama was busy raising campaign cash for Senator Barbara Boxer in San Francisco, taking photos with the Duke University basketball team at the White House, lunching with Bill Clinton, and – yes – holding his first press conference in ten months to talk about the gulf oil spill, Ms. Romer traveled to Europe as the President’s representative to the annual meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a 31-nation watchdog that includes the world's richest economies.
While there, Ms. Romer astutely observed that “unemployment is still painfully high,” and that "nothing would be more damaging than a protracted recession that brought about permanent high unemployment.” She further noted that the President was planning “further targeted fiscal actions” to stimulate the U.S. economy, after the President’s current economic stimulus plan “winds down” next year.
Ms. Romer’s remarks, innocuous and non-substantive as they were, nonetheless were consistent with the Obama Administration’s overall public posture on the economy. Yet her comments also serve as an additional reminder of two extremely important truths – truths that at times seem all but forgotten, in the midst of the ongoing economic hardship.
For one, President Obama’s “need” to stimulate the economy, and the genuine needs of the economy itself, are not the same thing. Elected politicians like the U.S. President generally always have an immediate need to appear as though they’re doing something constructive, and to make people feel good about the economy (or at least as good as they possibly can) right here, and right now.
In the past sixteen months, Mr. Obama’s immediate, short-term political need has produced a lot of public policy that positions the President to appear as though he’s rescuing people – rescuing them from the economic downturn, from “greedy bankers” and “rich executives,” from the threat of home foreclosure, from credit card debt, and so forth. And part of the political calculus involved with this kind of policy is the assumption that as long as the President gives away enough “things” to the American electorate, and appears as though he’s doing enough to “protect” them, the electorate will continue to vote for him and his party, regardless of what the economy does. This is a big gamble, to be sure, but we don’t know yet if the President’s approach will produce either political or economic success (he could up with both, neither, or one without the other).
Yet, another important truth in the midst of the murkiness is that far too much of this type of economic policy is built upon the “false assumption of government goodness.” The “false assumption of government goodness” stipulates that greed, scandal, and injustice only happen in the private sector economy at the hands of “rich people,” while those in the public sector – elected politicians and bureaucrats alike – always “do the right thing,” always manage economic resources to their best possible ends, and always act selflessly in the interests of the common good.
Thus, it is presumed, everything that President Obama seeks to do with our nation’s economic resources is for the good of everybody, done out of the benevolence of his heart. A government take-over of General Motors and Chrysler? That was done only for the sake of “saving American jobs,” right? Except that the President violated U.S. bankruptcy laws with the ways in which his Administration forced Chrysler’s secured creditors to accept pennies on the dollar as a bankruptcy “settlement” (among the secured creditors were a retirement fund for school teachers and police officers in the “red state” of Indiana), and our tax dollars are continuing to subsidize both companies even when they’re not selling adequate numbers of cars to make ends meet.
But yes, Obama “saved American jobs.” In particular he “saved” jobs occupied by members of the United Auto Workers Union, a major political supporter of President Obama and the Democratic Party. Indeed the assumption of “government goodness” is clearly false with the “government motors” scenario.
And nationalized healthcare was all about Obama blessing us with goodness, right? Well, Obamacare is so good that over half the states in our union are suing the federal government to prevent the implementation of the President’s “plan,” and nearly 70% of the American electorate now wants it repealed.
It probably doesn’t even cross Christina Romer’s mind (or Barack Obama’s, for that matter) that the constant extension of federal unemployment benefits (that have now been “extended” in some states for over two years), the likes of which she was advocating in Paris last week, might actually be giving people a dis-incentive to get back to work. But that leads us back to “truth number one,” which I’ll state here in a slightly different way: good politics does not always amount to good economic policy.
May America elect to “stop the stimulus” – before it kills us all.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
