Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Big Regs will create more Mr. Potters
I recently watched the Christmas classic It's A Wonderful Life and pondered on how people may view the villainous Mr. Potter. The character Potter is a wealthy, shrewd banker who preys upon the bottom of the income scale. He applies strict lending standards and isn't forgiving when clients struggle. The character George Bailey in contrast grants loans with a sense of charity. With little thought, it’s easy to liken Mr. Potter to those calling for an end to practices of risky lending via Fannie and Freddie and liken George Bailey to those who don’t. However, this comparison omits something very important. George Bailey’s clients loved him. They scrapped every bit of effort and money they could to make their payments. While big banks in some cases resemble Potter, borrowers of the sub-prime crisis claiming themselves victims of predatory lending do not necessarily measure up to George Bailey’s clients. They had a personal relationship with him, one that more likely stems from small, community banks opposed to big banks. This relates to Stossel’s piece in the following way. John Allison, BB&T’s founder, claims he couldn’t start his bank today with current regulations and that small banks can’t emerge into markets to compete. Mr. Allison does not strike me at all as a Mr. Potter, but his point signals that current regulations will produce more Mr. Potters and less George Baileys.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Climate Science Should Undergo Proper IV&V
Mann and Jones’ research relies on climate simulation models. Before modeling and simulation professionals trust their results, they apply a rigorous process called Independent, Verification, and Validation (IV&V). This involves third parties running benchmarks against known outcomes so as to demonstrate to stakeholders that the simulation can produce reliable results. Everyone depending on energy is a stakeholder, and refusal to make the research publicly available avoids proper IV&V. A carbon trading based economy will introduce an exponential increase of inroads for the special interest and lobbyists, as demonstrated by fraud in Denmark’s Agency of the Climate and Energy Ministry and Europe’s Emission Trading System registry. Until the public has the opportunity to conduct proper IV&V, no legislation should come to exist based on Mann and Jones’ findings. Even Canada's plans to withdraw from Kyoto, signaling their growing distrust in climate change research.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The Left's Opposition to Diversity
Diversity is a three legged stool comprising of race, culture, and ideas. Each of these legs has correlation with the others, but they are distinct attributes of diversity. The Left has historically waged war against the diversity of ideas. They vigorously oppose state autonomy of public policy as though the Tenth Amendment has no relevance. Diversity of ideas leads to diversity of values. Diversity of values leads to a diversity of governance. In America, we have fifty states for that reason. Embracing diversity means embracing the idea of eliminating a number of large federal agencies, administering entitlements at the local level far out of reach of federal powers, and sending far more tax dollars to local governments rather than federal. The Left's hostility to this reveals what they truly are with respect to diversity: a fraud.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Shouldn't regulators have to eat what they cook?
Having friends and family who own and operate small businesses, I know their workload of complying with regulations can exceed that of performing the work of their actual business, much in tune with Conn Carroll's, "Durbin fee," article.
Conn Carroll: 'Durbin fee' will cost bank customers billions
The regulations have such complexity that the same question to more than one regulator may get completely different answers, sometimes contradicting one another. Try to avoid pulling your hair out when you have to satisfy them all at once! Most Americans don't experience this first hand and hence don't have experience with how it compromises business growth, which
of course has a tight correlation with job growth. To give the regulators such a perspective, I propose the following. Before
regulators, such as employees of the EPA and administrators of Obamacare, collect each paycheck, they must complete a maze of regulatory paperwork comparable to that which they impose upon domestic industry. For once, the nanny-state advocates will have to eat what they cook.
Here's a strong indicator of how the extreme Left will react: NARAL is protesting Virginia requiring abortion clinics to meet the same safety standards of ambulatory surgical centers.
NARAL puts abortion profits ahead of women's safety
Conn Carroll: 'Durbin fee' will cost bank customers billions
The regulations have such complexity that the same question to more than one regulator may get completely different answers, sometimes contradicting one another. Try to avoid pulling your hair out when you have to satisfy them all at once! Most Americans don't experience this first hand and hence don't have experience with how it compromises business growth, which
of course has a tight correlation with job growth. To give the regulators such a perspective, I propose the following. Before
regulators, such as employees of the EPA and administrators of Obamacare, collect each paycheck, they must complete a maze of regulatory paperwork comparable to that which they impose upon domestic industry. For once, the nanny-state advocates will have to eat what they cook.
Here's a strong indicator of how the extreme Left will react: NARAL is protesting Virginia requiring abortion clinics to meet the same safety standards of ambulatory surgical centers.
NARAL puts abortion profits ahead of women's safety
Friday, September 23, 2011
Harry Jaffe needs a reality check about cars on the road
Harry Jaffe writes a column in the Washington Examiner, and his articles frequently take unnecessary jabs at people who depend on automobiles in Washington, DC for transportation. He advocates a mandatory Car-free DC day in the following article, but he needs a serious reality check.
Car-free D.C. in your future?
Cyclists require no licensing to demonstrate knowledge road rules, carry no insurance, pay no gasoline tax to fund upkeep, and carry no visible vehicle identification. If a cyclists pops from the curb into oncoming traffic (quite commonly happens), a driver may have to make a split second decision between hitting the cyclist or the car in the next lane. In the latter scenario, the cyclist can pedal away unidentified and bear no liability. Nonetheless, DC has elevated cyclists to having the same privileges of the road as motorists.
Mandatory car-free day would effectively become work-from-home day for many. As for me, I can't take Metro every day, and it becomes I-can't-get-to-class day since I leave work for night school in Montgomery County some days.
Don't get me wrong. I like the bike lanes and use them regularly myself. However, Harry Jaffe should recognize that cyclists are getting a free ride and already have it pretty good.
Car-free D.C. in your future?
Cyclists require no licensing to demonstrate knowledge road rules, carry no insurance, pay no gasoline tax to fund upkeep, and carry no visible vehicle identification. If a cyclists pops from the curb into oncoming traffic (quite commonly happens), a driver may have to make a split second decision between hitting the cyclist or the car in the next lane. In the latter scenario, the cyclist can pedal away unidentified and bear no liability. Nonetheless, DC has elevated cyclists to having the same privileges of the road as motorists.
Mandatory car-free day would effectively become work-from-home day for many. As for me, I can't take Metro every day, and it becomes I-can't-get-to-class day since I leave work for night school in Montgomery County some days.
Don't get me wrong. I like the bike lanes and use them regularly myself. However, Harry Jaffe should recognize that cyclists are getting a free ride and already have it pretty good.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Let's hold up a mirror to the advocates of regulations
The Washington Examiner recently ran the following articles about regulation.
"What will Congress do to stop Obama's red tape explosion?"
"NARAL puts abortion profits ahead of women's safety"
Having friends and family who own and operate small businesses, I know their workload of complying with regulations frequently exceeds that of performing the work of their actual business. The regulations have such complexity that the same question to more than one regulator may get completely different answers, sometimes contradicting one another. Try to avoid pulling your hair out when you have to satisfy them all at once! Most Americans don't experience this first hand and hence don't have experience with this and how it compromises business growth, which of course has a tight correlation with job growth. So that Americans gain such a perspective, I propose the following. Before government regulators, such as employees of the EPA, collect each bi-weekly paycheck and vacation day, they must complete a maze of regulatory paperwork comparable to that which they impose upon domestic industry. Shall we extend this to recipients of entitlement spending while we're at it? If this happens, excessive regulation will shrink. NARAL is protesting Virginia requiring abortion clinics to meet medical standards. If they are throwing a temper tantrum about this, then I think we know what they really think about regulations.
"What will Congress do to stop Obama's red tape explosion?"
"NARAL puts abortion profits ahead of women's safety"
Having friends and family who own and operate small businesses, I know their workload of complying with regulations frequently exceeds that of performing the work of their actual business. The regulations have such complexity that the same question to more than one regulator may get completely different answers, sometimes contradicting one another. Try to avoid pulling your hair out when you have to satisfy them all at once! Most Americans don't experience this first hand and hence don't have experience with this and how it compromises business growth, which of course has a tight correlation with job growth. So that Americans gain such a perspective, I propose the following. Before government regulators, such as employees of the EPA, collect each bi-weekly paycheck and vacation day, they must complete a maze of regulatory paperwork comparable to that which they impose upon domestic industry. Shall we extend this to recipients of entitlement spending while we're at it? If this happens, excessive regulation will shrink. NARAL is protesting Virginia requiring abortion clinics to meet medical standards. If they are throwing a temper tantrum about this, then I think we know what they really think about regulations.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Keeping social security promises will require large scale sacrifice
On July 7, the Heritage Foundation published a charticle that plots defense spending versus entitlement spending against the past ~50 years.
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/defense-entitlement-spending
On September 12, CNS news reported the ratio of 1.75 people working full time jobs in the private sector for every 1 person collecting social security,
Labor Dept. Data: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Recipient
...and with the Baby Boomer generation soon to retire, this ratio is going to get worse. To sustain social security for the current
retirees and the Baby Boomers, politicians will have to develop a strong spine to make some very tough decisions. For that to happen, voters and taxpaying citizens must do the same. We refer to the WWII generation as the Greatest Generation for all the sacrifices they made so that we could live in the country we have today. As a member of Generation X, I propose a far lesser sacrifice: pay into social security during our working lives until every last person 55 years or older receives every social security benefit promised to them by the US government. But after that, social security, at the federal level,
must end and never exist again.
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/defense-entitlement-spending
On September 12, CNS news reported the ratio of 1.75 people working full time jobs in the private sector for every 1 person collecting social security,
Labor Dept. Data: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Recipient
...and with the Baby Boomer generation soon to retire, this ratio is going to get worse. To sustain social security for the current
retirees and the Baby Boomers, politicians will have to develop a strong spine to make some very tough decisions. For that to happen, voters and taxpaying citizens must do the same. We refer to the WWII generation as the Greatest Generation for all the sacrifices they made so that we could live in the country we have today. As a member of Generation X, I propose a far lesser sacrifice: pay into social security during our working lives until every last person 55 years or older receives every social security benefit promised to them by the US government. But after that, social security, at the federal level,
must end and never exist again.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Power plant shutdown portends future energy rationing
The Washington Examiner recently ran articles about shutting down a power plan in Alexandria due to environmentalist concerns as well as an article about low satisfaction with Pepco.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/capital-land/2011/08/alexandria-power-plant-shut-down
http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/2011/07/satisfaction-pepco-plunges
Environmental extremists hale the announcement of the closing of the Potomac River Generating Station. Meanwhile, consumers award Pepco with a score of 54 on a scale of 1-100, and Business Insider declares Pepco the, "most hated," company in America. The low rating comes from repeated outages during adverse weather conditions leaving without power for a few hours or even days. If these extremists continue to have their way with coal fired power plants, energy rationing lurks just around the corner. If that happens, energy customers will yearn for the days when they complained about outages lasting for hours or days. In its place policy makers will institute peak usage surcharge rates and regularly scheduled blackouts. Don't be surprised if brownouts become commonplace too. The extremists cite asthma as a primary reason for the advocating this plant's closure. Take it from somebody with asthma, the extremists' successful efforts to replace my albuterol inhaler with the, "more ozone friendly," less effective version show how much they truly care about people with asthma. Alexandria mayor Bill Euille calls this great news. Why doesn't he put actions to words and sever every power line to his personal home until a new plant generates what the closing power plant won't?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/capital-land/2011/08/alexandria-power-plant-shut-down
http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/2011/07/satisfaction-pepco-plunges
Environmental extremists hale the announcement of the closing of the Potomac River Generating Station. Meanwhile, consumers award Pepco with a score of 54 on a scale of 1-100, and Business Insider declares Pepco the, "most hated," company in America. The low rating comes from repeated outages during adverse weather conditions leaving without power for a few hours or even days. If these extremists continue to have their way with coal fired power plants, energy rationing lurks just around the corner. If that happens, energy customers will yearn for the days when they complained about outages lasting for hours or days. In its place policy makers will institute peak usage surcharge rates and regularly scheduled blackouts. Don't be surprised if brownouts become commonplace too. The extremists cite asthma as a primary reason for the advocating this plant's closure. Take it from somebody with asthma, the extremists' successful efforts to replace my albuterol inhaler with the, "more ozone friendly," less effective version show how much they truly care about people with asthma. Alexandria mayor Bill Euille calls this great news. Why doesn't he put actions to words and sever every power line to his personal home until a new plant generates what the closing power plant won't?
Monday, September 5, 2011
Environmental Extremists should bear the same anger of Pepco's customer service
On 8/30/2011 the DC Examiner ran this story about a power plant closing in Alexandria, VA: Alexandria power plant to shut down
On 7/11/2011 the DC Examiner ran this story about Pepco's customer satisfaction sinking to 16 year lows: Satisfaction with Pepco plunges
Environmental extremists hale the announcement of the closing of the Potomac River Generating Station as reported by the Examiner on 8/31. Meanwhile, consumers award Pepco with a score of 54 on a scale of 1-100, and Business Insider declares Pepco the, "most hated," company in America. The low rating comes from none other than repeated outages during adverse weather conditions that leave customers without power for a few hours or even a few days. If these extremists continue to have their way with coal fired power plants, energy rationing is just around the corner. And if that happens, energy customers will yearn for the days when they complained about outages lasting for hours or days. In its place policy makers will institute peak usage surcharge rates and regularly scheduled blackouts. Don't be surprised if brownouts become commonplace too. The extremists cite asthma as a primary reason for the advocating the plant's closure. Take it from somebody with asthma, the extremists successful efforts to replace my effective albuterol inhaler with the, "more ozone friendly," version have done far more harm to me than the Potomac River Generating Station. Alexandria mayor Bill Euille calls this great news. Why doesn't he put actions to words and sever every power line to his personal home until a new plant generates what the closing power plant won't?
On 7/11/2011 the DC Examiner ran this story about Pepco's customer satisfaction sinking to 16 year lows: Satisfaction with Pepco plunges
Environmental extremists hale the announcement of the closing of the Potomac River Generating Station as reported by the Examiner on 8/31. Meanwhile, consumers award Pepco with a score of 54 on a scale of 1-100, and Business Insider declares Pepco the, "most hated," company in America. The low rating comes from none other than repeated outages during adverse weather conditions that leave customers without power for a few hours or even a few days. If these extremists continue to have their way with coal fired power plants, energy rationing is just around the corner. And if that happens, energy customers will yearn for the days when they complained about outages lasting for hours or days. In its place policy makers will institute peak usage surcharge rates and regularly scheduled blackouts. Don't be surprised if brownouts become commonplace too. The extremists cite asthma as a primary reason for the advocating the plant's closure. Take it from somebody with asthma, the extremists successful efforts to replace my effective albuterol inhaler with the, "more ozone friendly," version have done far more harm to me than the Potomac River Generating Station. Alexandria mayor Bill Euille calls this great news. Why doesn't he put actions to words and sever every power line to his personal home until a new plant generates what the closing power plant won't?
Friday, August 26, 2011
Dueling Governors is Federalism at Work
The dialog and comparisons between Governor O'Malley and Governor McDonnell published in the past few issues of the Examiner are very informative.
McDonnell, O'Malley spar over economy, spending
McDonnell, O'Malley differ on unions' rights
Each of the two state so may enact its own policies and the people can choose to vote with their feet if they prefer one set
of policies versus the other. We have two states in very comparable situations. Both sit adjacent to the nations capitol, both have a large presence of government jobs and related contracting fueling their respective economies, and of course both have very similar climates. The differences of the state lay rooted in policy. One has right-to-work legislation while the other imposes collective bargaining. One taxes at low rates, and the other taxes at high rates. One believes government spending serves as a major component to economic recovery, and the other believes that the private sector does that better than government. DC has it's own approaches to these issues, more similarly to our neighbor directly to the north. Let's
watch this ongoing comparison and judge them on results.
As a DC resident who is trying to decide where I may want to live on a more permanent basis one day, I'm watching this debate very closely. Which of the three areas will offer me the best environment as a resident, taxpayer, and recipient of government services? I asked Mayor Gray at a town hall several months ago what he's doing to make DC more competitive to bring new business investment into DC, citing how low DC ranks in business friendliness. To paraphrase his answer, he claims DC doesn't have to worry about attracting new business because it already offers a competitive environment. Decide for yourself if that addresses the issue.
Given all the evidence of budgets, deficits, and unemployment figures, Virginia is cleaning the other two's clock. This is federalism at work, where we can observe which ideas work the best in our nation, and our federal government should recognize that for this reason amongst others state governments should drive most public policy, not the federal government. If each respective party believes their ideas truly are the better ideas, they should embrace this concept to far
greater degree.
McDonnell, O'Malley spar over economy, spending
McDonnell, O'Malley differ on unions' rights
Each of the two state so may enact its own policies and the people can choose to vote with their feet if they prefer one set
of policies versus the other. We have two states in very comparable situations. Both sit adjacent to the nations capitol, both have a large presence of government jobs and related contracting fueling their respective economies, and of course both have very similar climates. The differences of the state lay rooted in policy. One has right-to-work legislation while the other imposes collective bargaining. One taxes at low rates, and the other taxes at high rates. One believes government spending serves as a major component to economic recovery, and the other believes that the private sector does that better than government. DC has it's own approaches to these issues, more similarly to our neighbor directly to the north. Let's
watch this ongoing comparison and judge them on results.
As a DC resident who is trying to decide where I may want to live on a more permanent basis one day, I'm watching this debate very closely. Which of the three areas will offer me the best environment as a resident, taxpayer, and recipient of government services? I asked Mayor Gray at a town hall several months ago what he's doing to make DC more competitive to bring new business investment into DC, citing how low DC ranks in business friendliness. To paraphrase his answer, he claims DC doesn't have to worry about attracting new business because it already offers a competitive environment. Decide for yourself if that addresses the issue.
Given all the evidence of budgets, deficits, and unemployment figures, Virginia is cleaning the other two's clock. This is federalism at work, where we can observe which ideas work the best in our nation, and our federal government should recognize that for this reason amongst others state governments should drive most public policy, not the federal government. If each respective party believes their ideas truly are the better ideas, they should embrace this concept to far
greater degree.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Answering Warren Buffet's Call to Mega-Tax the Mega-Wealthy
Warren Buffet has called for the government to drastically increase taxes on the very wealthy: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=3.
But does this really serve our nation's best interest?
Our country is better off with a few billion airs who can amass the kind of wealth to have enough power to challenge government. Government being the only big guy on the block isn't good for the country. When billion airs and large corporations spend money to confront the government over poorly crafted regulations that inhibit private sector growth, for example, we all benefit. I think of this is as class action law suit against government on behalf of the people, albeit corporations and billion airs very well do this for the purposes of self benefit, but that doesn't change the fact that society as a whole may benefit too. It's not realistic to take the position that if we don't like certain rules and regs, then we just vote them out. First, nobody can vote on one single issue. Second, waiting for an election cycle to exercise voting power may not offer the necessary expediency of addressing the issue.
All that said, as a catholic and a person who values charity, I do believe that billion airs have a moral responsibility to help improve the lives of those around them who are less fortunate. However, giving excessive amounts of dollars to a government to (a) pay out to the special interest, (b) funnel the money to those who carry their favor, and (c) take it's cut along the way resembles no real sense of morality. Neither does imposing this mandate on other billion airs resemble any sense of morality either.
But does this really serve our nation's best interest?
Our country is better off with a few billion airs who can amass the kind of wealth to have enough power to challenge government. Government being the only big guy on the block isn't good for the country. When billion airs and large corporations spend money to confront the government over poorly crafted regulations that inhibit private sector growth, for example, we all benefit. I think of this is as class action law suit against government on behalf of the people, albeit corporations and billion airs very well do this for the purposes of self benefit, but that doesn't change the fact that society as a whole may benefit too. It's not realistic to take the position that if we don't like certain rules and regs, then we just vote them out. First, nobody can vote on one single issue. Second, waiting for an election cycle to exercise voting power may not offer the necessary expediency of addressing the issue.
All that said, as a catholic and a person who values charity, I do believe that billion airs have a moral responsibility to help improve the lives of those around them who are less fortunate. However, giving excessive amounts of dollars to a government to (a) pay out to the special interest, (b) funnel the money to those who carry their favor, and (c) take it's cut along the way resembles no real sense of morality. Neither does imposing this mandate on other billion airs resemble any sense of morality either.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Global Warming Alarmists Foiled by Non-Agenda Driven Science
Well, I'm not going to hold me breath for an apology from global warming alarmists for comparing people who prefer non-agenda driven, junk science to Holocaust deniers.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
Apparently CO2 doesn't contribute to a greenhouse effect on the planet.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
Apparently CO2 doesn't contribute to a greenhouse effect on the planet.
Monday, July 25, 2011
7 Untruths of the President's July 25, 2011 Speech
Falsehood #1: In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus, but instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was used to pay off new tax cuts.
Why it's false: After tax cuts in 2003, from 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. (Even with the recession, 2008 revenues exceeded 2000 revenues by $1T.)
Falsehood #2: The recession meant less money was coming in, and it required us to spend more.
Why it's false: The government spent $278K per job created. In March, 2009 US underemployment stood at 15.6%. In July of 2011, US underemployment stands at 18.7%. This outcome does not substantiate this need.
Falsehood #3: ...if nothing is asked of the top of the income scale.
Why it's false: The top 1% income earners pay greater than 40% of total US government revenue. The bottom 95% pay less than 60% of the total US government revenue.
Falsehood #4:Republicans in the house are insisting on a cuts-only approach.
Why it's false: The House of Representatives passed a bill entitled Cut, Cap, and Balance. It raises the debt ceiling by $2.4T, as requested by the Democrats.
Falsehood #5: Most Americans don't understand how we can ask a Senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare benefits before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get.
Why it's false: The oil companies benefit from a $4B per year tax credit. Eliminating the corporate jet loophole would increase government revenue by $3B over the next decade. The federal debt is >$14T. If the US government collected 100% of income earned above $250K/year, 100% of all fortune 500 company profits, and 100% of the assets owned by individuals worth $1M or more, the US government could only pay for January through August of the 2011 budget. Loopholes aside, the rich pay their fair share.
Falsehood #6: If [a spending cuts only approach] happens and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills, bills that include monthly social security checks.
Why it's false: Social security has a trust fund and revenues capable of funding all social security checks through the end of President Obama's current term. A prioritization of loan payments avoids a default of any kind, which the government has sufficient revenue to pay without a debt ceiling increase.
Falsehood #7: Our AAA rating would be downgraded. Interest rates would skyrocket.
Why it's false: See answer to falsehood #6. Side Note: The US risks a loss of it's AAA rating and skyrocketing interest rates with an increase of it's debt to GDP ratio, which a debt ceiling increase will cause.
Why it's false: After tax cuts in 2003, from 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. (Even with the recession, 2008 revenues exceeded 2000 revenues by $1T.)
Falsehood #2: The recession meant less money was coming in, and it required us to spend more.
Why it's false: The government spent $278K per job created. In March, 2009 US underemployment stood at 15.6%. In July of 2011, US underemployment stands at 18.7%. This outcome does not substantiate this need.
Falsehood #3: ...if nothing is asked of the top of the income scale.
Why it's false: The top 1% income earners pay greater than 40% of total US government revenue. The bottom 95% pay less than 60% of the total US government revenue.
Falsehood #4:Republicans in the house are insisting on a cuts-only approach.
Why it's false: The House of Representatives passed a bill entitled Cut, Cap, and Balance. It raises the debt ceiling by $2.4T, as requested by the Democrats.
Falsehood #5: Most Americans don't understand how we can ask a Senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare benefits before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get.
Why it's false: The oil companies benefit from a $4B per year tax credit. Eliminating the corporate jet loophole would increase government revenue by $3B over the next decade. The federal debt is >$14T. If the US government collected 100% of income earned above $250K/year, 100% of all fortune 500 company profits, and 100% of the assets owned by individuals worth $1M or more, the US government could only pay for January through August of the 2011 budget. Loopholes aside, the rich pay their fair share.
Falsehood #6: If [a spending cuts only approach] happens and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills, bills that include monthly social security checks.
Why it's false: Social security has a trust fund and revenues capable of funding all social security checks through the end of President Obama's current term. A prioritization of loan payments avoids a default of any kind, which the government has sufficient revenue to pay without a debt ceiling increase.
Falsehood #7: Our AAA rating would be downgraded. Interest rates would skyrocket.
Why it's false: See answer to falsehood #6. Side Note: The US risks a loss of it's AAA rating and skyrocketing interest rates with an increase of it's debt to GDP ratio, which a debt ceiling increase will cause.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Making a Case for Federalism
On 7/24, a story ran about Dodd-Frank where Amy Friend illustrates pigs feeding at the troughs, even the very ones they’ve built.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/dodd-franks-winners-revolving-door-regulators
This story addresses the same issue at a macro level. American public loves to rail against lobbying while hailing the regulations that enable it. There’s no coincidence lobbying escalated over the past decade and regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank passed. During the dot com boom, tech industry focused more of its investment in products and personnel. After the Microsoft anit-trust trials, they now spend on lobbying. Tax dollars leave states to the federal government, and the states have to grovel to get those dollars back. State legislators even have lobbying representation! These circumstances call for state to do more while the federal government does less with respect to taxing and regulating. This also has a role in solving our debt crisis because states can’t print money. They have to balance their budgets. This way, conservative locales could have the regulations and taxing they want while liberal locales could respectively have the same, and we could all happily coexists with less lobbying related gridlock in
Washington.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/dodd-franks-winners-revolving-door-regulators
This story addresses the same issue at a macro level. American public loves to rail against lobbying while hailing the regulations that enable it. There’s no coincidence lobbying escalated over the past decade and regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank passed. During the dot com boom, tech industry focused more of its investment in products and personnel. After the Microsoft anit-trust trials, they now spend on lobbying. Tax dollars leave states to the federal government, and the states have to grovel to get those dollars back. State legislators even have lobbying representation! These circumstances call for state to do more while the federal government does less with respect to taxing and regulating. This also has a role in solving our debt crisis because states can’t print money. They have to balance their budgets. This way, conservative locales could have the regulations and taxing they want while liberal locales could respectively have the same, and we could all happily coexists with less lobbying related gridlock in
Washington.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Self Defense is a Human Right
Events at the Caribbean Carnival serve as another example of what dangers DC residents regularly face. This incident and others connected to it have resulted in harm to innocent bystanders. DC residents can find themselves in the paths of vicious, violent perpetrators at any time. Each person is endowed with the human right of self defense. Whether and how is for that individual to choose, but DC government impedes upon this by infringing upon our right to carry concealed firearms. As the article documents, gangs and teen mobs are increasingly tech savvy, creative, and ambitious. Police can’t be on scene at a second’s notice. 3:42 elapsed during video capturing Saturday’s melee before a policeman enters the footage. A lot can happen in 3:42. It’s time for the mayor and council to get real about gun ownership.
Video link: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhafNEnJmHv3Sr08EL
Video link: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhafNEnJmHv3Sr08EL
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Budget Battles of the 112th
As of today, April 9, the House Republicans and Senate Democrats respective leadership has reached a deal to cut $38.5B from the federal budget so as to avert a government shutdown. This deal came at the eleventh hour leading up to the shutdown on Friday, April 8. This deal doesn't amount to a formally passed continuing resolution just yet, but assuming no hang-ups in the process, this will become law within a few days. The numbers of cuts discussed include an initial $100B proposed by the GOP. Senate Democrats responded with $30B. Then, the Tea Party caucus insisted for no less than $60B in cuts, and now both sides have come to agree to the $38.5B figure.
Let's consider these numbers. The $30B cuts proposed by the Democrats amount to 4% of the budget and 0.4% of the total us debt, roughly $14T. This budget battle for fiscal year 2011 addresses only a timeline up until October 1 of this year, when the 2012 budget will begin, assuming the Congress actually passes one unlike they failed to do by October 2010.
So I pose the following question: why have the Republicans and the Tea Party caucus spent so much time and energy on FY 2011? The debt ceiling and budget for FY2010 stand as much larger and more critical battles. Rand Paul and Paul Ryan have both produced their own respective budget plans for how to address the countries arduous debt and running deficits. Getting either one of these plans in place, or even just portions thereof, enacted in any sustainable form is going to require a knock-down, drag-out fight between the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate and White House.
I understand why representatives like Michelle Bachmann express great frustration over not getting more cuts, but the gains of only removing 8% or less from current federal spending hardly warrant the down-to-the-wire negotiations we've observed. The American public already has a great deal of fatigue over this issue, and with plenty more to come, the House Republicans and Tea Party caucus will have to work overtime to win the media battles to keep the public on their side. The side who wins the PR battles in the media will ultimately get what they want with an election year on the horizon, and the House Republicans not showing the best strategy about which battles to fight has me a little worried. But overall, I think even the staunchest and most firmly grounded Tea Party supports and deficit hawks should look at the passing of this FY 2011 budget as a good thing. Now, time and energy can go to where it will be the most valuable: making the case to the public that America desperately needs a Paul Ryan or Rand Paul approach to the budget.
Let's consider these numbers. The $30B cuts proposed by the Democrats amount to 4% of the budget and 0.4% of the total us debt, roughly $14T. This budget battle for fiscal year 2011 addresses only a timeline up until October 1 of this year, when the 2012 budget will begin, assuming the Congress actually passes one unlike they failed to do by October 2010.
So I pose the following question: why have the Republicans and the Tea Party caucus spent so much time and energy on FY 2011? The debt ceiling and budget for FY2010 stand as much larger and more critical battles. Rand Paul and Paul Ryan have both produced their own respective budget plans for how to address the countries arduous debt and running deficits. Getting either one of these plans in place, or even just portions thereof, enacted in any sustainable form is going to require a knock-down, drag-out fight between the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate and White House.
I understand why representatives like Michelle Bachmann express great frustration over not getting more cuts, but the gains of only removing 8% or less from current federal spending hardly warrant the down-to-the-wire negotiations we've observed. The American public already has a great deal of fatigue over this issue, and with plenty more to come, the House Republicans and Tea Party caucus will have to work overtime to win the media battles to keep the public on their side. The side who wins the PR battles in the media will ultimately get what they want with an election year on the horizon, and the House Republicans not showing the best strategy about which battles to fight has me a little worried. But overall, I think even the staunchest and most firmly grounded Tea Party supports and deficit hawks should look at the passing of this FY 2011 budget as a good thing. Now, time and energy can go to where it will be the most valuable: making the case to the public that America desperately needs a Paul Ryan or Rand Paul approach to the budget.
Monday, April 4, 2011
A Wisconsin Paradox
Tomorrow, Tuesday, April 5, Wisconsin voters will go to the polls to elect a new judge to the state's supreme court for a ten year term. This election has transformed from one about a judgeship to one as a referendum on Governor Scott Walker and Republican legislators' efforts to reduce the collective bargaining power of union leadership within the State. The Senate stripped budgetary language from the bill in a maneuver to side step the quorum requirement to pass any legislation in reaction to Senate Democrats leaving the state to prevent the legislative business from progressing. The attempts to pass the legislation have sparked protests of angry demonstrators shouting, "Shame!" repeatedly at the legislators in their opposition to the bill's passage. They demonstrated on the stated grounds that this bill attacks their collective bargaining rights. Why does the election of this judge hold such relevance to this matter? Court challenges to the law on the basis of procedure will likely reach the state's supreme court, which will hand down the ultimate decision.
This ongoing saga has sparked strong language from union members about collective bargaining rights, how this bill infringes upon them. But nobody has clearly stated the meaning behind collective bargaining rights. What does it mean? What does it mean to an employee? Collective bargaining means that a group of employees may ban together, choose leadership, and bargain for their compensations with their employer. Collective rights guarantee an individual's ability to participate in this process without fear of retaliation from the employer. To become a member of such a collective, a worker must pay dues to belong to such an organization. Some states within the USA, have Right-to-Work legislation. This means that any employee may enter collective bargaining, but no such organization may compel membership. In states without this legislation, collective bargaining organizations may require that employment comes with a strict coupling of such membership, thus making the dues paid to the collective bargaining organization, i.e. a union, mandatory. Wisconsin does not have Right-to-Work legislation.
So we come to crossroads within the discussion of rights. Do mandatory union dues infringe upon the rights of an individual, or does the individual who choses to negotiate with an employer directly infringe on the rights of the collective? We find this debate far expanding outside of union membership as well. We have an ongoing national debate about whether the government may mandate an individual to purchase a health insurance product. This affects every person, whether they even chose employment associated with a union or not. And beyond health care and collective bargaining, how far should this go? Do we extend it to food products that make overweight people healthy, automobiles that motorists purchase, computing devices business use, clothing types based on cost of production, anti-perspiration products for those who ride crowded subways, birth control for those not financially stable enough to raise children, what people a businessman/woman must hire versus those it may not, etc., etc., etc.? We can make a good case for each how public policy planning could make society as a whole better for all. But we must also ask at what cost? Does it mean an individual cannot make it his or her own way. Does it quash the dreams and ambitions that transform the unimaginable into tangibles we take for granted? Does it stagnate what any one person may dream to achieve, or more simply, does it compromise an individual's ability to merely get by?
At some point, if we keep growing that list, virtually ever person who has some ambition in some facet of life will undoubtedly say such an idea goes too far. If if that person says yes for the thing he or she cares most, then why can't we work backwards from there all the way to the very last thing about which any individual may value? If 1000 employees want to join a union while one single employee does not, do we cast away the free choice of that single employee? Should he or she carry the unwanted obligation of paying for a product, union representation in Wisconsin's circumstances, for which he or she does not want?
Any person who truly values what it means to have a right can only honestly come down on one side of this decision, and that is to affirmatively say yes. If a union's leadership really has the best ideas, they will attract sufficient members to their ranks such that they can effectively bargain with an employer. If a union can't get enough of the employees to voluntarily accept membership in the organization, then it doesn't have the right ideas and questionably has the interests of the worker at heart.
The right of collectively bargaining is paradoxical to the concept of a right. By choosing not to purchase a produce, or membership in this case, infringes upon no other individual's rights. However, the impressment of an individual into such membership absolutely does.
Tomorrow's election will likely have enormous impacts on Wisconsin's collective bargaining future. Incumbent judge David Prosser has not publicly commented on the bill, but reasonable speculation concludes that he would uphold the law passed. A victory by his opponent, current state Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, would tip the majority towards Left leaning judges on the court, and she has directly stated her intent to strike down the law. While Wisconsin gives us the venue of this fight, it already has will continue to play out in other parts of the nation, especially as financially strapped taxpayers will demand sacrifices from their public employees with tax revenue as their source of compensation.
Pray Prosser wins.
This ongoing saga has sparked strong language from union members about collective bargaining rights, how this bill infringes upon them. But nobody has clearly stated the meaning behind collective bargaining rights. What does it mean? What does it mean to an employee? Collective bargaining means that a group of employees may ban together, choose leadership, and bargain for their compensations with their employer. Collective rights guarantee an individual's ability to participate in this process without fear of retaliation from the employer. To become a member of such a collective, a worker must pay dues to belong to such an organization. Some states within the USA, have Right-to-Work legislation. This means that any employee may enter collective bargaining, but no such organization may compel membership. In states without this legislation, collective bargaining organizations may require that employment comes with a strict coupling of such membership, thus making the dues paid to the collective bargaining organization, i.e. a union, mandatory. Wisconsin does not have Right-to-Work legislation.
So we come to crossroads within the discussion of rights. Do mandatory union dues infringe upon the rights of an individual, or does the individual who choses to negotiate with an employer directly infringe on the rights of the collective? We find this debate far expanding outside of union membership as well. We have an ongoing national debate about whether the government may mandate an individual to purchase a health insurance product. This affects every person, whether they even chose employment associated with a union or not. And beyond health care and collective bargaining, how far should this go? Do we extend it to food products that make overweight people healthy, automobiles that motorists purchase, computing devices business use, clothing types based on cost of production, anti-perspiration products for those who ride crowded subways, birth control for those not financially stable enough to raise children, what people a businessman/woman must hire versus those it may not, etc., etc., etc.? We can make a good case for each how public policy planning could make society as a whole better for all. But we must also ask at what cost? Does it mean an individual cannot make it his or her own way. Does it quash the dreams and ambitions that transform the unimaginable into tangibles we take for granted? Does it stagnate what any one person may dream to achieve, or more simply, does it compromise an individual's ability to merely get by?
At some point, if we keep growing that list, virtually ever person who has some ambition in some facet of life will undoubtedly say such an idea goes too far. If if that person says yes for the thing he or she cares most, then why can't we work backwards from there all the way to the very last thing about which any individual may value? If 1000 employees want to join a union while one single employee does not, do we cast away the free choice of that single employee? Should he or she carry the unwanted obligation of paying for a product, union representation in Wisconsin's circumstances, for which he or she does not want?
Any person who truly values what it means to have a right can only honestly come down on one side of this decision, and that is to affirmatively say yes. If a union's leadership really has the best ideas, they will attract sufficient members to their ranks such that they can effectively bargain with an employer. If a union can't get enough of the employees to voluntarily accept membership in the organization, then it doesn't have the right ideas and questionably has the interests of the worker at heart.
The right of collectively bargaining is paradoxical to the concept of a right. By choosing not to purchase a produce, or membership in this case, infringes upon no other individual's rights. However, the impressment of an individual into such membership absolutely does.
Tomorrow's election will likely have enormous impacts on Wisconsin's collective bargaining future. Incumbent judge David Prosser has not publicly commented on the bill, but reasonable speculation concludes that he would uphold the law passed. A victory by his opponent, current state Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, would tip the majority towards Left leaning judges on the court, and she has directly stated her intent to strike down the law. While Wisconsin gives us the venue of this fight, it already has will continue to play out in other parts of the nation, especially as financially strapped taxpayers will demand sacrifices from their public employees with tax revenue as their source of compensation.
Pray Prosser wins.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Lopsided Story on Campaign Contributions
On February 18, MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow delivered a fifteen minute segment of her show dedicated to her theory of the motivations behind Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's proposed legislation to curb union benefits. Within that segment, Maddow hit on several blatant falsehoods that triggered a need to address some point well grounded in reality to which she turns a blind eye.
Watch the rant.
Falsehood #1: Wisconsin is running a surplus.
This report refutes this claim in the most lopsided of fashions: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/. Just to paraphrase, the report states, "...$258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal." This stands in stark contrast to Maddow's claim of a $137 million surplus.
Falsehood #2: The Wisconsin GOP is targeting union based PACs so that the Democrats can't get campaign money.
She enumerates the top ten political action spenders in the 2008 and 2010 elections respectively. For some reason, she lists the top five for 2008 and then the top ten for 2010. Why the inconsistency? I'll leave that to speculation. She denotes the Democrat party backing PACs as those below noted with an asterisk. She claims that if the Republican party can, "destroy," these organizations, the PACs can't fund the Democrat party. First, the Wisconsin legislation will not prevent donations from flowing to any of these organization. George Soros and Warren Buffet can still channel their billions straight into them as they please. Second, every non-asterisked PAC receives their income from voluntary donations, not compelled dues or publicly funded grants, as do the asterisked ones. Third, she blames the Citizen United case on the increase in contributions to Republican party backing PACs. By all accounts of recent polling data, the Democrat party policies of 2009 and 2010 did more to fuel contributes to these PACs. Citizens United produces documentaries that reach only a sliver of the voting population, and of those they do reach, they mostly include those who already have their political thoughts in firm opposition to the Democrat party.
2008
2010
Falsehood #3: The unions are the only big fish on the side of the Democrat party.
This one reflects Maddow's verbal shortfall of her monologue. 99% of the entertainment world is dominated by people who hold ultra-Left wing views. Hollywood movie themes, sitcoms, and musical artists only name a few institutions that pedal the Democrat party's philosophy. That's fine. They have every right to do so, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist. Next, the overwhelming majority of the news and commentary media lean far to the left. MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, New York Times, and LA Times pedal a Left-wing point of view. Only FNC, the Wall Street Journal, and talk radio put up anything that doesn't follow the Left-wing line.
Final Thoughts
Let's not pretend for a second that the Democrat party powers that be don't want to attack the very institutions that fund the PACs that challenge them. They seek to bar Citizens United from exercising free speech, have appointed an FCC Chief Diversity Czar who aims to determine 100% of the radio content on air, and at one point tried to kick FNC reporters out of the White House briefing room.
Who's really doing the hit-job, here, Rachel?
Watch the rant.
Falsehood #1: Wisconsin is running a surplus.
This report refutes this claim in the most lopsided of fashions: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/. Just to paraphrase, the report states, "...$258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal." This stands in stark contrast to Maddow's claim of a $137 million surplus.
Falsehood #2: The Wisconsin GOP is targeting union based PACs so that the Democrats can't get campaign money.
She enumerates the top ten political action spenders in the 2008 and 2010 elections respectively. For some reason, she lists the top five for 2008 and then the top ten for 2010. Why the inconsistency? I'll leave that to speculation. She denotes the Democrat party backing PACs as those below noted with an asterisk. She claims that if the Republican party can, "destroy," these organizations, the PACs can't fund the Democrat party. First, the Wisconsin legislation will not prevent donations from flowing to any of these organization. George Soros and Warren Buffet can still channel their billions straight into them as they please. Second, every non-asterisked PAC receives their income from voluntary donations, not compelled dues or publicly funded grants, as do the asterisked ones. Third, she blames the Citizen United case on the increase in contributions to Republican party backing PACs. By all accounts of recent polling data, the Democrat party policies of 2009 and 2010 did more to fuel contributes to these PACs. Citizens United produces documentaries that reach only a sliver of the voting population, and of those they do reach, they mostly include those who already have their political thoughts in firm opposition to the Democrat party.
2008
- SEIU*
- AFSCME*
- NRA
- Freedom Watch
- Chamber of Commerce
2010
- Chamber of Commerce
- American Action Network
- American Crossroads
- Crossroads GPS
- SEUI*
- AFSCME*
- Americans for Job Security
- American Future Fund
- NEA*
- Club for Growth
Falsehood #3: The unions are the only big fish on the side of the Democrat party.
This one reflects Maddow's verbal shortfall of her monologue. 99% of the entertainment world is dominated by people who hold ultra-Left wing views. Hollywood movie themes, sitcoms, and musical artists only name a few institutions that pedal the Democrat party's philosophy. That's fine. They have every right to do so, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist. Next, the overwhelming majority of the news and commentary media lean far to the left. MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, New York Times, and LA Times pedal a Left-wing point of view. Only FNC, the Wall Street Journal, and talk radio put up anything that doesn't follow the Left-wing line.
Final Thoughts
Let's not pretend for a second that the Democrat party powers that be don't want to attack the very institutions that fund the PACs that challenge them. They seek to bar Citizens United from exercising free speech, have appointed an FCC Chief Diversity Czar who aims to determine 100% of the radio content on air, and at one point tried to kick FNC reporters out of the White House briefing room.
Who's really doing the hit-job, here, Rachel?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)