I think this is an excellent explanation of why Obamanomics has failed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325233508651458.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
By ALLAN H. MELTZER
The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible.
But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.
The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.
Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.
Most of the earlier spending was a very short-term response to long-term problems. One piece financed temporary tax cuts. This was a mistake, and ignores the role of expectations in the economy. Economic theory predicts that temporary tax cuts have little effect on spending. Unless tax cuts are expected to last, consumers save the proceeds and pay down debt. Experience with past temporary tax reductions, as in the Carter and first Bush presidencies, confirms this outcome.
Another large part of the stimulus went to relieve state and local governments of their budget deficits. Transferring a deficit from the state to the federal government changes very little. Some teachers and police got an additional year of employment, but their gain is temporary. Any benefits to them must be balanced against the negative effect of the increased public debt and the temporary nature of the transfer.
The Obama economic team ignored past history. The two most successful fiscal stimulus programs since World War II—under Kennedy-Johnson and Reagan—took the form of permanent reductions in corporate and marginal tax rates. Economist Arthur Okun, who had a major role in developing the Kennedy-Johnson program, later analyzed the effect of individual items. He concluded that corporate tax reduction was most effective.
Another defect of Obamanomics was that part of the increased spending authorized by the 2009 stimulus bill was held back. Remember the oft-repeated claim that the spending would go for "shovel ready" projects? That didn't happen, though spending will flow more rapidly now in an effort to lower unemployment and claim economic success during the fall election campaign.
In his January 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama recognized that the United States must increase exports. He was right, but he has done little to help, either by encouraging investment to increase productivity, or by supporting trade agreements, despite his promise to the Koreans that he repeated in Toronto. Export earnings are the only way to service our massive foreign borrowing. This should be a high priority. Isn't anyone in the government thinking about the future?
Mr. Obama has denied the cost burden on business from his health-care program, but business is aware that it is likely to be large. How large? That's part of the uncertainty that employers face if they hire additional labor.
The president asks for cap and trade. That's more cost and more uncertainty. Who will be forced to pay? What will it do to costs here compared to foreign producers? We should not expect businesses to invest in new, export-led growth when uncertainty about future costs is so large.
Then there is Medicaid, the medical program for those with lower incomes. In the past, states paid about half of the cost, and they are responsible for 20% of the additional cost imposed by the program's expansion. But almost all the states must balance their budgets, and the new Medicaid spending mandated by ObamaCare comes at a time when states face large deficits and even larger unfunded liabilities for pensions. All this only adds to uncertainty about taxes and spending.
Other aspects of the Obama economic program are equally problematic. The auto bailouts ran roughshod over the rule of law. Chrysler bondholders were given short shrift in order to benefit the auto workers union. By weakening the rule of law, the president opened the way to great mischief and increased investors' and producers' uncertainty. That's not the way to get more investment and employment.
Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it's harmful now.
In 1980, I had the privilege of advising Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ignore the demands of 360 British economists who made the outrageous claim that Britain would never (yes, never) recover from her decision to reduce government spending during a severe recession. They wanted more spending. She responded with a speech promising to stay with her tight budget. She kept a sustained focus on long-term problems. Expectations about the economy's future improved, and the recovery soon began.
That's what the U.S. needs now. Not major cuts in current spending, but a credible plan showing that authorities will not wait for a fiscal crisis but begin to act prudently and continue until deficits disappear, and the debt is below 60% of GDP. Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) offered a plan, but the administration and Congress ignored it.
The country does not need more of the same. Successful leaders give the public reason to believe that they have a long-term program to bring a better tomorrow. Let's plan our way out of our explosive deficits and our hesitant and jobless recovery by reducing uncertainty and encouraging growth.
Mr. Meltzer is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of "A History of the Federal Reserve" (University of Chicago Press, 2003 and 2010).
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Obama's Incompetence Transcends Race
The president and his minions are quick to cry “racist” whenever the people oppose another hare-brained Socialist, Marxist, Maoist, anti-free market, anti-American Obama program. Daily it appears that the opposition rhetoric becomes angrier.
I’m not sure what Obama supporters are suggesting when they prefer to equate anger over Obama’s ever-expanding incompetence with racism. If they are trying to suggest that in most peoples’ minds people of race are incompetent? I think they are doing everyone a great disservice.
For me and those I know who also oppose Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally transform the USA”, it has nothing whatever to do with race in America or the race of the president, whatever that may be: it is solely about the character of Mr. Obama and his policies.
I oppose his bowing to foreign despots because a fundamental American belief is that “all men are created equal” and for that reason we disdain bowing to anyone. As our president in a foreign land, he has no right to bow to any other leader.
I oppose his rude and dismissive treatment of our closest allies including Great Britain and Israel, not because of his race but because America has few true allies.
I oppose the president’s inexcusable naivety in negotiating with our enemies, not because of his race but because of his incompetence in giving-up critical negotiating leverage and getting nothing (but derision) in return. Think Poland; think the Baltics; think North Korea; think Iran; think Cuba; think Palestine; think China.
I oppose his “apology tours” not because of his race but because I know that wherever Liberty exists, it exists only because of the sacrifice, sweat and blood of Americans. I oppose them because I know that America represents the most inclusive, most prosperous, most innovative, most generous society in the history of man.
I oppose his support of abortion, not because of the president’s race but because I believe that it undeniably violates the 5th Amendment prohibition of denying a person life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
I oppose the president’s takeover of Chrysler and GM, not because of his race, but because it violates the 5th Amendment prohibition of the government taking private property without just compensation.
I oppose the president’s treatment of Chrysler and GM bondholders not because of his race, but because it was extortion and because by so doing, he suborned the bankruptcy laws of the US that are among the laws that he took a solemn oath “to take care that the laws of the US are faithfully executed”.
I oppose federal control of healthcare not because of the president’s race, but because his bill created 160 new federal bureaucracies; added 16,500 new IRS agents but did nothing to improve the availability of healthcare. Clearly the intent is to expand the grasp of the federal government, not improve healthcare.
I oppose the president’s economic policies because he neither understands nor respects the free market. The recent collapse of the US financial system is a direct result in manipulation and interference in the markets by the federal government (specifically Chris Dodd and Barnie Frank). The federal government repeatedly forces unnatural and dangerous modifications to time-proven investment system practices and then blames the investment community for the failures.
I oppose the president’s penchant for “bailing-out” his Goldman Sachs buddies, not because of the president’s race, but because he unnecessarily puts taxpayers at risk for generations for no purpose beyond rewarding his campaign contributors for their unconscionable greed.
I oppose the president’s use of AIG to 100% repay at taxpayer expense the limitless stupidity and egregious risk of fraudulent investment derivatives, not because of his race, but because this is bad policy.
I oppose the president’s public abuse of investment brokers, their practices, and their bonuses not because of his race but because of his sham: privately permitting them while publically scourging them: abusing public institutions while ignoring the same behavior at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
I oppose the president’s economic policies not because of his race, but because they do nothing to heal the economy only further erode it. He has no understanding that government jobs consume revenue and only private sector jobs generate revenue. He continues to drive us deeper into debt for his pet policies.
I oppose the president’s policy in Afghanistan, not because of his race but because only an idiot would support American policy efforts in Afghanistan knowing that there is already a pre-set date to withdraw American support. Every Afghani knows as soon as American’s leave, the Taliban will be back in charge. I oppose any plan that puts American military in harm’s way and at the same time denies them permission to defend themselves as is the practice now in Afghanistan.
I oppose the president’s use of innumerable Czars that along with their support organizations duplicate existing Cabinet level functions without the benefit of Constitutionally-mandated advice and consent of the Congress.
I oppose the president’s appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the SCOTUS, not because of his race, but because for more than a decade she pronounced her racist, sexist views as exemplified by her “wise Latina” comments and her public support of exclusionary Puerto Rican organizations. She is a jurist who’s every single appealed judicial decision has been over-turned on appeal; and in 80% of them she was cited for improperly applying the law. These are not the qualities of a qualified candidate for the SCOTUS.
I oppose the president, not because of his race, but because he clearly does not appreciate or understand the COTUS. He clearly demonstrated this with his comments that the Bill of Rights is a listing of the negative rights identifying what the federal government is not allowed to do and fails to say what the government is supposed to do for the people. The utter ignorance of such comments is staggering. Obviously Obama has never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights and does not understand the 9th and 10th Amendments.
I oppose the president, not because of his race, but because he denies that America is a Judeo-Christian country. Our Constitution denies the federal government any authority to pass laws to restrict the free exercise of religion, but the Founding Fathers made it perfectly clear that Judeo-Christian values are the foundation of our Constitutional Republic, and that our nation cannot survive unless the people embrace Judeo-Christian values.
I oppose the president, not because of his race, but because he chooses to appoint a pervert to head security for our schools in America.
I oppose the president, not because of his race, but because he is not forthcoming about his personal background; his life while allegedly a student at Columbia; how he and his wife repaid their staggering educational loans years before his first royalty check from his biography or autobiography. He clearly lies about his relationships with William Ayers, Valerie Jarrett, Bernadette Dorn, Jeremiah Wright, and Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour among others.
I oppose the president not because of his race but because as a recipient of so much unearned advantage in America, that opened so many doors to him and his wife and yet they are clearly bitter as exemplified by his comments about Pennsylvanians in his ‘off the record’ comments in San Francisco “… it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations...": and Michelle’s comments about how Americans are just downright mean.
As far as I’m concerned Obama is the worst president in history; the American people fell for an empty suit and empty rhetoric. I hope that Obama’s legacy is that the American people will never make such a horrible mistake again. It isn’t about his race. It’s about his warped ideas; his un-Americanism; his un-Constitutionality; his ignorance about America, what it represents, and why.
I’m not sure what Obama supporters are suggesting when they prefer to equate anger over Obama’s ever-expanding incompetence with racism. If they are trying to suggest that in most peoples’ minds people of race are incompetent? I think they are doing everyone a great disservice.
For me and those I know who also oppose Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally transform the USA”, it has nothing whatever to do with race in America or the race of the president, whatever that may be: it is solely about the character of Mr. Obama and his policies.
I oppose his bowing to foreign despots because a fundamental American belief is that “all men are created equal” and for that reason we disdain bowing to anyone. As our president in a foreign land, he has no right to bow to any other leader.
I oppose his rude and dismissive treatment of our closest allies including Great Britain and Israel, not because of his race but because America has few true allies.
I oppose the president’s inexcusable naivety in negotiating with our enemies, not because of his race but because of his incompetence in giving-up critical negotiating leverage and getting nothing (but derision) in return. Think Poland; think the Baltics; think North Korea; think Iran; think Cuba; think Palestine; think China.
I oppose his “apology tours” not because of his race but because I know that wherever Liberty exists, it exists only because of the sacrifice, sweat and blood of Americans. I oppose them because I know that America represents the most inclusive, most prosperous, most innovative, most generous society in the history of man.
I oppose his support of abortion, not because of the president’s race but because I believe that it undeniably violates the 5th Amendment prohibition of denying a person life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
I oppose the president’s takeover of Chrysler and GM, not because of his race, but because it violates the 5th Amendment prohibition of the government taking private property without just compensation.
I oppose the president’s treatment of Chrysler and GM bondholders not because of his race, but because it was extortion and because by so doing, he suborned the bankruptcy laws of the US that are among the laws that he took a solemn oath “to take care that the laws of the US are faithfully executed”.
I oppose federal control of healthcare not because of the president’s race, but because his bill created 160 new federal bureaucracies; added 16,500 new IRS agents but did nothing to improve the availability of healthcare. Clearly the intent is to expand the grasp of the federal government, not improve healthcare.
I oppose the president’s economic policies because he neither understands nor respects the free market. The recent collapse of the US financial system is a direct result in manipulation and interference in the markets by the federal government (specifically Chris Dodd and Barnie Frank). The federal government repeatedly forces unnatural and dangerous modifications to time-proven investment system practices and then blames the investment community for the failures.
I oppose the president’s penchant for “bailing-out” his Goldman Sachs buddies, not because of the president’s race, but because he unnecessarily puts taxpayers at risk for generations for no purpose beyond rewarding his campaign contributors for their unconscionable greed.
I oppose the president’s use of AIG to 100% repay at taxpayer expense the limitless stupidity and egregious risk of fraudulent investment derivatives, not because of his race, but because this is bad policy.
I oppose the president’s public abuse of investment brokers, their practices, and their bonuses not because of his race but because of his sham: privately permitting them while publically scourging them: abusing public institutions while ignoring the same behavior at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
I oppose the president’s economic policies not because of his race, but because they do nothing to heal the economy only further erode it. He has no understanding that government jobs consume revenue and only private sector jobs generate revenue. He continues to drive us deeper into debt for his pet policies.
I oppose the president’s policy in Afghanistan, not because of his race but because only an idiot would support American policy efforts in Afghanistan knowing that there is already a pre-set date to withdraw American support. Every Afghani knows as soon as American’s leave, the Taliban will be back in charge. I oppose any plan that puts American military in harm’s way and at the same time denies them permission to defend themselves as is the practice now in Afghanistan.
I oppose the president’s use of innumerable Czars that along with their support organizations duplicate existing Cabinet level functions without the benefit of Constitutionally-mandated advice and consent of the Congress.
I oppose the president’s appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the SCOTUS, not because of his race, but because for more than a decade she pronounced her racist, sexist views as exemplified by her “wise Latina” comments and her public support of exclusionary Puerto Rican organizations. She is a jurist who’s every single appealed judicial decision has been over-turned on appeal; and in 80% of them she was cited for improperly applying the law. These are not the qualities of a qualified candidate for the SCOTUS.
I oppose the president, not because of his race, but because he clearly does not appreciate or understand the COTUS. He clearly demonstrated this with his comments that the Bill of Rights is a listing of the negative rights identifying what the federal government is not allowed to do and fails to say what the government is supposed to do for the people. The utter ignorance of such comments is staggering. Obviously Obama has never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights and does not understand the 9th and 10th Amendments.
I oppose the president, not because of his race, but because he denies that America is a Judeo-Christian country. Our Constitution denies the federal government any authority to pass laws to restrict the free exercise of religion, but the Founding Fathers made it perfectly clear that Judeo-Christian values are the foundation of our Constitutional Republic, and that our nation cannot survive unless the people embrace Judeo-Christian values.
I oppose the president, not because of his race, but because he chooses to appoint a pervert to head security for our schools in America.
I oppose the president, not because of his race, but because he is not forthcoming about his personal background; his life while allegedly a student at Columbia; how he and his wife repaid their staggering educational loans years before his first royalty check from his biography or autobiography. He clearly lies about his relationships with William Ayers, Valerie Jarrett, Bernadette Dorn, Jeremiah Wright, and Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour among others.
I oppose the president not because of his race but because as a recipient of so much unearned advantage in America, that opened so many doors to him and his wife and yet they are clearly bitter as exemplified by his comments about Pennsylvanians in his ‘off the record’ comments in San Francisco “… it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations...": and Michelle’s comments about how Americans are just downright mean.
As far as I’m concerned Obama is the worst president in history; the American people fell for an empty suit and empty rhetoric. I hope that Obama’s legacy is that the American people will never make such a horrible mistake again. It isn’t about his race. It’s about his warped ideas; his un-Americanism; his un-Constitutionality; his ignorance about America, what it represents, and why.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Soros, Brazil, Obama, and the Gulf: What's the link?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html
1. George Soros supports Obama directly and indirectly: April 2007: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/soros_obama_and_the_millionair.html
2. George Soros invests $811 Million in Petro Bras August 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aFHPjfeUvtl8
3. Obama funding deepwater drilling off the coast of Brazil: August 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html
4. Deepwater Rigs move to Brazil because of Obama’s moratorium in the Gulf: June 2010: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/06/obamas-oil-drilling-moratorium-forces-oil-companies-to-move-rigs-to-brazil/
Is there a link between George Soros; his support of Obama; Soros’ investment in Petro Bras; Obama’s investment in deepwater drilling in Brazil; and the moratorium in the Gulf? I won’t even ask if there is a relationship between Soros’ hatred for Israel and Obama’s despicable treatment of our greatest ally in the Middle East (ok, maybe I will).
It is universally agreed that the safest method for deepwater wells is to drill concurrent relief wells as is now being done at the Deepwater Horizon site. Imagine if Obama had directed that relief wells would now be required at each deepwater site in the Gulf: the 20,000 oil workers in the Gulf would still have jobs; wells would be safer; and we’d continue to produce the 30% of our petroleum demand domestically. Any takers on a bet that we end-up buying the 30% shortfall created by Obama’s moratorium from Brazil; where we will benefit an hostile regime; and where George Soros’ investment in Petro Bras will pay bountiful returns? Any takers that if we buy the petroleum from Brazil that they in-turn contribute heavily to the Obama foundation and library in 2013?
If these reports are true, Obama, (like Lucy) has ‘some ‘splainin’ to do; and we have the clearest grounds yet for impeachment. I’ll be asking my Senators for their attention to these matters. If you agree, please do the same.
I am asking that if you, as my Representative or Senator, agree that these actions may be linked that you investigate and act appropriately on any results you find.
President Obama's lack of timely response to the Gulf problem in light of his administration's utter failure to enforce long existing well development regulations is bewildering.
1. George Soros supports Obama directly and indirectly: April 2007: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/soros_obama_and_the_millionair.html
2. George Soros invests $811 Million in Petro Bras August 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aFHPjfeUvtl8
3. Obama funding deepwater drilling off the coast of Brazil: August 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html
4. Deepwater Rigs move to Brazil because of Obama’s moratorium in the Gulf: June 2010: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/06/obamas-oil-drilling-moratorium-forces-oil-companies-to-move-rigs-to-brazil/
Is there a link between George Soros; his support of Obama; Soros’ investment in Petro Bras; Obama’s investment in deepwater drilling in Brazil; and the moratorium in the Gulf? I won’t even ask if there is a relationship between Soros’ hatred for Israel and Obama’s despicable treatment of our greatest ally in the Middle East (ok, maybe I will).
It is universally agreed that the safest method for deepwater wells is to drill concurrent relief wells as is now being done at the Deepwater Horizon site. Imagine if Obama had directed that relief wells would now be required at each deepwater site in the Gulf: the 20,000 oil workers in the Gulf would still have jobs; wells would be safer; and we’d continue to produce the 30% of our petroleum demand domestically. Any takers on a bet that we end-up buying the 30% shortfall created by Obama’s moratorium from Brazil; where we will benefit an hostile regime; and where George Soros’ investment in Petro Bras will pay bountiful returns? Any takers that if we buy the petroleum from Brazil that they in-turn contribute heavily to the Obama foundation and library in 2013?
If these reports are true, Obama, (like Lucy) has ‘some ‘splainin’ to do; and we have the clearest grounds yet for impeachment. I’ll be asking my Senators for their attention to these matters. If you agree, please do the same.
I am asking that if you, as my Representative or Senator, agree that these actions may be linked that you investigate and act appropriately on any results you find.
President Obama's lack of timely response to the Gulf problem in light of his administration's utter failure to enforce long existing well development regulations is bewildering.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Community Organizer, Not Problem Solver
We hired a Community Organizer, we got a Community Organizer.
We hired someone with absolutely no experience in anything and that's what we got. We have no right now to complain about our own stupidity.
The federal government netted $2.3 Billion ($3.67 Billion for the lease less 37.5% to the four States [Tx, La, Ms, Fl]) from the lease that included the Deepwater Horizon site. One might expect that to pay for some qualified oversight of what is going on in the Gulf. I wonder what we actually got for that $2.3 Billion? Anyone? Anyone?
The federal government in March 2000 established regulations requiring a backup Blow-Out Preventer on deepwater sites; none was used on the Deepwater Horizon site that wasn't put into place until about one year into the Obama presidency. Why not? Why did the federal government not do it's job by assuring BP did this? Who is to blame: BP or the federal government?
The federal government regulations include emergency remediation plans that were not implemented by the federal government at the Deepwater Horizon disaster site; preferring apparently to let the disaster spread to hundreds of miles of coastal rookeries and fisheries. Why did the federal government fail to implement this plan? Was that BP's fault?
Community Organizers exist to stir-up anger; assess blame; and file law suits: and that appears to be all we are going to get from our Community Organizer in Chief.
What we need is a leader to actually take charge to stop the problem without further delay; to determine what is required to prevent this from ever happening again (like implementing existing regulations?); and then assess blame and responsibility.
Instead, what Obama is doing is focusing on the blame while the problem continues essentially unabated. In doing so, Obama adversely affects BP's ability to take corrective action without acquiring any benefit in the process. That's pretty stupid; even though it is consistent with what a Community Organizer does.
Each day brings new stories of prevention plans, clean-up plans, and offers of resources that have either been ignored or refused by the Obama administration: even as the problem continues. Is that BP's fault?
The president of the United States has no authority to dictate the specifics of how or what BP does. He has the right to demand that they accept responsibility for compensating those adversely affected, which they have already agreed to do.
The POTUS has a responsibility to marshal all available resources to assist in protecting the people of the US. It is in this responsibility that the POTUS is failing. He is too busy grand-standing and being blown about by the winds of public opinion because he has no idea of what he should be doing, and is obviously surrounded by equally inexperienced advisors who understand politics, but are clueless about real world problem solving.
Obama clearly is more concerned about deflecting the blame than fixing the problem. His presidency to date clearly proves that we need to ignore his empty rhetoric and focus on his actions (or lack thereof). As is typical of a Community Organizer, there is no necessary correlation between their words and what actually happens.
The COTUS defines a federal government designed to serve the needs of the Citizen; what we have is a federal government limited to politics only: serving only the self-interest of the political power class and attempting nothing more.
To whom is more fault attributable: BP for not doing what was supposed to be done; or the federal government for not enforcing existing regulations? Who is more responsible for the petroleum reaching the coast: BP or the federal government that didn't implement well-defined disaster reaction plans?
Why do we tolerate a grossly incompetent administration whose inaction has greatly expanded the disaster and two months into the disaster appear as clueless as they did "Day One".
Mr. President, we don't care how many times you talked about this or how many photo ops you created; or even how you can turn this crisis to your personal advantage so it doesn't go to waste: what we want is a leader to implement effective corrective actions without further delay: a team builder that makes the best use of global resources and inspires everyone to do their best to stop this disaster before it gets any worse.
Unfortunately we elected you. We now clearly see what that is costing us. Our bad. So sorry, Gulf coast, better luck next time. Guess that Hopey, Changey thing lacked any real substance. Imagine that!
We hired someone with absolutely no experience in anything and that's what we got. We have no right now to complain about our own stupidity.
The federal government netted $2.3 Billion ($3.67 Billion for the lease less 37.5% to the four States [Tx, La, Ms, Fl]) from the lease that included the Deepwater Horizon site. One might expect that to pay for some qualified oversight of what is going on in the Gulf. I wonder what we actually got for that $2.3 Billion? Anyone? Anyone?
The federal government in March 2000 established regulations requiring a backup Blow-Out Preventer on deepwater sites; none was used on the Deepwater Horizon site that wasn't put into place until about one year into the Obama presidency. Why not? Why did the federal government not do it's job by assuring BP did this? Who is to blame: BP or the federal government?
The federal government regulations include emergency remediation plans that were not implemented by the federal government at the Deepwater Horizon disaster site; preferring apparently to let the disaster spread to hundreds of miles of coastal rookeries and fisheries. Why did the federal government fail to implement this plan? Was that BP's fault?
Community Organizers exist to stir-up anger; assess blame; and file law suits: and that appears to be all we are going to get from our Community Organizer in Chief.
What we need is a leader to actually take charge to stop the problem without further delay; to determine what is required to prevent this from ever happening again (like implementing existing regulations?); and then assess blame and responsibility.
Instead, what Obama is doing is focusing on the blame while the problem continues essentially unabated. In doing so, Obama adversely affects BP's ability to take corrective action without acquiring any benefit in the process. That's pretty stupid; even though it is consistent with what a Community Organizer does.
Each day brings new stories of prevention plans, clean-up plans, and offers of resources that have either been ignored or refused by the Obama administration: even as the problem continues. Is that BP's fault?
The president of the United States has no authority to dictate the specifics of how or what BP does. He has the right to demand that they accept responsibility for compensating those adversely affected, which they have already agreed to do.
The POTUS has a responsibility to marshal all available resources to assist in protecting the people of the US. It is in this responsibility that the POTUS is failing. He is too busy grand-standing and being blown about by the winds of public opinion because he has no idea of what he should be doing, and is obviously surrounded by equally inexperienced advisors who understand politics, but are clueless about real world problem solving.
Obama clearly is more concerned about deflecting the blame than fixing the problem. His presidency to date clearly proves that we need to ignore his empty rhetoric and focus on his actions (or lack thereof). As is typical of a Community Organizer, there is no necessary correlation between their words and what actually happens.
The COTUS defines a federal government designed to serve the needs of the Citizen; what we have is a federal government limited to politics only: serving only the self-interest of the political power class and attempting nothing more.
To whom is more fault attributable: BP for not doing what was supposed to be done; or the federal government for not enforcing existing regulations? Who is more responsible for the petroleum reaching the coast: BP or the federal government that didn't implement well-defined disaster reaction plans?
Why do we tolerate a grossly incompetent administration whose inaction has greatly expanded the disaster and two months into the disaster appear as clueless as they did "Day One".
Mr. President, we don't care how many times you talked about this or how many photo ops you created; or even how you can turn this crisis to your personal advantage so it doesn't go to waste: what we want is a leader to implement effective corrective actions without further delay: a team builder that makes the best use of global resources and inspires everyone to do their best to stop this disaster before it gets any worse.
Unfortunately we elected you. We now clearly see what that is costing us. Our bad. So sorry, Gulf coast, better luck next time. Guess that Hopey, Changey thing lacked any real substance. Imagine that!
Government Jobs are the Problem, Not the answer
If I were a government employee, I’d probably support the original $Trillion Stimulus and the $50 Billion additional that the president is now asking for. But I’m not a government employee.
The president claims that the Stimulus saved jobs and is helping the economy to recover; but this additional $50 Billion is required to keep it going. Like so much that comes out of his mouth, this too is a lie. It is doing no more than prolonging the inevitable, but in the process it also makes eventual recovery much more difficult.
Anyone who can read can see where the Stimulus money went, and it wasn’t into the private economy. Basically it was used to sustain government jobs in the face of evaporating tax bases. People without income don’t pay income taxes; and people without property don’t pay property taxes. Government jobs are 100% funded by taxes.
Therefore, no taxes, no money to pay government wages: thus the special “Stimulus” funding.
The problem with this is that funding government jobs does nothing significant to stimulate the private sector. To make matters worse, since there is nothing in the Treasury to pay for the Stimulus, it is being funded by debt. For the government to repay debt, more taxes are required. Since the existing tax base is rapidly evaporating, new taxes will be required. More taxes means less resources available for sustaining existing jobs or creating new private sector jobs.
To make matters even worse, government employees are paid much more, on average, than private sector employees; and are given much more liberal and much more costly benefits than anyone in the private sector enjoys. The average federal government employee is paid approximately $20,000 per year more than the average college-graduate private sector employee. Add to that an average benefit package worth another $20,000 a year and the gap grows to $40,000 a year: nearly double the pay and benefits of the average private sector employee.
Why the great difference? Private sector pay and benefits are determined by employers who have to balance outgo to income. They also have to be competitive in every transaction. Customers determine the selling price of products and services, so employers can only control costs to be less than the selling price, by a sufficient margin to enable the enterprise to survive.
Costs not only include rent and salaries, but also the cost to comply with energy mandates (Cap and Trade); business practice mandates (Sarbanes Oxley, et al.) environmental mandates (EPA); product safety mandates; occupational safety mandates (OSHA); work-rule mandates (Unions); financial practice mandates; local, state, and federal taxes. The reason that so many jobs leave the US is that they are moving to locales where the mandates are less demanding and therefore less costly.
Government jobs have no such compelling motivators to reduce costs. Employment levels, pay rates, pay increases are all determined by bureaucrats or politicians who have absolutely no direct responsibility to assure efficiency, efficacy, or necessity in operations, employment; or to meet payroll.
For 40 years the private sector has been forced by global competition to streamline; reduce waste; become more productive; to find more efficient, less costly methods; to demand more from every available employee. During that time bureaucrats and politicians have been expanding government at an alarming rate, unfettered by competition or common sense. Virtually no government bureaucracy is ever eliminated, even if the demand that created it no longer exists; or even if it proves totally incapable of meeting it’s charter. We now pay $24 Billion a year (and rising yearly) for a Dept. of Energy created 32 years ago when our dependence on foreign oil was 24%, to reduce our dependence which today is more than double that rate. This would never be permitted in the private economy governed by competition.
Every dollar the federal government spends is taken from the private economy. Every dollar taken out of the private economy reduces the ability of the private economy to survive; create new jobs, and prosper.
Our Founding Fathers were brilliant in their denial to the federal government of any authority to directly tax citizens. In the first place, they understood that taxation is simply a form of slavery that has been used since before recorded history to impoverish the populace. Second, they understood that such funding is used to further subjugate the people either directly through burdensome bureaucracy; or through costly wars and wasteful public works programs to expand the wealth of the privileged class or expand the un-Constitutional power of government.
We are governed by a corrupt government so confident in the power of special interests that they willfully ignore the constituents that selected them to represent them in government: politicians so dependent on the funding provided by corporate campaign contributions that they ignore the will of the people. Every government decision is subject to prior sale.
Our problems are solvable. Our Founders left us with a remarkable road map responsible for creating an environment wherein the most exceptional government in the history of man was created: The Constitution of the United States (COTUS).
If we restore limited government as clearly defined by the COTUS; if we restore the prohibition of direct taxation; if we restore the Senate as representative of the States rights; if we eliminate or correct the corruptive influence of political parties; if we honor the inalienable rights granted each citizen by his Creator we will have a federal government limited to doing only those functions delineated in the COTUS and we will restore a self-supporting and eminently self-reliant population with inherent motivation to serve others as they pursue their own dreams. That is what made America exceptional; and it can do it again. Restore the COTUS to restore America.
The president claims that the Stimulus saved jobs and is helping the economy to recover; but this additional $50 Billion is required to keep it going. Like so much that comes out of his mouth, this too is a lie. It is doing no more than prolonging the inevitable, but in the process it also makes eventual recovery much more difficult.
Anyone who can read can see where the Stimulus money went, and it wasn’t into the private economy. Basically it was used to sustain government jobs in the face of evaporating tax bases. People without income don’t pay income taxes; and people without property don’t pay property taxes. Government jobs are 100% funded by taxes.
Therefore, no taxes, no money to pay government wages: thus the special “Stimulus” funding.
The problem with this is that funding government jobs does nothing significant to stimulate the private sector. To make matters worse, since there is nothing in the Treasury to pay for the Stimulus, it is being funded by debt. For the government to repay debt, more taxes are required. Since the existing tax base is rapidly evaporating, new taxes will be required. More taxes means less resources available for sustaining existing jobs or creating new private sector jobs.
To make matters even worse, government employees are paid much more, on average, than private sector employees; and are given much more liberal and much more costly benefits than anyone in the private sector enjoys. The average federal government employee is paid approximately $20,000 per year more than the average college-graduate private sector employee. Add to that an average benefit package worth another $20,000 a year and the gap grows to $40,000 a year: nearly double the pay and benefits of the average private sector employee.
Why the great difference? Private sector pay and benefits are determined by employers who have to balance outgo to income. They also have to be competitive in every transaction. Customers determine the selling price of products and services, so employers can only control costs to be less than the selling price, by a sufficient margin to enable the enterprise to survive.
Costs not only include rent and salaries, but also the cost to comply with energy mandates (Cap and Trade); business practice mandates (Sarbanes Oxley, et al.) environmental mandates (EPA); product safety mandates; occupational safety mandates (OSHA); work-rule mandates (Unions); financial practice mandates; local, state, and federal taxes. The reason that so many jobs leave the US is that they are moving to locales where the mandates are less demanding and therefore less costly.
Government jobs have no such compelling motivators to reduce costs. Employment levels, pay rates, pay increases are all determined by bureaucrats or politicians who have absolutely no direct responsibility to assure efficiency, efficacy, or necessity in operations, employment; or to meet payroll.
For 40 years the private sector has been forced by global competition to streamline; reduce waste; become more productive; to find more efficient, less costly methods; to demand more from every available employee. During that time bureaucrats and politicians have been expanding government at an alarming rate, unfettered by competition or common sense. Virtually no government bureaucracy is ever eliminated, even if the demand that created it no longer exists; or even if it proves totally incapable of meeting it’s charter. We now pay $24 Billion a year (and rising yearly) for a Dept. of Energy created 32 years ago when our dependence on foreign oil was 24%, to reduce our dependence which today is more than double that rate. This would never be permitted in the private economy governed by competition.
Every dollar the federal government spends is taken from the private economy. Every dollar taken out of the private economy reduces the ability of the private economy to survive; create new jobs, and prosper.
Our Founding Fathers were brilliant in their denial to the federal government of any authority to directly tax citizens. In the first place, they understood that taxation is simply a form of slavery that has been used since before recorded history to impoverish the populace. Second, they understood that such funding is used to further subjugate the people either directly through burdensome bureaucracy; or through costly wars and wasteful public works programs to expand the wealth of the privileged class or expand the un-Constitutional power of government.
We are governed by a corrupt government so confident in the power of special interests that they willfully ignore the constituents that selected them to represent them in government: politicians so dependent on the funding provided by corporate campaign contributions that they ignore the will of the people. Every government decision is subject to prior sale.
Our problems are solvable. Our Founders left us with a remarkable road map responsible for creating an environment wherein the most exceptional government in the history of man was created: The Constitution of the United States (COTUS).
If we restore limited government as clearly defined by the COTUS; if we restore the prohibition of direct taxation; if we restore the Senate as representative of the States rights; if we eliminate or correct the corruptive influence of political parties; if we honor the inalienable rights granted each citizen by his Creator we will have a federal government limited to doing only those functions delineated in the COTUS and we will restore a self-supporting and eminently self-reliant population with inherent motivation to serve others as they pursue their own dreams. That is what made America exceptional; and it can do it again. Restore the COTUS to restore America.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Big Government is not the solution
Donna Brazile has a mighty convenient way of looking at facts. Why was BP drilling through a mile of water and 3 miles of earth? Because Big Government won’t let safe shallow water and dry land sites be developed!
Obama’s administration knew enough about BPs operations that they were going to recognize them for excellence in exploration and production, while ignoring that the Obama administration failed to enforce the safety requirements that may have prevented this fiasco.
Obamas Big Government gave BP a “pass” on having the emergency resources in place, required by Bush’s Big Government regulations to deal with such an accident and would have dealt with the spill at the site rather than waiting for it to reach hundreds of miles of beach and wildlife breeding areas; or mandating the use of dispersants that make the problem worse, not better.
Big Government is the entity dragging it’s feet and doing nothing but jabbering in response to Governor Jindal’s request for sand barriers to protect the vital wetlands along his coast. By the way Brazile, Jindal doesn’t have control over federal resources, only State resources. After Katrina it was the State government that delayed response by the federal government. With this oil spill, the State has requested permission to act and it is the big federal government that is delaying the response.
Maybe if the Obama administration was more interested in solving this problem than assessing blame, more would be getting done to actually stop the problem. If there was anyone in the Obama administration with any real world experience (rather than ivory tower theorizing) they would understand that first you fix the problem and then you establish how to keep it from happening again and assess responsibility for the damage. But then Obama never has been very good at accomplishing anything.
It is elucidating that 18 months into the Obama presidency their first line of defense is to blame Bush as if that actually accomplishes anything. When will Obama start taking responsibility for a government that he’s had complete access to since the day after the election in 2008?
The failure in this instance was not the lack of regulation, but the failure of Big Government to enforce the existing regulations designed to deal with just such an event. Increasing the scope or size of government will never compensate for failure to act according to existing regulations.
Government doesn’t have to be big, only competent. Unfortunately, competence is sorely lacking in the Obama administration as is painfully evident in their failure to prevent this problem; in their slow and inept response to this problem; in their poor coordination and implementation of available resources to deal with this problem; and their lack of focus in addressing the mitigation of this problem.
Obama’s administration has lots of experience and resources dedicated controlling “spin”. They just don’t accomplish much else.
Obama’s administration knew enough about BPs operations that they were going to recognize them for excellence in exploration and production, while ignoring that the Obama administration failed to enforce the safety requirements that may have prevented this fiasco.
Obamas Big Government gave BP a “pass” on having the emergency resources in place, required by Bush’s Big Government regulations to deal with such an accident and would have dealt with the spill at the site rather than waiting for it to reach hundreds of miles of beach and wildlife breeding areas; or mandating the use of dispersants that make the problem worse, not better.
Big Government is the entity dragging it’s feet and doing nothing but jabbering in response to Governor Jindal’s request for sand barriers to protect the vital wetlands along his coast. By the way Brazile, Jindal doesn’t have control over federal resources, only State resources. After Katrina it was the State government that delayed response by the federal government. With this oil spill, the State has requested permission to act and it is the big federal government that is delaying the response.
Maybe if the Obama administration was more interested in solving this problem than assessing blame, more would be getting done to actually stop the problem. If there was anyone in the Obama administration with any real world experience (rather than ivory tower theorizing) they would understand that first you fix the problem and then you establish how to keep it from happening again and assess responsibility for the damage. But then Obama never has been very good at accomplishing anything.
It is elucidating that 18 months into the Obama presidency their first line of defense is to blame Bush as if that actually accomplishes anything. When will Obama start taking responsibility for a government that he’s had complete access to since the day after the election in 2008?
The failure in this instance was not the lack of regulation, but the failure of Big Government to enforce the existing regulations designed to deal with just such an event. Increasing the scope or size of government will never compensate for failure to act according to existing regulations.
Government doesn’t have to be big, only competent. Unfortunately, competence is sorely lacking in the Obama administration as is painfully evident in their failure to prevent this problem; in their slow and inept response to this problem; in their poor coordination and implementation of available resources to deal with this problem; and their lack of focus in addressing the mitigation of this problem.
Obama’s administration has lots of experience and resources dedicated controlling “spin”. They just don’t accomplish much else.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Souter's Harvard Commencement Speech 2010
David Souter’s commencement speech at Harvard recently is being touted by some as a profound description of the conundrum of literally interpreting the COTUS in light of changing societal values. Rather it is typical of the dithering we have come to expect from liberal justices intent on making the law conform to the vicissitudes of their decaying social standards.
Souter makes the argument that the publication of the Pentagon Papers represented a conflict between the First Amendment restriction that the federal government was denied any authority to abridge freedom of the press; and some other Constitutional conflict unnamed suggesting that the federal government can make up it’s own rules as it goes along to protect it’s right to engage in secret operations, etc. Understandably, Souter deferred to alleged clever legal arguments by Irwin Griswold, solicitor general and former dean of the Harvard Law School rather than quoting Constitutional precedent (none exists) to craft a non-existent conflict within the Constitution. Understandably because that’s what clever attorneys do: craft asinine obfuscations of the law to sell their altered realities.
Souter should realize that the COTUS was crafted to greatly restrict the power and authority of the federal government by establishing three independent branches in the expectation that each would jealously protect their delegated authorities to preclude abuse by the other two branches. Ingenious as it may have been the People would not ratify the COTUS without the addition of the Bill of Rights restricting the authority of the federal government in no uncertain terms: “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…” Therefore, any powers assigned to the federal government in the body of the COTUS that might lead one to question the possible existence of some great federal authority by implication; is negated if it conflicts with restrictions clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights. Though the 1st 8 Amendments are powerfully restrictive, the 9th and 10th Amendments exclude any doubt about the intentions of the Founders regarding the limited authorities of the federal government.
In the context of Souter’s example, if Griswold thought that the federal government had some superior position that empowered them to ‘abridge freedom of the press’ for reasons of their choosing; it should be clear from the First Amendment that no such superior authority exists. That is the purpose of a fair reading and a constructionists approach to the COTUS: clever attorneys be damned.
In Souter’s example comparing and contrasting Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896 and Brown v. the Board of Education of 1954 he completely misrepresents why the courts interpreted “equal protection under law” differently in the two cases. In reality the differences are the result of how the equality of the litigants was defined by the courts, rather than a change in the definition of what equality means in the COTUS.
First of all, the COTUS makes no mention of “separate but equal” which is a total fabrication by the court. If the COTUS had been the standard by literal interpretation, Plessy v Ferguson could not stand. Second, in 1858 in the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that Negroes were not, and could not be citizens of the US and therefore the Constitutional protections did not apply to them. This position was eradicated by ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 giving citizenship to anyone born in the US or naturalized.
Clearly had literal interpretation of the COTUS been applied in 1896, Plessy could not stand. The problem has never been literal interpretation of the COTUS; the problem is liberal interpretations and fabrications of pseudo-legal doctrine by activist judges such as Souter who foolishly favor their own intellect (sic) over that of the Founders whose wisdom is verified across the ages.
Ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 erased any doubt that Constitutional protections extended to women in America. Nothing of consequence changed in the COTUS; all that changed was whom the courts would recognize as being under the equal protection of the COTUS.
It is not the role of the courts to adjust the meaning of the Constitution according to their continually degenerating liberal interpretations; or to facilitate the usurpation by government of authorities not delegated; or the establishment of new markets by wealthy benefactors. The role of the courts is to assure that all laws are compliant to the COTUS and that they are equally applied to all who come before the court (regardless of gender, race, creed, or life experience).
The literal interpretation of the COTUS is the single most important reason for the undeniable American Exceptionalism throughout our history. Though liberals condemn it, the COTUS comes directly from the Judeo-Christian Bible. An excellent proof of that is the example of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense; the treatise given predominant credit for fanning the flames of Independence: fully one third of which is a direct quotation from the Bible’s Book of Samuel. Historians tell us that Paine was an atheist, yet he knew, understood, and respected the truth of the Bible as it applied to the form of government being established in a fledgling America.
If the Obama presidency has demonstrated anything it is the foolishness parading as academic veracity in the ivy covered halls of what once were considered institutions of higher learning. Hopefully, Souter’s commencement address will be seen for what it is: a lame liberal justification for bastardization of the foundation of America by those who foolishly and egotistically consider themselves wiser than our Founders.
Souter makes the argument that the publication of the Pentagon Papers represented a conflict between the First Amendment restriction that the federal government was denied any authority to abridge freedom of the press; and some other Constitutional conflict unnamed suggesting that the federal government can make up it’s own rules as it goes along to protect it’s right to engage in secret operations, etc. Understandably, Souter deferred to alleged clever legal arguments by Irwin Griswold, solicitor general and former dean of the Harvard Law School rather than quoting Constitutional precedent (none exists) to craft a non-existent conflict within the Constitution. Understandably because that’s what clever attorneys do: craft asinine obfuscations of the law to sell their altered realities.
Souter should realize that the COTUS was crafted to greatly restrict the power and authority of the federal government by establishing three independent branches in the expectation that each would jealously protect their delegated authorities to preclude abuse by the other two branches. Ingenious as it may have been the People would not ratify the COTUS without the addition of the Bill of Rights restricting the authority of the federal government in no uncertain terms: “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…” Therefore, any powers assigned to the federal government in the body of the COTUS that might lead one to question the possible existence of some great federal authority by implication; is negated if it conflicts with restrictions clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights. Though the 1st 8 Amendments are powerfully restrictive, the 9th and 10th Amendments exclude any doubt about the intentions of the Founders regarding the limited authorities of the federal government.
In the context of Souter’s example, if Griswold thought that the federal government had some superior position that empowered them to ‘abridge freedom of the press’ for reasons of their choosing; it should be clear from the First Amendment that no such superior authority exists. That is the purpose of a fair reading and a constructionists approach to the COTUS: clever attorneys be damned.
In Souter’s example comparing and contrasting Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896 and Brown v. the Board of Education of 1954 he completely misrepresents why the courts interpreted “equal protection under law” differently in the two cases. In reality the differences are the result of how the equality of the litigants was defined by the courts, rather than a change in the definition of what equality means in the COTUS.
First of all, the COTUS makes no mention of “separate but equal” which is a total fabrication by the court. If the COTUS had been the standard by literal interpretation, Plessy v Ferguson could not stand. Second, in 1858 in the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that Negroes were not, and could not be citizens of the US and therefore the Constitutional protections did not apply to them. This position was eradicated by ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 giving citizenship to anyone born in the US or naturalized.
Clearly had literal interpretation of the COTUS been applied in 1896, Plessy could not stand. The problem has never been literal interpretation of the COTUS; the problem is liberal interpretations and fabrications of pseudo-legal doctrine by activist judges such as Souter who foolishly favor their own intellect (sic) over that of the Founders whose wisdom is verified across the ages.
Ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 erased any doubt that Constitutional protections extended to women in America. Nothing of consequence changed in the COTUS; all that changed was whom the courts would recognize as being under the equal protection of the COTUS.
It is not the role of the courts to adjust the meaning of the Constitution according to their continually degenerating liberal interpretations; or to facilitate the usurpation by government of authorities not delegated; or the establishment of new markets by wealthy benefactors. The role of the courts is to assure that all laws are compliant to the COTUS and that they are equally applied to all who come before the court (regardless of gender, race, creed, or life experience).
The literal interpretation of the COTUS is the single most important reason for the undeniable American Exceptionalism throughout our history. Though liberals condemn it, the COTUS comes directly from the Judeo-Christian Bible. An excellent proof of that is the example of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense; the treatise given predominant credit for fanning the flames of Independence: fully one third of which is a direct quotation from the Bible’s Book of Samuel. Historians tell us that Paine was an atheist, yet he knew, understood, and respected the truth of the Bible as it applied to the form of government being established in a fledgling America.
If the Obama presidency has demonstrated anything it is the foolishness parading as academic veracity in the ivy covered halls of what once were considered institutions of higher learning. Hopefully, Souter’s commencement address will be seen for what it is: a lame liberal justification for bastardization of the foundation of America by those who foolishly and egotistically consider themselves wiser than our Founders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
