Early 2010 mid-term election outlook
Here is a quick overview of what the landscape looks like for the mid-term elections this November.
Not the best picture for Democrats. Though this is only just the Senate side of the picture. In the House things are bad as well, but not as horrendously so.
Focusing on the New York race, the big question is how will Senator Kirsten Gillibrand fare. So far the main competition on the Democrat ticket is former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. But Ford has a way to go to gain positive traction with the State. Recent Rassmuesen polls, from Jan 20th, show a decisive lead for Sen. Gillibrand, 48% – 25%.
Ford is not considered a New Yorker, is well associated with Tennesse (where he was a Congressman), and is a Manhattan investment banker. Given the current climate from the White House against the investment industry (a critical industry for the revenues of the State) Ford is at an obvious disadvantage. On the positiveside of things, Ford is Black, relatively young, and has massive name recognition that will be a critical factor once any adds are placed on television.
I have already covered many aspects of Senator Gillibrand and her voting record. Beyond that the major advantage she has is that she is an incumbent (though not an elected one). Major detractions include a lack of visibility across the State, a lack of recoginition, and several factors I have covered previously.
The real problem facing Sen. Gillibrand, and by extension Democrat leadership, is when Gillibrand is paired against anything else. To be exact, an unknown generic Republican candidate. In polling reported on the same day as the above Democrat – Democrat race, Sen. Gillibrand was paired to the unknown. The data was anything but a positive sign.
Further complicating the issue are the results from likely Republican voters (which would generally be everywhere outside of New York City).
“Giuliani led Gillibrand by 13 points at that time – 53% to 40%. Against Pataki, Gillibrand came out barely ahead, 45% to 42%, nearly identical to findings two months earlier. “
Factors that are seen influencing the New York Senate Race include:
Given the above numbers and the observations of most pundits including Dick Morris
It looks as if New York State may very well change from the Democrat dominance of New York City to more accurately reflect the rest of the State.
What the Super Bowl ads forecast
Obviously the Super Bowl commercials reflect the economy. There is no question that when things are well, there is no end to the number of companies willing to pay the huge fee ($2.5 million this year) to be seen. Not only do companiues spend money for their 30-second slots, but they go to great lengths to ensure that they directly target their audience and entertain them as well.
But the economy is not good. It hasn’t been for quite some time, and the prospects (even with all the promises of President Obama taken into account) for it to be better is about as likely as winning the lottery for $100 million 3 times in a row.
The ads in the Super Bowl this year just reflected the mood out there. There was reluctance for many companies to take an ad. Some of the usual advertisers opted out. Bud and Bud Lite cut back the number of ads. And a few of the ads were about as innovative as jamming a thumbtack into your… you get the point.
It wasn’t just that there were ads by a pro-life organization (which was so bland no one paid any attention to it in the group of people I saw it with) and other organizations that you would never expect to have an ad. It’s that more than half the ads were of a quality akin to a high school effort as opposed to 5th Avenue.
There were so many commercials featuring men in boxer shorts, that several of the women watching had to crack jokes about the subject (and the ads). There were more chickens onscreen than in an episode of the Muppet Show. The Dove soap commercial was a muddled mess of mismarketing. The Audi “green” ad was more of a mockery of the new fad of being green or else than anything – except they weren’t trying to be mocking.
The conclusion seems to be that in the past year companies shed some of the most costly individuals they had employed. Sadly that also means the most experienced, informed, creative, and capable people were the most well-paid; who whould have imagined that. Because if anyone with a brain was around they never would have made, or authorized for the Super Bowl, the following ads.
I think the point is made.
The fact is that the depletion of brain power at the top levels of many companies is leading to incredibly poor business decisions. An effect that will ripple long after the Super Bowl has passed. I would not be shocked to see the stock prices of the above companies fall, and to hear that they miss quarterly earnings expectations.
But another factor that I think is important is the fact that the Government is getting involved in the private sector once again. The Government spent $2.5 million of your tax dollars to do the following:
That was informative. It made me just want to go out and do something with the census. It was star-studded and engaging. Money truely well spent. And there will only be another several hundred dozen other ads ALL year long to remind us of the census, so you know that this was a very timely thing to do.
Looking at the Super Bowl ads from a business perspective I get one clear message. No one knows what to do, and the few that are willing to throw some money around are completely overwhelmed.
You have companies trying to cash in on fads (Audi and the “green” thing”) that they neither understand nor care about. You have companies tossing around products to new markets they never understood (Dove). You have companies that are trying anything to maintain their customer based and price-points (Sketchers). All the while the Government is burning money on ideas that probably sounded great in a classroom somewhere.
2010 will not be a good financial year for business or individuals. Companies are lost, unsure of their footing in an environment that opposes them for doing what they are in business for. Do you spend money on advertising? If you do how do you cut coners to make it somewhat less costly? How do you make it so that consumers don’t feel angry you have the money to advertise? Will you be taxed for advertising in a big event, like everything else you are getting taxed for?
Meanwhile the Government is busy spending money as if tax revenues were increasing instead of decreasing. Tossing money away on a television commercial is nothing, when you can balance a budget and have the money. But doing so when you are in debt to everyone is not quite sound business.
If we can draw anything from the Super Bowl commercials as a forecast for the future it may be this – the hard times are not over. Cutting costs has cut quality. It is a mad dash at extreme ideas with the hope of some positive outlook. It is grasping at straws while the smart money sits back and conserves their reserves until they can get an opportunity.
Jobs will not improve until the major companies are sure they can make a profit at the end of the day. The Government is sure to continue to spend like an addict looking for a fix, because they don’t know how to do anything else. Taxes will go up because there is nothing stopping it.
If you thought the Super Bowl commercials were less than impressive, wait till you see your investment returns at the end of the year. Unless a hail-mary gets thrown sometime soon. But don’t count on it.
Is that de ja vue?
I was thinking about the spending freeze that President Obama has been busy boasting about of late. And it suddenly hit me that I’ve heard this before. Something about the comparison of what is not being spent (in this case extra) and what is being spent (or increased spending).
But before I jump to the past, lets look at what the $250 billion spending freeze really looks like when it’s not a bunch of zeros that nobody can comprehend properly.
And for those that cannot comprhend anything said on Fox News I present another video of what it looks like.
Ok, got the general idea? Now tell me if you recall this
Seems to sound a lot alike? Nearly the same spending, nearly the same touted reduction… would it not be insanity
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” – Ben Franklin
to expect a different outcome?
Stewart vs O’Reilly pt1
Last night was the first part of a debate between 2 of the most well-known and respectively reviled (by the extremes of the opposing political views) men on television today. From the center-left, or perhaps a bit farther, is Jon Stewart. On the center-right is Bill O’Reilly. The result was interesting to watch.
For just a view of the enertatinment value, I suggest you look at my Black Entertainment USA. This will be a more political review.
The interesting thing about this interview may be what it reveals about the motives of both men. Their core beliefs that provide the foundation of what their programs do. Neither is a serious news program, though they deal with critical news items daily. Both present facts, and encase them in a context that is veered towards their ideology.
The Daily Show is far more liberal in its standpoint. It delights in focusing on the absurdity that is politics mostly when done by a Republican. It seems more akin to other news commentary programs due to the general center-left leanings of most of television today. Thus it makes it’s populist counterpart, the O’Reilly Factor, look that much more to the right. And the Daily Show does not provide an opposing side to the satire it provides, though it does take on the Democrats and left occasionally, especially if the actions are not inline with their views.
One of the most telling comments of the interview so far has to have been when Jon Stewart, who is an intelligent and passionate man, detailed the flaw of President Obama. He clearly states that President Obama has not used or taken enough power from Congress. Not leading Congress but power of that branch of Government. He was very clear in his statement.
Jon Stewart is a well known Democrat and Liberal. He is personally far closer to the extreme left than center. His audience, though comprised of more than the “stoned slackers who love Obama” that Bill O’Reilly called them, is predominately left of center and Democrat. So he draws well in the key demographics television loves. Thus his views give more than a little influence to the audience he brings in. An audience that the Democrat Party drools over.
So when I heard him state that President Obama needs to control Congress I was taken aback. Wasn’t it Jon Stewart who was opposed to the expansion of Presidential power that he claimed President Bush was taking? Didn’t Stewart make daily commentary about how so much power in one part of the Government was destructive to the nation? Yet it’s ok for so much power to be in the hands of a Democrat, particularly one that has failed in the overwhelming majority (roghly 90%) of his campaign promises?
Stewart went on to say that Fox News
“…have taken reasonable concerns about this president and this economy and turned it into a full-fledged panic attack about the next coming of Chairman Mao.”
An obvious dig at the highly popular Glenn Beck.
But that statement just feeds into the thought process that I have found many liberals and some democrats have which is “Fox News isn’t real”. It’s a type of thinking that President Obama wanted to promote when he was being criticized by Fox News as other news agencies lauded him for breathing. Well maybe only MSNBC went that far, but the others were to an extreme as well. Yet I notice that those very same people rarely have ever seen Fox News commentary programs or news coverage.
Stewart dislikes the nature of the programming of Fox News. Which I find odd, since it is similar to that of Headline News and MSNBC (just watched by far more people, including a very healthy portion of Democrats). All the cable networks have commentary programs in addtion to hard news, unless Chris Matthews is to be taken as a straight news reporter. And if Matthews is regarded as such his credibility is even worse than it is now, with his many comments of “tingle up his leg” and “forgot he was Black for an hour”. Thus if this is what hard news is supposed to be, Fox News is a gift to be unlike it.
Like the jesters in courts of kings of old, Jon Stewart holds incredible power. Unlike in those times this jester cannot be removed at the whim of the king. Which grants him even more power. Which is fine, satire and political commentary are important elements of America. But I think it’s equally important to recall where that jest is coming from and what it seeks to bolster. Because even when you are laughing with something, you are also laughing at it.
Here is the full part 1 of the interview. Let me know if you share in my observations.
Obama’s secret problem
During 2007 and massively in 2008, the major media along with every politician looking for an election or air-time was speaking about the mortgage foreclosure rate. Sub-prime loans were the rage. Everyone was pointing a finger at the Bush Administration and Republicans for the growing mess. Then President Obama was elected. By January 2009 the mention of mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures faded way with plans of a Making Home Affordable being created. Problem solved.
Not quite.
As has been addressed here before, the mortgage housing crisis is anything but over. In fact it is worse than ever. Here are just a few of the facts as reported in January and February 2010:
1 in 4 mortgage owners owe more than their home is worth, dlinquencies and forclosures are up to unprecedented levels, and the Government help that was promised is far short of anything effective or realiatic. It’s not just the sub-prime home owners, it’s every homeowner that is being effected. But where is the story on the news? Where are the politician’s speeches?
Rep. Barney Frank was more than willing to get on television and discuss how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in sound shape (2 weeks before they collapsed – something we are still paying for), and then defended his statements and lack of action on everyone but himself or Democrats. But he is still in charge of the Banking Committe (along with Sen. Dodd in the Senate’s version) and mortgages are at ever growing historic levels. Where are his comments to the public now? Why is he quiet?
MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, and all the public broadcasters spent days of coverage on the mortgage crisis. There was not a month or a week where some aspect of the story was not covered for over a year. Since the beginning of 2009 the story has gotten only worse, affecting more people and the economy more harshly. Where is the coverage? Where is the pressure on politicians to live up to their words and promises?
It’s almost as if once President Obama was elected the problem was solved. That would be the conclusion of anyone looking at the media coverage today versus in 2008. The impression would be that President Obama, Rep. Barney Frank, and Senator Dodd fixed it all. There is nothing more to report.
Such a theory is more than just obtuse, it’s dangerous. Considering that the unemployment rate will end the 2010 at roughly 10% – which says nothing of the potential peak expected this year which might be as high as 11.5% – and will only decrease to 9% at the end of 2011, it seems logical that mortgages and the real estate markets are in for more trouble. The same logic would state that something needs to be done, or at least planned. Yet no one is willing to even speak about this via the major media.
Obviously creating jobs is one solution. At present, the proposals to resolve that will cost at least $400 billion and to date have had questionable success and potentially negative impacts. Even more important is the next thing to occur, taxes.
If taxes are increased as has been proposed in the latest Obama budget, and the Cap & Trade Bill is passed the problem will be exponentially higher. The Cap & Trade Bill proposes to dramatically increase (as President Obama promised) the cost of energy, adding to the cost and pressure of owning a home. Another factor that is not considered in the equation is the passage of the Health Care Reform, which the President and Speaker Nancy Pelosi have pledged to make law. It will further add a new cost to the budgets of cash-strapped home owners that are struggling to meet financial obligations now.
Imagine what will happen to millions of homeowners that are just making ends meet, or slightly beyond that. Add in potentially double the cost of energy bills, and then add the cost of a mandatory healthcare, and then add higher banking fees (to pay for the new banking tax), and higher costs of goods and services (to pay for the new taxes on those companies). All of this while jobs are scarce and incomes are lucky to remain frozen at present levels. Where will the money come from? How is a mortgage, and everything else, supposed to be paid?
The housing and mortgage crisis is far from over. Not speaking about it does not make it go away. But not speaking about it does seem to allow for some elected officials to bolster their re-election potential. It also makes the Obama Administration look more effective than it has been. Which is great if you are politically motivated – like MSNBC – but not as important if you are trying to keep your home.
Of course we can spend the money
There is something to be said about a politician that understands the law, and sticks to it. It’s not a common thing. I’m sure it is something we all haven’t seen often, but when it does happen it is worht noting.
The key to this video is perhpas the part most are not paying attention to. Sen. Gregg quotes the law as it exists which requires the TARP money to be paid back to lower the national debt. And the Obama Administration simply states they will change the law to use the money as they see fit.
Does that not sound like an abuse of power? Is that not a lack of concern for the public welfare? How is that not purely a political machination to prop up Democrats for the mid-term elections?
Only an Administration that was so confident that it could manipulate any law, due to the overwhelming control of Congress, would make such a blatantly egotistical statement. How dare the President decide that Congress was wrong, and that his plan is superior. And what a plan it is.
The Obama Administration is saying:
Just for a second imagine if this were the Bush Administration saying this. Do you for a moment believe that Demcrats or the major news media would let it fly? This would be attacked as an abuse of Presidential power. It would be hailed as wild spending on failed ideas that serve only to increase the power of the Government. There would be economists and politicians screaming from the rafters that it is the means of bankrupting America.
But the Obama Administration says this is only $30 billion of the TARP. That it will create jobs in a time of need. That the priority today is not the deficit but jobs.
The reality is a bit more involved though. The Government has never had a grip on reality, under ANY Administration. Any money the Government can get a hold of is money that has been spent, and then overspent, during my 40 years of life. And while the proposals might create some jobs, the national debt interest due since the beginning of the year was $100 billion. For this plan to re-use the TARP funds to be successful, it would have to be more successful than any Government plan ever created. How likely is that?
Senator Gregg is correct. The deficit will bankrupt America. The debt must be addressed now, while we have at least some of the funds to do so. Because if we do not, in maybe 5 years or so, we will get a kick in out ass so hard America will be on it’s knees.
Unmanned weapons: The future and the fear
Ever sice the days of Flash Gordon on the radio people have thought of robots and space probes and all manner of automated machines. Specifically in the realm of science fiction this has been even more true. And science fiction is filled with thoughts of such automation going beserk, or worse becoming self-aware and angry at it’s human creators.
But stepping away from the important rules of Issac Asimov or the flights of fantasy that is the Matrix, there is a reality that is begining to take shape. It’s not the world of the Terminator coming to life (at least we would hope not) but something far more accessible and deadly. It’s a progression that has 2 flaws, both of which are a deadly problem.
In recent years we have moved from technology as a support to the military, to the creation of UAV’s. There is no question that these devices have helped save lives and allowed unknown numbers of dangers to be prevented or stopped in thier tracks. In fact they are so successful that the next step is a logicval one. Unmanned Helicopters.
Unmanned Black Hawk helicopters is the current concept of Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. Within m onths a prototype is expected to be made and assuming that demonstrates all the required guidelines mass production could be made in just a few years. The media will undobtedly proclaim this as a tool to save lives in hostile zones. And I have no doubt that it will.
But in making unmanned weapons we are following a tradion tht has been going on for millenia. We are making war easier to commit to and to execute. There is little difference between an unmanned Black Hawk and a rifle 200 or 300 years ago. It creates a seperation between those fighting the war, it makes it “more humane”.
Except that everytime a greater degree of seperation occurs, the numbers of those that die in any conflict increases. In the ancient past people fought with swords, spears and bows. The people normally killed were soldiers (though there were more than a few towns wiped out as well), which was a small portion of the population of any area outside of the Spartans. With the creation of guns, tens of thousands could be employed on a battlefield with roughly the same degree of ability to kill each other. The act of killing a combatant became less direct, and in some cases might not be seen immediately.
Then there were planes, which allowed for even more deaths and a exponential degree of disconnection. This was followed by the use of rockets and then nuclear bombs. Our world today lies on the brink of destruction, with various goups no more than a blip on a computerscreen to be removed.
But nukes are too good at what they do. The land is rendered unusable, and the toll too high. It is using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Thus the unmanned vehicles have grown in popularity.
A UAV allows for a videogame approach to war. There is no connection to those killed. There is no unalterable damage made to the land being fought on/over. It’s cheap and easy. Theoretically, a kid could run a complete air wing with about the same level of difficulty as an Xbox game. And if it can be done for a Black Hawk, why not a tank?
The concept of unmanned vehicles means everyone will want them. And the more weapons that exist, the more people will want to use them. Especially if they have no contact with those the war affects. Which means more wars, in more places, perhaps even at the same time. And ultimately that means more people actively involved, because an unmanned whatever cannot take control of a city, building, whatever.
Unmanned weapons only sound less destructive and deadly. But they facilitate war too much, make it too easy to do with too little consequence for those that do so. I am no fool, there will never be a return to a time of swords and militaries of the ancients. But we don’t need to advance the game to a point where it all becomes just a game. War is more than that, and we never should lose that perspective.
But if we do lose the perspective, and we do fight the wars with these unmanned weapons of technology… what happens next? Does the world of Terminator, or Blade Runner, or a less fantastical Stealth become a reality? Laugh if you like to, but yes they all are potential options.
The less people are involved with the direct consequences of war, the worse war becomes. At least in my opinion.
Credits and cuts
As talk of the latest budget proposal from President Obama is filtering down to the public at large, I have been asked the question of what is the difference between a tax cut and a tax credit. I believe that based on the questions I have been asked that this is a bigger question many people have, but for the appearance of looking smart people will not ask. So I will throw my hat into the ring on this issue.
Basically a tax or any type of cut is what it sounds like. It is a reduction in whatever it is applied to. In the case of taxes is it the reductrion in the amopunt of tax paid by the public. This policy is an immediate affect that applies directly to all those that qualify for it.
Thus a tax cut of say 10% for all income brackets would be an increase in paychecks to workers, a reduction in costs to employers, and (debatably) a decrease in revenues to the IRS and Government. Now I said debatably because the theory, which has worked in the past, is that the extra income then becomes available for various purchases, each of which has seperate taxes that can be collected. In addition, if enough money is available some will use that to create new businesses and innovations which in turn create more jobs and thus add to the total number of people paying taxes – thus increasing revenues to the IRS and Government.
Cuts, tax cuts in this example, are an immedate action that has a long-term result.
A tax credit is almost the opposite effect. A tax credit, say for making a home more “green” as has been offered by President Obama, is for a fixed amount. Thus it does not vary based on the income of the individual using it. If, as in this example, the tax credit is for $12,000 it will not vary if the income of the user is $250,000 or $15,000.
Further, a credit requires that the individual does something to activate the credit. In the above it would be buying items for a home that makes it more energy efficient. Thus a person could spend $24,000 to make a home “green”, but the credit would make that $12,000. So the initial outlay of cash is 100%, with a credit for the money used to be applied to taxes at a future date. Very much similar to a rebate, except that at no point does the individual actually receive any cash in hand.
Thus the tax credit is a long-term device with a long-term effect. If you have no money to buy something (say windows) to make a home more “green” then the credit sits unused. The effect is limited to the individual with the means for the original purchase. The theory behind this is that those that do have the funds will spend more money based on the credit, which will then stimuluate the economy as more goods are sold and need to be made. The Government makes more money as items are purchased and people employed. This theory is less proven.
Tax credits are a means of stimulating the growth in sales of a specific item and/or sector. Another example was the $4500 credit for the Cash for Clunkers program. But this highlights other problems with tax credits. First a person had to qualify for the credit/program. That exempts a wide portion of the public. Next a person had to have enough funds available to purchase a new car, which exempts a greater portion of the population – though the discount to price did make it a larger group than normal.
Another problem is that this is the Govrnment gambling on specific industries, buying patterns, and businesses. The effect is also limited to the time in which the credit is available. While Cash for Clunkers dramatically increased car sales for a month, the next several months resulted in greater than average drops in sales rates – since those that would have bought a new car in that timeframe had already done so.
Another problem is the unintended consequences. During and after the Cash for Clunkers many car mechanixcs, body shops and other associated industries lost money. This is because people that might have needed or used their services opted instead to purchase the new car.
Thus the result is that there is a brief (the time period for the credit) spike in sales and revenues based on the credit, followed by an equally sharp and extended drop. The credit does not create new buyers as it requires an accress to funds that limits the pool of potential individuals that can access it. It does not create greater revenues for the Goverrnment as the increase is offset by the decrease. But it can potentially create a greater loss long-term as other factors (like less need of mechanics or body shops cause lay-offs and increase unemployment at least on the short-term) are negatively affected by the artificial change in patterns.
So why do politicians like tax credits as opposed to tax cuts? Because of politics. A spike in business looks good and gets lots of press coverage. An increase in unemployment or slower sales after the fact is less reported and can be attributed to any number of other factors, absolving the politician of any guilt.
Also a tax credit sounds better. It requires less thought and appears more concrete. If a person is offered $12,000 as a credit or 10% cut in taxes, many will pick the credit. Because they can immediately quantify $12,000. Of course 10% may be better on a dollar basis if the math is done. The tax cut might also be better because it creates a pool of money that can be used for anything, as opposed to the limited focus of the credit. But most do not consider the math or opportunity in the face of an absolute number that does not vary from person to person. Thus even if they can’t qualify for the credit, the politician can sound like they offered a great sum to the individual.
This is a simplistic example of credits and cuts. There are any number of examples that an economist might be able to show on how at a speciific time, under specific conditions something counter to what I have explained has happened. But as a general rule I believe this to be true.
I hope this helps.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and the mid-term elections
I have been reviewing Senator Gillibrand and her time as Senator for New York State. So far I have covered her history, and her voting record (including her time in the House of Representatives). I have begun to look at her recent comments to the public on issues like the 9/11 trials in NYC, and her refusal to discuss the Health Care Reform.
What has not been covered are the efforts of Democrat leadership to ensure the re-election of Sen. Gillibrand. These are efforts that have been ongoing for some time. But it must be noted that each Party goes through considerable effort to ensure the re-election of an incumbent in both the House and Senate. Still it is worth review for a voter in New York to understand if they agree with and are willing to vote for such a renewal.
Senator Gillibrand is under pressure currently from an outside source, fellow Democrat former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. Recent polling among Democrats have shown that
27% are behind Ford and 4% say they are backing union leader and activist Jonathan Tasini.
However, this still leaves 25% of Democrats unsure.”
What is not being mentioned is where the support is coming from. Senator Gillibrand is of course getting help from Senator Charles Schumer. Already in 2009 he has spent time to bolster the fundraising efforts of Sen. Gillibrand, including several multi-thousand dollar a plate dinners. This is in conjunction with various meetings with high level Democrats in NY and the Democrat Party. Such individuals include former Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe, though President Obama has not directly presented his support – an act that has failed to help any Democrat up for election so far.
Then there is the support from ACORN. which came about on June 16, 2009. That was a mere 2 months before Senator Gillibrand voted in favor of funding ACORN – one of only 7 Senators and 75 Representatives to do so (Senator Schumer was not among this group).
Senator Gillibrand also counts among her supporters, Goldman Sachs. Which seems odd as they are the primary group being targeted by the Obama Administration as a cause of the mortgage and financial crisis. Then again, a large number of former Goldman Sachs employees are the top aides to the President and hold Cabinet positions. Still the question remains why a group being targeted as a negative to the economy is a major (5th largest) supporter of a Democrat. Citigroup, another on the Obama Administrations hit-list and subject to a proposed new tax, is 11th on the supporters of Sen. Gillibrand.
The Teamsters Union is 9th, American Federation of Teachers is 19th tied with American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees, the American Postal Workers Union is tied at 30th with American Hospital Assn, American Health Care Assn, Bricklayers Union, Carpenters & Joiners Union, Laborers Union, Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union, Operating Engineers Union and United Auto Workers among other unions. Of course unions are always a block of support for Democrats.
In total Senator Gillibrand counts 5 major banks, 9 Wall Street financial firms, 6 major national corporations, multiple law firms and a horde of unions in her top 100 financial supporters.
This is important when we consider that Senator Gillibrand has been a major supporter of the Health Care Reform (though she refused to respond to direct questions on the subject), is directly involved with reforms of Wall Street (as one of the Senators for Wall Street), is about to be in a battle with a far better known Democrat, and is currently flipping positions on critical New York politics (the 9/11 trial).
Thus it can be surmised that a war chest is being created for Senator Gillibrand. The use of this chest is to focus positive attention on her time in the Senate via television ads and the internet. Such ads will not address the fact that she supported the Obama Stimulus, which has failed to correct unemployment in the nation nor stop increases in New York State (though NY is lower than the national average and has been since the start of the recession). Such ads will not take note of the refusal to comment to constituents. Such ads will not comment on her positive position on medical marijuana. Nor will they mention her commitment to ACORN when 93% of all Senators, including the senior New York Senator, voted against the organization. And the ads, based on the polling, will primarily be focused on NYC instead of the State.
Does any of this affect your vote for or against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand? Does it matter that she has voted consistently Liberal and Democrat on every issue since she enterted the Senate (and previously in the House). Are you concerned that she has flipped her position on the 9/11 trials – only after the Democrats lost their supermajority? Does the influence of organizations like ACORN, Wall Street, and law firms on the re-election funds matter? Does the fact that Sen. Gillibrand will not discuss these items suggest anything about what she has or will do while in the Senate?
The last several questions are questions only individual voters can decide. Take the time before Novemeber to be sure of who you will vote for an why.
The joke that no one is laughing at
Last week The State of the Union was given. In that speech the nation was given a hodge-podge of pledges and ideas that would ensure our saftey, reduce our need on foreign oil, improve the economy, and stop the massive debt of the nation from growing. In less than a week we can see that part of these statements werea joke that none would declare funny.
President Obama made a big deal about the economy. He spent some 75% of the speech discussing the deficit and the unemployment rate. He outlined his plans to improve both and renew the vigor of the nation. To do so President Obama praised the work of the Obama Stimulus, laid the ground for an Obama Stimulus 2, and then proclaimed the benefits of a $250 billion spending freeze.
Today, the Obama Administration is laying out the budget for 2010 and 2011. The net is a spending increase to $3.7 trillion dollars. That’s up from 2009. It will also increase the deficit by $1.6 trillion dollars, also an increase from 2009. In 2011 there will be an even further increase to both the budget and debt, respectively to $3.8 trillion and $1.3 trillion. Just as a point of reference, the deficit increase of the last year of the Bush Administration was $454 billion.
Thus we see that the claims of Presisdent Obama to slow or moderate spending is a mockery. It is a jest made solely for the televisions cameras, a polispeak spin meant to give those with short memories a positove outlook on the Democrat Party as mid-term elections approach. It flies in the face of logic, and is as akin to balancing a budget as a hitting your thumb with a mammer to relieve the pain of a toothache.
But it does not stop there. The most important issue in America is jobs. It is the vowed focus of the Obama Administration. Last year when it was then the focus of America the Obama Stimulus was passed, costing $787 billion. By the end of 2010 roughly $450 billion will have been spent on creating or “saving” jobs. The net effect of this is the projection that at the end of 2010 there will be an unemployment rate of between 9.8 to 10%, or exactly where we are right now and 2% higher than the promise of 2009.
Therefore, President Obama believes, the logical next step is to double down on the spending of the Stimulus. To add even more money to areas like infrastructure, Government jobs, and “green” jobs that have provided so much relief to America so far. This way we can see a combined spending in the range of $200 billion per year in 2011 and 2012 from the Obama Stimuli. The net result of that is an unemployment rate of 9% in 2011, and 8% in 2012.
The total, if it only stays at the current projections which is unlikely, is roughly $1+ trillion dollars. Which will net some 4 million Americans WITHOUT jobs according to Government stats (the real unemployment rate is some 4%+ higher as the Government does not count people they do not give unemployment checks to – including small business owners or people that have used up Government aid) after 3 more years.
IF you were to divide $1,000,000,000,000 by the working population of America (those over 18 and under 65 – about 200 million people) that’s $5,000 per person. IF you were to make it just about those that pay taxes (thus including the small business owners that pay more taxes than just employees) it would be roughly $3,500 per person. Somehow it seems that directly giving the public the money would go farther to stopping unemployment and improving the economy than the Stimulus Bills of President Obama. It certainly couldn’t do worse.
But there is the joke. This isn’t about doing good for the nation; it’s about LOOKING good in front of the nation. Like Billy Crystal’s famous character Fernando
“It’s better to look good than feel good.”
Very funny the way Crystal did it, far less so as President Obama and Democrats do so while devestating the national deficit and failing to improve unemployment (or reducing the growing and historically high mortgage crisis that magically stopped being reported the day President Obama took office). But it might be just enough to keep the masses at bay, through the mid-term elections. There will even be another bonus to voters, there will be another round of increased checks (the extra $25 per week for 8-12 weeks people got in 2009, IF they received a paycheck. Business owners don’t count), hopefully with less problems to those on food stamps and other Government aide.
Thus we all can see the joke if we want to. It’s as obvious as the noses on our faces. But laughing at the joke? That I don’t see anyone doing. Of course I also can’t get into the White House, so who knows.
9/11 trials moving out of New York City, Sen. Gillibrand flips her position
The latest news to hit about the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and several other 9/11 terrorists comes from the NY Daily News. After calls by NYC Mayor Bloomberg and NY Senator Gillibrand (Democrat) to have the trials moved, the Daily News reports that Attoney General Eric Holder has asked for details about moving the civillian trials outside of New York.
Given the President’s State of the Union speech that avoided any mention of the trials, or their $200 million a year cost, in concert with the loss of the Democrat supermajority and the upcoming mid-term elections the question must be raised if this is just a political move. In a year where the national sentiment is moving ever farther from the policies of President Obama and the Democrats, the highly controversial civillian trials were yet another example stated by some to confirm the White House’s lackluster approach to national defense and spendthrift ways.
Of note are the comments of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Jan 27th.
These comments by Sen. Gillibrand are the first statements in opposition to the trials since at least Nov. 18 2009, when she was in favor of having the trials in NYC.
The question voters should have is why has Sen. Gillibrand reversed her position?
Is it because of the backlash against Democrats just over a week ago? Is it because of the fact that her support of the Health Care Reform flies in the face of both national and New York voter concerns? Is it because of the fact that Democrats up for re-election are suddenly faced with the possibility of voters, Democrat voters, electing a Republican vs a Democrat that supports and has approved of the massive spending by President Obama, the relentless push to enact laws that no elected official can explain nor is willing to even claim they have read?
These are questions that need to be asked of Senator Gillibrand, BEFORE the mid-term elections. Because New York State voters need to know what is the motivation of the actions of Senator Gillibrand. Especially when there is such a blatant and obvious flip.
If the 9/11 trials are moved out of NYC it will be something that voters and citizens in the State have been asking for since the idea was first made public. It’s one step closer to the other idea NY State residents believe – that KSM and the other terrorists do not deserve a civillian trial for their terrorist actions.
As for Senator Gillibrand this is just one more question voters need an answer to, along with her vote to support ACORN, and her desicion not to publicly speak at any townhall meetings to justify her support of the Health Care Reform Bill, or her support of medical marijuanna.
Commentary – State of the Union Address
Leaving the comments of Chris Matthews aside, what can we take from the State of the Union Address by President Obama? What can we surmise will be the impact of the proposals to the average American?
Well there is the focus on the economy. President Obama now realizes that this is the top issue of the American people, and not healthcare. After the election of 2 Republican Governors and Senator Scott Brown, President Obama is now ready and willing to work on unemployment like never before. Just in time for the mid-term elections.
What will President Obama do? More Stimulus. Yes the Obama Stimulus 2 is now a fact and not the rumor I have discussed for several months. And we can be sure this will work because of the huge impact the first Obama Stimulus has had. The Obama Stimulus has allowed unemployment to exceed 8% and now stands at 10%. Estimates from the President’s own economists state that unemplyment will not drop to 9.5% until early 2011, even though America will have spent a total of some $450 billion dollars by that time. The President claims to have “saved” 2 million jobs, even though in the past year 4 million Americans lost their jobs and 17.3% of Americans are unemplyed.
So the solution must obviously be spending another $175 billion dollars on exactly the same items as we have in 2009. Because the Stimulus is having such a positive effect on the economy.
The President is also going to become more fiscally alert. He plans to cut earmarks by making all in Congress post them on the internet. Of couse that has nothing to do with his campaign promises in 2007-2008. It has nothing to do with the over 9,000 earmarks that President Obama signed into law in 2009 alone, with the comment that there were more important issues facing America than removing the earmarks. So you can be sure that the earmarks will be removed in 2010.
Then there is the spending. President Obama will freeze spending. Well, only on some parts of the economy. Generally in the areas where he has raised the spending last year, on average by 20%. Like the EPA that got a 35% increase in it’s budget. So the spending freeze will guarantee that they will not get a dime more, nor less, for 3 years.
The spending freeze, that President Obama directly campaigned against doing in 2008 in debates with Senator McCain, is worth $250 billion dollars over 10 years. Of course it wll only be in existence for 3 years. What happens to the other 7 years does not make sense to my math, but President Obama said so, so it myust be true (like how unemployment will not exceed 8%). And $250 billion is a lot of money.
Well it’s a lot of money if you don’t compare it to the $3.5 trillion for the 2009 budget. It’s a bit better comparing it to the $1.3 trillion increase in the national budget approved in 2009. But not as good when compared to the $2 trillion that is being asked to increase the national debt, just 2 months later. Because President Obama is fiscally responsible.
As President Obama stated in his speech, the deficit was run up to $8 trillion dollars by the end of the Bush years. But what was not said is that in 1 year President Obama inceased the debt to over $12 tillion. And that the extra $2 trillion will make it a total increase of 75% in just over a year. A rate of spending that if continued will make the national debt $18 billion (an increase of 125%) by the end of the Obama Presidency. Including the spending freeze. Now that’s responsible.
But President went on. Discussing how he will make America safe. By ending the war in Iraq. Which surely will stop underwear bombers. Plus he ended waterboarding, replacing it with criminal trials and rights like a lawyer. Because the 50 minutes of questioning of the underwear bomber let us know that there are people in Yemen training to attack America, but then in came a lawyer and we know nothing more since then. I feel much safer knowing that an unknown number of unknown people are planning to attack America at an unknown date through unknown means, and the answers to those question are in the head of a guy sitting in a jail cell who will be compelled to tell us the answers because we offer a plea bargain (which would in his mind be betraying the God he was willing to die for). Yes that is definitely better than watrerboarding and interrogations. I feel much safer.
President Obama reminded us that he increased the troops in Afghanistan. And then in the next breath restated that they will be retreating almost 6 months after they get there. Al Quida must be scared of that 6 month window they must wait out.
President Obama went on to emphasize that above all else he will continue on the path he has created. He intends to pass Health Care Reform, Cap & Trade, and several other issues. Because they are important for America, even though every poll for nearly a year states the majority of Americans don’t want any of it. Because these issues will improve America, even though they will increase taxes, impede job growth, and generally slow down any economic recovery while increasing the national debt.
President Obama identified in the State of the Union everyone that was at fault for the contry’s woes. He blamed President Bush, who has been out of office for a year. He picked on Senator Harry Reid (likely will not be re-elected), who has pushed the Senate so hard to pass everything Obama wanted that no Republicans will touch any Bill, it cost the supermajority of Democrats, and several prominent Democrats will retire rather than even try to get re-elected. He directly attacked the Supreme Court, an unheard of act for a State of the Union Address, which was little more than political bullying. He took on Republicans for failing to accept his policies that violate their constituents wishes, and for offering ideas that were counter to his policies goals. He took on Democrats, telling them that any action other than blindly following his desires was a failure to the political party – the fact it might be the only means of being re-elected, or keeping a semblance of political power beyond 2010 was unimportant.
Yes, President Obama even said he had made mistakes. Like his numerous appointments that failed to pay taxes, abused the power of their offices for personal gain, and praised the actions and philospohy of some of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century (Mao, Stalin, ect.). Perhaps he meant the comments like calling police wrong, or saying Scott Brown was on the wrong path, self-admittedly without any clue of the facts involved. Perhaps he was speaking about the absolutely triple-checked results of recovery.org proving that jobs were “created” due to the Stimulus – only to be proven inaccurate, a mockery of math manipulations, and fraudulent (how many districts are they in Florida?).
In total the State of the Union was a message to America. That “Change” was still the key goal of the Obama Administration. The question of this was change you can believe in was not addressed, because belief is not required. The message was that America likes to hear things that sound like center-right policies, so the Obama Adminstration will make things sound like that (while being left of the left of center). And in my opinion President Obama admitted his belief that he will be a 1 term President, but that he is willing to make an impact that multi-term President often do not have. Wheter this is a good thing is a matter of long debate.
Chris Matthews does it again
When you listen to Chris Matthews speak about President Obama you get the distinct image of a man so far up the rear that daylight is hidden. Perhaps that is an opinion I just have, but I find it to be accurate. And it would explain the following comment.
Isn’t it wonderful that Matthews forgot President Obama was Black. I assume that he was watching the television with his eyes closed and I fear what else he might have been doing as he listened to a voice that sends tingles along his legs. But that just is insulting in every aspect.
And he just kept going with it. President Obama is post-racial, as America is now that he has been elected. And all the “tribalism” has eneded.
Ok, step by step. I think that anyone that can see realizes that President Obama is Black. Which has nothing to do with his ability to speak, lead, or set policy for the nation. After a year of President Obama in office I think that all but the most ignorant of people understand that being Black is not a restriction to leadership, the Presidency, or anything else.
What is Matthews trying to say? That if he realized President Obama was Black he would have hated what he said? That Congress, the Supreme Court and the Military leaders would have booed him and called him the n-word throughout his speech? What kind of a back-handed compliment is he trying to make?
And then it gets worse. Tribalism? You mean President Obama isn’t running around in a loincloth with a spear in hand? Is that what Chris Matthews expects the President trqavels around the world speaking to world leaders in? Is he really equating the Presidency of Barack Obama to a Tarzan movie?
For the record, and to help Chris Matthews understand, when I criticize the policies of President Obama (or praise them) it is because he is the President of the United States. It is because he is the leader of this nation, and the buck stops at the top. It is because of the affects of these policies, which also affect the broad spectrum of nationalities, races, and religious diversity that is America.
America is not a nation of tribes. African Americans do not go about in loincloths. We are not the images of Tarzan, nor is any African or Black in the world today – if ever we were. That is just the westernized false superiority high-on-the-pedestal view that some few hold. It’s an insult to any person of color as it infers some lesser quality to us due solely on the basis of our skin color. I would expect such a comment from the KKK, but considering the effects of the Liberals and Democrats on people of color in the past 40 years I’m not surprised it came out the mouth of Chris Matthews.
With the endless cheerleading, and complete lack of objectivity, I wonder why anyone continues to watch MSNBC if they are not actively in the Obama Administration? More to the point I wonder how anyone will continue to watch Chris Matthews. He may not be a racist, but he surely has a racial quality akin to countless neddle pricks while smiling.
President Obama is Black. Deal with it. It’s the least important and most useless fact in the existence of his Administration. And he doesn’t need the back-handed comments of Chris Matthews.
The Obama Stimulus – a gift of giving
Now it might be apt to take a moment and review the Obama Stimulus. The best way to do so is to take a look at the very words of President Obama on this
That was January 2009. Note that last bit on what would happen if we did not pass the Obama Stimulus.
That was from July 2009. Unemployment was only 9% at the time. Today it is at 10%, with White House economists stating that unemployment might not go below 9.5% before 2nd quarter 2011, after peaking at 10.5% this year. My personal estimates are that the peak will be 11.5% in 2010, as I have stated for about a year now.
So for $787 billion what has the Obama Stimulus accomplished?
That last one is the latest bit. It’s the one not getting major news coverage. Because President Obama has the State of the Union and just proposed to “save” $250 billion with a spending freeze. And the $250 billion would be the total after 10 years, unless you subtract the overages of the Stimulus each year, or any of the proposed spending in Congress right now.
Estimates are that the Obama Stimulus will cost $400 billion in 2010. Estimates also state that the very best possible outcome for unemployment is a reduction to 9% unemployment at the very end of the year. The consensus is that it will in fact be 10% or more – and these economists should know because they KNEW the Stimulus would keep unemployment at 8%.
The Obama Stimulus is so good that Congress is now working on the Obama Stimulus 2. A Bill that has been long awaited by myself and a few outspoken others for about a year now. The House version of the Stimulus2.0 will cost $175 billion. The recent proposal by Democrats would be $82.5 billion. Neither number incliudes earmarks (President Obama allowed over 9,000 in 2 Bills in 2009) so the price will be higher.
Remember the spending freeze does not count Stimulus 1 or 2. But it will “save” money, just like the Obama Stimulus “saved” 2 million jobs as unemployment went up.
So what do you get for $787 billion? An extra $75 billion and counting, without a real net increase in jobs nor the expectation of jobs to come for years. You get a State of the Union speech that will claim fiscal responsibility while spending more money than can be imagined with less results than could be hoped for. You get “Change you can believe in”, because people believe when they get a foreclosure notice or pink slip.
But fret not. These are the gifts of the Obama Stimulus after just 1 year. Imagine what you will believe after year 2, or 4.
The classes President Obama didn’t teach
In preparing for the State of the Union, I was struck by a thought. What grades did President Obama get in college and high school? To be more specific, what did he get for his math classes?
Now this is not a question of how smart President Obama is. Everyone is fully aware that he was a law professor and active lawyer. You don’t get Harvard degrees because you are dumb. But a degree in English or Political Science or Philosophy does not infer or imbue a mastery of math. In fact most college degrees do not require much more than basic math unless you are getting a degree in a scientific field.
That does not mean President Obama needed to have an Economics degree in addition to what he already has. But considering some of the recent, and highly politically motivated, economic plans that have been leaked and discussed prior to the State of the Union the feeling that President Obama didn’t do well with the math classes pervades. Either that, or the Obama Administration must consider the public mathematical idiots.
Case in point, President Obama has stated that he will place a freeze on spending, in selected areas of the budget, for the next 3 years. This spending freeze is claimed to create a savings of $250 billion over the next 10 years. There is no question that to a person or corporation that is a lot of money. To the United States Government, not so much though.
This this will be on average $25 billion save per year. Which might sound good to anyone that has forgotten all of 2009. In fact if you did forget that, you would also have to forget the proposal, prior to the election of Senator Scott Brown, in 2010 as well.
President Obama spent an extra $1.3 trillion dollars in 2009. In 2010 there has already been a request to raise the national debt ceiling to allow for another $1.9 trillion just for this year. Looking at either increase in spending you wouldn’t notice $25 billion, let alone the entire $250 billion all at once. Basic math tells us that 1 trillion is 1,000x larger than a billion.
But consider another fact of math. In 2009 President Obama increased spending, of each Government department he is now call for a spending freeze on, in excess of 15%. That’s an increase beyond the normal approximately 3% per year, and certainly beyond the cost of living due to inflation last year. In fact hundreds of billions of extra money was spent last year. That same amount will be spent this year as well. So where exactly is the savings?
If you have $10, and you spend $12 by borrowing $2, you have a loss. If you decide that your plan to spend $15 in the future is a bad idea, and want to spend the same $12 instead, you are still borrowing $2 you don’t have. But only someone that has no concept of money, or math, could then say that they saved $3. The truth is you still are in debt and thus have a loss (and in this example a 100% increase in that loss).
I realize that I don’t teach law, or have a college degree. But I can balance my checkbook for myself and my business every day. Having a degree does not imbue the recipient with mathematical prowess akin to Einstien. And making a claim of saving money that doesn’t exist and isn’t being saved is not a fiscally smart action. But in the world of polispeak it does look like a fiscally responsible thing to do. And it’s exactly what is needed to preserve the political careers of numerous Democrats.
Politicians are liars, the average person would agree to that to varying degree. President Obama has proven that he is no different than any other politician, and perhaps even worse. Yet I find the latest polispeak spin on math and blame to not only be mistruth but also an insult to the intelligence of any American over the age of 5. Because all anyone needs is 5th grade math, and/or to have ever bought something in a store, to figure out that this spending freeze is bogus.
Maybe it’s the fact that I didn’t get a degree, and went to a State college instead of an Ivy League one. Maybe it’s because I worked and majored in Chemistry and English with a minor in Philosophy – I had too many math classes. It could even be the fact that I have owned businesses and worked since I was 13.
However it may be, I look forward to the State of the Union. And as President Obama rattles off all the ways he will spend money that the Government doesn’t have in order to make a profit I will still be wondering what grades he had in math.
The new old Obama
With the State of the Union address just some 50 hours away, President Obama is busy letting the American public know that he is focused on the issue everyone is concerned about – jobs. It is the focus of the State of the Union, it is the subject that is reflected in the new taxes on banks and reforms being talked about for Wall Street. Creating jobs is job number one.
Does this sound familiar?
The comments are very much in line with the comments made by President Obama during the 2008 election campaign. It was a time when 515 promises were made to the public in exchange for their votes. Since that time few of the promises have come true, or even been addressed, and the image of President Obama as a moderates and centrist have gone the way of the balanced budget.
The question that many will be asking before and after the State of the Union is if this time the comments will be any more accurate than previously. It is a legitimate question in the face of a recent past where such comments were mere polispeak designed to ensure a vote as opposed to an actual policy. Considering the fact that the only reason for this new direction is the loss of the Democrat supermajority in Congress makes it even more questionable.
What is clear is that the White House recognizes that the mid-term elections will be a battlefield for Democrats. The likely outcome at this early point is that a huge seachange will take place. Which would ensure that any policy measure the Obama Administration would like to pass has little chance of happening.
By striking a more populist and centrist tone, the White House is trying to cushion Democrats up for re-election. It hopes to give them some breathing room and thus regain traction with voters in critical States. But this new policy direction still has it’s flaws.
The Health Care Reform still lingers in the background. While the election of Sen. Scott Brown signals the end of another pure partisan vote, it does not guarantee the end of the Bill. President Obama has already made it clear that he still wants to pass this Bill as much of his political credibility rides on it’s outcome. Democrat leaders Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid are flustered to respond to this push in the face of the loss of the supermajority and the prospect of massive defections by re-election minded peers.
The Cap & Trade Bill is another Obama Administration gem that has not gone away. The fact it has gotten far less attention from the major media is only due to the emphasis on Health Care. Then there is the spending. Lots of spending.
So far the Obama Administration has directly spent, or planned to spend, more money than if spending 1,000,000 a day since the start of the calendar. His proposal last year to fix the unemployment crisis was to spend $787 billion in the Obama Stimulus. The net effect was to increase unemployment 2% (a loss of 3 million jobs). Continued spending from the Obama Stimulus will reduce unemployment to 9%, after spiking to between 10.5% – 11.5%, according to economist estimates. Thus the net effect, if analysts are more accurate this year than last, is spending $400+ billion dollars to net lose roughly 2.5 million jobs. The State of the Union will propose spending even more money on the same type of initiatives.
A less optimistic point of view would be that this new focus on jobs is nothing more than polispeak to maintain power. That throwing good money after bad is not centrist or a focus on jobs but a political ad. That continuing to strive to pass a wholly unwanted and unpopular Health Care Reform Bill (that does not accomplish the goal it was created for) while speaking about jobs is akin to a smoke and mirrors act. That again striking the image of a moderate in the face of active and persistent far-left political ambitions is the equivalent of a bait-and-switch if not grandstanding.
In total the “new” direction of President Obama, to be exemplified in the State of the Union Address on Wednesday, is nothing more than the “old” Obama of the 2008 election. Until concrete efforts, that have more than disputed and marginal effects, coallese Democrats and the Obama Administration will continue to suffer the stings of a public that is angry and untrusting.
Solutions to improve the economy
Often the retort by supporters of President Obama , Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Reid is that their are no other proposals being offered to consider. To that end the following are the thoughts of one small business owner with conterproposals.
1) Cut Taxes on investments
The stock market was created as an alternative to cash. A means for people and corporations to grow their business and cash at the same time. Without the restrictions of a loan or bond. Tax on these investments are an alternative source of tax revenue for the Government.
Higher taxes reduce the incentive to invest by reducing the reward. The risk of an investment, even in a major international corporation, is only proportionate to the reward. If that reward is at best similar to a return from a bank account or other security of lower risk, it will be taken instead. Thus a high tax impedes growth and reduces Government tax revenues, not promoting them.
2) Cut Corporate Taxes
Every corporation is in business to create a profit. The amount of profit is determined by many things, but must be greater than the effort for the corporation to grown or even continue to exist. If the effective return is equivalent to or less than that of working in a similar field for someone else, which would remove the pressures and time committments of ownership, then the path of least resistance will be taken. Part of the American dream is to be self-employed, trading long hours and hard work for a better income derived from the profit of the efforts.
Lower taxes on a corporation, increases profit (with all other factors constant) and thus promotes growth and creation of businesses. A company with more profit can increase salaries to retain high quality employees and recruit better employees. A higher profit allows for expansion of a corproation to further increase profits. Expansion necessitates hiring more employees, and/or using other businesses.
In addition taxes continue to be collected by the Government. As a corproation grows it pays a higher dollar amount of taxes but still in proportion to the profit being made. This is opposed to making less money and paying a higher percentage of that profit to taxes. The Government (with higher taxes) collects a smaller dollar amount but at a higher rate. Also, a lower tax rate allows more new businesses to exist, though paying less in a dollar amount but offsetting that with higher dollar volume.
Taken in total, lower tax rates for corporations stimulate job growth, stimulate other businesses, create higher paying jobs, and increases the number of small businesses. Thus a higher dollar volume of taxes can be collected for the Government.
3) Lower the minimum wage
This goes hand-in-hand with corporate taxes. If all other costs are fixed (relatively) for a corporation, one of the few areas in control would be employee pay. Again a corproation is in business to create profit, not lose it or break even for extended periods of time. So if a 7% profit (which is generally a very good profit from a mature business) is to be maintained, and the cost of employees goes up the only way to maintain that profit is to reduce the number of employees. This is even more of a factor in an economic downturn or while building a business. An increase in employee pay could single handedly take a corproation from profit or break-even to a loss – thus endangering the continuation of that business.
Lower (than current) mandatory wages allows for more money to expand a business in times of good profit, or to maintain in bad economic conditions. The greater the profit of a corporation the more likely that skilled workers will be paid more to retain them, and the greater need for more lesser skilled and cheaper employees as a corporation expands – similar to the scenario with lower corporate taxes. When in bad economic conditions the lower cost of employees allows for more time to continue operations without reducing the number of employees (or minimizing that job loss).
It is a given that a lower minimum wage will not allow individuals to live comfortably. Many may require second jobs. Others will not be able to pay off bills in total. But the comparison is to unemployment where no income is created, no bills are paid, and the needs of the public are far more of a strain on the Government and the reduced tax revenues it will be receiving. Thus surviving until a better economic environment exists and provides other options is better than having no options at all.
Just a $1 reduction of current minimum wage could potentially secure tens of thousands of jobs (or more), and possibly spur some degree of job growth.
4) Remove welfare
Welfare is a form of socialization that is well ingrained in America. It allows for a portion of the nation to essentially survive of the rest in a parasitic nature. As has been proven over the decades and generations, welfare tends to create more people that live off that system than leave it. This is a systemic problem.
Far better is to employ all of these people. Whether the job is to fill a hole with dirt in a section streets every day, or to deliver that dirt, or to provide data entery services to the Government, or other menial but necessary work having a job is always better than having none. If all those in welfare were to instead be given full-time jobs (for the same monetary benefit), there is a productivity that would be created benefiting the nation. Inevitiably that work would trickle to affect positively other sectors, and thus improve the economy.
In addition the self-worth of those now employed would be far improved. A mindset that believes a days work equates to a days pay is far more beneficial than a mindset that believes in any degree that it can receive something for nothing. A mind that values the work being done will seek to find better work and better pay, even if it means creating a job or invention that does not currently exist. A mind that is idle tends to stay idle. It’s a law of physics – a body in motion will tend to stay in motion, an idle body will remain so until another force acts upon it. Human nature is not dissimilar.
These are just 4 simple ideas. None are beyond comprehension, nor do they require a degree in astrophysics or an understanding of multi-variable calculus. The benefits are obvious. The improvements are clear, though economists can argue the percentage degree of benefit for several lifetimes.
Politically some of these ideas are more or less advantageous to a Party or individual. But the national economy should not be the plaything of political power games. The mortgage crisis, the various bailouts, and the current deficit are all examples of the results of such political manipulations.
Given this set of examples, and considering the negative implications of the proposals from President Obama and the Democrat leadership the question that remains is why policies of higher taxation and expanded welfare are being pursued instead of abandoned?
President Obama on business
Truly I am shocked. How is it possible that a survey of investors could find that 77% believe President Obama is anti-business? I suppose they are all racists and greedy so there should be no surprise.
Of course if we look at the Obama Administration policy from a view that is anything but the hardline Left view, the only question is how more investors don’t find President Obama anti-business.
So far the Obama Administration has tried or accomplished in getting legislation enacted that resticts business, and or inserts Government into private companies and industry.
The list goes on. But in reviewing the list, not one item is a positive for the economy. Take a closer look at the new taxes and rules for banks.
The Obama Administration is seeking to impose a new tax on the top 50 banks. In addition it is seeking to restrict the growth and size of all banks until the end of time. The reasons are that the banking industry has not paid back the TARP money, and that it was the size of the banks that created the recent financial crisis.
Now let’s look at reality.
Of the hundreds of banks that elected, and many forced, to take the TARP 65% have paid back all the funds PLUS interest or additional fees. More than 60% of the top 50 banks have no TARP fund association either because they paid back the money or never took it. Yet these institutions now must pay a tax, forever, because some banks have not yet paid back the TARP money. Then again, the TARP funds never stated a timeline for repayment of the funds. In fact, TARP originally didn’t even have terms for HOW a bank could repay the funds, they had to be made after banks requested it.
Even with all of that, having a better than 65% return on the TARP money in less than 1 year is an excellent investment. Had the Government not spent trillions, and actually used the TARP money to pay down the debt – as it was stipulated it must in the legislation – it could have improved the economy. But that is not good enough.
The new regulations for the size of a bank, and the restrictions on how a bank can operate, fly in the face of private business. Rather than allow the markets to decide if an institution is worthy of its funds, the Obama Administration will seek to force business and individuals to seek out lesser financial institutions that may be deemed more risky and less well managed. It will also cause the banking industry to limit their success, and stunt growth – eliminating the potential to employ tens of thousands of people in secure businesses.
The result will be fewer companies that the Governemtn deems too large to fail. But it is the Government that made random choices of what was too big to fail, not the markets. And it was the Government that helped create even larger financial institutions via mergers and bailouts, while allowing vital and respected companies to completely fail.
So the net result is that growth and profit are bad. To be successful is to be restricted to a level acceptable to a bueracrat that has likely never worked a day in the industry they are now controling. And to further impede any success, taxes will be doled out to anyone that has become a leader of their industry.
Having lived in the Soviet Union for a time, I can draw many similarities between these new regulations and those of the former Soviet Union. Similarities that predetermine what is “appropriate growth” and acceptable income. Rules that stagnate business and life. Unless of course someone can identify a business that was a world leading export of the Soviet mindset, besides military weapons sales.
But it is not just my view of this. Nor just the 77% of those polled. The stock market, with millions of investors, analysts, institutions, and corporations, not to mention nations have determined that this is a bad idea. The stock market has dropped every day since these new regulations have been proposed. The fear of the markets is that America will start to slide into a nation that cannot innovate or grow unless some politician has made a decision based on political party goals.
When a dozen people tell you that you are wrong, it means there is an opportunity. When millions of people globally tell you that you are wrong, it’s time to rethink what you are doing. Unless you are President Obama and the Democrats. Because millions of people can’t understand business better than the handful of Democrats and the Obama Administration – of whom few have ever held a real job (fewer have done so in the past 20 years).
It’s the Banks fault
Polispeak is a unique tool in the hands of an adept user. In my lifetime I don’t think any politician has been more adept that President Barack Obama.
“We have to enact commonsense reforms that will protect American taxpayers and the American economy from future crises,” Obama said. “For, while the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it’s still operating under the same rules that led to its near-collapse.”
Yes it is the fault of Wall Street that millions are unemployed and the foreclosure rate is at highs unknown to prior generations. It is the fault of Republicans that the economy is wrecked. It is the fault of people clinging to guns and god that Democrats no longer have a supermajority. And so on.
President Obama has ridden a wave of pointed fingers for well over 2 years now. Name the issue that is not going his way, and the Obama Administration will name someone else that is at fault. The greed of Wall Street. The excesses of Republicans. The bias of Fox News. Anyone but Democrats, Liberals, and the Obama Administration.
Yet the truth is never addressed. It was Democrats that FORCED banks to lessen restrictions on housing guidelines that allowed for the start of the issues with the mortgage collapse some 20 years ago. It was the Obama Administration that authorized and is spending $787 billion on a stimulus package that is ineffectual. It was the Obama Administration that took the opportunity to buy Banks and the Auto industry. It is the Obama Administration that is spending more money than the governments of the world combined.
There is no doubt that past Presidents, of both Party’s, helped create many of the problems of today. There is no question that Republicans have as much of the fault, just like Democrats. But the President is the final stop in the evaluation of the nation. Whomever is in that seat is ultimately the blame.
Right now President Obama is blaming Banks for being successful. The fact they are large is not a boon to the economy. The tens of thousands they employ is not as important as the money they can pay in taxes, or the Government’s desire to control them. Does that sound democratic?
Taken as a whole, the Obama Administration has made a couple of things clear:
The Government should decide the wages of workers and who works – the AIG bonus tax, GM CEO
The Government should control what is made – emphasis of “green” cars at the Government controlled auto companies
The Government should determine the upper limit of success – Banks should not be as large as they are
The Government will decide what Rights Americans should have, and how they might use then – Healthcare is now a Right, and must be taken by everyone or else
The Government will decide who will receive Rights – Kalid Sheik Muhammad and the underwear bomber have the same rights as every American, but Navy SEALs are wrong without question
The Government will decide what is in the nations benefit – No salt in NYC, no smoking in multiple states (including in your home in some parts of California), “green” jobs are more important than just a job, less energy use is better than using natural gas, taking money from some and giving it to others, deciding which news organizations are “real” and therefore worthy of being seen, ect.
Does any of that sound American? Aren’t most if not all these things ideas that America has traditionaly fought against? Can you give even one example where the Government was better, or more accuarate, in making a desicion or taking action than individual Americans?
President Obama makes it all sound right. His use of words are fantastic, until you stop to think about them.
‘The people of Massachuesetts were acting on the same anger that elected me.’ In other words the people in Mass. were angry at Republicans so they elected a Republican. Probably sounded better until you though about what that statement meant. But when you stop accepting that everyone else is to blame, and start listening to what is actually being done – things are not as positive as they are made to be.
Of course none of this matters until an election is imminent. And that’s when promises are made that sound great. “Change you can believe in” and 515 other promises. Yet it seems odd that almost no one is willing to look at the fact that 93% of those promises have been shoved to the wayside. Probably due to the fact they are looking at who a finger is pointing at.
So while President Obama blames banks, and threatens to raise taxes on them (taxes that inevitiably the public will pay), and points his finger around without pause you might want to stop and ask why he needs to point a finger at all. Because the buck stops at the President, even when he doesn’t want it to.
Fixing Congress – 3 terms benefit the public
Over the past several days I have noticed that there has been a surge in searches on my sites for a couple of key terms. Re-election and Nancy Pelosi, followed by Barney Frank and several other issues. This is definitely a reflection of the election of Senator Scott Brown, but it is also a trend that has been growing for the past 3 months.
In the past year Congress has authorized more spending than the combined totals of several Administrations prior. If the last 2 months are considered alone, the proposed $1.9 trillion debt limit increase and the $1.5 trillion increase at the end of 2009, there has been more spending that in decades combined. The national debt is rocketing towards $15 trillion, with barely any indication of a pause in spending until the election of Sen. Scott Brown.
In the past year alone over 3 million people lost their jobs. A number that continues to grow at a pace that is beyond economist expectations. That is inclusive of over $150 billion spent on the Obama Stimulus. Yet in 2010 expectations are that another $400 billion will be spent to stimulate the economy with a net result of reducing unemployment to just 9%. That 1% point drop in unemployed only factors in the people receiving unemployment benefits from the Government, and does not address the small business owners and people that have used up benefit payments. Potentially 17% or more of the nation will remain unemployed by the end of the year.
For most of 2009 Congress has been focused on the Health Care Reform. A Bill that is universally opposed by a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independants. A Bill that contains numerous taxes and fees that will affect businesses and individuals of every income bracket alike.
The list of things that are problems goes on and on. Yet Congress continues to move forward, even now that the Democrat supermajoity has been removed. Even as this is being written, the Democrat leadership is continuing to pledge to pass some form of the Health Care Reform that the public does not want. The question we must all ask is why?
Why is it that Congress is acting in a manner detached from the public? Why are people searching for the opportunity to vote Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi out of office? Why did a Democrat bastion like Massachuesetts elect a Conservative Republican?
Because Congress is filled with people that have been in place too long. There are many Senators and Representatives that have been in place for a quarter of a century or longer. While I don’t have the exact figure, a quick guess would estimate that all of Congress contains at least 50% of elected officials that have been in place for over 3 terms. I believe that most in Congress have held their positions for 15 years or more at this point.
When there are elected officials like Nancy Pelosi, that have held the same office since 1987, they no longer believe they are acting for the perople, but that the people act for them. It is akin to fiefdoms across America, with the public little more than serfs. It is the antiesis of democracy. And it would seem that it has reached a boiling point.
Why are there no term limits for Congress? Why should anyone that has not read a proposed law, and voted for it, be allowed to continue to provide shabby service to the public? Because they have done the job for a long time? If you have a mechanic that fixes your car every 6 months for years, charging you ever higher bills for often the same exact repair, wouldn’t you go to another mechanic? Or would you keep them becuase you know he mechanics name?
This is not just a Democrat issue. The exact same thing can be said of Republicans. Elected officials for life is little different than minor monarchies (which many have called the Kennedy’s in regard to their positions in politics in Massachuesetts) based on the preservation of power far more than the needs of the people. Looking at the career of Senator Arlen Spector is the clearest example of this.
Perhaps if Congress as a whole was restricted to 3 terms, and then a new elected official was required we might not have the political mess that exists today.
But what do you think?
