There are several differences between ObamaCare and RomenyCare. Let me name a few. It is important that GOP primary voters understand the differences. People are painting Romney with a broad brush and may end up with a weaker candidate. Let me also state that Romney is not my favorite candidate, but he is in the top 3.
Differences between ObamaCare and RomenyCare.
1. State vs. Federal.
RomneyCare was a state solution to a state problem. ObamaCare is a broad one-size fits all solution that may not work in all 50 states.
2. Bi-Partisan vs Partisan.
RomenyCare had the support of both Republicans and Democrats in the Massachusetts Legislature. ObamaCare was a solidly democratic bill that did not have the support of one single republican in either the US House or US Senate. Even "RINO" Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Lisa Murkowski voted against it.
3. Popular vs. Unpopular.
84% of Massachusetts voters are satisfied with RomneyCare. 52% of Americans want to repeal ObamaCare. This is the reason why Romney does not say, "Hey this was a big mistake!" You don't backtrack on supporting a program that your constituents like. That would be a big mistake.
4. Litte vs Big
RomenyCare was a 100 page bill. ObamaCare is a 2000 page monster, or as Vice President Biden so eloquently put it...a "Big F**@@@! Deal". The ObamaCare bill has many provisions that have nothing to do with health care.
5. Line Item Veto
A fact that the Tea Party will not tell you. Governor Romney used his line-item veto power to veto 8 provisions of RomneyCare. But that veto overridden by Democratically controlled legislature. Would President Obama have done the same if he had line-item veto power? We may never really know for certain, but my hunch is that you already know the answer to this question.
Let me comment on something else. Many have said that RomneyCare was the template for ObamaCare. Why would people say this? For one reason and one reason only. Obama's people do not want to face Mitt Romney in the General Election. They want to do what they can to push the nomination to a weaker candidate. President Obama would rather face Congresswoman Bachmann or Governor Palin or even Governor Perry than Governor Romney. Romney can claim the middle ground that President Obama has vacated. If the middle of the political spectrum is vacant, then the incumbent has a better chance at victory.
Finally. The Massachusetts health care plan that has been dubbed RomneyCare would have become law with or without Mitt Romney's signature. If he had vetoed the entire bill, an veto-proof version would have come across his desk. The writing was on the wall. People in Massachusetts wanted it. Chances are, if Romney would not have stepped in and fought for a more conservative bill, this law would have been less conservative than the one this is the current law of the land in the Bay State. Romney did what any good Republican governor should have done in that situation. He read the writing on the wall and pushed for a more conservative bill. If a Tea Party member had been the governor, then we would have had a larger, more liberal bill, much more like ObamaCare that what is currently the law in Massachusetts.
Reference
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Telling the whole story...The Record on Jobs for declared GOP candidates.
Every GOP candidate is touting their record on jobs. Truth is, no one really has a good jobs record. Perry does not, Romney does not. Bauchmann and Paul have been in congress and do not have a job record to stand on. Huntsman, is not bad, but there are better examples than anyone running for President. But let's examine the record of Presidential candidates first.
Mitt Romney took over the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2003 and was in office until 2007. Unemployment in his tenure mirrors the national average.
Rick Perry became governor of Texas in 2001 and he has remained since. The unemployment rate was higher than the national average in Texas in 2001 and Texas was hit harder by the dot com bust than the nation as a whole. Right around May, 2007 the unemployment rate in Texas dips lower than the national average and constantly stays below the national average from that point until now. But it still mirrors, mostly the national mark. At best, late 2009, the rate in Texas is nearly 2% below the national mark, but in 2011, when the unemployment rate in the US dips, the rate in Texas remains the same.
Buddy Roemer served as Governor of Louisiana from 1988 to 1992. During his tenure as Governor the unemployment rate in his state was always much higher than the national average.
Gary E. Johnson was New Mexico's governor from 1998 to 2003. When he took over as his state's chief executive, unemployment was much higher than the national average. Therefore, when unemployment in his state caught the national average in 2001, it was an accomplishment. The rate in New Mexico mirrored the national average from that point on until this year. New Mexico has been a real jobs miracle. This year, the rate started at the national average and has now dipped to 6.7%
John M. Huntsman, Jr became governor of Utah in 2005. At that time, the unemployment rate in the Beehive State was very close to the national average. But Huntsman's predecessor has began the Utah Miracle. Unemployment was already declining faster than the national average when Huntsman took over. In March of 2007, unemployment in Utah was at a record low of 2.7%. In August of 2009, when Huntsman left office, the unemployment rate in Utah leveled off in the 7's, where the unemployment rate in the US leveled off in the 10's.
Who is the best on Jobs? I rank the candidates, that were governors as follows...
1. Huntsman
2. Johnson
3. Perry
4. Romney
5. Roemer
There is one state with a job performance better than any one running for President. In January of 2010, their rate peaked at 7.6%. It has been in constant decline ever since. Now, their unemployment rate is at a national low of 5.7%. The state, Wyoming. Former governor Dave Freudenthal and current governor Matt Mead deserve props for this.
Source:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST550000&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=wisconsin+unemployment+data#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=city:PS480300:PA490100&idim=state:ST490000&ifdim=state&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en
Mitt Romney took over the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2003 and was in office until 2007. Unemployment in his tenure mirrors the national average.
Rick Perry became governor of Texas in 2001 and he has remained since. The unemployment rate was higher than the national average in Texas in 2001 and Texas was hit harder by the dot com bust than the nation as a whole. Right around May, 2007 the unemployment rate in Texas dips lower than the national average and constantly stays below the national average from that point until now. But it still mirrors, mostly the national mark. At best, late 2009, the rate in Texas is nearly 2% below the national mark, but in 2011, when the unemployment rate in the US dips, the rate in Texas remains the same.
Buddy Roemer served as Governor of Louisiana from 1988 to 1992. During his tenure as Governor the unemployment rate in his state was always much higher than the national average.
Gary E. Johnson was New Mexico's governor from 1998 to 2003. When he took over as his state's chief executive, unemployment was much higher than the national average. Therefore, when unemployment in his state caught the national average in 2001, it was an accomplishment. The rate in New Mexico mirrored the national average from that point on until this year. New Mexico has been a real jobs miracle. This year, the rate started at the national average and has now dipped to 6.7%
John M. Huntsman, Jr became governor of Utah in 2005. At that time, the unemployment rate in the Beehive State was very close to the national average. But Huntsman's predecessor has began the Utah Miracle. Unemployment was already declining faster than the national average when Huntsman took over. In March of 2007, unemployment in Utah was at a record low of 2.7%. In August of 2009, when Huntsman left office, the unemployment rate in Utah leveled off in the 7's, where the unemployment rate in the US leveled off in the 10's.
Who is the best on Jobs? I rank the candidates, that were governors as follows...
1. Huntsman
2. Johnson
3. Perry
4. Romney
5. Roemer
There is one state with a job performance better than any one running for President. In January of 2010, their rate peaked at 7.6%. It has been in constant decline ever since. Now, their unemployment rate is at a national low of 5.7%. The state, Wyoming. Former governor Dave Freudenthal and current governor Matt Mead deserve props for this.
Source:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST550000&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=wisconsin+unemployment+data#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=city:PS480300:PA490100&idim=state:ST490000&ifdim=state&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en
Monday, August 22, 2011
Nightly Answer To Ethan Millard's Tweets. August 22, 2010
Ethan Millard is the nighttime anchor for KSL's evening show, The Nightside Project. He is a liberal who is on air only to balance all of the conservatism on talk radio.
Here are three of his tweets from tonight.
Take Back Utah!! Because theft, vandalism, & grave desecration are not just a hobby, they're a way of life.
Take Back Utah! Because you haven't lived until you've driven your ATV illegally through sensitive wilderness study areas. (Aug 22, 2011 04:30 PM)
What happened to our community that we raised a generation of politically ambitious who play so poorly with people not like them? (Aug 22, 2011 04:28 PM)
Answer to the Take Back Utah Tweets:
If you think that Take Back Utah is all about reclaiming wilderness so that we can ATV all over it you have missed the point. 70% of the state of Utah is held just by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest Service. Some of this land can be used for recreation, ranching and other activities. Most of this land is locked away. Some Utah counties have almost all of their land either owned by some entity of the Federal Government. Garfield County has 97% of their land owned by the Feds. This land can not be taxed by the county. Any wonder why their county mounties drive 40-year-old vehicles and why their poorly paid teachers have the largest class sizes in the nation? The county has not money, because there is no property tax revenue.
Take back Utah is about freeing land from the Federal Government to state and county control. That is the privilege that most states east of the Mississippi have. The land can be properly developed and taxed by the local authorities. Then those counties will have the funds to pay for quality policy service and for quality public education.
If you are concerned about ATV ridership, keep in mind a rancher who lives on the property that he owns has an easier time keeping rouge ATV riders than a Sheriff's deputy driving a 1978 Ford Bronco.
About our politicians not playing nice together. I simply ask when was the last time you voted for someone promising to go to Washington and play nice?
Here are three of his tweets from tonight.
Take Back Utah!! Because theft, vandalism, & grave desecration are not just a hobby, they're a way of life.
Take Back Utah! Because you haven't lived until you've driven your ATV illegally through sensitive wilderness study areas. (Aug 22, 2011 04:30 PM)
What happened to our community that we raised a generation of politically ambitious who play so poorly with people not like them? (Aug 22, 2011 04:28 PM)
Answer to the Take Back Utah Tweets:
If you think that Take Back Utah is all about reclaiming wilderness so that we can ATV all over it you have missed the point. 70% of the state of Utah is held just by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest Service. Some of this land can be used for recreation, ranching and other activities. Most of this land is locked away. Some Utah counties have almost all of their land either owned by some entity of the Federal Government. Garfield County has 97% of their land owned by the Feds. This land can not be taxed by the county. Any wonder why their county mounties drive 40-year-old vehicles and why their poorly paid teachers have the largest class sizes in the nation? The county has not money, because there is no property tax revenue.
Take back Utah is about freeing land from the Federal Government to state and county control. That is the privilege that most states east of the Mississippi have. The land can be properly developed and taxed by the local authorities. Then those counties will have the funds to pay for quality policy service and for quality public education.
If you are concerned about ATV ridership, keep in mind a rancher who lives on the property that he owns has an easier time keeping rouge ATV riders than a Sheriff's deputy driving a 1978 Ford Bronco.
About our politicians not playing nice together. I simply ask when was the last time you voted for someone promising to go to Washington and play nice?
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Blame it on the ATM.
--In 1878 Eadweard Muybridge exhibited the first motion picture of a galloping horse. Vaudville that this was amusing. President Rutherford B. Hayes probably enjoyed the first motion picture he say.
--In 1880 Thomas Edison made the Light Bulb economically feasible, but President Hayes did not complain about the candle makers and made no mention of the whalers who lost their jobs as a result.
--In 1896 Rasom E Olds perfected the gasoline engine for the horseless carriage. Not a compliant from blacksmith unions nor President McKinley about all of the displaced blacksmiths who had to find new jobs.
--In 1911 Fred Wiseman delivered the first "Air Mail" letter. The telegraph operators in the US barely took notice and homing pigeon caretakers didn't complain. Neither did President Taft.
--In 1972 IBM developed the Automatic Teller Machine. President Nixon did not complain. In 2011, President Obama did.
People in America's past have learned to adapt
Olds was a blacksmith who learned to work on steam engines before developing his gasoline engine. In 1897, Oldsmobile was founded. The curved dash Olds was the leading car sold in the US during the first few years of the 20th century. But Olds left in 1907 to begin REO motors.
In 1908, William C. Durrant co-created General Motors as a holding company for Buick, one of the other leading producers of automobiles at the time. The other co-founder was Charles S. Mott, one of the leading producers of horse-drawn carriages. In 1909, the purchased Oldsmobile. From 1931 to 2007, General Motors was the leading seller of automobiles in the world. This giant company existed, in part, because the leading maker of horse-drawn carriages was able to adapt.
Boeing became one the worlds leading producers of aircraft because they were more willing than some of their competitors to incorporate jet engines into their aircraft. Air travel became faster and safer because of the development of the jet engine.
IBM almost became a victim of computing technology until they began to focus on consulting services.
Individuals and businesses survive by learning how to react. Technological progress happens. Only recently has our chief executive used it as an excuse. Many, if not all people displaced by new technology are willing to learn and be retrained. Most do not have the ability to pay for it, however. That is where the gap lies. and that is the problem we should address.
--In 1880 Thomas Edison made the Light Bulb economically feasible, but President Hayes did not complain about the candle makers and made no mention of the whalers who lost their jobs as a result.
--In 1896 Rasom E Olds perfected the gasoline engine for the horseless carriage. Not a compliant from blacksmith unions nor President McKinley about all of the displaced blacksmiths who had to find new jobs.
--In 1911 Fred Wiseman delivered the first "Air Mail" letter. The telegraph operators in the US barely took notice and homing pigeon caretakers didn't complain. Neither did President Taft.
--In 1972 IBM developed the Automatic Teller Machine. President Nixon did not complain. In 2011, President Obama did.
People in America's past have learned to adapt
Olds was a blacksmith who learned to work on steam engines before developing his gasoline engine. In 1897, Oldsmobile was founded. The curved dash Olds was the leading car sold in the US during the first few years of the 20th century. But Olds left in 1907 to begin REO motors.
In 1908, William C. Durrant co-created General Motors as a holding company for Buick, one of the other leading producers of automobiles at the time. The other co-founder was Charles S. Mott, one of the leading producers of horse-drawn carriages. In 1909, the purchased Oldsmobile. From 1931 to 2007, General Motors was the leading seller of automobiles in the world. This giant company existed, in part, because the leading maker of horse-drawn carriages was able to adapt.
Boeing became one the worlds leading producers of aircraft because they were more willing than some of their competitors to incorporate jet engines into their aircraft. Air travel became faster and safer because of the development of the jet engine.
IBM almost became a victim of computing technology until they began to focus on consulting services.
Individuals and businesses survive by learning how to react. Technological progress happens. Only recently has our chief executive used it as an excuse. Many, if not all people displaced by new technology are willing to learn and be retrained. Most do not have the ability to pay for it, however. That is where the gap lies. and that is the problem we should address.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
How Will Business Respond to Higher Taxes?
President Obama has said publicly that he does not believe that the oil business will pass higher taxes on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices. He is partially right about this. Taxes are an expense, and business usually uses are variety of methods to deal with increased expenses. They include...
1. Cutting non-profitable services.
2. Consolidation of operations.
3. Selling off portions of the business.
4. Cutting perks to employees.
5. Playing games with the books.
6. Passing increased costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices.
All of this means one thing, and only one thing. Companies will eliminate jobs. Yes, cost increases will in part be passed on to consumers, but the consumers include other businesses which have to respond to their higher costs. Raising taxes on oil companies will resort in a new round of layoffs and more home foreclosures that will deepen the recession.
This is why it is bad for government; City, County, State or Federal to resort to raising taxes during a recession. It makes the employment problem worse, not better. At the Federal level, more unemployment means higher deficits. It means more people on the government dole and fewer tax payers. We need to go in the opposite direction. More working Americans paying taxes and fewer receiving government benefits. Raising taxes may lead to more revenues, initially, but in the long run it will make a bad problem much worse.
The answer is to give the oil companies a better opportunity to turn their obscene profits into the development of additional product. That is normally what a business does. They use profits to expand. When the opportunity to grow your company does not exist, you have not choice but to line the pockets of executives with more cash. The executive knows sooner or later their cash cow will die without the opportunity for additional growth. You either ensure your long term job security by taking care of the company, or you simply take care of yourself.
Open up areas for further oil exploration and drilling. It will put people to work. It will provide security. Eventually, more product on the market will lead to lower prices at the gas pump. Other business, outside of the oil and gas industry will have the funds to hire more people. That will put America in the right direction. You increase tax revenue by having more tax payers, more people who are paying taxes because they are earning an income high enough to pay taxes. Where now we have so many receiving payments from the government. You reduce government costs by having fewer people needing government entitlements.
Opening up American oil and gas fields will also help improve the trade deficit. That will boost the value of the US Dollar against foreign currency. It will stave off inflation by lowering the cost of energy, which is an input into every industry in the United States. It will put more money into the pockets of every American. Money that can be spent on other goods and services. That is real trickle-down economics.
Allowing the US oil and gas industry to expand will not solve all of America's economic troubles. It alone will not get the country out of recession and into a strong recovery, but it is a good place to begin. Only support candidates in 2012 who will pledge to support the growth of the oil and gas industry in the United States.
1. Cutting non-profitable services.
2. Consolidation of operations.
3. Selling off portions of the business.
4. Cutting perks to employees.
5. Playing games with the books.
6. Passing increased costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices.
All of this means one thing, and only one thing. Companies will eliminate jobs. Yes, cost increases will in part be passed on to consumers, but the consumers include other businesses which have to respond to their higher costs. Raising taxes on oil companies will resort in a new round of layoffs and more home foreclosures that will deepen the recession.
This is why it is bad for government; City, County, State or Federal to resort to raising taxes during a recession. It makes the employment problem worse, not better. At the Federal level, more unemployment means higher deficits. It means more people on the government dole and fewer tax payers. We need to go in the opposite direction. More working Americans paying taxes and fewer receiving government benefits. Raising taxes may lead to more revenues, initially, but in the long run it will make a bad problem much worse.
The answer is to give the oil companies a better opportunity to turn their obscene profits into the development of additional product. That is normally what a business does. They use profits to expand. When the opportunity to grow your company does not exist, you have not choice but to line the pockets of executives with more cash. The executive knows sooner or later their cash cow will die without the opportunity for additional growth. You either ensure your long term job security by taking care of the company, or you simply take care of yourself.
Open up areas for further oil exploration and drilling. It will put people to work. It will provide security. Eventually, more product on the market will lead to lower prices at the gas pump. Other business, outside of the oil and gas industry will have the funds to hire more people. That will put America in the right direction. You increase tax revenue by having more tax payers, more people who are paying taxes because they are earning an income high enough to pay taxes. Where now we have so many receiving payments from the government. You reduce government costs by having fewer people needing government entitlements.
Opening up American oil and gas fields will also help improve the trade deficit. That will boost the value of the US Dollar against foreign currency. It will stave off inflation by lowering the cost of energy, which is an input into every industry in the United States. It will put more money into the pockets of every American. Money that can be spent on other goods and services. That is real trickle-down economics.
Allowing the US oil and gas industry to expand will not solve all of America's economic troubles. It alone will not get the country out of recession and into a strong recovery, but it is a good place to begin. Only support candidates in 2012 who will pledge to support the growth of the oil and gas industry in the United States.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Perry's Job Creation Record is Good, but...
Rick Perry is hitting the campaign trail. His record on his state's economic performance during the recession has indeed been better than the national average. The unemployment rate has been better than the national average and the number of new jobs created has also been better than the national average. Kudos to Texas for this, and kudos to Perry for being at the helm.
But, there is one state (there have been several) whose record on unemployment and job creation has actually been better than Texas. And one of Perry's rivals for the GOP nomination can take credit for it. Utah has had a lower unemployment rate than Texas throughout the recession. And Utah has created more jobs per capita than Texas throughout the recession. And one of Perry's GOP rivals was at the helm for much of the time. John M. Huntman, Jr. has a better record of unemployment and job creation than Rick Perry.
Also, look at the region in which these states reside. Texas is better than the national average, but has the worst unemployment rate in it's region. The Texas unemployment rate is worse than Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. Among it's neighbors, Texas is the worst--unless you count Northeast Mexico.
Utah is a little better compared to it's neighbors. Utah's unemployment rate is worse than Wyoming and New Mexico. But it is about even with Montana, and better than Colorado, Idaho, Arizona and Nevada.
If you are looking at who can really lead us out of the recession, and you are looking at Rick Perry, you can probably pick someone better. Perry can look good next to Romney, because Mitt left office in 2006. Compared to some of the others in the race, Perry does not look so good.
But do not take my word for this, check the BLS website for yourself.
But, there is one state (there have been several) whose record on unemployment and job creation has actually been better than Texas. And one of Perry's rivals for the GOP nomination can take credit for it. Utah has had a lower unemployment rate than Texas throughout the recession. And Utah has created more jobs per capita than Texas throughout the recession. And one of Perry's GOP rivals was at the helm for much of the time. John M. Huntman, Jr. has a better record of unemployment and job creation than Rick Perry.
Also, look at the region in which these states reside. Texas is better than the national average, but has the worst unemployment rate in it's region. The Texas unemployment rate is worse than Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. Among it's neighbors, Texas is the worst--unless you count Northeast Mexico.
Utah is a little better compared to it's neighbors. Utah's unemployment rate is worse than Wyoming and New Mexico. But it is about even with Montana, and better than Colorado, Idaho, Arizona and Nevada.
If you are looking at who can really lead us out of the recession, and you are looking at Rick Perry, you can probably pick someone better. Perry can look good next to Romney, because Mitt left office in 2006. Compared to some of the others in the race, Perry does not look so good.
But do not take my word for this, check the BLS website for yourself.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
What the debt downgrade means...and how to begin to fix the problem.
The debt downgrade by Standard and Poor's is an indication from this credit agency that in their opinion, the United State government has borrowed too much money. There are a lot of "I told you so's" escaping the lips of Tea Party members at this time. There are even calls for Geitner to resign from Michelle Bachmann. But make no mistake, this is no Tea Party victory, and if anyone from the Tea Party is doing a victory dance, they should stop right now. This is serious business, and every elected politician from the President to every city council member should be in fear of their jobs, Tea Party or socialist and everyone in between.
States and municipalities need to learn to count on less money from the Feds. This means that there will be cuts in services. Highway projects and other capital improvements will need to be delayed.
If this does not force the United States into a double dip recession or even a new depression, it may certainly feel like it by the end of next year. Interest rates for everything will go up. It will now become more expensive for everyone to borrow money. And the sellers of every item sold mainly on credit, from houses to computers will have to lower their prices. The housing market will not recover, the auto industry is in for harder times, and as a result, more layoffs are in the works. In other words, here we go again.
There is one difference now. There is a group of people who thought that even in hard times, they had life-long employment. That is not longer the case. There can be no denying it now. Even Federal Government employees now need to fear for their jobs. Welcome to the real world!
What American needs are jobs. Employed persons pay taxes. Unemployed persons draw from the government dole. The more people paying taxes, the more more reduced the deficit will be. The best way to fight the deficit is to move people from column B to column A. We can start by opening up domestic sources of energy. The oil and gas from domestic sources will not be at the pump for 3 or 4 years, but putting resources into energy production will employ people. It will not solve the debt problem by itself, but it is a good place to begin. And we have to begin somewhere, and now would be a good time to start. In fact, many Federal employees could go to work in the oil business.
One last thought. Oil and gas worker are well paid. They will be paying taxes. Allowing America's oil and gas industry to expand is indeed a step in the right direction.
States and municipalities need to learn to count on less money from the Feds. This means that there will be cuts in services. Highway projects and other capital improvements will need to be delayed.
If this does not force the United States into a double dip recession or even a new depression, it may certainly feel like it by the end of next year. Interest rates for everything will go up. It will now become more expensive for everyone to borrow money. And the sellers of every item sold mainly on credit, from houses to computers will have to lower their prices. The housing market will not recover, the auto industry is in for harder times, and as a result, more layoffs are in the works. In other words, here we go again.
There is one difference now. There is a group of people who thought that even in hard times, they had life-long employment. That is not longer the case. There can be no denying it now. Even Federal Government employees now need to fear for their jobs. Welcome to the real world!
What American needs are jobs. Employed persons pay taxes. Unemployed persons draw from the government dole. The more people paying taxes, the more more reduced the deficit will be. The best way to fight the deficit is to move people from column B to column A. We can start by opening up domestic sources of energy. The oil and gas from domestic sources will not be at the pump for 3 or 4 years, but putting resources into energy production will employ people. It will not solve the debt problem by itself, but it is a good place to begin. And we have to begin somewhere, and now would be a good time to start. In fact, many Federal employees could go to work in the oil business.
One last thought. Oil and gas worker are well paid. They will be paying taxes. Allowing America's oil and gas industry to expand is indeed a step in the right direction.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Debt Limit has increased...now what.
Congress has passed a debt limit increase...
clap...clap...clap
The debt limit increase has nothing to do with the debate about balancing the budget unless you want to balance the budget right now. The threat that the US credit rating may be downgraded persists. Even many Tea Party people believe that that is not realistic to immediately balance the budget. But tying the passage to commitments to trim the future budget was a smart thing to do.
Again, a balanced budget amendment is a good thing, but not until Congress is disciplined enough to balance the budget without a major personal income tax increase regardless of socioeconomic class. Also, pay raises for Congress, the President, the Cabinet and the Joint Chiefs should be tied to a balanced budget. This means that these people will not see pay increases unless the budget is balanced. If you tie pay raises to a balanced budget, Congress will find a way to get it done.
We would also like to see all 50 states and all municipalities in the US be able to balance their budgets without help from the Federal Government. This will set a positive example to all individuals who are now part of the Entitlement Generation. If States, Counties and Cities can do without Federal assistance businesses and individuals can as well. This battle is only beginning.
clap...clap...clap
The debt limit increase has nothing to do with the debate about balancing the budget unless you want to balance the budget right now. The threat that the US credit rating may be downgraded persists. Even many Tea Party people believe that that is not realistic to immediately balance the budget. But tying the passage to commitments to trim the future budget was a smart thing to do.
Again, a balanced budget amendment is a good thing, but not until Congress is disciplined enough to balance the budget without a major personal income tax increase regardless of socioeconomic class. Also, pay raises for Congress, the President, the Cabinet and the Joint Chiefs should be tied to a balanced budget. This means that these people will not see pay increases unless the budget is balanced. If you tie pay raises to a balanced budget, Congress will find a way to get it done.
We would also like to see all 50 states and all municipalities in the US be able to balance their budgets without help from the Federal Government. This will set a positive example to all individuals who are now part of the Entitlement Generation. If States, Counties and Cities can do without Federal assistance businesses and individuals can as well. This battle is only beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
