No business would be successful if it wasn't for the infrastructure of the government supporting them. It is the government who enforces the laws and builds the infrastructure that makes it possible for business to succeed. At least this is the point that President Obama was trying to make when he made his unfortunate "You didn't build that" comment. But was it really government who did that?
The infrastructure part, was it really government? Every new road was not, in fact, built by the government. In most cases, it is a company like Peter Kewitt or JB Parsons that actually builds the roads. Roads are built by contractors. The government only finances the road. Usually, it is a combination of federal and state gas taxes that finances a road.
Many people need a little capital to get a business going, so they get a government-guaranteed loan from the Small Business Administration. However, they do not go directly to the SBA to get the loan. It is usually administered through a bank. Many banks are also small businesses, although some are very large.
What about other government services? None of those would be possible with the sacrifice of individuals. The police for that enforces the law. Those that prosecute criminals. Those that issue business licenses. There are many that are on the government payroll, and in good economic times, most of those people would make more money in the private sector.
Therefore, who builds a small business other than the proprietor? Mostly, it is other businesses. The governments role is there, but it is very small. The government's job is to provide the infrastructure and the environment that a small business can flourish in, but the hard work is mostly done by other businesses and by individual. It is those people who Obama did not give credit to in his, "you didn't build that" speech. If you helped build that, I salute you.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
The reasons why the deficit is so high.
1. There is no direction in Congress. The House of Representatives is controlled by one party and the Senate is controlled by the other. There are very few bills that will get through both houses. If the House passes a bill that is too Republican, the Democratic-controlled Senate will not even consider it. Congress has not passed a budget for 3 years.
2. The tax structure is too punitive on business, too lax on individuals. In the United States, the tax rate on business averages 35%. This is Federal tax, plus State tax plus local tax. Businesses are getting hit from all ends on the tax front. True, individuals are paying less in tax than ever...it has been that way for 10 years. It needs to be more balanced where individuals pay more but businesses pay less.
3. Jobs have moved overseas. This represents a loss in the opportunity to collect income taxes.
4. People are not making as much money as they used to. Some people have fallen out of tax brackets where they pay taxes to tax brackets where they receive back more than they pay.
5. Yes Congress (not the President) has been borrowing spending a lot of money...at unprecedented levels.
6. True some people are choosing to delay retirement and receive benefits, but more people are choosing to retire early because they have little confidence in working again.
The current deficit is as much a problem with lost revenue as it is with runaway spending. That is beyond the control and scope of Congress.
2. The tax structure is too punitive on business, too lax on individuals. In the United States, the tax rate on business averages 35%. This is Federal tax, plus State tax plus local tax. Businesses are getting hit from all ends on the tax front. True, individuals are paying less in tax than ever...it has been that way for 10 years. It needs to be more balanced where individuals pay more but businesses pay less.
3. Jobs have moved overseas. This represents a loss in the opportunity to collect income taxes.
4. People are not making as much money as they used to. Some people have fallen out of tax brackets where they pay taxes to tax brackets where they receive back more than they pay.
5. Yes Congress (not the President) has been borrowing spending a lot of money...at unprecedented levels.
6. True some people are choosing to delay retirement and receive benefits, but more people are choosing to retire early because they have little confidence in working again.
The current deficit is as much a problem with lost revenue as it is with runaway spending. That is beyond the control and scope of Congress.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Will ObamaCare Effect Your Job?
Many Republicans are predicting that ObamaCare will cost jobs, although the answer is not exactly clear. Those who have studied RomneyCare state that there will little to no effect on jobs. But ObamaCare is a little different, and what people do not do enough of is study the differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare.
But the question on everyone's mind is this: will ObamaCare cost me my job? The answer is it depends on two factors, the size of the company you work for and the amount of money you earn.
Who will likely not be effected?
If you have a large salary, over 80,000 per year in my estimate, healthcare costs are such a minor part of your overall compensation package that adding another 10 to 15 thousand per year for health care benefits is not a hard thing to do. If you make 80,000 per year or more, health care is about 1/6 or less of your total compensation package. It is true, however, that if health insurance was not so expensive you would be making more money. But at that salary, who's complaining? Who couldn't use another 1,000 or so per month? This figure could be higher and this figure could be lower depending on where a company is comfortable in drawing that line, the line where a company says the amount that they pay for your healthcare benefits is too high a price to pay.
Will anyone benefit?
Do you know anyone who works a low-wage job just for the health insurance? The CBO estimates that this is less than 1% of the population. That is where Michele Bauchmann comes us with the number of 800,000. For example, Bill is an attorney that pulls in a nice annual salary. But his practice includes just himself and a few secretaries and paralegals. This is the size of business that never was able to provide health insurance as part of the benefit package. His wife Jane works at the local school lunch counter for a little over minimum wage and health insurance. With Bill being able to purchase health insurance for his practice, Jane no longer needs to take a job just for the health insurance. The CBO expects that some 800,000 people will be able to give up such jobs. Therefore, ObamaCare does take away the incentive some people have to work. But it is not a bad thing in every case.
Who will suffer?
The people most likely to experience the negative effects of ObamaCare are those who work for less than 80,000 or so. It is at this level that larger companies may decide it is less costly not to offer a company plan, but pay the fine that the Supreme Court says is a tax. These are the people that will have to purchase a private plan from a multi-state exchange or pay the fine that the Supreme Court says is a tax. Companies with fewer than 50 employees will still be exempt from the law. About 4% of America works in a company this size. Therefore, ObamaCare is not universal.
But what if a company has 60 employees, 75 or 100? Companies of this size could save money by replacing full-time employees with part-time employees. It would be a pain for whomever is in charge of human resources, but it would save a company of that size a boat load of money to have 50 full-time employees with 100 part-time employees instead of 100 full-time employees. Even a company as large as 500 employees could skirt the ObamaCare tax by working mainly with part-time employees. A company larger than this is likely to pay less money by dropping your health insurance benefit and paying the tax than by keeping the type of plan required by ObamaCare.
Therefore, take a look at your job profile. If the type of work you do pays around 50,000 a year and if you typically work for a company with 200 or fewer employees, your job is likely in jeopardy. You may find yourself working two to three jobs with none of them providing benefits. Your ability to work and earn a living for your family is not in jeopardy, you will still be able to find work, but finding a full-time job will be difficult. Finding a job with health insurance, good luck.
If you run a business with 49 employees, you probably better be sure that the 50th person you hire is a human resource specialist who can help you navigate through all of the difficult waters that ObamaCare complicates once you hire the 51st employee. Employers can play all sorts of games, if they dedicate the resources to it, to avoid paying the fine. But there will come a point, 300 to 500 employees, that such games are no longer practical.
There are other games that employers can play to avoid paying a fee for not providing insurance coverage. The fee only applies if the employee gets the government plan outside of work. They can hire someone age 25 or younger that could still be on their parent's insurance plan and avoid the fee. They can hire the spouse of someone who has insurance, that way the insured spouse only has to pay a 35 dollar fee to get their working spouse covered. Thank goodness for same-sex marriage if you are an employer. You can also hire someone who is already on medicare, so you could look to hire someone over the age of 65. If you are an employer, you can look to hire someone from a high income zip-code to increase the likelihood that you hire a person who fits into one of these categories.
One easy way for employees to get around the ObamaCare rules and remain employed full-time is to be hired as an independent contractor and save their employer from the ObamaCare fee. As an independent contractor, the employee is completely responsible for paying for his own healthcare and other benefits and the employer is legally free from these obligations.
It is unknown how many people fit into these categories. According to Money Magazine about 51% of the private work force is employed for small businesses. About 75% of the work force earns less than 80,000 per year. The median income in the US is about 33,000 per year. Does this give you a picture of how many people this legislation could touch?
To Sum Up
There are ways for smaller businesses to avoid paying the ObamaCare Tax.
1. Do not hire more than 50 full-time employees. Rely on part-time and temporary workers.
2. Hire independent contractors.
3. Hire those young enough to be covered by their parents plan.
4. Hire those old enough to be on Medicare.
5. Hire those who are likely to be covered by the insurance plan of a spouse...look for those who come from rich zip codes.
6. Hire illegal aliens. (I'm serious.)
7. Hire military spouses.
8. Hire the spouses of public-sector employees.
In conclusion
ObamaCare will not negatively effect everyone, but it will have an unintended effect for many. Employers may take drastic steps to avoid paying the ObamaCare taxes, and employees may also have to take equally drastic steps to remain employed full-time.
But the question on everyone's mind is this: will ObamaCare cost me my job? The answer is it depends on two factors, the size of the company you work for and the amount of money you earn.
Who will likely not be effected?
If you have a large salary, over 80,000 per year in my estimate, healthcare costs are such a minor part of your overall compensation package that adding another 10 to 15 thousand per year for health care benefits is not a hard thing to do. If you make 80,000 per year or more, health care is about 1/6 or less of your total compensation package. It is true, however, that if health insurance was not so expensive you would be making more money. But at that salary, who's complaining? Who couldn't use another 1,000 or so per month? This figure could be higher and this figure could be lower depending on where a company is comfortable in drawing that line, the line where a company says the amount that they pay for your healthcare benefits is too high a price to pay.
Will anyone benefit?
Do you know anyone who works a low-wage job just for the health insurance? The CBO estimates that this is less than 1% of the population. That is where Michele Bauchmann comes us with the number of 800,000. For example, Bill is an attorney that pulls in a nice annual salary. But his practice includes just himself and a few secretaries and paralegals. This is the size of business that never was able to provide health insurance as part of the benefit package. His wife Jane works at the local school lunch counter for a little over minimum wage and health insurance. With Bill being able to purchase health insurance for his practice, Jane no longer needs to take a job just for the health insurance. The CBO expects that some 800,000 people will be able to give up such jobs. Therefore, ObamaCare does take away the incentive some people have to work. But it is not a bad thing in every case.
Who will suffer?
The people most likely to experience the negative effects of ObamaCare are those who work for less than 80,000 or so. It is at this level that larger companies may decide it is less costly not to offer a company plan, but pay the fine that the Supreme Court says is a tax. These are the people that will have to purchase a private plan from a multi-state exchange or pay the fine that the Supreme Court says is a tax. Companies with fewer than 50 employees will still be exempt from the law. About 4% of America works in a company this size. Therefore, ObamaCare is not universal.
But what if a company has 60 employees, 75 or 100? Companies of this size could save money by replacing full-time employees with part-time employees. It would be a pain for whomever is in charge of human resources, but it would save a company of that size a boat load of money to have 50 full-time employees with 100 part-time employees instead of 100 full-time employees. Even a company as large as 500 employees could skirt the ObamaCare tax by working mainly with part-time employees. A company larger than this is likely to pay less money by dropping your health insurance benefit and paying the tax than by keeping the type of plan required by ObamaCare.
Therefore, take a look at your job profile. If the type of work you do pays around 50,000 a year and if you typically work for a company with 200 or fewer employees, your job is likely in jeopardy. You may find yourself working two to three jobs with none of them providing benefits. Your ability to work and earn a living for your family is not in jeopardy, you will still be able to find work, but finding a full-time job will be difficult. Finding a job with health insurance, good luck.
If you run a business with 49 employees, you probably better be sure that the 50th person you hire is a human resource specialist who can help you navigate through all of the difficult waters that ObamaCare complicates once you hire the 51st employee. Employers can play all sorts of games, if they dedicate the resources to it, to avoid paying the fine. But there will come a point, 300 to 500 employees, that such games are no longer practical.
There are other games that employers can play to avoid paying a fee for not providing insurance coverage. The fee only applies if the employee gets the government plan outside of work. They can hire someone age 25 or younger that could still be on their parent's insurance plan and avoid the fee. They can hire the spouse of someone who has insurance, that way the insured spouse only has to pay a 35 dollar fee to get their working spouse covered. Thank goodness for same-sex marriage if you are an employer. You can also hire someone who is already on medicare, so you could look to hire someone over the age of 65. If you are an employer, you can look to hire someone from a high income zip-code to increase the likelihood that you hire a person who fits into one of these categories.
One easy way for employees to get around the ObamaCare rules and remain employed full-time is to be hired as an independent contractor and save their employer from the ObamaCare fee. As an independent contractor, the employee is completely responsible for paying for his own healthcare and other benefits and the employer is legally free from these obligations.
It is unknown how many people fit into these categories. According to Money Magazine about 51% of the private work force is employed for small businesses. About 75% of the work force earns less than 80,000 per year. The median income in the US is about 33,000 per year. Does this give you a picture of how many people this legislation could touch?
To Sum Up
There are ways for smaller businesses to avoid paying the ObamaCare Tax.
1. Do not hire more than 50 full-time employees. Rely on part-time and temporary workers.
2. Hire independent contractors.
3. Hire those young enough to be covered by their parents plan.
4. Hire those old enough to be on Medicare.
5. Hire those who are likely to be covered by the insurance plan of a spouse...look for those who come from rich zip codes.
6. Hire illegal aliens. (I'm serious.)
7. Hire military spouses.
8. Hire the spouses of public-sector employees.
In conclusion
ObamaCare will not negatively effect everyone, but it will have an unintended effect for many. Employers may take drastic steps to avoid paying the ObamaCare taxes, and employees may also have to take equally drastic steps to remain employed full-time.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
What Health Care Reform Should Have Looked Like
I have said this before, and I am sticking to my guns. Healthcare reform is needed. I began with 7 points, it grew to 8. Now, after discussions with the healthcare professionals in my family, I add a 9th and a 10th.
1. Insurance should be for catastrophic losses only, not for every-day run-of-the-mill healthcare expenses. Let's say I have a cold that has been hanging on for more than two weeks. My boss says, "hey Ben, do not come back to work until you have seen a doctor." I go see the doctor, he says I have a sinus infection and gives me an antibiotic. If I make an average wage/salary, there is no reason to bill my insurance for any of it. I should be able to pay for both the doctor visit and the prescription out of my own pocket with my own money.
Sure, doctors may make less money from our little visit, but they will have more freedom and more satisfaction in their jobs.
With Obamacare, there is an individual mandate, meaning that each person is required to purchase insurance, but there is not a mandate for a doctor to take you as a patient. That is a key point. If my company pushes me to an exchange, will I be able to find a doctor who will treat me? Obamacare does not answer that question. If the costs are low enough for me to pay for it out of my own pocket, will that question matter?
To accomplish this, costs for doctors to do business will have to be lower. Medical equipment and malpractice insurance are some of the bigger costs that doctors face. There are many other unneeded day to day expenses for doctors as well.
2. You have to entice lower-risk people, meaning the young, into insurance plans. You also have to find a way to include immigrants and non-citizens, who are usually younger, into the insurance pool to help diffuse the cost. Obamacare, in part, does this, but not completely. Some even say that that there are incentives to for younger people to pay the penalty rather than to pay for insurance.
3. Tort reform is needed to end defensive medicine.
4. Realistic care for the elderly to improve the quality of life, not just delay the inevitability of death.
5. Train more providers who are not doctors to assist in medical care, this include hiring more Physician Assistants and Nurse Practioners. Let me just say, you should see how my kid'd orthodontist handles his practice. He has a staff of around 20 assistants, with around 10 of them working at one time. He glides around the room on swivel chair from patient to patient, only doing the work that he is required to do and ensuring that his assistants do not do anything wrong. This man has it down. Many medical practices would operate with lower costs using this model.
6. End the use of the emergency room for medical issues that are not a life and death emergency. This would probably take a marketing/education plan much like the "this is your brain on drugs" campaign, but if effective, could send a strong message.
7. Alternative payment methods. No one should get it for free, but if you can not pay the bill, some community service agreement should be worked out. The doctor/clinic/practice/hospital could write-off the expense. The community would be served. People will not be afraid to see the doctor out of the fear of being left with a big bill.
8. Aggressively prosecute medical fraud.
9. Require that all doctors have business classes as part of their medical training. A medical practice is a business after all.
1. Insurance should be for catastrophic losses only, not for every-day run-of-the-mill healthcare expenses. Let's say I have a cold that has been hanging on for more than two weeks. My boss says, "hey Ben, do not come back to work until you have seen a doctor." I go see the doctor, he says I have a sinus infection and gives me an antibiotic. If I make an average wage/salary, there is no reason to bill my insurance for any of it. I should be able to pay for both the doctor visit and the prescription out of my own pocket with my own money.
Sure, doctors may make less money from our little visit, but they will have more freedom and more satisfaction in their jobs.
With Obamacare, there is an individual mandate, meaning that each person is required to purchase insurance, but there is not a mandate for a doctor to take you as a patient. That is a key point. If my company pushes me to an exchange, will I be able to find a doctor who will treat me? Obamacare does not answer that question. If the costs are low enough for me to pay for it out of my own pocket, will that question matter?
To accomplish this, costs for doctors to do business will have to be lower. Medical equipment and malpractice insurance are some of the bigger costs that doctors face. There are many other unneeded day to day expenses for doctors as well.
2. You have to entice lower-risk people, meaning the young, into insurance plans. You also have to find a way to include immigrants and non-citizens, who are usually younger, into the insurance pool to help diffuse the cost. Obamacare, in part, does this, but not completely. Some even say that that there are incentives to for younger people to pay the penalty rather than to pay for insurance.
3. Tort reform is needed to end defensive medicine.
4. Realistic care for the elderly to improve the quality of life, not just delay the inevitability of death.
5. Train more providers who are not doctors to assist in medical care, this include hiring more Physician Assistants and Nurse Practioners. Let me just say, you should see how my kid'd orthodontist handles his practice. He has a staff of around 20 assistants, with around 10 of them working at one time. He glides around the room on swivel chair from patient to patient, only doing the work that he is required to do and ensuring that his assistants do not do anything wrong. This man has it down. Many medical practices would operate with lower costs using this model.
6. End the use of the emergency room for medical issues that are not a life and death emergency. This would probably take a marketing/education plan much like the "this is your brain on drugs" campaign, but if effective, could send a strong message.
7. Alternative payment methods. No one should get it for free, but if you can not pay the bill, some community service agreement should be worked out. The doctor/clinic/practice/hospital could write-off the expense. The community would be served. People will not be afraid to see the doctor out of the fear of being left with a big bill.
8. Aggressively prosecute medical fraud.
9. Require that all doctors have business classes as part of their medical training. A medical practice is a business after all.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
The Supreme Court Did Obama No Favors.
The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in ObamaCare, meaning that the government can force you to purchase insurance. But that does not mean that conservatives should hang their head in shame or that Nancy Pelosi should be spinning cartwheels. In reality, the Supreme Court may have handed Mitt Romney a victory in November.
They ruled that the individual mandate in ObamaCare is constitutional because it is technically a tax increase. Which is, in a sense, true. Anything that the government requires a person to pay is a tax...everything, even if it is not labeled a tax. All tolls, fees, surcharges, duties, tariffs, levies, charges and evaluations are really taxes. A tax by any other name is a tax. Now my medical insurance premiums are a tax.
Conservatives attacked ObamaCare from the wrong angle to begin with. If the words, "the largest tax increase in history" were used from the beginning, perhaps this bill would have become to unpopular for Congress to swallow, and it would not have become law. But now, it is fuel for the fire for Mitt Romney and any person running against any one in Congress who voted for the bill. If we call it what it is, perhaps Congress will be more willing to repeal it.
Every American should look at their latest paycheck and do as I am doing for you now....I do not mind sharing this with you know, because I am getting a raise in July, so I am not really revealing what I am now getting paid. I am also not revealing whether I get paid weekly, monthly or bi-monthly.
My gross pay from my last check was 1632.64. My medical insurance premium was 193.33. According to the Supreme court, that is a tax because health insurance is mandatory and considered a tax. Here is how the rest of it breaks down: 65.86 in Federal Income Taxes, 57.29 in Social Security taxes and 9.78 in Medicare taxes. That means that I paid 336.26 in taxes on my last paycheck. That is about 21% of my income directly out of my paycheck in taxes, where it used to only be 132.93 or about 8%. Because the health care insurance premium is now a tax, my taxes just went up by 144%. That's right...Barrack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi passed a 144% tax increase to me and the Supreme Court upheld it.
Also, remember that 193.33 is just my share. I only pay about 40% of the total premium and my company pays the rest. Do you think that my company, which already pays the highest business taxes in the world appreciates having another big tax increase levied on them?
Every American that pays health insurance premiums should look at their last paycheck and see the same thing. What was once an employer/employee co-paid benefit is now a tax.
The only good news is that health care premiums can not be taxed because that would amount to double taxation....we tax what we have already taxed.
Do you think that Mitt Romney can get some traction out of those numbers? If he doesn't, he's a fool. Think that Obama can keep playing his...the "rich should pay their fare share" card any longer? That probably wouldn't be a good idea, after the largest tax increase in history. If the Supreme Court says this is a tax increase, Mitt Romney should run with that, trump it loud and clear and not let America forget it. America should go to the polls in November with the words, "it was a tax increase" fully on their minds. Am I happy about my 144% tax increase? No, I am not. Am I happy that my taxes will go up even higher in January? No, I am not. Do I want to see that change? Yes, I do!
Obama promised us hope and change, what he meant was, "when I get through with your paycheck, all that you will have left is hope and change." Let's hope for real change.
But then again, Mitt Romney did the same thing in Massachusetts, so he may not get the traction out of this that someone else would have. But who else was there?
They ruled that the individual mandate in ObamaCare is constitutional because it is technically a tax increase. Which is, in a sense, true. Anything that the government requires a person to pay is a tax...everything, even if it is not labeled a tax. All tolls, fees, surcharges, duties, tariffs, levies, charges and evaluations are really taxes. A tax by any other name is a tax. Now my medical insurance premiums are a tax.
Conservatives attacked ObamaCare from the wrong angle to begin with. If the words, "the largest tax increase in history" were used from the beginning, perhaps this bill would have become to unpopular for Congress to swallow, and it would not have become law. But now, it is fuel for the fire for Mitt Romney and any person running against any one in Congress who voted for the bill. If we call it what it is, perhaps Congress will be more willing to repeal it.
Every American should look at their latest paycheck and do as I am doing for you now....I do not mind sharing this with you know, because I am getting a raise in July, so I am not really revealing what I am now getting paid. I am also not revealing whether I get paid weekly, monthly or bi-monthly.
My gross pay from my last check was 1632.64. My medical insurance premium was 193.33. According to the Supreme court, that is a tax because health insurance is mandatory and considered a tax. Here is how the rest of it breaks down: 65.86 in Federal Income Taxes, 57.29 in Social Security taxes and 9.78 in Medicare taxes. That means that I paid 336.26 in taxes on my last paycheck. That is about 21% of my income directly out of my paycheck in taxes, where it used to only be 132.93 or about 8%. Because the health care insurance premium is now a tax, my taxes just went up by 144%. That's right...Barrack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi passed a 144% tax increase to me and the Supreme Court upheld it.
Also, remember that 193.33 is just my share. I only pay about 40% of the total premium and my company pays the rest. Do you think that my company, which already pays the highest business taxes in the world appreciates having another big tax increase levied on them?
Every American that pays health insurance premiums should look at their last paycheck and see the same thing. What was once an employer/employee co-paid benefit is now a tax.
The only good news is that health care premiums can not be taxed because that would amount to double taxation....we tax what we have already taxed.
Do you think that Mitt Romney can get some traction out of those numbers? If he doesn't, he's a fool. Think that Obama can keep playing his...the "rich should pay their fare share" card any longer? That probably wouldn't be a good idea, after the largest tax increase in history. If the Supreme Court says this is a tax increase, Mitt Romney should run with that, trump it loud and clear and not let America forget it. America should go to the polls in November with the words, "it was a tax increase" fully on their minds. Am I happy about my 144% tax increase? No, I am not. Am I happy that my taxes will go up even higher in January? No, I am not. Do I want to see that change? Yes, I do!
Obama promised us hope and change, what he meant was, "when I get through with your paycheck, all that you will have left is hope and change." Let's hope for real change.
But then again, Mitt Romney did the same thing in Massachusetts, so he may not get the traction out of this that someone else would have. But who else was there?
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Voting against a debt limit increase? Have a plan?
You're in Congress and you just voted down another debt limit increase because more borrowing is morally irresponsible. Congratulations, you now immediately have to decide how to balance the Federal Budget, or the US goes into default on some of it's debt? Welcome to Hell, and I hope that you are not planning on another term in office, even though you probably deserve credit if you can pull this off. But most in Congress will vote down a debt limit increase to make a statement and have no plan to bring the books into balance.
It is irresponsible to vote down a debt limit increase without a plan to immediately balance the budget. That is just like me, turning to my wife and saying, honey I'm putting the Visa in the Safe Deposit Box and burying the key in the back yard", but not have a family budget. If I do this, we are bound to not have money for food or will miss some other payments or something like that. It's a bad plan. It's a recipe for chaos.
If all temporary tax cuts are allow to expire in FY 2013, you still have to find 910 billion dollars in cuts. There will be pressure to completely cut some departments and to reform entitlements. But there is no time for those kinds of debates. You have to find 910 billion dollars in savings immediately or the government will default on it's debt. Any ideas? Here are some of my suggestions.
1. Every civilian federal employee to take a week of furlough without pay. There are about 4.5 million federal employees who make an average of 83,000 per year. (More than what I make). This will save the government 70 Billion over the year. The employees effected...the President, every member of Congress, down to every GS-1 in the civil service.
2. Every civilian employed by the US government gets 12 to 24 days of paid vacation per year depending on how many years that they have worked for the government. Cut that down to what the average private sector employee has, which is 5 to 14 vacation days per year. In doing so, you have just made 187,000 federal employees expendable...that is how many Full-Time Equivalents the government must hire in order to cover the extra vacation. You can now lay them off. You have just saved another 15 Billion. You have now saved the government 95 billion and now have 815 Billion left to cut.
BTW, in my current job, which pays better than what the average American earns, I get 0 paid time off. No vacation time and no holidays. If I do not work, I do not get paid. I have to pay for vacation out of my own pocket and I work a flexible schedule the rest of the week when there is a Holiday. There are many in the new economy that have given up paid time off to maintain health care benefits. For us, it was one or the other.
3. Bring the troops home from Afghanistan immediately. That is another 80.4 Billion. 175.4 Billion down. 734.6 Billion left. Source
4. Europe gets along rather nicely, now-a-days. We aren't really needed there. Let's bring the troops home from Europe. That would save us about 287 million, according to Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado. Let's round that up to 300 million. Now we have saved 175.7 Billion and have 734.3 billion left. Mmm...that's not the kind of savings that we need, but we will keep it in there. It makes a statement that we are serious.
5. Cut off long term welfare recipients. Let's have churches and other private groups help them find work. That could save us another 10 billion, according to the Cato institute. We have now saved 185.7 Billion and have 724.3 billion left to go. We have now trimmed 1/5 of the federal deficit.
6. We have 142 million unemployed. 5.4 million of them have been unemployed for over 6 months. It used to be that we cut off unemployment benefits after 6 months to get them back to work. At 330 per week, we could save the government 92 billion. Now we are at 277.7 billion cut from the budget with only 632 billion left to cut.
7. ObamaCare is expensive. Let's repeal it. That will save the government 340 billion that would have been added to the deficit. We are now at 617 billion saved. We are now only 293 billion away from a balanced budget.
8. One of the problems with the Federal Budget is the huge amount of money that is spent on interest. Could we do something about that? There are 268.6 million acres of land out west that is owned by the feds and not doing anything else. What if we sold it all at the cost of 1000 dollars per acre (30% below the going value for an acre of Utah desert) and apply it toward the national debt. We have reduced the national debt by 2.6 trillion dollars. That is about 23% of the debt, reducing interest by 23%. That saves another 58 billion. Putting us to a total of 675. That leaves us with 235 billion.
9. The total federal expenditures for FY 2013 was expected to be at 3803 Billion. We have just taken 675 billion off of that total. We now are down to 3128 and have 235 billion left to cut. We order every federal department at this juncture to cut their spending by an additional 10%. They will need to do so without affecting benefits paid to citizens. That means that an additional 313 billion will be saved. That leaves us with 78 billion to spare, which should not be spent, but should be used to help us go through the same exercise in FY2014, which is needed because one can only lay off 187,000 Federal employees once.
BTW, remember this is after all temporary tax cuts have expired. If you want to keeps those, you have to come up with another 300 billion. It was a lot of work to come up with just this.
A plan will need to be made to keep the US Government in the black permanently and retire some of the national debt. Of course, the consequences are laying off 187,000 federal government employees will be devastating. Hopefully, it is done proportionally across all 50 states. This means that 187,000 people have joined the 14 million people already out of work. This is why I say to any congress bold enough to pass it, they probably deserve to keep their jobs, but will likely lose them.
A sensible congress, even a conservative one, will likely save a plan like this for better times when the displaced federal employees can easily find private-sector jobs, like in the 1990s. That will soften the blow to the economy. But I suspect that Tea Party Republicans will forget all about this when the economy improves and let the government grow even larger, just like the former presidential candidate named after a cookie did.
I put this list together with resorting to...this program is unconstitutional, therefore let's get rid of it. I tried not to put an additional burden upon the already overburdened state governments. In better economic times, states may be able to shoulder more responsibilities. I was also able to leave Social Security Benefits, Medicare and Medicaid untouched. It is a common belief that for a long-term solution to the Government's debt problems, that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will need to be examined.
My challenge is for anyone who is running for Congress and says that they will not vote for another debt limit increase is to come up with a better plan. This plan stinks and will have serious consequences, but I am not running for Congress. I asked Dan Liljenquist's team, for example, if they had one. But they did not offer any specifics, just generalities. Certainly anyone serious about no more debt limit increases in Congress has given this some serious thought. If not, they do not deserve your vote.
It is irresponsible to vote down a debt limit increase without a plan to immediately balance the budget. That is just like me, turning to my wife and saying, honey I'm putting the Visa in the Safe Deposit Box and burying the key in the back yard", but not have a family budget. If I do this, we are bound to not have money for food or will miss some other payments or something like that. It's a bad plan. It's a recipe for chaos.
If all temporary tax cuts are allow to expire in FY 2013, you still have to find 910 billion dollars in cuts. There will be pressure to completely cut some departments and to reform entitlements. But there is no time for those kinds of debates. You have to find 910 billion dollars in savings immediately or the government will default on it's debt. Any ideas? Here are some of my suggestions.
1. Every civilian federal employee to take a week of furlough without pay. There are about 4.5 million federal employees who make an average of 83,000 per year. (More than what I make). This will save the government 70 Billion over the year. The employees effected...the President, every member of Congress, down to every GS-1 in the civil service.
2. Every civilian employed by the US government gets 12 to 24 days of paid vacation per year depending on how many years that they have worked for the government. Cut that down to what the average private sector employee has, which is 5 to 14 vacation days per year. In doing so, you have just made 187,000 federal employees expendable...that is how many Full-Time Equivalents the government must hire in order to cover the extra vacation. You can now lay them off. You have just saved another 15 Billion. You have now saved the government 95 billion and now have 815 Billion left to cut.
BTW, in my current job, which pays better than what the average American earns, I get 0 paid time off. No vacation time and no holidays. If I do not work, I do not get paid. I have to pay for vacation out of my own pocket and I work a flexible schedule the rest of the week when there is a Holiday. There are many in the new economy that have given up paid time off to maintain health care benefits. For us, it was one or the other.
3. Bring the troops home from Afghanistan immediately. That is another 80.4 Billion. 175.4 Billion down. 734.6 Billion left. Source
4. Europe gets along rather nicely, now-a-days. We aren't really needed there. Let's bring the troops home from Europe. That would save us about 287 million, according to Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado. Let's round that up to 300 million. Now we have saved 175.7 Billion and have 734.3 billion left. Mmm...that's not the kind of savings that we need, but we will keep it in there. It makes a statement that we are serious.
5. Cut off long term welfare recipients. Let's have churches and other private groups help them find work. That could save us another 10 billion, according to the Cato institute. We have now saved 185.7 Billion and have 724.3 billion left to go. We have now trimmed 1/5 of the federal deficit.
6. We have 142 million unemployed. 5.4 million of them have been unemployed for over 6 months. It used to be that we cut off unemployment benefits after 6 months to get them back to work. At 330 per week, we could save the government 92 billion. Now we are at 277.7 billion cut from the budget with only 632 billion left to cut.
7. ObamaCare is expensive. Let's repeal it. That will save the government 340 billion that would have been added to the deficit. We are now at 617 billion saved. We are now only 293 billion away from a balanced budget.
8. One of the problems with the Federal Budget is the huge amount of money that is spent on interest. Could we do something about that? There are 268.6 million acres of land out west that is owned by the feds and not doing anything else. What if we sold it all at the cost of 1000 dollars per acre (30% below the going value for an acre of Utah desert) and apply it toward the national debt. We have reduced the national debt by 2.6 trillion dollars. That is about 23% of the debt, reducing interest by 23%. That saves another 58 billion. Putting us to a total of 675. That leaves us with 235 billion.
9. The total federal expenditures for FY 2013 was expected to be at 3803 Billion. We have just taken 675 billion off of that total. We now are down to 3128 and have 235 billion left to cut. We order every federal department at this juncture to cut their spending by an additional 10%. They will need to do so without affecting benefits paid to citizens. That means that an additional 313 billion will be saved. That leaves us with 78 billion to spare, which should not be spent, but should be used to help us go through the same exercise in FY2014, which is needed because one can only lay off 187,000 Federal employees once.
BTW, remember this is after all temporary tax cuts have expired. If you want to keeps those, you have to come up with another 300 billion. It was a lot of work to come up with just this.
A plan will need to be made to keep the US Government in the black permanently and retire some of the national debt. Of course, the consequences are laying off 187,000 federal government employees will be devastating. Hopefully, it is done proportionally across all 50 states. This means that 187,000 people have joined the 14 million people already out of work. This is why I say to any congress bold enough to pass it, they probably deserve to keep their jobs, but will likely lose them.
A sensible congress, even a conservative one, will likely save a plan like this for better times when the displaced federal employees can easily find private-sector jobs, like in the 1990s. That will soften the blow to the economy. But I suspect that Tea Party Republicans will forget all about this when the economy improves and let the government grow even larger, just like the former presidential candidate named after a cookie did.
I put this list together with resorting to...this program is unconstitutional, therefore let's get rid of it. I tried not to put an additional burden upon the already overburdened state governments. In better economic times, states may be able to shoulder more responsibilities. I was also able to leave Social Security Benefits, Medicare and Medicaid untouched. It is a common belief that for a long-term solution to the Government's debt problems, that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will need to be examined.
My challenge is for anyone who is running for Congress and says that they will not vote for another debt limit increase is to come up with a better plan. This plan stinks and will have serious consequences, but I am not running for Congress. I asked Dan Liljenquist's team, for example, if they had one. But they did not offer any specifics, just generalities. Certainly anyone serious about no more debt limit increases in Congress has given this some serious thought. If not, they do not deserve your vote.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Dan Liljenquist...A Puppy in a Dog Fight
Some of you who read through this blog will notice that the original name was "Fire Orrin Hatch." We would still like to see Hatch take the long ride into the sunset, but a quality candidate has not emerged as our hero, instead we have Dan Liljenquist. Certainly a random drawing out of the entire delegate pool that emerged out of this spring's caucuses may have had a chance at producing a more qualified candidate.
Liljenquist, as a business leader, might on the outset appear more qualified that Orrin Hatch was when he unseated Frank Moss in 1976. But the Liljenquist campaign has failed to trump this advantage. Instead, it has been a constant barrage of anti-Hatch campaigning. Is the "Elect Dan" campaign is trying to hide something.
You will not find a lot if you try to research Focus Teleservices publicly. They are still a privately held corporation, and do not have to file records with the SEC. Perhaps this is the main reason why the Lilgenquist campaign is not talking a lot about their candidate's business record. It is either this, or it is not all that impressive. If Dan accomplished something at Focus, we all deserve to hear about it over and over again.
I have personally known Focus employees and can only provide circumstantial anecdotal evidence of what that company is like, and what I can provide is probably not indicative of what Dan Liljenquist did for Focus. I can provide no evidence that Liljenquist made a difference, good or bad, with that company. That is a shame. But that is not my job, that is Dan's job. This is what disturbs me the most about the Elect Dan movement. How can you convince me that he can make a difference in Washington if you can not or will not provide evidence that he has made a difference at Focus? Soundbites like, "Dan is a proven business leader" mean nothing without the evidence to prove it.
Dan's record in the legislature is not all that impressive. He sponsored some impressive legislation, particularly with pension reform. But, he did not serve a full term and during his time in the state senate, and he missed a large number of votes. Perhaps if he was present during those votes, he would have a more conservative rating.
It has always been my fear that Orrin Hatch is so powerful in the Utah Republican Party that no one who believes that he or she has a future in the party would dare to take him on. This is probably the case. Tim Bridgewater, who lost in the primary 2 years ago to Mike Lee decided to sit this campaign out. Cherilyn Eagar, who also ran against Bennett in 2010 decided to run in the 2nd Congressional District, and failed to make the primary ballot in that race. Some of the other suspects, like Fred Lampropolis and Lane Beattie stayed away from this race as well. This is my evidence that Hatch is too powerful in this state and probably no longer the best representative of Utah's needs, the people with a real shot a beating him stayed home. It's would be like the Miami Heat making this year's NBA finals because the Celtics, Hawks, Pacers and Bulls decided to stay home.
I would be happier if Orrin Hatch had decided to hang up his sneakers and believe that a pool of more qualified and better organized candidates would have emerged for us to choose from if Hatch decided to retire. Instead, we have puppy in a dog fight. Of course the Democrats could have brought Peter Caroon or Jim Matheson to the fight, but their candidate will probably be just a weak as Liljenquist. If Dan pulls off a miracle, the General Election in November might be interesting.
Yet, Hatch has accomplished so little during his time in Washington and has offered Utahans nothing but excuses. When someone runs for office and admits he has accomplished little in 36 years, he probably does not deserve another term, even if he is running against Pee Wee Herman. If I was in the senate for 36 years and wanted another term, I would provide a long list of accomplishments. Therefore, I will probably be voting for Liljenquist, anyway. But I was hoping for someone better. Dan Liljenquist has yet to prove he is better, but Hatch has not proven he deserves another term in Washington. I have a hunch that most republicans in Utah do not agree with me.
If you were interviewing for a job, and someone ask the question, "why should I hire you?" Would you hire the one who only says, "I'm better than the guy I want you to fire?" Would you renew to the contract of the man who says, "I've been here for 36 years and have yet to accomplish all that I set out to do back then?" That is exactly the kind of campaign that Dan Liljenquist is running. This is the kind of campaign that Orrin Hatch is running. Utah deserves better, but if this is all we can provide, we deserve another six years of Hatch.
Liljenquist, as a business leader, might on the outset appear more qualified that Orrin Hatch was when he unseated Frank Moss in 1976. But the Liljenquist campaign has failed to trump this advantage. Instead, it has been a constant barrage of anti-Hatch campaigning. Is the "Elect Dan" campaign is trying to hide something.
You will not find a lot if you try to research Focus Teleservices publicly. They are still a privately held corporation, and do not have to file records with the SEC. Perhaps this is the main reason why the Lilgenquist campaign is not talking a lot about their candidate's business record. It is either this, or it is not all that impressive. If Dan accomplished something at Focus, we all deserve to hear about it over and over again.
I have personally known Focus employees and can only provide circumstantial anecdotal evidence of what that company is like, and what I can provide is probably not indicative of what Dan Liljenquist did for Focus. I can provide no evidence that Liljenquist made a difference, good or bad, with that company. That is a shame. But that is not my job, that is Dan's job. This is what disturbs me the most about the Elect Dan movement. How can you convince me that he can make a difference in Washington if you can not or will not provide evidence that he has made a difference at Focus? Soundbites like, "Dan is a proven business leader" mean nothing without the evidence to prove it.
Dan's record in the legislature is not all that impressive. He sponsored some impressive legislation, particularly with pension reform. But, he did not serve a full term and during his time in the state senate, and he missed a large number of votes. Perhaps if he was present during those votes, he would have a more conservative rating.
It has always been my fear that Orrin Hatch is so powerful in the Utah Republican Party that no one who believes that he or she has a future in the party would dare to take him on. This is probably the case. Tim Bridgewater, who lost in the primary 2 years ago to Mike Lee decided to sit this campaign out. Cherilyn Eagar, who also ran against Bennett in 2010 decided to run in the 2nd Congressional District, and failed to make the primary ballot in that race. Some of the other suspects, like Fred Lampropolis and Lane Beattie stayed away from this race as well. This is my evidence that Hatch is too powerful in this state and probably no longer the best representative of Utah's needs, the people with a real shot a beating him stayed home. It's would be like the Miami Heat making this year's NBA finals because the Celtics, Hawks, Pacers and Bulls decided to stay home.
I would be happier if Orrin Hatch had decided to hang up his sneakers and believe that a pool of more qualified and better organized candidates would have emerged for us to choose from if Hatch decided to retire. Instead, we have puppy in a dog fight. Of course the Democrats could have brought Peter Caroon or Jim Matheson to the fight, but their candidate will probably be just a weak as Liljenquist. If Dan pulls off a miracle, the General Election in November might be interesting.
Yet, Hatch has accomplished so little during his time in Washington and has offered Utahans nothing but excuses. When someone runs for office and admits he has accomplished little in 36 years, he probably does not deserve another term, even if he is running against Pee Wee Herman. If I was in the senate for 36 years and wanted another term, I would provide a long list of accomplishments. Therefore, I will probably be voting for Liljenquist, anyway. But I was hoping for someone better. Dan Liljenquist has yet to prove he is better, but Hatch has not proven he deserves another term in Washington. I have a hunch that most republicans in Utah do not agree with me.
If you were interviewing for a job, and someone ask the question, "why should I hire you?" Would you hire the one who only says, "I'm better than the guy I want you to fire?" Would you renew to the contract of the man who says, "I've been here for 36 years and have yet to accomplish all that I set out to do back then?" That is exactly the kind of campaign that Dan Liljenquist is running. This is the kind of campaign that Orrin Hatch is running. Utah deserves better, but if this is all we can provide, we deserve another six years of Hatch.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
A Plan to Spur the Economy and Help Balance the Budget
It is not easy to both balance the federal budget and spur the economy. The Keynesian theory suggest that borrow money is the best way to spur the economy. But there appears to be a limit to what borrowed money can do, and it appears that all of the money borrowed by Congress since 2008 has done very little to spur the US economy. The jury is still out on whether or not it even prevented a worse problem.
The US economy does not need more federal spending right now. One of the problems is that the bold spirit of entrepreneurism that was once a staple of the economy has disappeared. Do you remember when the American Dream was to be your own boss? What happened to that spirit? One of the reasons it has gone it has gone is that Americans have become more risk adverse than they were in the past.
Entreprenuerism should not be looked as as a bad thing. Almost every big business was once a "ma and pa" shop. Wal-Mart was once a single store in Feyetteville. General Motors was once a horse and buggy repair shop. IBM was once just an innocent idea of statistician Herman Hollerith. Almost every company on the Fortune 500 list had humble beginnings. Every forest in the world was once a single tree, and the Government needs to find a way to encourage small companies to start up again to repopulate the depleted forest. At the same time, the Government needs to find a way to tighten their belt.
One of the ways that Federal Government can do both is to encourage government employees to retire early and to back the risk that they will take to begin their own business. There will be opposition to this plan because it is risky and it does require spending money to begin with. But in the long run, the government will gain back more money than is spent and a long-term debt will be reduced.
1. Step one is to offer a buyout to government employees and military members who are close to retirement. But it can not be just anyone who is ready to retire, it has to be proven leaders who would be more likely to succeed in business if they strike out on their own. This will take an honest assessment. They will have to have enough funds set aside, or in their retirement plans to survive without an income for a couple of years. But there should be, out of the millions of Federal Employees, a few thousand that can take the risk.
2. The eligible government employees who chose to retire early will be able to use a percentage of their saved retirement money as seed money for their business and the Government will agree to match they money that they invest in an interest-free or low-interest SBA loan. Part of this loan will be forgiven for every employee that the new business hires that remains employed with them for 5 years, depending on how much that person is paid.
It sounds like the government is spending a lot of money that they will never see again. The fact is that when any business hires a person the government comes out ahead in three ways. First, that person is no longer eligible for federal programs like unemployment benefits, food stamps and medicaid. Second, that person is paying taxes on his income. Third, the employed person is injecting money into the economy because he has to spend money he has earned to live and much of that money is spent on recreation and some of that money is saved and invested.
In this plan, the government will benefit because they no longer have a higher paid employee on their payroll. The pension amount that this person would have received will be reduced because they retire early. The employee choosing this option will need understand what they are sacrificing to become their own boss.
In this plan, a new small business will get started. This can be any type of business. For example, it could be a military doctor retiring after 15 years in the service to begin his own practice. That doctor is going to probably hire a PA or a NP to help see patients. A nurse or two to assist him. Someone to process the medical records and bill the insurance companies of his patients. A business manager and a receptionist. Those people may be young people, but they may not be.
Other types of businesses, for example, a consulting firm, would require more experienced employees. The older types of employees who simply do not get hired by companies right now. These people may accept lower pay just to work again. Of course, I am referring to those over 50. Many in this age group do not have children at home may not require a higher salary. They are more likely to remain on board with a small business for the required 5 years. This could stave off some of the early retirements that are currently draining the Social Security System faster than expected.
Many of the other plans that government has tried during the current recession, such as the Cash for Clunkers program were one and done deals. They were programs where there was one shot to spur the economy and that was it. That one shot has been spent, and the money is gone with little economic benefit. When the government helps a small business to start up and remain viable, there is a lasting effect on the economy. It is money well spent, and the government will make back more in taxes than they will spend.
The final benefit is that the government is not just letting people go and hoping that they can find work in the private sector. They government would be giving people an incentive to continue to work and add to the economy. That is a long-term investment.
The US economy does not need more federal spending right now. One of the problems is that the bold spirit of entrepreneurism that was once a staple of the economy has disappeared. Do you remember when the American Dream was to be your own boss? What happened to that spirit? One of the reasons it has gone it has gone is that Americans have become more risk adverse than they were in the past.
Entreprenuerism should not be looked as as a bad thing. Almost every big business was once a "ma and pa" shop. Wal-Mart was once a single store in Feyetteville. General Motors was once a horse and buggy repair shop. IBM was once just an innocent idea of statistician Herman Hollerith. Almost every company on the Fortune 500 list had humble beginnings. Every forest in the world was once a single tree, and the Government needs to find a way to encourage small companies to start up again to repopulate the depleted forest. At the same time, the Government needs to find a way to tighten their belt.
One of the ways that Federal Government can do both is to encourage government employees to retire early and to back the risk that they will take to begin their own business. There will be opposition to this plan because it is risky and it does require spending money to begin with. But in the long run, the government will gain back more money than is spent and a long-term debt will be reduced.
1. Step one is to offer a buyout to government employees and military members who are close to retirement. But it can not be just anyone who is ready to retire, it has to be proven leaders who would be more likely to succeed in business if they strike out on their own. This will take an honest assessment. They will have to have enough funds set aside, or in their retirement plans to survive without an income for a couple of years. But there should be, out of the millions of Federal Employees, a few thousand that can take the risk.
2. The eligible government employees who chose to retire early will be able to use a percentage of their saved retirement money as seed money for their business and the Government will agree to match they money that they invest in an interest-free or low-interest SBA loan. Part of this loan will be forgiven for every employee that the new business hires that remains employed with them for 5 years, depending on how much that person is paid.
It sounds like the government is spending a lot of money that they will never see again. The fact is that when any business hires a person the government comes out ahead in three ways. First, that person is no longer eligible for federal programs like unemployment benefits, food stamps and medicaid. Second, that person is paying taxes on his income. Third, the employed person is injecting money into the economy because he has to spend money he has earned to live and much of that money is spent on recreation and some of that money is saved and invested.
In this plan, the government will benefit because they no longer have a higher paid employee on their payroll. The pension amount that this person would have received will be reduced because they retire early. The employee choosing this option will need understand what they are sacrificing to become their own boss.
In this plan, a new small business will get started. This can be any type of business. For example, it could be a military doctor retiring after 15 years in the service to begin his own practice. That doctor is going to probably hire a PA or a NP to help see patients. A nurse or two to assist him. Someone to process the medical records and bill the insurance companies of his patients. A business manager and a receptionist. Those people may be young people, but they may not be.
Other types of businesses, for example, a consulting firm, would require more experienced employees. The older types of employees who simply do not get hired by companies right now. These people may accept lower pay just to work again. Of course, I am referring to those over 50. Many in this age group do not have children at home may not require a higher salary. They are more likely to remain on board with a small business for the required 5 years. This could stave off some of the early retirements that are currently draining the Social Security System faster than expected.
Many of the other plans that government has tried during the current recession, such as the Cash for Clunkers program were one and done deals. They were programs where there was one shot to spur the economy and that was it. That one shot has been spent, and the money is gone with little economic benefit. When the government helps a small business to start up and remain viable, there is a lasting effect on the economy. It is money well spent, and the government will make back more in taxes than they will spend.
The final benefit is that the government is not just letting people go and hoping that they can find work in the private sector. They government would be giving people an incentive to continue to work and add to the economy. That is a long-term investment.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
What has happened to the VP losers?
What has happened to the VP candidates on the losing ticket? You might think that becoming someone's running mate is a springboard to bigger and better things. This, for the VP loser is usually not the case. Here is a sample of what has happened to the non-incumbent VP losers in recent history.
5 retired from politics, did not run for public office again (none are still living). Stevenson (1900), Davis, Fairbanks (1916), Miller, Kemp.
2008--Sarah Palin (with John McCain, lost to Obama/Biden) is one who had a lot of promise when she ran with John McCain. However, she was forced to resign as the Governor of Alaska before she completed a full term. Currently, she is a political analyst for Fox News. Even though there have been attempts to draft Sarah for something bigger, it seems more likely that her political career is over. If you search this blog, you may find a suggestion at what Mrs. Palin can do to resurrect her career.
2004--John Edwards (with John Kerry lost to Bush/Cheney) returned to the Senate. He was tried recently for using campaign funds to cover-up an extra-marital affair, but the trail ended with a hung jury on 5 of the 6 counts. Edwards was acquitted on the other count. Likely will not see Edwards run for office again.
2000--Joe Liberman (with Al Gore, lost to Bush/Cheney) lost his party's nomination for his senate seat 2006 but successfully ran as an independent but would still be close to the Democrats in the Senate during his last term. He is retiring from the Senate in 2013. He may not be finished with politics. You may see him take a run at the presidency in 2016.
1996--Jack Kemp (with Bob Dole, lost to Clinton/Gore) was retired from office when tapped by Bob Dole in 1996, after serving as HUD secretary in the Bush, Sr administration. After the election, he co-founded a Super PAC known as Empower America which was a forerunner to Freedom Works, an organization which has helped defeat many GOP incumbents in Congress in 2010 and 2012 and replace them with Tea Party friendly men and women. He passed away in 2009.
1988--Lloyd Bentsen (with Dukakis, lost to Bush/Quayle) finished his term in the Senate and would serve as Secretary of the Treasury in the first term of the Clinton Administration. He passed away in 2006.
1984--Geraldine Ferraro (with Mondale, lost to Reagan/Bush) made two unsuccessful runs for the US Senate after 1984, but lost in the primary election both times. She served as the US Ambassador to the UN Commission on Human Rights in the Clinton Administration. She passed away in 2011.
1976--Bob Dole (with Ford, lost to Carter/Mondale) would return to the Senate and become the GOP presidential candidate in 1996, losing to Bill Clinton. (See Jack Kemp above).
1972--Sargent Shriver (with McGovern, lost to Nixon/Agnew) ran unsuccessfully for the presidential nomination in 1976 and did not return to politics afterwards. He was married to the former Eunice Kennedy sister of President John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Edward Kennedy. He passed away in 2011. His son-in-law, Arnold Schwarzenegger, would become Governor of California.
1968--Edmund Muskie (with Humphrey, lost to Nixon/Agnew) ran unsuccessfully for the democratic presidential nomination in 1972 and 1976 and would serve as Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter. He passed away in 1996.
1964--William E. Miller (with Goldwater, lost to Johnson/Humphrey) returned to his law practice after running with Barry Goldwater. He would not be involved in politics again. He passed away in 1983.
1960--Henry Cabot Lodge (with Nixon, lost to Kennedy/Johnson) would run unsuccessfully for the GOP nomination in 1964. He served in several ambassadorships afterwards before retiring in 1977. He passed away in 1985.
1956--Estes Kefauver (with Stevenson, lost to Eisenhower/Nixon) returned to his senate seat after his ticket failed to unseat Eisenhower. He ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1960. He died in 1963, two days after suffering a mild heart attack on the senate floor.
1952--John Sparkman (with Stevenson, lost to Eisenhower/Nixon) returned to his senate seat and served there until 1979, when he retired at the age of 80. He passed away in 1985.
1948--Earl Warren (With Dewey, lost to Truman/Barkley) was serving as the Governor of California when tapped by Thomas E. Dewey. After his governorship was over, he served as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1953 to 1969. His court was known for many landmark decisions on civil and criminal rights. He passed away in 1974.
1944--John W. Bricker (With Dewey, lost to Roosevelt/Truman) was the outgoing Governor of Ohio when he ran for Vice President with Thomas E. Dewey. He would be elected as a Senator for Ohio in 1946 and sever for two terms. He was upset in the election of 1958 and would return to his law practice afterwards. He passed away in 1986 at the age of 92.
1940--Charles L. McNary (with Wilkie, lost to Roosevelt/Wallace) would return to his senate seat. He died in office in 1944. McNary Dam on the Columbia River is named in his honor.
1936--Frank Knox (with Landon, lost to Roosevelt/Garner) ran as a Republican with Alf Landon in 1936. He would then serve as Secretary of the Navy from 1940, as Roosevelt tried to get bi-partisan support for his pre-WWII military buildup by appointing Republicans to senior military posts. He served there until his death in 1944.
1928--Joseph Taylor Robinson (with Smith, lost to Hoover/Curtis) would return to his senate seat where he served until his death in 1937.
1924--Charles W. Bryan (with Davis, lost to Coolidge/Dawes), who was serving as Governor of Nebraska when John W. Davis would tap him as his VP running mate. At that time, the Governorship of Nebraska was only a two-year term, and Bryan would not be on the Nebraska ticket in 1924. He returned to the Governorship of Nebraska after the election of 1930 and would serve another 4 years. After that, he served a term as the Mayor of Lincoln, Nebraska. He passed away in 1945. His brother was William Jennings Bryan, and was a 3 time candidate for President. This is history's only set of brothers to be nominated for President/Vice President.
1920--Franklin D. Roosevelt (with Cox, lost to Harding/Coolidge) served as assistant Secretary of the Navy during the first World War, would become the Governor of New York in 1929. He would successfully win the presidency in 1932.
1916--Charles W. Fairbanks (with Hughes, lost to Wilson/Marshall), had been Vice President under Theodore Roosevelt, ran again with Charles Evans Hughes. After the loss in 1916, he returned to his private law practice, where his health would begin to deteriorate. He passed away in 1918. The city of Fairbanks, Alaska is named after him.
1908--John W. Kern (with Bryan, lost to Taft/Sherman) would return to his senate seat after losing with William Jennings Bryan in 1908. He died in office in 1917.
1904--Henry G. Davis (with Parker, lost to Roosevelt/Fairbanks) was not involved in politics neither before nor after running for VP with Alton B. Parker. He passed away in 1916.
1900--Adlai E. Stevenson I (with Bryan, lost to McKinley/Roosevelt) was VP under Grover Cleveland and ran with William Jennings Bryan in 1900. He is the first of two persons to run for VP with different presidential candidates. After the election, he would return to private practice. His grandson, Adlai E. Stevenson II would be the democratic nominee for President in 1952 and 1956 and served as Governor of Illinois from 1951 to 1959. (See Estes Kafauver and John Spackman, above.) He passed away in 1914.
Since 1900, this is what has happened to the losing VP candidates:
7 returned to serve in the office that they held at the time they accepted the nomination and did not (or have not so far) seek anything higher (3 are still living).
Davis, Kern, Robinson, McNary, Sparkman, Liberman, Edwards, Palin.
Davis, Kern, Robinson, McNary, Sparkman, Liberman, Edwards, Palin.
6 would run for president. Only 2 would win their party's nomination, 1 would win the presidency and 1 is still living. Roosevelt (Became president in 1933, served until his death in 1945), Kefauver (Did not win party nomination in 1960, lost to Kennedy), Lodge (Did not win party nomination, lost to Goldwater in 1964), Muskie (Twice: Did not win party nomination, lost to McGovern in 1972 and again to Carter in 1976), Shriver (Did not win the party nomination, also lost to Carter in 1976), Dole (Earned party nomination, lost to incumbent Bill Clinton in 1996 in the General Election).
5 retired from politics, did not run for public office again (none are still living). Stevenson (1900), Davis, Fairbanks (1916), Miller, Kemp.
3 served in other elected offices. (None are still living). Roosevelt (NY Governor, President), Bryan (Mayor of Lincoln, NE), Bricker (US Senate)
3 served in a Presidential Cabinet post (None are still living). Knox (Secretary of the Navy 1940-1944), Muskie (Secretary of State 1977-1981), Bentsen (Secretary of the Treasury 1993-1997).
2 served in Ambassadorships (None are still living). Lodge, Ferraro
1 served in the US Supreme Court (None are still living). Warren
Now then, for the winners; it is common knowledge that many of them have become the president, or at least earned their party's nomination for the highest elected office. Others have moved on to a different large level of respect. But many of the losers have become lost to history. People remember Dan Quayle in spite of all of his gaffes. Almost no one outside of Tennessee has heard of Estes Kefauver. Running for the Vice Presidency is a risk and failing to win can end a career.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Romney's Slow March to the Nomination a Reality.
updated...8:00 MDT.
Romney 563
Santorum 262
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
That was the count before Louisiana, where Romney was awarded 5 delegates and Santorum was awarded 10 and 31 delegates were left unallocated.
Going into the April 3 primaries, the count was
Romney 568
Santorum 272
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 88
left in play 948
Headline: Northeast comes in Big for Romney, but no knock-out punch
What Santorum must do: Win something other than Pennsylvania. If Romney forces Santorum into solely defending his home turf, then it will, at best be a slow march to an eventual Romney nomination. If Santorum can sneak a victory outside of Pennsylvania and defend his home turf, he still has a fighting chance.
What Romney must do: Sweep the states outside of Pennsylvania and make Santorum defend his home turf.
At this point, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich will be mathematically out of the race.
May 8
North Carolina...55 up for play: Slim Santorum win at least 33 with 20 for Romney, 2 unallocated
Indiana...46 up for play: Romney win, at least 35 with 10 for Santorum, 1 unallocated
West Virginia...31 available; Santorum win, 25 for Rick and 4 for Mitt
Romney 859 (285 needed or 35%)
Santorum 394
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 91
Left in play 819
Headline: Split fails to deliver clear nomination for Romney, but he inches closer
Reality: Yes, a couple of wins for Rick, but not big enough, in reality he is further from his goal and time is running out.
What Santorum must do: Sweep these three states.
What Romney must do: Win Indiana
May 15
Nebraska...35 in play: Santorum win with 20 for Rick and 13 for Mitt with 2 unallocated
Oregon...28 in play: Romney win with 20 for Mitt and 7 for Rick with 1 unallocated
Romney 892 (252 needed or 33%)
Santorum 421
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 94
Left in play 759
Headline: Santorum still alive in race after contestants split contests. But falling farther behind Romney.
Reality: Anything but a Santorum sweep is a Romney victory.
What Santorum must do: Win both of these states big.
What Romney must do: Win Oregon
May 22
Kentucky...45 in play, Santorum with slim victory 25 to Mitt's 19, 1 unallocated
Arkansas...36 in play, Santorum with another slim victory 20 to 15, 1 unallocated
Romney 926 (236 needed or 34.7%)
Santorum 466 (678 needed or 99.7%)_
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 96
Left in play 680
Headline: Romney continues to flop in Deep South, Santorum inches closer
Reality: Doesn't matter. Santorum practically unable to win enough delegates to win the nomination before the convention.
What Santorum must do: Continue to focus on the bigger prize in Texas.
What Romney must do: Prevent a big Santorum win. Make Kentucky and Arkansas look like Louisiana.
May 29
Texas...155 in play, Santorum with a razor-thin victory 80 delegates 75 for Romney
Romney 1001 (143 needed or 27%)
Santorum 546 (Can not win the nomination outright, but can still force a brokered convention)
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 96
Left in play 525
Headline, Santorum wins in Texas, but not by large enough margin.
Reality: Santorum needs almost all of Texas to remain in the race.
What Santorum must do: Win by a landslide. At this point, he could win Texas, but not win enough delegates to be mathematically alive for the nomination. By my prediction, he would need to win at least 138 of the 155 delegates in Texas to have a mathematically possibility to win the GOP nomination before the convention.
What Romney must do: Win enough delegates to ensure that he can secure the nomination before the convention and convince voters in California and New Jersey that his campaign is viable. By my math, Romney needs to win at least 16 delegates in Texas.
June 5
California...172 in play, Winner take all, Romney wins 171 delegates with 1 unallocated
New Jersey...50 delegates in play, Winner take all, Romney with 49 delegates and 1 unallocated
South Dakota...28 in play, Santorum wins 22 delegates with 6 for Romney
New Mexico...23 in play, Santorum wins 19 delegates with 4 for Romney
Montana...26 in play, Romney wins 20 delegates with 5 for Santorum and 1 unallocated
Romney 1251 (Romney secures GOP nomination)
Santorum 592
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 99
Left in play 139
Headline: Romney secures GOP nomination with big wins in California, New Jersey and Montana.
Reality: Smacking Santorum and his backers hard in the face. Will have to back Romney or suffer through another 4 years of Obama. Hard choice for some.
What Santorum must do: If he does not win enough delegates in Texas to possibly win the nomination before the convention, he will need convince voters that he can still beat Obama even coming out of a brokered convention.
What Romney must do: Get to within 40 delegates of the nomination (See Utah, below).
June 28
Utah...40 in play, Winner take all, Romney with another 40
Romney 1291 (Romney secures GOP nomination)
Santorum 592
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 99
Left in play 99
Headline: For good measure, Utah gives it's 40 delegates to Romney.
Reality: See June 5
Romney 563
Santorum 262
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
That was the count before Louisiana, where Romney was awarded 5 delegates and Santorum was awarded 10 and 31 delegates were left unallocated.
Going into the April 3 primaries, the count was
Romney 568
Santorum 272
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 74
Left in play 1260
Total 2288
There are 1144 delegates needed for the GOP nod.
Romney needed 576 delegates or 45.7% of the remaining delegates
Santorum needed 872 delegates or 76.2% of the remaining delegates
Gingrich needed 1009 delegates or 80.8% of the remaining delegates
Paul needed 1093 delegates or 86.7% of the remaining delegates
To force a brokered convention, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul needed a collective total of 738 of the remaining delegates or 58.5% of the remaining delegates
So far on April 3, here are the totals
DC Romney 18, Unallocated 1
MD Romney 37
WI Romney 33, Santorum 9
Now the count is
Romney 658
Santorum 281
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 74
Left in play 1160
Total 2288
Romney needs 464 of the remaining delegates to win the nomination or 40.0% of those remaining.
Santorum still needs 863 delegates, but now that represents 74.4% of those remaining.
Gingrich still needs 1009 delegates, but now that number represents 87.0% of those remaining.
Paul still needs 1093 delegates, but now that number represents 94.2% of those remaining.
To force a brokered convention, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul need a collective total of 696 delegates, or 60% of the remaining delegates.
The next primaries are on April 24.
Connecticut 28
Delaware 17
New York 94
Pennsylvania 71
Rhode Island 16
There are 226 delegates up for grabs. This means there could be as few as 934 delegates left after April 24. This means that some candidates will need to win some significant delegates to remain in the race.
Ron Paul must win 137 delegates on April 24 to remain in the race, or 60.6% of those up for grabs on April 24, or he is out of contention.
Newt Gingrich must win 54 delegates on April 24 to remain in the race, or 23.9% of those up for grabs on April 24. There may be enough unallocated delegates for Newt to stay in the race.
Could April 24 be the knock-out punch for Romney? Mitt Romney really needs to win 60% of the delegates, or 136, on April 24 to knock out Santorum. Pennsylvania is a winner take all state, and Santorum's home state. Romney would have to win 88% of the delegates outside of PA to make Santorum go away. If Romney wins Pennsylvania, then the nomination should be his. Any candidate that can not win his home state in the primary election probably would not be able to win his home state in the General election.
Pennsylvania is a do-or-die state for Santorum, but he must make a reasonable showing in the other 4 states to remain in the race.
Romney only needs to win the other 4 states by any margin to remain the front-runner. The pressure is on Santorum to win at home and to show well everywhere else.
If Santorum survives April 24, he should do reasonably well in the contests leading up to the May 29 Texas primary. Santorum could win 5 of the 7 states leading up to the Texas primary. But he will have to win bigger than he did in Louisiana. He will not only need to win in Texas, but win in a big way. The Bush family is behind Romney, and the former Massachusetts governor will do well in the big cities and in oil country. Santorum will have to convince Texas voters that he cares about the economy and about energy policy. His chances of forcing a brokered convention will have dimmed because Newt will likely be mathematically eliminated from the race by Texas.
After Texas; California, New Jersey and Utah and have the biggest remaining delegate prizes, and figure to be big for Romney.
Predictions:
April 24
Connecticut...Big for Romney, at least 20 delegates, 4 for Santorum, 4 unallocated
Delaware...All for Romney, at least 16 delegates, 1 unallocated
New York...Big for Romney, at least 85 delegates, 7 for Santorum, 2 unallocated
Pennsylvania...All for Santorum, at least 65 delegates, 6 unallocated
Rhode Island...Big for Romney, at least 15 delegates, 1 unallocated
After April 24
Romney 800 (344 needed or 36%)
Santorum 353
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 88
left in play 948
Headline: Northeast comes in Big for Romney, but no knock-out punch
What Santorum must do: Win something other than Pennsylvania. If Romney forces Santorum into solely defending his home turf, then it will, at best be a slow march to an eventual Romney nomination. If Santorum can sneak a victory outside of Pennsylvania and defend his home turf, he still has a fighting chance.
What Romney must do: Sweep the states outside of Pennsylvania and make Santorum defend his home turf.
At this point, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich will be mathematically out of the race.
May 8
North Carolina...55 up for play: Slim Santorum win at least 33 with 20 for Romney, 2 unallocated
Indiana...46 up for play: Romney win, at least 35 with 10 for Santorum, 1 unallocated
West Virginia...31 available; Santorum win, 25 for Rick and 4 for Mitt
Romney 859 (285 needed or 35%)
Santorum 394
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 91
Left in play 819
Headline: Split fails to deliver clear nomination for Romney, but he inches closer
Reality: Yes, a couple of wins for Rick, but not big enough, in reality he is further from his goal and time is running out.
What Santorum must do: Sweep these three states.
What Romney must do: Win Indiana
May 15
Nebraska...35 in play: Santorum win with 20 for Rick and 13 for Mitt with 2 unallocated
Oregon...28 in play: Romney win with 20 for Mitt and 7 for Rick with 1 unallocated
Romney 892 (252 needed or 33%)
Santorum 421
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 94
Left in play 759
Headline: Santorum still alive in race after contestants split contests. But falling farther behind Romney.
Reality: Anything but a Santorum sweep is a Romney victory.
What Santorum must do: Win both of these states big.
What Romney must do: Win Oregon
May 22
Kentucky...45 in play, Santorum with slim victory 25 to Mitt's 19, 1 unallocated
Arkansas...36 in play, Santorum with another slim victory 20 to 15, 1 unallocated
Romney 926 (236 needed or 34.7%)
Santorum 466 (678 needed or 99.7%)_
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 96
Left in play 680
Headline: Romney continues to flop in Deep South, Santorum inches closer
Reality: Doesn't matter. Santorum practically unable to win enough delegates to win the nomination before the convention.
What Santorum must do: Continue to focus on the bigger prize in Texas.
What Romney must do: Prevent a big Santorum win. Make Kentucky and Arkansas look like Louisiana.
May 29
Texas...155 in play, Santorum with a razor-thin victory 80 delegates 75 for Romney
Romney 1001 (143 needed or 27%)
Santorum 546 (Can not win the nomination outright, but can still force a brokered convention)
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 96
Left in play 525
Headline, Santorum wins in Texas, but not by large enough margin.
Reality: Santorum needs almost all of Texas to remain in the race.
What Santorum must do: Win by a landslide. At this point, he could win Texas, but not win enough delegates to be mathematically alive for the nomination. By my prediction, he would need to win at least 138 of the 155 delegates in Texas to have a mathematically possibility to win the GOP nomination before the convention.
What Romney must do: Win enough delegates to ensure that he can secure the nomination before the convention and convince voters in California and New Jersey that his campaign is viable. By my math, Romney needs to win at least 16 delegates in Texas.
June 5
California...172 in play, Winner take all, Romney wins 171 delegates with 1 unallocated
New Jersey...50 delegates in play, Winner take all, Romney with 49 delegates and 1 unallocated
South Dakota...28 in play, Santorum wins 22 delegates with 6 for Romney
New Mexico...23 in play, Santorum wins 19 delegates with 4 for Romney
Montana...26 in play, Romney wins 20 delegates with 5 for Santorum and 1 unallocated
Romney 1251 (Romney secures GOP nomination)
Santorum 592
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 99
Left in play 139
Headline: Romney secures GOP nomination with big wins in California, New Jersey and Montana.
Reality: Smacking Santorum and his backers hard in the face. Will have to back Romney or suffer through another 4 years of Obama. Hard choice for some.
What Santorum must do: If he does not win enough delegates in Texas to possibly win the nomination before the convention, he will need convince voters that he can still beat Obama even coming out of a brokered convention.
What Romney must do: Get to within 40 delegates of the nomination (See Utah, below).
June 28
Utah...40 in play, Winner take all, Romney with another 40
Romney 1291 (Romney secures GOP nomination)
Santorum 592
Gingrich 135
Paul 51
Huntsman 2
Unallocated 99
Left in play 99
Headline: For good measure, Utah gives it's 40 delegates to Romney.
Reality: See June 5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
