On Hannity yesterday, Michelle Bachmann says that the Obama regime fears her candidacy. Of course, she has shown the type of penchant, that only a politician can, at stretching the truth. Every politician does to some degree, but Bachmann has shown the type of truth stretching that only a Nazi could be proud of. Either that, or she is showing us the intelligence that we are missing in George W. Bush.
Not that this matters to the Tea Party. They would rather push a political novice than someone who agrees with them on 95% of the issues. Which, by the way, is about where Mitt Romney and other more moderate republicans lie. This is why the Tea Party is a danger to the Republican party. At one point, when you involve yourself in party politics, you have to decide if you are going to support someone who you only have 95% in common with who can win, or to continue to support someone who is a sure loser.
The trouble with Bachmann is this: If you wish to spin yarn and convince the voters in Minnesota's 6th congressional district to vote for you, that is one thing. But the President of the United States is different. Running for President, you have every news organization in the world fact checking everything you say. Half truths in presidential politicking have brought down more powerful people than Michelle Bachmann.
Now, I know that most of the people who read this are going to come back with a statement like, "Mitt Romney flip, flops" or "anyone is better than Obama" or something along those lines. My answer to you is this, at least ____________ (fill in the blank with Romney, Perry, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Gingritch, etc.) knows that John Quincy Adams was not at the Constitutional Convention, his father was. And yes, that does matter considering the President will chose the next Supreme Court Justice and appoints other judges to the bench. And yes, Mitt Romney has flip-flopped in his career, but who hasn't? Every politician spins and stretches the truth. But not to the extent that Bachmann already has. There is a limit to what voting Americans can handle.
One other thing about Michelle Bachmann and flip, flop. If there is any candidate for the GOP nomination who talks one way and votes another, it is Bachmann. Please examine her voting record, especially if you think the troop surge in Iraq was a good thing. She is only 9Publish Post8% Tea Party. No one in the race is 100% Tea Party.
Let's bring one fact to the forefront in answering the question about whether Obama feels threatened by Bachmann. There are three men who the Obama re-election campaign is focused on. Two of the three are former Governors, and the other is a current Governor. Bachmann is not a current or former state governor. A member of the House of Representatives has never beaten a sitting US President. If Bachmann becomes the GOP nominee, we are almost guaranteed to have another four years of Obama. History says so. But the American people will have the final say so.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Structural Issues with the economy?
President Obama is getting a lot of deserved ridicule for stating that ATMs are costing Americana's their jobs. Every time you use your ATM to withdraw money from your account, it costs an American a job. This is true, but it is this kind of thinking that can actually hurt the economy. In most seasons, there are not enough people to fill the demand for bank tellers if there were no ATMs. This would drive up bank teller' wages. ATMs are cheaper than people. With all of the bank failures in the past 4 years, the problem could have been exacerbated without ATMs. Therefore, ATMs actually saving jobs, not costing them.
Businesses have become more efficient, but that does not mean that there are fewer jobs as a result. It simply means that they are more efficient. Better efficiency is business saves the firm and that saves jobs. It is like throwing cargo from a plane or a ship to stay afloat.
But there are real structural problems with our economy. To name a few.
-Two income households. Not that earning more money is bad. But it makes it difficult for a household to change their address when one spouse can find a job in another city and the other can not.
-The housing crisis. Even if both spouses can move to a new city, many people are upside down on their mortgages and would have to take a big loss to sell their homes and move.
The bottom line is that households are not as flexible in their employment as they used to be. This has to be a factor in the movement of American jobs overseas. The bad news for business is that these problems will spread overseas as well, if they are not already happening. There are two answers for this. Businesses need to be more flexible, especially letting people work from home. And there needs to be better support for entrepreneurship in this US.
Businesses have become more efficient, but that does not mean that there are fewer jobs as a result. It simply means that they are more efficient. Better efficiency is business saves the firm and that saves jobs. It is like throwing cargo from a plane or a ship to stay afloat.
But there are real structural problems with our economy. To name a few.
-Two income households. Not that earning more money is bad. But it makes it difficult for a household to change their address when one spouse can find a job in another city and the other can not.
-The housing crisis. Even if both spouses can move to a new city, many people are upside down on their mortgages and would have to take a big loss to sell their homes and move.
The bottom line is that households are not as flexible in their employment as they used to be. This has to be a factor in the movement of American jobs overseas. The bad news for business is that these problems will spread overseas as well, if they are not already happening. There are two answers for this. Businesses need to be more flexible, especially letting people work from home. And there needs to be better support for entrepreneurship in this US.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Conservatives have been duped on this one.
Orrin Hatch has introduced a balanced budget amendment. I am all for a balanced budget in Washington, but a balanced budget amendment will lead to higher taxes. Surely we can not guarantee that we will always have a body in the senate and house and White House that will agree to put your needs first. Most states that have a balanced budget amendment in their constitution pay for it in higher taxes. We want a congress that has the courage to make the right decisions, not feel good proposals that have no chance in Hell at seeing the light of day.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
GOP Presidential Wannabee's Power Rankings...June, 2010
1. Former governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts
2. Texas governor Rick Perry
3. Former Utah governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.
4. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty
5. Former New York City Mayor Rudolf Giuliani
6. Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania
7. Representative Ron Paul of Texas
8. Representative Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota
9. Former Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska
10. Former Federal Reserve Banker Herman Cain of Georgia.
2. Texas governor Rick Perry
3. Former Utah governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.
4. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty
5. Former New York City Mayor Rudolf Giuliani
6. Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania
7. Representative Ron Paul of Texas
8. Representative Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota
9. Former Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska
10. Former Federal Reserve Banker Herman Cain of Georgia.
Would You Hire This Person...
Who would you hire to be the CEO of your firm. Your company has experienced struggles in the current economy.
Candidate A
You are interviewing a job candidate who is not only sharp looking but says all the right things. This manager is considered a fast-track candidate. But in your investigation, you find out that she quit her last job because the going got a little rough.
Candidate B
You are interviewing someone else who also looks sharp and says all of the right things, but you review your files and find that you interviewed the same person four years earlier, and found that he changed his story on at least one major interview question. Otherwise this person is a capable leader and has a proven track record of strong performances. He even turned around a failing division.
Candidate C
Another person on the docket. Another who has a proven track record. This person left his job with your firm and worked for the competition for 2 years and now wants to come back. But he was able to make a strong performing division better.
Candidate D
Another candidate for your job is internal. Always on the edge as a leader in some issues, does not always walk the company line. But a few years back, came through like a champ when circumstances were about to put the firm out of business. He turned around a large failing division about 15 years ago.
Candidate E
He took over the same job from a manager who later filled the same position you are now interviewing for. Never really a superstar in his own right, but his team is leading the firm. Not the most charismatic leader, but proven effective. But his division has never experienced poor performance and his ability to turn around the company may be in question because he has never done it before.
Which candidate would you chose?
Candidate A
You are interviewing a job candidate who is not only sharp looking but says all the right things. This manager is considered a fast-track candidate. But in your investigation, you find out that she quit her last job because the going got a little rough.
Candidate B
You are interviewing someone else who also looks sharp and says all of the right things, but you review your files and find that you interviewed the same person four years earlier, and found that he changed his story on at least one major interview question. Otherwise this person is a capable leader and has a proven track record of strong performances. He even turned around a failing division.
Candidate C
Another person on the docket. Another who has a proven track record. This person left his job with your firm and worked for the competition for 2 years and now wants to come back. But he was able to make a strong performing division better.
Candidate D
Another candidate for your job is internal. Always on the edge as a leader in some issues, does not always walk the company line. But a few years back, came through like a champ when circumstances were about to put the firm out of business. He turned around a large failing division about 15 years ago.
Candidate E
He took over the same job from a manager who later filled the same position you are now interviewing for. Never really a superstar in his own right, but his team is leading the firm. Not the most charismatic leader, but proven effective. But his division has never experienced poor performance and his ability to turn around the company may be in question because he has never done it before.
Which candidate would you chose?
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Not All Immigration Reform is Unconstitutional
The Arizona law requiring that employers verify the immigration status of prospective employees has so far survived constitutional muster. This is not inconsistent. It is not wrong for the states to say, "If you are going to do business in my state, you will comply with Federal Law." The constitution gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce, but intrastate commerce regulation belongs mainly to the state itself.
Therefore, if you are keeping track, here is what is legal at the state level.
-Requirement that business validate the immigration status of potential employees.
This is what is not constitutional.
-Checking immigration status when investigating a crime.
The jury is still out on
-State-level guest worker program.
Therefore, if you are keeping track, here is what is legal at the state level.
-Requirement that business validate the immigration status of potential employees.
This is what is not constitutional.
-Checking immigration status when investigating a crime.
The jury is still out on
-State-level guest worker program.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
My New Balanced Budget Amendment
Here is the text of a Balanced Budget Amendment that will work. I dare Orrin Hatch to submit this one.
Ia. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the President, Vice President, Members of the President's Cabinet, Chiefs of the Armed forces, Senators and Representatives; shall take effect, unless expenditures of the Federal Government are less than or equal to receipts. This law shall take effect five years after the passage of this article.
1b. Thirty years after the passage of this article, no law, varying the compensation for the services of the President, Vice President, Members of the President's Cabinet, Chiefs of the Armed forces, Senators and Representatives; shall take effect, unless the public debt of the United States Government is paid in full.
II. The Congress may not require that the states engage in additional activities without compensation equal to the additional costs.
III. Article 1b of this amendment may be waived during a time of war, natural or man-made disaster or unusual economic hardship, but all public debt of the United States acquired for these purposes must be retired thirty years after the debt has incurred.
IV. After public debt has been retired, Congress may set aside funds for use during time of war, natural or man-made disaster or unusual economic hardship. These funds must be exhausted before Congress may borrow money.
V. Congress may not borrow money from foreign governments. Any debt owed to a foreign power upon the passage of this amendment must be the first to be retired.
VI. Economic hardship, for the purposes of this amendment, is defined as the involuntary idleness of ten percent of the work-force.
What this means.
1. If the federal government is in deficit, Congress does not get a raise. The Congress has 30 years to retire the public debt and if it does not, then Congress does not get a raise.
2. Congress can not push unfunded mandates to the states.
3. This can be waived in time of war, disaster or economic hardship. But Congress has 30 years to pay back any money borrowed.
4. Any rainy-day funds must be exhausted before the government can borrow money.
5. Congress can't borrow money from foreign governments. Any funds owed to foreign governments must be paid first.
6. A U-6 unemployment rate of 10% is the definition of economic hardship for this amendment.
If you like this, share it with a friend. We want the whole country to know about this one.
Balancing the Federal Budget, One Thing That is Missed.
What do Mike Lee and Amway have in common?
The more I see of Mike Lee in the Senate, the more and more dissatisfied I become with his performance. It seems that all he has done since he went to Washington is agitate, and has not proposed or said one thing positive. I know we he did not go along in Washington, just to get along, but we need more than just a muck-raker, we need someone who will actually help the economy. This is not only my main criticism of Lee, but of the Tea Party in general.
First of all, there is the Laffer Curve. This is what is cited when people say that you can grow the economy simply by cutting taxes. I do not disagree with the principle, I only point out that this is a curve. Think of it as something similar to adding lanes to a highway to improve traffic flow. You have a highway that is one lane in each direction, and you add a second lane, you have increased the capacity of that highway by 100%. When you add the third lane, you increase the capacity of that highway by 50%. When you add a fourth lane you increase the capacity of the highway by 33%. And when you add a 5th lane, you increase the capacity of the highway by 25%. Soon, you get to the point where you are only paving new lanes and not doing much to help at all.
Back to tax cuts, in the early 1980's, the Reagan Tax cuts helped the economy greatly. The Bush tax cuts of the early 2000's helped, but they were arguably less effective. The next round of tax cuts would likely be less effective. Each dollar that is not taken out of the economy has less utility, just like each lane of added to the highway.
The same argument can be made with Keynesian Economics and borrowing money to help improve the economy. The first dollar borrowed will be the most effective. But soon, all you have is debt and you are doing very little to help the big picture.
It is time for the government to think out of the box, and help other people who have the capital to help the economy do more than they have at this time. And this brings me to Amway. I have read from Dave Ramsey that 90% of Amway distributors quit before they make a significant amount of money. Dave says that in order to succeed at multi-level marketing, one has to work very hard. Amway's secret is to pump people op psychologically, to help them feel good about what they are doing. Make people feel good about their chances for success, and eventually, some people can make money at it.
Mike Lee and the Tea Party are similar. They have made a lot of noise about getting the Federal Government to balance the budget in two years. This makes people feel good about voting for them. In reality, the Tea Party Caucus in Congress has done little to improve the economy and get people back to work. Eventually, the Democrats are going to turn this against them. Probably sooner rather than later.
Eventually, the Tea Party needs to come up with a plan to improve employment and help small business succeed other than giving the same old line, "get government out of the way." Most small businesses close within 5 years with or without government in or out of the way. Just like with Amway, feel good politics will only get us so far.
Coming soon, by Memorial Day, this blog will unveil a plan that will both cut the size of government and build small business. Stay tuned...
The more I see of Mike Lee in the Senate, the more and more dissatisfied I become with his performance. It seems that all he has done since he went to Washington is agitate, and has not proposed or said one thing positive. I know we he did not go along in Washington, just to get along, but we need more than just a muck-raker, we need someone who will actually help the economy. This is not only my main criticism of Lee, but of the Tea Party in general.
First of all, there is the Laffer Curve. This is what is cited when people say that you can grow the economy simply by cutting taxes. I do not disagree with the principle, I only point out that this is a curve. Think of it as something similar to adding lanes to a highway to improve traffic flow. You have a highway that is one lane in each direction, and you add a second lane, you have increased the capacity of that highway by 100%. When you add the third lane, you increase the capacity of that highway by 50%. When you add a fourth lane you increase the capacity of the highway by 33%. And when you add a 5th lane, you increase the capacity of the highway by 25%. Soon, you get to the point where you are only paving new lanes and not doing much to help at all.
Back to tax cuts, in the early 1980's, the Reagan Tax cuts helped the economy greatly. The Bush tax cuts of the early 2000's helped, but they were arguably less effective. The next round of tax cuts would likely be less effective. Each dollar that is not taken out of the economy has less utility, just like each lane of added to the highway.
The same argument can be made with Keynesian Economics and borrowing money to help improve the economy. The first dollar borrowed will be the most effective. But soon, all you have is debt and you are doing very little to help the big picture.
It is time for the government to think out of the box, and help other people who have the capital to help the economy do more than they have at this time. And this brings me to Amway. I have read from Dave Ramsey that 90% of Amway distributors quit before they make a significant amount of money. Dave says that in order to succeed at multi-level marketing, one has to work very hard. Amway's secret is to pump people op psychologically, to help them feel good about what they are doing. Make people feel good about their chances for success, and eventually, some people can make money at it.
Mike Lee and the Tea Party are similar. They have made a lot of noise about getting the Federal Government to balance the budget in two years. This makes people feel good about voting for them. In reality, the Tea Party Caucus in Congress has done little to improve the economy and get people back to work. Eventually, the Democrats are going to turn this against them. Probably sooner rather than later.
Eventually, the Tea Party needs to come up with a plan to improve employment and help small business succeed other than giving the same old line, "get government out of the way." Most small businesses close within 5 years with or without government in or out of the way. Just like with Amway, feel good politics will only get us so far.
Coming soon, by Memorial Day, this blog will unveil a plan that will both cut the size of government and build small business. Stay tuned...
Friday, May 20, 2011
Selling Utah is Actually a Good Idea.
A Florida Congressman, Don Ross, half jokingly said that we should "sell Utah" to pay down the national debt. That is not a half bad idea, if done right.
Why it will work?
Currently, Utah has 70% of it's land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. This is land owned by the Federal Government but not dedicated to the Military, Native Americans, National Parks, National Monuments or National Forests. That is currently, 29.9 million non-forest acres lie inside the borders of the Beehive State. At worst, that land is worth $5,000 per acre. Selling this land at that value would raise at least 149,500,000,000.00, or about 1% of the National Debt. Some of that land is on top of valuable oil and gas reverses and some of this land is prime recreation property and some of this land is valuable range land for the raising of cattle and sheep. Even land that is only used for cattle and sheep could be worth more that 5,000 per acre. Therefore, selling Utah will likely net a lot more than 149 Billion.
Why not other states?
Utah is not the only state with a lot of Federal Land. There is more land controlled by the BLM in Nevada, some 40 million non-forest acres. Although there is not as much water and the likelihood of valuable minerals is much less. But still, it could be worth some 200 Billion. Alaska had the most land, it has 87 Million acres that have not been granted to National Forest Service, which is worth at least a Trillion dollars and probably much more, but most of it is only accessible by air at this time. In the west, there is are 253 million acres of Federal land under BLM control. Some of this over very valuable mineral deposits. There is likely enough money tied up in Federal Land to pay the National Debt and then some. At the low-ball price of 5,000 per acre, it's only about 1.2 trillion, but likely worth a lot more. Again, an acre of wilderness in Alaska is worth a lot more than an acre of desert in Utah. I will put pen and paper to this at some other time and come up with a more accurate figure.
What else can the Federal Government Liquidate?
There are closed military bases, and other federal buildings all over the country that are no longer in use. Selling this surplus property to private buyers is bound to raise additional funds for the government.
Other Positives?
Let's take Garfield, County Utah as an example. The county has 5208 square miles. 97% of that land is owned by the Federal Government. The County can not levy taxes on this land, and has to fund it's law enforcement and schools by property tax on just 3% of it's land. Much of this land lies within the boundaries of National Monuments and National Parks, so the County has to rely on tourism dollars to operate. Roughly the eastern third of the county is BLM-managed federal land. This is land is occupied by the Henry Mountains and lies between Lake Powell and Capitol Reef National Park. It would be land that could be used for tourism and ranching. The middle third of Garfield County is occupied mostly by Capitol Reef National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The western third of the county is mostly occupied by the Fishlake National Forest.
If this land were sold; that is if about 1/3 of the 5208 square miles or were sold and privatized, the county would be blessed with about 1,111,040 additional acres it could levy taxes upon. The property tax rate in Garfield County is about 7 dollars per 1,000 of property. At a price of 5,000 per acre, the county would be blessed with about additional 38 million dollars of new property tax revenue annually. (And this is a very conservative estimate and would the case if there were no improvements made to the property). Imagine how well they could pay teachers in Panguitch with an extra 38 million per year? Imagine how Garfield County could improve their police force with this much money? If this model were followed in the rest of Utah, there would be enough funds to bring Utah from being very last in per-pupil spending to at least the 2nd quartile.
There are some positive consequences nationwide. Credit rules will have to be relaxed to qualify people to buy some of this property. This can help the housing market recover all over the country.
Any negatives?
Yes, there will be unintended consequences. First, liquidation is something that can only happen once. The government will still have to figure out how to balance the federal budget and live within their means, but it will be an easier task when with much less allocated to pay interest. Second, there will be economic consequences. If the Feds pay off all of their debt at once, interest rates will plummet further. This could spur inflation.
And one more that can not under-stressed enough. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups will never sit idly by and will do everything in their power to stop something like this. They like the land idle and doing nothing. They will complain about the loss of habitat. There will be a petition to ask President Obama to use the Antiquities Act to block the measure. My response to them is ask them what they would give up to balance the budget. Selling Utah will not happen easily, but most of the consequences will be positive.
Why it will work?
Currently, Utah has 70% of it's land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. This is land owned by the Federal Government but not dedicated to the Military, Native Americans, National Parks, National Monuments or National Forests. That is currently, 29.9 million non-forest acres lie inside the borders of the Beehive State. At worst, that land is worth $5,000 per acre. Selling this land at that value would raise at least 149,500,000,000.00, or about 1% of the National Debt. Some of that land is on top of valuable oil and gas reverses and some of this land is prime recreation property and some of this land is valuable range land for the raising of cattle and sheep. Even land that is only used for cattle and sheep could be worth more that 5,000 per acre. Therefore, selling Utah will likely net a lot more than 149 Billion.
Why not other states?
Utah is not the only state with a lot of Federal Land. There is more land controlled by the BLM in Nevada, some 40 million non-forest acres. Although there is not as much water and the likelihood of valuable minerals is much less. But still, it could be worth some 200 Billion. Alaska had the most land, it has 87 Million acres that have not been granted to National Forest Service, which is worth at least a Trillion dollars and probably much more, but most of it is only accessible by air at this time. In the west, there is are 253 million acres of Federal land under BLM control. Some of this over very valuable mineral deposits. There is likely enough money tied up in Federal Land to pay the National Debt and then some. At the low-ball price of 5,000 per acre, it's only about 1.2 trillion, but likely worth a lot more. Again, an acre of wilderness in Alaska is worth a lot more than an acre of desert in Utah. I will put pen and paper to this at some other time and come up with a more accurate figure.
What else can the Federal Government Liquidate?
There are closed military bases, and other federal buildings all over the country that are no longer in use. Selling this surplus property to private buyers is bound to raise additional funds for the government.
Other Positives?
Let's take Garfield, County Utah as an example. The county has 5208 square miles. 97% of that land is owned by the Federal Government. The County can not levy taxes on this land, and has to fund it's law enforcement and schools by property tax on just 3% of it's land. Much of this land lies within the boundaries of National Monuments and National Parks, so the County has to rely on tourism dollars to operate. Roughly the eastern third of the county is BLM-managed federal land. This is land is occupied by the Henry Mountains and lies between Lake Powell and Capitol Reef National Park. It would be land that could be used for tourism and ranching. The middle third of Garfield County is occupied mostly by Capitol Reef National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The western third of the county is mostly occupied by the Fishlake National Forest.
If this land were sold; that is if about 1/3 of the 5208 square miles or were sold and privatized, the county would be blessed with about 1,111,040 additional acres it could levy taxes upon. The property tax rate in Garfield County is about 7 dollars per 1,000 of property. At a price of 5,000 per acre, the county would be blessed with about additional 38 million dollars of new property tax revenue annually. (And this is a very conservative estimate and would the case if there were no improvements made to the property). Imagine how well they could pay teachers in Panguitch with an extra 38 million per year? Imagine how Garfield County could improve their police force with this much money? If this model were followed in the rest of Utah, there would be enough funds to bring Utah from being very last in per-pupil spending to at least the 2nd quartile.
There are some positive consequences nationwide. Credit rules will have to be relaxed to qualify people to buy some of this property. This can help the housing market recover all over the country.
Any negatives?
Yes, there will be unintended consequences. First, liquidation is something that can only happen once. The government will still have to figure out how to balance the federal budget and live within their means, but it will be an easier task when with much less allocated to pay interest. Second, there will be economic consequences. If the Feds pay off all of their debt at once, interest rates will plummet further. This could spur inflation.
And one more that can not under-stressed enough. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups will never sit idly by and will do everything in their power to stop something like this. They like the land idle and doing nothing. They will complain about the loss of habitat. There will be a petition to ask President Obama to use the Antiquities Act to block the measure. My response to them is ask them what they would give up to balance the budget. Selling Utah will not happen easily, but most of the consequences will be positive.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Entrepreneurship Is Not a Bad Thing at All
Entrepreneurship is the answer.
Jim Boehner is right. At the current levels of government revenue, it will take 20 years to balance the budget and another 30 years beyond that to pay off the National Debt. The answer is not another round of challenging incumbent Republicans. There is only so much that can be done with the revenues that the government is pulling in right now. Plus, it would be political suicide to completely get rid of entitlement programs all together. The Government has got to find a way to increase revenue. America, for lack of a better analogy, needs a second job.
Sure, what do you do when you run out of cash from month to month and can not make ends meet? Once you have cut the family budget as much as you can, you get another stream of income. You get a second job.
Trouble is, that during this economy, business start ups have been at record highs. When you can not get a job, then starting one seems logical. But these businesses are not taking off to the point where governments are reaping in massive tax revenues. The reason is simple. Someone who is down on their luck and broke is not going to have a lot of cash to begin a new business in the first place. Their business is going to be very slow at first, and take years to start...if it gets going at all. Starting a business that has a chance of success in a few months or years takes someone with a lot of his own capital to invest, both cash and time. Usually, three years of savings to last the family is a minimum.
As such, the government, particularly the current administration and congress should not look at entrepreneurship as a negative thing. It is something to be encouraged and respected. Eventually, it will lead to greater revenues which will help Congress balance the budget and pay the national debt.
Jim Boehner is right. At the current levels of government revenue, it will take 20 years to balance the budget and another 30 years beyond that to pay off the National Debt. The answer is not another round of challenging incumbent Republicans. There is only so much that can be done with the revenues that the government is pulling in right now. Plus, it would be political suicide to completely get rid of entitlement programs all together. The Government has got to find a way to increase revenue. America, for lack of a better analogy, needs a second job.
Sure, what do you do when you run out of cash from month to month and can not make ends meet? Once you have cut the family budget as much as you can, you get another stream of income. You get a second job.
Trouble is, that during this economy, business start ups have been at record highs. When you can not get a job, then starting one seems logical. But these businesses are not taking off to the point where governments are reaping in massive tax revenues. The reason is simple. Someone who is down on their luck and broke is not going to have a lot of cash to begin a new business in the first place. Their business is going to be very slow at first, and take years to start...if it gets going at all. Starting a business that has a chance of success in a few months or years takes someone with a lot of his own capital to invest, both cash and time. Usually, three years of savings to last the family is a minimum.
As such, the government, particularly the current administration and congress should not look at entrepreneurship as a negative thing. It is something to be encouraged and respected. Eventually, it will lead to greater revenues which will help Congress balance the budget and pay the national debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
