It is really time for Big Bird and Elmo to retire? In last week's first Presidential Debate, Mitt Romney said that he loves Big Bird, but he would cut public funding for PBS. Is that really fair?
For the record, about 1/100th of the Federal Budget is spent on PBS. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR get about 281 million from Congress. 210 million go directly to the individual stations. 71 million goes to PBS directly. Not much of that 71 million goes to produce episodes of Sesame Street. Overall, the CPB gets about 12% of it's revenue from Congress. 88% comes from other sources.
PBS in the budget or not, cutting PBS will not save the US Tax Payer a lot of money. Chances are, if every American will look under his or her couch cushions, we will find enough money to keep PBS operating. It is more akin to your favorite sports bar taking down 1 TV to save electricity. Every little bit helps, but this alone will not do the trick. It will not even come close.
The real problem, if the CPB is dismissed, is the amount of money that goes directly to your local stations. Now, those of us who watch PBS regularly will occasionally have our favorite shows and concerts interrupted with pledge drives. We, as individuals, often directly support our favorite PBS stations through our own pledges.
That is likely where most of the money your local PBS station needs to operate comes from, directly from your pledges. But every little bit helps, and whatever comes from Congress helps keep some of those stations on the air.
Here is the problem with Federal Funding. Getting overloaded on the monthly budgets happens the way it does for you and for me. A dollar here and a dollar there adds up to hundreds each month. A library fine, a late fee for a credit card payment. New wiper blades. Too much of that and one is in the red. When the Public Deficit is as high as it is, every little bit that can be cut helps.
PBS can likely get by without Federal Funding. Even if PBS goes away, Big Bird will find a new home on either Nickelodeon or on the Disney Channel or some other station that caters to youngsters. It will not be difficult at all. Sesame Street is a brand that sells, and would make a valuable commercial property. Other PBS shows will have to find ways to enter America's living rooms, and many will. Sesame Street does not need public dollars to survive. Some other shows do. Many that are produced locally and shown locally would not hit the airwaves without public dollars.
There is one other service that PBS provides. Experience. Most PBS stations are run out of local colleges and universities. Many who work behind the scenes in TV and Radio get their start at PBS and NPR stations. Yes, there are other ways to break into the biz. Many people start directly at commercial TV and Radio stations. It is very hard to buy experience; without PBS, a channel that is used to get students from the classroom to an actual paying job will be lost. Even if federal dollars are cut, the practical experience that many young people get working for PBS and NPR stations is worth trying to keep these stations going.
Sure, we can kill the CPB if we wish to. But let's keep the valuable training ground going. Let's find another way...even if PBS stations have to begin showing, gulp, commercials.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Distorting Mormon Views on Welfare and Taxation
Harry Reid has accused Mitt Romney of distorting the LDS view on welfare and assistance to the poor. I believe that Mr. Reid and others who support this accusation, for political gain, are the ones who are wrong. Here is why.
First off, the LDS Church is politically neutral. The use of LDS church doctrine for political gain by a Latter-day Saint such as Harry Reid is unethical. Anyone who claims or implies that their views are supported by LDS church doctrine or belief for political gain are wrong to do so, even if their views are correct. Harry Reid is not the only one guilty of such an offense. Spend an election season here in Utah and you will see what I mean.
Second, the LDS Church does indeed encourage it's members to assist the poor. In fact, it is considered a commandment. However, the church does not say anything for or against collecting and taxes for this purpose. The Church does not say HOW we should render our assistance to the needy. Members are encouraged to fast once a month and donate the money that would have been spent on food for assistance to the church administered by the local Bishop. Tithing that is collected from the church is used for the purposes of administering the mission of the church. That is the minimum that is expected of those who only have enough to take care of themselves. Everyone else in strongly encouraged to give much more, but it is left to them to determine how and to whom to give. The thing that should be remembered is that taxes can be used for any purpose once it is in the hands of the government. The Book of Mormon definitely decries outrageously high taxes, but does commend assistance to the needy.
When considering this point, one should also remember the advice given in the Doctrine and Covenants, "It is not meet that I should command in all things." Meaning that the greater blessings from giving go to those who choose to give out of their own free will and choice and are not compelled by the church or government to do so give.
Third, the LDS Church puts a high importance on self-reliance and emphasizes to the poor and needy that any assistance from any source should be temporary. They encourage people to save money and store food so that when a financial difficulty arises, that people have the resources to endure the trial without going to anyone for assistance. An LDS Bishop can refuse to provide assistance from the church to anyone he feels is abusing the system or not doing enough to help himself.
Fourth, the LDS Church states the first source that anyone should go to if they need assistance is their extended family. That church and government resources should be used after family resources have been exhausted. Church bishops have encouraged people to seek help from government resources when it is available.
Fifth, the LDS Church strongly encourages welfare recipients to work for the assistance that they receive. When God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, he told them, "by the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." (Genesis 3:19) This is still true today, the Lord expects each adult individual to pay their own way first, then to give any excess that they have to the poor.
Sixth, we should not expect that people should become themselves poor by giving to the poor. Mormon Apostle Neal A. Maxwell once said, "A good gift should not impoverish the giver."
Seventh, it is never right to question the giving of everyone else. Bishops are not instructed to pry how people pay their tithing, only to ask whether or not they pay it. Good Latter-Day Saints should never question the giving of another. Jesus said, "do not let the left hand know what the right hand doeth."
I will leave to the reader to determine whose views are closer to LDS doctrine and teachings. Chances are that neither Mitt Romney's view nor Harry Reid's view are an exact match of LDS Church doctrine on welfare assistance. But one thing is for certain, the status quo is unsustainable and if living beyond one's means is bad for the individual, it is bad for the government too. Harry Reid is wrong for saying that Mitt Romney's views are not the face of Mormonism, even if Harry is correct and Mitt is wrong.
First off, the LDS Church is politically neutral. The use of LDS church doctrine for political gain by a Latter-day Saint such as Harry Reid is unethical. Anyone who claims or implies that their views are supported by LDS church doctrine or belief for political gain are wrong to do so, even if their views are correct. Harry Reid is not the only one guilty of such an offense. Spend an election season here in Utah and you will see what I mean.
Second, the LDS Church does indeed encourage it's members to assist the poor. In fact, it is considered a commandment. However, the church does not say anything for or against collecting and taxes for this purpose. The Church does not say HOW we should render our assistance to the needy. Members are encouraged to fast once a month and donate the money that would have been spent on food for assistance to the church administered by the local Bishop. Tithing that is collected from the church is used for the purposes of administering the mission of the church. That is the minimum that is expected of those who only have enough to take care of themselves. Everyone else in strongly encouraged to give much more, but it is left to them to determine how and to whom to give. The thing that should be remembered is that taxes can be used for any purpose once it is in the hands of the government. The Book of Mormon definitely decries outrageously high taxes, but does commend assistance to the needy.
When considering this point, one should also remember the advice given in the Doctrine and Covenants, "It is not meet that I should command in all things." Meaning that the greater blessings from giving go to those who choose to give out of their own free will and choice and are not compelled by the church or government to do so give.
Third, the LDS Church puts a high importance on self-reliance and emphasizes to the poor and needy that any assistance from any source should be temporary. They encourage people to save money and store food so that when a financial difficulty arises, that people have the resources to endure the trial without going to anyone for assistance. An LDS Bishop can refuse to provide assistance from the church to anyone he feels is abusing the system or not doing enough to help himself.
Fourth, the LDS Church states the first source that anyone should go to if they need assistance is their extended family. That church and government resources should be used after family resources have been exhausted. Church bishops have encouraged people to seek help from government resources when it is available.
Fifth, the LDS Church strongly encourages welfare recipients to work for the assistance that they receive. When God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, he told them, "by the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." (Genesis 3:19) This is still true today, the Lord expects each adult individual to pay their own way first, then to give any excess that they have to the poor.
Sixth, we should not expect that people should become themselves poor by giving to the poor. Mormon Apostle Neal A. Maxwell once said, "A good gift should not impoverish the giver."
Seventh, it is never right to question the giving of everyone else. Bishops are not instructed to pry how people pay their tithing, only to ask whether or not they pay it. Good Latter-Day Saints should never question the giving of another. Jesus said, "do not let the left hand know what the right hand doeth."
I will leave to the reader to determine whose views are closer to LDS doctrine and teachings. Chances are that neither Mitt Romney's view nor Harry Reid's view are an exact match of LDS Church doctrine on welfare assistance. But one thing is for certain, the status quo is unsustainable and if living beyond one's means is bad for the individual, it is bad for the government too. Harry Reid is wrong for saying that Mitt Romney's views are not the face of Mormonism, even if Harry is correct and Mitt is wrong.
The one thing to consider
Those of you who read this blog, know who I endorse in the presidential race. Those of you who are undecided should only consider one thing.
Think of the most successful president in your lifetime. Most of the Republican leaning people will think of Ronald Reagan. Most of the Democratic people will think of Bill Clinton. Now think of what Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had in common. Give up?
Ronald Reagan was a Republican who, for most of his presidency, had a Democratic majority in Congress. Bill Clinton was a Democrat who had a Republican majority in Congress. The relationship was not always smooth, but Clinton and Reagan had to reach across the isle in Congress to get things accomplished. This means that these successful presidents did not always get what they wanted, but were able to get things done.
If there was one great failing in the administration of both Bush administrations it was this. Both George W. Bush and his father had a difficult time reaching across the isle to work with the opposite party in Congress. Some say that Jimmy Carter, a Democrat with a Democratic majority did not have to reach across the isle, but that was his great failing.
Bill Clinton did not always get along with Congress, he was impeached, after all. But when push came to shove, Clinton and the Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich worked together to push legislation that both could support.
Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill did not see eye to eye. There were some budget battles that shut down the government. But in Reagan's second term, the relationship between Mr. Reagan and Congress was more smooth. Not perfect, not uncontentious, but better. America benefited from it.
Now, let's think about the current race. How has Barrack Obama been with the Republicans in Congress?
How well did Mitt Romney work with the Democrats in the Massachusetts Legislature?
You may think that the President and his party will gain a political mandate in this coming election. The truth is that 469 members of Congress will also arrive in Washington with their own political mandates. Every member of the House and every member of the Senate, when the next Congressional session begins, will have won his or her last election, just like the President. The president is going to get judged by history. Constitutionally, he can get very little done without collaboration from Congress. He will, no matter what you have been taught to believe, be judged on how well he worked with Congress. No matter what Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have in their agenda, it will matter little without help from Congress.
In any presidential election, the one thing that matters is this: which candidate is more likely to get along with Congress. Without help from Congress, the president is little more than a figure head. When the President and the opposite party in Congress find common ground and work together, America prospers. When they do no, we all suffer. Yes, it's a two-way street, Congress is not exactly popular right now, either. But the one who should extend the olive branch of peace is the one in the Oval Office. This is the one thing that matters.
Think of the most successful president in your lifetime. Most of the Republican leaning people will think of Ronald Reagan. Most of the Democratic people will think of Bill Clinton. Now think of what Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had in common. Give up?
Ronald Reagan was a Republican who, for most of his presidency, had a Democratic majority in Congress. Bill Clinton was a Democrat who had a Republican majority in Congress. The relationship was not always smooth, but Clinton and Reagan had to reach across the isle in Congress to get things accomplished. This means that these successful presidents did not always get what they wanted, but were able to get things done.
If there was one great failing in the administration of both Bush administrations it was this. Both George W. Bush and his father had a difficult time reaching across the isle to work with the opposite party in Congress. Some say that Jimmy Carter, a Democrat with a Democratic majority did not have to reach across the isle, but that was his great failing.
Bill Clinton did not always get along with Congress, he was impeached, after all. But when push came to shove, Clinton and the Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich worked together to push legislation that both could support.
Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill did not see eye to eye. There were some budget battles that shut down the government. But in Reagan's second term, the relationship between Mr. Reagan and Congress was more smooth. Not perfect, not uncontentious, but better. America benefited from it.
Now, let's think about the current race. How has Barrack Obama been with the Republicans in Congress?
How well did Mitt Romney work with the Democrats in the Massachusetts Legislature?
You may think that the President and his party will gain a political mandate in this coming election. The truth is that 469 members of Congress will also arrive in Washington with their own political mandates. Every member of the House and every member of the Senate, when the next Congressional session begins, will have won his or her last election, just like the President. The president is going to get judged by history. Constitutionally, he can get very little done without collaboration from Congress. He will, no matter what you have been taught to believe, be judged on how well he worked with Congress. No matter what Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have in their agenda, it will matter little without help from Congress.
In any presidential election, the one thing that matters is this: which candidate is more likely to get along with Congress. Without help from Congress, the president is little more than a figure head. When the President and the opposite party in Congress find common ground and work together, America prospers. When they do no, we all suffer. Yes, it's a two-way street, Congress is not exactly popular right now, either. But the one who should extend the olive branch of peace is the one in the Oval Office. This is the one thing that matters.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
The 47% comment comment...the truth hurts
If you are part of the 47% that were insulted by Romney's comments in May, take a minute to think about this for a moment...what if Mitt Romney was right? I'm not talking to you if you are on unemployment or social security or if you are in the Armed Forces, I'm talking to those who get goodies from the government, but still earn a living wage.
If you receive the Earned Income Tax credit, and still make a living wage would you go without it? Would you fight against someone who tried to take it away?
In order for the government to be solvent, you need at least 2 and 1/2 wage earners to pay for one person receiving a government goody. If you received more back from the government than you paid in, you are not one of the wage earners paying into the system, even if you are earning money and receive no other federal assistance.
Here is the real challenge facing the US Congress in the next 2 to 4 years. Reduce the number of people who pay no income taxes to 30% from the current 49%. Then ensure that the 30%-tile of wage earners in this country is receiving a living wage. Right now, people at the 30%-tile need to earn about 8,000 more per year than they do now.
No politician can promise you a 34% wage increase. Fortunately, neither major party has been that bold. I do not excuse what Mitt Romney has said. It may go down as the biggest blunder since Walter Mondale's promise to raise taxes in 1984. However, what is being lost in the message is this: Let's build the economy so that fewer people need government assistance.
Congress can pass laws ensuring that a higher percentage of the people pay taxes. This would not be very popular in a recession and not popular at all if people making between 100,000 and 250,000 per year are getting a tax cut. So, even with republicans in office, that 47% is probably going to remain.
If anyone is to reduce to 47% down to 30% one has to focus on improving the economy and creating jobs. There are only 2 sure-fire ways to see wage inflation. First is to flip the supply/demand equation on jobs. Right now, with unemployment so high, there is downward pressure on wages. If employees are in demand, and there are more jobs than people to fill them, wages will increase.
After the flip, then the debate about where the limit for the EITC should be can begin.
But the economy is the most important thing right now.
If you receive the Earned Income Tax credit, and still make a living wage would you go without it? Would you fight against someone who tried to take it away?
In order for the government to be solvent, you need at least 2 and 1/2 wage earners to pay for one person receiving a government goody. If you received more back from the government than you paid in, you are not one of the wage earners paying into the system, even if you are earning money and receive no other federal assistance.
Here is the real challenge facing the US Congress in the next 2 to 4 years. Reduce the number of people who pay no income taxes to 30% from the current 49%. Then ensure that the 30%-tile of wage earners in this country is receiving a living wage. Right now, people at the 30%-tile need to earn about 8,000 more per year than they do now.
No politician can promise you a 34% wage increase. Fortunately, neither major party has been that bold. I do not excuse what Mitt Romney has said. It may go down as the biggest blunder since Walter Mondale's promise to raise taxes in 1984. However, what is being lost in the message is this: Let's build the economy so that fewer people need government assistance.
Congress can pass laws ensuring that a higher percentage of the people pay taxes. This would not be very popular in a recession and not popular at all if people making between 100,000 and 250,000 per year are getting a tax cut. So, even with republicans in office, that 47% is probably going to remain.
If anyone is to reduce to 47% down to 30% one has to focus on improving the economy and creating jobs. There are only 2 sure-fire ways to see wage inflation. First is to flip the supply/demand equation on jobs. Right now, with unemployment so high, there is downward pressure on wages. If employees are in demand, and there are more jobs than people to fill them, wages will increase.
After the flip, then the debate about where the limit for the EITC should be can begin.
But the economy is the most important thing right now.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Myth of the Career Poliltician and the presidency
If you ask many people what the problem with the American Government is today, there is a good chance that that person will say, "Career Politician." Are career politician really bad for the US? The argument is that Career Politicians have to spend an inordinate amount of time raising money for their next campaign and that it makes them more susceptible to influence from those who fund their campaign. The answer to all of this is term limits. I hope that I have been consistent in this blog...that term limits is not a panecea to fix problems in Washington. But here is another argument against term limits, and that is to dispel the myths of the Career Politician.
Ask the person to name the best and worst US President in their lifetime. For the worst president, a democratic leaning person will probably name George W. Bush as the worst. If they are old enough, they may name Richard Nixon. If they are a Republican, they will likely name Barrack Obama or Jimmy Carter as the worst. For the best president, a Democrat will probably name Bill Clinton as the best president, while a Republican will likely name Ronald Reagan.
Do you know that some of these presidents were "Career Politicians" before they became president? Every President since the Civil War, expect for Grant, Hayes and Eisenhower served at least 4 years in some elected office before becoming president. Some worked their way to the top. Let's take a look at all of the offices which the Presidents since the first World War held before becoming president. I think that one will find that there is no correlation between "Career Politician" and what kind of President they were. I would define a Career Politician as someone who served more than 2 terms in one office, or more than 20 years in politics before becoming President.
Woodrow Wilson--Before becoming President, he served a term as the Governor of New Jersey. Before that, he was President of Princeton. Before that, he practiced law. Can't be classified as a career politician and generally considered to be a good president.
Warren Harding---Before being elected in 1921 served as a US Senator from Ohio, as the Lieutenant Governor of Ohio and in the Ohio State Senate. He was a newspaper publisher before being elected to the Ohio Senate in 1899. I would not define Harding as a career politician because he only served one term in each office and was out of elected office between his stint in the Ohio State Senate and his election to the US Senate. From 1906 to 1915, Harding was running Marion Daily Star and not in political office at all. He is considered to be a poor president.
So far--2 non-carreer politicians, 1 good president and 1 poor president.
Calvin Coolidge assumed the presidency in 1923 upon the death of Harding. Coolidge first ran for office in 1898 in the city council of Northampton, Massachusetts and worked his way up the ladder to become the Governor of Massachusetts in 1919. Prior to that, he was the Lieutenant Governor of his state. Although he never served more than 1 term in office, he was in politics for more than 20 years before becoming the Vice President and was therefore a career politician. He is considered to be a good president.
Herbert Hoover was definitely not a career politician. The presidency was his first elected office. He was the Secretary of Commerce for 8 years prior to running for the White House. He was successful in the field of mining around the turn of the century to world-wide acclaim. He gained fame in World War I for his humanitarian efforts to bring aid and relief to many victims of the war, beginning with the repatriation of Americans who were in Europe when hostilities began. He is considered to be a poor president because the Great Depression began when he was in office and for all his brilliance, he could do nothing to stop it.
Franklin Roosevelt began is political career in 1911 and was elected to the Presidency in 1932. He was a career politician. He is considered by many historians to be a good president.
Harry Truman was first elected to office, as a Jackson County Missouri judge in 1922, but only served one term. But he returned to public office in 1926 transforming Kansas City into the city it would become. He ran for the US Senate in 1934. He was an upwardly mobile career politician and considered to be a good president.
Eisenhower was not a career politician before becoming the President. He was the senior commander in the European theater in World War II and the Vets loved him, even if his presidency was not as effective as it could have been.
Kennedy served for 3 terms in the House of Representatives and was in his second term in the US Senate when he ran for the White House. That fits the definition of a career politician. Reviews on his presidency were mixed.
Lyndon Johnson was in Congress before World War 2 began. He volunteered for the Navy during the war, and when he nearly became a POW, President Roosevelt ordered all members of Congress who were also in the Armed forces to choose one or the other. Johnson chose to remain in the House and resigned his Navy commission. As such, he fit the description of a Career politician. He was an effective president, but decided not to seek another term in 1968 due to the unpopularity of the Vietnam War.
Richard Nixon was also a career politician, serving in one office or another from his days at Whittier College. He was elected to Congress in 1947 and service in office until 1961. He is considered to be a weak president.
Gerald Ford was elected to Congress in 1949 and served there until he became the appointed Vice President in 1973. He was considered to be an ineffective president.
Jimmy Carter was only in elected office for 8 years before becoming the President of the US. He served 1 term in the Georgia State Senate and 1 term as the Governor from Georgia. Not a career politician and not considered to be an effective president.
Ronald Regan served 2 terms as Governor of California before becoming the President. Not a career politician and considered to be an effective president.
George HW Bush Served in Congress for only four years, but was in a slew of appointed offices throughout the 1970s before becoming Reagan's running mate. I will consider him a career politician and a mostly ineffective president.
Bill Clinton was first elected to office in 1977 and was only out of office for two years...1981 to 1983...before becoming the President in 1992. He served 5 2-year terms as Governor of Arkansas. We will call Bill Clinton a Career Politician and an effective president
George W. Bush only served as Texas Governor for 6 years before becoming president. He was not a Career Politician and not an effective president.
I will not evaluate Barrack Obama for this exercise.
Here is the grid...
Career Politician, ineffective president...
George H.W. Bush
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
Lyndon Johnson
Non-career Politician, ineffective president
Jimmy Carter
Lyndon Johnson
Herbert Hoover
Warren Harding
Career Politician, effective President
John F. Kennedy
Harry Truman
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Calvin Coolidge
Non-career Politician, effective President
Ronald Reagan
Dwight Eisenhower
Woodrow Wilson
The conclusion is that for those who served as the President of the United States, spending a career in politics is no predictor of their quality. Chances are you will find similar results in Congress. This is really an argument against those who say that career politicians are bad just for being career politicians and use it as a justification for term limits.
Ask the person to name the best and worst US President in their lifetime. For the worst president, a democratic leaning person will probably name George W. Bush as the worst. If they are old enough, they may name Richard Nixon. If they are a Republican, they will likely name Barrack Obama or Jimmy Carter as the worst. For the best president, a Democrat will probably name Bill Clinton as the best president, while a Republican will likely name Ronald Reagan.
Do you know that some of these presidents were "Career Politicians" before they became president? Every President since the Civil War, expect for Grant, Hayes and Eisenhower served at least 4 years in some elected office before becoming president. Some worked their way to the top. Let's take a look at all of the offices which the Presidents since the first World War held before becoming president. I think that one will find that there is no correlation between "Career Politician" and what kind of President they were. I would define a Career Politician as someone who served more than 2 terms in one office, or more than 20 years in politics before becoming President.
Woodrow Wilson--Before becoming President, he served a term as the Governor of New Jersey. Before that, he was President of Princeton. Before that, he practiced law. Can't be classified as a career politician and generally considered to be a good president.
Warren Harding---Before being elected in 1921 served as a US Senator from Ohio, as the Lieutenant Governor of Ohio and in the Ohio State Senate. He was a newspaper publisher before being elected to the Ohio Senate in 1899. I would not define Harding as a career politician because he only served one term in each office and was out of elected office between his stint in the Ohio State Senate and his election to the US Senate. From 1906 to 1915, Harding was running Marion Daily Star and not in political office at all. He is considered to be a poor president.
So far--2 non-carreer politicians, 1 good president and 1 poor president.
Calvin Coolidge assumed the presidency in 1923 upon the death of Harding. Coolidge first ran for office in 1898 in the city council of Northampton, Massachusetts and worked his way up the ladder to become the Governor of Massachusetts in 1919. Prior to that, he was the Lieutenant Governor of his state. Although he never served more than 1 term in office, he was in politics for more than 20 years before becoming the Vice President and was therefore a career politician. He is considered to be a good president.
Herbert Hoover was definitely not a career politician. The presidency was his first elected office. He was the Secretary of Commerce for 8 years prior to running for the White House. He was successful in the field of mining around the turn of the century to world-wide acclaim. He gained fame in World War I for his humanitarian efforts to bring aid and relief to many victims of the war, beginning with the repatriation of Americans who were in Europe when hostilities began. He is considered to be a poor president because the Great Depression began when he was in office and for all his brilliance, he could do nothing to stop it.
Franklin Roosevelt began is political career in 1911 and was elected to the Presidency in 1932. He was a career politician. He is considered by many historians to be a good president.
Harry Truman was first elected to office, as a Jackson County Missouri judge in 1922, but only served one term. But he returned to public office in 1926 transforming Kansas City into the city it would become. He ran for the US Senate in 1934. He was an upwardly mobile career politician and considered to be a good president.
Eisenhower was not a career politician before becoming the President. He was the senior commander in the European theater in World War II and the Vets loved him, even if his presidency was not as effective as it could have been.
Kennedy served for 3 terms in the House of Representatives and was in his second term in the US Senate when he ran for the White House. That fits the definition of a career politician. Reviews on his presidency were mixed.
Lyndon Johnson was in Congress before World War 2 began. He volunteered for the Navy during the war, and when he nearly became a POW, President Roosevelt ordered all members of Congress who were also in the Armed forces to choose one or the other. Johnson chose to remain in the House and resigned his Navy commission. As such, he fit the description of a Career politician. He was an effective president, but decided not to seek another term in 1968 due to the unpopularity of the Vietnam War.
Richard Nixon was also a career politician, serving in one office or another from his days at Whittier College. He was elected to Congress in 1947 and service in office until 1961. He is considered to be a weak president.
Gerald Ford was elected to Congress in 1949 and served there until he became the appointed Vice President in 1973. He was considered to be an ineffective president.
Jimmy Carter was only in elected office for 8 years before becoming the President of the US. He served 1 term in the Georgia State Senate and 1 term as the Governor from Georgia. Not a career politician and not considered to be an effective president.
Ronald Regan served 2 terms as Governor of California before becoming the President. Not a career politician and considered to be an effective president.
George HW Bush Served in Congress for only four years, but was in a slew of appointed offices throughout the 1970s before becoming Reagan's running mate. I will consider him a career politician and a mostly ineffective president.
Bill Clinton was first elected to office in 1977 and was only out of office for two years...1981 to 1983...before becoming the President in 1992. He served 5 2-year terms as Governor of Arkansas. We will call Bill Clinton a Career Politician and an effective president
George W. Bush only served as Texas Governor for 6 years before becoming president. He was not a Career Politician and not an effective president.
I will not evaluate Barrack Obama for this exercise.
Here is the grid...
Career Politician, ineffective president...
George H.W. Bush
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
Lyndon Johnson
Non-career Politician, ineffective president
Jimmy Carter
Lyndon Johnson
Herbert Hoover
Warren Harding
Career Politician, effective President
John F. Kennedy
Harry Truman
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Calvin Coolidge
Non-career Politician, effective President
Ronald Reagan
Dwight Eisenhower
Woodrow Wilson
The conclusion is that for those who served as the President of the United States, spending a career in politics is no predictor of their quality. Chances are you will find similar results in Congress. This is really an argument against those who say that career politicians are bad just for being career politicians and use it as a justification for term limits.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Now that the conventions are over.
Here are some things to keep in mind...
1. The budget is set by Congress and not the president. While you and your friends are debating, here is the truth about the deficit that may have escaped you.
In the late 1990s, the US had a surplus...meaning more money was coming in than going out. Today we have a huge deficit. About 1/3 of this was caused by a Republican-controlled congress...from 2000 to 2006. 1/3 of this was caused by a Democratic-controlled Congress...from 2006 to 2012. About 1/3 of this is tax revenue lost because of the poor economy.
2. The US is part of a global economy. Much of what can happen in the economy is outside of the control of anyone in the US government.
3. You and you alone decide if you are going to be happy. For me, no matter who wins on Election Day, I am going to go on with my life and live it the best that I can.
4. If the economy grows to 1998 levels, and programs designed to stimulate the economy since 2007 are allowed to be phased out, the federal budget will be balanced with no additional taxes or spending cuts.
Some things to keep in mind. Share with all of your friends.
1. The budget is set by Congress and not the president. While you and your friends are debating, here is the truth about the deficit that may have escaped you.
In the late 1990s, the US had a surplus...meaning more money was coming in than going out. Today we have a huge deficit. About 1/3 of this was caused by a Republican-controlled congress...from 2000 to 2006. 1/3 of this was caused by a Democratic-controlled Congress...from 2006 to 2012. About 1/3 of this is tax revenue lost because of the poor economy.
2. The US is part of a global economy. Much of what can happen in the economy is outside of the control of anyone in the US government.
3. You and you alone decide if you are going to be happy. For me, no matter who wins on Election Day, I am going to go on with my life and live it the best that I can.
4. If the economy grows to 1998 levels, and programs designed to stimulate the economy since 2007 are allowed to be phased out, the federal budget will be balanced with no additional taxes or spending cuts.
Some things to keep in mind. Share with all of your friends.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Is Corporate Welfare a Good Use of Tax Dollars?
The question we should ask about Corporate Welfare is: why? There are many different reasons why this happens. First, it depends on the type of business that is receiving an incentive from the government. A suburb may give a property tax rebate to a Wal-Mart Super Center because that expenditure will be offset many times over by an increase in sales tax revenues. A city like Salt Lake City may give a tax break to Microsoft because there will be an increase in tax revenue in other area. If there are people coming to town for jobs, houses are going to be built and stores are going to sell goods. It increases the overall health of the economy.
The other reason why government at all levels gives tax breaks to firms is because it is a common practice world-wide, and it is a competitive world. If your town is not willing to give a tax break to bring some business to town, someone else is. That becomes a lost opportunity.
This usually works all fine and dandy until the company begins to have trouble and then begins to lay off employees. Let's say the corporate tax break in your town was given to Widgets are US because of a military contract. Your town gave them a 50% discount on property tax because the new factory would bring 2,000 jobs to town that did not exist before. Your town has put in the streets, street lights, sewage, water, electricity and gas into new subdivisions to make way for the new hoses. They have bonded for new schools and parks. The town has incurred tons of new debt in hopes of increases the tax base in town by 2,000 new households. They have also zoned for new shops and other commercial development.
Right before Widgets are US breaks ground on their new factory, Congress cancels the contract. Then the town is out all of the investment that they put into the project. The new subdivisions remain vacant and the new stores never come to town. What has been lost? The money put into the anticipated new development.
What some people call Corporate Welfare is really a gamble. But the most important thing to remember is the way that Corporate America plays the game. When they want to build a new plant, they will shop it around to several communities to see who will give them the best deal. That has been going on for a long time and it is not likely to stop unless congress makes it illegal.
But what would happen if America outlawed corporate tax subsidies. Would that put the United States at a bigger disadvantage than they already have? Would that mean more jobs going overseas? The answer is yes to the first question and maybe to the second. Companies will not completely leave the US until there is no longer a market for their products in the United States. But it will cost this country jobs.
It would be unwise to spend money on projects that are going to be in your jurisdiction anyway. For example, if Winco is opening a store in either Layton or Kaysville, why would the State of Utah bother to incentive-ize one city of the next? But if the company is considering Layton instead of Wendover, then I would want those jobs to come to Utah.
At the federal level, the government may want to give businesses incentives to expand and hire people. Column A is people who have jobs and pay taxes. Column B is people who lack jobs are receive government assistance. The federal may spend millions as an incentive for Apple to open a new plant in Indiana. But that is worth it if the government can save millions more in welfare payments. It is worth if Apple is going to not build the plant for 2 or 3 years. It is worth it if Apple may build the plant in Mexico. It is worth it if the plant is going to revitalize an economically depressed area of Indiana instead of a affluent community in California. It is not worth it if none of the above applies, because any of the above options could save the federal government millions in social welfare payments.
A positive example is the government spending millions to provide incentives for companies to take over a closed military base or auto plant or steel mill. These programs will save taxpayers money as federal safety-net programs are allowed to recoup funds and people are removed from the sting of welfare. Hud sells houses and business properties. The city has the tax funds to repair their infrastructure. It's a win/win.
It goes too far when one member of congress uses federal funds to take a proposed projects away from the district of one of his colleagues. Then it simply becomes a bidding war, buying votes and everything else that is said negatively about it. Is there a fix for this? Yes, this is the type of problem that could be resolved with a line-item veto and someone sensible enough to use it the right way in the White House.
The bottom line is this: even though Corporate Welfare sounds bad, it can bring positive results when used correctly. It is not Corporate Welfare or Social Welfare, it's using corporate welfare to PREVENT the use of Social Welfare.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
5 Step Plan to Fix the US Economy...Step 5 Outsourcing and the Proper Example
In this presidential campaign, outsourcing has become an issue. Why should it not be something that we speak about, many people have lost jobs to overseas competition. Yes, Bain Capital has outsourced jobs overseas. But the Federal Government, under the watch of President Barrack Obama has done the same. No major large business has clean hands when it comes to sending jobs overseas, and that includes the Federal Government and many state governments as well.
Outsourcing is really importing. Instead of importing cars, oil or other goods, we are importing white collar labor.
This blog is not against free trade, and believes that the reversal of trade agreements will not resolve the outsourcing problem. Outsourcing is beyond costs and profits. Let's pose a question to all of our readers, why do companies outsource? The one obvious answer to that question is cost. Labor costs are cheaper in overseas markets, and that is why companies outsource. But the answer is not that simple. It goes beyond cost. If outsourcing is the answer to the labor costs question, why don't smaller companies do it? In fact, if outsourcing is the answer, why not move your entire operation overseas?
According to Forbes, the number one reason, and perhaps the only reason for some companies, to outsource jobs is to open up markets for their products. In other words, if I am Company X, and I want to sell my good and services in Renovia...then I am going to move jobs to Renovia so that barriers that the Renovian government normally puts in my way will be removed. The number one reason why companies outsource is to remove trade barriers.
There are other reasons, besides costs, behind outsourcing. They include the lack of labor unions in other countries, the willingness of governments to foot the costs for retraining employees, access to a younger workforce, lower health care costs, access to a specific labor pool and to avoid some of the regulation that the US government and many states have.
But there is a cycle, and eventually there will be little advantage to outsourcing other than to open up markets. Remember Back to the Future Part 3? There is a scene in that movie where the 1985 Marty is speaking to the 1955 Doc. Doc says to Marty, "here is the reason why this car broke down, all of your electronic parts were made in Japan." Marty's response is, "Doc, all of the best stuff comes from Japan." In 2012, many of those same parts are no longer made in Japan, but in Korea, China and India. In 2035, we may be buying electronic parts made in Costa Rica, Brazil, and Chile.
When a nation first enters the world market, it's products are of low quality and low price. Then the quality improves, but the price remains low. When the countries economy improves and inflates, the prices increase. Finally, the quality decreases. Just like we have already seen in Japan and Western Europe. We are getting to the point where India is no longer the hot spot for outsourcing, it is being replaced by The Philippines and by Costa Rica.
Can the trend for overseas jobs be reversed? Not completely, but it can improve for the US. The Federal Government can take two steps in order to reverse the trend. First, set a proper example. Second, strengthen the US dollar.
The US government and many state governments are as guilty as Bain Capital when outsourcing work. Very few US jobs have been directly outsourced, if more were, the AFL-CIO would raise a royal stink about it, even with Obama in the White House. But the contractors that the US and many states hire are some of the biggest outsourcers of work. This could be stopped with one stoke of Barack Obama's left hand. Simply adopt a policy that disallows government contractors from outsourcing. The reason why government contractors outsource is that they are trying to win contracts with foreign governments by showing what they can do with US taxpayer dollars. It is completely uneccisary and it will probably backfire. If I can outsource US government work with how strong US labor unions are, I can outsource the taxpayer dollars from other countries as well. It is not a good practice.
The second policy that could curb outsourcing is to strengthen the US dollar. A stronger dollar takes away some of the financial benefit for sending work overseas. This is where US public debt, especially the debt held by overseas nations, hurts the US economy the most. The more debt the government has, the weaker the dollar. It's a supply and demand issue. Dollars have to be printed when the US goes into debt, that means a higher supply of dollars. A higher supply means a lower price. Getting the government financial house in order will lower the supply of dollars available, and that means a higher price, or a strong dollar. That means less incentive to outsource work and less incentive to import goods.
Taking these steps will not stop outsourcing. There will always be the factor of opening up new markets and reaching new customers. That factor should not be taken out of the question. We should not attempt to stop US companies from expanding overseas. But we can take steps to remove the cost benefit by reducing some of the financial incentives. Our children will thank us if we do.
Step 1--Fix the corporate tax structure.
Step 2--Interest rates and lending
Step 3--Energy
Step 4--Legal Reforms
Step 5--Outsourcing
Outsourcing is really importing. Instead of importing cars, oil or other goods, we are importing white collar labor.
This blog is not against free trade, and believes that the reversal of trade agreements will not resolve the outsourcing problem. Outsourcing is beyond costs and profits. Let's pose a question to all of our readers, why do companies outsource? The one obvious answer to that question is cost. Labor costs are cheaper in overseas markets, and that is why companies outsource. But the answer is not that simple. It goes beyond cost. If outsourcing is the answer to the labor costs question, why don't smaller companies do it? In fact, if outsourcing is the answer, why not move your entire operation overseas?
According to Forbes, the number one reason, and perhaps the only reason for some companies, to outsource jobs is to open up markets for their products. In other words, if I am Company X, and I want to sell my good and services in Renovia...then I am going to move jobs to Renovia so that barriers that the Renovian government normally puts in my way will be removed. The number one reason why companies outsource is to remove trade barriers.
There are other reasons, besides costs, behind outsourcing. They include the lack of labor unions in other countries, the willingness of governments to foot the costs for retraining employees, access to a younger workforce, lower health care costs, access to a specific labor pool and to avoid some of the regulation that the US government and many states have.
But there is a cycle, and eventually there will be little advantage to outsourcing other than to open up markets. Remember Back to the Future Part 3? There is a scene in that movie where the 1985 Marty is speaking to the 1955 Doc. Doc says to Marty, "here is the reason why this car broke down, all of your electronic parts were made in Japan." Marty's response is, "Doc, all of the best stuff comes from Japan." In 2012, many of those same parts are no longer made in Japan, but in Korea, China and India. In 2035, we may be buying electronic parts made in Costa Rica, Brazil, and Chile.
When a nation first enters the world market, it's products are of low quality and low price. Then the quality improves, but the price remains low. When the countries economy improves and inflates, the prices increase. Finally, the quality decreases. Just like we have already seen in Japan and Western Europe. We are getting to the point where India is no longer the hot spot for outsourcing, it is being replaced by The Philippines and by Costa Rica.
Can the trend for overseas jobs be reversed? Not completely, but it can improve for the US. The Federal Government can take two steps in order to reverse the trend. First, set a proper example. Second, strengthen the US dollar.
The US government and many state governments are as guilty as Bain Capital when outsourcing work. Very few US jobs have been directly outsourced, if more were, the AFL-CIO would raise a royal stink about it, even with Obama in the White House. But the contractors that the US and many states hire are some of the biggest outsourcers of work. This could be stopped with one stoke of Barack Obama's left hand. Simply adopt a policy that disallows government contractors from outsourcing. The reason why government contractors outsource is that they are trying to win contracts with foreign governments by showing what they can do with US taxpayer dollars. It is completely uneccisary and it will probably backfire. If I can outsource US government work with how strong US labor unions are, I can outsource the taxpayer dollars from other countries as well. It is not a good practice.
The second policy that could curb outsourcing is to strengthen the US dollar. A stronger dollar takes away some of the financial benefit for sending work overseas. This is where US public debt, especially the debt held by overseas nations, hurts the US economy the most. The more debt the government has, the weaker the dollar. It's a supply and demand issue. Dollars have to be printed when the US goes into debt, that means a higher supply of dollars. A higher supply means a lower price. Getting the government financial house in order will lower the supply of dollars available, and that means a higher price, or a strong dollar. That means less incentive to outsource work and less incentive to import goods.
Taking these steps will not stop outsourcing. There will always be the factor of opening up new markets and reaching new customers. That factor should not be taken out of the question. We should not attempt to stop US companies from expanding overseas. But we can take steps to remove the cost benefit by reducing some of the financial incentives. Our children will thank us if we do.
Step 1--Fix the corporate tax structure.
Step 2--Interest rates and lending
Step 3--Energy
Step 4--Legal Reforms
Step 5--Outsourcing
Sunday, August 26, 2012
5 Step Plan to fix the US Economy...Litigation Reforms.
Torts and liability are not just a problem in the medical industry, but throughout Corporate America. All of America is suffering because of runaway lawsuits. Litigation has taken it's toll more greatly with small business, where the majority of America is employed.
You will not find litigation on this list of top-10 things that will kill a small business. Legal issues fall under the umbrella of poor management and can lead to cash flow difficulties. It can also lead to levels of stress that kill good customer service and synergy between employees. You can see legal issues all over this list.
The dollar cost of litigation on small business is not available in this study from the SBA. According to the report, the majority of legal cases that a small business deals with are for amounts under 10,000. Litigation is part of being in business, and the majority of legal cases are not going to bring most businesses to their knees. It's that occasional big case that causes problems.
The plurality of small business lawsuits comes from contract disputes...about 34% of lawsuits. #2 is torts and liability. #3 is civil rights lawsuits, #4 is a general category which includes prisoner petitions and federal tax disputes. #5 is labor issues and #6 is property rights disputes. These six categories represent 96% of the lawsuits that small business faces each year.
More than half of lawsuits directed at small business are at those that have fewer than 50 employees. At the time of the survey, 95% of businesses surveyed were in business more than 5 years. The majority of businesses sued had revenue over 5 million.
The SBA study said that there are three main causes for lawsuits against small business.
1. Employee Complaints
2. Business-specific claims such as copyright infringement.
3. Customer satisfaction issues.
Here is one place where government spending can create more revenue for the government than it spends. If the majority of business and employment in America is small business, then it would be money well spent to protect small business and keep tax dollars from small business flowing. There is also the economic principle of opportunity cost. What could that dollar that is spent to settle a legal matter be spent on instead?
We have a public defenders office to provide counsel to those accused of crime. Every county has an extension agent to give advice to farmers. It would be money well spent by government to have a small business assistance office in each county to provide advice to small business. There is such a thing on a small level, the NFIB. However, they do very little outside of lobbying. The advice they give is good, but would be more lasting if there was someone to talk to face-to-face. At least, there should be a legal referral service to someone familiar with the laws in the local state. If your business needs help writing a contract, you know who you can retain to ensure the contract prevents a lawsuit.
It is well understood that we live in a litigious society. According to the Public Law Research Institute, the major of wrongful termination lawsuits are dismissed before they ever go to trial. If there is basis for such lawsuits to go to trial, most companies...and wisely so...settle these cases before they to to trial. When they go to trial, the rewards are huge. Usually, the rewards are between 450,000 and 650,000.
Here is where reform can help. Let's say that you are wrongfully terminated at age 45. Does a jury really need to award the plantiff with the amount of money that would have been earned up until the age of 65? Even at age 45, people usually do not stay with a private-sector company for 20 years until they retire in today's society. Such cases could logically be settled at 5 years of lost wages, health care benefits and coverage at an executive-level job-search firm and retraining if that is required to obtain new employment. For the average person, this is around 250,000. This is the type of reform that is needed. We need to prevent run-a-way jury awards. We need to get society away from the "sue someone to get rich" mentality.
For companies with enough revenue to hire permanent legal counsel, this reform may not be needed. For everyone else, however, tort reform is necessary. It could be the difference, for some small firms, between staying open and closing. Until this happens, here is a list, according to the NFIB, of the top 5 things a small business can do to prevent lawsuits.
1. Document everything. Every business conversation--whether with employees, partners or customers--should be put in writing.
2. Create an employee handbook. Employees should know the company policies on discrimination, sexual harassment and such. No employee termination should come as a surprise.
3. Understand intellectual property laws. Know whether or not you have the right to use something that you borrow from another firm.
4. Maintain the business property. Do everything possible to prevent accidents. Purchase accident liability insurance. Have a regular insurance audit.
5. Communicate. Some misunderstandings can be cleared up with a simple phone call or a face to face conversation before they result legal action.
Taking these steps will help prevent the big lawsuits. Even after proper tort reform, this is still good advice.
Step 1--Fix the corporate tax structure.
Step 2--Interest rates and lending
Step 3--Energy
Step 4--Legal Reforms
Step 5--Outsourcing
You will not find litigation on this list of top-10 things that will kill a small business. Legal issues fall under the umbrella of poor management and can lead to cash flow difficulties. It can also lead to levels of stress that kill good customer service and synergy between employees. You can see legal issues all over this list.
The dollar cost of litigation on small business is not available in this study from the SBA. According to the report, the majority of legal cases that a small business deals with are for amounts under 10,000. Litigation is part of being in business, and the majority of legal cases are not going to bring most businesses to their knees. It's that occasional big case that causes problems.
The plurality of small business lawsuits comes from contract disputes...about 34% of lawsuits. #2 is torts and liability. #3 is civil rights lawsuits, #4 is a general category which includes prisoner petitions and federal tax disputes. #5 is labor issues and #6 is property rights disputes. These six categories represent 96% of the lawsuits that small business faces each year.
More than half of lawsuits directed at small business are at those that have fewer than 50 employees. At the time of the survey, 95% of businesses surveyed were in business more than 5 years. The majority of businesses sued had revenue over 5 million.
The SBA study said that there are three main causes for lawsuits against small business.
1. Employee Complaints
2. Business-specific claims such as copyright infringement.
3. Customer satisfaction issues.
Here is one place where government spending can create more revenue for the government than it spends. If the majority of business and employment in America is small business, then it would be money well spent to protect small business and keep tax dollars from small business flowing. There is also the economic principle of opportunity cost. What could that dollar that is spent to settle a legal matter be spent on instead?
We have a public defenders office to provide counsel to those accused of crime. Every county has an extension agent to give advice to farmers. It would be money well spent by government to have a small business assistance office in each county to provide advice to small business. There is such a thing on a small level, the NFIB. However, they do very little outside of lobbying. The advice they give is good, but would be more lasting if there was someone to talk to face-to-face. At least, there should be a legal referral service to someone familiar with the laws in the local state. If your business needs help writing a contract, you know who you can retain to ensure the contract prevents a lawsuit.
It is well understood that we live in a litigious society. According to the Public Law Research Institute, the major of wrongful termination lawsuits are dismissed before they ever go to trial. If there is basis for such lawsuits to go to trial, most companies...and wisely so...settle these cases before they to to trial. When they go to trial, the rewards are huge. Usually, the rewards are between 450,000 and 650,000.
Here is where reform can help. Let's say that you are wrongfully terminated at age 45. Does a jury really need to award the plantiff with the amount of money that would have been earned up until the age of 65? Even at age 45, people usually do not stay with a private-sector company for 20 years until they retire in today's society. Such cases could logically be settled at 5 years of lost wages, health care benefits and coverage at an executive-level job-search firm and retraining if that is required to obtain new employment. For the average person, this is around 250,000. This is the type of reform that is needed. We need to prevent run-a-way jury awards. We need to get society away from the "sue someone to get rich" mentality.
For companies with enough revenue to hire permanent legal counsel, this reform may not be needed. For everyone else, however, tort reform is necessary. It could be the difference, for some small firms, between staying open and closing. Until this happens, here is a list, according to the NFIB, of the top 5 things a small business can do to prevent lawsuits.
1. Document everything. Every business conversation--whether with employees, partners or customers--should be put in writing.
2. Create an employee handbook. Employees should know the company policies on discrimination, sexual harassment and such. No employee termination should come as a surprise.
3. Understand intellectual property laws. Know whether or not you have the right to use something that you borrow from another firm.
4. Maintain the business property. Do everything possible to prevent accidents. Purchase accident liability insurance. Have a regular insurance audit.
5. Communicate. Some misunderstandings can be cleared up with a simple phone call or a face to face conversation before they result legal action.
Taking these steps will help prevent the big lawsuits. Even after proper tort reform, this is still good advice.
Step 1--Fix the corporate tax structure.
Step 2--Interest rates and lending
Step 3--Energy
Step 4--Legal Reforms
Step 5--Outsourcing
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Five step plan to fix the economy...Step 3 Energy
Energy is an input to all facets of the American economy. From pencils to computers, all products use a component of energy to get made and delivered to customers. That is why a solid energy plan is so critical to the economy of the US. And this is something that has been absent since the Reagan administration. Yes, the White House has an energy policy, but how realistic is it?
One expert says that the world is at least 15 years away from real solar energy. Perhaps sometime next decade, most of the electricity in your house will come directly from the sun. But, do we have a bridge to get to the future? We are not there yet.
True, there are some consequences to burning fossil fuels and to nuclear energy, but they are the most efficient sources of fuel that we have at this time. Solar energy and other green sources of power are still in the "Model-T" stage of development and have a long way to go. One day, Solar power will be cheaper than coal. But we are not there, yet.
Some say that we need tax subsidies and help from government to get solar energy off the ground. I propose that we give solar energy the same level of tax help that we gave coal. Enough said.
Economic forces will drive cleaner energy, like it or not. But we do not get there by making it more difficult to deliver conventional sources of energy. The reason this is so is because of the economic principle of opportunity cost. That is a simple principle to understand. If I did not spend this $1 on x, I would spend it on y.
While Obama and his administration have sacrificed traditional energy for green energy, costs have been on the increase. While many of you believe that business simply passes the higher energy costs to you the consumer, it is not completely true. When prices are raised, the law of supply and demand says that less product will be sold. This is exacerbated because the consumer is also paying for fuel and has less to pay for other things. Companies have to find other ways to absorb costs. Eventually they respond by cutting staff.
You see where I am going with this, do you? We have needed a bridge to the future, not a cliff. Even those of us to advocate the use of more traditional sources or energy...coal, oil and natural gas...know that these sources of energy will not last forever and that we need to improve solar and wind technologies. Until the new energy technologies can supply our needs, we need to take advantage of the resources we now have for cheaper and more reliable sources of energy.
When companies spend less money on energy, they have more to spend on other things, such as payroll. When Mr. and Mrs. America spend less on gas in the tank, they have more to spend on luxuries such as food and clothing.
If allowed to expand, the energy industry has plenty of extra cash to hire hard-working, down-on-their-luck Americans. Don't we need to put good people to work? Thousands of people have lost work just for the Gulf Drilling Moratorium.
Just because we allow oil and coal companies to expand does not mean that we are abandoning green energy, it just means that we are trying to be realistic. Reality is, as we have been reminded since the 70s, the supply of fossil fuels is limited and we, sooner or later, need to find something different.
"Drill Here, Drill Now" is not the only answer to the energy problem. We need more refineries. When a fire at a refinery on the West Coast raises the price of gasoline 30 cents, it shows that improvements and upgrades are needed on every link in the supply chain. This is why the Keystone Pipeline is so important. It makes for more efficient delivery from oil field to refinery. We need new, safer and more efficient refineries, where few new refineries have been built in the past 30 years.
We also need to upgrade our coal-burning plants to make them more efficient and less polluting. We have the technology to do this, but instead our current administration insists on shutting them down.
Most importantly, we must develop domestic sources of energy. When we import 60% of our oil from foreign soil, we send 60% of the dollars that we spend on oil and gas outside of the United States. That weakens the dollar. This has consequences for every American, not just those who travel. A stronger dollar will help keep jobs in the US.
There is no telling how a better energy problem will benefit the United States. It's impact will be greatly felt. It may be the most important thing that the President and Congress can work on in the next four years. If there is one industry in the US that has the cash to invest in more American jobs, it is Big Oil. We should not engage in policies that view big oil companies that the enemy of the American People. We should treat this industry like an ally.
Step 1--Fix the corporate tax structure.
Step 2--Interest rates and lending
Step 3--Energy
Step 4--Legal Reforms
Step 5--Outsourcing
One expert says that the world is at least 15 years away from real solar energy. Perhaps sometime next decade, most of the electricity in your house will come directly from the sun. But, do we have a bridge to get to the future? We are not there yet.
True, there are some consequences to burning fossil fuels and to nuclear energy, but they are the most efficient sources of fuel that we have at this time. Solar energy and other green sources of power are still in the "Model-T" stage of development and have a long way to go. One day, Solar power will be cheaper than coal. But we are not there, yet.
Some say that we need tax subsidies and help from government to get solar energy off the ground. I propose that we give solar energy the same level of tax help that we gave coal. Enough said.
Economic forces will drive cleaner energy, like it or not. But we do not get there by making it more difficult to deliver conventional sources of energy. The reason this is so is because of the economic principle of opportunity cost. That is a simple principle to understand. If I did not spend this $1 on x, I would spend it on y.
While Obama and his administration have sacrificed traditional energy for green energy, costs have been on the increase. While many of you believe that business simply passes the higher energy costs to you the consumer, it is not completely true. When prices are raised, the law of supply and demand says that less product will be sold. This is exacerbated because the consumer is also paying for fuel and has less to pay for other things. Companies have to find other ways to absorb costs. Eventually they respond by cutting staff.
You see where I am going with this, do you? We have needed a bridge to the future, not a cliff. Even those of us to advocate the use of more traditional sources or energy...coal, oil and natural gas...know that these sources of energy will not last forever and that we need to improve solar and wind technologies. Until the new energy technologies can supply our needs, we need to take advantage of the resources we now have for cheaper and more reliable sources of energy.
When companies spend less money on energy, they have more to spend on other things, such as payroll. When Mr. and Mrs. America spend less on gas in the tank, they have more to spend on luxuries such as food and clothing.
If allowed to expand, the energy industry has plenty of extra cash to hire hard-working, down-on-their-luck Americans. Don't we need to put good people to work? Thousands of people have lost work just for the Gulf Drilling Moratorium.
Just because we allow oil and coal companies to expand does not mean that we are abandoning green energy, it just means that we are trying to be realistic. Reality is, as we have been reminded since the 70s, the supply of fossil fuels is limited and we, sooner or later, need to find something different.
"Drill Here, Drill Now" is not the only answer to the energy problem. We need more refineries. When a fire at a refinery on the West Coast raises the price of gasoline 30 cents, it shows that improvements and upgrades are needed on every link in the supply chain. This is why the Keystone Pipeline is so important. It makes for more efficient delivery from oil field to refinery. We need new, safer and more efficient refineries, where few new refineries have been built in the past 30 years.
We also need to upgrade our coal-burning plants to make them more efficient and less polluting. We have the technology to do this, but instead our current administration insists on shutting them down.
Most importantly, we must develop domestic sources of energy. When we import 60% of our oil from foreign soil, we send 60% of the dollars that we spend on oil and gas outside of the United States. That weakens the dollar. This has consequences for every American, not just those who travel. A stronger dollar will help keep jobs in the US.
There is no telling how a better energy problem will benefit the United States. It's impact will be greatly felt. It may be the most important thing that the President and Congress can work on in the next four years. If there is one industry in the US that has the cash to invest in more American jobs, it is Big Oil. We should not engage in policies that view big oil companies that the enemy of the American People. We should treat this industry like an ally.
Step 1--Fix the corporate tax structure.
Step 2--Interest rates and lending
Step 3--Energy
Step 4--Legal Reforms
Step 5--Outsourcing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
