Category Archives: Politics: National

Receipts and Outlays

So, it appears we’re close to an agreement on the debt limit. I’m confused how the Republicans allowed themselves to get beat so badly. Near as I can tell we are not going to reduce spending but we are going to raise revenue.

Democrat’s dream.

How pathetic.

Tea Party Is Me

So, I’m sittin’ here looking at old articles regarding the Tea Party and how racist they are.  Right?

After all, we’ve seen the pictures that show how the Tea Party protests lack a certain…a certain, shall we say, touch of color.

And who can argue?

But what is your reaction when I tell you that those protests weren’t Tea Party protests?  Rather, they were Union protestors opposing Scott Walker.

Racists!

How Conservatives Want To Destroy Your Food Safty

Nancy Pelosi:

“This is an excuse. The budget deficit is an excuse for the Republicans to undermine government plain and simple. They don’t just want to make cuts, they want to destroy. They want to destroy food safety, clean air, clean water, the department of education. They want to destroy your rights.”

Milton Friedman:

The federal government has spent years considering whether to take steps to help keep dangerous strains of E. coli bacteria out of the food supply, a question that has become even more urgent in the face of a deadly wave of E. coli sickness that swept through Europe and raised alarms on both sides of the Atlantic.

Now, two major American companies, Costco Wholesale and Beef Products Inc., have gotten tired of waiting for regulators to act. They are proceeding with their own plans to protect customers.

Last month, Costco, one of the nation’s largest food retailers, quietly began requiring its suppliers of bagged produce, including salad greens and mixes, apple slices and baby carrots, to test for a broad range of toxic E. coli.

“We know this is where we have to go and there’s no reason to wait,” said Craig Wilson, the food safety director of Costco. In the last two weeks, he said, most produce suppliers have added a test that can detect the strain from the European outbreak as well.

We don’t need government to test our food.

Milton Friedman in a knockout.

Spending: Obama vs Bush

I think that I am consistent with the Republican party’s claim that one Mr. Barack Obama spends too much.  Further, I think that I am consistent with the same Republican party in their view that it’s spending, not revenue that’s the problem.  After all, I’ve demonstrated that receipts increase year over year at a 7.2%.  And by simply slowing the growth of government, we can balance the budget in as little as 19 years.   God forbid what happens if we actually REDUCE the year over year of the government spend.

To that end, there has been much talk in the nation about that government spending.  Where it came from and who is actually spending it.

Remember, the subject is spending.  And that Barack is doing more of it than anyone else.

The context is “who is contributing to the massive increase in government spending we are seeing?”

And the answer to that question is being answered by this graph:

Continue reading

Unemployment and Long Term Unemployment

For a long time I have railed on the current policy of providing long-term unemployment benefits to people out of work.  I’ve gone further and documented available jobs in my area.  Granted, the jobs are rather unattractive and have, in some cases, offended friends and family who maybe themselves or know someone who has been or is currently, unemployed.

I’ve suspended that series.

However, my point all along is not that people who aren’t taking those jobs but relying on benefits are lazy, it’s that they are rational.  The incentives are all wrong.

For example, if I’m unemployed and collecting $350.00 a week what is the marginal value of me taking a job that pays, say $8 an hour for 40 hours?  Well, it works out like this:

  1. $8*40 hours equals $320.00
  2. The first $50.00 is “burden free”, so that means only $270.00 of my $320  counts against me.
  3. Because my benefits are $350 and I “earned” $270.00, my unemployment benefit check is now $80.00.
  4. Adding my wage and my check, my new take is $400.00.
  5. Because I was earning $350.00 BEFORE my job, my incremental “raise” is 50 bucks.
  6. For 40 hours of work I earned an extra $50.00.
  7. That is about $1.25 an hour.  And when I say about, I mean exactly.
  8. Who expects anyone to work for 1 twenty 5 and hour American?
  9. No one.

And THAT is why our unemployment rate is so high.

Anyway, that’s not my point.  This is:

Continue reading

The Debt Limit, Budget, Deficit and Debt: Update

So, yesterday I posted about a possible solution to the deficit and the debt. In those plans I accommodated those on the right who insist on a plan that includes no new revenues due to tax increases.  Further, I accommodated those on the left who insist on a plan that doesn’t cut; in fact my plan GROWS government each and every single year.

As I ended my analysis I demonstrated a method by which both of those targets were met AND we backed away from the debt limit that we are struggling with today.  The solution began to reduce the the deficit in year 1.  And it balanced the budget in year 19.  It’s the perfect trifecta.

But what if we can do better?  What if we can reduce the amount of time in which we are free of the deficit?

I think we can:

Continue reading

Boehner’s Speech: What He Did Say – July 25, 2011

Well, just finished watching and listening to John Boehner.

Yeah, any good will established by Obama in trying to give the Speaker of the House props for being willing to work with the Democrats is out the window.  John Boehner came out swinging and he didn’t let up.  Almost with a vengeance the Speaker took Obama to task going back to January and the President’s request for more money.  And this after sending America on the largest spending binge of all time.  While I think he’s right, I’m not sure that the approach the Republicans just took is the wise one.

Where Obama made the case that we all need to agree to get along, Boehner went right at the President.  Where Obama looked to build a coalition with the Speaker, Mr. Boehner attacked the President for his priorities and his tactics in the debt talks to date.  Further, by appearing so dug in, the Republican may have set himself up for a situation that he can’t win.  A long time ago I learned that to be successful, you have to create a situation where your opponent can retreat or compromise in honor.  I’m afraid that Mr. Speaker has removed that option from the table.  I can see many things being thrown at the TV in the Democrat Head Quarters.

This is not to say That I don’t agree with the Republicans.  We DO spend too much.  We DO waste money.  Obama DOES negotiate in bad faith.  I know Obama is not a centrist but rather an over-matched Leftist Statist.  However, tonight, America was watching, not just us political junkies.  And America wants compromise more than they want ideology.

Either way, tonight set the die.  How it impacts the debate and the 2012 elections will, of course, remain to be seen.

Obama’s Speech: What He Did Say – July 25, 2011

I’ll be a son of a bitch!  President Obama reads TarHeel Red!

In spelling out what Barack Obama SHOULD say I neatly laid out Obama’s speech for him and he delivered what I think was a very strong message; a very good speech.

Obama DID talk about the battle in Washington.  He did bring into play the question that each side would have to give and compromise.  And he did it while sounding Presidential.

Kudos Mr. President, well done.

Further, I predicted that Mr. Obama would bring up the fact that much of the problems we’re faced with today are the result of Dubya and his policies.  I mentioned that he wouldn’t blame Bush directly, but rather use the code phrase “of the last decade”.  Imagine my excitement as I was proven right within the first 90 seconds.  However, much to his credit, he only ever touched on Bush 2 more time, so I fell short of my “at least 4 times” prediction.  Obama took a shot at Bush giving him credit along the lines of Reagan, Clinton and himself; Obama.  Further, there was a shot when Obama listed the troubles that brought us to this position included tax cuts to the wealthy, 2 wars and a Medicare Part D program.

In describing the talks, Obama made the point that it was himself that compromised and agreed to a path forward that was not popular within his party.  And he did call out Republicans for failing to give ground.  So, while he didn’t credit Democrats [that honor was reserved for him] he also didn’t accuse the Republicans of “leaving him at the altar” as I suggested.

Further, I did say that Obama would mention the strategy Republicans have taken in pushing this debate out only 6 months.  And he did.  But I also said that Obama deride this as politics and blast the “two tiered approach”.  And he didn’t.  Rather, he made well-reasoned arguments against such a strategy; arguments that I tend to agree with.

Finally, I had thought Obama would take advantage of the fact that Democrats were willing to stipulate that there would be no tax increases in the plan.  That in exchange for an extension past the election, they were willing to give on those increases.  I was wrong; Obama made it clear he expects the wealthy to “pay their fair share”.

In fact, I thought the constant “we-they” warfare was a touch over the top.  He again brought oil companies, hedge fund managers and jet owners into the conversation.  He mentioned that those who have benefited the most in the past decade [a nifty wink at Dubya that even I didn’t score against him] shouldn’t be exempt from bearing part of the burden.

However underscored the class warfare argument was, it was overshadowed by some pretty strong points made by the President.  I thought his best moment was when he descried the voters who elected both himself and the House Republicans into office.  His comment that:

They’re offended by that.

Was especially on target and scored several points.  Further, Obama was strong when he mentioned that as recently as 2000 we had budget surpluses, that we need to act in a bi-partisan manner and that both parties need to shape up.  People are, after all, bone tired and are fed up with this three-ring circus.

On one hand, I’m excited that our President delivered a strong speech more leader like than I expected.  I’m humbled some that I was so wrong, but that is tempered by the fact that it’s now clear Obama not only reads my little rantings, but takes them to heart!

😉

Obama’s Speech: What He Should Say – July 25, 2011

Tonight President Obama is going to deliver a prime time speech to America tonight at 09:00 PM EDT.

I expect the President to compare and contrast the dueling debt limit bills in front of lawmakers.  On one hand is the Speaker’s plan and on the other is the Senate Majority Leader’s plan.  Obama has already come out in favor of the plan being offerred by Harry Reid; so the suspense of tonight’s address is largely gone.  What remains will be the rhetoric.

The President should stand in front of America and tell us that the leaders we have elected are working around the clock to craft a plan that cares for the future of America while at the same time keeps us in the good graces of our current debt obligations.  All American’s recognize that you can not make promises that you have no intention of keeping.  We borrowed money and entered into agreement with people from all over.  IN some cases this is foreign nations.  In others it’s with our own citizens in the form of our social programs.

We have debts and obligations.  And we mean to honor those obligations.

That being said, the future path of our economy is not an easily planned and established.  Rather, it’s gonna take a lot of work, a lot of courage and a lot of midnight oil.  There are ideological differences to be overcome.  And in today’s hyper-partisan atmosphere.  While it’s unfortunate, it’s reality.  And to ignore that reality is dangerous.  Rather we should let these people work through their challenges and come to a solution that everyone can be satisfied with; or at least one that everyone can admit some compromise on their part.

That is what he SHOULD say.  But he won’t.

President Obama will mention, at LEAST 4 times, that we are suffering through a crisis of some kind that was brought about by the policies of the last decade.  [I suspect polling has determined that people are tired of blaming Dubya, so he’s shifted to policies of the last decade.  Four times, I’m tellin’ ya.  Take it to the bank!] He’ll claim that we need leadership and not politics as usual.  Mr. Obama will make claims that he and the Democrats have been willing to compromise on this deal in order that America can make progress and that it’s the Republicans who have come to the table, worked out a deal only to demand further concessions or change the rules.

The President will claim that the Republican contingent has been held hostage to the extreme right element of the party, he may even mention the Tea Party by name.  But if he doesn’t, it’ll be clear that it is that group he is referring to.  He will remind America that it has been the Democrats that have agreed to set aside partisan politics to reach a deal based on compromise; even agreeing to virtually every Republican demand.  Only to be left at the alter at least twice.

Obama will mention that the Democrat’s plan contains spending cuts that result in a stronger economic position.  And he’ll mention that the Democrats have agreed that no tax cuts will be implemented; all this at the request of the Republicans.

He won’t mention the fact that the deal pushes the debate out past the next election, but he WILL mention that the Republicans insist on playing politics with the debt by insisting on a “two tier approach”.

I hope I’m wrong.  I bet I’m not.

The Debt Limit, Budget, Deficit and Debt: Framing the Picture

The talk of the town is the debt limit.  Raise it or not raise it; and what it would take TO raise it.

Reasonable people can agree on a couple of things:

  1. We are in debt and it’s getting worse.
  2. To balance the budget, there needs to be a combination of an increase in revenue and a decrease in spending.

I honestly feel that if you were to ask this question, hidden in such a way as to bypass the normal political partisanship, every single American would agree.  If the checking account is overdrawn, a second job becomes something to consider and a review of the household spending becomes a priority.

But, how do we agree on such a combination when the discussion changes from the household budget to the federal budget?  How can we get folks who demand that we raises taxes together with folks who demand we don’t?  How do we get people who refuse to cut spending to shake hands with those who feel we HAVE to cut spending?

I propose that we do it by doing neither.

Watch:

Continue reading