Exchange of e-mails with Sen. Hutchison:
You responded to my earlier e-mail by saying,
"Thank you for contacting me regarding the budget for foreign operations. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue."
"The United States has a long history of extending a helping hand to those people overseas struggling to make a better life, to recover from a disaster, or to live in a free and democratic country. It is this caring that stands as a hallmark of the United States around the world."
"The annual State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill is the primary legislative vehicle through which Congress funds U.S. international affairs operations. This is a critical bill because by providing funds for our State Department and foreign operations, we have an opportunity to help shape the world's perception of our nation."
"As Congress considers future funding, my support for any foreign aid component will continue to be predicated on its relevance to national security and other important U.S. interests."
"I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you."
Caring and helping are fine, but pumping someone else's money down a rat hole is obscene, irresponsible, and immoral.
We have a human responsibility to help those who are trying to help themselves and to do so in such a manner as to be effective. 70 years of Foreign Aid have been ineffective, and it's long past time to reevaluate our strategy.
In these times of tremendous self-imposed debt, such as you and your fellow Senators are working on with respect to health care and global warming, there is little justification that we help others, when we can't help ourselves. This is what I call an abuse of compassion. It means helping others to the extent that one is unable to care for one's own self. Under those conditions everything goes down the drain.
Sec. Chu is going to give the people in Africa sun powered lamps. How ridiculous can one get?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Chu's New US Dollar Giveaway
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Unveils Plan to Rev Up Clean Technology in Poor Nations. Energy Secretary Steven Chu will announce on Monday an international plan to deploy clean technology in developing countries, a $350 million, five-year effort that will include everything from putting solar lanterns in poor households to promoting advanced energy-efficient appliances worldwide, administration officials said. (washingtonpost.com)".
Here we have another example of financial stupidity. We can't take care of ourselves, as evidenced by our tremendous government debt and our continuing annual budget deficits. Still we want to give money away. Why? To go deeper into debt? Nation building?
We have been involved in foreign aid for about 70 years. The only two nations which were successful in developing into major class economic entities were the former enemies Germany and Japan. Those countries were able to do well economically on their own, until they took on a military strategy of world domination, and we were forced to obliterate their productive capacity. They were able to recover not only because of US financial help, but because they had basic capabilities within their people.
Conversely, the so-called poor countries of the world have been soaking up financial aid like a sponge, without any progress to establishing a better lifestyle. It may be because of unstable governments or other political factors, but more likely it is because of the basic incapacity of the population.
In any event, it is ridiculous to keep pumping money into these so-called "developing" countries. If they want to develop, let their representatives visit US farming and industry establishments and learn from those successful productive enterprises how to do it. If US government compassion is such that they have to spend money, let a little be spent on airfares and hotels, while they study the US system. Let us also be sure that they are studying the basics and not present US government philosophy and operations, which are destined to ruin the US.
Steven Chu is one of the most misguided individuals in US government. We have here a very serious energy problem of unwillingness to develop our oil and gas resources and our fascination with the myth that man-made changes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere materially contribute to climate change. Chu should be thrown out of office, and if that is not possible because of political intrigues, some effort should be made to realign is thinking to concentrate on US interests, rather than the rest of the world, which has the responsibility of improving itself.
May I also remind you that you have the responsibility of Chu's foreign action. He doesn't get this money out of thin air. If he gives away $350 million, it is because you (Congress) have authorized it.
EIN News says, "U.S. Unveils Plan to Rev Up Clean Technology in Poor Nations. Energy Secretary Steven Chu will announce on Monday an international plan to deploy clean technology in developing countries, a $350 million, five-year effort that will include everything from putting solar lanterns in poor households to promoting advanced energy-efficient appliances worldwide, administration officials said. (washingtonpost.com)".
Here we have another example of financial stupidity. We can't take care of ourselves, as evidenced by our tremendous government debt and our continuing annual budget deficits. Still we want to give money away. Why? To go deeper into debt? Nation building?
We have been involved in foreign aid for about 70 years. The only two nations which were successful in developing into major class economic entities were the former enemies Germany and Japan. Those countries were able to do well economically on their own, until they took on a military strategy of world domination, and we were forced to obliterate their productive capacity. They were able to recover not only because of US financial help, but because they had basic capabilities within their people.
Conversely, the so-called poor countries of the world have been soaking up financial aid like a sponge, without any progress to establishing a better lifestyle. It may be because of unstable governments or other political factors, but more likely it is because of the basic incapacity of the population.
In any event, it is ridiculous to keep pumping money into these so-called "developing" countries. If they want to develop, let their representatives visit US farming and industry establishments and learn from those successful productive enterprises how to do it. If US government compassion is such that they have to spend money, let a little be spent on airfares and hotels, while they study the US system. Let us also be sure that they are studying the basics and not present US government philosophy and operations, which are destined to ruin the US.
Steven Chu is one of the most misguided individuals in US government. We have here a very serious energy problem of unwillingness to develop our oil and gas resources and our fascination with the myth that man-made changes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere materially contribute to climate change. Chu should be thrown out of office, and if that is not possible because of political intrigues, some effort should be made to realign is thinking to concentrate on US interests, rather than the rest of the world, which has the responsibility of improving itself.
May I also remind you that you have the responsibility of Chu's foreign action. He doesn't get this money out of thin air. If he gives away $350 million, it is because you (Congress) have authorized it.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
"Underwater" Housing
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Almost 1 in 4 U.S. Mortgage Borrowers Owe More Than Their Homes Are Worth. Nearly one in four U.S. borrowers owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth, a worrisome sign that the housing recovery could be threatened by a wave of defaults, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday. (msnbc.msn.com)".
This is a shame, it was caused by a social idealistic group in government to move people into houses whether they could afford them or not. This created an artificial construction boom. It took several years to create this damage and, and it will take several more years to have it undone.
There is now surplus housing, which is why market prices are low and considerably below the inflated values caused by the previous construction boom.. New housing construction is at a low level, which it should be, until the market catches up with housing availability. Anyone now making mortgage payments on a higher loan than the present market value of the house should continue to do so. When the market value of a house was higher two months after an original purchase, that was unrealistic. There was no actual profit, because the house was not sold. Similarly, a present low market value is unrealistic, because the house is not being sold. It is a place to live.
The only justifications for now selling and either renting or purchasing a lower-cost house is if one is in the real estate business or one cannot meet the mortgage payments. If the latter, one must take one's lumps after having been suckered into a bad financial deal by trusting government. Government will now do its best work by staying out of the mess it created and letting market forces correct the error.
EIN News says, "Almost 1 in 4 U.S. Mortgage Borrowers Owe More Than Their Homes Are Worth. Nearly one in four U.S. borrowers owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth, a worrisome sign that the housing recovery could be threatened by a wave of defaults, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday. (msnbc.msn.com)".
This is a shame, it was caused by a social idealistic group in government to move people into houses whether they could afford them or not. This created an artificial construction boom. It took several years to create this damage and, and it will take several more years to have it undone.
There is now surplus housing, which is why market prices are low and considerably below the inflated values caused by the previous construction boom.. New housing construction is at a low level, which it should be, until the market catches up with housing availability. Anyone now making mortgage payments on a higher loan than the present market value of the house should continue to do so. When the market value of a house was higher two months after an original purchase, that was unrealistic. There was no actual profit, because the house was not sold. Similarly, a present low market value is unrealistic, because the house is not being sold. It is a place to live.
The only justifications for now selling and either renting or purchasing a lower-cost house is if one is in the real estate business or one cannot meet the mortgage payments. If the latter, one must take one's lumps after having been suckered into a bad financial deal by trusting government. Government will now do its best work by staying out of the mess it created and letting market forces correct the error.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Rep. Neugebauer's Roundup
E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I have read your October 19 Roundup.
Nice job in introducing H.R. 534, the Responsible Government Empowerment Act (RGEA). However, I say again you need support for these bills or they are a waste of time. 10% of your time should be spent in preparing the bills and 90% of your time should be spent in gaining support to accept them. Keep talking to fiscally conservative Democrats, particularly the Blue Dogs.
On healthcare, I agree reform needs to happen, just like reform needs to happen in government. However, that doesn't mean we throw out the whole original process and start from scratch. Instead, we fix the things in the system that are wrong. The Baucus bill cuts too deeply into the original system. It must be defeated.
We support the removal of Kevin Jennings. Promotion of various sexual lifestyles should not be part of any educational curriculum. Our society is strongly based on traditional families of mother, father, and children. We should leave it at that. There is also no room for criticism of homosexual couples or childless couples. If there is a majority objection from these groups to the use of mommy, daddy, and children in early grade reading, we should consider that. If we need to determine whether there is a majority, the question can be put to the voting public as a "proposition".
I have read your October 19 Roundup.
Nice job in introducing H.R. 534, the Responsible Government Empowerment Act (RGEA). However, I say again you need support for these bills or they are a waste of time. 10% of your time should be spent in preparing the bills and 90% of your time should be spent in gaining support to accept them. Keep talking to fiscally conservative Democrats, particularly the Blue Dogs.
On healthcare, I agree reform needs to happen, just like reform needs to happen in government. However, that doesn't mean we throw out the whole original process and start from scratch. Instead, we fix the things in the system that are wrong. The Baucus bill cuts too deeply into the original system. It must be defeated.
We support the removal of Kevin Jennings. Promotion of various sexual lifestyles should not be part of any educational curriculum. Our society is strongly based on traditional families of mother, father, and children. We should leave it at that. There is also no room for criticism of homosexual couples or childless couples. If there is a majority objection from these groups to the use of mommy, daddy, and children in early grade reading, we should consider that. If we need to determine whether there is a majority, the question can be put to the voting public as a "proposition".
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. House Begins Assembly of Financial Reform Plan. The House Financial Services Committee is to begin work on Wednesday on a top priority for the U.S. Congress -- legislation to mend regulatory holes exposed by last fall's financial crisis. The committee will focus this week on bringing the $450 trillion market in over-the-counter derivatives under federal regulation and creation of an agency to protect consumers from risky financial products. (reuters.com)".
Good move, after you have killed the healthcare and climate control bills!
May I respectfully remind you that any effective legislation is a combination of rules involving penalties for non-adherents AND PROPER SUBSEQUENT ENFORCEMENT ACTION. It is the latter in which we have been sorely deficient in our legislative actions. You are undoubtedly more familiar than I am in how this can be done. My only suggestion is to pressure the Justice Department and other Law Enforcement Agencies.
EIN News says, "U.S. House Begins Assembly of Financial Reform Plan. The House Financial Services Committee is to begin work on Wednesday on a top priority for the U.S. Congress -- legislation to mend regulatory holes exposed by last fall's financial crisis. The committee will focus this week on bringing the $450 trillion market in over-the-counter derivatives under federal regulation and creation of an agency to protect consumers from risky financial products. (reuters.com)".
Good move, after you have killed the healthcare and climate control bills!
May I respectfully remind you that any effective legislation is a combination of rules involving penalties for non-adherents AND PROPER SUBSEQUENT ENFORCEMENT ACTION. It is the latter in which we have been sorely deficient in our legislative actions. You are undoubtedly more familiar than I am in how this can be done. My only suggestion is to pressure the Justice Department and other Law Enforcement Agencies.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Randy's October 12 Roundup
Open letter to Rep. Neugebauer:
I have read your October 12 Roundup and have taken your Spending Survey.
You are moving in the right direction to control federal spending but don't have sufficient allies. You need to cross party lines and coordinate with people who have similar opinions on government spending. Start with the Blue Dog Democrats.
With respect to military activities in Afghanistan, I don't believe in fighting half wars at half strength. My first preference is to bail out of Afghanistan. We have no business trying to "save" people who don't want to be saved. When the Russians were in Afghanistan, they least had a major point, which was to pull it into the Soviet bloc. They learned that was a difficult fight and pulled out, even though they had an incentive to win. We learned in Vietnam that if there is not sufficient US public support to "save the world for democracy", the minimal troops we send there with their hands tied behind their backs, are scheduled for slaughter.
The idea of controlling terrorists on their home ground, so that they not perform their terrorist activities here, has some merit. However, no one seems to believe that the Taliban is planning terrorist activities in the US. If Al Qaeda has terrorist training camps in the area, they can likely be identified by aerial reconnaissance, and we can bomb the bejeebers out of them, without setting foot on the ground.
With respect to Pakistani atomic weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, we will have little control over that no matter what we do. Afghan and Pakistani neighbors, such as Russia and Iran have the capability and incentive to control that development. Let's leave it to them, while we concentrate on maintaining and refining our own atomic weapon capability. Similarly, the nations of the EU have a stake. Let us give them an opportunity for an independent show of force.
Let us recognize that the US is rapidly sinking as a world leader for two reasons; loss of financial power and misguided attempts to do good in the world. When the UK gave up its so-called "colonialism", the African countries, which it left, reverted to shambles and the UK itself fell into semi-oblivion.
I have read your October 12 Roundup and have taken your Spending Survey.
You are moving in the right direction to control federal spending but don't have sufficient allies. You need to cross party lines and coordinate with people who have similar opinions on government spending. Start with the Blue Dog Democrats.
With respect to military activities in Afghanistan, I don't believe in fighting half wars at half strength. My first preference is to bail out of Afghanistan. We have no business trying to "save" people who don't want to be saved. When the Russians were in Afghanistan, they least had a major point, which was to pull it into the Soviet bloc. They learned that was a difficult fight and pulled out, even though they had an incentive to win. We learned in Vietnam that if there is not sufficient US public support to "save the world for democracy", the minimal troops we send there with their hands tied behind their backs, are scheduled for slaughter.
The idea of controlling terrorists on their home ground, so that they not perform their terrorist activities here, has some merit. However, no one seems to believe that the Taliban is planning terrorist activities in the US. If Al Qaeda has terrorist training camps in the area, they can likely be identified by aerial reconnaissance, and we can bomb the bejeebers out of them, without setting foot on the ground.
With respect to Pakistani atomic weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, we will have little control over that no matter what we do. Afghan and Pakistani neighbors, such as Russia and Iran have the capability and incentive to control that development. Let's leave it to them, while we concentrate on maintaining and refining our own atomic weapon capability. Similarly, the nations of the EU have a stake. Let us give them an opportunity for an independent show of force.
Let us recognize that the US is rapidly sinking as a world leader for two reasons; loss of financial power and misguided attempts to do good in the world. When the UK gave up its so-called "colonialism", the African countries, which it left, reverted to shambles and the UK itself fell into semi-oblivion.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Open letter to Sen. Cornyn:
"Sen. Cornyn,
I have read your "Sen. Cornyn Backs Two Measures To Increase SCAAP Funding".
For those initiated with the acronym SCAPP, it stands for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
The question then arises as to whom the assistance is for. Is it for improvement of criminals welfare or is it increase in federal funds to offset criminal interment costs?
In either case, two amendments to increase federal funding are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
If the Obama administration has mandated handling of criminals such as to require an increase in cost, it is Congress' responsibility to offset the mandate, not to make additional money available to the states.
An analogy might be that the Obama Administration mandates all states to build birdhouses for sparrows. Should Congress now say, "Fine. We will supply the money to the states", or should Congress say, "this is a ridiculous idea, to which we are opposed."
As another significant aspect, is this something you should be fooling around with when your country is going down the tube on healthcare and climate control?"
"Sen. Cornyn,
I have read your "Sen. Cornyn Backs Two Measures To Increase SCAAP Funding".
For those initiated with the acronym SCAPP, it stands for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
The question then arises as to whom the assistance is for. Is it for improvement of criminals welfare or is it increase in federal funds to offset criminal interment costs?
In either case, two amendments to increase federal funding are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
If the Obama administration has mandated handling of criminals such as to require an increase in cost, it is Congress' responsibility to offset the mandate, not to make additional money available to the states.
An analogy might be that the Obama Administration mandates all states to build birdhouses for sparrows. Should Congress now say, "Fine. We will supply the money to the states", or should Congress say, "this is a ridiculous idea, to which we are opposed."
As another significant aspect, is this something you should be fooling around with when your country is going down the tube on healthcare and climate control?"
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Government Laxness in Contracting
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says "U.S. Military Contractor Oversight 'Too Lax'. A major trouble spot is the business systems and procedures that companies use to bill the government. The numbers are eye-popping. Defense auditors have found at least $6 billion in questionable charges generated by sloppy accounting or, worse, contractors trying to bilk the military. (cbsnews.com)".
This is a continuing major criticism of government. Congress spends considerable time debating and establishing new legislation and then turns the operation over to an Administrative Agency. If the legislation is a mandate, many times Congress neglects to specify penalties, including jail time, for non-adherence. Similarly, the Administrative Agencies are negligent in applying the law. This seems incomprehensible, considering the fact that there are a preponderance of lawyers in government, who have been trained in contract law.
Congress must accept a responsibility to see that the laws they have passed are put into effect. For example, if the Department of Defense is not properly handling its military contracts, Congress should not ignore the situation. Rather, they should chastise the DOE and threaten additional legislation to remove incompetent DOE employees, as may be determined by a Congressional Committee.
Considering contractors, some may be encouraged to dishonesty by lack of government attention. For those cases where such dishonesty is illegal, the contracting company should be chastised and added to a "questionable integrity" list. Those individuals within the contracting company who have been responsible for the illegality, should be prosecuted toward imprisonment. Fines should be avoided for individuals, since they would usually be absorbed by the employer, who would in turn consider such payments as a "cost of doing business" and add it to subsequent pricing.
EIN News says "U.S. Military Contractor Oversight 'Too Lax'. A major trouble spot is the business systems and procedures that companies use to bill the government. The numbers are eye-popping. Defense auditors have found at least $6 billion in questionable charges generated by sloppy accounting or, worse, contractors trying to bilk the military. (cbsnews.com)".
This is a continuing major criticism of government. Congress spends considerable time debating and establishing new legislation and then turns the operation over to an Administrative Agency. If the legislation is a mandate, many times Congress neglects to specify penalties, including jail time, for non-adherence. Similarly, the Administrative Agencies are negligent in applying the law. This seems incomprehensible, considering the fact that there are a preponderance of lawyers in government, who have been trained in contract law.
Congress must accept a responsibility to see that the laws they have passed are put into effect. For example, if the Department of Defense is not properly handling its military contracts, Congress should not ignore the situation. Rather, they should chastise the DOE and threaten additional legislation to remove incompetent DOE employees, as may be determined by a Congressional Committee.
Considering contractors, some may be encouraged to dishonesty by lack of government attention. For those cases where such dishonesty is illegal, the contracting company should be chastised and added to a "questionable integrity" list. Those individuals within the contracting company who have been responsible for the illegality, should be prosecuted toward imprisonment. Fines should be avoided for individuals, since they would usually be absorbed by the employer, who would in turn consider such payments as a "cost of doing business" and add it to subsequent pricing.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
British Cash for Clunkers
EIN News says, "New Car Sales Rise by More Than 11%. Sales of new cars in Britain increased by more than 11% last month, providing fresh evidence of the motor industry's recovery from recession, new figures have revealed. There were 367,929 new car registrations in September, 11.4% more than the same month a year ago, as motorists continued to take advantage of the scrappage scheme, under which they receive a GBP 2,000 discount on vehicles more than 10 years old when they buy a new model. (uk.msn.com)".
This is the British equivalent of "cash for clunkers" program we have had in the US. It is a sales promotion technique, with intention to speed up sales of product. As this technique is applied, it is also the hope of the marketer that there will be some slight overall increase in sales, since a few of the immediate buyers may also return again at a future date. However, realistic marketers know that any increase in total sales will be small. Examples of cases where this will not work are as follows. A retailer offers master bedroom furniture for a year at 0% interest. How likely is it that the same buyer will return next year to purchase another master bedroom set? In a second example, Market Street just had a sale on canned baby clams. I bought three cans, which should last me about three months. In that same three-month period, how likely is it that I will purchase another can of baby clams?
Government should not be messing around with sales promotion programs. They will not help the overall economy, and any activity in this area is the responsibility of existing retailers, including automobile dealers.
This is the British equivalent of "cash for clunkers" program we have had in the US. It is a sales promotion technique, with intention to speed up sales of product. As this technique is applied, it is also the hope of the marketer that there will be some slight overall increase in sales, since a few of the immediate buyers may also return again at a future date. However, realistic marketers know that any increase in total sales will be small. Examples of cases where this will not work are as follows. A retailer offers master bedroom furniture for a year at 0% interest. How likely is it that the same buyer will return next year to purchase another master bedroom set? In a second example, Market Street just had a sale on canned baby clams. I bought three cans, which should last me about three months. In that same three-month period, how likely is it that I will purchase another can of baby clams?
Government should not be messing around with sales promotion programs. They will not help the overall economy, and any activity in this area is the responsibility of existing retailers, including automobile dealers.
Boeing Bailout
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Boeing, Airbus at Risk of Cuts After Defying Slowdown. The world's two biggest planemakers may have to cut production of their narrow-body models by as much as 30% by 2011, according to a Bloomberg survey of 15 aerospace analysts and consultants. (bloomberg.com)".
The Obama Administration may consider this an opportunity to save jobs at Boeing by a bailout. If they do, there will be surplus production of narrow-body models or production workers will be resting while they draw their pay. Either scenario is undesirable.
The Obama Administration has previously suckered Congress into supporting its bailouts, which will lead to eventual complete government control of industry and commerce. Please don't fall for it again. Boeing is responding to market forces, which it should. Reduction in employees may be required for continued sound fiscal company operations. The unemployed can receive government subsistence payments, while government is also arranging for tax reduction and elimination of restrictions which would lead to an "ease of doing business". Subsequent investment in new projects or expansion of old projects by private industry will then reemploy the recently unemployed.
I also suggest that you ignore any activity the EU may take in regard to Airbus. They will likely take a socialistic approach of some sort, which will indirectly weaken the EU and in combination with many other similar socialistic actions will doom the EU to destruction.
EIN News says, "Boeing, Airbus at Risk of Cuts After Defying Slowdown. The world's two biggest planemakers may have to cut production of their narrow-body models by as much as 30% by 2011, according to a Bloomberg survey of 15 aerospace analysts and consultants. (bloomberg.com)".
The Obama Administration may consider this an opportunity to save jobs at Boeing by a bailout. If they do, there will be surplus production of narrow-body models or production workers will be resting while they draw their pay. Either scenario is undesirable.
The Obama Administration has previously suckered Congress into supporting its bailouts, which will lead to eventual complete government control of industry and commerce. Please don't fall for it again. Boeing is responding to market forces, which it should. Reduction in employees may be required for continued sound fiscal company operations. The unemployed can receive government subsistence payments, while government is also arranging for tax reduction and elimination of restrictions which would lead to an "ease of doing business". Subsequent investment in new projects or expansion of old projects by private industry will then reemploy the recently unemployed.
I also suggest that you ignore any activity the EU may take in regard to Airbus. They will likely take a socialistic approach of some sort, which will indirectly weaken the EU and in combination with many other similar socialistic actions will doom the EU to destruction.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Chinese Homegrown Media
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Beijing Hopes to Create Its Own Media Empires. China plans to spend billions of dollars in the next few years to develop media and entertainment companies that it hopes can compete with global giants like the News Corporation and Time Warner, and will in the process loosen some of its tight control of these industries. (nytimes.com)".
This is good competitive news! The Chinese government will be frittering away billions of dollars to develop its media empire. Now if we can just get them to fritter away more billions of dollars on global warming, universal healthcare, and stimulus packages, we may have a chance to compete.
I particularly like the statement that they will loosen tight control of media and entertainment companies. That is contrary to standard Communist policy. When government is in power, it is ridiculous to believe that government leaders will easily give up that power, and they will certainly do nothing which would even weaken it. An analogy is that Michael Jackson would not take a job as a janitor.
While the Chinese announcement is a small piece of good news, we still have a major problem in this country. Get rid of climate control, government health care, and further stimulus packages. Follow this with removing other restrictions on industry and commerce, especially taxes, and you will see employment soar.
EIN News says, "Beijing Hopes to Create Its Own Media Empires. China plans to spend billions of dollars in the next few years to develop media and entertainment companies that it hopes can compete with global giants like the News Corporation and Time Warner, and will in the process loosen some of its tight control of these industries. (nytimes.com)".
This is good competitive news! The Chinese government will be frittering away billions of dollars to develop its media empire. Now if we can just get them to fritter away more billions of dollars on global warming, universal healthcare, and stimulus packages, we may have a chance to compete.
I particularly like the statement that they will loosen tight control of media and entertainment companies. That is contrary to standard Communist policy. When government is in power, it is ridiculous to believe that government leaders will easily give up that power, and they will certainly do nothing which would even weaken it. An analogy is that Michael Jackson would not take a job as a janitor.
While the Chinese announcement is a small piece of good news, we still have a major problem in this country. Get rid of climate control, government health care, and further stimulus packages. Follow this with removing other restrictions on industry and commerce, especially taxes, and you will see employment soar.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Exorbitant Court Awards
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Pfizer Faces Alleged $5 Billion in Claims at Trial. Pfizer Inc.'s liability for an alleged $5 billion in claims for asbestos-laden products made over a 20-year period by its Quigley unit will be partly decided at Quigley's bankruptcy trial, a judge ruled. The trial pits the U.S. government and asbestos victims against Pfizer, the world's biggest drugmaker, with claims that its $450 million contribution under a settlement isn't enough to satisfy its liabilities. (einnews.com)".
Here is something you can take some positive action on. I don't refer specifically to the Pfizer/Quigley situation. I am referring to the fact that the US government, individuals, and groups can sue private companies for exorbitant amounts of money, which effectively would hamstring those companies from proper operation in the pursuit of normal business. Companies have enough difficulty in trying to satisfy market requirements, without opportunists in the form of government, groups, and individuals trying to put them out of business through ridiculous lawsuits.
Here are some specifics in the case of asbestos lawsuits. Some years ago asbestos was considered a reasonable raw material for the manufacture of various products. Similar raw materials were wood, sand, water, etc.. There was no indication at the time that asbestos had a propensity to lead to lung cancer (mesothelioma) in some people. Government agencies did not know it. The companies did not know it. The workers did not know it. Therefore, it seems completely unreasonable that a company should be liable for a difficulty which was unpredicted and using a raw material and practice which was consistent with technological and health considerations at the time.
This ridiculous situation has been going on for a long time and should be stopped. We now know about the dangers of using asbestos in products, even though those dangers are highly overrated. Therefore, we expect present product production to be devoid of an asbestos constituent. However, Congress can do something with respect to "grandfather protection" on the asbestos matter.
More specifically, Congress should place limits on the value of lawsuits to avoid opportunistic use of the courts. A trial for damages against the company by an individual, group, or government should be based on proof that the company knew of a particular danger and took no action in protecting its employees or the public. Clarification of the law in this regard, will allow companies to get on with their job of providing goods and services, without a constant worry of whether they will be in business tomorrow because of an unreasonable damage award by the courts.
EIN News says, "Pfizer Faces Alleged $5 Billion in Claims at Trial. Pfizer Inc.'s liability for an alleged $5 billion in claims for asbestos-laden products made over a 20-year period by its Quigley unit will be partly decided at Quigley's bankruptcy trial, a judge ruled. The trial pits the U.S. government and asbestos victims against Pfizer, the world's biggest drugmaker, with claims that its $450 million contribution under a settlement isn't enough to satisfy its liabilities. (einnews.com)".
Here is something you can take some positive action on. I don't refer specifically to the Pfizer/Quigley situation. I am referring to the fact that the US government, individuals, and groups can sue private companies for exorbitant amounts of money, which effectively would hamstring those companies from proper operation in the pursuit of normal business. Companies have enough difficulty in trying to satisfy market requirements, without opportunists in the form of government, groups, and individuals trying to put them out of business through ridiculous lawsuits.
Here are some specifics in the case of asbestos lawsuits. Some years ago asbestos was considered a reasonable raw material for the manufacture of various products. Similar raw materials were wood, sand, water, etc.. There was no indication at the time that asbestos had a propensity to lead to lung cancer (mesothelioma) in some people. Government agencies did not know it. The companies did not know it. The workers did not know it. Therefore, it seems completely unreasonable that a company should be liable for a difficulty which was unpredicted and using a raw material and practice which was consistent with technological and health considerations at the time.
This ridiculous situation has been going on for a long time and should be stopped. We now know about the dangers of using asbestos in products, even though those dangers are highly overrated. Therefore, we expect present product production to be devoid of an asbestos constituent. However, Congress can do something with respect to "grandfather protection" on the asbestos matter.
More specifically, Congress should place limits on the value of lawsuits to avoid opportunistic use of the courts. A trial for damages against the company by an individual, group, or government should be based on proof that the company knew of a particular danger and took no action in protecting its employees or the public. Clarification of the law in this regard, will allow companies to get on with their job of providing goods and services, without a constant worry of whether they will be in business tomorrow because of an unreasonable damage award by the courts.
EU Bank Regulatory Overhaul
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "EU Unveils Blueprint to Overhaul Policing of Banks. The European Union unveiled its blueprint on Wednesday for an overhaul of the way banks and financial markets are policed, a central plank to new rules designed to prevent a repeat of the global economic crisis. (reuters.com)".
We should take a look at this blueprint in our own efforts at US overhaul. However, let us be cautious by remembering that the EU is a combination of countries embracing the new socialism, which is eventually doomed to collapse.
EIN News says, "EU Unveils Blueprint to Overhaul Policing of Banks. The European Union unveiled its blueprint on Wednesday for an overhaul of the way banks and financial markets are policed, a central plank to new rules designed to prevent a repeat of the global economic crisis. (reuters.com)".
We should take a look at this blueprint in our own efforts at US overhaul. However, let us be cautious by remembering that the EU is a combination of countries embracing the new socialism, which is eventually doomed to collapse.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Housing Costs
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "2008 Census Data: Housing Is Getting Even Less Affordable. More Americans found housing unaffordable last year, even though home prices across the U.S. have taken a major fall. More than 40 million spent 30% or more of their household income on housing costs, 600,000 more than in 2007, according to 2008 Census data released Monday. That includes homeowners with and without mortgages, as well as renters. (usatoday.com)".
Do not get excited and try to do something about this. The above is a deceptive remark. If more than 40 million people spend 30% more of their household income on housing costs, they do that by choice. Many householders have opted to purchase more housing than they reasonably need. In other words, they have chosen to live in opulence. If they now feel that 30% of their income is more than they want to spend on housing, they have the choice of moving to smaller digs, rather than whining about high housing costs. This also goes for renters, for which change is actually easier since there's no need to sell their presently occupied home.
EIN News says, "2008 Census Data: Housing Is Getting Even Less Affordable. More Americans found housing unaffordable last year, even though home prices across the U.S. have taken a major fall. More than 40 million spent 30% or more of their household income on housing costs, 600,000 more than in 2007, according to 2008 Census data released Monday. That includes homeowners with and without mortgages, as well as renters. (usatoday.com)".
Do not get excited and try to do something about this. The above is a deceptive remark. If more than 40 million people spend 30% more of their household income on housing costs, they do that by choice. Many householders have opted to purchase more housing than they reasonably need. In other words, they have chosen to live in opulence. If they now feel that 30% of their income is more than they want to spend on housing, they have the choice of moving to smaller digs, rather than whining about high housing costs. This also goes for renters, for which change is actually easier since there's no need to sell their presently occupied home.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Cash for Clunkers
E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I received the following message from Dave and consider it a very good mathematical analysis of the Cash for Clunkers program. We need more of this critical analysis on the financial aspects of every program that you folks consider in Congress. Note that it is simple math and logic. It does not contain differential equations or advanced calculus.
Art
"Cash for Clunkers
Maybe we should require our politicians to be more careful with our money:
Pete Kornafel, chairman of the GAAS scholarship committee, writes:
Here's some basic math regarding the average "clunker" which got 15 mpg and the "average" replacement which gets 25?
A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, an average clunker transaction reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
The total is about 700,000 vehicles ? so that's 224 million gallons/year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels /yr of oil.
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day s U.S. consumption.
And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.
So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million in oil.
Dave's additions:
The average "on the road" lifespan of the new replacement vehicles will probably be 7-10 years, so lets say 9 years.
And the average price of oil over the next 9 years is likely to be roughly $160/barrel.
(http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp)
(Average, annual, inflation adjusted price increase of 17.5%)
So 9 years x 5 million barrels @ $160 = $7.2 billion
3 billion plus interest over 9 years @10.4% would be 7.2 billion, so that looks to be a pretty good return on our investment.
BUT the average time in service of the old "clunkers" that were replaced may have been only 3 years, after which time they likely would have been replaced anyway, without our subsidy, and with replacements that will be even more fuel efficient. So really, for this thing to work, we must recover our $3 billion investment in 3 years.
So 3 years x 5 million barrels @ $104 = $1.6 billion
So most likely, we are only getting 1.6 billion in value for our 3 billion investment. In other words, we are simply throwing away $1.4 billion of our hard-earned money. I'm not sure that is a prudent action and I don't think it is what I want to be doing with my money.
And of course one other question remains: Why aren't the people who are directly benefiting from the replacement of a a clunker paying the whole cost of the replacement? Why do we have to pay part of the cost of their new vehicles? They are the ones benefited with a new vehicle AND fuel savings!
How would you feel if I asked YOU to give me $5,000 toward buying myself a new vehicle? Where is my incentive to work if the government will make you give me your money? And where is your incentive to work, if you know that the government is just going to take away your money that you earned, and force you to give it to me???
If there is any hope of this program being effective, the missing 1.4 billion dollars will need to help our nation thru subsidizing the auto industry by at least that much. That seems unlikely.
I humbly suggest that this kind of poor logic and corruption is part of what contributed to our current financial crisis. And so now it appears that the "cash for clunkers" program, and likely others like it, are shortsighted and ultimately ineffective measures that will only worsen our problems.
I think we each need to require more of ourselves and our elected officials, and make sure they are moving us in the right direction instead of in the wrong one."
I received the following message from Dave and consider it a very good mathematical analysis of the Cash for Clunkers program. We need more of this critical analysis on the financial aspects of every program that you folks consider in Congress. Note that it is simple math and logic. It does not contain differential equations or advanced calculus.
Art
"Cash for Clunkers
Maybe we should require our politicians to be more careful with our money:
Pete Kornafel, chairman of the GAAS scholarship committee, writes:
Here's some basic math regarding the average "clunker" which got 15 mpg and the "average" replacement which gets 25?
A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, an average clunker transaction reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
The total is about 700,000 vehicles ? so that's 224 million gallons/year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels /yr of oil.
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day s U.S. consumption.
And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.
So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million in oil.
Dave's additions:
The average "on the road" lifespan of the new replacement vehicles will probably be 7-10 years, so lets say 9 years.
And the average price of oil over the next 9 years is likely to be roughly $160/barrel.
(http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp)
(Average, annual, inflation adjusted price increase of 17.5%)
So 9 years x 5 million barrels @ $160 = $7.2 billion
3 billion plus interest over 9 years @10.4% would be 7.2 billion, so that looks to be a pretty good return on our investment.
BUT the average time in service of the old "clunkers" that were replaced may have been only 3 years, after which time they likely would have been replaced anyway, without our subsidy, and with replacements that will be even more fuel efficient. So really, for this thing to work, we must recover our $3 billion investment in 3 years.
So 3 years x 5 million barrels @ $104 = $1.6 billion
So most likely, we are only getting 1.6 billion in value for our 3 billion investment. In other words, we are simply throwing away $1.4 billion of our hard-earned money. I'm not sure that is a prudent action and I don't think it is what I want to be doing with my money.
And of course one other question remains: Why aren't the people who are directly benefiting from the replacement of a a clunker paying the whole cost of the replacement? Why do we have to pay part of the cost of their new vehicles? They are the ones benefited with a new vehicle AND fuel savings!
How would you feel if I asked YOU to give me $5,000 toward buying myself a new vehicle? Where is my incentive to work if the government will make you give me your money? And where is your incentive to work, if you know that the government is just going to take away your money that you earned, and force you to give it to me???
If there is any hope of this program being effective, the missing 1.4 billion dollars will need to help our nation thru subsidizing the auto industry by at least that much. That seems unlikely.
I humbly suggest that this kind of poor logic and corruption is part of what contributed to our current financial crisis. And so now it appears that the "cash for clunkers" program, and likely others like it, are shortsighted and ultimately ineffective measures that will only worsen our problems.
I think we each need to require more of ourselves and our elected officials, and make sure they are moving us in the right direction instead of in the wrong one."
E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I heard, on TV at 11 AM CDT, Pres. Obama's address to Wall Street.
I was very favorably impressed with the content of his message, including the various outline points of government regulatory controls and enforcements for the financial industry.
If we have been looking for something positive from Pres. Obama, with respect to improving our country's financial stability, this may well be it. I strongly suggest that you and your associates get on board with this program. At the same time, I strongly advised that you watch for insertion of any unsavory detail. Please remember that a 900-page bill prepared by anybody is an attempt to deceive. Keep any bill short. I like only a few pages, but I can agree to even 10 or 20. More than that, will likely not be read by most of the lawmakers who need to vote on it, nor even their assistants.
I heard, on TV at 11 AM CDT, Pres. Obama's address to Wall Street.
I was very favorably impressed with the content of his message, including the various outline points of government regulatory controls and enforcements for the financial industry.
If we have been looking for something positive from Pres. Obama, with respect to improving our country's financial stability, this may well be it. I strongly suggest that you and your associates get on board with this program. At the same time, I strongly advised that you watch for insertion of any unsavory detail. Please remember that a 900-page bill prepared by anybody is an attempt to deceive. Keep any bill short. I like only a few pages, but I can agree to even 10 or 20. More than that, will likely not be read by most of the lawmakers who need to vote on it, nor even their assistants.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
New Federal Agency As Watchdog for Consumers
Letter to Congress:
EIN News says, "Obama's Financial Consumer Watchdog in Jeopardy. Obama administration wants to create a U.S. agency to protect financial consumers, but the idea is in jeopardy due to deep resistance from banks and from existing regulators protecting their turf. (reuters.com)".
Consumers generally need protection from sophisticated, unsavory practices of lending institutions.
However, we have existing governmental regulators. Before Congress could possibly consider supporting creation of a new US agency in this area, the Obama administration needs to give Congress a complete listing of all present regulatory agencies, what their present responsibilities are, deficiencies in their performance, why performance cannot be improved, and how a new agency would improve the situation.
EIN News says, "Obama's Financial Consumer Watchdog in Jeopardy. Obama administration wants to create a U.S. agency to protect financial consumers, but the idea is in jeopardy due to deep resistance from banks and from existing regulators protecting their turf. (reuters.com)".
Consumers generally need protection from sophisticated, unsavory practices of lending institutions.
However, we have existing governmental regulators. Before Congress could possibly consider supporting creation of a new US agency in this area, the Obama administration needs to give Congress a complete listing of all present regulatory agencies, what their present responsibilities are, deficiencies in their performance, why performance cannot be improved, and how a new agency would improve the situation.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Boeing
EIN News says, "Boeing Says Asia Pacific Region Will Need 8,960 New Jets. The Asia Pacific region will be the world's largest aviation market over the next two decades, requiring 8,960 new commercial jets, worth approximately $1.1 trillion, according to a forecast Boeing released Wednesday at the Asian Aerospace Expo in Hong Kong. (seattlepi.com)".
Congratulations to Boeing on doing their market research! However, this is a competitive business, with their main competitor being Airbus.
Just think of the number of jobs that can be created in the manufacture of parts and the various assemblies, if the work is done in the US, which I believe most of Boeing's operations are.
May I strongly suggest that you and your associates and Congress do not in the way of this business. Don't monkey with wage and hour laws, ecological limitations and the hundreds of other unreasonable things that people think of end up as being impediments to competition.
One thing the US Government must guard against is the socialistic, Western European likelihood of subsidization to Airbus. This would allow Airbus to undercut Boeing on pricing and likely lose the business. US government should not try to compensate by equal subsidies to Boeing. Rather, the US government should work with Boeing to pressure the European Union to not subsidize Airbus, unless the European Union is willing accept harsh US imposed penalties.
Congratulations to Boeing on doing their market research! However, this is a competitive business, with their main competitor being Airbus.
Just think of the number of jobs that can be created in the manufacture of parts and the various assemblies, if the work is done in the US, which I believe most of Boeing's operations are.
May I strongly suggest that you and your associates and Congress do not in the way of this business. Don't monkey with wage and hour laws, ecological limitations and the hundreds of other unreasonable things that people think of end up as being impediments to competition.
One thing the US Government must guard against is the socialistic, Western European likelihood of subsidization to Airbus. This would allow Airbus to undercut Boeing on pricing and likely lose the business. US government should not try to compensate by equal subsidies to Boeing. Rather, the US government should work with Boeing to pressure the European Union to not subsidize Airbus, unless the European Union is willing accept harsh US imposed penalties.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Squandering Tax Dollars
Gordon,
Thank you for the video on the squandering of our tax dollars on a non-operating Murtha Airport. There are two things we can do about such things.
One is to wait for the first congressional elections in November 2010. That is more than a year away and only half the senators will be eligible for election at that time. We could vote out the Republicans that we now have, because they have been ineffective in allowing liberal Democrats and opportunists such as Murtha to do whatever they wish. However, it would be a wait with very questionable results.
The second alternative may be considerably more promising. We can force our Congressmen (Representatives and Senators) to cooperate with the Blue Dog Coalition to obtain control of Congress. The "forcing" would be that a lack of demonstrating such cooperation will certainly lead to a loss of our votes at reelection time.
In case you believe that the Blue Dog Coalition is composed of the same Democrats, which are leading to all of these oligarchic/socialistic/communistic developments, think again. Their website states, "The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States. Currently there are 52 members of the Blue Dog Coalition."
While the Blue Dog Coalition now only involves the House, the organization could be expanded to also cover the event the Senate. Optimum success would be achieved with the establishment of a new Blue Dog Party, to compete with the present Democratic Party (now oligarchic/socialistic/communistic) and the present Republican Party, which is a little less of the same.
Thank you for the video on the squandering of our tax dollars on a non-operating Murtha Airport. There are two things we can do about such things.
One is to wait for the first congressional elections in November 2010. That is more than a year away and only half the senators will be eligible for election at that time. We could vote out the Republicans that we now have, because they have been ineffective in allowing liberal Democrats and opportunists such as Murtha to do whatever they wish. However, it would be a wait with very questionable results.
The second alternative may be considerably more promising. We can force our Congressmen (Representatives and Senators) to cooperate with the Blue Dog Coalition to obtain control of Congress. The "forcing" would be that a lack of demonstrating such cooperation will certainly lead to a loss of our votes at reelection time.
In case you believe that the Blue Dog Coalition is composed of the same Democrats, which are leading to all of these oligarchic/socialistic/communistic developments, think again. Their website states, "The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States. Currently there are 52 members of the Blue Dog Coalition."
While the Blue Dog Coalition now only involves the House, the organization could be expanded to also cover the event the Senate. Optimum success would be achieved with the establishment of a new Blue Dog Party, to compete with the present Democratic Party (now oligarchic/socialistic/communistic) and the present Republican Party, which is a little less of the same.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Surplus Automobiles
8/7/09
Here's a headline from EIN News, "European Car Sales 'Will Not Recover for Five Years'. The European car industry will have to wait at least five years before sales return to pre-recession levels and faces recording heavy losses during that period, a gloomy new report has claimed. (telegraph.co.uk).
Taking this at face value, any reasonably efficient economic market analyst will then have the following conclusions:
1.) There is enough product (cars) already on the market.
2.) New product production need only match the rate at which present product becomes unusable. This is somewhat variable, because it depends upon mechanical integrity, maintenance, and public desire for new product design. However, the original EIN News claim is that the market will be extremely "dim".
3.) The prediction that the "[industry] faces recording heavy losses" strongly implies that there are too many automotive producers.
4.) Normal market conditions will require that several producers will go out of business, in order to balance market needs.
5.) Individuals, trusts, cooperatives, mutual funds, and government (socialized taxpayers) should not put money (invest) in automotive producers, unless expected loss of equity is tolerable for other reasons deemed more important.
Here's a headline from EIN News, "European Car Sales 'Will Not Recover for Five Years'. The European car industry will have to wait at least five years before sales return to pre-recession levels and faces recording heavy losses during that period, a gloomy new report has claimed. (telegraph.co.uk).
Taking this at face value, any reasonably efficient economic market analyst will then have the following conclusions:
1.) There is enough product (cars) already on the market.
2.) New product production need only match the rate at which present product becomes unusable. This is somewhat variable, because it depends upon mechanical integrity, maintenance, and public desire for new product design. However, the original EIN News claim is that the market will be extremely "dim".
3.) The prediction that the "[industry] faces recording heavy losses" strongly implies that there are too many automotive producers.
4.) Normal market conditions will require that several producers will go out of business, in order to balance market needs.
5.) Individuals, trusts, cooperatives, mutual funds, and government (socialized taxpayers) should not put money (invest) in automotive producers, unless expected loss of equity is tolerable for other reasons deemed more important.
Airline Deficits
EIN News says, "Fate of U.S. Airlines Gets More Dire by the Day. The combination of the economy and high energy prices is threatening the U.S. airline industry in a way it has not been threatened since crude traded above $100 and pushed jet fuel prices to exorbitant levels. (dailyfinance.com)".
Lets not start with the supposition that we are going to "fix" this by throwing money at it. This is a worldwide problem, and it is not necessary that we be miles ahead of other countries in availability of air transport. Look at it as a total transport marketing problem. We have trucks, railroads, and ships for freight transportation, as opposed to airfreight. Time considerations are many times over-done. We can also get along well with ground and sea passenger traffic using capital equipment already in place, with perhaps minor expansion as the market may require. We have passenger ships, many of which could be diverted from their standard tourist usage to Transocean business transport. We have Amtrak, which has been in deficit and requiring government subsidies for years, because of insufficient passenger traffic. Perhaps with reduced air transport availability or a high transport cost, Amtrak may be able to come into its own. There is also no reason why transcontinental bus services could not be reinstituted. All of these would reduce transport energy requirements compared to transport.
Lets not start with the supposition that we are going to "fix" this by throwing money at it. This is a worldwide problem, and it is not necessary that we be miles ahead of other countries in availability of air transport. Look at it as a total transport marketing problem. We have trucks, railroads, and ships for freight transportation, as opposed to airfreight. Time considerations are many times over-done. We can also get along well with ground and sea passenger traffic using capital equipment already in place, with perhaps minor expansion as the market may require. We have passenger ships, many of which could be diverted from their standard tourist usage to Transocean business transport. We have Amtrak, which has been in deficit and requiring government subsidies for years, because of insufficient passenger traffic. Perhaps with reduced air transport availability or a high transport cost, Amtrak may be able to come into its own. There is also no reason why transcontinental bus services could not be reinstituted. All of these would reduce transport energy requirements compared to transport.
California Parks
EIN News says, "California Poised to Shut Gates on Great Outdoors As Parks Struggle With Budgets; Public May Lose Access to 80% of Nature Reserves. The proposed shutdown of the parks would affect 80% of California's nature reserves, historic sites and recreation areas, and restrict access to 30% of the state's coastline. Affected areas would stretch from the mountains of the Sierra Nevadas to the beaches and wetlands of Big Sur, and to the deserts of San Diego, where some of the last peninsular bighorn sheep roam. (guardian.co.uk)"
Here's another one you don't want to throw money at.
This is likely another maneuver on the part of the state of California to obtain an increase of its dole from other states that have shown more prudence and respect for fiscal responsibility. However, there is also the possibility that California may be attempting to reduce its expenses, which is long overdue.
In any event loss of public access to 80% of California's natural resources is a gross overstatement. One can't shut down a park, which is a physical asset. It would still exist. A shutdown only means reducing administrative and maintenance costs. That would mean a return to "wilderness area", which likely would be applauded by environmentalists.
An alternative if California is interested in reducing deficits is to establish or increase entrance fees to its parks. Based on these fees, the market (public) will then decide whether these parks should remain open under the specified conditions.
Here's another one you don't want to throw money at.
This is likely another maneuver on the part of the state of California to obtain an increase of its dole from other states that have shown more prudence and respect for fiscal responsibility. However, there is also the possibility that California may be attempting to reduce its expenses, which is long overdue.
In any event loss of public access to 80% of California's natural resources is a gross overstatement. One can't shut down a park, which is a physical asset. It would still exist. A shutdown only means reducing administrative and maintenance costs. That would mean a return to "wilderness area", which likely would be applauded by environmentalists.
An alternative if California is interested in reducing deficits is to establish or increase entrance fees to its parks. Based on these fees, the market (public) will then decide whether these parks should remain open under the specified conditions.
Bank Funds Misuse
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Bailout Overseer Says U.S. Banks Misused TARP Funds. Many of the banks that got federal aid to support increased lending have instead used some of the money to make investments, repay debts or buy other banks, according to a new report from the special inspector general overseeing the government's financial rescue program. (washingtonpost.com)".
This sounds like illegal operations. If such spending is legal, you folks didn't do your job right. If your phrasing of the laws/regulations did not allow such operation, what are you doing now to enforce the law? If these loopholes were created by operations of the Administration, why didn't you or why will you not now do something about it?
EIN News says, "Bailout Overseer Says U.S. Banks Misused TARP Funds. Many of the banks that got federal aid to support increased lending have instead used some of the money to make investments, repay debts or buy other banks, according to a new report from the special inspector general overseeing the government's financial rescue program. (washingtonpost.com)".
This sounds like illegal operations. If such spending is legal, you folks didn't do your job right. If your phrasing of the laws/regulations did not allow such operation, what are you doing now to enforce the law? If these loopholes were created by operations of the Administration, why didn't you or why will you not now do something about it?
Housing Value Decline
EIN News says, "About Half of U.S. Mortgages Seen Underwater by 2011. The percentage of U.S. homeowners who owe more than their house is worth will nearly double to 48 percent in 2011 from 26 percent at the end of March, portending another blow to the housing market, Deutsche Bank said on Wednesday. (reuters.com).
The implication of the above statement is that we are supposed to feel compassionate for the poor and unfortunate. Why?
US homeowners, with houses worth less than what they owe on them, still have homes to live in. Their mortgage payments are unrelated to the houses' values.
Whenever an item is purchased, there is a certain amount of risk involved. In the case of purchasing a house, one risk involves whether the value of the house will decrease. If there is a decrease in value, the first thing one must recognize is that the purchase was a bad investment under the circumstances that developed. That recognition should then lead to the fact that, "I will be somewhat more cautious in the future". A downside would be, if Congress or Administrative Agency bails these people out, they will then be conditioned to continue and even increase taking unsustainable risks.
The good news for these losers is that, if they continue to hold their houses, values will likely increase back to the breakeven or better point.
Deutsche Bank will have to explain to me how this, "portends another blow to the housing market". We already knew there was an oversupply of housing, under true market conditions. Correction requires a standard "workoff of inventory". Inventory reduction many times will involve price reduction. There's nothing new about that. Certainly, one should not be producing additional inventory of the same undesirable goods, if there is already an excess. We all knew that before Deutsche Bank made its statement.
The implication of the above statement is that we are supposed to feel compassionate for the poor and unfortunate. Why?
US homeowners, with houses worth less than what they owe on them, still have homes to live in. Their mortgage payments are unrelated to the houses' values.
Whenever an item is purchased, there is a certain amount of risk involved. In the case of purchasing a house, one risk involves whether the value of the house will decrease. If there is a decrease in value, the first thing one must recognize is that the purchase was a bad investment under the circumstances that developed. That recognition should then lead to the fact that, "I will be somewhat more cautious in the future". A downside would be, if Congress or Administrative Agency bails these people out, they will then be conditioned to continue and even increase taking unsustainable risks.
The good news for these losers is that, if they continue to hold their houses, values will likely increase back to the breakeven or better point.
Deutsche Bank will have to explain to me how this, "portends another blow to the housing market". We already knew there was an oversupply of housing, under true market conditions. Correction requires a standard "workoff of inventory". Inventory reduction many times will involve price reduction. There's nothing new about that. Certainly, one should not be producing additional inventory of the same undesirable goods, if there is already an excess. We all knew that before Deutsche Bank made its statement.
Stimulus Package
Randy Neugebauer's latest Newsletter asked for comments on the Stimulus Package. He pointed out that 57 percent of adults say the “stimulus” is having no impact on the economy or making it worse. The poll also found that 60 percent of Americans do not believe the “stimulus” will help the economy in the years ahead.
I have replied to Randy as follows:
This refers to your Roundup comments on the Stimulus Package.
Contrary to the majority, I feel the Stimulus Package may already be improving the economy and ultimately will have a positive effect. However, the favorable aspect of stimulating the economy is completely overshadowed by the damage that results from this effort.
This distribution of money is loaded with pork, which is an expenditure of funds on unnecessary and wasteful projects. It creates a massive amount of debt, which increases budget deficits through payment of interest. It creates demand for products and services above what a normal market can supply and thereby leads to inflation. All of this becomes an intolerable future burden for present middle-aged citizens, their children, and grandchildren.
Finally, it leads to an increasing public dependence on government to solve all problems, which is a socialistic/communistic mentality historically proven to develop a society without personal responsibility or incentive to individually or collectively accomplish anything.
The stimulus package was a mistake, but it appears that nothing can be done to correct it now.
I have replied to Randy as follows:
This refers to your Roundup comments on the Stimulus Package.
Contrary to the majority, I feel the Stimulus Package may already be improving the economy and ultimately will have a positive effect. However, the favorable aspect of stimulating the economy is completely overshadowed by the damage that results from this effort.
This distribution of money is loaded with pork, which is an expenditure of funds on unnecessary and wasteful projects. It creates a massive amount of debt, which increases budget deficits through payment of interest. It creates demand for products and services above what a normal market can supply and thereby leads to inflation. All of this becomes an intolerable future burden for present middle-aged citizens, their children, and grandchildren.
Finally, it leads to an increasing public dependence on government to solve all problems, which is a socialistic/communistic mentality historically proven to develop a society without personal responsibility or incentive to individually or collectively accomplish anything.
The stimulus package was a mistake, but it appears that nothing can be done to correct it now.
Fiscal Irresponsibility
EIN News says, "Pimco Says Dollar to Weaken As Reserve Status Erodes. Pacific Investment Management Co., which runs the world's biggest bond fund, said the dollar will weaken as the U.S. pumps massive amounts of money into the economy. (bloomberg.com)".
We are starting to see the first negative effects of the GRANDE Stimulus Package. This becomes evident in two forms; foreign exchange and local inflation.
PIMCO addresses the foreign exchange aspect. A friend of mine recently returned from the Norway, where a cup of coffee costs US$10. Norwegian prices may be high, but the major point is that US dollar has already been significantly weakened.
On the local front, we haven't seen much inflation yet. But that must come, as government is unable to balance the federal budget because of substantial increases in interest debt and the piling on huge costs for health care, various energy subsidies and the like.
The Obama Administration undoubtedly has the thought that it will be able to obtain significant taxes from private companies and the "rich". However, the Obama Administration is making every effort to drive companies out of business through the imposition of mandates. The "rich" will not invest their money under those conditions. Even if they did, their income (profit) would be so meager that income taxes would be insignificant. Government can then only get to the "rich's" assets through confiscation, which would then completely destroy the capitalistic system.
Governments only alternative is to inflate the currency through overprinting. Will we see a situation similar to that in Germany after World War I, when it took a wheelbarrow of Deutsche Marks to buy a loaf of bread?
Unfortunately, we are now in the soup, and I don't see anything that we can really do about it. Perhaps we can moderate the damage a bit by turning down the temperature of the "soup".
Very helpful actions would be to kill Socialized Healthcare and Carbon Dioxide Cap and Trade.
We are starting to see the first negative effects of the GRANDE Stimulus Package. This becomes evident in two forms; foreign exchange and local inflation.
PIMCO addresses the foreign exchange aspect. A friend of mine recently returned from the Norway, where a cup of coffee costs US$10. Norwegian prices may be high, but the major point is that US dollar has already been significantly weakened.
On the local front, we haven't seen much inflation yet. But that must come, as government is unable to balance the federal budget because of substantial increases in interest debt and the piling on huge costs for health care, various energy subsidies and the like.
The Obama Administration undoubtedly has the thought that it will be able to obtain significant taxes from private companies and the "rich". However, the Obama Administration is making every effort to drive companies out of business through the imposition of mandates. The "rich" will not invest their money under those conditions. Even if they did, their income (profit) would be so meager that income taxes would be insignificant. Government can then only get to the "rich's" assets through confiscation, which would then completely destroy the capitalistic system.
Governments only alternative is to inflate the currency through overprinting. Will we see a situation similar to that in Germany after World War I, when it took a wheelbarrow of Deutsche Marks to buy a loaf of bread?
Unfortunately, we are now in the soup, and I don't see anything that we can really do about it. Perhaps we can moderate the damage a bit by turning down the temperature of the "soup".
Very helpful actions would be to kill Socialized Healthcare and Carbon Dioxide Cap and Trade.
Mortgage Defaults
EIN News says, "U.S. Mortgage Defaults Soar to Record 13%. Widespread joblessness is causing more Americans to fall behind on their house payments, triggering a new round of foreclosures that some analysts fear could delay the nation's economic recovery. (latimes.com).
There are two possible answers for government.
If government feels this is not an immediate disaster, it should take no action. Let the market handle the problem by the previously developed standard procedures.
If government feels this is an immediate disaster, it should declare a mortgage moratorium. Pick a year or two. During the moratorium, mortgagors who are able to make their mortgage payments should continue to do so. Mortgagors who are unable to make mortgage payments will continue to accumulate the debt of back interest for some future resolution. There will be no forgiveness of debt.
There are two possible answers for government.
If government feels this is not an immediate disaster, it should take no action. Let the market handle the problem by the previously developed standard procedures.
If government feels this is an immediate disaster, it should declare a mortgage moratorium. Pick a year or two. During the moratorium, mortgagors who are able to make their mortgage payments should continue to do so. Mortgagors who are unable to make mortgage payments will continue to accumulate the debt of back interest for some future resolution. There will be no forgiveness of debt.
State Budget Pain
EIN News says, "Budget Pain Spreads to Energy-Rich States. Energy-rich states, flooded with cash last year when oil and natural-gas prices soared to record highs, are now being drained as gas prices plunged to a seven-year low Friday. In Texas, revenue from gas-production taxes has fallen 43% from last year, costing the state more than $1 billion in lost revenue. In New Mexico, lawmakers are scrambling to close a $433 million budget gap even as they worry the gap could widen if gas prices stay low. In Oklahoma, the state government is furloughing employees and cutting school budgets. (wsj.com)".
Government should not have taxed those industries to pay for its bloated operations. It's time now to pay the piper.
Notice the statement that there is "$1 billion in LOST revenue". Government didn't lose any revenue. Government just didn't receive revenue it THOUGHT it was entitled to.
Government should not have taxed those industries to pay for its bloated operations. It's time now to pay the piper.
Notice the statement that there is "$1 billion in LOST revenue". Government didn't lose any revenue. Government just didn't receive revenue it THOUGHT it was entitled to.
Stimulus Package
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently said the world financial crisis is over and the US economy is improving.
This has occurred, even though only 10% of the US Stimulus Package has been spent.
Wouldn't it seem logical that Congress should now cancel the allocation of the unspent 90%? This would tend to reduce the tremendous debt previously foisted on the public.
This has occurred, even though only 10% of the US Stimulus Package has been spent.
Wouldn't it seem logical that Congress should now cancel the allocation of the unspent 90%? This would tend to reduce the tremendous debt previously foisted on the public.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
