Open letter to Representative Neugebauer:
Randy,
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…
Sounds good, doesn't it? However like so many well intended programs in Congress, it has become something which was not intended by those original words. It has become an instrument for social change paid for by the taxpaying public. In addition to funds for the operation of the agency, it is the funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities. Its present criteria for allocating those funds are whether the applicants programs will help all underrepresented groups participate in science, enhance infrastructure for research and education, and promote teaching, training, and learning.
I call to your attention the fact that this is a taxpayer subsidy to education, which should be bearing its own costs through tuitions and fees. Traditionally graduate research in universities involves outside funding. Such funding has been supplied by private industry in the past and through the years has slowly been taken over by taxpayers as a general socialistic venture.
In these times of horrendous budget deficits I strongly suggest that Congress eliminate the NSF and allow the universities to handle their finances independently, without government funding and its related readjustment of the social system, with science as only an ancillary consideration.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Jobless Benefits and Income Taxes
Open letter to Representative Neugebauer:
The House holds the purse strings.
If you don't approve extending jobless benefits, you are perceived as uncompassionate. If you do ,you are perceived as a sucker.
If you extend lower income taxes to the rich, you are perceived as an unbridled capitalist lover.
Change the playing field, with vociferous announcements.
Give the rich lower income taxes as an incentive to create jobs. The rich can make jobs. The poor or middle class workers
cannot.
Extend unemployment benefits on a sliding scale. The longer one has had them, the less one receives per month.
Lower taxes will encourage the rich to create jobs. Reduced benefits will encourage the jobless to take the newly created jobs.
The House holds the purse strings.
If you don't approve extending jobless benefits, you are perceived as uncompassionate. If you do ,you are perceived as a sucker.
If you extend lower income taxes to the rich, you are perceived as an unbridled capitalist lover.
Change the playing field, with vociferous announcements.
Give the rich lower income taxes as an incentive to create jobs. The rich can make jobs. The poor or middle class workers
cannot.
Extend unemployment benefits on a sliding scale. The longer one has had them, the less one receives per month.
Lower taxes will encourage the rich to create jobs. Reduced benefits will encourage the jobless to take the newly created jobs.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Funding Federal Government Operations
Open letter to Representative Neugebauer:
I have read your latest newsletter.
You have said that the present lame-duck Congress will likely pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund continued operation of the federal government in the absence of a budget. That resolution will likely extend funding of government operations for only a few weeks. The lame-duck Congress will pass this CR, because they have the votes in the present session.
The House of Representatives holds the purse strings. In the present session, that is in the hands of the big spending Democrats. Starting in January, it will be in the hands of the Republicans, who have claimed fiscal conservatism. We will see what they do.
I suggest that you immediately start preparation of a bill, which will become effective when the House votes on it in January. That bill should not be an attempt to establish a budget, but should contain provisions to fund only those departments and segments of the federal government, which are deemed necessary for continued reasonable operation. For starters, approve funding for the military, but let's have a 10% reduction. Fund the IRS, because we need to collect tax money to pay for operations which we approve. Stop all funding for the EPA, National Science Foundation's, and other government segments which have become political footballs. Continue funding the Justice Department, since we must maintain law enforcement at the federal level. Maintain the CIA and the FBI. Drop the Department of Energy. Cut funding for Homeland Security. Eliminate all subsidies and grants for research and development, which will quickly lead to the death of dire catastrophic claims from climate change. I am sure that your staff can come up with an appropriate list with cuts to the bone and funding maintenance for only those operations which are considered significant to avoid society collapse.
We are familiar with the above technique from private industry. This technique is called zero budgeting. It requires that anyone who claims to need even one dollar must submit a compelling need for that dollar. Notice it does not start with an existing budget, which would then be considered for either percentage increase or percentage decrease.
President Obama has suggested freezing federal salaries. Immediately jump on that, but be sure that you leave yourself an opening for future cuts. Freezing does nothing to equalize private industry and federal salaries, of which the latter are considerably higher and have given us our bloated government.
I have read your latest newsletter.
You have said that the present lame-duck Congress will likely pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund continued operation of the federal government in the absence of a budget. That resolution will likely extend funding of government operations for only a few weeks. The lame-duck Congress will pass this CR, because they have the votes in the present session.
The House of Representatives holds the purse strings. In the present session, that is in the hands of the big spending Democrats. Starting in January, it will be in the hands of the Republicans, who have claimed fiscal conservatism. We will see what they do.
I suggest that you immediately start preparation of a bill, which will become effective when the House votes on it in January. That bill should not be an attempt to establish a budget, but should contain provisions to fund only those departments and segments of the federal government, which are deemed necessary for continued reasonable operation. For starters, approve funding for the military, but let's have a 10% reduction. Fund the IRS, because we need to collect tax money to pay for operations which we approve. Stop all funding for the EPA, National Science Foundation's, and other government segments which have become political footballs. Continue funding the Justice Department, since we must maintain law enforcement at the federal level. Maintain the CIA and the FBI. Drop the Department of Energy. Cut funding for Homeland Security. Eliminate all subsidies and grants for research and development, which will quickly lead to the death of dire catastrophic claims from climate change. I am sure that your staff can come up with an appropriate list with cuts to the bone and funding maintenance for only those operations which are considered significant to avoid society collapse.
We are familiar with the above technique from private industry. This technique is called zero budgeting. It requires that anyone who claims to need even one dollar must submit a compelling need for that dollar. Notice it does not start with an existing budget, which would then be considered for either percentage increase or percentage decrease.
President Obama has suggested freezing federal salaries. Immediately jump on that, but be sure that you leave yourself an opening for future cuts. Freezing does nothing to equalize private industry and federal salaries, of which the latter are considerably higher and have given us our bloated government.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
We Have Had Enough Class Division on Income Taxes. Equality for All.
Open letter to Representative Randy Neugebauer:
I have read your latest newsletter. Happy Thanksgiving to you too. We have been properly thankful today for the country in which we live, but there are many aspects which could be better, and we are concerned about continuing deterioration.
With respect to the lame-duck Congress not extending the tax decrease into 2011 and beyond, we can understand that you may not have the power in the House to force through the extension. In that case, we will expect the House to make appropriate adjustment when it has full Republican support in the January session opening. At that time, we expect you to forcefully undo anything with respect to income tax that the lame-duck Congress has done.
Income taxes must be reduced for all citizens and not just for a chosen group. We have had enough of this class division in the country. Rich people and poor people are equal citizens and deserve the same benefits and rights.. They should also be allowed to distribute their assets obtained from their personal efforts and not be forced to grant some of those assets to the government for expenditure as it sees fit. Let's concentrate on equality for all.
If you have difficulty with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President, who are in fact socialists, let it be known to the people, who can then appropriately apply judgment in upcoming elections in 2012. You have no obligation to support Senatorial Associates and the President when their policies are significantly different from those which you know are necessary to benefit the American public.
I have read your latest newsletter. Happy Thanksgiving to you too. We have been properly thankful today for the country in which we live, but there are many aspects which could be better, and we are concerned about continuing deterioration.
With respect to the lame-duck Congress not extending the tax decrease into 2011 and beyond, we can understand that you may not have the power in the House to force through the extension. In that case, we will expect the House to make appropriate adjustment when it has full Republican support in the January session opening. At that time, we expect you to forcefully undo anything with respect to income tax that the lame-duck Congress has done.
Income taxes must be reduced for all citizens and not just for a chosen group. We have had enough of this class division in the country. Rich people and poor people are equal citizens and deserve the same benefits and rights.. They should also be allowed to distribute their assets obtained from their personal efforts and not be forced to grant some of those assets to the government for expenditure as it sees fit. Let's concentrate on equality for all.
If you have difficulty with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President, who are in fact socialists, let it be known to the people, who can then appropriately apply judgment in upcoming elections in 2012. You have no obligation to support Senatorial Associates and the President when their policies are significantly different from those which you know are necessary to benefit the American public.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Eliminate Taxpayer Funding for NPR and PBS
I sent the following message to Representative Neugebauer:
As you know, spending bills and the killing of same originate in the House. That's you.
The firing of Juan Williams from NPR is a matter of considerable controversy in the news. However more importantly, it has brought to light a subsidy abuse.
Taxpayer funds are being used to subsidize radio station NPR and television station PBS. I am sure you are aware that there are a great many radio stations and television stations, such that there seems no justification for any taxpayer subsidization for either of these areas. I suggest that you take up the matter of eliminating taxpayer subsidies to these two communication centers.
While you may say that the amount of funding that goes to these two operations is rather small and insignificant, I say it's an important aspect of the whole program to reduce federal government expenditures. The innate amount of money may be small, but it is a reflection of mental attitude, which has gotten us into the precarious financial situation we are now in. If this is small and that is small, and we continue spending and spending, it becomes a habit which then leads to spending out of control. This has happened with both the federal government and with the public at large. It is past time to change the habit.
As you know, spending bills and the killing of same originate in the House. That's you.
The firing of Juan Williams from NPR is a matter of considerable controversy in the news. However more importantly, it has brought to light a subsidy abuse.
Taxpayer funds are being used to subsidize radio station NPR and television station PBS. I am sure you are aware that there are a great many radio stations and television stations, such that there seems no justification for any taxpayer subsidization for either of these areas. I suggest that you take up the matter of eliminating taxpayer subsidies to these two communication centers.
While you may say that the amount of funding that goes to these two operations is rather small and insignificant, I say it's an important aspect of the whole program to reduce federal government expenditures. The innate amount of money may be small, but it is a reflection of mental attitude, which has gotten us into the precarious financial situation we are now in. If this is small and that is small, and we continue spending and spending, it becomes a habit which then leads to spending out of control. This has happened with both the federal government and with the public at large. It is past time to change the habit.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Federal Income Tax Increase
In his recent newsletter, Rep. Randy Neugebauer said that Congress is creating uncertainty with respect to taxes by leaving Washington without any action.
This is my response:
Randy,
I read your newsletter. I think you missed a major point.
The Democrats know exactly what they're doing. In taking no action before leaving for recess, there is an automatic federal tax increase, which is exactly what Democrats want. This is a very subtle way of sucking in the majority of people to think that Democrats have not raised taxes, when in fact they have by their inaction.
You also talk about uncertainty in federal income taxes. There is no uncertainty. It is certain that federal income taxes will go up at the end of the year.
How are you "pushing" to change this?
This is my response:
Randy,
I read your newsletter. I think you missed a major point.
The Democrats know exactly what they're doing. In taking no action before leaving for recess, there is an automatic federal tax increase, which is exactly what Democrats want. This is a very subtle way of sucking in the majority of people to think that Democrats have not raised taxes, when in fact they have by their inaction.
You also talk about uncertainty in federal income taxes. There is no uncertainty. It is certain that federal income taxes will go up at the end of the year.
How are you "pushing" to change this?
Mortgage Payment Giveaways
E-mail to Congress:
I heard on TV about the Administration's proposal of a $50,000 interest-free loan for people unemployed and unable to meet their home mortgage payments. I believe it is supposed to be for five years.
It sounds to me like another vote-buying technique of Obama and his Democratic-Socialist cohorts. I believe if I were unemployed and could not meet my mortgage payments, I would likely vote Democratic to be sure that this $50,000 "grant" goes through.
What is unemployment insurance for? You folks in Congress have at least once voted to extend the payment period. I thought that was supposed to tide people over until they could get jobs and/or or revise their financial positions by generally reducing expenses.
What happens at the end of five years when most of these people are unable to repay the $50,000 loan? Extend it for another five years? Since many of then would have then had five years of training on a $10,000 per year subsidy on their living expenses, they will certainly be unable to continue without the subsidy. Are you planning another $50,000 interest-free loan/grant?
It is my understanding that all government spending must be approved by the House and Senate. Do you and your associates plan to support this program by allocating funds? If you do, you may pick up a few socialist votes, but I know you will lose mine and probably quite a few others. Or perhaps, the House and Senate have may have already signed enough blank checks, such that the Administration doesn't even need your approval and additional funding. I'm not up on all the details of the financial maneuverings. I suppose you'll have to decide about that.
This is likely a good topic to concentrate on, as opposed to considering whether we should be celebrating a National Bulgarian day.
I heard on TV about the Administration's proposal of a $50,000 interest-free loan for people unemployed and unable to meet their home mortgage payments. I believe it is supposed to be for five years.
It sounds to me like another vote-buying technique of Obama and his Democratic-Socialist cohorts. I believe if I were unemployed and could not meet my mortgage payments, I would likely vote Democratic to be sure that this $50,000 "grant" goes through.
What is unemployment insurance for? You folks in Congress have at least once voted to extend the payment period. I thought that was supposed to tide people over until they could get jobs and/or or revise their financial positions by generally reducing expenses.
What happens at the end of five years when most of these people are unable to repay the $50,000 loan? Extend it for another five years? Since many of then would have then had five years of training on a $10,000 per year subsidy on their living expenses, they will certainly be unable to continue without the subsidy. Are you planning another $50,000 interest-free loan/grant?
It is my understanding that all government spending must be approved by the House and Senate. Do you and your associates plan to support this program by allocating funds? If you do, you may pick up a few socialist votes, but I know you will lose mine and probably quite a few others. Or perhaps, the House and Senate have may have already signed enough blank checks, such that the Administration doesn't even need your approval and additional funding. I'm not up on all the details of the financial maneuverings. I suppose you'll have to decide about that.
This is likely a good topic to concentrate on, as opposed to considering whether we should be celebrating a National Bulgarian day.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Starve the Socialistic Agenda
E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I have read your latest Newsletter. It continues to enumerate the various items that the Obama Administration continues to pursue to the disadvantage of economic growth and the condition of the country in general.
I repeat that we all know this, and the question is what are you doing about it. You have partially answered this by saying that you and your colleagues have called on the Speaker to let us vote on the issue of giving taxpayers certainty about how much they will owe next year. May I suggest that this is a very weak proposal? Do you really believe that the Speaker will allow any vote which is detrimental to high taxes and big government? Secondly, people already know from the TV and radio news that taxes will increase with expiration of the Bush tax cuts. They already have a fair idea of how much it will cost them individually.
Randy, I believe you must get much more innovative in your approach to leadership toward the country's best interests. One proposal that I've recently heard, which seems to have some merit is that Congress must "starve" the Obama socialistic agenda by denying funding. That seems like a program which could work. Please solicit a bunch of Democrats in the House and Senate to support it. Many Democratic Representatives and Senators are already leaving the Obama bandwagon, as they see the disadvantages of humongous spending. Let's also remember that the humongous spending came about through Congressional approval. It was a mistake, but it can be rectified, at least in part.
I have read your latest Newsletter. It continues to enumerate the various items that the Obama Administration continues to pursue to the disadvantage of economic growth and the condition of the country in general.
I repeat that we all know this, and the question is what are you doing about it. You have partially answered this by saying that you and your colleagues have called on the Speaker to let us vote on the issue of giving taxpayers certainty about how much they will owe next year. May I suggest that this is a very weak proposal? Do you really believe that the Speaker will allow any vote which is detrimental to high taxes and big government? Secondly, people already know from the TV and radio news that taxes will increase with expiration of the Bush tax cuts. They already have a fair idea of how much it will cost them individually.
Randy, I believe you must get much more innovative in your approach to leadership toward the country's best interests. One proposal that I've recently heard, which seems to have some merit is that Congress must "starve" the Obama socialistic agenda by denying funding. That seems like a program which could work. Please solicit a bunch of Democrats in the House and Senate to support it. Many Democratic Representatives and Senators are already leaving the Obama bandwagon, as they see the disadvantages of humongous spending. Let's also remember that the humongous spending came about through Congressional approval. It was a mistake, but it can be rectified, at least in part.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Keeping the Elephants off Fifth Avenue
E-Mail to Congress:
Pres. Obama just said that the stimulus plan is working.
It reminds me of the man who was sitting on the top level of the Fifth Avenue bus in New York City. He was throwing little pieces of paper onto the street. Someone asked him why he was doing that. He replied that he was keeping the elephants off Fifth Avenue.
Pres. Obama just said that the stimulus plan is working.
It reminds me of the man who was sitting on the top level of the Fifth Avenue bus in New York City. He was throwing little pieces of paper onto the street. Someone asked him why he was doing that. He replied that he was keeping the elephants off Fifth Avenue.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Employment Versus Antibusiness Environment
E-Mail to Congress:
I partially watched Bulls & Bears on Fox News this Saturday morning.
One member of the group stated that the difficulty with the economy is that industry is not investing for creation of new jobs, because it does not have a clear picture of the business environment. This is absolutely incorrect.
"Industry" is made up of individuals who are members of company Boards of Directors, Administrations, and stockholders both large and small, and private business owners. These individuals already have a clear picture of the business environment. It is poor, as determined by government policy. This is not the time for investment by large companies and small business owners.
The Federal Administration has already created an anti-business environment. It has done this by planning to increase corporate and personal income taxes, increasing restrictive regulations through banking and healthcare, confiscating various industry segments such as automotive through bailout procedures and health insurance companies by pressing for a public option, and continuing to increase the size of government through employment.. In addition, there have been several pro-union developments which have been contrary to public interest.
Congress has also been cooperative in these endeavors by supplying funds to the gross disadvantage of extreme public debt.
Individuals with money tend to invest in a favorable economic climate, as they see a potential return for their investments. These are the same individuals referred to above. They don't see it in the present environment, and they are sitting tight. If government changes its policy of antibusiness by reducing taxes, reducing regulations, etc., we may see some positive business action leading to higher employment and general economic growth.
This is unlikely to happen, because the Administration and Congress are loaded with socialists with unrealistic expectations for their program, which history shows will take us down the road to economic ruin. It also may not happen because the Administration and Congress are making every effort to load the voting public with giveaway programs to existing citizens and the entrance of new Democratic (Socialist) voters through fraud and deceit involving illegal immigrants.
I partially watched Bulls & Bears on Fox News this Saturday morning.
One member of the group stated that the difficulty with the economy is that industry is not investing for creation of new jobs, because it does not have a clear picture of the business environment. This is absolutely incorrect.
"Industry" is made up of individuals who are members of company Boards of Directors, Administrations, and stockholders both large and small, and private business owners. These individuals already have a clear picture of the business environment. It is poor, as determined by government policy. This is not the time for investment by large companies and small business owners.
The Federal Administration has already created an anti-business environment. It has done this by planning to increase corporate and personal income taxes, increasing restrictive regulations through banking and healthcare, confiscating various industry segments such as automotive through bailout procedures and health insurance companies by pressing for a public option, and continuing to increase the size of government through employment.. In addition, there have been several pro-union developments which have been contrary to public interest.
Congress has also been cooperative in these endeavors by supplying funds to the gross disadvantage of extreme public debt.
Individuals with money tend to invest in a favorable economic climate, as they see a potential return for their investments. These are the same individuals referred to above. They don't see it in the present environment, and they are sitting tight. If government changes its policy of antibusiness by reducing taxes, reducing regulations, etc., we may see some positive business action leading to higher employment and general economic growth.
This is unlikely to happen, because the Administration and Congress are loaded with socialists with unrealistic expectations for their program, which history shows will take us down the road to economic ruin. It also may not happen because the Administration and Congress are making every effort to load the voting public with giveaway programs to existing citizens and the entrance of new Democratic (Socialist) voters through fraud and deceit involving illegal immigrants.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
More Fleecing of American Taxpayers
E-Mail to Congress:
Dow Chemical & Townsend Kokum have formed a joint venture to manufacture large batteries for use by cars and trucks in electrical propulsion
The Federal Government has put in 160 million American taxpayer dollars. The Michigan state government has also put in 160 million Michigan taxpayer dollars, through tax incentives. Total taxpayer funds are $320 million.
The plant will employ 320 persons. If we consider this is a creation of new jobs, each job creation will cost the American public $1 million. We can amortize that cost over 20 years at $50,000 per year.
If we assume that all 320 employees will be well-paid at $50,000 per year, including benefits, and adding the amortization, each active employee will cost the company $100,000 per year, of which half will be paid by taxpayers.
A senior analyst at Lux Research says that unless there is a real spike in gasoline prices, there will be an insufficient market to use all the produced batteries. This shows again that governmental authorities always move free easy with American taxpayer money.
However, the likelihood is that the federal government can and will increase gasoline prices to force conversion to electrical vehicles. This is being done by restrictions on oil drilling and hopeful passage of the Boogie Man tax, which some call Cap & Trade (carbon dioxide emissions). The Boogie Man tax will add large amounts of tax revenue to government coffers. It will not be recognized that it is only another form of American taxpayer fleecing.
Adding insult to injury, batteries require electricity, which is now produced primarily by coal-burning power plants, emitting carbon dioxide. The net result is that the energy source will be taxed to promote a project for which there is no need. What difference does it make whether carbon dioxide comes from the tailpipes of automotive vehicles or from the chimneys of coal-burning electric plants?
Dow Chemical & Townsend Kokum have formed a joint venture to manufacture large batteries for use by cars and trucks in electrical propulsion
The Federal Government has put in 160 million American taxpayer dollars. The Michigan state government has also put in 160 million Michigan taxpayer dollars, through tax incentives. Total taxpayer funds are $320 million.
The plant will employ 320 persons. If we consider this is a creation of new jobs, each job creation will cost the American public $1 million. We can amortize that cost over 20 years at $50,000 per year.
If we assume that all 320 employees will be well-paid at $50,000 per year, including benefits, and adding the amortization, each active employee will cost the company $100,000 per year, of which half will be paid by taxpayers.
A senior analyst at Lux Research says that unless there is a real spike in gasoline prices, there will be an insufficient market to use all the produced batteries. This shows again that governmental authorities always move free easy with American taxpayer money.
However, the likelihood is that the federal government can and will increase gasoline prices to force conversion to electrical vehicles. This is being done by restrictions on oil drilling and hopeful passage of the Boogie Man tax, which some call Cap & Trade (carbon dioxide emissions). The Boogie Man tax will add large amounts of tax revenue to government coffers. It will not be recognized that it is only another form of American taxpayer fleecing.
Adding insult to injury, batteries require electricity, which is now produced primarily by coal-burning power plants, emitting carbon dioxide. The net result is that the energy source will be taxed to promote a project for which there is no need. What difference does it make whether carbon dioxide comes from the tailpipes of automotive vehicles or from the chimneys of coal-burning electric plants?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Home Owners Should Not Now Sink More Capital into Their Homes
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Regulators Push for Home Energy-Efficiency Program to Be Put on Hold. A program that encourages homeowners to take on debt to make their homes more energy efficient could damage the already fragile mortgage system and leave homeowners at risk, financial regulators said. (washingtonpost.com)"
Somebody in the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has his head screwed on right. The key senior staff of the Agency consists of DeMarco, Cross, Dickerson, and Pollard. Kudos to all of them!
They saw that spending money on home energy improvements in a declining home price market, would be a bad investment for a home owner, and said so.
EIN News says, "Regulators Push for Home Energy-Efficiency Program to Be Put on Hold. A program that encourages homeowners to take on debt to make their homes more energy efficient could damage the already fragile mortgage system and leave homeowners at risk, financial regulators said. (washingtonpost.com)"
Somebody in the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has his head screwed on right. The key senior staff of the Agency consists of DeMarco, Cross, Dickerson, and Pollard. Kudos to all of them!
They saw that spending money on home energy improvements in a declining home price market, would be a bad investment for a home owner, and said so.
Friday, May 28, 2010
National Institute of Standards and Technology Out Of Bounds
E-Mail to Congress:
Congress established the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) in 1901. Its function was to establish and maintain standards of measurement for science and industry. For example, define a kilogram and maintain an unchanging example for reference.
The name was changed to National Institute of Standards & Technology in 1988. Its function has been redesigned, although it is not clear by whom. Perhaps the people who run the operation. The latest director, Patrick Gallagher, is further redefining the role of the organization. Gallagher is on board to develop a program established in 1990 called the Advance Technology Program or ATP. Its function is said to help companies bridge the gap between research and product development, so that they may better compete internationally.
While this is a laudable aspiration of the Department of Commerce, under which NIST operates, it is far from the NBS original charter. It is also said that there is a new stream of funds coming to the agency in recognition of its importance to US economic competitiveness. Obviously, Congress applies these funds.
It is my opinion that private industry based on science and technology needs no help from the government and certainly no substantial contribution of funds from taxpayers. Private industry needs to be left alone with a minimum of restraints in order to take risks in developing competitive products on the basis of the opportunity for profit. Government regulation should be held only to those areas where there is risk of physical and economic (antitrust) danger to the public.
May I respectfully suggested we get our house in order. It should be properly organized. The Department of Commerce should be seeing that we as a nation should be operating on a level playing field with other countries. We should not as a country be promoting private industry and its products.
Government representatives are periodically asking the voting public where spending might be cut. Here is one strong qualifier.
Congress established the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) in 1901. Its function was to establish and maintain standards of measurement for science and industry. For example, define a kilogram and maintain an unchanging example for reference.
The name was changed to National Institute of Standards & Technology in 1988. Its function has been redesigned, although it is not clear by whom. Perhaps the people who run the operation. The latest director, Patrick Gallagher, is further redefining the role of the organization. Gallagher is on board to develop a program established in 1990 called the Advance Technology Program or ATP. Its function is said to help companies bridge the gap between research and product development, so that they may better compete internationally.
While this is a laudable aspiration of the Department of Commerce, under which NIST operates, it is far from the NBS original charter. It is also said that there is a new stream of funds coming to the agency in recognition of its importance to US economic competitiveness. Obviously, Congress applies these funds.
It is my opinion that private industry based on science and technology needs no help from the government and certainly no substantial contribution of funds from taxpayers. Private industry needs to be left alone with a minimum of restraints in order to take risks in developing competitive products on the basis of the opportunity for profit. Government regulation should be held only to those areas where there is risk of physical and economic (antitrust) danger to the public.
May I respectfully suggested we get our house in order. It should be properly organized. The Department of Commerce should be seeing that we as a nation should be operating on a level playing field with other countries. We should not as a country be promoting private industry and its products.
Government representatives are periodically asking the voting public where spending might be cut. Here is one strong qualifier.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Cost-Cutting Suggestions for Federal Budget
Rep. Neugebauer recently asked for specific suggestions on Federal cost-cutting. I sent him the following:
This responds to your recent Roundup in which you asked for proposals on Federal spending cuts.
1. Shutdown the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Afghanis don't want us there. They have been preconditioned by the Russians to avoid accepting foreign intervention. With the American presence, they foresee continued pressure to reduce/eliminate poppy (opium) production, which is their main source of income. If the population wishes the Taliban to take over, so be it. If we feel this is the source of terrorism in the US, use indirect methods of warfare, such as CIA agents on the ground and long-range bombing of bases with airplanes or missiles. This will be a much cheaper control than maintaining ground forces for an indeterminate period.
The situation with Iraq is similar. They now have considerable internal violence, which is not our business to control. We should not be nation building. Our compassion should not force us to help the "poor and unfortunate" Iraqis. The public is never innocent. They have the option and responsibility to control their own destiny.
2. Stop persecution of small businesses through taxes and regulations.
We developed this country on a capitalistic basis, which was very successful in our achieving a standard of living greater than any other country. We have been declining into socialism, with a simultaneous distraction of our economic base and personal liberties.
Rich people make jobs. I don't know of anyone who was employed by a poor person. Rich people always desire to get richer. They then give their money away through charities and trusts.
As our military personnel returns from Afghanistan and Iraq and attempts to enter the labor force, they need job opportunities. These job opportunities must come from businesses and those businesses in turn must have reasons to hire, rather than being persecuted by the Federal government
3. Stop bailouts
Private enterprises will never do their best to operate in a healthy profitable manner, so long as they have a fallback position of being "saved" by the federal government for ridiculous risks they may have taken.
This includes bailouts of foreign countries, such as our recent contribution to the Greek catastrophe. We are not part of the European Union. In fact, we should be competing with them. While they may not be our enemy in the traditional sense, they are certainly our competitors in world markets. If you don't believe this, ask the Boeing executives about Airbus.
4. Stop subsidies.
Most federal subsidies involve tax credits or grants to particular industries, such as wind energy, photovoltaics, cotton production, and to various local operations, such as schools.
An industry, which is unable to compete in world markets, should be allowed to fail, since it is economically impractical. The converse to this is to support inefficiency, which your gut feeling should tell you is wrong.
Federal subsidies to local schools indirectly grant to federal authorities the right to control local educational programs. This should be the responsibility and right of parents, who elect their school boards, which in turn appoint educational administrators.
Subsidies also include grants to individuals for specific actions. Examples are "cash for clunkers" and tax credits for home insulation. Additionally, the "earned income" status in the IRS regulations should be eliminated. Aiding the poor is the responsibility of the public, including organizations such as churches, other charities, and individuals. It should not be the responsibility of government to hide charity under the guise of special names such as "earned income". Such action only leads to an entitlement mentality.
The big item for cost reduction is the general group involving entitlements. This includes Social Security and Healthcare. It should be the responsibility of every citizen and his family to take care of costs involving medical care and the subsequent living costs of retirement for those unable to continue employment. Government should not apply any age restrictions on employment nor subsidize inactivity at any age.
5. Reduce the size of federal government.
In these days, the greatest opportunities for employment are with the federal government. As numbers of employees increase, the total payroll increases. Government payroll should be cut by reducing new employment and shutting down departments for which no obvious need exists. Ex-government employees should seek positions in private industry.
6. Give up globalization
Globalization means to put the populations of all countries on an equal economic basis. This is contrary to the desires of the American public. They have had the justified advantages of capitalistic hard work in previous generations and feel no desire to give away those advantages to their own detriment. The populations of other countries have the same opportunity and should exercise it.
We have given away manufacturing jobs to many other countries, because their labor costs are lower than those of the US. An abusive compassion would say that it is justifiable. However, most citizens would agree that the federal government should not be penalizing its citizenry through exercise of a globalization theory.
The handmaiden of globalization and the reason why jobs can be exported is the US's "free trade" policy. This has had the disadvantage of closing down whole US industries, such as the textile industry. US citizens can now go to Sears, JCPenney's and purchase articles of clothing at relatively low prices. In fact, the racks of those stores are filled with Chinese, Guatemalan, and Korean goods. The problem is that textile job elimination in the US has reduced the ability to purchase. Several years ago, the federal government applied a special tariff against imported steel. This gave an opportunity for the US steel industry to reestablish itself, with availability of local production and increased US jobs. This program needs to be extended, which will increase federal government revenues similar to cost reductions.
This responds to your recent Roundup in which you asked for proposals on Federal spending cuts.
1. Shutdown the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Afghanis don't want us there. They have been preconditioned by the Russians to avoid accepting foreign intervention. With the American presence, they foresee continued pressure to reduce/eliminate poppy (opium) production, which is their main source of income. If the population wishes the Taliban to take over, so be it. If we feel this is the source of terrorism in the US, use indirect methods of warfare, such as CIA agents on the ground and long-range bombing of bases with airplanes or missiles. This will be a much cheaper control than maintaining ground forces for an indeterminate period.
The situation with Iraq is similar. They now have considerable internal violence, which is not our business to control. We should not be nation building. Our compassion should not force us to help the "poor and unfortunate" Iraqis. The public is never innocent. They have the option and responsibility to control their own destiny.
2. Stop persecution of small businesses through taxes and regulations.
We developed this country on a capitalistic basis, which was very successful in our achieving a standard of living greater than any other country. We have been declining into socialism, with a simultaneous distraction of our economic base and personal liberties.
Rich people make jobs. I don't know of anyone who was employed by a poor person. Rich people always desire to get richer. They then give their money away through charities and trusts.
As our military personnel returns from Afghanistan and Iraq and attempts to enter the labor force, they need job opportunities. These job opportunities must come from businesses and those businesses in turn must have reasons to hire, rather than being persecuted by the Federal government
3. Stop bailouts
Private enterprises will never do their best to operate in a healthy profitable manner, so long as they have a fallback position of being "saved" by the federal government for ridiculous risks they may have taken.
This includes bailouts of foreign countries, such as our recent contribution to the Greek catastrophe. We are not part of the European Union. In fact, we should be competing with them. While they may not be our enemy in the traditional sense, they are certainly our competitors in world markets. If you don't believe this, ask the Boeing executives about Airbus.
4. Stop subsidies.
Most federal subsidies involve tax credits or grants to particular industries, such as wind energy, photovoltaics, cotton production, and to various local operations, such as schools.
An industry, which is unable to compete in world markets, should be allowed to fail, since it is economically impractical. The converse to this is to support inefficiency, which your gut feeling should tell you is wrong.
Federal subsidies to local schools indirectly grant to federal authorities the right to control local educational programs. This should be the responsibility and right of parents, who elect their school boards, which in turn appoint educational administrators.
Subsidies also include grants to individuals for specific actions. Examples are "cash for clunkers" and tax credits for home insulation. Additionally, the "earned income" status in the IRS regulations should be eliminated. Aiding the poor is the responsibility of the public, including organizations such as churches, other charities, and individuals. It should not be the responsibility of government to hide charity under the guise of special names such as "earned income". Such action only leads to an entitlement mentality.
The big item for cost reduction is the general group involving entitlements. This includes Social Security and Healthcare. It should be the responsibility of every citizen and his family to take care of costs involving medical care and the subsequent living costs of retirement for those unable to continue employment. Government should not apply any age restrictions on employment nor subsidize inactivity at any age.
5. Reduce the size of federal government.
In these days, the greatest opportunities for employment are with the federal government. As numbers of employees increase, the total payroll increases. Government payroll should be cut by reducing new employment and shutting down departments for which no obvious need exists. Ex-government employees should seek positions in private industry.
6. Give up globalization
Globalization means to put the populations of all countries on an equal economic basis. This is contrary to the desires of the American public. They have had the justified advantages of capitalistic hard work in previous generations and feel no desire to give away those advantages to their own detriment. The populations of other countries have the same opportunity and should exercise it.
We have given away manufacturing jobs to many other countries, because their labor costs are lower than those of the US. An abusive compassion would say that it is justifiable. However, most citizens would agree that the federal government should not be penalizing its citizenry through exercise of a globalization theory.
The handmaiden of globalization and the reason why jobs can be exported is the US's "free trade" policy. This has had the disadvantage of closing down whole US industries, such as the textile industry. US citizens can now go to Sears, JCPenney's and purchase articles of clothing at relatively low prices. In fact, the racks of those stores are filled with Chinese, Guatemalan, and Korean goods. The problem is that textile job elimination in the US has reduced the ability to purchase. Several years ago, the federal government applied a special tariff against imported steel. This gave an opportunity for the US steel industry to reestablish itself, with availability of local production and increased US jobs. This program needs to be extended, which will increase federal government revenues similar to cost reductions.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Used Home Sales up 10%
E-mail to Congress:
Television news is reporting this morning that used home sales are up 10%. They also say that this is based on the fact that there is a home purchase federal tax credit, which expires at the end of this month.
Here we have another example of stupid government meddling, and I use the word "stupid" advisedly. People who were considering purchasing a new home have rushed into the market for purchases this month. What does this mean for the total used home market? Nothing. Those people who would have bought next month or the month thereafter will have completed their purchase this month and the market will then revert to a lower sales-level to re-establish an annual average. In effect, the government credit meddling has made the used home market a yo-yo operation; up and down. US business and the general public are very interested in stability. They will take a good bargain when they see one, but they know that an unstable market is not good for business. It is counterproductive to hiring personnel and the carrying of inventory.
This housing credit fiasco is akin to the automobile clunkers program, which encouraged people to upgrade their motor vehicles with a cash grant available for a short time. They did so and were then quite happy with the upgrades, such that they saw no need to re-upgrade in subsequent months. In effect, the cash for clunkers program created a yo-yo up and down market.
Let's take a typical hypothetical case which may make the situation clearer. I know that my computer is getting somewhat out of date in comparison with the faster models now available at reasonable prices. I have anticipated that I will purchase a new computer sometime before the end of the year. However, I just saw in the Sunday newspaper advertisements that Best Buy has a half-off sale on new computers, and the sale will last for a week. I rush down to Best Buy, lay out my credit card and pick up a new computer. I've now purchased a computer in April, which I would've bought in December. Am I still interested in buying another in December? No. In the long-term, say 10 years, I may have increased my monetary outlay for a computer by a small amount by purchasing early, but this is offset by the fact that I saved money on the sale purchase. Nothing much has changed from a monetary a point of view.
One might ask the question why Best Buy would be offering new computers on sale for half price. There could be several reasons. It might be a loss-leader to bring people into the store for other purchases, such as TVs. It could also be that the manufacturer has misjudged his inventory and is loaded with computers on which he must pay financial carrying charges. The manufacturer may have generally over-expanded and needs cash to pay his bills.
Would any of these factors apply to government? No. There is absolutely no reason why government should apply any short-term credits for the purchase of any consumer product or service. In fact, to do so, skews the market to create instability and discourage normal business investment.
Television news is reporting this morning that used home sales are up 10%. They also say that this is based on the fact that there is a home purchase federal tax credit, which expires at the end of this month.
Here we have another example of stupid government meddling, and I use the word "stupid" advisedly. People who were considering purchasing a new home have rushed into the market for purchases this month. What does this mean for the total used home market? Nothing. Those people who would have bought next month or the month thereafter will have completed their purchase this month and the market will then revert to a lower sales-level to re-establish an annual average. In effect, the government credit meddling has made the used home market a yo-yo operation; up and down. US business and the general public are very interested in stability. They will take a good bargain when they see one, but they know that an unstable market is not good for business. It is counterproductive to hiring personnel and the carrying of inventory.
This housing credit fiasco is akin to the automobile clunkers program, which encouraged people to upgrade their motor vehicles with a cash grant available for a short time. They did so and were then quite happy with the upgrades, such that they saw no need to re-upgrade in subsequent months. In effect, the cash for clunkers program created a yo-yo up and down market.
Let's take a typical hypothetical case which may make the situation clearer. I know that my computer is getting somewhat out of date in comparison with the faster models now available at reasonable prices. I have anticipated that I will purchase a new computer sometime before the end of the year. However, I just saw in the Sunday newspaper advertisements that Best Buy has a half-off sale on new computers, and the sale will last for a week. I rush down to Best Buy, lay out my credit card and pick up a new computer. I've now purchased a computer in April, which I would've bought in December. Am I still interested in buying another in December? No. In the long-term, say 10 years, I may have increased my monetary outlay for a computer by a small amount by purchasing early, but this is offset by the fact that I saved money on the sale purchase. Nothing much has changed from a monetary a point of view.
One might ask the question why Best Buy would be offering new computers on sale for half price. There could be several reasons. It might be a loss-leader to bring people into the store for other purchases, such as TVs. It could also be that the manufacturer has misjudged his inventory and is loaded with computers on which he must pay financial carrying charges. The manufacturer may have generally over-expanded and needs cash to pay his bills.
Would any of these factors apply to government? No. There is absolutely no reason why government should apply any short-term credits for the purchase of any consumer product or service. In fact, to do so, skews the market to create instability and discourage normal business investment.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Britain As a Leader in Going down the Tube Financially
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Britain's Debt Set to Be Higher Than That of Greece. Britain's public finances may end this year in a worse state than those of Greece, economists warned yesterday, raising serious fears over the economic stability of the country. (telegraph.co.uk)".
For us it's a simple question. Europe has been leading the way on social benefits and is heading toward bankruptcy. The US has been following that lead. Should it continue, and also move toward bankruptcy? I think most Americans are smart enough to recognize we should not be following that route. However, there is a considerable segment of the US population that has no knowledge or concern concerning basic economics. They merely have their hands out, and unfortunately could continue to vote us into a state of insolvency.
I would like to bring back the poll tax, which would eliminate many ridiculous voter positions. Alternatively, I saw on the March 2 ballot for Lubbock a question of whether a photo ID should be required for voting. This is a step in the right direction.
EIN News says, "Britain's Debt Set to Be Higher Than That of Greece. Britain's public finances may end this year in a worse state than those of Greece, economists warned yesterday, raising serious fears over the economic stability of the country. (telegraph.co.uk)".
For us it's a simple question. Europe has been leading the way on social benefits and is heading toward bankruptcy. The US has been following that lead. Should it continue, and also move toward bankruptcy? I think most Americans are smart enough to recognize we should not be following that route. However, there is a considerable segment of the US population that has no knowledge or concern concerning basic economics. They merely have their hands out, and unfortunately could continue to vote us into a state of insolvency.
I would like to bring back the poll tax, which would eliminate many ridiculous voter positions. Alternatively, I saw on the March 2 ballot for Lubbock a question of whether a photo ID should be required for voting. This is a step in the right direction.
Friday, February 12, 2010
In a Financial Crisis Guard Against a Grab for Power
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "EU President to Grab Power Over National Budgets. The new President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, is using the financial crisis sweeping the eurozone to launch an audacious grab for power over national budgets, leaked documents reveal. An EU source explained: "It has become clear to everyone that this economic crisis can't be solved by individual member states, such as Germany helping out Greece. What we need is the same kind of mechanism that we have now imposed on Greece in order to monitor and survey eurozone countries. So the idea is to put all European economies under surveillance. (independent.co.uk)"
This is exactly what has been happening in the US. The Dictator's Handbook says to never waste a financial crisis, when it can be used as an instrument to grab power. I know you are astute enough, such that I need not give you historical examples.
The question is whether you and your associates are willing to expend the energy to thwart the takeover and preserve the Republic.
EIN News says, "EU President to Grab Power Over National Budgets. The new President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, is using the financial crisis sweeping the eurozone to launch an audacious grab for power over national budgets, leaked documents reveal. An EU source explained: "It has become clear to everyone that this economic crisis can't be solved by individual member states, such as Germany helping out Greece. What we need is the same kind of mechanism that we have now imposed on Greece in order to monitor and survey eurozone countries. So the idea is to put all European economies under surveillance. (independent.co.uk)"
This is exactly what has been happening in the US. The Dictator's Handbook says to never waste a financial crisis, when it can be used as an instrument to grab power. I know you are astute enough, such that I need not give you historical examples.
The question is whether you and your associates are willing to expend the energy to thwart the takeover and preserve the Republic.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Chinese Forcing US Economic Collapse
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "China PLA Officers Urge Economic Punch Against U.S. Senior Chinese military officers have proposed that their country boost defense spending, adjust PLA deployments, and possibly sell some U.S. bonds to punish Washington for its latest round of arms sales to Taiwan. The calls for broad retaliation over the planned U.S. weapons sales to the disputed island came from officers at China's National Defense University and Academy of Military Sciences. (reuters.com)".
This is basically how Reagan forced the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. He increased significantly US military spending. The Soviets tried to keep up but did not have the resources. They overspent and their whole economic system collapsed.
The present situation is reversed and a little different. The US of its own volition has decided to overspend on various projects unrelated to the military. This makes it especially easy for the Chinese. With the US teetering on the edge of economic collapse. The Chinese will increase their own military spending, which will force us over the edge in an effort to keep up. An economically collapsed US will have no ability to assist Taiwan in its defense, no matter how many inoperable war machines it may have. Forget the punishment aspect. It is all opportunistic against an enemy that is already in a weakened condition.
EIN News says, "China PLA Officers Urge Economic Punch Against U.S. Senior Chinese military officers have proposed that their country boost defense spending, adjust PLA deployments, and possibly sell some U.S. bonds to punish Washington for its latest round of arms sales to Taiwan. The calls for broad retaliation over the planned U.S. weapons sales to the disputed island came from officers at China's National Defense University and Academy of Military Sciences. (reuters.com)".
This is basically how Reagan forced the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. He increased significantly US military spending. The Soviets tried to keep up but did not have the resources. They overspent and their whole economic system collapsed.
The present situation is reversed and a little different. The US of its own volition has decided to overspend on various projects unrelated to the military. This makes it especially easy for the Chinese. With the US teetering on the edge of economic collapse. The Chinese will increase their own military spending, which will force us over the edge in an effort to keep up. An economically collapsed US will have no ability to assist Taiwan in its defense, no matter how many inoperable war machines it may have. Forget the punishment aspect. It is all opportunistic against an enemy that is already in a weakened condition.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
New National Debt
E-mail to Congress:
I have just read Randy Neugebauer's latest Roundup.
Part of it was, "Last week, Congress voted to increase the government’s credit card limit by $1.9 trillion, bringing the national debt limit to $14.294 trillion." Randy then asked redundantly, "Who is going to pay the bill?".
I replied to Randy that he and I know it was his associates in Congress who passed this bill. It doesn't matter who will pay. The damage is done and payment will be made by someone or all in one form or another. We don't know now who that will be.
Randy was personally opposed to the bill and voted against it. I congratulated him, but pointed out that he is still not doing his job. His job is to convince his associates to do the right thing.
This may be too big a job for him. Up until now he and you have been failing miserably. Congress continues to do the wrong thing, compounding error upon error, with apparently little deterrence from any action you may be taking. We pay for results, not intentions.
I have just read Randy Neugebauer's latest Roundup.
Part of it was, "Last week, Congress voted to increase the government’s credit card limit by $1.9 trillion, bringing the national debt limit to $14.294 trillion." Randy then asked redundantly, "Who is going to pay the bill?".
I replied to Randy that he and I know it was his associates in Congress who passed this bill. It doesn't matter who will pay. The damage is done and payment will be made by someone or all in one form or another. We don't know now who that will be.
Randy was personally opposed to the bill and voted against it. I congratulated him, but pointed out that he is still not doing his job. His job is to convince his associates to do the right thing.
This may be too big a job for him. Up until now he and you have been failing miserably. Congress continues to do the wrong thing, compounding error upon error, with apparently little deterrence from any action you may be taking. We pay for results, not intentions.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Slower Frittering Away of Our Money
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Bureaucracy Slows DEO Stimulus Spending, Chu Says. Energy Secretary Steven Chu expressed frustration that most of the roughly $37 billion in stimulus money Congress gave his agency last year had yet to be spent due to the complexity of the review process the DOE must follow. (wsj.com)".
Wonderful news! This is almost akin to hearing that Sec. Chu had been fired.
Bureaucracy has slowed down the spending of money we don't have and was inappropriately authorized by Congress. I normally am opposed to bureaucracy for slowing down progress. In this case, it appears to be slowing down damage. Hooray!
Perhaps I have also misjudged Congress. Did they intentionally add bureaucratic details to the stimulus fund in order to have a semblance of control over a Marxist Administration, or was it all accidental?
EIN News says, "Bureaucracy Slows DEO Stimulus Spending, Chu Says. Energy Secretary Steven Chu expressed frustration that most of the roughly $37 billion in stimulus money Congress gave his agency last year had yet to be spent due to the complexity of the review process the DOE must follow. (wsj.com)".
Wonderful news! This is almost akin to hearing that Sec. Chu had been fired.
Bureaucracy has slowed down the spending of money we don't have and was inappropriately authorized by Congress. I normally am opposed to bureaucracy for slowing down progress. In this case, it appears to be slowing down damage. Hooray!
Perhaps I have also misjudged Congress. Did they intentionally add bureaucratic details to the stimulus fund in order to have a semblance of control over a Marxist Administration, or was it all accidental?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Bail Outs for Governments
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Greece and Portugal Face 'Slow Death' Over Debt Crisis. Moody's Investors Service said unless the two countries reverse their large current account deficits, wealth generated would increasingly have to be used to pay off rising debt costs as investors demand more to hold Greek and Portuguese bonds. To compensate, the governments would have to keep raising taxes, which in turn could smother investment and drive out wealth creators, Moody's said. (telegraph.co.uk).
This is a prelude to the U.S. condition. Take heed. When you guys mess up, who is left to bail you out
EIN News says, "Greece and Portugal Face 'Slow Death' Over Debt Crisis. Moody's Investors Service said unless the two countries reverse their large current account deficits, wealth generated would increasingly have to be used to pay off rising debt costs as investors demand more to hold Greek and Portuguese bonds. To compensate, the governments would have to keep raising taxes, which in turn could smother investment and drive out wealth creators, Moody's said. (telegraph.co.uk).
This is a prelude to the U.S. condition. Take heed. When you guys mess up, who is left to bail you out
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
