Sending Money to the EU Would Be Idiocy

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

The European Union (EU) is collapsing economically. With its economic collapse, it will return to an earlier form of Western Europe. Namely, individual countries, with individual currencies and national governments.

The EU's impending collapse is a result of individual member governments giving more money to their citizens, than they have collected by taxing productive individuals and enterprises. The individual citizens have no desire to give up their pensions and other government benefits and strongly resist any governmental efforts to make such reductions. Cite the riots in Greece. While tax cheats are prevalent, particularly in Italy, the likelihood that governments can obtain significantly more revenue from taxes is remote. Traditional bankruptcy is imminent for the EU as a whole and many of the individual member countries. And, when I say traditional bankruptcy, I don't mean the standard weasel wording bankruptcies of Chapters 9 and 11 in the US. I mean "out of business".

There has been talk of a US bailout of the EU. This is not only ridiculous. It is downright idiotic. The US suffers from the same disease as the EU, but at a slightly lower level, and it is anticipated that it will catch up and will eventually take its turn on total bankruptcy. Attempts to cut US government expenditures have been futile, and we are already deeply in debt. How can any rational person think that by our borrowing more money to give to the European Union, for a temporary relief of their problem, will solve anything?

We must take notice of what has happened to the EU and watch its fall. Perhaps we can learn something from the observation and take some real action so that we do not follow the same route.

There has been talk that if we don't increase our own debt by borrowing money to give to the EU, it will negatively impact our own economy through reduction of our exports. Think of it in practical terms. We should borrow money to give to the EU so that they can give back our borrowed money and take our manufactured goods in return? What kind of logic is this? Why stop there? Why not give money to the Russian government so they can pass it on to their people, who will buy our skis and snowmobiles?

What happens when no one will lend us any more money to give away? Or even when no one else in the world has any more money? We then revert to the Middle Ages, when there was no economic or technological progress. There are more people in the world now and more people available to starve to death, as they will be unable to buy food or produce their own.

Let's get off this idiocy and return to free-market trading, which has existed for thousands of years. You sell goods to people, if they have the money to pay for them. Without money, don't sell and they do without. It is only in the modern concept of idiocy that one could dream up the idea of giving someone money so that he can buy your goods.

Cut Promotional and Grant Funding to Federal Science Agencies

In her article "Prioritizing Science Funding", October 24 Issue of Chemical & Engineering News, Susan Morrissey says, "Members of a key congressional science committee believe that fiscal 2012 federal budget could be trimmed by over $1.5 billion through cuts to science agencies without undermining the role of science and innovation in the US's long-term economic growth".

I agree with that 100%.

The letter to Congress' Joint Select Committee on Deficit Production comes from 11 Republican House members, of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee.

Two operations which the National Foundation and the National Institute of Standards & Technology engage in and which I strongly object to are promotion programs and research grants, primarily to universities. It is through those two operations, which the agencies wield political power for the administration and should be eliminated. One program specifically mentioned by the Committee for abolishment is the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy program (ARPA-E). I heartily agree. This program wastes millions and perhaps billions of dollars pursuing the Administration's undefined dream of "Clean" energy, when we have made great strides in improving cleanliness of fossil fuel use.

Treasury Sec. Geither Can Radically Cut Production of US President $1 Coins

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

My associate, Gordon Anderson, has brought to my attention an ABC video clip by reporter Dianne Sawyer, which shows that the US Mint is producing Presidential $1 coins in quantities well above reason. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/coins-costing-taxpayers-14076274 (after the Merck commercial).

The clip indicates that "By act of Congress", the Philadelphia Mint is producing the coins at the rate of $600,000 per day, Since there is essentially no circulation demand, the coins are being stored. Present stored coins have a $1 billion face value. Additional storage space will be required for additional minted coins, until the project is terminated in 2016. The new storage facility will cost $650,000 and shipping cost will be $3 million. Rep. Jack Reed was a cosponsor of the original bill. In the clip, he recommends Congress do something about the problem.

Wikipedia also has an extensive presentation of the program. Included is a reference to Rep. Jackie Speier of California, who is currently circulating a “Dear Colleague” letter recommending that the U.S. not produce any dollar coins. She plans to introduce legislation calling for the immediate halting of all dollar coin programs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_$1_Coin_Program.


With that background, I decided to look at the Act itself.

The "Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005’’ (Public Law 109-145) requires the US Mint, among other requirements, to produce each year a quantity of $1 coins commemorating four US Presidents, until all Presidents have been so honored. The Act included an Amendment to Section 5112 of Title 31, United States Code, with the addition of:
‘‘(n) REDESIGN AND ISSUANCE OF CIRCULATING $1 COINS HONORING EACH OF THE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES.—" and related subparagraphs.
The quantity of issued (minted?) coins is specified in:
‘‘(4) ISSUANCE OF COINS COMMEMORATING 4 PRESIDENTS DURING EACH YEAR OF THE PERIOD.—
‘‘(B) NUMBER OF 4 CIRCULATING COIN DESIGNS IN EACH YEAR.—The Secretary shall prescribe, on the basis of such factors as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, the number of $1 coins that shall be issued with each of the designs selected for each year of the period referred to in paragraph (1).
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ145.109.pdf)

If I understand this correctly, Congress does not need to take any legislative action to stop the exorbitant minting. A simple phone call to Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner suggesting that he cut the volume of coins for each President to say $1000 should be enough to do the trick. If Geithner is uncooperative, you might ask for a Congressional hearing to have him explain publicly why he continues this exorbitant minting.