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.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
