It is often said that that recruits enter the service as boys and leave as men. My Korean-War-era dad said as much about his own experience and thought that everyone would benefit from two years in the service.
Perhaps, we need to start an aggressive new "Reserve Corp" that will act as a finishing school of sorts in the US Military environment. Youth unemployment, particularly among minorities, is very high and there is much work that can be done in our cities and small towns (AFSCME won't be happy). The new corp ought to have lower admission standards than the regular military and offer half the pay. Build new Quonset huts across the country on excess federal property to house those for their two-year hitch.
The New Corp personnel would go through basic military training - just as the regular service - and go on to learn useful trades in today's economy. Basic remedial education would be available so that those without GED's will get them during their service and be able to continue to college after their service, should they wish. If they have a particularly successful two years, members could transfer to the regular military for a career.
Meanwhile, our infrastructure would benefit from the myriad repairs and improvements that New Corp would regularly provide in it's basic mission. We would have many more men and women under arms should the need arise. Social engineering? Yes - the best possible kind and a bargain for taxpayers by any measure.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
U.S. Rep. David Schweikert was the toast of protesters Wednesday at a meeting with his constituents in Mesa, and he didn't mind at all.
Dressed in tuxedos and top hats, members of Billionaires for Wealthcare piled out a sleek black Cadillac Escalade to "thank" Schweikert for supporting the wealthy and even attempted to give him a present during the meeting.
They ladled out the sarcasm by drinking sparking water out of wine glasses.
The seven protesters chanted such slogans as "hey, hey, ho, ho, keep the profits with the CEOs" and sang, "All we are saying is give greed a chance."
The protesters burst into the meeting while Mesa Mayor Scott Smith was speaking, shouted a few slogans and tried to give Schweikert a gift before they were ushered out by Mesa police.
But Schweikert seemed anything but upset at the protesters, who have visited him at other constituent meetings in Fountain Hills and elsewhere.
"It actually amuses me. You have to give them credit for trying to be funny," Schweikert said before he outlined problems with the national debt in a slide presentation.
"I think it's great. It helps me tell the story of how out of touch" the protesters are on the Medicare issue, he said.
Schweikert added that he believes the protesters represent the extreme liberal fringe and upset moderate Democrats who want an honest dialogue about Medicare funding.
But protester Barbara Njos said she joined the protesters to spotlight Schweikert's positions on Medicare and other issues.
"I care about the middle class. I think I might be losing middle-class status sometime soon," she said. "It's because I care about people."
Dressed in tuxedos and top hats, members of Billionaires for Wealthcare piled out a sleek black Cadillac Escalade to "thank" Schweikert for supporting the wealthy and even attempted to give him a present during the meeting.
They ladled out the sarcasm by drinking sparking water out of wine glasses.
The seven protesters chanted such slogans as "hey, hey, ho, ho, keep the profits with the CEOs" and sang, "All we are saying is give greed a chance."
The protesters burst into the meeting while Mesa Mayor Scott Smith was speaking, shouted a few slogans and tried to give Schweikert a gift before they were ushered out by Mesa police.
But Schweikert seemed anything but upset at the protesters, who have visited him at other constituent meetings in Fountain Hills and elsewhere.
"It actually amuses me. You have to give them credit for trying to be funny," Schweikert said before he outlined problems with the national debt in a slide presentation.
"I think it's great. It helps me tell the story of how out of touch" the protesters are on the Medicare issue, he said.
Schweikert added that he believes the protesters represent the extreme liberal fringe and upset moderate Democrats who want an honest dialogue about Medicare funding.
But protester Barbara Njos said she joined the protesters to spotlight Schweikert's positions on Medicare and other issues.
"I care about the middle class. I think I might be losing middle-class status sometime soon," she said. "It's because I care about people."
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
We Are Perp Walking Kids Now
We have now arrested some high school kids for taking SAT tests for other kids, and we are perp walking them HANDCUFFED.
Wall Street yet to see anyone in handcuffs.
Angelo Mozilo countrywide insurance guy still walking around.
Is it real hard to see what's happening in this country when you handcuff kids for cheating and real white collar crime that ruined so many people's lives goes by the wayside.
Anyone else outraged !
Booing soldiers, yelling let people die without insurance, clapping for executions, my! my! my!
The race to the bottom is on!
Trivial you say I think not!
Wall Street yet to see anyone in handcuffs.
Angelo Mozilo countrywide insurance guy still walking around.
Is it real hard to see what's happening in this country when you handcuff kids for cheating and real white collar crime that ruined so many people's lives goes by the wayside.
Anyone else outraged !
Booing soldiers, yelling let people die without insurance, clapping for executions, my! my! my!
The race to the bottom is on!
Trivial you say I think not!
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Terry and Crazy Rich, feel free to comment...or apologize.
By ANN MARLOWE
It should no more be necessary to write this article than to prove that there were Jews killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. And yet the mythology refuses to die. Just last week, two well-educated and well-known writer acquaintances of mine remarked in passing on the "fact" that those who serve in the U.S. military typically have no other career options. America's soldiers, they said, were poor and black.
They don't mean this to denigrate their service—no, they mean it as a critique of American society, which turns its unemployed into cannon fodder. Especially today with high unemployment, the charge goes, hapless youths we fail to educate are embarking on a one-way trip to Afghanistan.
These allegations—most frequently leveled at the Army, the military's biggest service and the one with the highest casualty rate—are false.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903791504576587244025371456.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
It should no more be necessary to write this article than to prove that there were Jews killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. And yet the mythology refuses to die. Just last week, two well-educated and well-known writer acquaintances of mine remarked in passing on the "fact" that those who serve in the U.S. military typically have no other career options. America's soldiers, they said, were poor and black.
They don't mean this to denigrate their service—no, they mean it as a critique of American society, which turns its unemployed into cannon fodder. Especially today with high unemployment, the charge goes, hapless youths we fail to educate are embarking on a one-way trip to Afghanistan.
These allegations—most frequently leveled at the Army, the military's biggest service and the one with the highest casualty rate—are false.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903791504576587244025371456.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
My BROTHER
I have a brother who is broke. He is not just broke, he is in debt! I know if I give him money he will spend it foolishly on cigarettes and booze, and not pay down his debt or look for meaningful work. I'm torn on what to do. Do I help him get a job that can help him out of debt and therefore help his family who is suffering also by no fault of their own. Do I send him money and put restrictions on what he can spend it on? A job won't work because he doesn't have the necessary school work, necessary tools to survive in the work force.
What is the right thing to do? I love my brother.
Tough Love you say! Really let him sleep under a bridge. I think not!
America is my brother! I love America, and if I have to sacrifice to have a better America, count me in! Those men who went to fight WW1 and WW2 did so for all of us, that was a generation that thought of others first.
Sadly that is not the Americans I see enough of today.
The don't tax me cowardly hides behind the " wasteful government mantra" Why don't they just come out and say the truth " I'm all about ME ME Me." Don't tax me I pay enough already, how much is too much to a country that has provided you and your parents with more than any country on earth has.
So what if someone in this country is getting food stamps and assistance REALLY!
Whine! because I'm pulling on the rope more than the others.
Thank God it isn't you.
We are in a hole, stop worrying about who dug it, who is to blame, whose not shoveling, start shoveling and get out of the hole, and that means all of us those with big shovels (rich) and those with small shovels (middle class) work together and help our fellow Americans.
If you truly love America and don't care who gets credit for turning this economy around you will know what the right thing to do is.
I'm sending a check to my brother today and few names of people who are hiring, and I'm hoping he gets things right this time.
What is the right thing to do? I love my brother.
Tough Love you say! Really let him sleep under a bridge. I think not!
America is my brother! I love America, and if I have to sacrifice to have a better America, count me in! Those men who went to fight WW1 and WW2 did so for all of us, that was a generation that thought of others first.
Sadly that is not the Americans I see enough of today.
The don't tax me cowardly hides behind the " wasteful government mantra" Why don't they just come out and say the truth " I'm all about ME ME Me." Don't tax me I pay enough already, how much is too much to a country that has provided you and your parents with more than any country on earth has.
So what if someone in this country is getting food stamps and assistance REALLY!
Whine! because I'm pulling on the rope more than the others.
Thank God it isn't you.
We are in a hole, stop worrying about who dug it, who is to blame, whose not shoveling, start shoveling and get out of the hole, and that means all of us those with big shovels (rich) and those with small shovels (middle class) work together and help our fellow Americans.
If you truly love America and don't care who gets credit for turning this economy around you will know what the right thing to do is.
I'm sending a check to my brother today and few names of people who are hiring, and I'm hoping he gets things right this time.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Truth
President Barack Obama’s debt reduction plan could be titled, The Audacity of Duplicity.
According to Obama, he is proposing $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next 10 years, with there being $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
Where to begin?
Half of the president’s claimed debt reduction comes from policies already in place. Obama says $1 trillion will be saved by winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, Obama wants credit for reducing debt that was never going to be incurred.
Another $1 trillion is from the agreement that was reached to increase the debt ceiling. But that agreement didn’t really reduce the debt by $1 trillion. It simply adopted future spending caps that would have that effect. However, there were no new laws adopted that would actually reduce spending. The caps are unenforceable promises to do something unspecific in the future.
Obama is actually only proposing $2.1 trillion in new stuff. Of that, nearly $1.6 trillion is increased taxes. So, he’s actually proposing $3 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts.
But that still doesn’t tell the real story. The “spending cuts” aren’t really all spending cuts. They are just things other than tax increases, and there’s over $135 billion in fee increases. Those may be warranted, but they aren’t spending cuts.
So, Obama actually is proposing over $1.7 trillion in additional federal revenue, making the ratio $4 in increased taxes and fees for every $1 in spending cuts.
But that still doesn’t tell the whole story. Obama, of course, is purposing increased stimulus spending now. Net, Obama is only proposing to decrease actual federal spending by about $245 billion over 10 years. So, the real ratio is $7 in increased taxes and fees for every $1 in actual spending cuts.
In short, Obama has proposed a massive tax increase while doing very little to control federal spending.
The bulk of the tax increases, $1.2 trillion, fall on individuals making over $200,000 a year. Supposedly, their tax treatment would only be returned to the levels prevailing during the Clinton prosperity, but that’s another bit of duplicity.
Obama proposes that the top two tax rates be returned to Clinton-era levels, but doesn’t stop there. He would also limit the deductions they take, which wasn’t the case during the Clinton bliss. And his health care bill already socked this group with an increase in payroll taxes of nearly 1 percent on wage income and an investment income tax increase of nearly 4 percent.
In short, Obama is advocating tax rates for those earning more than $200,000 a year much higher than the Clinton-era rates, which Bill Clinton himself described as too high.
This is supposedly so millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of tax filers has 16 percent of the country’s income, but pay 24 percent of all federal taxes and 35 percent of federal individual income taxes.
According to Obama mythology, millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than average Jacks and Jills. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent pays 18 percent of their income in federal income taxes. The middle quintile pays less than 3 percent. Those below that actually get more money back than they pay in.
Obama seems really worked up over the fact that investment income is taxed at a lower rate than wage income. But that’s not really the case. Dividends are taxed at the corporate level before they are distributed to individuals, when they are taxed again. Capital gains are taxed on their nominal value, ignoring the effect of intervening inflation.
If Obama were truly interested in a bipartisan down payment on debt reduction, he could have anchored his proposal in the recommendations of his debt commission. The debt commission, however, recommended about half of what Obama proposes in additional federal revenue and raised in a way that lowers rates across the board, including for millionaires and billionaires.
Obama’s interests, however, clearly lie elsewhere.
According to Obama, he is proposing $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next 10 years, with there being $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
Where to begin?
Half of the president’s claimed debt reduction comes from policies already in place. Obama says $1 trillion will be saved by winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, Obama wants credit for reducing debt that was never going to be incurred.
Another $1 trillion is from the agreement that was reached to increase the debt ceiling. But that agreement didn’t really reduce the debt by $1 trillion. It simply adopted future spending caps that would have that effect. However, there were no new laws adopted that would actually reduce spending. The caps are unenforceable promises to do something unspecific in the future.
Obama is actually only proposing $2.1 trillion in new stuff. Of that, nearly $1.6 trillion is increased taxes. So, he’s actually proposing $3 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts.
But that still doesn’t tell the real story. The “spending cuts” aren’t really all spending cuts. They are just things other than tax increases, and there’s over $135 billion in fee increases. Those may be warranted, but they aren’t spending cuts.
So, Obama actually is proposing over $1.7 trillion in additional federal revenue, making the ratio $4 in increased taxes and fees for every $1 in spending cuts.
But that still doesn’t tell the whole story. Obama, of course, is purposing increased stimulus spending now. Net, Obama is only proposing to decrease actual federal spending by about $245 billion over 10 years. So, the real ratio is $7 in increased taxes and fees for every $1 in actual spending cuts.
In short, Obama has proposed a massive tax increase while doing very little to control federal spending.
The bulk of the tax increases, $1.2 trillion, fall on individuals making over $200,000 a year. Supposedly, their tax treatment would only be returned to the levels prevailing during the Clinton prosperity, but that’s another bit of duplicity.
Obama proposes that the top two tax rates be returned to Clinton-era levels, but doesn’t stop there. He would also limit the deductions they take, which wasn’t the case during the Clinton bliss. And his health care bill already socked this group with an increase in payroll taxes of nearly 1 percent on wage income and an investment income tax increase of nearly 4 percent.
In short, Obama is advocating tax rates for those earning more than $200,000 a year much higher than the Clinton-era rates, which Bill Clinton himself described as too high.
This is supposedly so millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of tax filers has 16 percent of the country’s income, but pay 24 percent of all federal taxes and 35 percent of federal individual income taxes.
According to Obama mythology, millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than average Jacks and Jills. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent pays 18 percent of their income in federal income taxes. The middle quintile pays less than 3 percent. Those below that actually get more money back than they pay in.
Obama seems really worked up over the fact that investment income is taxed at a lower rate than wage income. But that’s not really the case. Dividends are taxed at the corporate level before they are distributed to individuals, when they are taxed again. Capital gains are taxed on their nominal value, ignoring the effect of intervening inflation.
If Obama were truly interested in a bipartisan down payment on debt reduction, he could have anchored his proposal in the recommendations of his debt commission. The debt commission, however, recommended about half of what Obama proposes in additional federal revenue and raised in a way that lowers rates across the board, including for millionaires and billionaires.
Obama’s interests, however, clearly lie elsewhere.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Great Piece on College Football Fandom
Worthy of posting on this blog, even though it is off topic.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?src=twrhp
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?src=twrhp
LET'S ALL PAY MORE TAXES, I'M IN !
No one in America can leave their home, eat a meal, make a phone call or even turn on their lights without paying some sort of regressive tax that is disproportionately effects the poor and working class more than the wealthy.
If you are born poor in the United States you probably will be getting sub standard education and less opportunity's and that is a undeniable fact.
We steadfastly refuse to to invest in anything that might help the poor to become viable and enter the workforce and possibly middle class, it is if we would rather see the nation fail rather than risk letting our neighbor's kid have it easier than we did.
You know what creates jobs in this country and others is a working class capable of making purchases. no one can deny the last ten years the wealthy have moved so beyond the middle class in income that adjustments need to be made.
Job creation, Revenue, and Healthy Economy can bring this country back.
I am middle class and am willing to pay more taxes if it means we can all recover but I don't hear this from the Tea party.
It's hard to get people to see personal sacrifice as a way for everyone to get better.
I came from the John Kennedy generation " ask not what your country can do for you, ask what YOU can do for your country"
I know what everyone can do send a message to Washington we ALL will pay more taxes let's get rolling.
What have you got to say now TEA PARTY!!!!
If you are born poor in the United States you probably will be getting sub standard education and less opportunity's and that is a undeniable fact.
We steadfastly refuse to to invest in anything that might help the poor to become viable and enter the workforce and possibly middle class, it is if we would rather see the nation fail rather than risk letting our neighbor's kid have it easier than we did.
You know what creates jobs in this country and others is a working class capable of making purchases. no one can deny the last ten years the wealthy have moved so beyond the middle class in income that adjustments need to be made.
Job creation, Revenue, and Healthy Economy can bring this country back.
I am middle class and am willing to pay more taxes if it means we can all recover but I don't hear this from the Tea party.
It's hard to get people to see personal sacrifice as a way for everyone to get better.
I came from the John Kennedy generation " ask not what your country can do for you, ask what YOU can do for your country"
I know what everyone can do send a message to Washington we ALL will pay more taxes let's get rolling.
What have you got to say now TEA PARTY!!!!
Today our President declared war
He declared war on the Speaker, on the Republican and unfortunately the American people.
In a forceful speech, which finally demonstrated his stones, he outlined his ideas to reconcile our budget.
He plans to do so by increased central planning and increased taxes on a small portion of our population.
Mr. President:
The rich already pay the vast majority of taxes, now you want them to pay more? This is a good thing?
The rich already pay a higher percentage of their Income Taxes.
You are being disingenuous by talking about a lower tax rate for hedge fund managers who pay a lower capital gains rate.
You are just flat lying by ignoring that the possible rate of return of their investment is zero (loss).
You are, as always, being stupid by acting as if an economy which is starved for activity, will be better server by taxing capital gains at a higher rate.
You are being a central planner by calling for increased investment in the same speech that you called (apparently) for increased capital gains tax, logically implying that you want the government to do the investing.
In a forceful speech, which finally demonstrated his stones, he outlined his ideas to reconcile our budget.
He plans to do so by increased central planning and increased taxes on a small portion of our population.
Mr. President:
The rich already pay the vast majority of taxes, now you want them to pay more? This is a good thing?
The rich already pay a higher percentage of their Income Taxes.
You are being disingenuous by talking about a lower tax rate for hedge fund managers who pay a lower capital gains rate.
You are just flat lying by ignoring that the possible rate of return of their investment is zero (loss).
You are, as always, being stupid by acting as if an economy which is starved for activity, will be better server by taxing capital gains at a higher rate.
You are being a central planner by calling for increased investment in the same speech that you called (apparently) for increased capital gains tax, logically implying that you want the government to do the investing.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
5 DEFERMENT DICK CHENEY
Five time deferment Cheney in his new book knocks Colin Powell, and John McCain, who actually served in war time and were true American hero's. This guy has no shame and next to Robert McNamara is one of the all time America's worst. Headed up Haliburton and did not even know what they sold, and one of the most corrupt corporations in the United States.
Macho Dick served up Condaleeza as " crying" in his office, even if true it is not what a gentleman should say or worst write.
Dick Cheney book should be taken as a "supermarket tabloid" not a book written by a Vice President of the United States but what else would you expect from this a--h---.
OH! and by the way this brave American asked for and got an extension on his secret service protection after office, the only Vice President in History to do so.
Are you Afraid Dick? Oh I forgot 5 deferment Cheney your not afraid of anything. Torture, lying, and blaming everyone else is your legacy Dickie boy.
Macho Dick served up Condaleeza as " crying" in his office, even if true it is not what a gentleman should say or worst write.
Dick Cheney book should be taken as a "supermarket tabloid" not a book written by a Vice President of the United States but what else would you expect from this a--h---.
OH! and by the way this brave American asked for and got an extension on his secret service protection after office, the only Vice President in History to do so.
Are you Afraid Dick? Oh I forgot 5 deferment Cheney your not afraid of anything. Torture, lying, and blaming everyone else is your legacy Dickie boy.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Scandal! (or how I bankrupted our country with a multiplier)
The current administration has set a relative record for the absence of a scandal, until now, due primarily to the....Republicans! Usually the opposition party finds something to puff about, but the American people figure it, and it's irrelevance out (White water and Iran Contra come to mind).
This time, the opposition has focused laser like on the issue of our day, debt and the size and scope of government, and clearly drawn a distinction. We want reduced government, reduced government spending, self reliance, self responsibility, and low taxes.
They want, and their is no real controversy about our respective differences, government control, central planning, an ever enlarging safety net increased debt and higher taxes, mostly on the higher earners.
We want Capitalism, they want Socialism.
Which brings us to Solyndra, the $500,000,000 boondoggle. When we arrived at our economic peril, this administration, supported by a "progressive" Congress, decided to spend a vast amount of money to stimulate the economy. The opposition argued that the money would be better spent on broad based tax cuts, however this was dismissed because of the supposed "multiplier" effect of government spending.
The theory was that to resolve our economic mess, we needed a huge infusion of money (money we did and do not have) spent at the direction of our central government, which would be done so efficiently, it would (it is hard to write this without giggling) multiply its efficiency. "Studies" were cited showing its effectiveness. (funny, "studies" are used as a reason to propose reorganization of our life to prevent global warming...I mean climate change...(it never did warm, darn it).
Well how is that hope and change and multiplier effect working so far?
Our glorious leader decides to revive our country via...green energy jobs and taxes on the high earners. He/They are just so smart, they know what needs to be done, put money into bridges and clean energy jobs, except...there have been a minuscule number or green jobs created and....we still have "145" dangerous bridges which need to be fixed (according to our President) and if we love him we will pass his jobs bill.
However one might ask, um....Mr. President, why didn't we fix these bridges with the first stimulus bill? (and why do you so need to be loved?, but that is for another post.) Could it be, because central planning never works and it always leads to corruption? Wonder how many bridges we could have fixed for $500,000,000?
***********************
The bankruptcy of solar-panel maker Solyndra neatly encapsulates the economic, political and intellectual bankruptcy of Barack Obama’s Big Idea. It was the president’s intention back in 2009 to begin centrally reorganizing the U.S. economy around the supposed climate-change crisis.
To what end? Well, Obama claimed his election would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” But that was just the cover story. At its core, Obamanomics is about the top-down redistribution of wealth and income. Government spending on various “green” subsidies and programs, along with a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, would enrich key Democrat constituencies: lawyers, public sector unions, academia and non-profits.
No wonder many Democratic strategists predicted their party’s 2008 landslide win would usher in a generation of political dominance. Obamanomics, essentially, would divert taxpayer dollars to the Green Lobby – and then into the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party. This is what crony capitalism is really all about: politicians enriching favored businesses, who then return the favor. Or maybe it’s the other way around, Who cares, really. It’s an endless, profitable loop for both.
And Obama almost pulled it off. The Great Recession conveniently allowed the president to start the spendathon under the guise of economic stimulus. As it turns out, the $38.6 billion loan program for clean energy firms that Solyndra benefited from has created just 3,545 permanent new jobs after parceling out half its dough. That works out to around $5 million a job.
It’s very difficult to perceive a company with a model that says, well, I can build something for six dollars and sell it for three dollars. Those numbers don’t generally work. You don’t want to lose three dollars for every unit you make.
Unless, of course, American taxpayers make up the difference — though in the case of Solyndra, even government’s thumb on the scale wasn’t enough to save it. And it often isn’t enough when an investment’s goals are a fat political reward rather than a financial one.
“The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” the Office of Management and Budget staff member wrote Jan. 31 in an e-mail to a co-worker. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will be arguably worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”
That’s not how the private sector makes investment decision. But it’s routine for government where the stakeholders are politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and favored constituencies. The takers, not the makers. That’s whose side Obamanomics is on.
This time, the opposition has focused laser like on the issue of our day, debt and the size and scope of government, and clearly drawn a distinction. We want reduced government, reduced government spending, self reliance, self responsibility, and low taxes.
They want, and their is no real controversy about our respective differences, government control, central planning, an ever enlarging safety net increased debt and higher taxes, mostly on the higher earners.
We want Capitalism, they want Socialism.
Which brings us to Solyndra, the $500,000,000 boondoggle. When we arrived at our economic peril, this administration, supported by a "progressive" Congress, decided to spend a vast amount of money to stimulate the economy. The opposition argued that the money would be better spent on broad based tax cuts, however this was dismissed because of the supposed "multiplier" effect of government spending.
The theory was that to resolve our economic mess, we needed a huge infusion of money (money we did and do not have) spent at the direction of our central government, which would be done so efficiently, it would (it is hard to write this without giggling) multiply its efficiency. "Studies" were cited showing its effectiveness. (funny, "studies" are used as a reason to propose reorganization of our life to prevent global warming...I mean climate change...(it never did warm, darn it).
Well how is that hope and change and multiplier effect working so far?
Our glorious leader decides to revive our country via...green energy jobs and taxes on the high earners. He/They are just so smart, they know what needs to be done, put money into bridges and clean energy jobs, except...there have been a minuscule number or green jobs created and....we still have "145" dangerous bridges which need to be fixed (according to our President) and if we love him we will pass his jobs bill.
However one might ask, um....Mr. President, why didn't we fix these bridges with the first stimulus bill? (and why do you so need to be loved?, but that is for another post.) Could it be, because central planning never works and it always leads to corruption? Wonder how many bridges we could have fixed for $500,000,000?
***********************
The bankruptcy of solar-panel maker Solyndra neatly encapsulates the economic, political and intellectual bankruptcy of Barack Obama’s Big Idea. It was the president’s intention back in 2009 to begin centrally reorganizing the U.S. economy around the supposed climate-change crisis.
To what end? Well, Obama claimed his election would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” But that was just the cover story. At its core, Obamanomics is about the top-down redistribution of wealth and income. Government spending on various “green” subsidies and programs, along with a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, would enrich key Democrat constituencies: lawyers, public sector unions, academia and non-profits.
No wonder many Democratic strategists predicted their party’s 2008 landslide win would usher in a generation of political dominance. Obamanomics, essentially, would divert taxpayer dollars to the Green Lobby – and then into the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party. This is what crony capitalism is really all about: politicians enriching favored businesses, who then return the favor. Or maybe it’s the other way around, Who cares, really. It’s an endless, profitable loop for both.
And Obama almost pulled it off. The Great Recession conveniently allowed the president to start the spendathon under the guise of economic stimulus. As it turns out, the $38.6 billion loan program for clean energy firms that Solyndra benefited from has created just 3,545 permanent new jobs after parceling out half its dough. That works out to around $5 million a job.
It’s very difficult to perceive a company with a model that says, well, I can build something for six dollars and sell it for three dollars. Those numbers don’t generally work. You don’t want to lose three dollars for every unit you make.
Unless, of course, American taxpayers make up the difference — though in the case of Solyndra, even government’s thumb on the scale wasn’t enough to save it. And it often isn’t enough when an investment’s goals are a fat political reward rather than a financial one.
“The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” the Office of Management and Budget staff member wrote Jan. 31 in an e-mail to a co-worker. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will be arguably worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”
That’s not how the private sector makes investment decision. But it’s routine for government where the stakeholders are politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and favored constituencies. The takers, not the makers. That’s whose side Obamanomics is on.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Turns out Mark was right
Imagine you’re in the Obama White House, and this is what you face. Democrats lose a special election in a congressional district they have controlled since the 1920s and which was framed as a referendum on the president. There’s a possible scandal brewing over the White House’s effort to rush federal reviewers for a decision on a nearly half-billion dollar loan to a solar-panel manufacturer, Solyndra. The most recent Census Report shows median household earnings fell for the third consecutive year, back to 1996 levels. A record number of Americans are in poverty. In Afghanistan, the Taliban mounted a fierce assault on the U.S. embassy and NATO military headquarters in Kabul. A new CNN/ORC poll shows Obama’s disapproval rating has reached a new high while the number of Americans who think he is a strong leader has dropped to a new low. And that’s just today.
On a human level, one can sympathize with what the president, his advisers, and his supporters are going through right now. But there is a cautionary tale in this as well. When Obama was running for president, he was dismissive of those who came before him. The problems we faced, at home and abroad, would be fixed by signing this executive order and passing that piece of legislation. Hope and change were on the way. “I’m LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game,” Obama is reported to have said back in 2004.
Being president seemed so easy before he actually was president. At the point he took the oath of office, the problems became harder to manage, more difficult, more intractable. “When I said, ‘Change we can believe in,’ I didn’t say, ‘Change we can believe in tomorrow,’ ” Obama told an audience last month. “Not, ‘Change we can believe in next week.’ We knew this was going to take time, because we’ve got this big, messy, tough democracy.”
Every person who runs for president, it’s fair to say, has a healthy ego. But Obama was different; the self-assurance, the arrogance, the sense that he viewed himself as a world-historical figure was almost palpable. “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions,” Obama told congressional Democrats during the 2008 campaign. A convention speech wasn’t enough; Greek columns needed to be added. “Generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment,” Obama said – a moment when, among other achievements, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.” And during the campaign, while still a one-term senator, Obama decided he wanted to give a speech in Germany– and he wanted to deliver it at the Brandenburg Gate.
Yet now we see the Obama presidency coming apart, piece by piece, day by day. Democratic lawmakers are attacking the president on the record. The unhappiness in Obama’s own party toward the president might soon evolve into an open revolt. Those who supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 are saying, with some degree of self-satisfaction, “I told you so.” And the words of Solomon will be proven right again. “Pride goes before destruction,” he wrote in Proverbs, “a haughty spirit before a fall.”
If you dig beneath the rationalizations and the excuses, the field of strawmen, and the barrage of attacks on the motives of his opponents, one can only wonder: In his quiet moments, during times of self-reflection, has Obama –an educated and literate man — learned much of anything from all this?
On a human level, one can sympathize with what the president, his advisers, and his supporters are going through right now. But there is a cautionary tale in this as well. When Obama was running for president, he was dismissive of those who came before him. The problems we faced, at home and abroad, would be fixed by signing this executive order and passing that piece of legislation. Hope and change were on the way. “I’m LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game,” Obama is reported to have said back in 2004.
Being president seemed so easy before he actually was president. At the point he took the oath of office, the problems became harder to manage, more difficult, more intractable. “When I said, ‘Change we can believe in,’ I didn’t say, ‘Change we can believe in tomorrow,’ ” Obama told an audience last month. “Not, ‘Change we can believe in next week.’ We knew this was going to take time, because we’ve got this big, messy, tough democracy.”
Every person who runs for president, it’s fair to say, has a healthy ego. But Obama was different; the self-assurance, the arrogance, the sense that he viewed himself as a world-historical figure was almost palpable. “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions,” Obama told congressional Democrats during the 2008 campaign. A convention speech wasn’t enough; Greek columns needed to be added. “Generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment,” Obama said – a moment when, among other achievements, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.” And during the campaign, while still a one-term senator, Obama decided he wanted to give a speech in Germany– and he wanted to deliver it at the Brandenburg Gate.
Yet now we see the Obama presidency coming apart, piece by piece, day by day. Democratic lawmakers are attacking the president on the record. The unhappiness in Obama’s own party toward the president might soon evolve into an open revolt. Those who supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 are saying, with some degree of self-satisfaction, “I told you so.” And the words of Solomon will be proven right again. “Pride goes before destruction,” he wrote in Proverbs, “a haughty spirit before a fall.”
If you dig beneath the rationalizations and the excuses, the field of strawmen, and the barrage of attacks on the motives of his opponents, one can only wonder: In his quiet moments, during times of self-reflection, has Obama –an educated and literate man — learned much of anything from all this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)