Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Jul 24, 2009
President Obama Earns Bernard
After due diligence in investigations, several considerations, and many recommendations, President Obama is here awarded with the Bernard for his achievement of a trillion dollar addition to the National Debt in 2009.
Feb 20, 2009
COMMENTARY: ARRA or Stimulus? Oregon as an Example
Spending without taxing forces printing money. Printing money causes inflation.
If you are willing to vote for this package, then if it does not work you should be able to take a cut in salary. For a U.S. Representative or Senator, it should be their whole salary if their State or District fails to have the jobs materialize in their area.
The low end claimed for the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is 3 million jobs. That is about one job for every 101 people in a nation of 305 million people.
In the House of Representatives there are 435 US Representatives who vote and 6 who do not vote that represent the Territories that are not States. That is about 691,609 people each for 441 who represent the people of the States and territories.
So, that means about 6917 for each District. In Oregon, there are five Congressional Districts. That would mean at least 35,580 jobs for Oregon, if you figure it that way.
If you look at the total population again, 305 million, Oregon is 3.8 million of that or one in every 81 U.S. citizens. If you divide that 3 million jobs by 81, that means Oregon should get at least 37,037 jobs from ARRA. One of the Oregon U.S. Representatives is claiming we will get 44,000 jobs from this spending, so this seems fair.
It sounds helpful, too, when we have about 180,000 unemployed in Oregon. . That 180,000 is twice the unemployment of a good economy, so we need to reduce to 90,000 unemployed.
However, let's just hold the Representative to the 37,037 jobs. That would mean this ARRA should bring the unemployment down to 143,000. So, if we are at that low end by the end of the year, the Representatives who voted for ARRA should be able to keep their salary and job. Otherwise....
However, remember that one in 81 figure. The ARRA costs $787 billion. That means ARRA is costing Oregon $9,716,049,382 to get 37037 jobs or $262,232 per job.
Can't we get a better deal than that? If we paid workers to just build windmills at $62,232 per worker, including wages and benefits, that would be a very good deal for the workers.They would still have wages of $42,000 after paying for benefits.
Yet, it would leave $200,000 left over for those roads and bridges we need. But even if we just built windmills, it would be a better use of our money. You can install at least three sizeable wind generators for $200,000. Imagine 37,000 windmiills and 37,000 people employed for a year.
Would you rather have? The "Stimulus Plan" of Congress? Or mine?
Write the Whitehouse Here.
Feb 19, 2009
Feb 15, 2009
Conflicts Between Economy and Energy
Can Obama balance the budget between Economics and Energy? Will Obama make compromises between foreign policy and commitments to renewable resources?
When the oil prices were high, it made production more feasible in the US in places where drilling costs more. Since the cost of oil decreased several US drilling rigs were moved and crews were cut back.
This decrease in price also caused an economic pinch in the Middle East nations around the Persian Gulf. If the market is unbalanced, yes we will take measures to balance the market,OPEC’s Abdullah al-Badri said. “We will do anything we can to balance the market. After February 15-16 when we will have all the information, we will decide,” he said.
While there has been some talk of President Obama loosening restrictions on the filing of environmental impact statements in order to speed up the use of the $819 billion bailout money, there is no loosening in issuing permits for coal fired plants. Coal fired energy plants do keep down US use of petroleum, which President Obama vowed to decrease.
He claimed in a Lansing, Michigan campaign speech he would eliminate dependence on oil in the Middle East in ten years. In addition, he said he would create five million new jobs by that trategically investing of $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future. Any increase in economic activity is going to require more energy.
If the US will spend less on oil or try to limit US dependence by taxing foreign oil, OPEC is going to increase the cost of oil until they get back to their original revenues for oil. Any savings with alternative energy will still be passed onto OPEC. OPEC's position is they are more than willing to charge the US more and send less oil.
Can Obama balance the budget between Economics and Energy? Will Obama make compromises between foreign policy and commitments to renewable resources?
When the oil prices were high, it made production more feasible in the US in places where drilling costs more. Since the cost of oil decreased several US drilling rigs were moved and crews were cut back.
This decrease in price also caused an economic pinch in the Middle East nations around the Persian Gulf. If the market is unbalanced, yes we will take measures to balance the market,OPEC’s Abdullah al-Badri said. “We will do anything we can to balance the market. After February 15-16 when we will have all the information, we will decide,” he said.
While there has been some talk of President Obama loosening restrictions on the filing of environmental impact statements in order to speed up the use of the $819 billion bailout money, there is no loosening in issuing permits for coal fired plants. Coal fired energy plants do keep down US use of petroleum, which President Obama vowed to decrease.
He claimed in a Lansing, Michigan campaign speech he would eliminate dependence on oil in the Middle East in ten years. In addition, he said he would create five million new jobs by that trategically investing of $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future. Any increase in economic activity is going to require more energy.
If the US will spend less on oil or try to limit US dependence by taxing foreign oil, OPEC is going to increase the cost of oil until they get back to their original revenues for oil. Any savings with alternative energy will still be passed onto OPEC. OPEC's position is they are more than willing to charge the US more and send less oil.
Feb 11, 2009
The Blame Game: GOP Is Guilty
It does not matter how the Stimulus Plan turns out for some because if it fails or aggravates the economy they already claim, "If the stimulus plan doesn't work, it won't be because it wasn't bipartisan -- it will be because it's not big and bold enough."
Experience has shown the public does not work that way. Those with a vested interest in their party act as if by mere election and the passing of bills that change has been made. If change is not seen immediately, the public starts digging in and disapproves of all the usual suspects, starting with the President and Congress.
This is one of the problems with a two party system. A progressive government has referendums for a vote. Without that input the public is alienated by not being included. Public confidence needs to be high to recover. People have more confidence if they have already invested their vote on an issue personally.
The housing market did not crash in 2008. It crashed in the third quarter of 2007. The stock market did not crash in 2007. It took its first tailspin the day President Bush made reference to the housing market and started talking about a recession. The public is always at the ready to believe bad news.
Following that was a downturn in consumer goods. Following that was a downturn in employment. This is a spiral caused by a crisis of confidence most of all.
Normally, when a market makes a downturn on its own, normally precious metals like gold and commodities like oil take a giant hike. This is more like the Depression where commodities took a dive.
Experience has shown the public does not work that way. Those with a vested interest in their party act as if by mere election and the passing of bills that change has been made. If change is not seen immediately, the public starts digging in and disapproves of all the usual suspects, starting with the President and Congress.
This is one of the problems with a two party system. A progressive government has referendums for a vote. Without that input the public is alienated by not being included. Public confidence needs to be high to recover. People have more confidence if they have already invested their vote on an issue personally.
The housing market did not crash in 2008. It crashed in the third quarter of 2007. The stock market did not crash in 2007. It took its first tailspin the day President Bush made reference to the housing market and started talking about a recession. The public is always at the ready to believe bad news.
Following that was a downturn in consumer goods. Following that was a downturn in employment. This is a spiral caused by a crisis of confidence most of all.
Normally, when a market makes a downturn on its own, normally precious metals like gold and commodities like oil take a giant hike. This is more like the Depression where commodities took a dive.
The Have Less Versus the Have More
Again, the "Have Less" are being played against the "Have More," by the collectivist pundits. They are quick to pimp out the "poor" in an emotional claim that the "poor" are being robbed by the "rich." The poor do not pay taxes, so help me understand how this money is taken from them.
The wealth of this nation comes from its means of production. If that means of production decreases, there are fewer jobs and less wealth created. The government and the poor of this nation are consumers of that production - not producers.
Unlike some, I do believe that maintaining the infrastructor by the govenment is a plus in such areas as creating and maintaining roads, bridges, dams, et cetera.
There comes a point at which the cost of government is more than we can afford. When the government responds to recession with more spending or less taxes, it results in printing more money. If more money is printed, it becomes worth less. We call that inflation.
For those that are employed, they can somewhat keep up with the inflation in the cost of living. For those on a fixed income, that is not so. They see their buying power decrease daily.
Some of the fixed income issues are resolved by entitlement programs, but that results in more printing of money. The end result is the spiriling inflation rather than a leveling off.
This is particularly so when entitlements become such a high percentage of government spending. The increase in entitlements can account for every one of the yearly deficits since 2001, when Speaker of the House Dennis Hastart took office. The safety net became a hammock.
The cost of government has steadily climbed since 2001 as well. That can be calculated in a relative way by dividing the U.S. budget by the U.S. Gross Domestic Produce. That was less than 18.5% before 2001 and was beyond 21% with the 2007 budget.
During the campaign, President Obama said he would keep it down to the levels of President Reagan, which was, by his statement, 18.5%.
The best figure that President Obama claims of the Stimulus Plan is that it will create four million jobs. Regardless of how the final bill he signs is tuned to, it is going to be over $800 billion. If the Stimulus Plan is about jobs, then each of those jobs is going to be created at a cost of $200,000.
As I wrote at first, I believe the infrastructure is a valuable investment for the government. This is particularly so in areas where private industry cannot create those things that are needed by the public, like roads, bridges, and dams. A little thought would add such alternatives as solar/wind generation and information technology (satellites/internet) as well. From looking at the budget, that is a very small percentage of the budget.
Most expenditures in the Stimulus Plan that are on my "dream list" of projects that have nothing to do with either creating jobs or building up the infrastructure. Unfortunately, they are not expenditures that are likely to stimulate the economy.
In regard to the politics of the Stimulus Plan:
If the Republicans are correct and the Democrats are wrong, the Stimulus Plan will stimulate a a return to Republicans to power. Bipartisanism is just a way to avoid that.
On the other hand, if the Republicns are wrong and the Democrats are correct, the Democrats will claim a great victory and demolish the Republican Party for a century.
If three million jobs are not created and the economy continues to spiral downward, it will not go well with the Democratic Party. If the increase in spending and printing money cause the economy to go into an inflation spiral, then there will be fewer Democrats in office.
If the unemployment rate goes into double digit figures, then there will be a loss of the House in two years. If it continues after that, there will be a loss of the Senate.
Since a similar stimulus plan was attempted by Japan in the 1990s and failed, it gives good reason for the confidence of the Republican Party in rejecting the Stimulus Plan of 2009.
If this were a stock market issue, the bullish Democratic Party is buying on the margin and the Republican Party is bearish and selling short.
The wealth of this nation comes from its means of production. If that means of production decreases, there are fewer jobs and less wealth created. The government and the poor of this nation are consumers of that production - not producers.
Unlike some, I do believe that maintaining the infrastructor by the govenment is a plus in such areas as creating and maintaining roads, bridges, dams, et cetera.
There comes a point at which the cost of government is more than we can afford. When the government responds to recession with more spending or less taxes, it results in printing more money. If more money is printed, it becomes worth less. We call that inflation.
For those that are employed, they can somewhat keep up with the inflation in the cost of living. For those on a fixed income, that is not so. They see their buying power decrease daily.
Some of the fixed income issues are resolved by entitlement programs, but that results in more printing of money. The end result is the spiriling inflation rather than a leveling off.
This is particularly so when entitlements become such a high percentage of government spending. The increase in entitlements can account for every one of the yearly deficits since 2001, when Speaker of the House Dennis Hastart took office. The safety net became a hammock.
The cost of government has steadily climbed since 2001 as well. That can be calculated in a relative way by dividing the U.S. budget by the U.S. Gross Domestic Produce. That was less than 18.5% before 2001 and was beyond 21% with the 2007 budget.
During the campaign, President Obama said he would keep it down to the levels of President Reagan, which was, by his statement, 18.5%.
The best figure that President Obama claims of the Stimulus Plan is that it will create four million jobs. Regardless of how the final bill he signs is tuned to, it is going to be over $800 billion. If the Stimulus Plan is about jobs, then each of those jobs is going to be created at a cost of $200,000.
As I wrote at first, I believe the infrastructure is a valuable investment for the government. This is particularly so in areas where private industry cannot create those things that are needed by the public, like roads, bridges, and dams. A little thought would add such alternatives as solar/wind generation and information technology (satellites/internet) as well. From looking at the budget, that is a very small percentage of the budget.
Most expenditures in the Stimulus Plan that are on my "dream list" of projects that have nothing to do with either creating jobs or building up the infrastructure. Unfortunately, they are not expenditures that are likely to stimulate the economy.
In regard to the politics of the Stimulus Plan:
If the Republicans are correct and the Democrats are wrong, the Stimulus Plan will stimulate a a return to Republicans to power. Bipartisanism is just a way to avoid that.
On the other hand, if the Republicns are wrong and the Democrats are correct, the Democrats will claim a great victory and demolish the Republican Party for a century.
If three million jobs are not created and the economy continues to spiral downward, it will not go well with the Democratic Party. If the increase in spending and printing money cause the economy to go into an inflation spiral, then there will be fewer Democrats in office.
If the unemployment rate goes into double digit figures, then there will be a loss of the House in two years. If it continues after that, there will be a loss of the Senate.
Since a similar stimulus plan was attempted by Japan in the 1990s and failed, it gives good reason for the confidence of the Republican Party in rejecting the Stimulus Plan of 2009.
If this were a stock market issue, the bullish Democratic Party is buying on the margin and the Republican Party is bearish and selling short.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)