GraniteGrok

Blogging will be a tad light for a bit....involved in some TEA Party activities are requiring my attention. so the longerish posts will have to wait.  In the mean time....

Uncertainty is the problem.  Small business, both at the national level and here in NH, is under attack from the Lefty Progressives.  Some believe them (that is, small businesses) to be nothing more than "social benefit" entities (re: mandating social benefits), some believe they are ATM machines where one can just hit the right buttons to get the cash (without worrying about the accounts going dry), or just hate the idea of something being successful without the Government playing a role.

This from Boortz does a good job at a summary:

I'll just share one quote with you here. This is from Bill Dunkelberg of the National Federation of Independent Business:

"The horizon is filled with cost unknowns, from healthcare to cap and trade to yawning deficits and the need to come to grips with them, from paid family and medical leave to card check, from expiration of the Bush tax cuts to state decisions about their finances. Washington cannot expect small business owners, facing difficult economic circumstances anyway, to commit themselves to investing in new employees or equipment and vehicles without acknowledging and revealing the policy-inspired costs that will be imposed on them. It is all about uncertainty and confidence."

"Uncertainty and confidence." Uncertainty as to what this anti-Capitalist in the White House is going to do next, and a complete lack of confidence in his belief in the private sector.

Indeed.  If I still owned a small biz with employees, I'd be loathe to hire anyone, lest the cost bankrupt me.  Buying new equipment?  Why should I, if the new taxes that the socialists want to levy upon me actually come to pass. Inserting more of Government by mandating long periods of paid leave?  Who do the anti-capitalists believe are going to want to purchase my goods or services at the prices I will then have to charge?

All decisions have consequences.  Thus far, I see not a single decision from DC that would signal that the Progressive Dems are done beating on those that normally create the jobs.  Not one.

Most biz people want certainty (and that is not the same as security). I say most, as it seems that Obama and the new policies are leading us to a statist corporatism where companies will profit from playing the political game instead of competing in the marketplace; I have, at times, chronicled that advance trend here on the 'Grok a few times.

Want to really test that theory?  Ask those biz people who lean or who are very left in their political thought: how people have you hired in relationship to your employee base?  Why aren't you hiring more to support Lynch / Norelli / Obama / Reid / Pelosi?  Why aren't you putting YOUR money where you want others to put theirs?

Uncertainty - who has brought it and why?  Remember the phrase: Determined Weakness

Posted by Skip at 5:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The result?

Telling, isn't it?

Republicans are often derided by Democrats by calling them "pro-business" and the Dems laud themselves as being "pro-labor".  

Yeah, real pro-labor; just less of them....

Posted by Skip at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yeah - short / quick takes today....nothing long until, oh, say after lunch time. Like this from Business Week:

President Barack Obama said he and his administration have pursued a “fundamentally business- friendly” agenda and are “fierce advocates” for the free market, rejecting corporate criticism of his policies.

I guess when your Frame of Reference says that Government should own or control ALL private sector activity, then he has been "business friendly".  And definitions matter too - I'm not sure that he and his cabinet would recognize if it came up from behind them and bit them in the ass.

oy....this fits in well with the phrase "with friends like these..." 

Posted by Skip at 8:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bet that got your attention, eh?  There is some logic to it when you ponder "why did the Stimulus bill, that was rushed through the process at the start of Obama's administration, delay its spending until, oh say, elections?"

What the hell? This man says last week that “we acted — immediately and aggressively” and this week says “by design, the bulk of the remaining 50 percent of Recovery Act funds will be deployed in the coming months of 2010.”

That is not immediately and aggressively. He says “one in ten Americans still cannot find work” but also says in his budget, “the Administration moved rapidly to sign into law, just 28 days after taking office, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Recovery Act) to create and save jobs, as well as transform the economy to compete in the 21st Century.” (Budget at p. 8)
Obama is trying to have it both ways. He admits his stimulus money is dragging out and that even after 18 months it won’t all be spent. At the same time, he tells the public at the State of the Union that the reasons there is still 10% unemployment is “bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn’t” and “Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.”

So between that and the sense of companies, big and small, that the prudent thing is to just hunker down and not "venture" out during this recession, no jobs.  That stance has arisen as the Obama Administration has pretty much every thing possible to tell companies "you have no idea what is coming next!".  Demonizing capitalism by bad mouthing the banks, taking over companies and industries, promising taxes up the yinyang, raising this cost and that cost and yet another cost by issuing policy statements and threatening ever more regulation after regulation; if I owned a company right now, the LAST thing I'd be doing would be adding the potential of much higher costs by hiring people.

Companies are not ATMs and they are not social services organizations.  Their one and only mission is to create profits.  

Given his bent towards socialist or outright self-avowed Communist advisers (e.g., Van Jones, those extolling Chairman Mao), what capitalist would want to add more risk to their portfolio with more potential "loss centers" (formerly called "employees")  courtesy of the Federal Government?

I can assure you all that this attempt at proving that a centralized "command and control" of an economy will not be any better than any other attempt in history.  When will the Progressives ever learn that a handful of people, no matter how smart they may be or think they are, can never match that of millions all looking to their own (and family) self-interests.

Posted by Skip at 8:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Entertaining for the slightly wonky set - or if you want to see economics portrayed as Hip-Hop (sorta).  I am of the free market persuasion in that people should be allowed to make up their own minds and have the freedom to be in the market as THEY wish - and not under the rubric of "but we know better" as the Keynesian believers as all Progressives are.  After all, without the reins of control, they'd be, er, free marketers which is hardly the truth (e.g., Obama's words of not wanting to run the banks, the car companies, the hospitals certainly belie his actions).

(H/T: Cafe Hayek)

I also though these charts show that the US does NOT run under a true free market environment (Barney Frank and the Left's words to the opposite).  From the Cato Institute:

The number of federal subsidy programs soared 21 percent during the 1990s and 40 percent during the 2000s. The entire nation is jumping aboard Washington’s gravy train. My assistant, Amy Mandler, noticed the recent addition of two new Department of Justice programs, and that pushed us over the threshold to reach 2,001.

There is a federal subsidy program for every year that has passed since Emperor Augustus held sway in Rome. We’ve gone from bread and circuses to food stamps, the National Endowment for the Arts, and 1,999 other hand-out programs from the imperial city on the Potomac.

...Most people are aware that federal spending is soaring, but the federal government is also increasing the scope of its activities, intervening in many areas that used to be left to state governments, businesses, charities, and individuals. To measure the widening scope, Figure 1 uses the program count from current and past editions of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. The CFDA is an official compilation of all federal aid programs, including grants, loans, insurance, scholarships, and other types of benefits.

Figure 2 shows the number of subsidy programs listed in the CFDA by federal department. It is a rough guide to the areas in society in which the government is most in violation of federalism—the constitutional principle that the federal government ought not to encroach on activities that are properly state, local, and private.

As the federal octopus extends its tentacles ever further, state governments are becoming no more than regional subdivisions of the national government, businesses and nonprofit groups are becoming tools of the state, and individualism is giving way to a more European desire for cradle-to-grave dependency.

Yet recent election results indicate that Americans may be starting to wake up and fight back. Whether we are more successful than Cicero and Cato the Younger in battling to retain our limited-government republic remains to be seen.

 The more that the Feds encroach, the more it spends, thus the more it grabs from its citizens....

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

and I said that I would go find the rest.  Turns out that the one I had was #3 of a 5 part set.  Thus, here is number 1 - the rest are after the jump.

Continue reading "Yesterday's clip from Milton Freidman on the Donahue show..." »

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The state of manufacturing has been very much put down over the last few years.  While we may have graduated to the "knowledge economy" or the "service economy", we really do make a lot of stuff - a LOT of stuff (contrary to Conventional Wisdom).

One of my favorite columists, Walter E. Williams (Professor Emeritus and former head of the Economics Dept at George Washington), has the smackdown on the those talking "mfg smack" (emphasis mine):

Let's look at manufacturing. According to Dr. Mark Perry's Department of Labor employment data, in his article "Manufacturing's Death Greatly Exaggerated", U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink. Before you buy into the call for Congress to do something about manufacturing job loss, there are some other facts to be considered.

According to the Federal Reserve, the dollar value of U.S. manufacturing output in November was $2.72 trillion (in 2000 dollars). Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is $234,220. Output per worker is three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. For the year 2008, the Federal Reserve estimates that the value of U.S. manufacturing output was about $3.7 trillion (in 2008 dollars). If the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy, with its own GDP, it would be tied with Germany as the world's fourth richest economy. The GDPs are: U.S. ($14.2 trillion), Japan ($4.9 trillion), China ($4.3 trillion), U.S. manufacturing ($3.7 trillion), Germany ($3.7 trillion), France ($2.9 trillion) and the United Kingdom ($2.7 trillion).

These facts put a lie to claims we hear about how we are a country that "doesn't produce anything anymore," and how we have "outsourced our production to China," and there's been a "demise of U.S. manufacturing." U.S. manufacturing has gone through the same kind of labor-saving technological innovation as agriculture. Should we discard that innovation in the name of saving jobs?

My employeer works with LOTS of manufacturing sites all around the country and I am on the phone constantly with a fair number of them.  While it is true that most have taken hits during the current recession, it has not died and is not on its death bed.

Posted by Skip at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

(Original GraniteGrok picture)

While I did not support Mitt Romney in the last Presidential, no one can reasonably attack his business acumen (and yes, I disagree with his idea of MassCare).  Here's 10 good ideas:

• Repair the stimulus. Freeze the funds that haven't yet been spent and redirect them to immediate, private sector job-creation priorities.
• Create tax incentives that promote business expansion and hiring.
  
• Prove to the global investors that finance America's debt that we are serious about reining in spending and becoming fiscally prudent by adopting limits on non-military discretionary spending and reforming our unsustainable, unfunded entitlements.
  
• Close down any talk of carbon cap-and-trade.
  
• Tell the unions that job-stifling "card check" legislation is off the table.
  
• Don't allow a massive tax increase to go into effect in 2011 with the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
• New spending should be strictly limited to items that are critically needed and that we would have acquired in the future, such as new military equipment to support our troops abroad and essential infrastructure at home.
• Install dynamic regulations for the financial sector — rules that are up to date, efficient and not excessively burdensome. But do not so tie up the financial sector with red tape that we lose a vital component of our economic system.
• Open the doors to trade.
• Stop frightening the private sector by continuing to hold GM stock, by imposing tighter and tighter controls on compensation, and by pursuing a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Government encroachment on free enterprise is depressing investment and job creation.
  

Go here to read more.

Posted by Skip at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Left (read Democrats) are always about helping the poor - too bad that they they don't actually ever review their programs to see if:

• did it work
• do other programs enhance the first one or screw it up?

The underlying question that many Conservatives have is: what is poor?  Really poor?  It seems that the international standard is either $1 or $2 / day.  Here in the US?  Well, certainly there was some "feedback" over this post ("the poor of the world should be so rich as our poor....").  

Well, I ran across this post over at Cafe Hayek that pointed over to The Austrian Economists one that had US Census data that pointed out the relative Consumption inequality (vs Income inequality):

I think these data largely speak for themselves.  The only categories where the poor have become "worse off" are in freezers (likely due to more being built into fridges) and now telephones, which is, of course, explained by the gains in cell phones. Stoves are down slightly, but that too could be due to swapping regular stoves for microwaves or even toaster ovens.  In any case, it's a pretty small decline.

The overall lesson is clear:  lives for Americans below the poverty line continue to get better in terms of what they are able to put in their households and have to make use of everyday. And do note that the average American household in 2005 was doing much better than its 1971 counterpart.  MUCH better

Sure, the goods bought by the upper class may be of better quality or have more features, but it shows that from an "item basis" the vaunted inequality touted by the Left seems to lose a bit of steam.

This is followed up with another chart:

Continue reading "How Poor is Poor - Redeux?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I like reading John Stossel as often he proclaims a down to earth message with common sense appeal.  In addition, what he talks about is grounded in results rather then an ideological background.  When I saw his column, so apropo for today, it does need to be reviewed.

Why?  Allow me to inject a bit of what some might consider politics on a day given over for other-than-politics.  The lesson learned by the Pilgrims is one that we should be paying close attention to, as we are looking to select a new leader, just as the Pilgrims selected Bradford as their new leader. I see the Democratic candidates all running to socialistic tendancies more and more - think "it takes a village" on steroids.  Yet, given history's results on "the common good" and the hatred that seems to be simmering on the Left for capitalism, sometimes we do need to pay attention to what history tells us of certain choices and actions, lest we repeat them over and over....

Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. "Isn't sharing wonderful?" say the teachers.

They miss the point.

Because of sharing, the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.

The failure of Soviet communism is only the latest demonstration that freedom and property rights, not sharing, are essential to prosperity. The earliest European settlers in America had a dramatic demonstration of that lesson, but few people today know it.

When the Pilgrims first settled the Plymouth Colony, they organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share everything equally, work and produce.

They nearly all starved.

Why?

Continue reading "A lesson from the First Thanksgiving" »

Posted by Skip at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

To me, a free market person, this chart from the Enterprise Blog was stunning:

Many Democrats say that Healthcare is the most important issue in the land at this time - why else would the Congress be spending the time and effort on it?  The general populace, more and more, is rejected that notion if one reads the polls.  Instead, they are concentrating on two numbers:

10.2 %            17.5%

And these numbers are the official unemployment rate and the "unofficial underemployment" rate.  People, and rightfully so, want Jobs - there is much to be said for the phrase "The business of America is business".  I still believe that most people want to work - they still have that work ethic and that ethos that says "I want to provide for me and my family".

When I look at the above graph, and I see who Obama has surrounded himself as advisors, and the policies that have already been enacted under the banner of their Socialist ideals, my outlook on their success of starting a job creation bonanza grows dim indeed. Why?

Their Stimulus bill has done little so far - one of the biggest spending bills ever has failed in the private sector with respect to stimulating ANYTHING.  If one looks at the history thus far, the jobs that have been affected are those resting solely in the loving hands of Government - the public sector.  Effectively, it should have been called the "Propping up Government Jobs Stimulus Plan" and nothing more.

The real problem is that the policies needed to invigorate the private marketplace run 180 degrees in the opposite direction to what this Administration espouses.  If, by some happenstance, they do start to put in policies that would lower the price of hiring employees, to make it easier for businesses to make and sell their products and services, we will know one very important thing:

It will be an admission that Socialism, once again, has failed.

My fear is that Obama will never, ever be able to admit that - putting his ideology ahead of the needs of the Country. 

Elections matter - let us make sure that 2010 really matters.

Posted by Skip at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by Andrew Hemingway:

I am not a financial advisor, and am not going to give you financial advice. I am merely going to explain to you what I think will be your best investment in 2010.

As we all have seen and been following our economy is in the tank. Unemployment is at a high, interest rates are on the rise, Federal Govt. debt is skyrocketing, and Goldman Sachs is shorting banks. We are staring straight into a financial situation that is fundamentally changing our country. So with real estate gone, the dollar on its way, and the stock market so volatile few are investing what should you do?

Here is why:

1. A conservative will slow spending and decrease our national debt- If we can slow the amount of spending at the federal level there is a chance to slow the disintegration of the dollar. The more debt that we continue to amass, the further into the hole our dollar goes, and with the whole world betting against the US at this point there is a lot of pressure on the Dollar.
2. A conservative will fight to audit the Fed. -The Fed has been running unchecked for many years now, and it needs to be reeled in if not shut down. There has to be more accountability and transparency. For our Congress to not be able to check the powers of the Fed is not right and a violation of our Constitutional rights.
   
3. A conservative will lower taxes – Cutting spending and lowering taxes is absolutely critical to our financial sustainability. We know that lower taxes is the only real stimulus that has ever worked. We have to put money back in the hands of entrepreneurs as they are the engine to our economy and the creator of jobs.
   
4. A conservative will kill ridiculous regulation – Our country is being held hostage by the “Administrative Branch” of our Govt. The EPA, and the Dept. of Education just to name a few. We must cut these bogus programs that do nothing but give bureaucrats jobs and write outrageous legislation that cripples out economy and demands massive debt and higher taxes. 
   

The best investment that you can make in 2010 is to find good conservative candidates and donate the maximum that you can. There has never been a greater need to make sure that good candidates are well funded. They are putting themselves out there, spending thousands of their own money, and we have to support them. We must donate to these solid candidates, and we must do it now. We need to make sure that they are flush with cash. This does not meant that you have to give thousands of dollars to each candidate. What it means is that you need to give the most that you can, the absolute most that you possibly can muster. This is after all the best investment you can make in 2010. 

Posted by Skip at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Jack Kimball (GG file photo)

From the Kimball Gubernatotorial Exploratory Committee:

CONCORD, N.H.—The AP reported a $12 million shortfall for New Hampshire revenues in October. This is further proof that, while national leaders and economists would have us believe the worst is behind us, the reality for New Hampshire's citizens is that the worst could be yet to come.

“The sad truth is that none of this is any surprise,” said Jack Kimball, exploratory candidate for governor. “The warning signs have been around for some time, in fact before the current budget was even crafted. The present leadership in Concord, led by Governor Lynch, has squandered several opportunities to hunker down and prepare the state to ride out this serious economic storm.”

Kimball went on to say that Lynch’s budget has put the New Hampshire Advantage in danger. The economic woes faced by New Hampshire require drastic and bold measures and leadership that has been lacking in the administration for many years.

 “I call upon Governor Lynch to convene the state's budget leaders for a summit—not a gimmick to talk about how we can raise taxes, but a meeting designed to seek real and immediate solutions to the crisis at hand,” said Kimball. “Invite innovators that have studied the budget and its contents and have offered solutions. Call in some of New Hampshire’s captains of industry. Find out what can be done to reduce spending now, and ask business leaders what the state can do for them in order to jump-start employment hiring and commerce.”

“If New Hampshire businesses are healthy, they will be able to contribute to the state's coffers. If we reduce spending and streamline government, we'll need less to begin with.” Kimball continued, “I will be bringing a plan with me with intentions of its implementation should I choose to run for governor. The unfortunate situation we find ourselves in at this moment, however, tells me we cannot wait that long. The time is now. Will Governor Lynch step up and do something, or will it continue to be business as usual, which is to stand by and do nothing?”

As reguklar readers know, Jack Kimball is a Portsmouth small businessman and activist leader. Visit his exploratory campaign website here. What a breath of fresh air compared to Gov Do-Nuthin' Lynch...

Posted by Doug at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The State is awash in red ink.  Everywhere you look there are new taxes and fees, while existing taxes and fees have been substantially increased.  And to top it all off, the Legislature just held a “tax summit” to talk about how to take even more of our money.  Yet no attempt is made to cut wasteful and unnecessary government spending.  A prime example is the $17 million in “renovations” planned for the Hillsborough Superior Court in Manchester.

Superior Courts in New Hampshire are arranged according to county.  Each county has one courthouse except for Hillsborough County which has two, one in Manchester and one in Nashua.  The courthouse in Manchester, which is known as Hillsborough North, is scheduled to close for 18 months beginning in January, 2010, so that $17 million in renovations can be made to it.  This includes $2 million to remove asbestos.

While these renovations take place, Hillsborough North will move into the Hillsborough South courthouse in Nashua.  According to Stephen Lorentzen, the state administrator for the Bureau of Court Facilities, “the building has capacity for much of the [Manchester] staff without us doing anything.”  This raises an obvious question:  Why, if the Nashua courthouse has the capacity to house both Hillsborough South and Hillsborough North, do we need a Hillsborough North, let alone a Hillsborough North renovated to the tune of $17 million?  The question answers itself.
 
The savings from closing Hillsborough North would exceed $17 million.  We would only have to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of one facility.  And if run properly, it should take less staff to operate the court at just one facility.  Some of the overlapping or redundant positions could be left unfilled as they become vacant over time due to resignation and retirement.
 
Even if Hillsborough South does not have the capacity to also house Hillsborough North on a permanent basis (which is very hard to believe since it will be housing Hillsborough North for 18 months), why during this time of record deficits are we not simply removing the asbestos from Hillsborough North?  If there were ever a time not to be building a judicial Taj Majal, it is now.

What makes this exercise in judicial self-indulgence particularly galling is that the Supreme Court is talking about closing all courts in New Hampshire for 12 days as a way to deal with the State’s budget mess.  Talk about being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

In fairness, the judiciary is not the only branch of government that views the taxpayers as ATMs.  Then Hillsborough County Attorney Marguerite Wageling requested that her staff of attorneys be given an extra hour a day of pay plus mileage money for commuting to Nashua.  Incredibly, the County Delegation approved the request.  Wageling has since been made a Superior Court judge.  Fiscally, she should fit right in.

Posted by Ed Mosca at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by State Senator Jeb Bradley 

The recent release of New Hampshire’s revenue receipts simultaneously offers glimmers of hope while raising even more concerns about the State Budget enacted in June.

First the good news: The “Rainy Day Fund” which is the State’s hedge against economic downturns ended the fiscal year with $56 million more of a cushion than anticipated. Governor Lynch froze new hiring, deferred equipment purchases, and curtailed out of state travel to produce these savings. 

Despite the fact that Governor Lynch and Democratic Legislators approved an overall spending increase in 2007 of 11.17% and in 2009 of 10.48%, the Governor’s executive orders curbed the worst excesses of the Legislature’s spending blitz that has increased expenditures from $9.36 billion to $11.5 billion during that time.

This $56 million in the Rainy Day Fund will be a critical one-time buffer if the State loses its NH Supreme Court appeal of the JUA (Joint Underwriting Association) lawsuit. This lawsuit comes from a budget provision attempting to simply “take” $110 million from a fund designed to keep a lid on physician’s medical liability insurance costs. The State’s attempted money grab has already been ruled in violation of both the State and Federal Constitutions by the Superior Court.

The mixed news is that business tax revenues were only 4% lower than expectations. While it is preposterous to call any shortfall good news, in comparison to last year’s business tax receipts that were off by 25%, being 4% below expectations is a slim glimmer of hope. However, it's also a warning that if the trend continues the State will face a nasty budget deficit.

Despite the good and the mixed news, NH is far from out of the budget woe woods as the bad news dwarfs the good. Other revenue sources are badly underperforming, despite many taxes being increased in the budget. Receipts from the rooms and meals tax, communication tax, and real estate tax are all down by about 9%. The interest and dividend tax is down a whopping 25%. Even tobacco taxes are down slightly.  In the three months since the budget was enacted revenues are down a total of $26 million or 6.4%. Should this trend continue the deficit will only grow.

Now that the state employees union has rejected the proposed contract that would have implemented 19 furlough days, Governor Lynch must begin a series of layoffs to save a mandated $25 million. Whether he will run into roadblocks if the union files a grievance for each position eliminated or political roadblocks from his allies in the Legislature – these savings may be questionable. 

So with all these budget monkey wrenches, it is certainly understandable that its authors are quick to claim that the national economy is to blame and that revenues are likely to rebound when the economy turns around. But that is a cavalier attitude based on wishful thinking rather than rational evidence.

Continue reading "A Little Good News, Some Mixed News But Even More Bad News in Concord" »

Posted by Doug at 7:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Stimulating Misery
Guest Post by Robert Romano

The White House is prepared to unleash another so-called “stimulus” upon the U.S. economy, according to Yahoo! News. Only, they do not want to admit it’s a “stimulus”. According to White House spokeswoman, Jennifer Psaki, "The fact is that this is a word game.”

It could add up to over $100 billion in tax funds when all is said and done. Which may help explain why the White House dare not use the “s” word.

First off, this would be the third such so-called “stimulus.” The first occurred in 2008 under President George Bush totaling some $152 billion. The second occurred earlier this year, costing the taxpayers $787 billion. And that’s without even calculating interest that will be owed by future generations for what amounts to record-level deficit-spending, borrowing and printing cash designed to prevent the economy from sliding—but actually further pushing it—into the Abyss.

Put together with $300 billion for foreclosure “prevention” in 2008, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, $200 billion to nationalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, over $300 billion in FDIC liquidity guarantees, the Federal Reserve’s $300 billion committed to purchase treasuries, and other initiatives, the federal government has kicked out more than $4 trillion to “rescue” the economy. And it has pledged as much as $12.8 trillion as “necessary.”

That’s over 3.58 times what the federal government collected in individual income taxes in 2007, some $1.115 trillion. Put another way, the government could grant a three-year moratorium on income taxes, and it would still not equal the amount of money that the government has put on the table in its failed attempt since 2007 to “stimulate” the economy.

In addition, the Federal Reserve has had the money spigots on high, more than doubling the money supply since last year. And it has left the federal funds rate near zero.

But to no avail. The stark fact is, the real reason the White House would rather not call its new plans “stimulus” is because, to date, the previous efforts have not achieved their stated aims. And the American people full well know it. The economy is still in recession. In fact, the Gross Domestic Product has shrunk for the past four economic quarters at about 2.7 percent.

All the while, the Administration has insisted the American economy is in “recovery.”

Continue reading "With "recoveries" like this, who needs [more] "stimulus?"" »

Posted by Doug at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

STEWARD STUDY: HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL PLANS INCLUDE HIDDEN COSTS FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE’S BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Economists’ Report Tells Granite State Businesses to Brace for Hundreds of Millions in New Taxes

CONCORD, NH – New Hampshire businesses would have to pay as much as $229 million to comply with Democrat plans to overhaul America’s health care system, according to a report released today by Concord-based STEWARD of Prosperity. Additionally, the creation of three new marginal tax rate brackets could result in Granite State businessmen and women facing a 47.25% federal income tax rate – putting the state behind European countries like France and Italy in terms of competitiveness.
 
“We all know that Democrat health care proposals are bad for patients, but this report reveals how ruinous their plans would be for Granite State businesses,” said Fred Tausch, of Merrimack, STEWARD of Prosperity’s founder. “Imposing expensive federal mandates and higher taxes on New Hampshire business owners would discourage job creation at a time of high unemployment. Moreover, legislation that would make New Hampshire’s business climate less competitive than France’s is unacceptable.”
 
The report, produced by Haverhill, NH-based economists J. Scott Moody and Dr. Wendy P. Warcholik, examines the “play-or-pay” mandate and income tax surcharges included in “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” (H.R. 3200) – health care reform legislation currently pending in the U.S. House of Representatives. Their warning: “New Hampshire’s Congressional delegation should reflect long and hard before working against the long-term efforts of New Hampshire’s state and local governments to keep the state economically competitive… higher income tax rates at the federal level will harm New Hampshire’s international economic competitiveness.”
 
Highlights of the report, entitled “Federal Health Care Reform Includes Hidden Penalties for New Hampshire Businesses,” follow:

• The “play-or-pay” health insurance mandate for employers being considered by Congress would cost Granite State businesses $215 million to $229 million.
• As a result of a proposed income tax surcharge that would create three new marginal tax rate brackets, New Hampshire businesses that file through the individual tax code would face a combined income tax rate of 47.25%
• In a survey of American states and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, this higher tax rate (47.25%) would place New Hampshire behind Canada (46.41%), France (45.8%) and Italy (44.9%) in terms of combined federal, state and local income tax rate burdens.

Posted by Doug at 9:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After attending a hearing with the Judiciary Committee this morning, one thing's for sure, the Democrats are back at it again.  They are trying to push through MORE radical legislation this year. 
 
The Judiciary Committee met today to hear proposed amendments to HB 304 which is a physician assisted suicide bill. 
 
Yes, in the middle of a recession, when people are losing jobs and seeing their wages frozen, the Democrats again remind us what's important to them.  This time, they want to create death panels to administer a death dose to terminal NH residents.

Did they miss something?  Like the latest news on the unemployment rates, job losses, stagnant wages, and foreclosures?  Or are they simply forging ahead with more social engineering projects that do nothing to help the average NH resident?
 
After several requests from the Republicans on the Committee to include public testimony, the Democrats voted to deny public input.  Several people took time out of their day to offer testimony however the Democrats denied them their voice today.  There was some discussion about a future meeting in which the public might be able to testify, I guess we have to hope and pray the Democrats allow them a voice at a later time.
 
Well to all of you who are concerned about your jobs, the current economic crisis, a quality education for your children, healthcare, etc.  the message is loud and clear: Democrats do not hear you but hey, they did bring us gay marriage, a transgender rights bill and now a death panel to administer a death dose.
 
Can you say?  Out of touch!!  A new slogan aimed at the Democrats in NH.........

IT'S THE JOBS...STUPID!
 

Posted by Ann Marie at 4:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As the debate over the nationalization of health care rages on—and rightfully so, we must not lose sight of the many other proposed policies and plans being put in place right beneath our noses as we focus mainly on that single topic. Indeed, while all eyes are on the value of extending granny’s end of life care and comfort versus ‘slipping her a mickey’ in order to save a few bucks, the forces of big government march forward apace. What, you haven’t noticed? Of course you haven’t—because they don’t WANT you to. That’s the whole idea-- by the time enough people finally wake up and finally get a load of what all the promised “change” really meant, it will be too late. Those who would strip the founding principles from our Nation and replace them with their own radical ideals will have won. Freedom and liberty will be quaint-sounding words that will have no meaning in the new America.

One way in which large numbers of Americans could lose their freedom by default is via economic collapse. Let’s face it- in a situation of hyperinflation, ordinary hard working folks will suddenly find themselves without enough means to sustain themselves as it takes more and more cash to pay for everything. Recall last year’s extreme spike in gas prices and what it did to peoples’ budgets. When the cost of putting gas in a car or truck needed to get to work and everywhere else suddenly doubled, it immediately put a severe strain on being able to maintain life as everyone knew it. Without that extra fifty to a hundred bucks or more a week, life was dramatically altered. Imagine that same scenario playing out not just on energy, but on EVERYTHING we buy.

Surprisingly, the opposite of massive inflation, “deflation,” can also be just as harsh, albeit in different ways. FreeDictionary.com’s financial dictionary informs us that

“Deflation, the opposite of inflation, is a gradual drop in the cost of goods and services, usually caused by a surplus of goods and a shortage of cash. Although deflation seems to increase your buying power in its early stages, it is generally considered a negative economic trend because it is typically accompanied by rising unemployment, falling production, and limited investment.”

A logical result is that taxable situations decline, causing revenues into the Treasury to fall. Quite naturally, this leaves less funding to pay for government and all its services. In the absence of any reductions or cuts, taxes must be raised, or monies must be borrowed. What happens when they do both?

Consider some news you might have missed. As President Obama and his statist comrades seek to add untold costs to a federal budget already drowning in debt and red ink by scheming to provide health care for all, everyone forgets the 800 pound gorilla already in the room: a badly damaged economy getting worse by the day. Never mind whether it can withstand the added expenses of new health care spending—even without, we may be looking at a huge problem. “But Doug—I heard on the news the other day that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The recession is over, and it is thanks, in no small part to all the stimulus spending!” Do you always believe everything you hear? Sometimes you have to dig a little deeper... you know, get BEHIND the facade that those with an agenda see fit to create.

Continue reading "Insufficient Funds? Uh-oh!" »

Posted by Doug at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I get older, it seems to be that I see the younger set not valuing the "institutional memory" of those that have "been there, done that - screwed by it".  As we are told "there is nothing new under the sun".   In this case, government, yet again, decided to pick winners in the marketplace.  Now, we are seeing, yet again, what happens when the political wind then shifts and political considerations decree that the eye turns from "the winners":

Summer may be winding down, but investors holding solar energy stocks are getting one nasty burn. Shares of companies that make solar panels have flamed out this year, missing out on what's been a significant recovery in the stock market...

...Unlike the big drops in other once-hot stock groups, solar's troubles aren't just caused by speculators rushing out. There are some real problems in the industry behind the sell-off of the stocks:

Last year, for instance, Spain put a cap on its solar incentive program, causing the demand from a country that accounted for a big piece of the market to shrink 80%, Bullard says. Of even more concern is Germany, the largest solar consumer in the world, which is mulling a cut to incentives to buyers of solar power, Hersey says. "Since Germany is the largest market, it sets the tone," she says, adding some solar companies get 60% of revenue from Germany. The subsidies have become unpopular because much of the money is going to Chinese, not German, solar companies, she says.

A glut of solar panels. Makers of solar panels were so sure demand would surge this year, they went into overdrive producing them, says Christine Hersey, analyst at Wedbush Morgan.

But the flood of supply has swamped demand. Prices of solar modules are in free fall, down about 50% since last year, says Nathaniel Bullard of energy market research firm New Energy Finance. Solar panels now sell for about $2.50 per watt, he says.

Questions over government subsidies. Thanks to generous programs to encourage green power, European nations have been top buyers of solar modules. However, many are scaling back their subsidies, causing more softness in demand.

And the American Government is starting to ramp it up domestically.  Trust me, it won't last.

Most economists know that a free market, patrolled by Government for the basics (e.g., enforce contracts, throw law breakers into jail, et al) works best.  Markets where most of the rules are set by government or where government is the "800 lb gorilla in the room"when it uses its buying or regulatory power to "nudge" the winners?  Or permits rent-seeking by corporations (like GE is doing?  Not so much, to the disadvantage to the rest of us.

This scenario in the solar energy industry already happened in the 70's / 80s when solar energy was all the rage back then too. Companies popped up, prospered, and like Icarus's flight to the Sun, they fell to earth when scorched by a change in government policy - as in the above, tax credit policy.

It plainly shows, too, that without government pricing (by making a resource cheaper than what it really is), alternative energy just cannot compete in the marketplace.  True, there will be those that will adopt it, not for economic reasons, but for their own moral or "feel good", or to "make a statement" reasons.

Yet, is that a sufficient reason for government to force that morality upon those of us with more frugal sense of our energy economics?

Once again the question: are we a free people that consents to a Government, or do we have a Government that has subjects?  Should we have control of ourselves, or should we submit that freedom to those that "know better"?

Posted by Skip at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

President Bush famously told his FEMA director during the Katrina clean-up "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job".

Yeah...sure he did....now we can say the same thing about Obama and his crew "Heckofva job, dudes".  Remember that $787 BILLION Stimulus was supposed to keep unemployment, according to President Obama and "Turbo-Tax Timmy" Geithner, to 8% or less.

Heck of a job there, managing the economy.....just a heck of a job....

And we're supposed to believe that they can adequately manage our healthcare?  Remember one thing folks - The Cars for Clunkers program.  Thousands of dealers are waiting a long time to get their money from the cars they sold under the promise that the Feds would pay for each new car sold that qualified under the CoC program.  Went real well, that program that forced taxpayers to give up their money so that others could buy new cars - hundreds of thousands of cars sold.  

Now, the Feds are stiffing the dealers to the point that some are now close to financial ruin from being overextended (easy credit for mortgages, credit cards, Federal money - what's the difference!) as they "slow pay".

Remember one very important thing:

The Cars for Clunkers are a single payer system.

(H/T: Instapundit)

Posted by Skip at 8:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

NH Leadership, Democrat style:

Posted by Doug at 7:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

 

NH Dems "attacking" budget woes with great vigor...

The NHGOP rightfully pans the great "leadership" we are witnessing by Gov Do-Nuthin' Lynch and his fellow majority Democrats:

CONCORD – Six days after a Superior Court ruling blocked the attempted theft of $110 million from the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association (JUA), Governor John Lynch, Senate President Sylvia Larsen (D-Concord), and House Speaker Terie Norelli (D-Portsmouth) are refusing to address, or even acknowledge, the state’s critical budget crisis. According to published reports, Lynch and the Democrats are rejecting calls to develop a “Plan B,” and are pinning their hopes on the unlikely scenario that the state will somehow be allowed to steal the private funds to balance the state budget.

“No one is talking about how to fix a problem, because none of them acknowledge one exists,” reports the Union Leader (8/2).

“John Lynch and the Democrat Majorities are failing the people of New Hampshire by refusing to acknowledge – much less address – the serious budget crisis facing the state,” said NHGOP Communications Director Ryan Williams. “It’s time for the Democrats in power to swallow their pride, admit that they made a serious error in proposing this irresponsible and unconstitutional revenue scheme, and work with Republicans to fix this problem immediately.” 

Republican leaders in the House and Senate repeatedly warned Governor Lynch that his attempt to steal private money to balance the state budget was unconstitutional and would likely be overturned by the courts. After the Superior Court initially froze the JUA money on June 29, 2009, Republican senate minority leader Peter Bragdon immediately called on the Governor to veto the budget and work on a new plan that excluded the disputed funds. Lynch ignored Bragdon’s warning and signed the Democrats’ irresponsible budget on June 30 – knowing full well that it would be out of balance on day one. Senate President Larsen has also brushed off calls for a special session to address the crisis, saying that she sees “no immediate need,” for it (Larsen Statement, 7/31).

Lynch has “deflected repeated questions from reporters about contingency plans,” (AP, 6/30) in the event that the court would halt his irresponsible revenue scheme. Despite obvious indications that the state wouldn’t be able to claim the surplus funds, Lynch has “repeatedly declined to detail alternatives and instead emphasized his belief in the rightfulness of the state's claim to the money.” (Concord Monitor, 7/30) Since the decision was announced, Lynch has continued to dodge questions about how he plans to address the staggering deficit and has merely stated that he hopes the State Supreme Court would overturn the Superior Court’s decision. 

“John Lynch needs to realize that while ‘hope’ may be a successful Democrat campaign slogan, it’s not an effective or responsible governing strategy,” said Williams. “The State of New Hampshire cannot afford for this Governor to sit on his hands and avoid developing a contingency plan while the court reviews his risky revenue gambit. That’s the same failed approach that got us into this budget mess in the first place.”

Posted by Doug at 8:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by State Senator Jeb Bradley 

New Hampshire residents weary of dreary summer rain received a frightening jolt of lightening when a Judge blocked Governor John Lynch’s attempt to transfer $110 million dollars of private funds to State coffers.  Belknap County Superior Court Justice Kathleen McGuire ruled that an extremely controversial provision in the recently enacted New Hampshire Budget, which transferred $110 million from a fund controlled by the Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) to the State’s General Fund to balance the budget, is unconstitutional.  Justice McGuire’s well researched, clearly written and completely unambiguous ruling, held that Governor Lynch and members of the Legislature who supported this proposed $110 million transfer, are in violation of both the ‘takings’ and ‘contracts’ clauses of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Governor Lynch has already indicated the State will appeal the decision but it is hard to imagine, given McGuire’s opinion, that the Supreme Court will overrule her.

The JUA was formed in 1975 to provide medical liability insurance to physicians and currently provides over 20% of the medical liability coverage in New Hampshire. The Judge ruled the JUA is independent from the State. More importantly, physicians, not the State, contribute to its funding and when the JUA faced a deficit in 1985 a surcharge on doctor’s policies was assessed to cover the gap--not State funding. Twice in the past, the JUA distributed surplus funds to policy holders--not the State. Given these facts, it’s political hubris and arrogance seldom seen in our State, for the Democratic supporters of this budget to simply expropriate $110 million. These unseemly political shenanigans, now defy both our state and federal constitutions.

The sanctity of contracts is one of the underpinnings of our society, as is the prohibition of the government taking a person’s property without just compensation.  Good for Justice McGuire for upholding constitutional principles and shame on politicians who believe the State can simply break contracts and take property it doesn’t own, to enable the gravy train of a 10.5% state spending increase.

Continue reading "Concord's Unconstitutional Budget Provision" »

Posted by Doug at 4:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The back story - Clinton imposed a 100% retaliatory tax on Roquefort cheese because the French wouldn't accept our beef.  Bush pushed that to a 300% tariff because:

...because of persistent sales despite the 1999 levy." 

L.A. Times, March 18, 2009

In other words, Government retaliated, not against the French, but against its own citizens for not doing what it though was the right thing. Government did not believe that citizens were acting in their own best self interest - so it punished them some more.

Wait until it happens with healthcare in a socialized, Government run system!

Take the 3:19 to watch this vid that displays Roequefort cheese as a metaphor for Government deciding that it knows better how the marketplace should work and how that distortion plays out. 

Best lines?

• It will be a decision made for me (commenting that she will be unable to obtain the cheese)
• It is not just an issue for the wealthy
• It is about removing everyone's freedom of choice
• Choices will be made for you instead of you being able to make your own choices...you won't have the option of doing so
  

The takeway is that when Government meddles, the little guy suffers:

Continue reading "An economics lesson via cheese - why Government distortions matter in the free marketplace" »

Posted by Skip at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 HEALTH CARE PLANS WOULD COST TAXPAYERS, DRIVE UP DEFICIT

Guest post by Sean Mahoney 

During a tele-town hall meeting this week, Rep. Paul Hodes discussed his support for a trillion-plus dollar health care reform package with his constituents. “We’ve got to lower costs for everybody,” he said. Who does he think he’s kidding? If we “lower costs for everyone,” where exactly is the trillion dollars going to come from?

As the massive stimulus act has shown, a trillion dollars doesn’t suddenly appear because Congress appropriates it.  It comes in the form of higher taxes on small businesses, families and, in order to cover the crippling debt, our grandchildren.

There is no doubt the existing U.S. health care system is in financial trouble and in need of significant reform. Each year, America spends over $2.4 trillion on health care, significantly more than any other nation.  At the same time, more than 47 million citizens are uninsured and, as a nation, we forgo over a trillion dollars a year in productivity due to illness.  This is unsustainable.

Unfortunately, the measures offered by President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority in Washington increase taxes and the federal budget deficit, diminish our control over our health care choices, fail to improve the quality of our health care and will force many Americans who are presently satisfied with their health coverage out of their private plans and into a government plan.

President Obama has said he will not sign a bill that increases the deficit. Therefore, every new cent of spending in the health reform bill must be paid for with new taxes. Good luck. We are in the worst economic conditions since the 1930s. American small businesses can little afford the 8% payroll tax penalty the Democrats would levy against them if they can’t afford to provide insurance to their employees. Nor can the so-called rich be squeezed for any more than the Obama administration has already appropriated from them to finance his failed stimulus act.  Many of the “wealthy” individuals on whose wallets the Democrats set their sights are actually small business owners and entrepreneurs; the very same job creators who need to succeed financially if we are to climb out of the recession. The last thing our struggling economy needs now is an additional trillion dollars in new taxes.

 

Continue reading "Who does Hodes think he's kidding?" »

Posted by Doug at 2:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Has Gov Do-Nuthin Lynch finally met his Waterloo? This presser from the NHGOP reports on the rock and a hard place in which the NH Governor presently finds himself...

CONCORD – One day after a Superior Court ruling blocked his attempt to steal $110 million from the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association (JUA), Governor John Lynch is frantically scrambling to address the state’s latest budget crisis. Despite repeated warnings that the court would rule against the state’s claim, Governor Lynch has failed to develop a contingency plan since the court initially froze the funds in June. 

“Its time for Governor Lynch to finally stand up and take responsibility for his failure to produce a balanced and fiscally responsible budget. The Governor was fully aware that his attempted theft of the JUA funds would likely be blocked by the courts - even before he approved this disastrous budget,” said NHGOP Communications Director Ryan Williams. “His irresponsible actions further prove that during these challenging times, John Lynch is incapable of providing responsible and effective leadership for the State of New Hampshire.” 

Republican leaders in the House and Senate repeatedly warned Governor Lynch that his attempt to steal private money to balance the state budget was unconstitutional and would likely be overturned by the courts. After the Superior Court initially froze the JUA money on June 29, 2009, Republican senate minority leader Peter Bragdon immediately called on the Governor to veto the budget and work on a new plan that excluded the disputed funds. Lynch ignored his warning and signed his irresponsible budget on June 30 – knowing full well that it would be out of balance on day one. 

Lynch has “deflected repeated questions from reporters about contingency plans,” (AP, 6/30) in the event that the court would halt his irresponsible revenue scheme. Despite obvious indications that the state wouldn’t be able to claim the surplus funds, Lynch has “repeatedly declined to detail alternatives and instead emphasized his belief in the rightfulness of the state's claim to the money.” (Concord Monitor, 7/30) 

Lynch’s silence has drawn criticism from non-partisan budget watchers including New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies executive director Steve Norton, who said that as a result of the court ruling, “Plan B needs to be developed, and to date, we haven't heard any Plan B," from the Governor. (Concord Monitor, 7/30) Since the decision was announced, Lynch has continued to dodge questions about how he plans to address the staggering deficit and has merely pledged to appeal the decision to the State Supreme Court. 

“John Lynch’s only solution to this budget crisis is to cross his fingers and hope that it will somehow fix itself. That’s not leadership – that’s a dereliction of his duties as New Hampshire’s chief executive,” said Williams. “During these tough economic times its becoming increasingly obvious that now more than ever New Hampshire needs a new governor.” 

Governor Lynch’s crumbling state budget faces additional challenges as even more lawsuits threaten to unravel his irresponsible revenue schemes. Local government leaders are moving forward with a separate lawsuit to stop the Governor from reducing the state’s share of the retirement contribution rate for municipal employees and downshifting costs to local taxpayers. A court has also issued an injunction requested by the New Hampshire Health Care Association that halts Lynch’s attempt to rescind an $8.8 million dollar payment to Granite State nursing homes.

As a result of his failed leadership and fiscal mismanagement, Governor Lynch’s favorability ratings have plummeted in recent months and his disapproval ratings have reached all time highs. Governor Lynch’s problems only look to get worse in the future as he begins to make plans for the FY 2012-2013 budget. This budget will start off with an immediate $500 million deficit due to his irresponsible use of one-time money in the current budget, and will present the Governor with an even worse fiscal crisis than the one he currently faces.

Hey Governor... HOW ABOUT SOME LEADERSHIP? Oh, that's right-- he's "untested" when it comes to THAT!

Posted by Doug at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

 Shabby sign seems so fitting... 

On Sunday, July 26, the Belknap County Democrats held their summer picnic. With a sparse turnout and little visible enthusiasm save a few mournful violinists, from the outside looking in it was a pretty lame affair. Hard to believe this is a cog in the vaunted Democratic machine that so handily beat the Republicans just a short while back.

Local faithful gather around grill with the featured speaker, Peggo Hodes (white top, black skirt), wife of Rep Paul Hodes (NH-2), the presumptive Democratic nominee for the US Senate race in 2010. He can hang out with fat-cat lobbyists, but can't picnic with Laconians, apparently.

The affair was, however, not lacking in excitement for very long, because suddenly, as if out of nowhere, a Tea Party broke out...

.

Thus raining on the Democrats' proverbial parade..

 Forces of freedom and liberty on the march, taking it right to the root of the threat.

The group grew, prompting a man passing by in his truck with his 2-year old to stop and ask to join in the march, so moved was he by the sentiment the Tea Partiers expressed, and the message being delivered to the majority Dems:

Continue reading "Local Democrats hold a picnic and a Tea Party breaks out..." »

Posted by Doug at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by Andrew Hemingway

The Tale of Two Bridges

Mark Steyn tells this story in a recent column for the WSJ Opinion Journal

This story is the story of every town in NH. Every Budget Committee member in this great state needs to read this and if we all start acting accordingly we would have a dramatic impact. Not just on the state budget, but our town budgets, and our Federal Budget:

“A friend of mine is a New Hampshire "selectman," one of those municipal offices Tocqueville found so admirable. In 2003, a state highway inspector rode through and condemned one of the town's bridges, on a dirt road that serves maybe a dozen houses.

That's the bad news. The good news was the 80/20 state/town funding plan, under which, if you applied to Concord for a new bridge, the state would pay 80 percent of the cost, the town 20. So they did. The state estimated the cost at $320,000, so the town's share would be $64,000. Great. So the town threw up a temporary bridge just down river from the condemned one, and waited for the state to get going. Six years later, the temporary bridge has worn out, and the latest revised estimate is $655,000, such that the town's share would be $131,000.

That's the bad news. The good news is that, under the "stimulus" bill, they can put in for the 60/40 federal/state bridge funding plan, under which the feds pay 60 percent, and the state pays 40, and thus the town would be on the hook for 20 percent of the 40 percent, if you follow. If they applied for the program now, the bridge might be built by, oh, 2015, 2020, and it'll only be $1.2 million, or $4 million, or $12 million, or whatever the estimate will be by then.

But who knows? By 2015, there might be some 70/30 UN/federal bridge plan, under which the UN pays 70 percent, and the feds pay 30, and thus the town would only be liable for 20 percent of the state's 40 percent of the feds' 30 percent. And the estimate for the bridge will be a mere $2.7 billion.

While the Select Board was pondering this, another bridge was condemned. The state's estimate was $415,000, and, given that the previous bridge had been on the to-do list for six years, they weren't ready to pencil this second one in on the schedule just yet. So instead the town put in a new bridge from a local contractor. Cost: $30,000. Don't worry; it's all up to code—and a lot safer than the worn-out temporary bridge still waiting for the 80/20/60/40/70/30 deal to kick in. As my friend said at the meet- ing: "Screw the state. Let's do it ourselves."

My sentiments exactly!! Good for them! You really should take the time to read the entire Steyn piece, which describes our "gradual slide into servitude" via "The State Despotic" as only he can...

Andrew Hemingway is a candidate for NH's 2nd Congressional Distirct and is the chairman of the Bristol Municipal Budget Committee. Visit his website: www.andrewhemingway.com

Posted by Doug at 7:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

From our friends at Americans for Limited Government:

Posted by Doug at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I don't think anyone is believing the created...or the "saving" bit anymore.

(H/T: Washington Examiner and Jorge!)

Posted by Skip at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

[H/T: Paulie]

Posted by Doug at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Small businesses, many of which are just squeking by as it is, are going to *LOVE* this one:

Higher minimum wage coming soon

Federal wage floor will rise to $7.25 an hour on July 24. Hike will be felt in 29 states. Can the job market handle it?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The federal minimum wage is set to increase later this month as the job market shows signs of further decay.

The federal minimum wage will go to $7.25 an hour on July 24 from its current level of $6.55, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

The impact will be felt in 29 states, and many of them plan to match the federal minimum when it goes through.

Seven states already have laws mandating $7.25 minimum pay, while 14 states and Washington, D.C., exceed the new minimum. Employers are required to pay whichever is the highest: Federal or state.

Last July, the wage floor was raised from $5.85 per hour. The increases were mandated by a bill passed by Congress in 2007, when the minimum was $5.15 an hour, where it had stayed for years. 

I've seen a number of stories about teenager unemployment - when the adults are fighting for "leftovers", the high schoolers (and college aged) are getting crowded out - why take someone new when you can get a more experienced person (or, at least more of an adult) for the same price?

Problem is, in this economy, I'm afraid this additional distortion of the marketplace by those that (mostly) are mere professional politicians, is going to further tube the jobs economy.  When human capital becomes more expensive than the resultant profit from that, those that can will try to automate those processes done by people.  Those that cannot will either jettison the unprofitable souls and shift the burden onto the remainder, or shut down completely.

For most businesses, bad decisions evoke a response (hopefully to right the ship).  Bad decisions foisted upon them by Government generally have no recourse - it will be employees that will bear the burden.

Posted by Skip at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

New national bird to replace Bald Eagle?

As we prepare to celebrate yet another Fourth of July, I cannot help but feel a bit melancholy as I review and contemplate the Declaration of Independence, and think about the birth of this “great experiment”, known as America. Have we reached the end of the line, as far as our belief in and adherence to the principles upon which this Nation was founded? When reading the beautiful and eloquent words as created and agreed to by the Founding Fathers, how can you not feel a sense of distance and unfamiliarity when comparing them against the realities we see today.

Consider what is unquestionably the most famous part of the Declaration:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

Are there any “self evident truths” and “unalienable rights” here in the new Age of Obama, or are these things just merely quaint, outdated ideas from a bygone era? Do these words somehow mean the “Creator” gives a woman the right to “terminate” pregnancies? As she exercises “choice,” what about the unborn child’s right to “life?” President Obama has famously declared that that he wouldn’t want his young daughters “punished” with a pregnancy. So much for the unalienable right to life for his grandchildren-- Such a fine example set by our “dear leader.” What part of the Fourth does he honor?

In our supposed enlightened age, how many Americans even acknowledge some sort of “Creator,” anyway? While many claim to believe, they willingly turn a blind eye as the rights given us by the Creator are systematically stripped away—even to the point of a knowing chuckle or two at those who suggest that much of what our present government does is immoral. “What old-fashioned notions,” they say. “Don’t be so melodramatic.” One must conclude that if they actually believed in a God as a giver of rights to begin with, they would be more vehement in the defense of such. Think about that—why would a person go to the mat for something he or she doesn’t believe in?

Does “pursuing Happiness” give a person the right to the fruits of the labor of others? I suppose one could be happy with getting an extra “slice of the pie” that somebody else has paid for. But what if you happen to be the person that actually earned the “pie?” How happy will you be at the prospect of watching more and more of your just due taken and distributed to others? Is this not what’s happening on a grand scale all around America today? No matter where you look-- whether it’s the federal, state, county, or local government—it’s all the same: all are poised to take an even greater share of the fruits of our labors through taxation. They say money can’t buy happiness, but it sure does help. No matter what consists of “happiness” for a person in 2009, the fact is, it’s going to cost more.

Continue reading "Fourth of July. Are we even worthy?" »

Posted by Doug at 8:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by Fred Tausch

“We must push to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington”

LIKE MOST Americans, I’ve always believed hard work, self-reliance and integrity are all you need to succeed in America. We don’t believe government owes us a living, just the opportunity to succeed or fail by our own initiative, hard work and talent.
 
We want a government that shares our convictions; that does its work, not ours, and does it competently; that manages its budget as responsibly as we manage our own budgets; a government that doesn’t play favorites or use our money to reward the failures of others; a government that earns our trust by trusting us and leveling with us about the cost and performance of its programs.

All we ever seem to get, though, is a government that increases its own prerogatives and power rather than the liberties and opportunities of the people it serves; a government with little accountability and less transparency; a government that tries to do things it was not intended to do and has no idea how to do. And many of the things it must do, it does not do well.

The Republican Party is the party of fiscal discipline, the party that trusted Americans to make their own decisions about how to use their money to build their dreams.  But, when Republican leaders lost their way, they lost me. I voted for George Bush in 2000 because I believed he would be a careful steward of our prosperity. Instead, he and Republicans in Congress turned a budget surplus into a huge deficit. They cut taxes but didn’t make the spending cuts necessary for the government to live within its means. They spent record sums on a bailout of the financial industry that I knew from the outset would be an expensive failure, without giving us any clear idea what the money could be used for and how it would be paid back.

Barack Obama promised to change that, and I hoped he would. He promised to put government on a budget that didn’t exceed its revenues, to be as careful with our money as we are and to take the best ideas from both parties and offer new solutions to the challenges of our time. But as soon as the applause at his inauguration subsided, he began to break his promises.

Continue reading "ATTENTION! Message of "change" ends up meaning what it always has: Government knows best" »

Posted by Doug at 6:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

RI.P.?

Alarming US Budget Deficit Causes Russia to Shift Assets from US Dollars 
Global trend could quickly reduce US standard of living

Guest post by Penny Wise
 
For decades, Russia’s reserve currency has been the US dollar, but the dollar has recently fallen out of favor. The Russian government is now aggressively moving assets into other currencies, and the US dollar is no longer Russia’s majority reserve currency. This action is part of a profound global trend that will quickly, and perhaps permanently, reduce the standard of living of all US citizens. The cause of this is simple: accelerating federal budget deficit spending by the United States.
 
The total federal budget deficit for the first eight months of the federal fiscal year that ends in September was $991.9 billion, with a deficit for May alone that was $189.7 billion. The Obama administration estimates that the total federal budget deficit for the fiscal year ending in September will be $1.84 trillion. This compares to a total federal budget deficit of $455 billion for fiscal year 2008.
 
If the Obama administration estimates are correct, and its estimates have been on the low side, the US federal budget deficit will have increased a whopping 304% in just one year. No matter who is at fault for the deficit, one thing is clear, the federal budget deficit is growing at an alarming rate.
 
To illustrate how financially disastrous this could be, the US federal government is like a person who decides to run up credit card debt and take out a second mortgage after receiving a pay cut. This leads to a lower credit rating, which leads to higher interest rates, which leads to a further deterioration of financial health. This is a financial death spiral.
 
In fact, US government bond prices are dropping, pushing interest rates higher because of “the need of the US government to print more money to meet its massive borrowing needs,” according to the Wall Street Journal MarketBeat. Russia, along with Brazil, India, and China, is concerned the US cannot be trusted to repay its debt. Unfortunately, the US desperately needs these countries to continue to finance its massive debt.
 
The solution for the US government is no more complex than it is for a person receiving a pay cut: stop additional borrowing immediately and reduce expenses now. The only hope for restoring income lost following a pay cut is from increasing productivity, not increasing borrowing. Running up additional debt at an ever-accelerating pace will lead to unstoppable total financial disaster.
 
The US is in a difficult situation, but the solution is clear. Even though most American political leaders are unwilling to face the truth and make hard choices, the American people must resolve as a society to protect the health of the nation. This will include hard work and significant sacrifices on their part, but every generation of Americans has made whatever sacrifices were required. It is our turn now.
 
Politicians, however, often let politics get in the way of solutions that require sacrifice and hard work.
 
President Obama understands the difficulty of asking the voters who elected him to make the sacrifices needed to save the nation. As Derek Thompson writes at TheAtlantic.com, “Obama might be a revolutionary, but he's not a masochist. So more likely we'll continue to kick the can down the road. The deficit will continue to be the next next issue. And we'll see not the return, but the continuation of America's grand debt-payment tradition: Delay-as-you-go.”
 
Kicking the can down the road, delay-as-you-go, will only lead to the continued destruction of the American standard of living. It’s time to face facts and make tough decisions, before it’s too late.

This piece first appeared on the STEWARD of Prosperity website and is used with permission.

 

Posted by Doug at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Other than being the newly crowned fashion queen, what does the President's wife really have to do with anything in the life of an ordinary citizen? Elected to nothing, what business does the First Lady have with legislation and budget and economic issues? And what exactly does she know about such matters, anyway? While I might take sleeveless tunic advice from Michelle Obama, what more does she have to offer a plain 'ole Granite Stater like me? Well, apparently, she has about four and a half million bucks to hand out, actually. From the White House Media Office:

Washington, DC – First Lady Michelle Obama today announced the release of $4,570,592 in grants to community health centers in New Hampshire. The grants will help address immediate and pressing health center facility and equipment needs and increase access to health care for millions in New Hampshire.  The money was made available by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and comes as more Americans join the ranks of the uninsured due to the economic downturn and skyrocketing health costs.

“Community Health Centers provide care to the Americans who need it most and their work has never been more important,” said Obama. “These grants will help centers in New Hampshire serve more Americans who simply can’t afford insurance coverage anymore.”

The Recovery Act Capital Improvement Program (CIP) grants will support the construction, repair and renovation of over 1,500 health center sites nationwide. More than 650 centers will use the funds to purchase new equipment or health information technology (HIT) systems, and nearly 400 health centers will adopt and expand the use of electronic health records.

To see a list of Recovery Act CIP grantees in New Hampshire, go to http://transparency.cit.nih.gov/RecoveryGrants/grant.cfm?grant=HRSA_CIP

Health centers deliver preventive and primary care services at more than 7,500 service delivery sites around the country to patients regardless of their ability to pay; charges for services are set according to income.  Health centers serve more than 17 million patients, about 40 percent of whom have no health insurance. Community Health Centers are the responsibility of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).

The Capitol Improvement grant awards are the third set of health center grants provided through the Recovery Act.  On March 2, President Obama announced grants worth $155 million to establish 126 new health center sites.  Those grants will provide access to essential preventive and primary health care for more than 750,000 people in 39 states and two territories.

On March 27, HHS also awarded $338 Million in Increased Demand for Services grants for health centers. Health centers are using these Increased Demand for Services grants to provide care to more than 2 million additional patients over the next two years, including approximately 1 million uninsured people.

Yep. This'll sure help what ails the American economy the most: more "socialized" health care that we already can't afford. Thanks a lot Mrs. Obama. THANKS FOR NUTHIN'!

Posted by Doug at 9:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by NH State Senator Jeb Bradley...

Supporters of the recently enacted State of New Hampshire budget were quick to claim that it was responsible and that they made tough decisions during difficult economic times. Talk about myth and spin - this budget fits the bill - literally!

Myth #1:  State spending will decrease in the next two years.  Sounds great doesn't it? Unfortunately, this is flat out wrong. Here are the facts: According to the Legislative Budget Assistant--the non-partisan office that is charged with preparing budget figures--total authorized spending in the current budget, which will close June 30, is $10.408 billion. The budget that was just approved and will begin July 1 authorizes spending of $11.499 billion, an increase of $1.091 billion or 10.48% by every known method of mathematics! How can these budget supporters possibly justify this huge increase when people are struggling to pay their bills and now will struggle to pay the higher taxes and fees contained in the budget? This 10.48% increase also comes at a time when other states around the nation on average are actually reducing spending!

Myth #2: The new tax on campsites closes a loophole. If budget writers really thought this tax on camping was closing a loophole it is hard to imagine why they would have introduced it in the wee hours of the night without a public hearing. The fact is that it is a brand new 9% tax on camping. It is positively amazing how supporters of this budget claim to be the politicians that support the little guy.  This budget not only taxes camping, it hikes taxes or fees on meals, tobacco, boat & car registration, salt water fishing licenses and most importantly, property taxes. Nothing can hide the fact that New Hampshire citizens of modest means will be digging deeper into their already empty wallets.

Continue reading "Debunking the myths surrounding NH's new budget" »

Posted by Doug at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Continue reading "Washington's financial figleaf" »

Posted by Bob Bestani at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

(H/T: Newsbusters):

This 1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon gets a further explanation after the jump:

Continue reading "Those that do not study history...." »

Posted by Skip at 8:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

So, not so much.  Typical Chicago results from the Community-Organizer-In-Chief - nada!  And we should be surprised?  Obama's own book said he was a failure at being a C.O. - he couldn't get the job done after 3 (4?) years? Looks like his economic policy results are looking pretty much the same as his C.O. results - lots of rhetoric, lots of people riled up, not much for real results.

This chart screams - "we're wasting $787 Billion for this?!?!?!?".

Can we do a rewind and go back to "do nothing"?  It's like in tennis - when somebody loses a set 6-love and gets upset about some friendly ribbing and says "and you could do better?"; my retort is always "Well, I can't do any WORSE now, can I?"

(H/T: Innocent Bystanders)

Posted by Skip at 10:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Continue reading "Let's import jobs into New Hampshire" »

Posted by Bob Bestani at 8:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Minnesota's 6th District Republican Congressman Michele Bachmann on the recent political interference in automobile dealerships by the government and the unprecedented use of "czars" by the Obama Administration:

"We now have an imperial presidency"

 

 

If only we had representatives such as this from NH. Sadly, we ain't got squat...

[H/T Alex P. story; Steve L pic]

Posted by Doug at 5:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

[New Hampshire State Representative DJ Bettencourt (R-Salem) provides the following snapshot of where the state's budget stands today...]

Guest Post by DJ Bettencourt

It was the hope of many Granite State conservatives that the State Senate would rectify issues with the House version of the budget for fiscal year (FY) 2010-2011. Among the most notable problems with the proposed budget were excessive spending, implementation of a capital gains tax, re-implementation of the “death tax,” and the raising of several other taxes (rooms and meals tax, tobacco tax, and numerous fines and fees). Alas, no such rescue came.

Last week the Senate passed its version of the budget that ensured the debate over New Hampshire’s financial plan would not be a division of fiscal philosophy of higher taxes and extravagant spending versus lower taxes and responsible spending. Instead, the debate would revolve around disagreements about which taxes to raise and which areas would receive the dividends of irresponsible spending. That lack of budget debate is not only regrettable but utterly dangerous for the financial well-being of our state.

Here are a few of the highlights (or lowlights, as the case may be) of the Senate’s proposed budget:

Continue reading "NH Budget Snapshot: Little Hope at this Point for True Fiscal Responsibility" »

Posted by Doug at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In today’s economic environment, helping small businesses create new jobs needs to be our leading priority. Yes, we must take care of the displaced, but we must do it through job creation. The Democrats in Concord can’t seem to understand this.  They keep adding more and more weight onto the state’s business community, expecting them to continue to fly. They have just done it again this week by adding more social safety net legislation at the expense of job creation. While they will now crow about “helping people” their policies will have the exact opposite impact.

America’s economic safety net undoubtedly plays an important role in stabilizing the economy when events or economic situations take a turn for the worse. Markets have always had an unfortunate tendency to over-react in the short run. Therefore, such measures as unemployment insurance serve as a good short term shock absorber to slow the descent while economic policies and normal market forces bring the economy back into balance. Other social safety net policies can also be helpful to an economy and the quality of life.

But as the saying goes, “Taken to an extreme, any virtue can be turned into a vice.” Just as a wrong sized shock absorber on a car can be counter productive, so it is in economics. The Europeans have been seeing this in spades over the last few decades. Several countries like France and Germany have adopted such inflated unemployment and other social benefits that businesses are now very reluctant to hire new people. As a result, unemployment is the overriding problem because existing businesses can’t bear the load. This also means that new businesses are hard to start and job creating innovation is much slower than in the faster paced economies. There is clearly a balance to be struck.

America’s business community is now struggling to survive in the worst economic downturn in the past seventy years. Even the largest and once most successful of businesses are holding on by their fingernails. In the past year we have seen the bankruptcy of some of America’s business icons such as Chrysler and General Motors, Merrill Lynch, Circuit City, and many others. At the same time businesses have been scaling back and closing stores at an alarming pace. As a result, the country's jobless rate jumped to 9.4 percent in May, the highest in twenty-five years. This figure is already higher than the “worse case scenario” of the government’s just completed stress tests. And there is more to come as unemployment will surely pass into the double digits.

Continue reading "Welcome to "North Massachusetts"" »

Posted by Bob Bestani at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We in the private sector can ONLY frown, knowing that in this time of deep recession, our retirement never looked bleaker.  Contrast that to in the Golden State of California; it certainly still is Golden and certainly is High when it comes to public sector pensions for thousands of former public servants. From Joane Jacobs:

The $100,000 club

More than 3,000 retired California educators collect pensions of $100,000 or more per year, complains the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.  I checked the list (pdf) and found a retired community college president and several administrators, but no teachers. Cameron McCune, a retired superintendent getting more than $20,000 a month, may be the top recipient.

My pension from Knight Ridder newspapers represents 15 percent of my peak pay.

From PensionTsunami:

Under the Freedom of Information Act the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility (CFFR) has obtained and posted “The CalSTRS $100,000 Pension Club” — a list of more than 3,000 retired educators who are receiving pensions of $100,000 or more per year. You can access the list in PDF here.

Posted by Skip at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Time to Talk Taxes

Guest post by Senator Jeb Bradley

The Senate Finance Committee last week reported its version of the state operating budget.  It increases overall spending by about a billion dollars or approximately 10% after similar increases in the last budget enacted two years ago.  This budget depends upon $185 million of direct revenue from slot machines as well as hefty tax hikes on businesses in the middle of a deep recession.

Slot machines at race tracks in Salem, Seabrook, and Belmont is a proposal that has been around a long time. The Finance Committee approved up to 13,000 slot machines and two north-country facilities that are estimated to produce $185 million in revenue.  Gambling is not a partisan issue and has determined support because of the added revenue, and determined opposition because of social implications and the change in the fabric of our state it could create. I continue to have concerns about gambling.

While bettors may be laying long odds that gambling will ultimately pass, it is almost certain that taxes are going up.  These looming and precipitous tax hikes are due to the majority party in control of both the House and Senate which has shown no willingness to cut spending as families and businesses are doing to survive the harsh economy.

Here are the major tax proposals being bandied about in Concord:

Continue reading "NH Senate Update by Jeb Bradley: Slots & Tax Hikes" »

Posted by Doug at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

He played a great part on one of many people's favorite TV shows, Coach. Now, Craig T. Nelson plays a great part in real life. Appearing on Glenn Beck and  discussing the economic situations in California and at the Federal level, he noted he may end up paying NINETY PERCENT of his income in taxes. He also read a passage from the Declaration of Independence:

Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Then, closing his pocket-sized copy of that most cherished document, he continued:

But when a long train of abuses and transgressions...

AND, I've had enough of it, so, the only way I can protest in any viable and visible form for myself is to say, "I'm not paying you right now."

To which Beck asked him if he was willing to go to jail. Said Nelson:

I'm going to jail...

Wow! Here's a Hollywood actor not only running his mouth, he's actually putting his money where it is and willing to sacrifice freedom for ECONOMIC freedom.

The discussion went on, with Glenn observing,

You people in California are saving the sea otters. How about saving people?

To which "Coach" replied,

I like sea otters... Some people that want to save the sea otters should pay for them. But if I don't want to save the sea otters is that anarchy?

Followed by the familiar cry,

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!

Posted by Doug at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

As reported in yesterday’s Daily Sun [PDF], Belknap County has once again decided to go the hard route with former Laconia Mayor Tom Tardif and yours truly, declaring that the two of us “don’t know what” we’re “talking about.” While that sentiment as expressed in the front page headline has no doubt excited certain people that love to degrade those who dare criticize local government, the fact remains that, if anything, the story actually vindicates us and the points we have raised.

First, let’s review a little history… When Tom and I questioned the legality of the appointment process used to replace Sheriff Collis, county “leaders” circled the wagons, going to the mat (and all the way to the NH Supreme Court) to prove us wrong. We all know how that ended—with the removal of the Sheriff, and compliance with law in the subsequent appointment of a new Registrar of Deeds. Yep--We won at the highest court in the state, against a lawyer paid for with our tax dollars, but we didn’t know what we were talking about…

Then there was the time that the County Convention (comprised of the delegation of 18 House members from Belknap County) forgot to have a public hearing on the budget. That little fiasco caused the county to adopt a “default” budget for the first time in memory. Funny, they did it the right way this year. Imagine that? Why would anyone do anything suggested by two clowns that don’t know what they’re talking about? It was around that time that the same pair enlightened county “leaders” as to the meaning and proper procedures needed to create and approve a supplemental budget.

And let’s not forget that occasion when Belknap County decided to borrow monies in anticipation of taxes to cover expenses. While Tom Tardif and I were studying the laws on such a matter, the county “leaders” were apparently otherwise occupied trying to do damage control after the head of finance and administration finally got caught with her fingers in the proverbial cookie jar.

Unfortunately for them, SOMEBODY should have been doing the same research as we were, because, as you might recall, they had to go back to the drawing board and do it, yes, you guessed it—OUR WAY. While claiming we weren’t really right, they followed the procedure as outlined by Tom and me in correspondence with the Convention, the bond counsel law firm, the NH Attorney General’s office, the NH Department of Revenue and the County Treasurer. In other words, this time, they would follow the law.

Fast forward to the present…When it comes to the federal dough (Recovery Act “stimulus” funds) flowing into local law enforcement agencies via the 2009 JAG grant program, it sure would be nice to know if the correct state and federal procedures to add these new monies for budgetary spending were used anywhere, be it here in the Granite State, or throughout the country. The NH Attorney General's website has the methods by which a New Hampshire TOWN must do a supplemental appropriation when it comes to receiving grants, but is silent on sheriff’s departments and, more specifically, counties.

The letter that Mr. Tardif and I addressed to the County Convention last week outlined the basic problem as the process was conducted by the Belknap County Sheriff. Unlike the law for towns, (RSA 31:95-b) the county has no “go-around” clause for supplemental appropriations & MUST follow existing laws that call for approval by the County Convention as the governing body, not the Commissioners. In this, we are once again shown to be right, as yesterday’s Daily Sun story stated that the

“commissioners have also agreed to seek supplemental appropriation approval as required by state statute should the JAG grant request be funded."

Would this have happened had Tom and I not raised the issue? But we don’t know what we’re talking about, otherwise…

Beyond that, the other big piece to this is the TRANSPARENCY angle. “Oh, Doug, Obama’s gonna make it right-- You know, the “new transparency movement” blah-blah and all that!” And indeed, the JAG really does call for transparency. The big question is what happens when it is ignored, as is the case here in Belknap?

Continue reading "Tainted "stimulus." Transparency? We don't need no stinkin' transparency!" »

Posted by Doug at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Posted by Doug at 9:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Over the past week or so, I have been receiving emails from various friends and acquaintances making sure I got whatever the latest news happened to be from the new grassroots group STEWARD (Save The Economy Without Accumulationg Record Debt) , and reminding me about the May 21st Stimulus Debate the group will be hosting-- led by Nashua businessman Fred Tausch. "Interesting," I thought. "The news of this fairly new group sure has gotten out quickly." And then I recalled the glossy mailer I got a short while back. I'll bet my friends went to the website advertised and signed up. 

And then, this week, another one showed up in the mailbox. I'll bet this one caught peoples' eyes, because it sure caught mine, taking full advantage of the infamous Air Force One "photo op" during which the presidential plane buzzed New York City, unnanounced, at what would have been "treetop level" were there any. But, even worse for the Obama Administration than reminding folks of THAT, STEWARD points out that it is symbolic of the true problem at hand:

When Fred Tausch decided to create a movement to "fight reckless spending and massive deficits" and to "raise awareness of the problems with President Obama's stimulus package" which has since become law, he wasn't kidding. In addition to newpaper, radio, and a very respectable Internet presence, STEWARD is getting to the folks via the US Mail with these eye-catching, informative pieces.

What makes this story even more interesting is the fact that Fred Tausch-- a citizen and concerned taxpayer from Nashua, NH-- supported Barack Obama for President in 2008!

Continue reading "STEWARD: "If You're Not Getting a Bailout...Chances Are, You're Getting the Bill."" »

Posted by Doug at 9:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Senator Shaheen,

As one of the coordinators of the recent tea party gathering in Manchester, I heard many comments about the price of gas and whether proposals in the president’s budget plan would cause fuel costs to increase.  I believe there is a good deal of concern among residents and small business owners in this area that if the administration continues on its current path gas will again hit the $4 per gallon price we saw last summer.  No one can afford this!

The Waxman-Markey Bill is just the latest piece of legislation that showcases the weaknesses of Cap and Trade --- truly a shell game.  As the ‘mother of all pork bills;’ Congressional leadership in Washington are carving out CO2 allowances -- offering up billions of dollars in free emission credits to favored industries.

And here we thought the plan was to reduce emissions. Instead Congress offers selected freebees for some, leaving only punitive climate taxes upon the industries of their choosing.

Each New Hampshire family has experienced significant setbacks and now we have our House Reps Hodes and Shea-Porter positioning a bill that will seek to curb Carbon footprints; but who benefits and who pays?

If it’s just for a few select industries; is this a well thought out plan?

Is this type of change Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter joined with you to accomplish last campaign season? 

We need more clarity on costs and less gaming from the ‘Cap and Trade’ mission in Washington.  We’ve just been through a financial meltdown brought about by unaccountable, non-transparent trading of complex derivatives --- all endorsed by legislative action as propery lending practices. Why would anyone take a national climate policy down this road?  A policy that takes from one hand and cuts off the other leaves us more than empty handed in the whole scheme.

Cap and Trade gaming strategizes a plan to reduce carbon by trusting a government agency for carbon emissions credits – what do they know about production and supply cost?  They no nothing!!  This is definitely a ‘know-nothing’ Congress.  Wasn’t it the government’s ignorance that caused the mortgage meltdown?

This is just unacceptable.

Who are these ‘Cap and Traders’ to decide which businesses can operate properly on some bureaucrat’s idea carbon output?  Any climate policy that is not transparent, accountable and unaffordable for the American people cannot be an option.

Please work with our House Delegation (Rep. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea Porter) to defeat the Waxman-Markey Bill.  New Hampshire simply cannot afford it and knows better than to put the sham Waxman-Markey Bill burden upon the New Hampshire taxpaying family.

Sincerely,

Posted by Doug at 1:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Inflation dangers ahead?

Washington keeps looking for quick and easy ways to get the economy back on its feet and return us back to the good old days. Some Americans think we can shop our way back to happiness. At least that’s what Washington would have us believe. As such, our national government is now spending like never before, forgetting that we are running up our collective credit cards to the limit and that the tab will ultimately have to be paid. But never mind they say, it feels good for now – and some would have us believe we need all this “stuff” are buying.

Between the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve, Washington has committed well over $12.8 Trillion in new spending. The Europeans warned President Obama during this last round of G20 meetings that this is a dangerous course to take. The head of the European Union, which is always worried about inflation, w arned that the spending of the U.S. Government is taking us down “the road to hell.”  The French and the Germans have made similar warnings and have pressed for a repair to the regulatory system. Unfortunately, the Democratic Administration has brushed past these requests. While acknowledging that their arguments have merit, the Democrats called for even more stimulus spending.

One of the dangers of all this historically unprecedented spending is that it will spark a very dangerous new round of inflation. Never mind the spenders argue, before inflation can get started, we will pull the money out of the system. This of course sounds very much like the drug user who says that he is not hooked and can quit anytime. Washington does not work that way and never has; real spending cuts have rarely been seen. A brief history of the size of government as a percent of GDP shows that government never shrinks. At best, it plateaus from time to time.

Were this a run of the mill recession, where there was a mere imbalance in asset supply and demand, government spending might do the trick. But this is a deeper financial sector crisis that will require major structural changes.  No amount of spending will fix the structural problems in the economy. We may very well pump up the economy into a short term sugar high. But there is an underlying illness that very much needs tending, lest we set ourselves up for a repeat of 2008. In some w ays, the experience of the crash of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) in 1998 was, in effect, a dress rehearsal for this crisis - from which we learned nothing.

First and foremost,...

Continue reading "The only way the economy will rebound" »

Posted by Bob Bestani at 7:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Et tu, Sarah Barracuda?

The Juneau Empire.com headline bore the news that pretty much capped an already sad political day for this Granite Stater:

Palin to accept most stimulus funds, aide says

Oh, great. The one bright spot for conservative Republicans joins the rest of the lemmings diving off the cliff of fiscal reality. Has she not heard the message of the Tea Parties nationwide calling on our leaders to STOP bankrupting our children's and grandchildren's future?

"10 years old and already in debt!"

As I have said many times, the problem with solving the issue of never ending handouts by a federal government that is for all intents and purposes bankrupt is that no one ever starts a reversal by saying "no" to the "free" money.

"But Doug, if we don't take it, somebody else will."

I've heard this at every level of government since I started paying attention many years ago. Whether it's the local town or school, or county or state, everyone's in the hunt for a "grant" for almost anything imaginable under the sun. Why not? "The money's there, Doug. We might as well take it and spend it." And so it goes, and it will apparently only stop if enough brave leaders, recognizing the ultimate folly of such reckless spending, start saying "no" to federal largesse, or, I guess, when the money actually runs out.

Back in March, Gov Palin stated she wouldn't "accept the bait" of Federal dollars and asked the correct question:

Do all the federal dollars in this package really create new jobs now and in the future, or do they just spend us into a massive trillion dollar deficit and add to the Nation's eleven trillion dollar debt by growing more government here at the state level?

Sadly, we learned today that she has climbed off her high horse of concern for the future and will aparently join the rest of those at the Federal teat, including her fellow Alaskan legislators:

House Speaker Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski, was pleased that money for education won't be cut.

"I think we'll find out over time that the money will be put to good use across the state, not only by the education department but the other departments that will be expending these funds," Chenault told The Associated Press.

If Alaska doesn't apply for the funds, it would be a lost opportunity, said Rep. Les Gara, D-Anchorage.

"The money is needed, and if we didn't take it, frankly, it was going to go to other states that would have lined up to take our share," Gara said.

But of course. Gee Sarah, I thought you weren't like all the rest. Fred Tauch and his STEWARD of Prosperity group reports that the

Granite State ranks lowest in New England and among the lowest in the nation in terms of stimulus money received on a per-capita basis.

This past Saturday Mr. Tausch told us on the radio that this effectively means Granite Staters will ultimately pay far more through taxation than we will receive. I sure hope Sarah enjoys spending my money...

Posted by Doug at 9:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

"I can't resist: without government, there would be no f*****g MARKET. What is it about contracts you don't understand?"   -Michael Kitch

Skip asked me to comment on this ("Is Government NECESSARY for a marketplace to exist?"), as he knows that I am an economist. This is a very good but very complex question. Someday we should discuss it in depth. But here is my quick take on this question.

As you know, I studied "the free market religion" at the University of Chicago under the likes of Milton Friedman, Stigler, Miller, Arrow, etc. I totally get what they were preaching and, in fact, chose to go the Chicago for that reason. But………….

For a number of years I also worked with the emerging countries of Asia. Here is what I learned. With all due respect to Ronald Reagen government is not the problem - bad government and also bad politics are the problems. In the vast majority of cases, government is lousy at providing goods and services; the private sector is much better in this role. To the maximum extent possible, keep government out of this and leave it to the private sector!

The appropriate role of government should be to provide the proper "enabling environment". Without this the private sector can not properly function. Yes a market can exist without a government. But do you really want to go back to bartering? A primitive economy can function without government, but in order to run a sophisticated, global economy a proper enabling environment is essential.

The lack of a properly functioning government is the central problem in most emerging countries, particularly Africa. That is why they don't develop. The rare few like Botswana which have good governments are doing very well. Indeed, one can not find a thriving economy anywhere in the world that has a dysfunctional government. Thriving economies all have good, stable and predicable governments. The better the government, the greater the development. (We in the U.S,. are not faring so well i.e., at the level we should these days. Our government is getting worse by the day because we have the odd notion these days that any dim wit can be entrusted with political power because they are "nice guys." How about we try competence and expertise for a change?)

The proper enabling environment includes: stability, the rule of law, security, a minimum of corruption, and a measure of good regulation. No one likes to be told what to do - particularly those with a libertarian bent - like me. But we all appreciate the rules like - drive exclusively on the right side of the road; stop on red; men don't go into ladies rooms (except in NH?), etc. Also, markets have a tendency to extremes - like the asset bubbles we have just lived through.

The need for good governance is not confined to the public sector; it is all too often absent in business organizations of every size. This is true because they can't change fast enough and/or run themselves into the ground out of stupidity and rigidity i.e., GM, Chrysler, AIG, Indybank, Wachovia, Fannie and Freddie, Citbank, etc. There is a natural life cycle to corporations and other business firms which is why they don't live for ever. Indeed, as the world gets more complex and faster paced, the life cycle is getting shorter and shorter all the time. In the 1950s the average tenure of companies on the Fortune 500 list was 40 years; it now roughly 14 years and dropping.

So some regulation is in order. But the key question is this: does the government itself go a good job of providing the proper enabling environment? Is it wise enough to do a good job? Therein lays the problem. One major failing is that we don't attract good people to government, we don't pay them well, and they are subject to enormous political pressures in their decision making. If you are looking for a very successful and well functioning economy and society – like Plato's Republic - look at Singapore. Government is well functioning, very well paid and it attracts the best in society. AND it has a very good partnership relationship with the private sector. But no one ever said that Singapore is a democracy!

I can't help  but think of what James Madison said in the Federalist Papers #51:

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to government, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

In short, the problems and tradeoffs are very complex. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government known to man - except everything else. So to with capitalism.

Posted by Bob Bestani at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

How much has American manufacturing declined in the last decade? After all, NAFTA and the giant sucking sound took all the jobs, China is making everything we buy, and American factories are ghost towns right?

Actually, American manufacturing hasn't declined over the past decade. It's doubled:

As Stephen Manning of the Associated Press acknowledged in a rare "just the facts" story in mid-February, the U.S. "by far remains the world's leading manufacturer," producing goods valued at a record $1.6 trillion in 2007 — nearly double the $811 billion produced a decade earlier. Indeed, the AP writer noted, "For every $1 of value produced in China's factories [in 2007], America generated $2.50." Not bad for a country that doesn't produce anything anymore.

Not only is the U.S. still the world's leading manufacturer, but there are many good reasons that companies will continue to manufacture here and invest in new plants and equipment. According to the Census Bureau's 2007 Annual Capital Expenditures Survey, released on Jan. 22 of this year, U.S. nonfarm businesses invested $1.36 trillion in new and used structures and equipment in 2007, a 3.9 percent increase over 2006. More than $484 billion was spent on new structures alone. 

This is the kind of news that, given our current economic climate, runs counter to what most people actually believe is happening in the US.   I bet most do believe China outdoes us in this economic activity; it is nice to see that conventional wisdom is wrong.

Posted by Skip at 7:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Concord—In response to a state budget proposal from House Democrats that would cost the taxpayers of New Hampshire $133 million in additional property taxes, House Republicans today offered their alternative budget at a press conference held in Concord.

“Two years ago we warned that the Democrats were overspending and relying on over- inflated revenue estimates but they chose to ignore us,” said House Republican Leader Sherm Packard (r-Londonderry) “This time around we believe that it is necessary and appropriate to offer an alternative budget that better serves the citizens of this state,” he added.

Republican members on House Finance, led by Policy Leader Neal Kurk (r-Weare) and Committee Whip Doug Scamman (r-Stratham), worked to develop an alternative proposal that balances the state budget without creating any new taxes or raising any of the existing taxes.  This is in contrast to a Democrat budget that proposes a capital gains income tax and an inheritance tax while ignoring the full legislative process of committee and floor votes.  Their budget proposal also increases taxes on gambling winnings, doubles the gas tax, increases the rooms and meals tax by nearly ten percent and, for the fourth time in five years, raises the cigarette tax.

“We are living in a recession,” added Rep. Neal Kurk, “and in a time of recession it is bad public policy to raise taxes.  Finance Republicans realize that and will present a balanced budget that asks the state to live within its means with a modest 2.6% budget cut over the biennium, the same kind of sacrifices we are making at home.  Why should the state not do the same?  The fact is, the Democrat budget will cost every man, woman and child in this state $300 and in this economy, it’s just too much.”

Unlike the Democrat-proposed budget, Republicans also restore $83 million in school construction aid and fully funds the state’s responsibility of state revenue sharing with local municipalities.

“We believe that we have come up with a budget that not only funds essential state services, but does so within existing state revenues,” concluded Rep. Packard. “It is clear that House Democrats are leading us down the road toward a sales or income tax with their tax and spend approach to state government.”

 

Posted by Doug at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This pretty sums it up (emphasis mine):

Industrial Conceits

The Obama administration has it figured out.

What the country really needs, apparently, is an automobile industry that is rolling out highly fuel-efficient cars, from the cleanest, safest, unionized factories in the world, made by highly paid workers with excellent health and retirement benefits. Of course, the production process needs to be inexpensive and efficient, too, so that the cars are competitively priced and can attract consumers who might otherwise gravitate toward bigger and heavier vehicles.

You know why one has never worked?  Let me clue you in......it's because we're all

human.

Gee, why didn’t Rick Wagoner think of that?

The president and his team are suffering from the same conceit which has afflicted many other activist governments in many other settings. They believe a central government can find a way to induce reluctant consumers to buy products they don’t want from inefficient suppliers without asking anyone, anywhere — save for corporate hot-shots — to make an economic sacrifice. Certainly, the unions aren’t to blame. Therefore, the problem must be poor “leadership.” And if the companies can’t manage themselves well, then by golly, the government will help them do it.

Oy vay!   Of course Wagoner wanted the first paragraph goals - he would have made LOTS of money.  But it is hubris for Obama and crew (or "minions", as Doug is wont to say) to believe that they are the first to have thought of it.  It will be further out on the plank to believe his crew of professional politicians and bureacrats can undo the faults and improve on the auto marketplace with their very limited experience in the PRIVATE marketplace.  So far:

• AIG - nationalized
• Banks - a form of fascism (def: government controlling private industries; think Mussolini) where the Government IS getting into the details of how the businesses are to be run.
• GM - Ditto, where the Feds have effectively accomplished a hostile takeover of the Board of Directors and kicked out CEO without any say so by the stockholders.
• Chrysler - "merge or die" is the Feds' message.
  

Side bar: speaking of the banks - while CEOs have had Golden Parachutes, Obama has basically put the Golden Shackles around the banks....and is not letting those who can return TARP money do so:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- There's a growing sense among some bankers that Troubled Asset Relief Program known as "TARP" has become toxic. As a result, they want to bail out of the bank bailout program.

"It should be called 'TRAP,' not TARP," said Brian Garrett, chief executive of Bank of the Bay in San Francisco, who is trying to return bailout funding. "Giving it back is harder than getting it."...

..."What these bank managers are saying is - listen, I want the Government out of my backyard, and I just want to give back the TARP, and I want to run my company by myself," said Paul Miller, Financial Services Analyst at FBR Capital.

..."We want to return the TARP money as soon as possible. We feel more bullish about economic prospects broadly, but we recognize we can't repay the money without the approval of the regulators," said Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas Van Praag.

Cynical question: And can you figure out WHY?

Short time - summarized opinion...

Continue reading "The Obama Hubris-o-meter is moving to full tilt..." »

Posted by Skip at 6:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

US Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH)

Regular readers know that from time to time, we have been quite critical of Senator Judd Gregg's performance both as a Republican and as a supposed conservative. We're happy to note that in the short time since his flirtation with the Magic Obama, the Senator has regained his footing and has been as strong in his criticism of the proposed taxpayer-busting budget as anyone. This week, our senior Senator provided the Republican weekly radio address and provided some much-needed detail and words of caution regarding the Magic Obama's budget. I appreciate this, and would further add that, given Gregg's attempts at bipartisan cooperation with the Democrat-led Executive Branch, he has a degree of credibility on these fiscal issues that cannot be tagged simply as partisan rhetoric...

GREGG: Hello, I’m Judd Gregg , Senator from New Hampshire. We all know these are difficult times. People are worried about keeping their jobs, paying their bills, the value of their homes and the cost of sending their kids to college. It’s hard.

Thus I appreciate, as do all Americans, the efforts being made by our President and his seriousness about addressing these issues.

But what concerns many of us are his proposals in the budget he recently sent to the Congress that dramatically grow the size and cost of government and move it to the left.

It is our opinion that this plan spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much.

You may have heard this before that the budget of the President spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much.

What do we mean? Well, let me give you a few examples.

 

Continue reading "Judd Gregg: The budget of the President spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much."" »

Posted by Doug at 10:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE:  This says it rather well:

As comedian Jackie Mason  quipped recently,

"If I inherited a fire, does that mean I have to make the fire bigger and worse?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I got a couple of comments on my Notable Quotes - Jerry Pournelle post.  It seems that part of that quotation stuck out:

...Republics stand until the citizens begin to vote themselves largess from the public treasury....

And our friend, Michael Kitch, left a bit of a comment:

Can you offer an example of a modern (say after 1500) "republic" that has undergone the experience described in the quotation? BTW, since Weimar succumbed to a myriad of other forces, it doesn't count.

Well, the Weimar would have been one of my examples of the modern age...

Well, Mike, I have an idea that your Big Government Cousin, President Obama with his ideological bent of sharing the hard earned wealth of the productive members of society (as well as our children and grandchildren's wealth), is certainly going to try to prove it true (from Heritage via InstaPundit):

And yes, by voting for his campaign promises, citizens are voting the largesse of the treasury.  If Obama's ideas, actuated by the voters putting him into office, go forward, there will be nothing in the Treasury...

God save us all....for Obama will not. I think that this also shows that for all of the carping that Obama is doing about "inheriting" a mess, his vaunted "fiscal responsibility" are just mere words...

Go ahead, Mike, be an apologist for Obama's budget and deficit mess!  Tell me, with these staggering amounts of debt that can rise to 80% of GDP if it plays out, what condition will the US of A be in?

Posted by Skip at 8:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Mark Steyn, probably the best satirical writer / pundit / speaker in the world, has another great column.  You know, he has some good points.  I look at this column, and I look at my sons, and go, yeah - Obama and our national legislators have certainly put the screws to their futures.

The sad thing is that IF Obama is allowed to continue in the same path he is, and his Democrat useful idiots continue to enable that behavior, many of the latter will be retired in 2 or so years and Obama, having laid waste to the former USA economically, will not be around after 2012.

Anyways, Steyn's words (and as always, go Read The Whole Thing; emphasis mine):

This is the biggest generational transfer of wealth in the history of the world. If you're an 18-year-old middle-class hopeychanger, look at the way your parents and grandparents live: It's not going to be like that for you. You're going to have a smaller house, and a smaller car – if not a basement flat and a bus ticket. You didn't get us into this catastrophe. But you're going to be stuck with the tab, just like the Germans got stuck with paying reparations for the catastrophe of the First World War. True, the Germans were actually in the war, whereas in the current crisis you guys were just goofing around at school, dozing through Diversity Studies and hoping to ace Anger Management class. But tough. That's the way it goes.

I had the pleasure of talking to the students of Hillsdale College last week, and I endeavored to explain what it is they're being lined up for in a 21st century America of more government, more regulation, less opportunity and less prosperity: When you come to take your seat at the American table (to use another phrase politicians are fond of), you'll find the geezers, boomers and X-ers have all gone to the men's room, and you're the only one sitting there when the waiter presents the check. That's you: Generation Checks.

The Teleprompter Kid says not to worry: His budget numbers are based on projections that the economy will decline 1.2 percent this year and then grow 4 percent every year thereafter. Do you believe that? In fact, does he believe that? This is the guy who keeps telling us this is the worst economic crisis in 70 years, and it turns out it's just a 1-percent decline for a couple more months, and then party time resumes? And, come to that, wasn't there a (notably unprojected) 6.2 percent drop in GDP just in the last quarter of 2008?

Posted by Skip at 6:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

'Grok official motto: We thank'm when they're right and spank'm when they're wrong. 

This is the "thank'm" part (emphasis mine):

I appreciate the chairman saying that, in the second five years of this budget, the debt levels are unsustainable, because they are.

And the cost of this budget is unsustainable. And the tax burden is unsustainable. The chairman didn't say that. I added the second two categories. ...

The problem is that that effort to try to stabilize the economy has been used as a straw dog for the purposes of expanding the size of government in the out years exponentially, moving it to the left in a way that has never been projected or seen before, should it be successful.

The budget proposes about $1.4 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years, about $725 billion in new discretionary spending, about $1.2 trillion in new mandatory spending. And virtually no savings. ...

It doubles the national debt in five years, publicly-held debt, this budget. And as the chairman has said, some of that is understandable, because of the fact that we've got this severe situation, and a lot of debt is being run up as a result of that.

But remember, much of the debt that's being run up in the short term, if it works, if the spending works -- for example, the TARP works, and some of the other initiatives work -- it's actually going to come back to us, because it's invested funds.

But the assumption is that it isn't going to come back to us to be used to reduce the debt. It's going to come back and be spent, all these funds coming back to us, so the debt triples in 10 years.

The practical implications of that are staggering for our children.

All the presidents -- including George Bush -- since the beginning of our republic, will not have run up as much debt as this budget will run up in the first period of its term.

And there is no factoring in, really, of what is coming at us in a significant way, which is the retirement of the baby boom generation, the cost of entitlements on top of all of that.

So, you essentially have set up a scenario here under this budget, where we will pass on to our children in the very near future, at about the end of four years from now, a debt-to-GDP ratio which is unsustainable and a deficit ratio which is unsustainable. And that means our kids are going to have a hard time digging themselves out of this hole.

We've given Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) grief over some of his actions lately - but not for this.  Thank you sir, for stating the obvious and for stating it publicly.  I just hope that your former-to-be boss ponders these words...now if only the RINOS that keep voting for these kinds of pork infested acts of liberal legislation would learn their lesson (i.e., this time, the Omnibus bill: Faux Republicans Snow, Specter, Shelby, Bond,...who decided that bringing home the bacon and acting like the Dems was more important that showing that the Republican Party can stand for something better than the Socialist Democrat Party)

Well, it was nice to wish that the Obamessiah would......

(H/T: Powerline)

Posted by Skip at 6:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

March 11th, 2009, Fairfax, VA—Americans For Limited Government (ALG) today released an exclusive video interview with Republican Congressman Michael Burgess, M.D. (TX-CD26).

Topics ranged from healthcare reform and the economic crisis to the commuter rail lines in Texas. Congressman Burgess also proposed tax cuts as a remedy for the nation's economic woes.

“[W]e've seen this before, we saw it with Kennedy, we saw it with Reagan, we saw it with Bush in 2003,” said Burgess in the interview. “You want the economy to hum, you help the people who actually make it work in the first place. And that would be… the place I would start.”

On nationwide concern with treasuries that are being sold to finance deficit spending on Capitol Hill, Burgess said, “We're going to be selling debt on the marketplace that will compete with the private sector.”

“How are we ever going to get the private sector to recover if we're driving interest rates up because our treasury bills now are not worth as much as they were? People don't see them as safe as they once were,” he added.

To watch the video in its entirety, click here.

For a copy of the full-interview transcript, click here.

When the subject of health care reform came up, the Congressman spoke about his views on what the American people were concerned with in regards to the implementation of universal health care. 

“If Medicare is the model for reform aren't we obligated to get it right first before we expand it to other populations?” asked Burgess.

Burgess believes that instead of national health care that Congress ought to be focused on the affordability of private health care.

“[A]ffordability is really the central issue when we talk about health care,” said Burgess.

Burgess believes the universal health care run by the government would result in  millions of Americans losing their health care that he believes they prefer.

“[P]eople are concerned because there are so many people in this country who lack insurance. But again, it's an affordability issue really primarily. 80 percent of the people in this country who have had insurance like the insurance they have and don't want to lose it. Again, that's an affordability issue because they're scared they won't be able to get something else,” said Burgess.

Overall, Burgess thinks that excessive government spending will not bolster the economy.

“January of 2008 when President Bush was still in office and Nancy Pelosi and leader Boehner and the President got together and said we need a stimulus bill, it's going to be $180 billion, we're going to make things work again for the American people, I said I don't think these things ever work. I was one of 35 members to vote against it,” Burgess said.

“[R]ealistically it was a poor idea and… time bore that out,” he added.

I highly recommend watching this interview. The difference between the REAL journalism of interviewer Alan Nathan, and the mainstream media is stunning. If only ALL politicians would sit down for such interviews, and ALL journalists were so obviously well-informed.

Posted by Doug at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE:

Mr. Bestani also gives lectures on this topic; here is his current schedule:

Mar 21   - Derry Library
Mar 29   - Moody Point
Apr 2     - Harvard University
Apr 8     - Laconia Library
Apr 14   - Bedford Library
Apr 15   - Seacoast Republicans Woman's Board
Apr 30   - Abenaqui Country Club

================================

Once again, we are pleased to have a guest post from Bob Bestani on the current goings-on in the financial realm

Much is being made these days about the unwillingness of the banking system to make the loans needed to regenerate the vitality of our economy and restore prosperity to the world. Populist rhetoric is at an all time high and the usual suspects are, of course, the bankers themselves. We are actively chastising the banks for the dumb loans they made while, ironically, castigating them for now being too tightfisted. Of course, even in the best of times, the bankers of Wall Street are never societal heroes; in the popular culture, the true banking heroes and icons are Bonnie and Clyde. Still, it is worth asking how the seemingly brilliant and highly educated people who became bankers could have been so dumb.

But, there is a striking paradox in the immediate problems we are struggling with today. On the one hand, they were brought on by a relatively small segment of the financial community. At the same time, they were passively enabled by a massive and pervasive institutional failure of good governance at almost every level. When we unbury ourselves from the debris of today’s wreckage, the key question will undoubtedly be how this could have happened.  How is it that our vaunted financial system was such a house of cards?

It is important to note that the core problems are principally emanating from the large “money center” banks around the world. The smaller regional and local banks are still in relatively good shape as they were not subject to the broader structural issues that brought down the larger banks. Unfortunately, these smaller banks occupy only a small fraction of the overall market. They are wholly incapable of supporting the wholesale requirements of the market that will eventually finance America’s new expansion. Of the roughly 8,300 banks operating in America today, the top 11 banks in the U.S. hold roughly 75% of the assets of the banking system. This, in and of itself, is a serious structural issue.

Moreover, it is clear that today’s problems principally emanate from relatively small operating units within these few large financial institutions. For the most part, the problems grew out of the most highly sophisticated and esoteric units of these financial institutions which were on the cutting edge of financial theory and practice.

The truly important question is why is it that so few saw how fragile the financial system had become and thus could not force remedial action. Beyond the blatantly corrupt and malicious Bernard Madoffs in the picture, there are in fact very few real villains in this story. What we are seeing is a broad structural collapse of good governance that spreads throughout the financial community. It includes boards of directors, senior managers, the financial wizards (otherwise known as quants), the auditors, the rating agencies and (last but certainly not least) the regulators. Much of the U.S. and the international banking system is now broken. Before we can get the system up and running, we need to understand just what went wrong.

Curse The Darkness Or Light A Candle

Ad homonym or character attacks are seldom of much value beyond scoring easy political points.

Continue reading "Why The Banks Are Not Lending - guest post" »

Posted by Skip at 6:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ideology is trumping good sense.  The stock market crash (and indeed, it now is) has wiped out 10 Trillion dollars.  Not only has Geithner looked like a fool (he proved he could not master Turbo-tax yet is Obama's point person to get us out of this mess?) but Obama simply dismissed the stock market's evaluation of his policies.

After all, the Obamessiah can do no wrong, right.  Well, at least in his own eyes...

Yes, I am banging on Obama's door again - everywhere I look, the traditional American values and systems are being torn about by a Marxist and his tax avoiding henchmen.  Again, it is all about control - even as the free market is passing judgement upon his policies, Obama wants us to believe that the destruction of wealth is merely the failure of the free market.

After all, he's just using Alinsky's rules - ID it, demonize it....marginalize it to the point where it cringes and gives in. The hubris is overwhelming - the idea that one person, even as smart as Obama is, knows more than the millions of people judging his economic policies (or lack thereof) is stunning.  Along with Geithner, I am starting to believe that Obama has fulfilled his Peter Principle position - he is way in over his head.

Or this is all deliberate - and I can believe that as well. Doug Ross sums it up well:

Consider that, in the teeth of a devastating recession, Obama has:

• Raised taxes on small businesses, the engines of entrepreneurship and job growth
• Raised the capital gains tax
• Lied about "tax cuts for 95% of Americans", offering instead $13 a week, achieved not through tax cuts, but by changing the federal withholding tables!
• Destroyed charitable giving by axing the tax breaks for 26% of all giving (or $81 billion in 2006)
• Proposed a carbon cap-and-trading scheme designed to punish oil companies and further tax consumers

Why would Obama inflict these destructive policies while the economy is collapsing? Simple. Each step strengthens the role of government in people's lives.

• Squelching the stock market kills its attractiveness as a parking lot for private capital. Combined with an increase in the capital gains tax, investors will swarm to bonds -- tax-free vehicles like municipal bonds, which benefit the growth of state and local government. And unions, of course.
• Carbon cap-and-tax will raise taxes on all Americans as the cost of goods and services will increase to address a non-existent threat.
• True tax cuts would grow the economy, which is why, of course, Obama shuns them. The last major recession was Jimmy Carter's malaise. It consisted of of double-digit inflation and unemployment. It was finally licked by across-the-board tax cuts for everyone (even the despised rich), which touched off a twenty-plus year run of prosperity.
• Charities reduce the role of government assistance for those in need. That, in Obama's world, can not be tolerated. That is why charities must be choked off and allowed to die. Especially faith-based institutions.

The only plausible explanation is that Obama's destruction of the economy is intentional.

Again, it is a race to the bottom; Obama knows that if he can kill off or choke off everything else, people will only have Government to rely on.

Just the way he wants it - Government in control with no competition.  Just like Stalin, Mussoline, and Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot.  Tyrants all who craved control above all. 

Ask yourself - what policy has Obama brought forth that enhances personal liberty free from government entanglement?

(H/T: Instapundit)

Posted by Skip at 7:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The FreeDictionary.com defines the word “bailout” as “a rescue from financial difficulties.” That was the term used to describe the initial government action and spending that occurred while Bush was still in office. We were told at the time that the $750 billion raised and appropriated by Congress at the behest of the President and his folks at the Treasury was to prime the pump so that cash-strapped banks and other institutions could begin lending again—entities deemed by the government “too big to fail.” And of course, it seemed plausible—and I only use that word with reservation—that because many of the lending institutions were in a jam due to failed mortgages and other similar loans (otherwise known as “toxic assets”) mostly due to government rules and regulations as dictated through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they (the government) help clean up the mess. Of course, when the government gives out money, it comes from you and me.

And once the financial industry got their hands on this “bailout” money, other industries—most noticeably the automobile industry—decided to follow suit and came calling with outstretched hand looking for some, too. A business model based upon endless credit to keep production going to pay for expenses incurred previously and no cushion to fall back on, coupled with labor unions unwilling to give the slightest concession, is nothing more than the proverbial “sword of Damocles,” ready to drop at the first wrinkle. In this case, when the credit markets dried up, so did auto sales, as many people suddenly lost the ability to borrow because there was no money left to lend. At this point, we know that a “small” amount “bailout” funds have been funneled to the automakers, but we still hear that several are on the brink and in need of much more. The question is whether more money will really help fix the problem, or simply perpetuate systemic problems for another day? The same question applies to the financial institutions noted above.

As we moved down the road from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration, it appeared that the word and notion of a “bailout” lost its luster. Time for a new word… The FreeDictionary.com defines “stimulus” as “something that acts as an incentive to (someone).” As you all know, following the bailout came the “stimulus” with a promise to “jump start” the economy. I guess it only seemed right—if “priming the pump” didn’t work, a “jump start” would come next. Of course, what came next was the stock market continued to tank and peoples’ money continued to evaporate—along with even more jobs. It seemed that the only good thing about “stimulus” was that it made for good fodder for jokes.

“Yo, Doug, feelin’ ‘stimulated’ today?” Of course the answer is, “Not really. But I AM getting bleeped…”

Uh-oh-- Time for ANOTHER new word… and fast! Enter the term “recovery.” Ah yes, a much more positive word. Maybe this will be the one that gets the job done for Team Obama as they seek to “fix” the economy. Again, let us turn to the FreeDictionary.com, which defines “recovery” as “the regaining of something lost.” How perfect. As the government continues to dole out our children’s grandchildren’s great grandchildren’s money hand over fist, it can now claim to do so all in the name of going back to the way things were. Or something like that...

Continue reading "Watch the Magic Obama as he pulls an economic "fix" out of his hat..." »

Posted by Doug at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I had written here: "Atlas Shrugging, Atlas Fighting, and here are some Protesting!" In Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugs (which my copy just arrived from Amazon), she tells the tale of how the "producers" in society finally react when forced to always care for those that refuse to care for themselves and their familes.

When it became clear that Obama was going to win the Democrats' nomination and that he would beat McCain for the Presidency, Producers all over had a case of the frights and depression. One only has to look to the stock market to see the results of what the Producers believe will happen, as the stock market, being the future predictor of economic activity that it is, has tanked.  To be sure, bad numbers from companies hasn't helped, but the market is basically saying that Obama's rhetoric and socialist background, aided and abetted by Progressive Democrats in Congress that are oh so willing to play the role of henchmen to Obama's lead, are going to grind this nation's economic capability to dust.

Many of us individuals have felt the same withering emotional backlash.  One thing to say for Obama, his blitzkreig of "Change" is one that is hard (on purpose) to keep up with.  He knew what he was after and in the process of unloading a seemingly endless series of body blows (some by executive decisions, some by hyper-fast tracked legislation, and more by simple regulation).  Many have come without the traditional time of hearings and comments and many have been deliberately hidden away and are now just popping up (like the seeds of Government controlling what kinds of procedures that your doctors can use to heal you and unlimited welfare).

Speaking of unlimited welfare, how about this bit of news:

NEW ORLEANS - The federal government is providing six more months of rental assistance to thousands of families affected by the 2005 hurricanes, allowing them extra time to reach self-sufficiency or to get into other housing aid programs.

About 31,400 families have continued receiving federal help paying rent as part of a disaster housing program that was set to expire March 1. The extension was touted by an aide to President Barack Obama as a sign of a "new direction" after his predecessor was heavily criticized for its response to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

...He said that left the Obama administration with no choice but to allow a six-month transition - one that will extend two days past the four-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina - to allow the estimated 13,500 families expected to be eligible for vouchers time to sign up and others time to make it without government subsidies.

"I want to emphasize that this is a signal of a new direction in the Gulf, a commitment that President Obama has to ensure that, particularly during these difficult economic times that we find ourselves in, that we are not leaving vulnerable families at risk of displacement or homelessness with really crushing levels of payments that they would need to make all of a sudden on March 1," Donovan told reporters on a conference call.

How about the "really crushing levels of payments" on the rest of us that are paying for this? 

Some of you may accuse me of being cold-hearted, but let's face reality here: 

This happened in 2005

It is now 2009

Four freakin' years - are you kidding me?? These folks still cannot provide for themselves? Try MOVING!  GET OFF YOUR COLLECTVE BEHINDS and how that you have some initiative!  Again, I contrast the outlook of these folks with those from the Mid-west during their horrible floods a year or so ago.  The difference?  One is a show of utter dependance on the government for sustainance; the other - just give me the stuff I need for now.  One is perpetual handouts, the other was a temporary hand up ("gimme the sandbags, and the sand; a front end loader for a while with some pumps would help").

And that is what is starting to really rile the folks up.  Hand-ups are fine; but Obama wants to do nothing but perpetual hand-outs.  And many are believing that it is the proper role of government to provide for their every need and want:

President Obama is auditioning American Idle contestants.  These non-producers of our society stole the show at his town meeting in Ft. Meyers, Florida on February 10, 2009.  It was like watching a Saturday Night Live skit when a parade of sad sacks asked for handouts.  Henrietta Hughes tearfully begged the President for a car, a kitchen and a bathroom.  Julio Osegueda, overcome in spontaneous euphoria, asked the president what his plans are for giving him better benefits at his job for McDonald's.  A man, who was recently laid off and receiving the forced generosity of the American people through his unemployment check, ungratefully asked why the government did not compensate him for his entire salary. 

It's as if these losers of life's lottery were expecting the president to turn water into wine or to take five loaves and two small fish and feed the entire nation.  These examples are just the loudest illustrations of people in America growing up with a mentality of entitlement to their every desires.  

Where are all the exposés and investigative reports on these characters as on Joe the Plumber?  The problem with Joe the Plumber is that he is a producer who dared expose the liberal Marxist, redistributionist agenda.  This agenda punishes the successful producers to give to the non-producers, the idle.  These idle hands are expecting handouts

Instead of earning it; in following up on the three examples above, here are my suggestions:

• Henrietta?  She and her son have a history of living off the system. Period.  Refusal to help oneself should be reason to do an intervention - cut her off entirely.  Just go out and earn it - like we have to.  There is truth to that bumper sticker: work hard; millions on welfare depend on you (H/T: Doug)
  
• Julio? He's in college (supposedly) - you haven't figured it out yet? Make yourself value added; the benefits will come (and not just be handed to you).  Millions of us figured that out long ago, sonny.
  
• The dude that expects totally salary replacement from the government - it is called "paying for your own damn insurance" - it exists, you can pay for it, but you expect the rest of us to do so?  Joke's on you...
  

In Ayn's book, the Producers checked out and went off by themselves (gotta check that; posting may be VERY light from me during the near future - this sucker is 1,200 pages long). But that's just a story (prescient though it may be).

In reality, however, we are starting to see the mood of some Life's real "Producers" who are, as Howard Beale did in Network "Mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore", starting to fight back as Obama is now doing what he told Joe the Plumber he would: spreading their wealth. As his own tax returns showed, he was not so hip on spreading his own wealth around too liberally but seems to be making up for time with our money.  Citizens, after the rant by Rick Santelli (the CNBC reporter who went on a tear about folks getting up upset that they, the ones that had played by the rules, now have to pay for those who haven't). 

President Obama - please learn one basic lesson from Economics 101: what you incentivize, you get more of.  The more you pay people to do nothing, the more do-nothings you will get.

Oh, and there's another lesson you need to be aware of but it is from Politics 101 - after a while of you implementing the Economics 101 lesson above and excoriating those who you disagree with you, most voters will vote against you and yours - and quickly.

Posted by Skip at 6:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had written here: "Atlas Shrugging, Atlas Fighting, and here are some Protesting!" In Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugs (which my copy just arrived from Amazon), she tells the tale of how the "producers" in society finally react when forced to always care for those that refuse to care for themselves and their familes.

When it became clear that Obama was going to win the Democrats' nomination and that he would beat McCain for the Presidency, Producers all over had a case of the frights and depression. One only has to look to the stock market to see the results of what the Producers believe will happen, as the stock market, being the future predictor of economic activity that it is, has tanked.  To be sure, bad numbers from companies hasn't helped, but the market is basically saying that Obama's rhetoric and socialist background, aided and abetted by Progressive Democrats in Congress that are oh so willing to play the role of henchmen to Obama's lead, are going to grind this nation's economic capability to dust.

Many of us individuals have felt the same withering emotional backlash.  One thing to say for Obama, his blitzkreig of "Change" is one that is hard, on purpose, to keep up with.  He knew what he was after and in the process of unloadeding a seemingly endless series of body blows (some by executive decisions, some by hyper-fast tracked legislation, and more by simple regulation).  Many have come without the traditional time of hearings and comments and many have been deliberately hidden away and are now just popping up (like the seeds of Government controlling what kinds of procedures that your doctors can use to heal you and unlimited welfare).

Speaking of unlimited welfare, how about this bit of news:

NEW ORLEANS - The federal government is providing six more months of rental assistance to thousands of families affected by the 2005 hurricanes, allowing them extra time to reach self-sufficiency or to get into other housing aid programs.

About 31,400 families have continued receiving federal help paying rent as part of a disaster housing program that was set to expire March 1. The extension was touted by an aide to President Barack Obama as a sign of a "new direction" after his predecessor was heavily criticized for its response to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

...He said that left the Obama administration with no choice but to allow a six-month transition - one that will extend two days past the four-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina - to allow the estimated 13,500 families expected to be eligible for vouchers time to sign up and others time to make it without government subsidies.

"I want to emphasize that this is a signal of a new direction in the Gulf, a commitment that President Obama has to ensure that, particularly during these difficult economic times that we find ourselves in, that we are not leaving vulnerable families at risk of displacement or homelessness with really crushing levels of payments that they would need to make all of a sudden on March 1," Donovan told reporters on a conference call.

How about the "really crushing levels of payments" on the rest of us that are paying for this? 

Some of you may accuse me of being cold-hearted, but let's face reality here: 

This happened in 2005

It is now 2009

Four freakin' years - are you kidding me?? These folks still cannot provide for themselves? Try MOVING!  GET OFF YOUR COLLECTVE BEHINDS and how that you have some initiative!  Again, I contrast the outlook of these folks with those from the Mid-west during their horrible floods a year or so ago.  The difference?  One is a show of utter dependance on the government for sustainance; the other - just give me the stuff I need for now.  One is perpetual handouts, the other was a temporary hand up ("gimme the sandbags, and the sand; a front end loader for a while with some pumps would help").

And that is what is starting to really rile the folks up.  Hand-ups are fine; but Obama wants to do nothing but perpetual hand-outs.

In Ayn's book, the Producers went off by themselves (gotta check that; posting may be VERY light from me during the near future - this sucker's 1,200 pages). But that's just a story (prescient though it may be).

In reality, however, we are starting to see the mood of some of the "Producers" in the country starting to fight back as Obama is now doing what he told Joe the Plumber he would: spreading the wealth. As his own tax returns showed, he was not so hip on spreading his own wealth around too liberally but seems to be making up for time with our money.  Citizens, after the rant by Rick Santelli (the CNBC reporter who went on a tear about folks getting up upset that they, the ones that had played by the rules, now have to pay for those who haven't). 

President Obama - please learn one basic leason from Economics 101: what you incentivize, you get more of.  The more you pay people to do nothing, the more do-nothings you will get.

Oh, and there's another lesson you need to be aware of but it is from Politics 101 - after a while of you implementing the Economics 101 lesson above and excoriating those who you disagree with you, most voters will vote against you and yours - and quickly.

Posted by Skip at 8:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Walter E. Williams, PhD and Professor Emeritus (economics) at George Mason University was interviewed by our friend John Hawkins at RightWingNews.  Great question - great answer.  Go ahead Progressives - discuss (emphasis mine)!

What do you say to people who claim that they have a RIGHT to health care or a RIGHT to a "living wage?"

Well, there's no such thing as those kind of rights. As a matter of fact, I think they should call them wishes. If they said, "I wish everybody had health care" or "I wish everybody had a living wage," I would agree because I, too, wish that they had more.

But, when a person says that he has a right to something that he did not produce, that means that some other person does not have a right to what he DID produce because there is no Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. That is, if the government is going to spend money so you have a right to medical treatment, ...then it has to take that money from somebody else. That means some other American, whom the government is going to take money from for your right to medical care -- he does not have a right to what he earned.

Head on over to RWN and read the whole interview

Posted by Skip at 6:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The 'Grok is happy to present another guest Post from Bob Bestani:

One of the tragedies of the financial storm that reached major hurricane proportions in September of 2008 is the fact that it has been very poorly explained to the average citizen. A tremendous amount has been written about it in the past several months, much of it highly technical or politically charged, but little has been truly communicated. Washington in particular has done an unusually poor job in explaining the problem even as they have appropriated trillions of dollars to the various recovery packages. 

The result has been a backlash of anger and a sharp drop of consumer confidence that has certainly made the economic pull back that much worse. The country is thus parched for good information on what is happening and why. As true as this is here at home, it is just as true abroad. The crisis is being fed by the uncertainty of what lies ahead in terms of regulatory structures, tax rates, and regulations not to mention the general macro-economic conditions we will face.

There is no denying the gravity of the current situation. The financial crisis is real, it is global, it is serious and it is growing. With the cream of the nation’s financial institutions such as AIG, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, Citibank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and others in various stages of collapse, it is an understatement to say that this is the worse financial crisis in the past seventy years. Day by day, the economic panic is growing and is digging deeper wounds into Main Street. We tend to think of this as a financial crisis but the Main Street economy is already in worse shape than the financial markets.

Compounding the problem is the fact that this crisis has now gone global and is affecting every corner of the world. It is rare that a financial crisis will simultaneously affect the United States, Europe and Asia all at once. One or two regions can usually be counted on to continue to do well and pull the others along. Indeed, it can be easy demonstrated that the rest of the world is in a more difficult position than we are. Unfortunately, most of the countries of the world do not have the economic size or the regulatory framework to deal with the institutional collapse that is occurring with this financial storm.

Because the storm began in America, much of the world is blaming the U.S. for inflicting this on them. Unquestionably, the financial collapse began in America and manifested itself in the sub-prime mortgage market. The problems that started in the sub-prime markets quickly cascaded through every aspect of the financial markets. The losses caused by the sub-prime markets severely impacted the earnings and capital of the banks, causing a general credit crunch. This had the result of chocking off lending between the banks, which lost credit confidence in each other. The general lack of credit also impacted on the immense and global derivatives markets and soon across the entire business community.

For several months the international markets pointed to America with a certain degree of blissful schadenfreude. They were mildly amused that our vaunted capital markets were seemingly not as sophisticated as we claimed and sanguine in the notion that their economic success had “decoupled” them from the U.S. economy. That attitude only lasted for several months. The financial crisis has now gone global, suggesting that it was always more than just the U.S. markets that were at fault.

Continue reading "Understanding The Current Financial Crisis" »

Posted by Skip at 7:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by Bill Asbell

The Baby Boomers Strike Again to Inflict perhaps the Death blow on U.S. Capitalism Once and for All. No doubt, William Ayers, Abbie Hoffman, Noam Chomsky and Saul Alinsky are all most definitely proud "Americans"...wherever they currenty reside, above or below.  
 
All we endangered rational types ask is to do what we know works, not what created The Great Depression out of a cyclical recession, and the LBJ inspired NYC of the 1970s...remember "Escape from New York" and "Death Wish"?
 
Thank you Karl Pelosi, Friedrich Reid and V. Ilych Obama! Maybe you can bag Vlad Putin and Bob Mugabe to do a photo op with you for the bill signing. I heard Raul Castro might be available and is a big fan of the Anointed One.

This porkulus is indeed an Obamination our children will be paying for as long as they're permitted to live their socialist/secularist financially diminished lives.  With the rationing of health care that's structurally on the horizon, (and in this bill), I use "permitted" un-ironically.

Hey!...Maybe I can be the Founding Leader of the "new" Stoic Party.

"What does the Stoic Party stand for Mr. Asbell?"
"Well, Katie, I guess the American Stoic Party is for those of us who know, acknowledge, and are resigned to the irreparability of what Clinton, Bush, Obama, Hollywood, Public Edjukashun and the Trial Bar have given us for a culture and economy now that it's unstoppable. Have you read Edward Gibbon Katie?"
"Why No, who's that?"
"Oh nobody you'd probably understand, being a "journalist" and all."
"Why...what do you mean? Mr. Asbell?"
 
"That is to say, the Stoic Party is for those of us who know in their "heart of hearts" (to coin an old campaign addage), that we're screwed Katie, - inscrutably so. We know it's too late to fix it and yet we're resigned to it, like a passenger on the Titanic, to not put up a fight while riding that handbasket down to Hades. No use in pretending that America will ever be what it once was, i.e. FREE or God fearing or happy or on the rise. The Stoic Party is about getting comfortable in your seat as the plane plunges to earth in a tailspin. It's much better for your blood pressure, as you could imagine, and none of our members develop Socialism-induced ulcers. So we think we'll have a following Katie, especially among those who need to watch carefully their health care costs. Our political symbol is a profile of Slim Pickens riding that Nuke from "Dr. Strangelove"...remember?"

You can see I can't wait for the interview.

I guess we should take a Solzhynitsynite attitude about it though. As an Anglican Archbishop recently and tactfully proclaimed in looking for a silver lining in the rising British unemployment rate (and I paraphrase), "Poverty is good for the soul".  Poland under Communism and Ireland under England I'm sure could admit as much.  Perhaps this is all part of God's plan (as it must be I suppose...what isn't?)
 
Therefore, we thank you Lord for the ever self-serving Baby Boomer Democreeps, through whose Machiavellian intercession You most graciously provide us for the next four decades or more great new opportunities for our souls' development in the path to holiness.  Oy vey!...ahem, I mean "Amen".
 
Bill -- All things must pass....Yet, still....Sic Semper Tyrannis

Posted by Doug at 6:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Please note that while I don’t claim to be an economist, I have enough of an understanding of basic economic theory to know that we face some clear dangers if we are not careful.

It is easy to see on the one hand that things in certain sectors seem pretty much unchanged. Some businesses appear to be functioning at or near normal levels, while others, less so. Many folks believe that after a period of time, things will bounce back the way they usually do. This leads to, for most I’d bet, token belt-tightening. “Sure, things are tough,” they say, “but not for me. I’ll cut back a little and wait and see what happens.” Believe me, I hope that this is indeed the case—that we’re simply in a wrinkle that will soon iron itself out.

But on the other hand, what happens if, despite the relative health of those businesses with plenty of work and people that still have money, other forces come together to destroy even that? Then what?

I maintain that a good chunk of the current economic drawdown and cutbacks is nothing more than the natural cycle of the marketplace, with ups and downs being the so-called correcting factors that ultimately keep things in balance. What seems to have made things different in this latest go-around, however, is that it was greatly exacerbated by too much credit issued that in another time would have been denied. People were buying stuff—lots of it, including cars and houses—on credit that they should have never been given, because they could never realistically pay it back. And now, banks and other lending institutions are left holding the proverbial bag.

While nobody decried the good times as they lasted, the market was producing an excess of goods and houses that created a “bubble” that expanded far and above the norm. The natural result was that the economy of nearly the whole world ended up growing to fill it, and, when the end came, well, we’ve seen the results with the further cutting of manufacturing jobs, joined in full force by the former denizens of the overheated construction industry. There is much truth to the old adage, “what goes up, must come down.” I have always believed that—perhaps it’s the cynic in me, but I’ve yet to really see it otherwise. Sadly for those very real people whose lives are affected, this is the normal cycle of life. Thankfully, history further tells us that things must also go up. The big question, then, is how long?

Continue reading "A view on the economy from an ordinary guy in central NH..." »

Posted by Doug at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Only because the Nancy Pelosi derived chart that he put up does not have a sufficient amount of context. The emphasis of showing this recession ONLY in contrasts with 1990 and 2001 is disingenious at best

Here's one that shows a lot more context; as it shows not just 2 and 1/2 recessions but 6 for a better comparison of past events like this.

I lived and started working during the 1981 recession - trust me, I remember the 10-11% unemployment rate and my friends crowing that they got an 18% mortgage (instead of one in the 20% range).  

If government gets out of and stays out of the way, the market will correct itself. It was the meddling of government by instituting loose credit by Freddie and Fannie political cronies, low interest policies by the Fed, and the thuggery of "community organizers" in complaining about redlining that forced the Community Reinvestment Act that forced bankers to lend to those who should have never received loans (thanks, Barney and Chris!)

(H/T: Greg Mankiw)

Now, for extra info, after the jump is another chart:

Continue reading "Blue Hampshire's Elwood is not telling the whole story" »

Posted by Skip at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Generational Theft bill (aka, The Stimulus bill) is all about jobs - or at least, that's what the spin is about.  Problem is, with the failed Keynesian economics, a contract based job for infrastructure, the jobs may start but they will end.  Also, what a lot of the Liberals are refusing to see is that the money that is used for this either has to be taxes away from someone NOW or borrowed which means that someone will be taxed even more LATER (we'll leave the "simply printing money" problem for later).

NewsBusters watched This Week's latest edition where George Stephanopoulos gets schooled in this very topic:

ABC's George Stephanopoulos was puzzled on Sunday's This Week when new Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele saw a difference between government-created temporary “make work” jobs and jobs created by the private sector: “I guess I don't really understand that distinction.” When Steele charged that “what this administration is talking about is making work,” Stephanopoulos interjected, “But that's a job,” leading Steele to explain: “No, it's not a job. A job is something that a business owner creates. It's going to be long term. What he's [Obama's] creating” are projects that “have an end point.”

Answering Stephanopoulos' confusion, Steele elaborated: “Well, the difference, the distinction is this. If you got a government contract that's a fixed period of time it goes away. The work may go away. There's no guarantee that there's going to be more work when you're done that job.” To which, Stephanopoulos retorted: “But we've seen millions and millions of jobs going away in the private sector just in the last year.” Steele tried again: “Yes, but they come back though, George. That's the point. They've gone away before and they come back.” 

I had put up a post up outlining this very topic as for government to "create" a job:

Obama's future is destroying jobs now...

Basic economics - governments do not create jobs.   Yes, governments can hire people to do work but they can only be funded by taking money from other people (via taxes) or borrowing money (which then requires repayment, which requires taking even more money from other people via taxes). Government jobs do not create wealth.

Government sends signals, economic signals, to the job creators in private industry  through various policies and regulations.  It set the field, the platform as it were, for the creation or destruction of jobs by those signals (present and future). Tax policy is one of the large "things" that the real job creators (the private sector) take into account as an important signal in what they will be doing. However, because of the propensity of politicians to use the tax code to fulfill their own philosophy, the private sector will judge what to do based on what they see.

And of course, another Liberal here in NH decided that I was all wet when I wrote the post New Hampshire Democrat with a post called Econ 101 - I reviewed the post at the time when it appeared on BlogNetNews/NH but didn't have the time to counter-post.  Now that I want to comment on it, it seems that the blogsite is by invitation only. 

Still, what is really needed for the long term is private sector jobs that are open-ended.  Government contracts are, as Steele states, very limited.  Start job, do job, job goes away.  And if that construction worker (with the emphasis on GOVERNMENT infrastructure) has not lined something else up, they are on the unemployment line again.  Create the right environment where the private sector can provide products and services, you will get long term jobs (all other things being equal) - open ended jobs.

Which is what the economy needs....and not government servicing itself.

Posted by Skip at 6:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

-President Barack Obama, 1/20/09

Well, it certainly is a good thing that President BHO didn't talk about cars in the above quote, as this will show it the automatic answer would be NO:

The president makes his case:

Obama said with a touch of indignance that he "read the other day that critics of this plan ridiculed our notion that we should use part of the money to modernize the entire fleet of federal vehicles to take advantage of state of the art fuel efficiency. This is what they call pork. You know the truth. It will not only save the government significant money over time, it will not only create manufacturing jobs for folks who are making these cars, it will set a standard for private industry to match."

The line item in question would allocate $600 million to the General Services Administration for the acquisition of motor vehicles, "including plug-in and alternative fuel vehicles."

One supposes that the additional money is needed because there are no savings to be found in the program's current budget, right? Well, the AP looked into that last summer:

Americans love their cars, and so apparently does Uncle Sam—who's got 642,233 of them.

Operating those vehicles—maintenance, leases and fuel—cost taxpayers a whopping $3.4 billion last year, according to General Services Administration data...

...watchdogs say mismanagement of the government fleet is costing millions of dollars a year in wasteful spending.

For example:

At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, fuel consumption and inventory are down, yet overall costs have increased significantly. Officials there can't figure out why.

The Interior Department was told by its own watchdog that it should cut its inventory, but it's added hundreds of vehicles.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has some cars that are barely driven. One just disappeared. [...]

..."From a management standpoint, this is something that can easily be handled," said Tom Schatz, president of the group. "It's critical use or necessary use versus 'well, we've got the money, let's go out and buy some more cars.'" [emp. added]

So... we've got costs going up for no reason, agencies buying cars they don't need, cars disappearing at random — and no way to trim that $3.4 billion budget.

And loses that case. Unlike private sector companies which have to continually check themselves in order to meet the needs of its consumers (e.g., better and different products, better customer service, faster delivery, meeting customer expectations) in order to earn profit (ECO 101 - profit is earned ONLY when other peoples' needs and wants are met), there is no such incentive for Government.  In fact, due to the Law of Bureaucracy (fiefdoms always have to grow in order to be granted larger budgets which enlarge the fiefdom...), there is seemingly NEVER a reason for Big Government to downsize itself.

Without that profit incentive, and the LoB, what IS the incentive for Big Government to be frugal and spend our taxpayer money wisely?

Answer: none (unless we citizens make lots of noise).  So they don't.  Losing cars?  Buying cars that are seldom used?  And then buying more of what won't be used?  Is that frugal and wise spending? 

President Obama?  The answer again to whether Government works or not?  Um, No.

Again.

Posted by Skip at 8:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

-George Santayana

I always used to think of "learning my history" would go back a few number of years (like FDR's failed New Deal policies, Nixon's wage and price freezes, CAFE standards).  Last couple of years - not so much, but it seems that institutional memories goaded on by politicians have weakened considerably.

But this?? We haven't even completely learned our lesson from the FIRST time (the sub-prime debacle) and already these Government based entities WANT TO REPEAT what tank the economy in the first place????

Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) – Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance company under U.S. government control, will loosen rules for homeowners seeking to lower their loan payments by refinancing.

Fannie Mae will drop some credit-score requirements, reduce income-documentation standards and waive the need for appraisals in some cases, according to a notice yesterday to lenders posted on the Washington-based company’s Web site. The changes apply to loans that the company owns or guarantees.

The company, which accounts for more than 40 percent of the $12 trillion in U.S. residential mortgage debt, is seeking to break a “logjam” in refinancing and allow more homeowners to take advantage of near-record low interest rates, according to Brian Faith, a Fannie Mae spokesman. The increased flexibility for consumers isn’t large enough to significantly harm mortgage- bond investors and mortgage insurers, analysts said.

I always wondered how people earning the same amount I did (or less) when I visited California could afford mortgages far larger than what I could, and for 50 year terms, and interest payments only.  And no income verifications needed. This is the epitome of lax credit policies.

Oh, that last statement? I may sound like Doug (the 'Grok N' Roll expert), but Roger Daltry of The Who bellowing out "Won't be fooled again" are reverberating in my head.

And now, Fannie is going to try to fool everyone again?

(H/T: For What It's Worth via Instapundit)

Posted by Skip at 8:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Frankly, it is government that has brought this economic crisis on (putting aside Barney Frank's protestations aside to save his and Chris Dodds sorry rear ends) by political meddling in making credit to easy to obtain for far too long without sufficient documentation to prove one could pay it back.  With Freddie and Fannie signaling to the markets that almost any mortgage would be bought if a contract was signed, almost anything was legal and accepted.  Oversight was a minor consideration (and fought by the above named Senators).

Thus, color me really skeptical that this Stimulus bill, the Pelosi-Reid-Obama Generational Theft Act of 2009 will accomplish anything other than growing Big Government larger and raising the threshold of government need for money ever larger.

If the Politicians of all stripes were entirely convinced that this was an emergency and that the money that was going to be taken from American citizens (and their kids and grandkids) was to be well spent instead of being filtered by government politics and bureaucrats, this amendment by Senator John Thune (R-SD) should have passed:

$10,286 for Every Middle Class Family

John Thune introduced an amendment to scrap the entire stimulus, and replace it with an across the board middle class tax rebate. Ask the average American family—would you prefer Congress spend tens of millions on STD prevention and fish pathways—or sent you a check for $10,286?

Thune Introduces Middle Class Tax Relief Amendment to the Stimulus Bill
Middle Class Couples Would Receive up to $10,286

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator John Thune today introduced an across-the-board middle class tax rebate amendment (S. AMDT #538) to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Senator Thune’s amendment would strike the entire $936 billion Senate stimulus bill and replace it with a $936 billion across-the-board-middle-class tax rebate for 182 million Americans. The amendment would result in a tax rebate of $5,143 for single filers and $10,286 for married couples who file jointly. Eligibility is capped for all tax filers at 2007 adjusted gross income of $250,000.

“There seems to be a great deal of discussion over how to spend American taxpayers’ money and future earnings. Instead of investing billions in wasteful government programs that won't provide immediate help to our troubled economy, my amendment invests in the American people,” said Thune. “I think most Americans believe they know how to best spend their own money and would rather have control over it than have the government create new federal programs, or waste it on pet pork projects that will not stimulate the economy. My amendment is an equitable way to ensure that virtually all working Americans benefit from this economic stimulus plan. This is substantial tax relief for middle class families.

I know why the Dems hated it - no ability to conduct their payoffs.  No ability to tell people how to behave and live their lives according to THEIR rules.  No ability to use political power.

Horrors - People would have been able to control their own spending!

How could we have told them how to spend it better????

It is too bad that Liberal / Progressive Democrat (and RINO) politicians believe that Big Government knows better than we do, the governed. They may actually be right...after all, we (the electors) seem to keep sending these sad sacks back to DC to make our lives miserable....

(H/T: NRO and Repurblican)

Posted by Skip at 7:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, it took a few years, but Governor Lynch has finally acknowledged that if something isn’t done about spending at the state level, we will finally reach a true crisis point. Since he is still somewhat surprisingly committed in his opposition to new broad-based taxes here in the Granite State, what other choice does he have? Because of the revenue streams as they are presently structured, there is a limit to how much government can grow—which is exactly the point. With people writing actual checks to the government, whether to pay taxation on real property, business profits, interest dividends, or the meals and rooms tax, they are more keenly aware of how much monies they turn over than if they paid 52 weekly installments via their paychecks. In this atmosphere, it is much more difficult to ratchet up spending, as it is experienced in a more direct fashion. When politicians do so, therefore, it leaves them more vulnerable to angry public reactions. This is the essence of our smaller, slightly more limited government here in New Hampshire.

At least that’s the way it is at the state level. And with the economy in the tank as it is at present, causing the rosy revenue projections upon which the existing state budget is based —as crafted by the Democratic majority—to be way off the mark, spending MUST be reduced. And certainly, like in the “real world” of the private sector, this means reducing the number one driver of costs: payroll. As reported last Friday by the AP,

“Gov. John Lynch says layoffs will be unavoidable in the budget he is preparing for the next two years. Lynch said Thursday he is looking at every dollar the state spends to determine what spending is necessary and what services can be cut or delayed. He said some state programs will be eliminated which means there will be layoffs.”

What other choice does the Governor have? With unionized state employees unwilling to forego this year’s raises of over five percent, he has few other options. Oh sure, there have been other cuts passed, such as yesterday’s $16 million round of reductions passed by the NH House, but that still leaves the budget with a huge deficit hole to be filled --by some estimates, $65 million by the year’s fiscal end on June 30. With personnel being among the largest cost drivers in any budget, there is no other alternative.

It’s too bad, however, that when it comes to lesser level government down the food chain, the attendant “leaders” and their usual water carriers and cheerleaders can’t follow Lynch’s example.

Continue reading "Every dollar's sacred. Every cent is good..." »

Posted by Doug at 9:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You know, I'd really like to be saying something new and nice.  Problem is, when politicians make decisions, that affects us all (which is the real reason I got politically active - I was sick, tired, and mad at decisions that changed the life of me and my family in which I had no input or influence).  And our local County level politicians are making decisions that will make taxpayers poorer.

Why?  Well, on 1/15/09 (hey, I said I was trying to catch up!)  from the Citizen we see that yet another attempt at a pseudo "we really don't know if we should be funding this" as the Belknap County Commissioners debated:

Despite restoring its request for funding for next year, the Belknap County Commissioners remain hesitant to support future funding for the Belknap County Citizens Council on Children and Families unless they see some concrete evidence of its success.

While all three commissioners said they support the values of the Citizen's Council and agree with its stated goals of supporting families and promoting community awareness, the three were of like mind when they told Director Alan Robichaud that they are not sure the taxpayers understand what the council does or if they wish to continue funding it.

"We have an obligation to administer the business of the county," said newly elected Commissioner Ed Philpot of Laconia whose term began last week. "We're not in the values business."

It its initial budget presentation last fall, the commission recommended county funding be eliminated for the program that began in 2002 with a private grant from the Annette P. Schmitt Trust and under the guidance of former Belknap County Judge Willard "Bud" Martin.

Problem is,

Continue reading "Recountings from the County - still spending with growing costs ahead?" »

Posted by Skip at 9:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, it started when the Congresscritters abused the Big 3 Auto CEOs for arriving with their hands out for money.  The problem is the class envy / populism that was gin'd up over the expensive biz jets like these:

Well, because of the class envy and the resultant bad PR, instead of saving the car companies, they are about to force another industry to tank: corporate jets.  Already, layoffs!

Manufacturers are hurting. This month Cessna, maker of the popular Cessna Citation, said it would lay off an additional 2,000 workers — its second round of cuts — and that the company would probably shrink production in 2009. Last week, employees at Hawker Beechcraft, another corporate jet maker, were told to prepare for another round of layoffs after 500 job cuts last December. Business at Cessna, which had been anticipating an upturn in orders in 2009, had a steep decline in the third quarter of 2008.

Thus, instead of "hurting" the rich, the ding is on the heads of the little guy (thanks, Congress!).  Sure, it sounds politically correct to try to "bring down" the fancy lifestyles of the rich and famous.  Problem is, the rich and famous will either find another way to do the same thing, or just leave that marketplace (which hurts the lower classes as their jobs are no longer needed.

Hey, it's not the first time that Congress, in a lame attempt to whack the rich, has actually nailed the actual workers instead of the head honchos.  I remember when a tax on yachts was applied back in 1990 on any yacht over $100,000 - the idea was that all these rich people are going to be paying all this new money to the government.  Nice for government coffers, right?

Wrong.  And it did not hurt the rich at all.  Most rich people are smart, and just made the decision to enjoy their wealth - somewhere and with other than yachts.  The market collapsed and a lot of the blue collar workers that used to do the actual work lost their jobs.  Small yards shut down; businesses that had existed for decades as small family businesses shut the doors.  Just think of the unemployment costs and the loss of income taxes that act created instead of incoming sales taxes.

Ah yes, the Law of Unintended Consequences rides supreme. 

Hey, I finally get to use this (heh!)! 

Remember, a lot of times, the empty seats are used to shuttle sick kids from their distant homes to hospitals where there is specialist help awaiting them.  So,  when Congress attacks these CEOs and their fancy planes, remember - your Senators and Representatives are hurting the children!!! 

Posted by Skip at 8:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On the Pelosi-Reid-Obama Generational Theft bill.  As one can seen here, this bill is nothing more than every Liberal's earmark or voted down spending bill from the last 8 years going forward through the next 8. 

Even the non-partisan CBO has declared, along with LOTS of economists, that this is NOT a stimulus bill, that most of it is just plain spending that will not stimulate the economy with good, long term, private sector jobs.

Now, because of the good votes by the Republicans, Obama is going to own the results of this bill.  And if it passes, I predict the only benefit it will have is to pay back the well connected Democrat supporters and saddle our children and grandchildren with debt out the wazoo for decades to come.

Obama wanted political cover from the House Republicans - they didn't fall for it.

Now, will the Senate Republicans follow suit?  I'm planning on calling my NH Republican Senators tomorrow - Judd Gregg and Jean Shaheen - and letting them know of my displeasure with this bill.

Think of it folks - right now, with interest payments, we're talking pushing through a $1.2 Trillion bill at what is lightning speed - 1/3 of our annual Federal budget - with relatively little debate or discussion. 

This is not good.  I'll put away the partisanship for a sec - IF it only contained real stimulus type stuff, I might be more optimistic.  But it isn't.

Posted by Skip at 10:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE: It seems that I'm not the only one asking this situation:

I think a threshold or tipping point exists in the ratio between the political power of those who pay taxes and those who consume taxes directly...

I think California has passed that point. [h/t Instapundit] Tax consumers now control the state government and can vote themselves almost any level of personal income and benefits they wish while taxpayers cannot muster the political capital to defend themselves...

...This is the condition that California and other states with powerful public-sector unions find themselves in. California has ~2.3 million unionized government workers and ~18.6 million civilians. With so many people organized with a laser-like focus on increasing taxes and spending, the private working citizens of California find it nearly impossible to prevent government workers from voting their own paychecks.

...As far as the state government is concerned, people in the private sector work merely so that they can be taxed for the benefit of the tax consumers.

It also happens at the local level, too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

-President Barack Obama, 1/20/09

"...or whether it works...."; the question is, works for whom?

For the time being, I'm going to leave off "whether it helps..." for another discussion, for that will be yet another large part of the question of "what is the proper role of government?".  That said, with the meltdown of the economy, the private sector has been taking it on the chin, big time.  Public sector?  Generally, not too bad - yet! Or ever (with a relatively few number of exceptions). The public sector retirees, unfortuntately, are the ones that will be taking next taking it in the keester as the value of the stock market has plunged and shysters like Madoff just up and stole it.

CA, with the biggest budget deficit of all the states (good going, Governator!) seems to be putting itself ahead of the people it serves.  From Betsy's Page:

California: government for the benefit of more government
 
Chris Reed reports on the miserable state of California's economy. He notes that the Democrats who totally control the legislature have been slanting programs away from helping the poor but towards protecting government employees.

Toward this end, Democratic leaders of the California Senate and Assembly agreed in closed-door negotiations with Schwarzenegger to cuts in virtually every social services, health and welfare program in the state...

...But the cooperation ended when Schwarzenegger took his everyone-must-share-the-pain thesis to its logical conclusion. To ease the state's cash crunch, he announced plans to have state employees take off two unpaid furlough days a month beginning Feb. 1.

Leading Democratic officeholders -- and several likely 2010 gubernatorial candidates, including Attorney General Jerry Brown -- immediately engaged in an impromptu contest to determine who could denounce the proposal with the most vigor. Treasurer Bill Lockyer was typical, expressing outrage that the governor would "impose such a hardship on the backs of our employees." Lockyer and other Democrats elected to statewide office said they would refuse to enforce the furlough plan with their own staffs.

Sure, putting it on the back of those that pay the bill is fine....but not those who make up that load? 

Continue reading "So, compared to the private sector...." »

Posted by Skip at 7:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

That's what the man, President Obama said!  Problem is, that is only going to happen if investors continue to purchase our debt instruments - once they stop (hey, if the stream seems never ending, would you continue?), the jig is up.  Like everyone else (individuals, companies), at some point, some deleveraging will need to occur.  All one has to do is look around at other countries and see what the IMF and World Bank have done to credit-unworthy countries in the past....(irony: we're one of the biggest donors to the IMF....tell you anything?).

Companies, when deleveraging, shed employees and assets. Happens all the time when the debt load comes too large for the underlying cash flow.  Individuals do the same thing - no, they don't shed family members (hmmm, I might have some ideas there) but often have yard sales.

Heh!  As it turns out, the US has LOTS of yard to sell too (which I did not know before AND the amount was startling)!  Jim over at the Volokh Conspiracy has an idea:

I think that the US government should have a yard sale too, starting a multi-decade process of selling off public land, perhaps selling a tenth or a hundredth of a percent of holdings every year for a century.

After all, the federal government owns over half of five Western states and over 40% of nine states:

• Nevada       84.5%
• Alaska        69.1%
• Utah           57.4%
• Oregon       53.1%
• Idaho         50.2%
• Arizona       48.1%
• California    45.3%
• Wyoming    42.3%
• New Mexico  41.8%
• Colorado     36.6%
  

It’s time for America to start an annual yard sale of stuff for which the government has little use. This has the ancillary positive effect of reducing excessive government power over its citizens and resources. Does the government really need to own 45% of the state of California?

Now, I can see the need for some huge swaths of land that would have to be held onto - national parks, large military bases, but come on - look at those percentages?  That's just utterly nuts to hold onto that amount of land - please answer me - for what real purpose do the Feds have for keeping that over letting investors develop it and turn it into a productive (and tax paying) asset?

Would it make up a $Trillion?  Dunno, but as in every yard sale, every little bit can helps.

(filed under Economics, probably better under Humor - maybe start a Satire category?)

Posted by Skip at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

These are not the best of times economically and I blame it on the government for first loosening credit to where it cost next to nothing and people forgot self-restraint, then Democrats (like Dodd (D-CT) and Frank (D-MA) "leaning" on Fannie and Freddie to incentivize brokers and bankers to write mortgages with "loose" restrictions to people who should have not have been given the loans.  And a myriad of other causes as well. And if you notice, all of the bailout (failout?) money being discussed by politicians is going to be spent by other politicians (e.g., "infrastructure" on government edifices that will not create LONG TERM jobs).  Or go to people to have shown that they are not the ones that can create jobs.

Yet, what about those that have proven themselves to be successful in business, to have created good jobs at decent wages?  Why is so little attention being given to them with respect to either "go use it for jobs" money or even lip service? Make no mistake about it, these job creators are listening, and they are listening well.  They know that when the talk about money starts and ends, they are hardly mentioned except as "donors" (Obama calls this "being responsible").

I saw this over at Boortz's.  I have a feeling that there are a number of small to mid-sized biz owners that are feeling the same way.  They started their businesses because they didn't want to work for others anymore and they certainly don't want to be told "you have to do this" or "you will do that" any more than necessary.

So, what will the politicians start saying when these folks start saying "no mas"? Simple:

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more.

And as Rush often says, "Don't doubt me" - here, "Don't doubt them". Everyone has limits, including business owners.  At some point, when politicians and regulations and taxes cross that limit to where the marginal benefit to the owner is no longer worth it, this letter will be sent (empahsis mine) - employees need to take notice:

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.

However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.

First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.

However, what you don't see is the back story.

I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

Continue reading "I think the "Job Creators" are going to start speaking - but not with words" »

Posted by Skip at 9:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 5:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This post over at RedState makes it plain:

Reagan:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

Obama:

It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth. But at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the cycle that is crippling our economy, where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs, which leads to even less spending, where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.

One could not have a starker difference in philosophy if you tried.  The problem is that what Reagan did had been proven to be right before.  Obama wants to try something else, but that something else failed

Badly.

I lived as a young adult during the Carter years.  I remember friends having mortgages at 18%, unemployment at 10%, and inflation rates way above what we have today.  I really have no need or want to do it again.  It was a miserable time economically and a blot on the national psyche.

Reagan was right - government was not the answer but Americans were, and can be again.  This conservative hero knew that he had to use government in such a way to get it out of the way of ordinary Americans.  Yeah, things got worse while Paul Volcker wrung inflation out of the system under Reagan's leadership.  Taxes were slashed and the economic boom of the last quarter of the last century took off.

Obama, on the other hand, is going to repeat the problems, excesses, and mistakes of FDR and the New Deal.  Spending at the rate he wants to will be the downfall of us all for the next few years as he spends money we don't have. 

Even now, economists are saying that tax cuts will work best but not massive spending.  The problem is that Obama's tax cuts are nothing but welfare checks wrapped in conservative words.  When one just gives REFUNDABLE tax credits, it will have Government sending checks to those that do not pay income taxes.  In other words, borrowed money given to the poor that didn't pay the taxes in the first place.  Right now, the amount is $500 / person - and like the initial tax rebate that Bush did, this will have little effect either.

Me? Instead of punishing those that have succeeded with higher taxes, how about making it easier for them to put more people to work by making it easier for them to invest.  Lower their taxes!

After all, JFK did, and created a boom.  Reagan did it and and got a boom.  Bush too.

FDR?  He just turned a short Depression into a decade long Great Depression.  And Obama wants to repeat it.

Sheesh....

Posted by Skip at 11:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Famous Judd Gregg notepad-- Gracing many a political banquet place-setting since 1993.

When I got my Union Leader out of the tube early this morning and saw the blurb on the left hand side of the front page touting a story about Senator Judd Gregg and the ongoing bailout-mania, I nearly choked on my coffee when I read the words:

Adding to the federal deficit with an economic stimulus package should lead to greater long-term fiscal stability for the federal government, as well as greater productivity and economic competitiveness, U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg said yesterday.

Huh? Spending more money that we DON'T have will HELP our long-term fiscal stability? I can't think of any big-spending, government loving liberals that could have articulated their beliefs more clearly than has Judd with the above sentiment. Has he completely lost his mind? Having announced his intention to run for yet another term in the Senate in 2010, is his plan to throw all of his supposed long-standing conservatism (and the conservatives that rely on him) out the window? The last thing we need in the next two years-- one dominated by a Democratic ruling majority-- is another key Republican "leader" dishing out "Democrat-lite." 

Conventional wisdom held by many Republicans and Independents alike is that part of the reason the GOP finds itself on the outside looking in is because they blew it when it came to any pretense of fiscal restraint. Now, when taking on the Democrats-- the REAL pros when it comes to taxing hard-working, productive Americans and giving it away to the many takers-- they have no credibility... and we all suffer (and our children's children's children).

Perhaps someone should remind Senator Gregg of the words of another Republican that shows the extent to which he has strayed. From Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural Address:

Continue reading "Et tu, Judd? Oh well. At least I've got a good supply of those spiffy little notepads with his picture on it to remind me of him after he's gone..." »

Posted by Doug at 2:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I cannot help but feel uneasy about the federal government doling out tax dollars like there’s no tomorrow to people who have already demonstrated a failure to adapt and change within their chosen marketplace. It is said that the definition of lunacy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  The same goes for giving people money in the face of future high risk of failure. If the private sector-- either through loans or outright purchase offers-- fails to demonstrate interest in a business entity, why should the government, in the name of its shareholder/taxpayers, be any different?

I have come to the belief that the only true way to “stimulate” the economy without building more credit debt (adding more levels to the “house of cards” that has been the economy to a certain extent) is by doing it with “real” money. And the only “real” money, when you stop and think about it, is what one has in hand. Instead of printing money--setting the stage for inflation-- or taking even more from working and investing Americans and giving it to who Congress and its influence peddlers see fit, how about if they instead simply let working people keep more of what they make each and every week for a period of time?

Take a look at your pay stub. Compare the “gross” pay versus the “net”-- your take-home portion. Do the simple subtraction and just imagine what you could do if you were allowed to keep a substantial portion of the difference.

Instead of Senator Windbag taking your money, or mortgaging your great-grandchildren’s futures, and giving it to his favorite banker buddies so they may continue their lavish “hot-tubs and champagne” lifestyles, wouldn’t it be nice to instead use it to purchase something you’ve long wanted? Rather than send that sizeable chunk of your paycheck to states, cities, and counties that refuse to eliminate waste, your money, spent as YOU see fit might be just the “stimulating” boost the manufacturer and retailer of your desired product needs.

Why, given the right incentive, some people might decide to save a little for a down payment on a house or that shiny new Chevy truck that catches their eye in the lot of the neighborhood dealer. Who knows? But one thing’s for certain-- more money, if people were allowed to keep more of their “gross” weekly earnings-- would be instantly and immediately moving around. Some people might pay off debt, thus infusing badly needed dollars to cash-strapped lending institutions. And yes, some others might simply SAVE the money for future needs- nothing wrong with that, either—and would that not help banks, too? 

The bottom line is that the more the free wheels of the economy spin while satisfying the needs and desires of people with cash, the more it should rise. And you don’t have to take my word for it, all you have to do is take a look back to some fairly recent history, and let it be your guide. I’m talking, of course, about the Reagan era—that brief moment in time when we truly were a “shining city on a hill.” Rather than “redistributing the wealth,” prosperity happened for many people who, following years of high taxation, got to keep more of the fruits of their labor. And, like wildfire, the newly kept dollars made their way across the economy. Oh, and we managed to win the Cold War during that time as well.

To that end, I have discovered two possibilities that could go a long way towards reinvigorating the Reagan economy's successes.

Continue reading "2 "Bailout" Proposals we could support: A 30% marginal rate cut, or a "tax holiday"" »

Posted by Doug at 8:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In what is an interesting rerun of events already taking place here in Belknap County, Fosters.com is reporting that the Strafford County Commissioners are proposing cuts of funding for most of the so-called "outside agencies" it presently supports. The county

will cease funding several programs it has provided partial funding to for several years, including the Strafford County Cooperative Extension, Cocheco Valley Humane Society and Soil Conservation District.

Maglaras said the county still would provide these programs with space in the county complex for free. He added that funding from the county only represented a small percentage of these programs' operating budgets.

[snip]

Funding also has been cut to all contracted social service agencies, including Strafford County Community Action, Avis Goodwin Community Health Center, Southeastern New Hampshire Services Corporation, Strafford County Meals on Wheels, Great Bay Services, Strafford County Child Care Association, A Safe Place, Seacoast Hospice, Community Partners, Your VNA Hospice, Dover Adult Learning Center of Strafford County and Homemakers Health Services.

Of course, this is exactly what the Belknap County Commissioners originally proposed when first unveiling their budget a couple months back-- prior to completely caving in the face of a withering mob scene of those monetarily connected to the local agencies affected. And the rationale is the same, too-- and rightfully so. Again from the Foster's article, County Commission Chair George Maglaras put it thus:

"We shrunk county operations to the core services the county is required to fund by statute."

One wonders why it took a severe fiscal crisis to wake up those who've been growing government beyond its mandate for so long... Better late than never. Apparently, we can assume that the crisis is even worse in Strafford than here in Belknap, because, in addition to the proposed cuts, the Foster's piece also reports-- GASP-- that the county laid off 20 workers Friday, and will pass on filling another 20 vacancies. Imagine that-- government actually REDUCING the number of employees! You know that things must really be tight for them to do that. Perhaps the state can take a lesson from Strafford County? Can the cuts hold? They didn't here in Belknap (thanks to spineless Republicans). Perhaps Strafford County's leaders will have the strength to lead in tough times? This will be interesting. Stay tuned...

Posted by Doug at 9:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Just got this. Even though there are some things to like about Obama's 310 billion dollar tax cut proposal, I like the following idea from William Collier better:

Remember 1980?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average at 759. Less than 10% of its current value.

The unemployment rate around 7%. Almost 40% higher than today.

Inflation rate? 13%. Around triple of today’s.

A misery index of 20%. More than double today’s.

In the White House: Jimmy Carter. Hectoring America for its “malaise.”

Then what happened? We elected Ronald Reagan president.

Reagan cut the income tax rate 30% across the board. And stood behind Paul Volcker’s strengthening the dollar.

What happened next? Prosperity happened.

America took off and never looked back. Now, looking back, we remember the recipe for Prosperity. We appreciate the need to assist ordinary citizens in their time of hardship. The best way to do that is by using the bailout money to bring back Prosperity.

The $700 billion appropriated for bailouts more than covers the costs of A renewed 30% across-the-board tax rate cut. AND a payroll tax cut.

We know this works. We did it before. It worked. It will work.

Reagan 2.0: a 30% across-the board tax cut. And a payroll tax cut.

Sign this petition for Congress. Make your voice heard now. No bailouts! Tax rate cuts! Bring Prosperity Back.

The Petition To the Congress of the United States of America:

Continue reading "Reagan 2.0 The Petition. Tell Congress: No bailouts! Tax rate cuts! Bring Prosperity Back." »

Posted by Doug at 8:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks Compassionate Conservatism (just another name for Liberal Big Government from the other side of the aisle).  Thanks, meddlers in the free market who believe that by throwing taxpayer money at a problem.  I blame you both.

The United States of America is bankrupt. Don’t believe it? Consider this: Federal obligations now exceed the collective net worth of all Americans, according to the New York-based Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Washington politicians and bureaucrats have essentially mortgaged everything We the People own so they can keep spending our tax dollars like there’s no tomorrow.

The foundation’s grim calculations are based on Sept. 30 consolidated federal statements, which showed that Americans’ total household net worth, diminished by falling stock prices and home equity, is $56.5 trillion. But rising costs for unfunded social programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security increased to $56.4 trillion – and that was before the more recent stock market crash, $700 billion bank bailout, and monster federal deficits chalked up in October and November.

“Given more recent developments, it’s clear that America now owes more than its citizens are worth,” said Foundation president David M. Walker, who has been trying to warn Americans of the coming financial tsunami for years, to no avail. So, after Uncle Sam bails out bankers, Wall Street gamblers, carmakers and over-their-head homeowners, who’ll bail out Uncle Sam?

(H/T: NRO)

Posted by Skip at 9:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Basic economics - governments do not create jobs.   Yes, governments can hire people to do work but they can only be funded by taking money from other people (via taxes) or borrowing money (which then requires repayment, which requires taking even more money from other people via taxes). Government jobs do not create wealth.

Government sends signals, economic signals, to the job creators in private industry  through various policies and regulations.  It set the field, the platform as it were, for the creation or destruction of jobs by those signals (present and future). Tax policy is one of the large "things" that the real job creators (the private sector) take into account as an important signal in what they will be doing. However, because of the propensity of politicians to use the tax code to fulfill their own philosophy, the private sector will judge what to do based on what they see.

Like now.  Some thoughts I saw over at American Thinker:

When the jobs report for November came out last week, many so-called "experts" were shocked at the massive loss of an estimated 533 thousand jobs...

Let me attempt to help out these "curious capitalists" (though I am still skeptical that anyone working for CNN or Time is either curious or a capitalist).  I caused part of this job loss and I know precisely why; the election. The results portend big trouble for small business.

The job destruction process has started. We are about 20% of the way through our ramp down process and on schedule to complete the shut down by spring 2009. Watch the financial news and you will see continued job cuts each month. We are not alone in our strategy. Far from it. Atlas has shrugged all over the country.

Like many business owners, we are no longer willing to take all of the financial and legal risks and put up with all of the aggravation of owning and running a business. Not with the prospects of even higher taxes, more regulation, more litigation and more emboldened bureaucrats on the horizon... 

...Liberals seem to be clueless as to where "the money" comes from.  They love to tax, regulate and redistribute wealth -- all the while decrying the very profit motive that created it -- something they do not understand. If they did, they would not naively insist that a business that is out of money, out of customers and out of credit stay open so as to pay employees.

And that is but one example of why the lay-offs of November 2008...fall, in reality, on the Obama election. Business owners understand that the election of 2008 just gave a lot more power to people who think like these liberals in Illinois...

It is no secret that owners circulated endless emails leading up to election day discussing lay off plans were Obama to win.  Entrepreneurs instinctively understand the danger posed by larger liberal majorities in power. The risk-reward