Sen. John McCain's acceptance speech for the nomination of his party to run for president shared many calls for service to a higher cause than oneself with that of Sen. Barack Obama. However, where Obama never failed to couple calls for self-sacrifice with the pursuit of one's own goals, McCain's speech implies that it is very American to pursue one's own happiness. Whereas Obama implies that our efforts on behalf of others are performed through government programs, McCain sees much of this effort as being performed privately and voluntarily. Nonetheless, there is a call to unit solidarity in effect in McCain's speech remeniscent of military unit pride and comradery where the unit is America. Fortunately, he notes that Americans are "dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights." This is in flat contradiction to Sen. Joe Biden who angrily has claimed that people do not have inalienable rights, despite McCain's claim that we share this cause with Obama and Biden. Perhaps he makes this claim that Obama and Biden share this commitment to individual rights because he cannot understand how one can be an American and not believe in this central principle that makes us Americans.
Obama is probably too smooth an operator to have actually said that he does not believe in inalienable rights, but as a dedicated socialist he cannot be dedicated to the cause of individual inalienable rights. Sen. Joe Biden, another dedicated socialist, has at least been forthright and honest about his opposition to the standing of the individual with rights prior to any act of government and notwithstanding any act of government. He adamantly opposed this idea in Justice Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. John McCain has the greater, though not always consistent, dedication to the idea of individual inalienable rights. This is a very fundamental difference between McCain and Palin compared to Obama and Biden.
McCain pledges that the Republican Party is "going to recover the people's trust by standing up again for the values Americans admire." He goes on to list some of these values.
They are low taxes, spending discipline, open markets, rewarding hard work and risk-taking, letting people keep the fruits of their labor, strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, impartial justice, the values of families, neighborhoods and communities, creativity and initiative, personal choice, and government which helps to give us more personal choices.
The emphasis seems to be upon allowing individuals to manage their own lives, choose their own values, exercise creativity and initiative, pursue a positive and happiness-seeking life, and live productively in a society ruled by law with impartial justice. He also speaks of service and of family, neighborhood, and community values, which rather than constraining Americans to acts of self-sacrifice and uniformity as in Obama's case, seem to be offered in a vein of additional personal choices and opportunities in our living our own lives.
Where Obama called for a myriad government service agencies, McCain more admires people acting of their own choice and initiative to identify America's and the world's problems and personally dedicating oneself to solving those problems of special interest to yourself. For instance, he clearly admires Laura Bush and his wife Cindy for their work in helping others. Helping others often is a source of pleasure, so this desire for voluntary service is much less worrisome than is Obama's call for government funded and operated service. But because of McCain's military experience and the fact that he comes from a long-time military family, he does have a tendency to over-emphasize service and to occasionally advocate self-sacrifice. Mostly however, he holds the door open for Americans to choose to serve to the degree they wish and in the way they wish, which differs greatly from Obama's approach to service.
He says "we're going to change Washington and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix." I hope this means that he intends to do more than just address corruption and reduce so-called discretionary spending. I hope this is a promise to rationalize the Social Security and Medicare programs which are soon going to be transferring huge wealth from the young to the retired Baby Boomers. For reasons I have explained in this post, I do not think he or anyone else will yet succeed in getting these problems addressed, but it is unconscionable not to try.
He contrasts his commitment to low taxes with Obama's to increase taxes, his efforts for increased trade to Obama's efforts to reduce trade, the creation of jobs by tax cuts, rather than their destruction by tax increases, and his opposition to Obama's plan to "force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor."
He notes that low taxes help small businesses grow and create new jobs. Rather than using tax credits to reward companies keeping jobs in America or tax increases to punish those that send jobs abroad, he wants to cut our corporate tax rate, which is the second highest in the world, in the understanding that doing so will allow companies to keep and create more jobs in America. He understands that competing in the global market is the best way to make America prosperous and that it challenges us to think. He promises to reduce government spending and failed programs so we will keep more of our own money to save, spend, and invest as we see fit.
He addresses our many failed schools as the principal civil rights issue of this century. He is partially right here, though there really is also a failure of families to value education in many of the communities with the worst schools. He plans to "shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, to empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work." It is not clear how he will be able to do this as President, but at least he is on the right side of a huge problem. Sen. Obama is on the other side and simply wants to give the union-controlled monopoly schools more money to spend. McCain wants schools to answer to parents and students, exactly who they would have to answer to if we had a free-market educational system.
He also addressed energy availability and said we are going to stop spending $700 billion a year with countries that do not like us very much by drilling new wells offshore, building more nuclear power plants, developing clean coal technology, increasing the use of wind, tide, solar, and natural gas, and developing and using flex fuel, hybrid, and electric cars. Unlike Obama, he would have us pursue a broader range of energy-producing options to include more drilling and building more nuclear power plants. No details on how this would be done were given. At least, for a change, he did not say we would achieve energy independence. We would not, but we can achieve more energy choices with increased energy availability and reduced costs. Of course, we would still be sending the better part of $700 billion a year to other countries and some of them would still not like us very much. This contrasts with Obama's ridiculous claim that in 10 years he would achieve energy independence by pursuing increased wind and solar energy output, while ignoring substantially more drilling and the building of nuclear power plants.
McCain says "The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems isn't a cause, it's a symptom. It's what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you." He is partially right here. But, the reason politicians are sent to Washington who are not working for us is because neither we the voters nor the politicians understand clearly enough that their function is supposed to be to limit government to those powers strictly delineated in the Constitution, while performing them in a manner consistent with the General Welfare. The general welfare is provided for when government recognizes that the individual American has an inalienable right to his life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The individual exercise of these rights is maximized when government consistently leaves as many options as possible to the individual and allows the individual to manage his own life.
McCain partially understands this, while Obama does not. Unfortunately, we know that McCain is sometimes confused by the very general lack of understanding by the politicians and bureaucrats he has been surrounded by for more than 30 years. While he is something of a maverick, the Washington political culture has nonetheless seeped into his bones even as he rails against it. Sometimes, his viewpoint is also affected by his commitment to military service, which has evolved into a commitment to public service. He understands the need for productive and creative work, building the economy, seeking personal happiness, and taking care of one's family, but he still views sacrificing oneself and family for the happiness of others as a higher value. He is a basically good man who is confused by a confused culture. He knows we have an American purpose and cause, but he can only approximately name it. His approximation is at least much more correct than is Obama's or Biden's.
McCain finishes his speech with a request that we join him in his fight for the American cause. He asks us to:
"Fight for the ideals and character of a free people."
"Fight for our children's future."
"Fight for justice and opportunity for all."
"Stand up to defend our country from its enemies."
I have long been in this fight and I see Senator McCain as something of a bumbling helper. I hope that as he has to explain why he is seeking the office of the President that he will learn more clearly what the American cause really is. Sometimes we learn best when we try to teach others and to his credit, he appears to be trying to teach Americans what the American cause is. At the least, he is likely to throw a number of the political scalawags off their game of taking advantage of the American people.
When the Republican controlled Congress was voting to spend $190 billion on the 2002 farm bill, he voted against it. He voted against the ($783 billion through 2018) 2003 Medicare drug entitlement bill. Through 2082 it is expected to cost $8.4 trillion, though such estimates always prove to be too low. He also voted against the 2005 highway bill for $286 billion. McCain clearly understands that government does not have unlimited resources and cannot call upon the people for taxes to support every project on every politician's wish list. He has also shown this by not requesting earmarks, which in 2005 reached a high water mark of 13,996 earmarks by other members of Congress. He roundly scolded the Republican Party for participating in the earmark debacle and for reckless spending in his speech.
Senator McCain does not have a basic philosophical approach to ethics and government and he sometimes falls into populism and calls for self-sacrifice, but he believes basically in the rights of the individual, in limited government, and when he calls for self-sacrifice, he usually does so in a context of voluntary choice. This makes him a much more ethical and less dangerous man than is Senator Obama.
If only we could get him to repudiate the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that unconstitutionally limits the freedom of speech before elections! We also need to hope that Sarah Palin will be useful in persuading him that anthropomorphic global warming is unproven, pointless to spend money on, and not necessarily even a bad thing. At least he did not discuss global warming and the environment in his speech. We should also hope that she persuades him to allow more oil and gas drilling in Alaska and on other federal lands.
07 September 2008
05 September 2008
Congressional Spending Chaos
Over the last 25 years, it has been hard to reign in the spending of Congress no matter which party controls it. As John McCain pointed out in his speech accepting the nomination of the Republican Party to run for the Presidency, when the Republicans had control of Congress and the Presidency, they lost the trust of the American people by going on a spending binge. From time to time, it is pointed out that if Congress is controlled by one party, then it is better for the purpose of controlling the size of government that the President be of the other party. But, even better, Richard Rahn points out is a divided Congress, since it is Congress that makes the laws and creates new taxes and new agencies. He has written an article called "The Economy and the Congress," which was published in the Washington Times on 4 September and provides interesting data on this issue.
His principal points are:
His principal points are:
- The economy grew best when the Democrats controlled the House and the Republicans the Senate in the middle Reagan years and when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate in the last six Clinton years.
- The deficit was lowest and a surplus even occurred when the Republicans controlled the Congress under Clinton.
- In the 5 years between 1983 and 2007 when Congress was divided, the economy grew at a 4.1% annual rate, when the Republicans controlled Congress for 11 of those years the growth rate was lower at 3.3%, and when the Democrats controlled Congress for 9 of those years the economy grew still more slowly at a rate of 2.8%.
- When Congress was divided, the deficit decreased as a % of GDP by 4.2%, while it decreased under Democrat control by 3.4%, and only by 1.0% when Congress was controlled by the Republicans.
01 September 2008
Coal Liquefaction
An interesting commentary on coal liquefaction by E. Ralph Hostetter appeared in the 31 August 2008 Washington Times. Coal can be converted into liquid gasoline and diesel fuel using hot water under pressure to form a mixture of hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide. In the presence of heat, pressure, and a suitable catalyst, such as iron, this mixture will form long hydrocarbon chains.
The United States mines more than 1 billion tons of coal a year. We have 275 billion tons of recoverable coal, 1/4th of the world's estimated coal reserves. American Clean Coal Fuels in Illinois is developing a 30,000 barrel per day biomass and coal-to-liquid operation. Baard Energy is building a 53,000 barrels per day coal and biomass to liquid facility on the Ohio River. Rentech is building a facility in Natchez, Mississippi to produce 29,000 barrels per day. DKRW is constructing a 20,000 barrel per day plant in Medicine Bow, Wyoming. The U. S. Dept. of Energy is predicting 3.7 million barrels per day of liquid from coal by 2030. About 1.25 barrels of oil can be formed from each ton of coal. If the U. S. mined another 1 billion tons of coal a day and converted it into liquid fuels, we could reduce crude oil imports by 15% and decrease import costs by $100 billion per year.
The United States mines more than 1 billion tons of coal a year. We have 275 billion tons of recoverable coal, 1/4th of the world's estimated coal reserves. American Clean Coal Fuels in Illinois is developing a 30,000 barrel per day biomass and coal-to-liquid operation. Baard Energy is building a 53,000 barrels per day coal and biomass to liquid facility on the Ohio River. Rentech is building a facility in Natchez, Mississippi to produce 29,000 barrels per day. DKRW is constructing a 20,000 barrel per day plant in Medicine Bow, Wyoming. The U. S. Dept. of Energy is predicting 3.7 million barrels per day of liquid from coal by 2030. About 1.25 barrels of oil can be formed from each ton of coal. If the U. S. mined another 1 billion tons of coal a day and converted it into liquid fuels, we could reduce crude oil imports by 15% and decrease import costs by $100 billion per year.
Mischief of US Climate Change Science Project
Dr. Patrick Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. In a commentary published on 31 August in the Washington Times, he writes about having reviewed a report called Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. This report concluded that "Aggressive near-term actions would be required to alter the future path of human-induced warming." The "product lead" is Tom Karl, who heads the Commerce Department's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. and Michaels says he is a very politically savvy guy.
He says the report implies that only bad results come from global warming. This is not the case. Growing seasons become longer and higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere cause plants to grow better. Americans like warmer climates so much, they often choose to move to warmer areas of the country. It claims that the elderly are especially vulnerable to extreme heat, but Phoenix and Tampa have many elderly inhabitants and very few heat-related deaths. Generally, the report is very unscientific according to Michaels.
This is not surprising. The senior editor is Susan J. Hassol, who wrote the HBO global warming documentary "Too Hot Not to Handle," and is not a climate scientist. The executive producer is Laurie David, who orchestrated Al Gore's inconveniently false "An Inconvenient Truth." She was also the executive producer of the HBO documentary. With these two producing this document, it is hardly surprising that it is science fiction.
He says the report implies that only bad results come from global warming. This is not the case. Growing seasons become longer and higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere cause plants to grow better. Americans like warmer climates so much, they often choose to move to warmer areas of the country. It claims that the elderly are especially vulnerable to extreme heat, but Phoenix and Tampa have many elderly inhabitants and very few heat-related deaths. Generally, the report is very unscientific according to Michaels.
This is not surprising. The senior editor is Susan J. Hassol, who wrote the HBO global warming documentary "Too Hot Not to Handle," and is not a climate scientist. The executive producer is Laurie David, who orchestrated Al Gore's inconveniently false "An Inconvenient Truth." She was also the executive producer of the HBO documentary. With these two producing this document, it is hardly surprising that it is science fiction.
Very Little Sunspot Activity Recently
There has been very little sunspot activity since the most recent solar cycle 24 began in January. The last sunspot activity was on 20 July. Before that, there was a long stretch with no sunspots also. Measurements of solar irradiance over the last three months have also been very low.
The Little Ice Age had two parts. The second part corresponded to an extensive time of very few observances of sunspots, called the Maunder Minimum.
The Little Ice Age had two parts. The second part corresponded to an extensive time of very few observances of sunspots, called the Maunder Minimum.
The Earth's Favorite Average Temperature
During the last 600 million years, the earth's favorite average temperature has been about 22C or about 72F. The average temperature has come down from this temperature a number of times, but it usually stays near this very warm temperature. When the temperature drops, it for comparatively short times and it sometimes drops a lot. About 600 million years ago, the average temperature was about 23C and it stayed at the high temperature for more than 160 million years. About 440 million years ago, the average temperature dropped to about 12C or about 54F. It quickly rose back up to 23C and then dropped to about 20C from 375 to 310 million years ago. From 300 to about 270 million years ago, it was about 12C again. Then it shot up to about 22C until it dipped down for a short time to about 16C about 140 million years ago. It quickly returned to 22C and stayed there until about 35 million years ago when it started to decrease. Once again, it fell until it reached about 12C. It has since risen a bit, so at this time the average temperature is about 14C, which is much cooler than the most common average temperature of 22C.
Farmer's Almanac Expects Global Cooling
The Farmer's Almanac expects global cooling based upon a change of sun spot activity. The sun's sunspot activity just transitioned from Cycle 23 to Cycle 24 in January 2008. Cycle 23 was 25% cooler than the prior cycle, which has caused the cooling of the Earth's average temperature since 2000. Cycle 24 started late. The Farmer's Almanac examined the sunspot activity of the last 88 years and beyond and believes that Cycle 24 will be a cool cycle. The worst is yet to come according to the Farmer's Almanac:
"Doug Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA, believes that solar activity has diminished and will continue to do so for decades. In 2006, he predicted, based on observations of the slowing of the plasma flow on the Sun, that cycle 25 could be the quietest—thus, the coolest—in centuries. Also in that year, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of research for the Russian Academy of Sciences, issued an imminent mini-ice age warning based on expectations of a quieter Sun over the next 50 years. Our long-range forecasts also point toward cooling conditions."
At the present time the Pacific Ocean is also cooling. So, the world's biggest ocean and the expected solar sunspot activity over several cycles are expected to be cooler. If there is any effect of CO2 in warming the earth, it may be very welcome. Unfortunately, the record looking back seems to show that natural forces have played the dominant role and will continue to do so.
Meanwhile, the principal candidates for the presidency are both advocates of taking drastic actions to reduce CO2 emissions by forcing carbon-based fuels to become more expensive and by forcing us to use less energy. Whichever is elected will combine with a Democrat Congress to pass draconian legislation which will cost every American considerable money and hardship, even as it should be clear that we should more likely be preparing for a several decades long colder spell.
As I have noted many times before, warmer is usually better for mankind than cooler is. Cooler gives us a shorter growing season and could make it much more difficult to feed the more than 6 billion people now on earth. Cooler tends to create more violent storms. Cooler is harder on older people than warmer is. Of course, if a few billion people were to starve, many environmentalists would rejoice. After all, they think humans are the enemy of the planet.
"Doug Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA, believes that solar activity has diminished and will continue to do so for decades. In 2006, he predicted, based on observations of the slowing of the plasma flow on the Sun, that cycle 25 could be the quietest—thus, the coolest—in centuries. Also in that year, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of research for the Russian Academy of Sciences, issued an imminent mini-ice age warning based on expectations of a quieter Sun over the next 50 years. Our long-range forecasts also point toward cooling conditions."
At the present time the Pacific Ocean is also cooling. So, the world's biggest ocean and the expected solar sunspot activity over several cycles are expected to be cooler. If there is any effect of CO2 in warming the earth, it may be very welcome. Unfortunately, the record looking back seems to show that natural forces have played the dominant role and will continue to do so.
Meanwhile, the principal candidates for the presidency are both advocates of taking drastic actions to reduce CO2 emissions by forcing carbon-based fuels to become more expensive and by forcing us to use less energy. Whichever is elected will combine with a Democrat Congress to pass draconian legislation which will cost every American considerable money and hardship, even as it should be clear that we should more likely be preparing for a several decades long colder spell.
As I have noted many times before, warmer is usually better for mankind than cooler is. Cooler gives us a shorter growing season and could make it much more difficult to feed the more than 6 billion people now on earth. Cooler tends to create more violent storms. Cooler is harder on older people than warmer is. Of course, if a few billion people were to starve, many environmentalists would rejoice. After all, they think humans are the enemy of the planet.
31 August 2008
Obama's Call to Service
I just read a speech given by Obama on 2 July 2008 in which he makes it very clear that he believes it is more honorable to serve others than to seek the fulfillment of one's own goals. He calls on Americans, especially young Americans, to serve in many ways which seems fundamentally designed to teach and train them to become the servants of the state. Make no mistake, Obama loves the old socialist dream of mobilizing the people to respond to a cause which is larger than themselves. This appeals to many people, but substituting a larger cause for ourselves has always led to the excesses of the socialist state. It recalls Lenin and Stalin in the USSR, Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, Castro in Cuba, Mao in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and Hugo Chazez in Venezuela. This is a road we should be very careful not to go down.
He insists that we must serve a common purpose. No, there is no reason why we must serve a common purpose. We are free to pursue our own values, goals, and dreams. America has always prospered and been innovative and motivated by this individuality. Our government was designed to facilitate a society in which individuals could work voluntarily for such goals as a number of people had, but just as importantly, others with different goals were not required to contribute. In Obama's scheme of things, we are all obliged to find many goals we hold in common with all other Americans and then we must contribute to achieving those goals. Of course, he as president will determine what the many goals are and then he will require us all to contribute in the name of a higher purpose.
Fundamentally, Obama just does not get it. He says we "are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans." Somehow, from this he thinks it follows that we are obliged to see to it that everyone has a wonderful life and is happy. Well no, this is an impossible burden to put on everyone. It is not even possible for a person concentrating fully on their own life to always manage to have a wonderful life full of happiness. If we tell everyone that they should focus less on that and more on trying to make all other American lives wonderful and full of happiness, American lives will be less wonderful and much sadder. This is what has always happened in the socialist countries that pursued this course far down its road. This is in no way surprising - I cannot understand your life, values, and causes for happiness as well as I can understand my own.
Among other causes, we are called to reduce our energy dependence upon sources in other countries and to prevent climate change. We are warned that "our American Dream risks slipping away." Obama says, "I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States."
Surprisingly, he will ask more people to serve in the armed forces. He will expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 to 200,000 with added slots for providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world. He will start an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects. He will double the size of the Peace Corps. He will expand USA Freedom Corps to create an online network where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. He will fund R&D for nonprofits. He will start a Social Investment Fund Network.
He will integrate service into education, presumably the way Maryland does this. Students are not allowed to graduate until they have many hours of public service work acceptable to the state. This will not be voluntary in his case either, because he will not give federal money to schools unless they participate, which means the schools will force students to participate so they can get as much money as possible. This is a clear trampling of the rights of the individual to pursue their own happiness.
The Energy Corps will provide jobs for the nearly 2 million young Americans who are out of school and out of work. If they do not want to be in school, it is not clear they will want to be in the Energy Corps, but he has no concerns about this. He could allow many of them to find work if he removed the minimum wage rate laws, but he will not do that, since he loves that law. No, he wants them out of work so he can mobilize them for a socialist cause. He will put these disadvantaged young people to cleaning polluted areas, weatherizing homes, and gaining skills in a growing industry. I suppose the industry he has in mind is the Green Industry, supported by federal tax credits and subsidies and somehow able to achieve energy independence in 10 years. He will also expand the YouthBuild Program putting young Americans to building affordable housing in America's poorest communities, but he will not end local government building restrictions that make housing more expensive.
He says students want to end the genocide in Darfur (as soldiers?), farmers want to free us from the tyranny of oil (by turning corn into ethanol?), the oceans must be kept from rising. Every task on his wish list will be tackled by young or old volunteers and solved. Many of them will have little in the way of skills, but they will solve intractable problems, such as overcoming the huge natural forces that cause the earth's climate to change! No, he stupidly thinks it is only CO2 emissions that cause that. With such a Manager-in-Chief, we can be sure none of this multitude of unfocused programs will accomplish anything useful. They will only delay the professional training of our young people in their career paths.
But, every American will be forced to pay for this plethora of programs in which those who know nothing will be directed to solve every conceivable problem by those who have no management experience and lack the discipline of having to make a profit or even having to live within a budget. But, what a grand and glorious army of mobilized youth to pursue every socialist dream of the last 100 years! And at the head of this marching army, Commander-in-Chief Obama will lead them with his piping into endless folly.
He insists that we must serve a common purpose. No, there is no reason why we must serve a common purpose. We are free to pursue our own values, goals, and dreams. America has always prospered and been innovative and motivated by this individuality. Our government was designed to facilitate a society in which individuals could work voluntarily for such goals as a number of people had, but just as importantly, others with different goals were not required to contribute. In Obama's scheme of things, we are all obliged to find many goals we hold in common with all other Americans and then we must contribute to achieving those goals. Of course, he as president will determine what the many goals are and then he will require us all to contribute in the name of a higher purpose.
Fundamentally, Obama just does not get it. He says we "are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans." Somehow, from this he thinks it follows that we are obliged to see to it that everyone has a wonderful life and is happy. Well no, this is an impossible burden to put on everyone. It is not even possible for a person concentrating fully on their own life to always manage to have a wonderful life full of happiness. If we tell everyone that they should focus less on that and more on trying to make all other American lives wonderful and full of happiness, American lives will be less wonderful and much sadder. This is what has always happened in the socialist countries that pursued this course far down its road. This is in no way surprising - I cannot understand your life, values, and causes for happiness as well as I can understand my own.
Among other causes, we are called to reduce our energy dependence upon sources in other countries and to prevent climate change. We are warned that "our American Dream risks slipping away." Obama says, "I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States."
Surprisingly, he will ask more people to serve in the armed forces. He will expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 to 200,000 with added slots for providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world. He will start an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects. He will double the size of the Peace Corps. He will expand USA Freedom Corps to create an online network where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. He will fund R&D for nonprofits. He will start a Social Investment Fund Network.
He will integrate service into education, presumably the way Maryland does this. Students are not allowed to graduate until they have many hours of public service work acceptable to the state. This will not be voluntary in his case either, because he will not give federal money to schools unless they participate, which means the schools will force students to participate so they can get as much money as possible. This is a clear trampling of the rights of the individual to pursue their own happiness.
The Energy Corps will provide jobs for the nearly 2 million young Americans who are out of school and out of work. If they do not want to be in school, it is not clear they will want to be in the Energy Corps, but he has no concerns about this. He could allow many of them to find work if he removed the minimum wage rate laws, but he will not do that, since he loves that law. No, he wants them out of work so he can mobilize them for a socialist cause. He will put these disadvantaged young people to cleaning polluted areas, weatherizing homes, and gaining skills in a growing industry. I suppose the industry he has in mind is the Green Industry, supported by federal tax credits and subsidies and somehow able to achieve energy independence in 10 years. He will also expand the YouthBuild Program putting young Americans to building affordable housing in America's poorest communities, but he will not end local government building restrictions that make housing more expensive.
He says students want to end the genocide in Darfur (as soldiers?), farmers want to free us from the tyranny of oil (by turning corn into ethanol?), the oceans must be kept from rising. Every task on his wish list will be tackled by young or old volunteers and solved. Many of them will have little in the way of skills, but they will solve intractable problems, such as overcoming the huge natural forces that cause the earth's climate to change! No, he stupidly thinks it is only CO2 emissions that cause that. With such a Manager-in-Chief, we can be sure none of this multitude of unfocused programs will accomplish anything useful. They will only delay the professional training of our young people in their career paths.
But, every American will be forced to pay for this plethora of programs in which those who know nothing will be directed to solve every conceivable problem by those who have no management experience and lack the discipline of having to make a profit or even having to live within a budget. But, what a grand and glorious army of mobilized youth to pursue every socialist dream of the last 100 years! And at the head of this marching army, Commander-in-Chief Obama will lead them with his piping into endless folly.
68 million acres of non-producing oil leases
Nick Snow in the Oil and Gas Journal says that "the independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States charged on 28 August that government red tape and environmentalist hindrances are the primary causes of lease development delays, and it urged Democrats to cease the inflammatory and erroneous claim that US producers are just 'sitting on' 68 million acres of leased land as the fall campaigns get under way." The article is entitled "IPAMS to Democrats: Quit promoting dishonest energy claims."
IPAMS Executive Director Marc Smith says House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Polosi (CA) and Chief Deputy Whip Diana DeGette (CO) made this false claim at the Democrat national convention in Denver.
Smith said that 100% of the Bureau of Land Management oil and gas leases in the Mountain States region have been protested by environmental groups. He says "Industry is in a classic Catch-22 situation whereby the government has created a cumbersome process that takes years to complete, environmental groups exploit the process to throw up legal roadblocks at every stage, and then Congress and the environment lobby turn around and blame the industry for not 'diligently drilling.'"
When Obama calls for producing more natural gas and reluctantly allows a wee bit of drilling, it may mean nothing, since he may simply be counting on the bureaucracy and environmental groups to keep any additional oil and gas from being supplied. Until the politicians do something to speed up the process of bringing new finds to production, the granting of a few leases may mean nothing. We must remember that the Democrats have nearly uniformly decided that any use of carbon-based fuels is bad because they result in CO2 emissions. Consequently, they want carbon-based fuel costs to go up, which delays in production accomplishes by delaying production and raising the costs of production.
Thanks to Lemuel Linder for pointing this article out to me.
IPAMS Executive Director Marc Smith says House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Polosi (CA) and Chief Deputy Whip Diana DeGette (CO) made this false claim at the Democrat national convention in Denver.
Smith said that 100% of the Bureau of Land Management oil and gas leases in the Mountain States region have been protested by environmental groups. He says "Industry is in a classic Catch-22 situation whereby the government has created a cumbersome process that takes years to complete, environmental groups exploit the process to throw up legal roadblocks at every stage, and then Congress and the environment lobby turn around and blame the industry for not 'diligently drilling.'"
When Obama calls for producing more natural gas and reluctantly allows a wee bit of drilling, it may mean nothing, since he may simply be counting on the bureaucracy and environmental groups to keep any additional oil and gas from being supplied. Until the politicians do something to speed up the process of bringing new finds to production, the granting of a few leases may mean nothing. We must remember that the Democrats have nearly uniformly decided that any use of carbon-based fuels is bad because they result in CO2 emissions. Consequently, they want carbon-based fuel costs to go up, which delays in production accomplishes by delaying production and raising the costs of production.
Thanks to Lemuel Linder for pointing this article out to me.
29 August 2008
47 million uninsured Americans
The U.S. Census Bureau said that there were 47 million people in the United States who did not have medical insurance in 2006. However, that number went down in 2007 to 45.7 million people.
Texas has the largest percentage of uninsured people. It probably also has the largest percentage of illegal aliens. New Mexico, Florida, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, California, Oklahoma, Nevada, Georgia, and Arkansas in that order, have the next highest percentages of uninsured. A look at the map suggests that it would make sense that these states have the highest percentages of illegal aliens from Latin American countries.
Texas has the largest percentage of uninsured people. It probably also has the largest percentage of illegal aliens. New Mexico, Florida, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, California, Oklahoma, Nevada, Georgia, and Arkansas in that order, have the next highest percentages of uninsured. A look at the map suggests that it would make sense that these states have the highest percentages of illegal aliens from Latin American countries.
Critique of Obama's DNC Acceptance Speech
On 28 August, Senator Obama gave a masterful acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention. He presented his empty populist and socialist program with complete self-assurance and sincerity. His rhetoric wowed the Democrat crowd. Let us examine it critically.
Early on, he claims the American promise is threatened because the economy is in turmoil. Well, yes, the economy goes through business cycles now and then and sometimes policies long encouraged by Congress backfire and cause a problem, such as the home mortgage problem. Well, guess who wanted Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and other businesses to issue risky mortgages and consistently pushed for more of them? The Democrats in Congress. Nonetheless, are we to believe that the American dream is so fragile that it is threatened by a GDP growth slowdown which is not even a recession, let alone a depression?
So he complains about lost homes and reduced home values. Gasoline prices which are high. Could that be in part because the Democrats have consistently opposed drilling for oil in America and prevented us from exporting more oil from Iraq? The credit card bills he complains about would not be so high if people did not work until 16 July to cover the cost of government. The tuition bills would not be so high if socialists did not have total control of the universities.
He complains that a man in Indiana packed up equipment he used for 20 years and shipped it to China. Could it be that the equipment was now obsolete and selling it to China was a good way to get some money for it. Maybe the company bought better new equipment, using the income from the obsolete equipment as the down payment? We do not know. But there is not nearly enough information given here to bring tears to a rational listener's eyes.
He claims we let veterans sleep on the streets. We probably do. There is no guarantee given to a veteran that he will never see hard times. He can go bankrupt, or he may become an alcoholic or a drug abuser. We do have many programs to help veterans, but he should not tell a veteran that he will be forever on easy street because he has served in the military.
Obama says "John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time." Ummm.....I thought George Bush was President and has never served in the Senate. He never votes with Senator John McCain!
Obama falsely claims that McCain proposed "tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans." First, McCain proposes a reduction of the tax rate to all corporations, big and small, and to all industries, not just oil companies. The phrases Barack Hussein used were meant to be inflammatory. Second, McCain does propose that the Bush tax cuts be extended, which will provide tax relief for more than one hundred million Americans. The Democrats have long opposed the extension of the Bush tax cuts which are due to expire in 2010. Obama realized he would have problems winning the election if he went along with the majority of the Democrats on this opposition and has embraced a pledge of no new taxes on middle class individuals, except those leveled upon business owners and that half of the population that owns stocks. Or upon those who realize a capital gain.
He complains that McCain has offered "an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college," but there are already programs that provide student and parent loans adequate for that purpose. Obama does not bother to tell us what he would do.
He says McCain "would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement." No one is changing Social Security for those near retirement. But the present plan is not funded fully and for the younger workers who will be soon heavily burdened with additional taxes to give Baby Boomers many luxurious years of retirement on Social Security, where is the security for their retirement? McCain knows that the only way to provide for that is to end a purely Ponzi scheme and get at least a part of the money withheld from paychecks into investments which over time will grow with the American economy. Funding everyone's retirement with tax money is stupid.
Obama claims the Republican philosophy was to give the rich more money and hope some benefit trickles down to those less well off. Hogwash!!!! The Republican philosophy was to reduce everyone's taxes and they did it. They did include tax reductions for high income groups and everyone else. As a result, the fraction of the income tax paid by the highest income groups went up, not down as you would suppose from the Democrat complaints. The higher income groups now pay almost all of the income tax monies collected.
Obama says "in Washington, they call this the Ownership Society." Yes, and under this philosophy a larger fraction of the population than ever has come to own their own homes and to own investments in stock and other retirement funds. To the dismay of the Democrats, more and more people are building wealth.
He says the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 under Clinton and then down $2,000 under Bush. I have spent a while trying to figure this one out. I know what average family income is and I know what median family income is, but I am not sure what he means by the income of the average American family. It probably means average family income.
But first, let's look at the median family income. This is the income of most interest to most American families. In 1992, median family income in constant 2000 dollars, was $44,129, while it was $52,148 in 2000. This is an increase of $8019. Good for the relatively low spending of Clinton and his free trade policies, so unusual for a Democrat. Of course, this was largely necessitated by a Republican Congress. From 2000 to 2006, median family reported income went down by $1595. But, as we have noted before, workers are taking more of their compensation in the form of unreported retirement investments, vacation time, medical savings plans, family leave time, and paid sick leave, rather than taxable income. People have many more options now on how they take their compensation for their work. Taking advantage of them is just plain smart given the high marginal tax rates, which have gone up in many states and locales during this period. Since these calculations are in price change adjusted dollars, the rise in gasoline prices and food prices plays a big role here. Both Bush and Congress are responsible for the rise in food prices, but it is mostly Congress who is responsible for the increase in gasoline and other fuel prices.
I have not been able to find good numbers for the average family income for this complete span of years, but the average income numbers are much higher. This is because they are weighted heavily by the families with very high incomes. So, a reduction in average family incomes may simply indicate harder times for the very wealthy, who we know Obama to be uninterested in.
Obama claims the American promise says we have "the freedom to make our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect." Generally, yes, but he is actually smuggling in a requirement to be our brother's keeper here, which we shall see down the pike. If I really treat someone with dignity and respect, then I expect that they can take care of themselves.
He says "businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road." First, businesses do not have an obligation to create jobs. A business is composed of people. These people are not obliged to create jobs for others. If they were, then those others would be equally obliged to create jobs. That would logically require everyone to create a job. If everyone creates a job, then no one has to create a job for anyone else but himself. Then everyone would be looking out for himself.
Barack says government should do what we cannot do for ourselves. "Protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology." What, we cannot protect ourselves from harm? We often do. Government has some role here, but not a comprehensive one. We do not need government to provide education. That is an experiment that has failed and it is fraught with the conflict of interest that one of the primary reasons we need to learn to think rationally for ourselves is so we will not be so vulnerable to government tyranny. Putting government in charge of schools is putting the fox in the chicken coop. We do not need government to keep our toys safe. We need responsible retailers to check on safety using good laboratories to examine products from China or other unreliable foreign vendors. Government should play a role in some basic science research, but the development of technology should generally be the province of private enterprise. Government develops technology very poorly.
Now Obama drops the big idea on us. "We are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper." This is surely conflating religion with government. If I am responsible for myself, why isn't my brother, or more probably, some stranger, also responsible for himself? This is clearly contradictory and a recipe for standard socialism with the government intervening in our lives to tell each of us that we must sacrifice our individual rights, privileges, and immunities along with our own individual idea of our values and our goals to some need of others. Soon, no one has any job but to take care of others, but a society in which everyone takes care of others at the expense of themselves is nonsense. Consequently, everyone simply becomes a servant of the state. Then the state determines who gets what "rights", rather then the individual having an inalienable right to anything. This logic is what caused Senator Joe Biden to be furiously suspicious that Judge Clarence Thomas might believe in inalienable individual rights. Biden was adamant that only government can give anyone a right.
Now Obama says "change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it." Yet, Obama plans to write tax codes that do reward certain businesses he likes. Does he really suppose those businesses lobbyists will not be working overtime to see that he picks their businesses for these favors. It is McCain who goes much further in not trying to play favorites with the tax code.
"Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America." Do you really want Obama, who has never managed a business, deciding whether jobs have been shipped overseas and which are good jobs here? This is not the job of a President of the United States. Besides, there may well be good reasons to eliminate some jobs here which are unable to compete in the global economy. Obama will wind up erecting high tariff walls to protect unproductive jobs and destroying our export industries and our competitiveness in the process. This is very simple-minded.
"I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow." Does this mean he will try to decide which small businesses will create high-wage and high-tech jobs and which will not? Many states were doing just this and encouraging investors to start dot-coms and other computer software firms, biotechnology, and optical communications companies which fed the frenzy that led to their collapse in the so-called dot-com recession that hurt the economy so much in the early part of Bush's first term in office. The loss in incomes due to that are a part of what Obama blames him for compared to Clinton, but the frenzy was started and fueled mightily under Clinton's time in office. Government is incompetent in picking winners among small businesses. Forget this. Even if he does not mean to discriminate among small businesses, they really just need a more even playing field, which masses of government regulations do the most to destroy.
"In ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East." He must think he is God. This is absurd. Even an enthusiastic driller cannot do this and he is not a happy driller. His idea to pour money into alternative energy development will result mostly in wasting tons of money and only a small increase in energy. Crash government programs are very wasteful and do not translate well into functioning businesses.
He will use more natural gas, invest in clean coal technology, and use safe nuclear power. Glad to hear he will allow more natural gas production, use of coal, and nuclear power. Will he reduce the time it takes to get government approvals to build facilities? This will be the real test here. And, will companies be allowed to proceed in a way that will allow them to make a profit, which he thinks is a dirty word? Then he will subsidize fuel-efficient cars and alternative energy. It would likely be less wasteful to give our dollars to Mideast sheiks. He will create 5 million new jobs by taxing Americans enough to get the money and thereby destroying another 5 million jobs. Where do politicians get the idiot idea that they create jobs?
He wants every child to have a world class education so they can compete in the global economy from which he wants to retreat to protect unproductive jobs. How he will do this keeping his Democrat Teacher's Union friends happy is not stated beyond saying he will do more of the same things that have always failed.
Somehow, he will give us all accessible health care. I thought we had that, but clearly he proposes to take control and second guess medical experts still more than Medicare already does. This will cause costs to skyrocket, as Medicare has already proven they will. It will also result in highly rationed care. Like Canadians, we will wait many months for an MRI examine for a brain tumor and then 8 more months for an operation to remove it and by then most of our brain.
He will decree that businesses provide more paid sick days and better family leave. This will put some businesses out of business and cause many to hire fewer people.
He will decree equal pay for equal work. So, bureaucrats will visit businesses they know nothing about and interview workers and decide which ones have the same job and do it equally well. Then they will tell the company what to pay them. Really wise! So, who do I fire? All of my female employees or all of my male employees?
As in Biden's speech, he claims Iraq has $79 billion in surplus money. Of course Iraq has terrible needs for this money in rebuilding the infrastructure and society that Saddam Hussein destroyed over many decades and to increase their oil production, but they cannot agree among themselves on how to spend it. Meanwhile, Congress, controlled by the Democrats, opposes their spending it to get any help from American oil companies and until all factions are happy with its use. So, of course it is unspent.
Obama will "build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease." There is no focus here. He who chooses to defend everything, defends nothing. Unless, this joker is God. Seriously, He will defeat all poverty and all genocide. He will defeat the earth and make it keep a constant climate? He will defeat all disease? Incredible. Unbelievable. Childish. Megalomaniacal. Unbalanced. Insane. Otherworldly.
The rest of his speech was just rhetoric with nothing but apple pie, mom, flag-waving, and invocations upon God.
Early on, he claims the American promise is threatened because the economy is in turmoil. Well, yes, the economy goes through business cycles now and then and sometimes policies long encouraged by Congress backfire and cause a problem, such as the home mortgage problem. Well, guess who wanted Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and other businesses to issue risky mortgages and consistently pushed for more of them? The Democrats in Congress. Nonetheless, are we to believe that the American dream is so fragile that it is threatened by a GDP growth slowdown which is not even a recession, let alone a depression?
So he complains about lost homes and reduced home values. Gasoline prices which are high. Could that be in part because the Democrats have consistently opposed drilling for oil in America and prevented us from exporting more oil from Iraq? The credit card bills he complains about would not be so high if people did not work until 16 July to cover the cost of government. The tuition bills would not be so high if socialists did not have total control of the universities.
He complains that a man in Indiana packed up equipment he used for 20 years and shipped it to China. Could it be that the equipment was now obsolete and selling it to China was a good way to get some money for it. Maybe the company bought better new equipment, using the income from the obsolete equipment as the down payment? We do not know. But there is not nearly enough information given here to bring tears to a rational listener's eyes.
He claims we let veterans sleep on the streets. We probably do. There is no guarantee given to a veteran that he will never see hard times. He can go bankrupt, or he may become an alcoholic or a drug abuser. We do have many programs to help veterans, but he should not tell a veteran that he will be forever on easy street because he has served in the military.
Obama says "John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time." Ummm.....I thought George Bush was President and has never served in the Senate. He never votes with Senator John McCain!
Obama falsely claims that McCain proposed "tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans." First, McCain proposes a reduction of the tax rate to all corporations, big and small, and to all industries, not just oil companies. The phrases Barack Hussein used were meant to be inflammatory. Second, McCain does propose that the Bush tax cuts be extended, which will provide tax relief for more than one hundred million Americans. The Democrats have long opposed the extension of the Bush tax cuts which are due to expire in 2010. Obama realized he would have problems winning the election if he went along with the majority of the Democrats on this opposition and has embraced a pledge of no new taxes on middle class individuals, except those leveled upon business owners and that half of the population that owns stocks. Or upon those who realize a capital gain.
He complains that McCain has offered "an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college," but there are already programs that provide student and parent loans adequate for that purpose. Obama does not bother to tell us what he would do.
He says McCain "would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement." No one is changing Social Security for those near retirement. But the present plan is not funded fully and for the younger workers who will be soon heavily burdened with additional taxes to give Baby Boomers many luxurious years of retirement on Social Security, where is the security for their retirement? McCain knows that the only way to provide for that is to end a purely Ponzi scheme and get at least a part of the money withheld from paychecks into investments which over time will grow with the American economy. Funding everyone's retirement with tax money is stupid.
Obama claims the Republican philosophy was to give the rich more money and hope some benefit trickles down to those less well off. Hogwash!!!! The Republican philosophy was to reduce everyone's taxes and they did it. They did include tax reductions for high income groups and everyone else. As a result, the fraction of the income tax paid by the highest income groups went up, not down as you would suppose from the Democrat complaints. The higher income groups now pay almost all of the income tax monies collected.
Obama says "in Washington, they call this the Ownership Society." Yes, and under this philosophy a larger fraction of the population than ever has come to own their own homes and to own investments in stock and other retirement funds. To the dismay of the Democrats, more and more people are building wealth.
He says the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 under Clinton and then down $2,000 under Bush. I have spent a while trying to figure this one out. I know what average family income is and I know what median family income is, but I am not sure what he means by the income of the average American family. It probably means average family income.
But first, let's look at the median family income. This is the income of most interest to most American families. In 1992, median family income in constant 2000 dollars, was $44,129, while it was $52,148 in 2000. This is an increase of $8019. Good for the relatively low spending of Clinton and his free trade policies, so unusual for a Democrat. Of course, this was largely necessitated by a Republican Congress. From 2000 to 2006, median family reported income went down by $1595. But, as we have noted before, workers are taking more of their compensation in the form of unreported retirement investments, vacation time, medical savings plans, family leave time, and paid sick leave, rather than taxable income. People have many more options now on how they take their compensation for their work. Taking advantage of them is just plain smart given the high marginal tax rates, which have gone up in many states and locales during this period. Since these calculations are in price change adjusted dollars, the rise in gasoline prices and food prices plays a big role here. Both Bush and Congress are responsible for the rise in food prices, but it is mostly Congress who is responsible for the increase in gasoline and other fuel prices.
I have not been able to find good numbers for the average family income for this complete span of years, but the average income numbers are much higher. This is because they are weighted heavily by the families with very high incomes. So, a reduction in average family incomes may simply indicate harder times for the very wealthy, who we know Obama to be uninterested in.
Obama claims the American promise says we have "the freedom to make our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect." Generally, yes, but he is actually smuggling in a requirement to be our brother's keeper here, which we shall see down the pike. If I really treat someone with dignity and respect, then I expect that they can take care of themselves.
He says "businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road." First, businesses do not have an obligation to create jobs. A business is composed of people. These people are not obliged to create jobs for others. If they were, then those others would be equally obliged to create jobs. That would logically require everyone to create a job. If everyone creates a job, then no one has to create a job for anyone else but himself. Then everyone would be looking out for himself.
Barack says government should do what we cannot do for ourselves. "Protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology." What, we cannot protect ourselves from harm? We often do. Government has some role here, but not a comprehensive one. We do not need government to provide education. That is an experiment that has failed and it is fraught with the conflict of interest that one of the primary reasons we need to learn to think rationally for ourselves is so we will not be so vulnerable to government tyranny. Putting government in charge of schools is putting the fox in the chicken coop. We do not need government to keep our toys safe. We need responsible retailers to check on safety using good laboratories to examine products from China or other unreliable foreign vendors. Government should play a role in some basic science research, but the development of technology should generally be the province of private enterprise. Government develops technology very poorly.
Now Obama drops the big idea on us. "We are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper." This is surely conflating religion with government. If I am responsible for myself, why isn't my brother, or more probably, some stranger, also responsible for himself? This is clearly contradictory and a recipe for standard socialism with the government intervening in our lives to tell each of us that we must sacrifice our individual rights, privileges, and immunities along with our own individual idea of our values and our goals to some need of others. Soon, no one has any job but to take care of others, but a society in which everyone takes care of others at the expense of themselves is nonsense. Consequently, everyone simply becomes a servant of the state. Then the state determines who gets what "rights", rather then the individual having an inalienable right to anything. This logic is what caused Senator Joe Biden to be furiously suspicious that Judge Clarence Thomas might believe in inalienable individual rights. Biden was adamant that only government can give anyone a right.
Now Obama says "change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it." Yet, Obama plans to write tax codes that do reward certain businesses he likes. Does he really suppose those businesses lobbyists will not be working overtime to see that he picks their businesses for these favors. It is McCain who goes much further in not trying to play favorites with the tax code.
"Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America." Do you really want Obama, who has never managed a business, deciding whether jobs have been shipped overseas and which are good jobs here? This is not the job of a President of the United States. Besides, there may well be good reasons to eliminate some jobs here which are unable to compete in the global economy. Obama will wind up erecting high tariff walls to protect unproductive jobs and destroying our export industries and our competitiveness in the process. This is very simple-minded.
"I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow." Does this mean he will try to decide which small businesses will create high-wage and high-tech jobs and which will not? Many states were doing just this and encouraging investors to start dot-coms and other computer software firms, biotechnology, and optical communications companies which fed the frenzy that led to their collapse in the so-called dot-com recession that hurt the economy so much in the early part of Bush's first term in office. The loss in incomes due to that are a part of what Obama blames him for compared to Clinton, but the frenzy was started and fueled mightily under Clinton's time in office. Government is incompetent in picking winners among small businesses. Forget this. Even if he does not mean to discriminate among small businesses, they really just need a more even playing field, which masses of government regulations do the most to destroy.
"In ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East." He must think he is God. This is absurd. Even an enthusiastic driller cannot do this and he is not a happy driller. His idea to pour money into alternative energy development will result mostly in wasting tons of money and only a small increase in energy. Crash government programs are very wasteful and do not translate well into functioning businesses.
He will use more natural gas, invest in clean coal technology, and use safe nuclear power. Glad to hear he will allow more natural gas production, use of coal, and nuclear power. Will he reduce the time it takes to get government approvals to build facilities? This will be the real test here. And, will companies be allowed to proceed in a way that will allow them to make a profit, which he thinks is a dirty word? Then he will subsidize fuel-efficient cars and alternative energy. It would likely be less wasteful to give our dollars to Mideast sheiks. He will create 5 million new jobs by taxing Americans enough to get the money and thereby destroying another 5 million jobs. Where do politicians get the idiot idea that they create jobs?
He wants every child to have a world class education so they can compete in the global economy from which he wants to retreat to protect unproductive jobs. How he will do this keeping his Democrat Teacher's Union friends happy is not stated beyond saying he will do more of the same things that have always failed.
Somehow, he will give us all accessible health care. I thought we had that, but clearly he proposes to take control and second guess medical experts still more than Medicare already does. This will cause costs to skyrocket, as Medicare has already proven they will. It will also result in highly rationed care. Like Canadians, we will wait many months for an MRI examine for a brain tumor and then 8 more months for an operation to remove it and by then most of our brain.
He will decree that businesses provide more paid sick days and better family leave. This will put some businesses out of business and cause many to hire fewer people.
He will decree equal pay for equal work. So, bureaucrats will visit businesses they know nothing about and interview workers and decide which ones have the same job and do it equally well. Then they will tell the company what to pay them. Really wise! So, who do I fire? All of my female employees or all of my male employees?
As in Biden's speech, he claims Iraq has $79 billion in surplus money. Of course Iraq has terrible needs for this money in rebuilding the infrastructure and society that Saddam Hussein destroyed over many decades and to increase their oil production, but they cannot agree among themselves on how to spend it. Meanwhile, Congress, controlled by the Democrats, opposes their spending it to get any help from American oil companies and until all factions are happy with its use. So, of course it is unspent.
Obama will "build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease." There is no focus here. He who chooses to defend everything, defends nothing. Unless, this joker is God. Seriously, He will defeat all poverty and all genocide. He will defeat the earth and make it keep a constant climate? He will defeat all disease? Incredible. Unbelievable. Childish. Megalomaniacal. Unbalanced. Insane. Otherworldly.
The rest of his speech was just rhetoric with nothing but apple pie, mom, flag-waving, and invocations upon God.
2nd Quarter GDP Growth 3.3% Annual Rate
The revised second quarter growth rate was a very healthy annualized rate of 3.3%. The rate for July was 1.9%.
90% of the growth in the 2nd quarter was due to exports. This goes far toward showing why free trade is a good thing for America. We are very able to compete on the world markets. Exports increased in the second quarter at a 13.2% annual rate. The U. S. trade deficit fell to its lowest level in 8 years as a result. In comparison, the economies of Japan and Germany shrank in the 2nd quarter. Corporate profits in the U.S. were 7% lower than they were in the same quarter a year ago, however. U.S. GDP growth in the third quarter is predicted to be a slower 1.5%, but the predictions lately have been systematically on the low side.
90% of the growth in the 2nd quarter was due to exports. This goes far toward showing why free trade is a good thing for America. We are very able to compete on the world markets. Exports increased in the second quarter at a 13.2% annual rate. The U. S. trade deficit fell to its lowest level in 8 years as a result. In comparison, the economies of Japan and Germany shrank in the 2nd quarter. Corporate profits in the U.S. were 7% lower than they were in the same quarter a year ago, however. U.S. GDP growth in the third quarter is predicted to be a slower 1.5%, but the predictions lately have been systematically on the low side.
Arctic Oil and the Northwest Passage
Recent climate conditions, especially increased winds, have resulted in the Northwest Passage being used more frequently by shipping. Canada is asserting control over that Passage which works its way through islands and along coasts which are part of Canada. The U.S. and most European nations refuse to recognize Canada's sovereignty over the Northwest Passage.
On the other hand, the U.S., Russia, Denmark (owner of Greenland), and Norway are eager to lay claim to offshore areas along with Canada, because it is estimated that about one-quarter of the earth's as-yet undiscovered oil is in these waters. It sure would seem likely that with the oil on the North Shore of Alaska, there would be some along the North Shore of Canada nearby.
Given the distance over which mineral rights are claimed offshore, it would seem that Canada has some claim to the control of the Northwest Passage. That would sure create some problems for our nuclear submarines, however.
On the other hand, the U.S., Russia, Denmark (owner of Greenland), and Norway are eager to lay claim to offshore areas along with Canada, because it is estimated that about one-quarter of the earth's as-yet undiscovered oil is in these waters. It sure would seem likely that with the oil on the North Shore of Alaska, there would be some along the North Shore of Canada nearby.
Given the distance over which mineral rights are claimed offshore, it would seem that Canada has some claim to the control of the Northwest Passage. That would sure create some problems for our nuclear submarines, however.
Our Federal Government Debt
While considering which problems the Federal government should add to its goals to find and develop solutions, we should consider the size of the national debt. It is now over $9.5 trillion, with each and every family owing an $80,831 share of that amount. This is just the money we have already overspent.
Far more alarming is the unfunded future obligations to Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs. These unfunded promises now amount to $53 trillion.
Maybe we should stop to think about Obama's promises to spend still more on alternative energy, ending global climate change, and funding a national health care system, among many other new programs. Possibly, our resources are limited, despite his rhetoric being unlimited.
Far more alarming is the unfunded future obligations to Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs. These unfunded promises now amount to $53 trillion.
Maybe we should stop to think about Obama's promises to spend still more on alternative energy, ending global climate change, and funding a national health care system, among many other new programs. Possibly, our resources are limited, despite his rhetoric being unlimited.
American and Chinese Exports
For the 12 months through June, the United States' exports grew by 23%, while those of China grew by 17% in terms of dollars. There are predictions that China's export growth will disappear by the end of the year and that its exports will shrink next year.
America's exports to China are up by 20% in the first half of this year compared to the first half of last year. Our imports from China are up only 4% on the same basis.
China's domestic spending is up by 33% in dollar terms in the past year, while America's real domestic demand has been level. Growth of the American economy has been entirely due to increased exports. U. S. retail sales fell in July for the first time in months, but due to net exports, our real GDP did not fall in every quarter since the 3rd quarter of 2007.
Elsewhere: Japan's GDP fell at an annual rate of 2.4% in the 2nd quarter. The growth of the European Market has ended. Japan and Europe account for 20% of America's exports, so this will hurt. However, emerging economies buy more than half of our exports! Brazil, Russia, India, and China are expected to grow by more than 9% next year, so our exports to those countries should be high.
America's exports to China are up by 20% in the first half of this year compared to the first half of last year. Our imports from China are up only 4% on the same basis.
China's domestic spending is up by 33% in dollar terms in the past year, while America's real domestic demand has been level. Growth of the American economy has been entirely due to increased exports. U. S. retail sales fell in July for the first time in months, but due to net exports, our real GDP did not fall in every quarter since the 3rd quarter of 2007.
Elsewhere: Japan's GDP fell at an annual rate of 2.4% in the 2nd quarter. The growth of the European Market has ended. Japan and Europe account for 20% of America's exports, so this will hurt. However, emerging economies buy more than half of our exports! Brazil, Russia, India, and China are expected to grow by more than 9% next year, so our exports to those countries should be high.
Our Overblown Expectations of Presidents
Whenever there is a problem in America, we expect our President to identify it and to mobilize us all in a crusade to solve the problem. We expect our President to feed and nurture our very souls. We count on him to inspire us to greatness and to show how we can sacrifice our individual selves to the greater good. We want him to be our Messiah, or at least our head priest, as well as our Commander-in-Chief and the chief administrator of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Frankly, there is nothing which is to escape his attention and his focus. This, in effect, means he had better be omniscient and all-powerful. Then, we try to give him too much power so he can do what we expect, while at the same time never giving him enough power to do what we expect.
This is ridiculous. No one is up to this job and anyone who pretends to be is a fraud. I have argued against this tendency to expect too much many times. To give a president so much power and to expect so much is to deprive ourselves of self-management and to lower our expectations of ourselves. Rather than being independent thinkers and valuers, we become supplicants and the wounded.
Gene Healy, a vice president of the Cato Institute, wrote a fine article on this topic which appeared in The Christian Science Monitor on 28 August 2008.
This is ridiculous. No one is up to this job and anyone who pretends to be is a fraud. I have argued against this tendency to expect too much many times. To give a president so much power and to expect so much is to deprive ourselves of self-management and to lower our expectations of ourselves. Rather than being independent thinkers and valuers, we become supplicants and the wounded.
Gene Healy, a vice president of the Cato Institute, wrote a fine article on this topic which appeared in The Christian Science Monitor on 28 August 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
