According to Barack Obama, those heartless Republicans in Congress decided to go home for the holidays and let 1.3 million Americans lose their much-needed and extended unemployment benefits --- just four days after Christmas. Certainly, this makes the GOP the Grinches. Of course, they could have been even more heartless by allowing benefits to expire just before Christmas. But, mercifully, and unlike Ebenezer Scrooge, they waited until the Saturday after.
In reality, the loss of these benefits was part of the bipartisan budget deal that was approved by both Democrats and Republicans alike; in both Houses of Congress; and, was signed into law by the President. Everyone (Obama, the Republicans, and the Democrats) knew that the budget deal would drop extended benefits for the unemployed. Never once was there a threat by Obama to veto the deal if the benefits weren't extended, nor was there any movement on the part of the Democrats to extend them before the bill was passed into law. Of course, once signed, the President, unlike the Republicans, who only went home for the holidays, flitted off to Hawaii for perfect weather, beautiful sand and beaches, and, of course, some of the best golf courses in the world. No way was he going to stick around frigid Washington and attempt to get an eleventh hour deal to save those unfortunate workers from heir fate
Now, after the benefits are gone, Obama and the Democrats think that they should be renewed. Not by 13 weeks, or 26 weeks, but instead, by 47 weeks. This odd number conveniently extends the benefits until after the November elections. As usual, the President could care less about people losing their benefits. Instead, like the delay of oh so many ObamaCare mandates, it's all about winning elections.
Showing posts with label Congressional Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congressional Democrats. Show all posts
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Hospital Drug Shortages: First Blame Republicans. Then, Democrats.
In 2003, George W. Bush signed into law, the Republican lead initiative called the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act". Under the law, seniors enrolled in the new Medicare, Part D, could obtain their prescription drugs at substantially lower prices. At least if they didn't reach the now-infamous "Doughnut Hole". But, also, as part of that law, drugs sold directly to health care providers were restricted from price hikes. And, that fact, today, has caused a major drug shortage problem in the United States.
Right now, many seriously ill patients are being told that they cannot start or continue life-saving drug therapies because the medication they need is either in short supply or completely unavailable. Many of those drugs are actually cheap generics that have been around for many years. The problem generally starts with a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspection and the eventual shut down of a drug manufacturing facility because of some violation. This, in turn, forces a drug to become in short supply. Normally, this shortage would cause the price to rise significantly. As a result, the higher price would typically motivate the original manufacturer to get on the stick and meet FDA compliance and restart manufacturing and distribution at that new higher price. At the same time, other competing companies would want to take advantage of the higher prices by upping their production. But, when the prices are "fixed" by federal law, there is no incentive for a manufacturer to spend millions to bring their plant into compliance with the FDA or for any other manufacturer to spend money to up their rate of production.
This is a perfect example of why price fixing doesn't work. Shame on the Republicans and George Bush for causing this problem. Some people may actually die because of it. And, shame on the Democrats who had complete control of Congress and the Presidency for ignoring the problem and not correcting it. Instead, all those Democrats were too focused on taking over health care in America. Even today, it is well known why there are drug shortages and, yet, Congress still refuses to fix the law that's caused the problem. It's things like this that give Congress its well-deserved 10% approval rating.
Right now, many seriously ill patients are being told that they cannot start or continue life-saving drug therapies because the medication they need is either in short supply or completely unavailable. Many of those drugs are actually cheap generics that have been around for many years. The problem generally starts with a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspection and the eventual shut down of a drug manufacturing facility because of some violation. This, in turn, forces a drug to become in short supply. Normally, this shortage would cause the price to rise significantly. As a result, the higher price would typically motivate the original manufacturer to get on the stick and meet FDA compliance and restart manufacturing and distribution at that new higher price. At the same time, other competing companies would want to take advantage of the higher prices by upping their production. But, when the prices are "fixed" by federal law, there is no incentive for a manufacturer to spend millions to bring their plant into compliance with the FDA or for any other manufacturer to spend money to up their rate of production.
This is a perfect example of why price fixing doesn't work. Shame on the Republicans and George Bush for causing this problem. Some people may actually die because of it. And, shame on the Democrats who had complete control of Congress and the Presidency for ignoring the problem and not correcting it. Instead, all those Democrats were too focused on taking over health care in America. Even today, it is well known why there are drug shortages and, yet, Congress still refuses to fix the law that's caused the problem. It's things like this that give Congress its well-deserved 10% approval rating.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
If Romney Wins, Will Democrats Try To Sink His Presidency With Tax Hikes
I don't know if you know it or not but, January 1, 2013 is being not-so-lovingly referred to as "Taxageddon". That's because, on that date, Americans will be hit with the largest total tax increase in the history of the union.
Right up front, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire; meaning that people in the lowest tax brackets -- the people who benefited most from the Bush tax cuts -- could see their tax rate rise by 50%. Most all other Americans will see tax increases of around 12%. Additionally, taxes will go up for any income from interest and dividends, and for capital gains. The child tax credit will fall back to $500 from the current $1000 per child level. The marriage penalty will be back. At the same time, the $5 million estate/inheritance tax exemption will slide back to a million dollars; meaning that, once again, many small business will either change hands or go belly up in order to pay Uncle Sam.
The tax fury doesn't just stop there. A number of tax increases that are associated with ObamaCare are to take effect on that very same "Taxageddon" date. Individuals making $200,000 and marrieds making $250,000 will be hit with a 0.9% tax increase to fund the new health care law. At the same time, if those $200,000/$250,000 tax bracketers should sell property and make a profit, they will be hit with a federal 3.8% surcharge on those profits; whereas today, they would pay no tax at all. Also as of January 1, medical devices will be hit with a 2.3% excise tax for any device selling for more than $100. Even Granny's wheelchair won't escape this tax.
The reality of the above taxes is simple: If all of the above go into effect as scheduled, it would send our economy into a tailspin -- basically, into another recession. Surely, the Democrats wouldn't want that to happen if Obama is elected. So, my guess is that they will gladly join the Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for another year or two.
But, what if Romney beats Obama? What, then? Would the Democrats go so far as to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire? Would they actually do that to sink the economy and a Romney presidency with it? Of course, if the Bush tax cuts did expire, the Democrats would make it seem like it was the Republicans who made it happen. My guess is that the Democrats would fight to keep the cuts for the middle and lower classes; forcing the Republicans to squabble over tax cuts for the rich. In the process of being at odds with each other, common ground won't be found and the Bush cuts will expire. In typical fashion, the Democrats will blame the Republicans because the Republicans, as usual, were only for tax cuts for the rich. We'll just have to wait an see.
Right up front, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire; meaning that people in the lowest tax brackets -- the people who benefited most from the Bush tax cuts -- could see their tax rate rise by 50%. Most all other Americans will see tax increases of around 12%. Additionally, taxes will go up for any income from interest and dividends, and for capital gains. The child tax credit will fall back to $500 from the current $1000 per child level. The marriage penalty will be back. At the same time, the $5 million estate/inheritance tax exemption will slide back to a million dollars; meaning that, once again, many small business will either change hands or go belly up in order to pay Uncle Sam.
The tax fury doesn't just stop there. A number of tax increases that are associated with ObamaCare are to take effect on that very same "Taxageddon" date. Individuals making $200,000 and marrieds making $250,000 will be hit with a 0.9% tax increase to fund the new health care law. At the same time, if those $200,000/$250,000 tax bracketers should sell property and make a profit, they will be hit with a federal 3.8% surcharge on those profits; whereas today, they would pay no tax at all. Also as of January 1, medical devices will be hit with a 2.3% excise tax for any device selling for more than $100. Even Granny's wheelchair won't escape this tax.
The reality of the above taxes is simple: If all of the above go into effect as scheduled, it would send our economy into a tailspin -- basically, into another recession. Surely, the Democrats wouldn't want that to happen if Obama is elected. So, my guess is that they will gladly join the Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for another year or two.
But, what if Romney beats Obama? What, then? Would the Democrats go so far as to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire? Would they actually do that to sink the economy and a Romney presidency with it? Of course, if the Bush tax cuts did expire, the Democrats would make it seem like it was the Republicans who made it happen. My guess is that the Democrats would fight to keep the cuts for the middle and lower classes; forcing the Republicans to squabble over tax cuts for the rich. In the process of being at odds with each other, common ground won't be found and the Bush cuts will expire. In typical fashion, the Democrats will blame the Republicans because the Republicans, as usual, were only for tax cuts for the rich. We'll just have to wait an see.
Monday, April 30, 2012
The Democrats And Oil Speculators
It was just a matter to time before the Congressional Democrats would follow the President's lead on going after oil speculators. Fresh with news that Federal investigators had just snared themselves a real case of oil manipulation by an electronic trading firm, Optiver, Representative Chris Van Hollen and 42 other Democrat Congressmen wrote Attorney General Eric Holder a letter; urging him to use every means possible to "insure the proper functioning of our oil and gas markets." Of course, that letter wasn't really necessary because, just last week, President Obama had announced, in a Rose Garden address, that he had committed the Justice Department to doing just that. But, what the hell, Van Hollen and his buddies saw a political opportunity and they took it.
Now, to keep the politics going, Van Hollen went on Neil Cavuto's Your World show to argue with Neil over how oil prices are being jacked up by speculation and manipulation of the markets. Of course, Van Hollen immediately brought up the Optiver case as proof of this. But, is Optiver any real proof of any manipulation of the markets? I don't think so.
First, the kind of charges that were brought against Optiver are extremely rare. In terms of frequency, the feds charged that, in 2007, Optiver (one the world's largest oil and commodities trading companies) attempted to manipulate the market 19 times and were successful in at least 5 cases. Wow, 19 times by a company that probably trades oil futures contracts thousands of times a year! But here's another thing. No guilt was ever proven and the court never found any real wrongdoing. Optiver negotiated for and accepted a $15 million penalty; probably, to just get the feds off their backs and avoid any further attorney fees. But, for a deceptive politician like Van Hollen (the former Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee), the penalty itself was enough proof that oil speculators are widely and illegally manipulating the oil and gas markets.
Now, to keep the politics going, Van Hollen went on Neil Cavuto's Your World show to argue with Neil over how oil prices are being jacked up by speculation and manipulation of the markets. Of course, Van Hollen immediately brought up the Optiver case as proof of this. But, is Optiver any real proof of any manipulation of the markets? I don't think so.
First, the kind of charges that were brought against Optiver are extremely rare. In terms of frequency, the feds charged that, in 2007, Optiver (one the world's largest oil and commodities trading companies) attempted to manipulate the market 19 times and were successful in at least 5 cases. Wow, 19 times by a company that probably trades oil futures contracts thousands of times a year! But here's another thing. No guilt was ever proven and the court never found any real wrongdoing. Optiver negotiated for and accepted a $15 million penalty; probably, to just get the feds off their backs and avoid any further attorney fees. But, for a deceptive politician like Van Hollen (the former Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee), the penalty itself was enough proof that oil speculators are widely and illegally manipulating the oil and gas markets.
Friday, December 2, 2011
This Morning's Jobs Report Just Screams Fraud!
Most all of this morning's economic news headlines read like this one from Bloomberg news: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%.
So, supposedly, we added enough jobs to lower the unemployment rate by four-tenths of one percent from last month's rate of 9%. To put this into perspective, we currently have a labor force of about 154 million workers. To achieve a four-tenths lowering of the unemployment rate, we needed to add over 600,000 new jobs. Now, according to the report, itself, we only added 120,000 jobs in November. Then, going back to October's data, that previously reported number was revised upwards by 20,000. Therefore, overall, only 140,000 jobs were supposedly created in this reporting period. Certainly, well short of the needed 600,000. What's worse, the report also states that the workforce shrank by 315,000 workers because those unemployed workers grudgingly gave up looking for work. Therefore, the net of this report is that our economy actually "lost" 175,000 jobs. Yet the unemployment rate fell dramatically.
The reality is that this report doesn't jive with its own internal facts. It also doesn't jive with the last Gross Domestic Product (GDP) report which had been revised downwards to a mere 2% economic growth in the last quarter. Most economists would tell you that you would need a minimum of 2.5% GDP growth before there would be any "real" job creation and a "true" lowering of the unemployment rate. Lastly, this report certainly doesn't match up with the fact that the jobless claims numbers have consistently stayed near or above the 400,000 level. Simply speaking, this morning's report is either an incompetent handling of the data or, what's worse, a blatant political deception.
Already, this morning, key Democrats and the liberal media are falling all over themselves in jubilation of the lowered unemployment rate. All are singing praises to Obama's economic policies. Even Obama hit the microphones to lay claim to "his" creation of 120,000 jobs in November. But, as I have shown, that claim ignores the realities in order to "politically" deceive the public. The fact is that we need to grow the labor force by a minimum of 166,000 jobs, each month,in order to keep up with simple population growth. Obama is a fraud. Throughout his term in office, there has never been a month where there has been any true job creation. And, that's the truth that Obama continues to hide, month after month, in an attempt to prove that his economic policies are working and that he should be reelected.
So, supposedly, we added enough jobs to lower the unemployment rate by four-tenths of one percent from last month's rate of 9%. To put this into perspective, we currently have a labor force of about 154 million workers. To achieve a four-tenths lowering of the unemployment rate, we needed to add over 600,000 new jobs. Now, according to the report, itself, we only added 120,000 jobs in November. Then, going back to October's data, that previously reported number was revised upwards by 20,000. Therefore, overall, only 140,000 jobs were supposedly created in this reporting period. Certainly, well short of the needed 600,000. What's worse, the report also states that the workforce shrank by 315,000 workers because those unemployed workers grudgingly gave up looking for work. Therefore, the net of this report is that our economy actually "lost" 175,000 jobs. Yet the unemployment rate fell dramatically.
The reality is that this report doesn't jive with its own internal facts. It also doesn't jive with the last Gross Domestic Product (GDP) report which had been revised downwards to a mere 2% economic growth in the last quarter. Most economists would tell you that you would need a minimum of 2.5% GDP growth before there would be any "real" job creation and a "true" lowering of the unemployment rate. Lastly, this report certainly doesn't match up with the fact that the jobless claims numbers have consistently stayed near or above the 400,000 level. Simply speaking, this morning's report is either an incompetent handling of the data or, what's worse, a blatant political deception.
Already, this morning, key Democrats and the liberal media are falling all over themselves in jubilation of the lowered unemployment rate. All are singing praises to Obama's economic policies. Even Obama hit the microphones to lay claim to "his" creation of 120,000 jobs in November. But, as I have shown, that claim ignores the realities in order to "politically" deceive the public. The fact is that we need to grow the labor force by a minimum of 166,000 jobs, each month,in order to keep up with simple population growth. Obama is a fraud. Throughout his term in office, there has never been a month where there has been any true job creation. And, that's the truth that Obama continues to hide, month after month, in an attempt to prove that his economic policies are working and that he should be reelected.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Obama Loses Big In The NY-9 Special Election
Last night's New York Congressional District 9 (NY-9) win by Republican, Bob Turner, must have the Democrats and Obama shaking in their political boots. That's because, in so many ways, a Republican should never have won.
First and foremost, NY-9 is almost totally owned by the Democrats with registered Democrats outnumbering Republicans by a factor of 3 to 1. Secondly, the district is heavily Jewish and Bob Turner, a Catholic, won handily against David Weprin, a Jewish Democrat, in what can only be seen as a historically significant contradiction. Additionally, Turner didn't really run against Weprin in defeating him. Instead, he outwardly ran against the policies of Obama. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that Obama was the biggest loser of the night. Furthermore, Turner's win came only days after the President's "big" jobs speech; proving that the jobs plan had no influence in turning things around in this heavily Democrat district. In fact, Turner seemed to gain momentum in polls following the speech. It's also important to note that Turner didn't just squeak this one out. He won by a landslide: 54 to 46 percent. Lastly, by running against Obama, Turner disproved the old political adage that all politics are local.
All morning, Democrats have been trying to downplay the significance of the NY-9 loss. But, in their mind's eye, I'm quite sure they're seeing a potential for big political problems in 2012. To me, last night's Republican win in a heavily Democrat district just shows that the voter sentiment by which the Republicans won last fall has not abated. If anything, there seems to be a growing momentum "against" Obama. Certainly, last night's loss must have Democrat strategists scurrying to find a new tactical direction for next year's election; even though, I think it's too late to change their fate.
First and foremost, NY-9 is almost totally owned by the Democrats with registered Democrats outnumbering Republicans by a factor of 3 to 1. Secondly, the district is heavily Jewish and Bob Turner, a Catholic, won handily against David Weprin, a Jewish Democrat, in what can only be seen as a historically significant contradiction. Additionally, Turner didn't really run against Weprin in defeating him. Instead, he outwardly ran against the policies of Obama. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that Obama was the biggest loser of the night. Furthermore, Turner's win came only days after the President's "big" jobs speech; proving that the jobs plan had no influence in turning things around in this heavily Democrat district. In fact, Turner seemed to gain momentum in polls following the speech. It's also important to note that Turner didn't just squeak this one out. He won by a landslide: 54 to 46 percent. Lastly, by running against Obama, Turner disproved the old political adage that all politics are local.
All morning, Democrats have been trying to downplay the significance of the NY-9 loss. But, in their mind's eye, I'm quite sure they're seeing a potential for big political problems in 2012. To me, last night's Republican win in a heavily Democrat district just shows that the voter sentiment by which the Republicans won last fall has not abated. If anything, there seems to be a growing momentum "against" Obama. Certainly, last night's loss must have Democrat strategists scurrying to find a new tactical direction for next year's election; even though, I think it's too late to change their fate.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Beaten. The Left Lashes Out At The Tea Party
As the debt ceiling debate progressed, the left-wing media and left-wing politicians became increasingly angry and vocal as they began to realize that there wouldn't be any tax increases and, instead (horror or horrors) tax increases would be replaced with actual cuts in spending as a means of lowering the debt. This very possibility was like a red hot, smoldering metal stake being driven into the heart of any self-respecting tax-and-spend liberal. I mean, the left went completely berserk.
So, in the last week, we saw the Dems strikeout at, primarily, the Tea Party; like a bunch of school kids crying and name calling after having been severely beaten in a fight on the playground. They referred to the Tea Party as terrorists. In fact, our idiot V.P., Joe Biden, weighed in with that very declaration when he remarked that they "have acted like terrorists"; which, I guess, makes our Vice President the biggest cry baby in a gaggle of cry babies. Certainly, that comment by Biden speaks volumes about a man who is, God help us, first in line to become president should anything happen to Obama.
Then, in speeches and interviews, the left continually claimed the nation was being "held hostage" by the "extreme" members of the GOP: the Tea Party. Other comments were that they were anti-American, anti-democratic and, even, Nazis.
What really rubs the left wrong is the fact that they keep getting beaten by the Tea Party. They trounced them in the last election with Democrats completely losing the House and, at the same time, losing their comfy super-majority in the Senate. Now, the left has been beaten again in the debt ceiling debate. What next? Losing the Senate majority and the Presidency? My guess is that this very real possibility will drive the Democrats to become even more rabid in the months running up to the 2012 election. It will be like watching Charlie Sheen's meltdown; but, this time, in spades.
Lastly, I think its funny that the Tea Party was able to turn the tables on Obama by never letting a good crisis go to waste!
So, in the last week, we saw the Dems strikeout at, primarily, the Tea Party; like a bunch of school kids crying and name calling after having been severely beaten in a fight on the playground. They referred to the Tea Party as terrorists. In fact, our idiot V.P., Joe Biden, weighed in with that very declaration when he remarked that they "have acted like terrorists"; which, I guess, makes our Vice President the biggest cry baby in a gaggle of cry babies. Certainly, that comment by Biden speaks volumes about a man who is, God help us, first in line to become president should anything happen to Obama.
Then, in speeches and interviews, the left continually claimed the nation was being "held hostage" by the "extreme" members of the GOP: the Tea Party. Other comments were that they were anti-American, anti-democratic and, even, Nazis.
What really rubs the left wrong is the fact that they keep getting beaten by the Tea Party. They trounced them in the last election with Democrats completely losing the House and, at the same time, losing their comfy super-majority in the Senate. Now, the left has been beaten again in the debt ceiling debate. What next? Losing the Senate majority and the Presidency? My guess is that this very real possibility will drive the Democrats to become even more rabid in the months running up to the 2012 election. It will be like watching Charlie Sheen's meltdown; but, this time, in spades.
Lastly, I think its funny that the Tea Party was able to turn the tables on Obama by never letting a good crisis go to waste!
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Obama's Indirect Tax Through Keynesian Economics
Even this tax-and-spend President has agreed that raising taxes during a weak economic period is a bad idea because it would further exacerbate an already languishing economy. But, indirectly, that's exactly what he and his previous completely Democrat-controlled Congress did through a massive "stimulus" spending program.
John Maynard Keynes, certainly the pure consciousness of Keynesian economic theory, correctly assumed and stated that the total aggregate demand (spending) in any economy is a direct result of the spending activity by (1) the public sector (state, local, and federal governments) and (2) the private sector (consumers and business). Further, he theorized that "if" private sector demand fell during an economic downturn, the economy could be righted, again, by simply increasing the amount of spending by the public sector; and, thus, offsetting any loss of demand in the private sector. In theory, it seems so elegantly simple and logical. Thus, we have the basis of "stimulative" spending that almost every Democrat believes to be the key to good recession-beating economics.
But, what Keynes (and the Democrats) totally missed the boat on, is the fact that all that stimulative spending would severely devalue our currency. In fact, in the last 2-1/2 years, the the U.S. dollar has lost more of its value against a market-basket of other key currencies than it had in the 15 years prior to Obama taking office. And, in an economy, like ours, which is so dependent on consumer spending and with a consumer who is so dependent on imported goods, this is pure economic poison.
In our economy, the consumer reigns king; normally representing about 70% of our total economic activity. The remaining 30% is comprised of a combination of public sector and private business spending. So, if, in any way, you hamper the consumer's ability to spend money by diverting a bigger chunk of their paycheck to either higher or new taxes or through higher prices, the economy would be doomed to falter; a fact that we are now seeing after having spent trillions to supposedly "stimulate" the economy.
The reality is that the consumer's paycheck has been under assault by the continuing devaluation of the dollar; which, in turn, has driven import prices higher and higher. In fact, in the last Import Price Report, the "average" of all import prices rose 13.6% -- year over year -- while the American paycheck has remained fairly stagnant. As a result of this inflation, the American consumer has seen their gasoline expenses double under Obama's watch; with the "average" 2-car family now paying about $2000 more per year. (Please note: The doubling of gasoline prices is only partly driven by the dollar's loss in value. The rest of the price inflation is due to the speculation that future demand could outstrip supply; eventually making world oil prices skyrocket. The demand side of this speculation is also being driven by the increasing need for oil by some rapidly emerging economies such as China and India. In addition, the instability in the Middle East could result in supply shortages. Also, there are foreseen supply limitations in this country due to Obama's anti-drilling policies; especially since America, with only 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of world's entire oil supplies.)
On top of higher oil prices, the consumer has seen their average food bill rise by almost 30% since 2009. That's because much our nation's food bill is for imported products. For example, 70% of our seafood comes in from other countries. Most all of the nation's fresh, off-season fruits and vegetables are imported. Even that morning caffe latte is dependent on coffee being brought in from places like Columbia. In addition, food prices are also very sensitive to rising energy prices. That's because gasoline and diesel fuels and electricity are heavily involved in every aspect of food production and in the delivery to market. While I have not been able to determine an exact number, my guess is that an average family of four has seen their food bill rise by at lease $2200 a year since the value started dropping in 2009.
Also, in a surprising way, domestically grown foods and food products are seeing prices rise as a result of the devalued dollar. That's because, as the dollar weakens, our farm goods and our manufactured goods actually become cheaper; overseas. That may seem like a good thing; and, for the most part, it is. But, it also has an adverse effect by increasing the demand for all those now-cheaper American farm goods that are supply-limited due to the fixed available acreage that can be dedicated to that products production. In effect, as our products get cheaper overseas, we find ourselves competing with the rest of the world for our own farm products. As a result, the extra demand -- given effects of the Law of Supply and Demand --- causes prices to rise domestically. Sometimes, farmers, seeing a more lucrative opportunity for an exporting farm good, will switch crops to a more attractive and profitable exportable product. When this happens, a supply-void occurs for the farm product being abandoned. As a result, that product, too, will see its prices rise as supplies decline.
The bottom line is that the stimulus package, by virtue of a weakened dollar, is actually having the opposite of its intended effect because it, for the most part, hurts the primary driver of the economy: the American consumer. Added to this, consumer spending is being further eroded by all the new taxes and increases on existing taxes that are being applied by individual state, county, and local governments across this country, as those governments try to push back against their rising deficits. But, as in the case of the weakened dollar, raising taxes just causes the economy to decline even further; thus, conversely, causing deficits to increase from an economy that gets even weaker.
I believe that the adverse effects of the stimulus spending (and taxes) can be clearly seen in the chart (below) which shows that our economic activity declined as more and more stimulus money (and taxes) is applied:
Prior to the application of any stimulus funds, the economy was actually on the mend as noted by this chart of Gross Domestic Spending:
Visually, there is an obvious change in our economy's direction as the stimulus money rolls out. The chart above clearly shows how the economy was recovering and, if left alone without stimulus funds, it would probably be doing fine right now. Instead, we are on the verge of going negative; once again.
I just think the economy would have been better served by reducing the amount of Federal spending; not increasing it. In that way, import prices would have actually fallen because the dollar would have strengthened. This, then, would have promoted increased consumer activity and that would have resulted in renewed hiring instead of the increased unemployment we have now. While it is a fact that exporting corporations might have been hurt by strengthening the dollar -- making their products more expensive in the world marketplace -- that fact could have been easily mitigated by reducing the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, Congress could have helped stimulate corporate business activity by passing legislation that would have allowed multinational companies to return profits back to the U.S. without any penalty of Federal taxation. Right now, those profits would not only be taxed in the foreign country in which they were earned, but also by the U.S government; should any of those profits be returned to this country. As a result, much of those funds are used to help the economies of the countries of origin and not the United States.
John Maynard Keynes, certainly the pure consciousness of Keynesian economic theory, correctly assumed and stated that the total aggregate demand (spending) in any economy is a direct result of the spending activity by (1) the public sector (state, local, and federal governments) and (2) the private sector (consumers and business). Further, he theorized that "if" private sector demand fell during an economic downturn, the economy could be righted, again, by simply increasing the amount of spending by the public sector; and, thus, offsetting any loss of demand in the private sector. In theory, it seems so elegantly simple and logical. Thus, we have the basis of "stimulative" spending that almost every Democrat believes to be the key to good recession-beating economics.
But, what Keynes (and the Democrats) totally missed the boat on, is the fact that all that stimulative spending would severely devalue our currency. In fact, in the last 2-1/2 years, the the U.S. dollar has lost more of its value against a market-basket of other key currencies than it had in the 15 years prior to Obama taking office. And, in an economy, like ours, which is so dependent on consumer spending and with a consumer who is so dependent on imported goods, this is pure economic poison.
In our economy, the consumer reigns king; normally representing about 70% of our total economic activity. The remaining 30% is comprised of a combination of public sector and private business spending. So, if, in any way, you hamper the consumer's ability to spend money by diverting a bigger chunk of their paycheck to either higher or new taxes or through higher prices, the economy would be doomed to falter; a fact that we are now seeing after having spent trillions to supposedly "stimulate" the economy.
The reality is that the consumer's paycheck has been under assault by the continuing devaluation of the dollar; which, in turn, has driven import prices higher and higher. In fact, in the last Import Price Report, the "average" of all import prices rose 13.6% -- year over year -- while the American paycheck has remained fairly stagnant. As a result of this inflation, the American consumer has seen their gasoline expenses double under Obama's watch; with the "average" 2-car family now paying about $2000 more per year. (Please note: The doubling of gasoline prices is only partly driven by the dollar's loss in value. The rest of the price inflation is due to the speculation that future demand could outstrip supply; eventually making world oil prices skyrocket. The demand side of this speculation is also being driven by the increasing need for oil by some rapidly emerging economies such as China and India. In addition, the instability in the Middle East could result in supply shortages. Also, there are foreseen supply limitations in this country due to Obama's anti-drilling policies; especially since America, with only 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of world's entire oil supplies.)
On top of higher oil prices, the consumer has seen their average food bill rise by almost 30% since 2009. That's because much our nation's food bill is for imported products. For example, 70% of our seafood comes in from other countries. Most all of the nation's fresh, off-season fruits and vegetables are imported. Even that morning caffe latte is dependent on coffee being brought in from places like Columbia. In addition, food prices are also very sensitive to rising energy prices. That's because gasoline and diesel fuels and electricity are heavily involved in every aspect of food production and in the delivery to market. While I have not been able to determine an exact number, my guess is that an average family of four has seen their food bill rise by at lease $2200 a year since the value started dropping in 2009.
Also, in a surprising way, domestically grown foods and food products are seeing prices rise as a result of the devalued dollar. That's because, as the dollar weakens, our farm goods and our manufactured goods actually become cheaper; overseas. That may seem like a good thing; and, for the most part, it is. But, it also has an adverse effect by increasing the demand for all those now-cheaper American farm goods that are supply-limited due to the fixed available acreage that can be dedicated to that products production. In effect, as our products get cheaper overseas, we find ourselves competing with the rest of the world for our own farm products. As a result, the extra demand -- given effects of the Law of Supply and Demand --- causes prices to rise domestically. Sometimes, farmers, seeing a more lucrative opportunity for an exporting farm good, will switch crops to a more attractive and profitable exportable product. When this happens, a supply-void occurs for the farm product being abandoned. As a result, that product, too, will see its prices rise as supplies decline.
The bottom line is that the stimulus package, by virtue of a weakened dollar, is actually having the opposite of its intended effect because it, for the most part, hurts the primary driver of the economy: the American consumer. Added to this, consumer spending is being further eroded by all the new taxes and increases on existing taxes that are being applied by individual state, county, and local governments across this country, as those governments try to push back against their rising deficits. But, as in the case of the weakened dollar, raising taxes just causes the economy to decline even further; thus, conversely, causing deficits to increase from an economy that gets even weaker.
I believe that the adverse effects of the stimulus spending (and taxes) can be clearly seen in the chart (below) which shows that our economic activity declined as more and more stimulus money (and taxes) is applied:
Prior to the application of any stimulus funds, the economy was actually on the mend as noted by this chart of Gross Domestic Spending:
Visually, there is an obvious change in our economy's direction as the stimulus money rolls out. The chart above clearly shows how the economy was recovering and, if left alone without stimulus funds, it would probably be doing fine right now. Instead, we are on the verge of going negative; once again.I just think the economy would have been better served by reducing the amount of Federal spending; not increasing it. In that way, import prices would have actually fallen because the dollar would have strengthened. This, then, would have promoted increased consumer activity and that would have resulted in renewed hiring instead of the increased unemployment we have now. While it is a fact that exporting corporations might have been hurt by strengthening the dollar -- making their products more expensive in the world marketplace -- that fact could have been easily mitigated by reducing the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, Congress could have helped stimulate corporate business activity by passing legislation that would have allowed multinational companies to return profits back to the U.S. without any penalty of Federal taxation. Right now, those profits would not only be taxed in the foreign country in which they were earned, but also by the U.S government; should any of those profits be returned to this country. As a result, much of those funds are used to help the economies of the countries of origin and not the United States.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Hidden Agenda Of The Democrats
Deep within the multi-thousand pages of the Stimulus, Heath Care, and Financial Reform bills is language which creates new agencies, reporting to the Executive Branch, which can, at their discretion, impose new regulation, penalties, and taxes that don't require Congress' approval. In addition, the powers of existing agencies like the IRS, Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Treasury Department have been greatly expanded; thus, again, bypassing any legislative approval by Congress in the enforcement of almost every activity in American life and not just those related to health care, banking, and finance.
What the Democrats have done is to establish a framework for the Obama Administration to act independently of Congress in the implementation of a highly liberal and progressive agenda. And, it is my belief that the Democratic leadership of this Congress did this because they knew that their radical legislative activities over the last year and a half might cost them their control of Congress in the Fall elections. So, in doing so, they have handed Obama unprecedented powers to "fundamentally change" America; even if the Republicans gain control of Congress for the remainder of Obama's first term in office. Just mark my words. It's the plan!
What the Democrats have done is to establish a framework for the Obama Administration to act independently of Congress in the implementation of a highly liberal and progressive agenda. And, it is my belief that the Democratic leadership of this Congress did this because they knew that their radical legislative activities over the last year and a half might cost them their control of Congress in the Fall elections. So, in doing so, they have handed Obama unprecedented powers to "fundamentally change" America; even if the Republicans gain control of Congress for the remainder of Obama's first term in office. Just mark my words. It's the plan!
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
A GOP Majority Might Be A Bad Thing
A lot of people seem to think that, if the GOP can win both Houses of Congress, all will be "right" with the world. Nothing could be further from the truth.
First, a simple majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives won't be enough to override an Obama Veto. The GOP will still need a 60 vote majority in the Senate to do that. At best, the Republicans might only gain a slim majority in the Senate. For that very reason, don't expect legislation such as killing the remainder of the Stimulus Package, the overturning of ObamaCare, Financial Re-Regulation or Cap and Trade to get past Obama's veto without some significant help from Democrats. I just don't see Democrats assisting that effort after having put their jobs on the line to pass all that legislation.
Secondly, unlike Clinton, when he lost both Houses of Congress, don't expect the President to resolve himself to work with a Republican lead Congress. Obama isn't the pragmatic animal that Clinton was. He's an ideologue who has already gone on record saying he doesn't mind being a one-term President.
Lastly, a majority control of Congress by the GOP might actually hurt them. That's because Obama will constantly campaign against the GOP's lack of legislative responsibility in blocking his agenda. He's already doing that to influence public opinion and the GOP doesn't even have a majority.
In my opinion, the best thing for the Republicans, is to win the House and weaken, but not completely win the Senate. This will nullify Obama and his radical agenda. Also, it will somewhat disarm his argument that the GOP are always blocking his legislation. Then, I think the focus should be to oust Obama and take a 60-vote majority in 2012.
First, a simple majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives won't be enough to override an Obama Veto. The GOP will still need a 60 vote majority in the Senate to do that. At best, the Republicans might only gain a slim majority in the Senate. For that very reason, don't expect legislation such as killing the remainder of the Stimulus Package, the overturning of ObamaCare, Financial Re-Regulation or Cap and Trade to get past Obama's veto without some significant help from Democrats. I just don't see Democrats assisting that effort after having put their jobs on the line to pass all that legislation.
Secondly, unlike Clinton, when he lost both Houses of Congress, don't expect the President to resolve himself to work with a Republican lead Congress. Obama isn't the pragmatic animal that Clinton was. He's an ideologue who has already gone on record saying he doesn't mind being a one-term President.
Lastly, a majority control of Congress by the GOP might actually hurt them. That's because Obama will constantly campaign against the GOP's lack of legislative responsibility in blocking his agenda. He's already doing that to influence public opinion and the GOP doesn't even have a majority.
In my opinion, the best thing for the Republicans, is to win the House and weaken, but not completely win the Senate. This will nullify Obama and his radical agenda. Also, it will somewhat disarm his argument that the GOP are always blocking his legislation. Then, I think the focus should be to oust Obama and take a 60-vote majority in 2012.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
BMI: The Imperfect Measurment Of Obesity
Well, the cats' finally out of the bag.
After 16 months of digging around the thousands of pages of the Stimulus Bill, it has now been uncovered that health care professionals will be mandated, by law. to include the calculated Body Mass Index (BMI) for each of their patients as part of a centralized, electronic health-record database that will be established by 2014 (Click here to See Story: Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS).
Why this mandate is even in a law that was aimed at "stimulating the economy" just proves the kind of deceit that the Democrats have been practicing with the passage of these multi-thousand-page laws that nobody has the time or inclination to read. God only knows what else is hidden in the Stimulus bill, the ObamaCare law, and in the Financial re-regulation law; each over two thousand pages long.
The problem with BMI is that it is an imperfect measurement of obesity. It falsely assumes that height and weight are the sole determining factors in establishing obesity. It completely ignores the ratio of fat-to-muscle that actually makes up someone's body weight. Because of this overly simplified number, many people, who exercise regularly and who have "bulked up" and have low body fat levels, are going to be falsely categorized as obese. That's why almost every sports athlete and many "leading men" in Hollywood have been inaccurately categorized as obese using the BMI formulation.
First off, this means that obesity in America will be overstated when the numbers are finally calculated in the central database. Secondly, it is highly possible, somewhere down the line, that all people with high BMI measurements could be stigmatized; resulting in higher health insurance premiums or, even, the denial of some medical services.
In my opinion, the missing factors in the BMI calculation are the inclusion, somehow, of waist and hip measurements. Certainly, when it comes to men, it is the big bellies that separate the obese men from the George Clooneys' and the Arnold Schwarzeneggers of the world. For women, it is typically the hips. That's why, whenever you see a TV media story about obesity, they always show lead-in videos with shots of men's guts and women's butts.
The currently calculated BMI is something that is best left between a health care professional and his or her patient. Only then is there true verification as to whether or not someone is healthy with a high BMI or truly obese. As far as keeping a centralized database to measure the BMI of Americans, let's develop a formulation that really works and that is 99.9% accurate; otherwise, every Gold's Gym member, and many many others, will be included on the government's fat list. Lastly, let's not forget, too, that people with extremely low BMI's can be at a higher health risk than many people with high BMI's. In fact, a low BMI can be an indicator of some kind of serious health problem; including things such as depression, anorexia, or, possibly, cancer.
Once again, the Democrats have demonstrated their desire to constantly separate Americans into little boxes. And, you know dam well that their intention will be to use this information to support future legislation against the things they don't like by possibly proposing legislation that would ban things like potato chips and sodas. Maybe, too, they'll use this info to come up with another form of taxation: The BMI tax. For Democrats, information is truly power -- the power of further developing a nanny state where the government directs your every move in life as if we were all mindless idiots who need saving from our selves.
After 16 months of digging around the thousands of pages of the Stimulus Bill, it has now been uncovered that health care professionals will be mandated, by law. to include the calculated Body Mass Index (BMI) for each of their patients as part of a centralized, electronic health-record database that will be established by 2014 (Click here to See Story: Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS).
Why this mandate is even in a law that was aimed at "stimulating the economy" just proves the kind of deceit that the Democrats have been practicing with the passage of these multi-thousand-page laws that nobody has the time or inclination to read. God only knows what else is hidden in the Stimulus bill, the ObamaCare law, and in the Financial re-regulation law; each over two thousand pages long.
The problem with BMI is that it is an imperfect measurement of obesity. It falsely assumes that height and weight are the sole determining factors in establishing obesity. It completely ignores the ratio of fat-to-muscle that actually makes up someone's body weight. Because of this overly simplified number, many people, who exercise regularly and who have "bulked up" and have low body fat levels, are going to be falsely categorized as obese. That's why almost every sports athlete and many "leading men" in Hollywood have been inaccurately categorized as obese using the BMI formulation.
First off, this means that obesity in America will be overstated when the numbers are finally calculated in the central database. Secondly, it is highly possible, somewhere down the line, that all people with high BMI measurements could be stigmatized; resulting in higher health insurance premiums or, even, the denial of some medical services.
In my opinion, the missing factors in the BMI calculation are the inclusion, somehow, of waist and hip measurements. Certainly, when it comes to men, it is the big bellies that separate the obese men from the George Clooneys' and the Arnold Schwarzeneggers of the world. For women, it is typically the hips. That's why, whenever you see a TV media story about obesity, they always show lead-in videos with shots of men's guts and women's butts.
The currently calculated BMI is something that is best left between a health care professional and his or her patient. Only then is there true verification as to whether or not someone is healthy with a high BMI or truly obese. As far as keeping a centralized database to measure the BMI of Americans, let's develop a formulation that really works and that is 99.9% accurate; otherwise, every Gold's Gym member, and many many others, will be included on the government's fat list. Lastly, let's not forget, too, that people with extremely low BMI's can be at a higher health risk than many people with high BMI's. In fact, a low BMI can be an indicator of some kind of serious health problem; including things such as depression, anorexia, or, possibly, cancer.
Once again, the Democrats have demonstrated their desire to constantly separate Americans into little boxes. And, you know dam well that their intention will be to use this information to support future legislation against the things they don't like by possibly proposing legislation that would ban things like potato chips and sodas. Maybe, too, they'll use this info to come up with another form of taxation: The BMI tax. For Democrats, information is truly power -- the power of further developing a nanny state where the government directs your every move in life as if we were all mindless idiots who need saving from our selves.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Worrisome Layoffs In Manufacturing
In April, the number of "mass" layoffs jumped markedly with manufacturing jobs being hurt the hardest; losing 24,000 more jobs than in the previous month (Click to See Full Story: April mass layoffs rise led by manufacturing). The number of mass layoffs is calculated by counting the number of incidents where 50 or more employees are let go at the same time.
The reason that the loss of manufacturing jobs is so worrisome is the fact the it usually precedes job losses that are well downstream and upstream from the manufacturing process. Reduced manufacturing jobs can eventually force a reduction in the number of clerical and administrative positions within the same company that is cutting the manufacturing jobs; or, those job losses can even be in the retail arena for those who would would have sold those items. Manufacturers don't cut jobs unless they see a significant downturn in sales. It is too costly for them to disrupt the entire production chain and then try to restart it or build it back up again. That's because the suppliers of the products needed in the process tend to cut back on their jobs and their inventories as they adjust to any slowdown. My guess is that the manufacturers of American-made products are telling us that we might be in trouble in the next several months.
And, while we are talking about layoffs, the next big wave of job losses is going to be in government employees at the state and local levels. May is typically the end of the school year and a simple Google search using the words "layoff notices" will give you a flavor of what's going on in our nation's schools and in other government jobs. State and local governments are trying to cope with the massive loss of tax revenues and deficits by simply cutting services and jobs. Teachers by the thousands have already received notices. Police and fire too. I don't expect that the next two unemployment reports with be very pretty. When you see just one school system like that of Orange County, California laying off 1500 teachers and you see that same story being played out in school district after school district across the country, you know that we might be seeing the beginning of an outright death spiral in government and private jobs. Just remember that every loss of a single job can have a ripple effect in causing someone else to lose theirs. Higher unemployment will also force more shaky homeowners out of their homes through foreclosure. Earlier this month, it was disclosed that one out of every ten existing mortgages has had a delay in payments; and, that 80% of those are probably going to result in a foreclosure or in a forced short sale. High unemployment begets increased foreclosures. Those foreclosures also beget unemployment because the home builders are forced to reduce the work forces needed to build new homes.
You can't expect companies to add jobs when their profits are being sapped by allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire. You can't hope that companies will hire more people when each new employee might cost them a fortune in having to provide mandated health insurance. You can't expect the hiring situation to get better when employers are forced to pay 10% more for any entry level position because the minimum wage was recently raised. A union Card check will just force companies into paying higher union wages for less employees and won't do a damn thing to create a new job. Finally, you can't expect companies to hire more people in the face of higher manufacturing and energy costs due to Cap and Trade.
There is nothing that this Congress and this President have done to stimulate anything in the worlds of business and economics. In fact, this President seems to be at war with business, Wall Street, and our banks. In doing so, he and Congress have done everything that they possibly could do to cause unemployment to go higher. Remember, when Obama took office, there were 9 million people out of work. Instead of creating jobs, we now have 15.2 million in a jobless status; with a combined unemployment and underemployment rate that is closing in on 20%. Obama can talk all day long but things aren't really getting better if people don't have jobs. End of story.
The reason that the loss of manufacturing jobs is so worrisome is the fact the it usually precedes job losses that are well downstream and upstream from the manufacturing process. Reduced manufacturing jobs can eventually force a reduction in the number of clerical and administrative positions within the same company that is cutting the manufacturing jobs; or, those job losses can even be in the retail arena for those who would would have sold those items. Manufacturers don't cut jobs unless they see a significant downturn in sales. It is too costly for them to disrupt the entire production chain and then try to restart it or build it back up again. That's because the suppliers of the products needed in the process tend to cut back on their jobs and their inventories as they adjust to any slowdown. My guess is that the manufacturers of American-made products are telling us that we might be in trouble in the next several months.
And, while we are talking about layoffs, the next big wave of job losses is going to be in government employees at the state and local levels. May is typically the end of the school year and a simple Google search using the words "layoff notices" will give you a flavor of what's going on in our nation's schools and in other government jobs. State and local governments are trying to cope with the massive loss of tax revenues and deficits by simply cutting services and jobs. Teachers by the thousands have already received notices. Police and fire too. I don't expect that the next two unemployment reports with be very pretty. When you see just one school system like that of Orange County, California laying off 1500 teachers and you see that same story being played out in school district after school district across the country, you know that we might be seeing the beginning of an outright death spiral in government and private jobs. Just remember that every loss of a single job can have a ripple effect in causing someone else to lose theirs. Higher unemployment will also force more shaky homeowners out of their homes through foreclosure. Earlier this month, it was disclosed that one out of every ten existing mortgages has had a delay in payments; and, that 80% of those are probably going to result in a foreclosure or in a forced short sale. High unemployment begets increased foreclosures. Those foreclosures also beget unemployment because the home builders are forced to reduce the work forces needed to build new homes.
You can't expect companies to add jobs when their profits are being sapped by allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire. You can't hope that companies will hire more people when each new employee might cost them a fortune in having to provide mandated health insurance. You can't expect the hiring situation to get better when employers are forced to pay 10% more for any entry level position because the minimum wage was recently raised. A union Card check will just force companies into paying higher union wages for less employees and won't do a damn thing to create a new job. Finally, you can't expect companies to hire more people in the face of higher manufacturing and energy costs due to Cap and Trade.
There is nothing that this Congress and this President have done to stimulate anything in the worlds of business and economics. In fact, this President seems to be at war with business, Wall Street, and our banks. In doing so, he and Congress have done everything that they possibly could do to cause unemployment to go higher. Remember, when Obama took office, there were 9 million people out of work. Instead of creating jobs, we now have 15.2 million in a jobless status; with a combined unemployment and underemployment rate that is closing in on 20%. Obama can talk all day long but things aren't really getting better if people don't have jobs. End of story.
Friday, May 21, 2010
PA 12: A Democratic Victory?
A lot is being made of the fact that a Democrat, Mark Critz, was able to hold the seat that had been formerly held by John Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District. On the left, they specifically see this win as an indication that maybe, just maybe, it won't be a blood-bath in the Fall for the Democrats.
But, in reality, Mark Critz was a Democrat who ran as a Republican and completely divorced himself from the policies of the Washington Democrats and Obama. He's called for lower taxes and cost cutting. He said he would not have voted for ObamaCare and said that he won't vote for Cap and Trade. He's another one of those rare animals: A Pro-Life Democrat. Finally, he also believes in the Second Amendment Right to bear arms. So, in essence, the 2 to 1, registered Democrats over Republicans voters of PA's 12th, voted in a DINO (A Democrat in Name Only). To me, that hardly spells a win for the Democrats in Pennsylvania's 12th and, some how, the avoidance of a landslide loss in the Fall elections. Mark Critz simply won by being Anti-Obama and the Democrats are in denial if they can't see this.
But, in reality, Mark Critz was a Democrat who ran as a Republican and completely divorced himself from the policies of the Washington Democrats and Obama. He's called for lower taxes and cost cutting. He said he would not have voted for ObamaCare and said that he won't vote for Cap and Trade. He's another one of those rare animals: A Pro-Life Democrat. Finally, he also believes in the Second Amendment Right to bear arms. So, in essence, the 2 to 1, registered Democrats over Republicans voters of PA's 12th, voted in a DINO (A Democrat in Name Only). To me, that hardly spells a win for the Democrats in Pennsylvania's 12th and, some how, the avoidance of a landslide loss in the Fall elections. Mark Critz simply won by being Anti-Obama and the Democrats are in denial if they can't see this.
Friday, May 7, 2010
A Different Take On Illegal Immigrants
The common argument for allowing illegals to remain in this country is that they take the jobs that Americans won't do. But, in reality, they also take good-paying, non-union, construction jobs and get paid half to a third less than what an American would be paid to do the same job. And, employers know that the illegals won't complain because they could wind up being deported.
In effect, illegals are causing wage suppression in this country. I think, because of that, the Democrats of Congress have seen fit to keep raising the minimum wage.
Employers who hire illegals are getting a deal and, in effect, are using them like slave labor. If there weren't so many who were willing to work for less, than employers would have to hire workers at higher wages to attract Americans to their workplace. But, in reality, just the opposite is happening.
The Democrats are all for the naturalization of illegal aliens because they see votes for their party. But, keeping illegals in this country is harming American wages. I believe strongly in deportation of illegals. But, at the same time, I believe we should have an active guest worker program that gives anyone a decent wage; and, one that gives an American worker the first right of refusal for that particular job.
I live in Las Vegas which has probably the highest per capita concentration of illegals in the country. The availability of tons of low-paying, service work here is the primary attraction. When you talk to them, many of the "long-time illegals" have no qualms about telling you that they're here illegally. In most cases, they will tell you that they really don't want to become U.S. citizens. Many have families back in Mexico and in other Latin American countries and they are here to make money and send it back home to their families. I had an electrician tell me that many who have their families here will make as much money as they can so they can retire to Mexico and live like a king because the standard of living is so much lower. Generally, its the teens that grow up in this country and have no ties to a homeland that want to stay. And, because of their birth on U.S. soil, they are already citizens.
So, to me, a pathway to citizenship and just paying some fine for coming into this country illegally isn't going to solve the problem. Many don't want citizenship and, by being here, they will continue to suppress wages. We need a guest worker program. We need to go after those employers who keep hiring illegals; because, if the jobs aren't here, they won't come. Finally, we need to deport those families we find here. But, what Obama and the Democrats are proposing, may actually accelerate illegal immigration.
In effect, illegals are causing wage suppression in this country. I think, because of that, the Democrats of Congress have seen fit to keep raising the minimum wage.
Employers who hire illegals are getting a deal and, in effect, are using them like slave labor. If there weren't so many who were willing to work for less, than employers would have to hire workers at higher wages to attract Americans to their workplace. But, in reality, just the opposite is happening.
The Democrats are all for the naturalization of illegal aliens because they see votes for their party. But, keeping illegals in this country is harming American wages. I believe strongly in deportation of illegals. But, at the same time, I believe we should have an active guest worker program that gives anyone a decent wage; and, one that gives an American worker the first right of refusal for that particular job.
I live in Las Vegas which has probably the highest per capita concentration of illegals in the country. The availability of tons of low-paying, service work here is the primary attraction. When you talk to them, many of the "long-time illegals" have no qualms about telling you that they're here illegally. In most cases, they will tell you that they really don't want to become U.S. citizens. Many have families back in Mexico and in other Latin American countries and they are here to make money and send it back home to their families. I had an electrician tell me that many who have their families here will make as much money as they can so they can retire to Mexico and live like a king because the standard of living is so much lower. Generally, its the teens that grow up in this country and have no ties to a homeland that want to stay. And, because of their birth on U.S. soil, they are already citizens.
So, to me, a pathway to citizenship and just paying some fine for coming into this country illegally isn't going to solve the problem. Many don't want citizenship and, by being here, they will continue to suppress wages. We need a guest worker program. We need to go after those employers who keep hiring illegals; because, if the jobs aren't here, they won't come. Finally, we need to deport those families we find here. But, what Obama and the Democrats are proposing, may actually accelerate illegal immigration.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
"Trust" At A New Low For Our U.S. Government
On April 19, Pew Research released the results of a poll that reported that only 22% of Americans trusted the government (Click to See Full NPR Story: Pew Poll: Trust In Government Hits Near-Historic Low). Pew actually repeated the same poll three times because they couldn't believe the results. But, is it any wonder?
The government, now primarily run by Democrats, has done nothing in the last year and a quarter to warrant any trust at all. There's been back room dealing behind closed doors to Democratic special interest groups like the labor unions. There have been billion dollar bribes for Senatorial and Congressional votes on health care. We had a takeover of General Motors by this government and the United Auto Workers walked away with control of the company; rather than the creditors. There was a near trillion dollars spent to create jobs with nothing to show for it except that union groups like the teachers, cops, and firefighters got to keep their jobs. Then, $75 billion dollars to thwart the rate of foreclosures; yet, foreclosures are running higher than ever. We had a 30% increase in the national debt in one year and, now, there's talk of a new and more onerous Value Added Tax that will kill even more jobs. Then, there was passage of a health care bill that 60% of this country didn't want. And, finally, a possible coordinated effort between the White House, the New York Times, and the Securities and Exchange Commission to disgrace Goldman-Sachs as a means of pushing through the control of the financial system of this country.
Personally, I can't believe that ANYONE trusts this government!
When someone like Bill Clinton talks about the danger of the Tea Party creating the conditions that spawned the Oklahoma City bombing, he should be very careful. When as many people, as the PEW poll suggests, seem to be anti-government, we are looking at one that is Democratically controlled and who, by itself, could spawn possible violence because it is not listening to the people. I think Bill Clinton should worry more about his own Democratic party; rather than the Tea Party who seems to be more in step with main-stream America.
The government, now primarily run by Democrats, has done nothing in the last year and a quarter to warrant any trust at all. There's been back room dealing behind closed doors to Democratic special interest groups like the labor unions. There have been billion dollar bribes for Senatorial and Congressional votes on health care. We had a takeover of General Motors by this government and the United Auto Workers walked away with control of the company; rather than the creditors. There was a near trillion dollars spent to create jobs with nothing to show for it except that union groups like the teachers, cops, and firefighters got to keep their jobs. Then, $75 billion dollars to thwart the rate of foreclosures; yet, foreclosures are running higher than ever. We had a 30% increase in the national debt in one year and, now, there's talk of a new and more onerous Value Added Tax that will kill even more jobs. Then, there was passage of a health care bill that 60% of this country didn't want. And, finally, a possible coordinated effort between the White House, the New York Times, and the Securities and Exchange Commission to disgrace Goldman-Sachs as a means of pushing through the control of the financial system of this country.
Personally, I can't believe that ANYONE trusts this government!
When someone like Bill Clinton talks about the danger of the Tea Party creating the conditions that spawned the Oklahoma City bombing, he should be very careful. When as many people, as the PEW poll suggests, seem to be anti-government, we are looking at one that is Democratically controlled and who, by itself, could spawn possible violence because it is not listening to the people. I think Bill Clinton should worry more about his own Democratic party; rather than the Tea Party who seems to be more in step with main-stream America.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
More ObamaCare Stupidity
First, we find out that any children with pre-existing conditions had been completely excluded from ObamaCare; embarrasing Obama who had been touting, both before and after the bill's passage, that these children would be taken care of. Then, Corporations started declaring that ObamaCare will cause them to lose billions of dollars in tax benefits. Benefits they had been receiving to continue private health insurance for their retirees; rather than discontinue that benefit at age 65 and force those people onto Medicare. Now, it is apparent that the affected companies will now pay less taxes because of higher expenses and, more importantly, they no longer have any incentive to keep from throwing their retirees onto Medicare at age 65. Subsequently, Medicare costs will go up higher than expected.
Now, we find out the most laughable impact of all under ObamaCare: That Members of Congress will lose their own "rich" health care plans. Apparently § 1312(d)(3)(D)(i) states that members of Congress must either subscribe to health plans that are formulated under the new dictates of ObamaCare or buy their insurance from any one of the newly created health care Exchanges (Click to See Full Story: Ooops! Congress loses health care plan under Obamacare?).
And, added to both the laughability and stupidity factor, you now have Democratic members of Congress questioning how this could happen. Maybe if these idiots spent more time reading the bill, rather than scheming on how to pass it against the will of the people and the rules of Congress, they would have realized what they had done. But, when you "intentionally" draft legislation that is so large and so cross-referenced it takes a doctorate to decipher, this is what happens. It just proves that Congress could have cared less about what was in the law. They could care less if it helped or hurt Americans. Their only interest in passing it was that it would give the Federal Government complete control of health care in America.
Now, we find out the most laughable impact of all under ObamaCare: That Members of Congress will lose their own "rich" health care plans. Apparently § 1312(d)(3)(D)(i) states that members of Congress must either subscribe to health plans that are formulated under the new dictates of ObamaCare or buy their insurance from any one of the newly created health care Exchanges (Click to See Full Story: Ooops! Congress loses health care plan under Obamacare?).
And, added to both the laughability and stupidity factor, you now have Democratic members of Congress questioning how this could happen. Maybe if these idiots spent more time reading the bill, rather than scheming on how to pass it against the will of the people and the rules of Congress, they would have realized what they had done. But, when you "intentionally" draft legislation that is so large and so cross-referenced it takes a doctorate to decipher, this is what happens. It just proves that Congress could have cared less about what was in the law. They could care less if it helped or hurt Americans. Their only interest in passing it was that it would give the Federal Government complete control of health care in America.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Hit and Run
Just like a driver who flees the scene after inflicting both physical and immeasurable psychological damage, Bart Stupak has now decided to flee the scene of his crime and retire from the U.S. Senate. Like so many other Democrats who have already read the handwriting on the wall, Stupak is getting out while the getting is good. The worst thing for any politician is to lose in an election and this guy had a big "L" all over his forehead. This phony Pro-Lifer and his contingent of 8 or 11 others who are supposedly Pr0-Life almost single-handedly allowed for the final passage of the health care reform bill. He and that stupid contingency of other Pro-Life Democrats bought into Obama's lie that the abortion expansion that had been written into the health care law could be easily overridden by a Presidential executive order. If that were true, then a line-item-veto would never been needed to exclude individual spending items from any Congressional Budget Bill. But, we all know that no President has the power to do that.
So, as it stands right now, "Stupak the Stupid", becomes another in a long list of sacrificial lambs that were slaughtered at the unholy altar of Obama, Pelosi and Reid so Obama could have a legacy other than possibly being the worst President this country has ever seen.
I say... Good riddance!
pb
So, as it stands right now, "Stupak the Stupid", becomes another in a long list of sacrificial lambs that were slaughtered at the unholy altar of Obama, Pelosi and Reid so Obama could have a legacy other than possibly being the worst President this country has ever seen.
I say... Good riddance!
pb
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
God Save The Children Because Obama Didn't!
More than a year of screwing around has gone by. There is upwards of 2800 pages of legislation and , now, we find out that ObamaCare doesn't even cover any kids with pre-existing conditions (Click to See Full Story: Gap in health care law's protection for children).
You would have thought that the insurance coverage of children would have been the highest priority in this health care monstrosity the Democrats have come up with. In fact, every speech that Obama has given in the last year has specifically touted the children with pre-existing illnesses. This was one of the primary reasons we needed his health care plan. However, he and the Democrats were so hell bent on taking over medicine in America that they completely let the kids fall right through the cracks. How stupid! This is what happens when there's too many pages to actually read the bill.
As it is, the adults with pre-existing conditions won't get protected by ObamaCare until 2014; a year after the next Presidential election. That's because the Democrats know that insurance rates will soar when those people are included in the insurance system. So, if you're an adult without insurance and you just happen to be dying, try to hang on until 2014 when the law covering your malady finally kicks in.
You would have thought that the insurance coverage of children would have been the highest priority in this health care monstrosity the Democrats have come up with. In fact, every speech that Obama has given in the last year has specifically touted the children with pre-existing illnesses. This was one of the primary reasons we needed his health care plan. However, he and the Democrats were so hell bent on taking over medicine in America that they completely let the kids fall right through the cracks. How stupid! This is what happens when there's too many pages to actually read the bill.
As it is, the adults with pre-existing conditions won't get protected by ObamaCare until 2014; a year after the next Presidential election. That's because the Democrats know that insurance rates will soar when those people are included in the insurance system. So, if you're an adult without insurance and you just happen to be dying, try to hang on until 2014 when the law covering your malady finally kicks in.
Friday, March 19, 2010
The New Police State Of Health Care In America
If what the Democrats of Congress posted on the Internet yesterday becomes law, that legislation will add 16,500 new IRS agents. That's the equivalent of adding the population of a small city to the IRS.
This fact, alone, tells you what health care reform is all about. It is a law that would mandate that companies -- large and small -- be fined for not providing health insurance to their employees. It is a law that says that you and I will be fined for not buying health insurance. And, it is law that will go after insurance companies and doctors for not meeting all the other ridiculous mandates as outlined under their so-called reform.
The IRS will be the Gestapo organization that will used to bust heads over not complying with what the Democrats seem to think health care in should be. Sadly, the health care system in America will become a police state. It will no longer be about quality of care. Instead, it will be all about the bottom line and the growth of government's control over our lives. And, it is this massive addition of IRS agents that clearly points those facts out.
This fact, alone, tells you what health care reform is all about. It is a law that would mandate that companies -- large and small -- be fined for not providing health insurance to their employees. It is a law that says that you and I will be fined for not buying health insurance. And, it is law that will go after insurance companies and doctors for not meeting all the other ridiculous mandates as outlined under their so-called reform.
The IRS will be the Gestapo organization that will used to bust heads over not complying with what the Democrats seem to think health care in should be. Sadly, the health care system in America will become a police state. It will no longer be about quality of care. Instead, it will be all about the bottom line and the growth of government's control over our lives. And, it is this massive addition of IRS agents that clearly points those facts out.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Obamazilla And The Attack On The Insurance Companies
From early on, Obama and the Democrats have attacked those "bad" health care insurance companies. They know from focus groups and internal polling that Americans hold substantial anger towards the insurers.
But, why is that?
For most Americans, especially those who rarely have to see a doctor, the only thing they ever see is the constantly rising cost of health insurance. They never really see medical bills from the hospital, the doctors, and the diagnostic testing companies that have been rising precipitously ; forcing the insurers to raise their rates in kind.
But, if they had seen the bills from the entities that are billing the insurers, they would have seen doctor's fees for office visits rising by nearly double in the last 8 years. They would seen costs for blood tests increasing dramatically as doctors order up a wider and wider variety of tests in an effort to cover their behinds against possible lawsuits. They would have seen how very expensive CAT scans and MRI's have replaced cheaper X-rays. They would see emergency room fees skyrocketing by hundreds of dollars for a single visit because of the amount of uninsured that are seeking free medical care at hospitals.
The insurance companies are merely the messengers and Obama and his gang in Congress want to shoot the messengers. The insurance companies don't determine the cost of health care in America. The providers do. That's why Medicare is going broke. It isn't because of the insurance companies raising their rates. It is because of the rapidly rising cost of health care bills. Medicare is, in reality, just another insurance company. But, instead of raising their rates as rapidly as other insurers, it is backed by the Federal Government who is content on running deficits that are subsidized by tax money from you and I. Private insurers would go out of business if they operated that way. So, instead they "have" to raise their rates.
In the title of the blog entry, I used the term "Obamazilla" because, like the fictional Godzilla, the attack of the insurance companies is monstrous theatrics that is designed to push a health care agenda that will ultimately force the insurers out of business and make the doctors and hospitals totally accountable to the Federal Government. And, as we all know, the Federal Government is too big, too non-profit, and too uncaring to manage health care in America and do it right.
But, why is that?
For most Americans, especially those who rarely have to see a doctor, the only thing they ever see is the constantly rising cost of health insurance. They never really see medical bills from the hospital, the doctors, and the diagnostic testing companies that have been rising precipitously ; forcing the insurers to raise their rates in kind.
But, if they had seen the bills from the entities that are billing the insurers, they would have seen doctor's fees for office visits rising by nearly double in the last 8 years. They would seen costs for blood tests increasing dramatically as doctors order up a wider and wider variety of tests in an effort to cover their behinds against possible lawsuits. They would have seen how very expensive CAT scans and MRI's have replaced cheaper X-rays. They would see emergency room fees skyrocketing by hundreds of dollars for a single visit because of the amount of uninsured that are seeking free medical care at hospitals.
The insurance companies are merely the messengers and Obama and his gang in Congress want to shoot the messengers. The insurance companies don't determine the cost of health care in America. The providers do. That's why Medicare is going broke. It isn't because of the insurance companies raising their rates. It is because of the rapidly rising cost of health care bills. Medicare is, in reality, just another insurance company. But, instead of raising their rates as rapidly as other insurers, it is backed by the Federal Government who is content on running deficits that are subsidized by tax money from you and I. Private insurers would go out of business if they operated that way. So, instead they "have" to raise their rates.
In the title of the blog entry, I used the term "Obamazilla" because, like the fictional Godzilla, the attack of the insurance companies is monstrous theatrics that is designed to push a health care agenda that will ultimately force the insurers out of business and make the doctors and hospitals totally accountable to the Federal Government. And, as we all know, the Federal Government is too big, too non-profit, and too uncaring to manage health care in America and do it right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
