There is little doubt that the Islamic Republic of Iran is building nuclear weapons within its borders. Even the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog agency has finally publicly acknowledged the same concern that most intelligence experts have stated for years. And it has been reported that North Korean scientists are onsite assisting with the efforts.
With lunatic Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly threatening to wipe the State of Israel off of our planet at his earliest opportunity, the world has to be concerned that Ahmadinejad will actually launch such nuclear weapons at Israel. Or others fear he will use the weapons to blackmail the world into looking the other way while he more prominently and overtly meddles in the affairs of other Arab nations.
Some like Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul have no fear of a nuclear Iran because he believes Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as other countries in the world. Unfortunately Representative Paul is not alone in his thinking. There are other notable politicians worldwide who share his views.
President Obama has been more of an ostrich than a hawk in dealing with Iran as he continues to rattle his mouth about what he might do instead of actually doing something. You will recall that Obama sat back when the first “Arab Spring” took place in Iran early in his Presidency instead of giving public support to those Iranian youths whose goal was a more democratic Iran. Since then Obama has continued to flap his gums while Iran continues to perfect its weapon design.
Thankfully the State of Israel has not taken its eye off of the ball and has been quietly considering its alternatives to rid the world of the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. That is until dissident members of its own leadership leaked word of such plans. Amazingly it has been reported that the former head of Israel’s intelligence agency was among the leakers.
So with the United Nation’s recent acknowledgement of Iran’s nuclear intentions and Israel’s plans to act on its own if necessary to protect its country, what should America and the world do now?
In my opinion this Iranian situation is not unlike the Syrian challenge in 2007 when the world feared that Assad was perfecting plans to build nuclear weapons which caused much unrest in the rest of the Arab world and in Israel.
According to former President George W. Bush, after he had received intelligence that Syria had secretly built a reactor with North Korean help, Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked Bush to bomb the compound. Bush told Olmert that the US had low confidence that the nuclear reactor was capable of producing weapons grade plutonium and preferred to publicly urge Syria to dismantle it. So Israel took out the facility by itself without asking for a green light from Bush. It has since been learned that most Arab leaders were privately thankful for that action to neutralize Syria from having nuclear weapons to attack its enemies.
You may also recall that Israel took out the Osiris nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981 being built with help from our French friends. The world reacted in horror that Israel would go after Sadaam Hussein’s peaceful nuclear energy program since he claimed it would be used for energy production rather than relying on his country’s billions of gallons of oil. Thankfully he did not have those weapons when he invaded neighboring Kuwait years later.
Flash forward to the Iranian situation. It has been reported that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently flew to Israel to ostensibly talk about the Palestinian peace process but actually went to discuss Iran. It was reported that Panetta wanted advance notice of any Israeli military action against Iran and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told him no.
Once again the world is warning Israel not to attack another dangerous nuclear weapons plant. And once again it appears Israel is preparing to defend itself. Certainly Iran has a more powerful army than did Syria or Iraq at the time of the Israeli attacks. But if the United States, its NATO Allies, or the other Arab nations will not step up to the plate before it is too late with other than the usual diplomatic or economic threats, then the future of our world depends on Israel.
The hourglass is running out of sand and hopefully President Obama will succeed in getting the world community behind such efforts. Unfortunately, I do not think he has it in him.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Who Is Occupying Wall Street? - November 2011
It is almost laughable. If our economy was not badly suffering from Obamanomics and if unemployment was not already well over the reported 9%, the Occupy Wall Street movement would be a great Saturday Night Live skit.
The OWS movement is a combination of 1960 hippie revivalism, spoiled kids not taking responsibility for their life choices, unions looking for new members, anarchists always looking for a venue to protest against our great country, and political operatives hoping for the next great sound bite to use against their opponents.
But the reality is that our economy is suffering, millions of people are under or unemployed and the Obama administration has failed miserably in its attempt to apply academic theories to managing a dynamic economy in need of multiple solutions. Obama has created the crisis but would rather campaign against it now than solve it.
As former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” So whether or not Obama operatives and sympathizers organized the OWS protesters from the beginning, they are certainly ensuring that the movement has traction as even President Obama has now added the 99% slogan of the protesters to his 2012 campaign stump speech to malign the supposed 1% who profit from their misery. Of course there is nothing that Obama the community activist extraordinaire likes better than to divide and conquer his opponents.
Depending on who in the media you ask, the OWS movement is a protest against our banking industry, against millionaires and billionaires, against greedy corporations, or against our capitalist way of life. The protesters – some of whom have been paid to participate in the OWS marches – claim to not have any organizational structure but somehow various liberal celebrities always seem to have the major media around when they give a formal holler of support. Obama’s friends in the Service Employees International Union seem to be at the right place at the right time for major events. And somebody is paying for all of the free food and sleeping gear.
Certainly in any populist protest, there will be issues which appeal to those on the left, right, and in between so it is not surprising that the American public currently supports the generic OWS “movement” when not asked for their support on specific OWS complaints. Who is not against getting rid of corruption in our economy? Who is not against a Congress unable to implement strong solutions to our economic malaise?
Even I support the OWS complaint about the big Wall Street banks that put short term profits from creating and betting on mortgage-backed securities over sound policy of making sure they only gave or backed loans to credit worthy individuals and corporations. But of course the OWS crowd does not remember that Democrats in Congress wrote the laws to encourage such behavior by forcing red line loans nor do they want to remember that Wall Street gave tens of millions of campaign contributions to candidate Obama in 2008 and that the Obama administration is full of Wall Street cronies.
And while the OWS crowd is complaining of the 99% of citizens being screwed by the so-called rich 1%, the OWSers have not mentioned the 47% of Americans who are taking advantage of the 53% who pay all of the federal income taxes. They would rather rally to have their loans written off by the big banks than worrying that their failure to pay such loans will ultimately affect bank shareholders including plenty of retired Americas.
The big question now is whether the Occupy Wall Street movement has the potential to form into a voting block to help their embattled Community Organizer In Chief next November. David Axelrod, Obama’s 2012 Campaign Chief certainly knows that a large percentage of Occupiers are the same college crowd which voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in 2008. And with most of them now under or unemployed, the Obama campaign cannot chance being blamed for that situation so they need to ensure that youth vote now rallies around the OWS banner and votes for continued change in 2012.
In my opinion, the American public will soon get tired of an organic Occupy Wall Street movement with no practical solutions to the many problems they cite. And with a movement that is becoming politicized and organized to benefit one political party over the other.
Most Americans relish those that are successful. The OWS obsession with class warfare will soon be the reason for its demise. And if President Obama continues to support the movement with his stump speeches, he will only be hurting himself come next November.
The OWS movement is a combination of 1960 hippie revivalism, spoiled kids not taking responsibility for their life choices, unions looking for new members, anarchists always looking for a venue to protest against our great country, and political operatives hoping for the next great sound bite to use against their opponents.
But the reality is that our economy is suffering, millions of people are under or unemployed and the Obama administration has failed miserably in its attempt to apply academic theories to managing a dynamic economy in need of multiple solutions. Obama has created the crisis but would rather campaign against it now than solve it.
As former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” So whether or not Obama operatives and sympathizers organized the OWS protesters from the beginning, they are certainly ensuring that the movement has traction as even President Obama has now added the 99% slogan of the protesters to his 2012 campaign stump speech to malign the supposed 1% who profit from their misery. Of course there is nothing that Obama the community activist extraordinaire likes better than to divide and conquer his opponents.
Depending on who in the media you ask, the OWS movement is a protest against our banking industry, against millionaires and billionaires, against greedy corporations, or against our capitalist way of life. The protesters – some of whom have been paid to participate in the OWS marches – claim to not have any organizational structure but somehow various liberal celebrities always seem to have the major media around when they give a formal holler of support. Obama’s friends in the Service Employees International Union seem to be at the right place at the right time for major events. And somebody is paying for all of the free food and sleeping gear.
Certainly in any populist protest, there will be issues which appeal to those on the left, right, and in between so it is not surprising that the American public currently supports the generic OWS “movement” when not asked for their support on specific OWS complaints. Who is not against getting rid of corruption in our economy? Who is not against a Congress unable to implement strong solutions to our economic malaise?
Even I support the OWS complaint about the big Wall Street banks that put short term profits from creating and betting on mortgage-backed securities over sound policy of making sure they only gave or backed loans to credit worthy individuals and corporations. But of course the OWS crowd does not remember that Democrats in Congress wrote the laws to encourage such behavior by forcing red line loans nor do they want to remember that Wall Street gave tens of millions of campaign contributions to candidate Obama in 2008 and that the Obama administration is full of Wall Street cronies.
And while the OWS crowd is complaining of the 99% of citizens being screwed by the so-called rich 1%, the OWSers have not mentioned the 47% of Americans who are taking advantage of the 53% who pay all of the federal income taxes. They would rather rally to have their loans written off by the big banks than worrying that their failure to pay such loans will ultimately affect bank shareholders including plenty of retired Americas.
The big question now is whether the Occupy Wall Street movement has the potential to form into a voting block to help their embattled Community Organizer In Chief next November. David Axelrod, Obama’s 2012 Campaign Chief certainly knows that a large percentage of Occupiers are the same college crowd which voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in 2008. And with most of them now under or unemployed, the Obama campaign cannot chance being blamed for that situation so they need to ensure that youth vote now rallies around the OWS banner and votes for continued change in 2012.
In my opinion, the American public will soon get tired of an organic Occupy Wall Street movement with no practical solutions to the many problems they cite. And with a movement that is becoming politicized and organized to benefit one political party over the other.
Most Americans relish those that are successful. The OWS obsession with class warfare will soon be the reason for its demise. And if President Obama continues to support the movement with his stump speeches, he will only be hurting himself come next November.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
New World Order - October 2011
It has been slightly more than three decades since I earned my undergraduate business degree. But I still remember the first time I heard three simple theories that forever changed my view of the international business world and globalization.
In my Banking class, I learned of the concept of the Multiplier Effect in which money spent by a business or consumer will multiply up and around the economy to have a greater total impact than just that of the original spender. And the multiplier can have worldwide impacts when developing countries have new wealth and consumer demand for others goods.
In my Logistic class, I learned about the Economic Order Quantity in which a business can efficiently calculate when to order goods from its suppliers and how much to order to effectively meet anticipated customer demand. I was amazed at how acquisition costs from a foreign supplier could sometimes be more cost effective than obtaining goods from domestic suppliers even when Just In Time ordering became a daily management strategy.
And in my Economic class, I learned about the concept of Comparative Advantage in which a consumer or business will naturally seek the best value for any goods or services to be purchased worldwide. That is why given the total costs of natural resources, labor, and government regulations, the invisible hand of the marketplace all too often finds foreign manufacturing sources better than domestic firms.
Of those three theories, the last one on comparative advantage has been the hardest for most liberal economists and politicians to accept. My friends on the left seem to think it is almost treasonous for corporations to produce their goods or provide their services from overseas if that is where the comparative advantage can be found rather than here at home and simply will not accept that businesses are only trying to provide such goods and services at prices that consumers are willing to pay.
Whenever I ask these globalization doubters should the American consumer be forced to buy goods and services made in America through high tariffs on imported goods and the resulting higher prices in stores, they never have an answer. Perhaps my good friend Gary will answer this question in his opposing column on this topic. They usually just say if American workers cannot earn decent wages, how can we expect them to buy higher priced American goods?
Certainly many other issues come into play when evaluating the benefits of sourcing from overseas and I am not deaf to the concerns of those who believe some countries are abusing their environments and workers to be able to produce goods and services less than we can do domestically. I think it is important that their safety laws and human rights are held to the same high standards that we expect of our American corporations operating plants here.
I also believe in the necessity of having level playing fields in which foreign governments do not intentionally subsidize their industries to the detriment of our American firms. Just remember though that for all of the talk of subsidized foreign steel, rubber, and textiles causing the rust belts in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the Carolinas, our government subsidizes plenty of industries itself including energy and agriculture.
But I draw the line when it comes to national security. I find it completely inexcusable that any of our military armament, spy satellites, or boats and planes are built by foreign firms or with foreign components. Our government and taxpayers must pay the price to guarantee that such goods are produced under the total control of American providers and suppliers without giving blank checks to those providers to rip off the American taxpayer because of protection from foreign competition.
In an ideal world, American workers would earn high wages while producing goods and services which meet the price and quality expectations of American consumers without fear of international sources. But that is no longer a reality in this 24 hour high tech world with instant internet communications which quickly help American distributors and retailers find the least expensive sources for their goods anywhere in the world.
If American workers and corporations are to succeed in the decades to come, our children must be immersed in learning engineering, scientific research, finance, and communication technologies so that our country can continue to create and design goods and services for the world which are likely to be manufactured in foreign lands thanks to comparative advantages, economic order quantities, and multipliers.
In my Banking class, I learned of the concept of the Multiplier Effect in which money spent by a business or consumer will multiply up and around the economy to have a greater total impact than just that of the original spender. And the multiplier can have worldwide impacts when developing countries have new wealth and consumer demand for others goods.
In my Logistic class, I learned about the Economic Order Quantity in which a business can efficiently calculate when to order goods from its suppliers and how much to order to effectively meet anticipated customer demand. I was amazed at how acquisition costs from a foreign supplier could sometimes be more cost effective than obtaining goods from domestic suppliers even when Just In Time ordering became a daily management strategy.
And in my Economic class, I learned about the concept of Comparative Advantage in which a consumer or business will naturally seek the best value for any goods or services to be purchased worldwide. That is why given the total costs of natural resources, labor, and government regulations, the invisible hand of the marketplace all too often finds foreign manufacturing sources better than domestic firms.
Of those three theories, the last one on comparative advantage has been the hardest for most liberal economists and politicians to accept. My friends on the left seem to think it is almost treasonous for corporations to produce their goods or provide their services from overseas if that is where the comparative advantage can be found rather than here at home and simply will not accept that businesses are only trying to provide such goods and services at prices that consumers are willing to pay.
Whenever I ask these globalization doubters should the American consumer be forced to buy goods and services made in America through high tariffs on imported goods and the resulting higher prices in stores, they never have an answer. Perhaps my good friend Gary will answer this question in his opposing column on this topic. They usually just say if American workers cannot earn decent wages, how can we expect them to buy higher priced American goods?
Certainly many other issues come into play when evaluating the benefits of sourcing from overseas and I am not deaf to the concerns of those who believe some countries are abusing their environments and workers to be able to produce goods and services less than we can do domestically. I think it is important that their safety laws and human rights are held to the same high standards that we expect of our American corporations operating plants here.
I also believe in the necessity of having level playing fields in which foreign governments do not intentionally subsidize their industries to the detriment of our American firms. Just remember though that for all of the talk of subsidized foreign steel, rubber, and textiles causing the rust belts in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the Carolinas, our government subsidizes plenty of industries itself including energy and agriculture.
But I draw the line when it comes to national security. I find it completely inexcusable that any of our military armament, spy satellites, or boats and planes are built by foreign firms or with foreign components. Our government and taxpayers must pay the price to guarantee that such goods are produced under the total control of American providers and suppliers without giving blank checks to those providers to rip off the American taxpayer because of protection from foreign competition.
In an ideal world, American workers would earn high wages while producing goods and services which meet the price and quality expectations of American consumers without fear of international sources. But that is no longer a reality in this 24 hour high tech world with instant internet communications which quickly help American distributors and retailers find the least expensive sources for their goods anywhere in the world.
If American workers and corporations are to succeed in the decades to come, our children must be immersed in learning engineering, scientific research, finance, and communication technologies so that our country can continue to create and design goods and services for the world which are likely to be manufactured in foreign lands thanks to comparative advantages, economic order quantities, and multipliers.
Thursday, September 01, 2011
BigBadGovernment - September 2011
You wake up. Breathe some fresh air. Listen to the radio or TV over public airwaves. Eat a nutritious breakfast. Drive your fuel efficient car to drop off your kid at public school then onto I-75 to work. You take a lunch break at the nearby park then make a deposit at your local bank. You return to your office to hire a new employee at the business you started from scratch years ago. You later make a phone call to the local hospital to see how your elderly parent is doing and to make sure her Medicare insurance covers her care since her Social Security income is limited. Seeing an accident outside your office window, you call 911. Finally you head home to relax in your neighborhood pool and wave hello to a member of the military sitting nearby.
Image what that day would have been like if our federal, state, and local governments did not exist or operate in the manner to which we have become accustomed. And therein lies the challenge for our American democracy as we debate what is the proper size and scope of the taxes and user fees we are prepared to pay for the provision of services and regulations affecting our air, airwaves, food, cars, roadways, schools, parks, banks, businesses, telecommunications, hospitals, public safety, national security and even our pools. And certainly there are many, more examples than these!
The question facing our country now is can we afford to have our government so entangled in every aspect of our lives? Should it be dictating our health insurance coverage? Should it be telling our financial industries what they can charge for their services? Should it be charging us for our so-called carbon footprint and tell us what light bulbs to use? Should it employ so many of our citizens at the expense of other taxpayers? And should it borrow billions and trillions of dollars beyond its means to fund such efforts?
I have always admired the state motto of New Hampshire which is “Live Free or Die”. Our colonial predecessors came to this country to gain many freedoms from their European homelands. I cannot imagine any of them wanting or expecting their new country to have federal, state, and local governments telling them how to live their lives and taxing them to pay for the public welfare of so many others. Certainly the world has changed in the past 200 years and some of the services offered by government are now needed and wanted. But where does it stop?
My above examples did not include any references to welfare, unemployment compensation, credits for child care, earned income benefits and the like. In fact, there are SO many federal benefits that in 2002, Uncle Sam actually created a website to help you find out what benefits might be available to you. At the time of the site's launch in 2002, it featured 55 programs, representing the ten Federal bureaucracies. Today, the website now includes over 1,000 programs representing 17 Federal bureaucracies. See for yourself at www.Benefits.gov and click the Start Now button. Robin Hood could never have been as efficient although President Obama’s regime is doing its best to make even more citizens dependent on the government dole!
To me it is quite simple. When there are more citizens accepting government assistance than the number of taxpayers paying for such assistance, our country will be no different than the socialist governments throughout the world which are struggling to stay solvent. Unfortunately, we are very close to reaching that point so it is urgent for our elected officials to right our ship now before it starts to sink.
Thankfully we have a national election next year in which the American voter will have the power to determine the future direction of our country. Will we go down the insane path envisioned by President Obama or will we say STOP to his nonsense and elect a candidate who believes in reigning in out of control spending and borrowing and returning to common sense government? We have kicked the can too long through Republican and Democratic administrations. It is time to elect a candidate with the guts and charisma to get the job done.
Image what that day would have been like if our federal, state, and local governments did not exist or operate in the manner to which we have become accustomed. And therein lies the challenge for our American democracy as we debate what is the proper size and scope of the taxes and user fees we are prepared to pay for the provision of services and regulations affecting our air, airwaves, food, cars, roadways, schools, parks, banks, businesses, telecommunications, hospitals, public safety, national security and even our pools. And certainly there are many, more examples than these!
The question facing our country now is can we afford to have our government so entangled in every aspect of our lives? Should it be dictating our health insurance coverage? Should it be telling our financial industries what they can charge for their services? Should it be charging us for our so-called carbon footprint and tell us what light bulbs to use? Should it employ so many of our citizens at the expense of other taxpayers? And should it borrow billions and trillions of dollars beyond its means to fund such efforts?
I have always admired the state motto of New Hampshire which is “Live Free or Die”. Our colonial predecessors came to this country to gain many freedoms from their European homelands. I cannot imagine any of them wanting or expecting their new country to have federal, state, and local governments telling them how to live their lives and taxing them to pay for the public welfare of so many others. Certainly the world has changed in the past 200 years and some of the services offered by government are now needed and wanted. But where does it stop?
My above examples did not include any references to welfare, unemployment compensation, credits for child care, earned income benefits and the like. In fact, there are SO many federal benefits that in 2002, Uncle Sam actually created a website to help you find out what benefits might be available to you. At the time of the site's launch in 2002, it featured 55 programs, representing the ten Federal bureaucracies. Today, the website now includes over 1,000 programs representing 17 Federal bureaucracies. See for yourself at www.Benefits.gov and click the Start Now button. Robin Hood could never have been as efficient although President Obama’s regime is doing its best to make even more citizens dependent on the government dole!
To me it is quite simple. When there are more citizens accepting government assistance than the number of taxpayers paying for such assistance, our country will be no different than the socialist governments throughout the world which are struggling to stay solvent. Unfortunately, we are very close to reaching that point so it is urgent for our elected officials to right our ship now before it starts to sink.
Thankfully we have a national election next year in which the American voter will have the power to determine the future direction of our country. Will we go down the insane path envisioned by President Obama or will we say STOP to his nonsense and elect a candidate who believes in reigning in out of control spending and borrowing and returning to common sense government? We have kicked the can too long through Republican and Democratic administrations. It is time to elect a candidate with the guts and charisma to get the job done.
Monday, August 01, 2011
Obama's Debt - August 2011
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. Americans deserve better.”
So said Senator Barack Obama in 2006. Now as President, he thinks otherwise. In fact, Obama only a few months ago requested a “clean” increase with no spending cuts or tax increases attached to it. But political reality – and poll after poll detailing voters’ disdain for our nation’s growing debt – forced him to consider cutting spending on his dear government entitlements and investments.
To me the whole conversation of increasing the debt ceiling is insane. And insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Our country takes in enough from general tax receipts to keep paying our current debt holders. And enough in employment taxes to currently pay our Social Security recipients and to currently pay our Medicare bills.
But our federal government will never take in enough to fund its massive government structure which is like an octopus with tentacles in every aspect of our lives. A structure in which the average federal government salary now exceeds the average salary of everyday working Americans. And a structure in which some 40% of Americans get some kind of federal government benefit. So to keep funding its well-paid bureaucracy and benefits, Uncle Sam borrows BILLIONS of dollars EACH DAY to fund its operations.
And wait until Obamacare is fully implemented in 2014 with its dozens of new bureaucracies to manage its tens of thousands of new rules and regulations. Even the Congressional Budget Office now realizes Obamacare will add to our deficit spending rather than being self-sufficient through its new penalty fees and employer taxes.
Certainly our ongoing military campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya keep adding to our financial woes. I, for one, was very candid in a previous column that such efforts should be reimbursed to a large extent from the resources of those countries in which we are involved and our government’s failure to obtain such payback is unacceptable to me.
Most importantly, the ongoing debate on our country’s debt ceiling is really a philosophical battle about the purpose and structure of our government. Do we go the direction of the country of Greece which is nearly insolvent because it has finally borrowed more than it can pay back to fund its government social programs? Or do we follow the path of the majority of our states which require balanced budgets each year?
Obama is right about one thing. This deficit spending and ongoing borrowing is not a Democratic or Republican problem. It is an American problem. And we need to face up to it once and for all before we reach a precipice which could easily result in the end of the world’s greatest democracy.
In today’s economy, most families have had to downsize their spending to match the revenues of their businesses and salaries. So why should our federal government not have to do the same? President Obama and a majority of Democratic Congressmen and Senators seem to think that Uncle Sam is immune to such situations and they can just use our nation’s credit card and printing presses to keep the party going.
Much has been written that increasing taxes on the “rich” or closing corporate loopholes can help close the deficit gap. While I have no problem in eliminating special interest loopholes – including those used by Obama’s best friends at General Electric (NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, etc.), I know that raising taxes on the rich will be biting the hand that feeds the federal coffers and pays the salaries of countless working Americans. You need to encourage the wealthy individuals and corporations to keep doing what they are doing and not discourage them with punitive tax levels.
But even if Congress and the President have agreed on long-term spending cuts by the time you read this column, you can rest assured that unless our federal government’s spending is limited to a certain percentage of our nation’s gross domestic income except in times of national emergency, new spending will quickly make those cuts purely symbolic.
So said Senator Barack Obama in 2006. Now as President, he thinks otherwise. In fact, Obama only a few months ago requested a “clean” increase with no spending cuts or tax increases attached to it. But political reality – and poll after poll detailing voters’ disdain for our nation’s growing debt – forced him to consider cutting spending on his dear government entitlements and investments.
To me the whole conversation of increasing the debt ceiling is insane. And insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Our country takes in enough from general tax receipts to keep paying our current debt holders. And enough in employment taxes to currently pay our Social Security recipients and to currently pay our Medicare bills.
But our federal government will never take in enough to fund its massive government structure which is like an octopus with tentacles in every aspect of our lives. A structure in which the average federal government salary now exceeds the average salary of everyday working Americans. And a structure in which some 40% of Americans get some kind of federal government benefit. So to keep funding its well-paid bureaucracy and benefits, Uncle Sam borrows BILLIONS of dollars EACH DAY to fund its operations.
And wait until Obamacare is fully implemented in 2014 with its dozens of new bureaucracies to manage its tens of thousands of new rules and regulations. Even the Congressional Budget Office now realizes Obamacare will add to our deficit spending rather than being self-sufficient through its new penalty fees and employer taxes.
Certainly our ongoing military campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya keep adding to our financial woes. I, for one, was very candid in a previous column that such efforts should be reimbursed to a large extent from the resources of those countries in which we are involved and our government’s failure to obtain such payback is unacceptable to me.
Most importantly, the ongoing debate on our country’s debt ceiling is really a philosophical battle about the purpose and structure of our government. Do we go the direction of the country of Greece which is nearly insolvent because it has finally borrowed more than it can pay back to fund its government social programs? Or do we follow the path of the majority of our states which require balanced budgets each year?
Obama is right about one thing. This deficit spending and ongoing borrowing is not a Democratic or Republican problem. It is an American problem. And we need to face up to it once and for all before we reach a precipice which could easily result in the end of the world’s greatest democracy.
In today’s economy, most families have had to downsize their spending to match the revenues of their businesses and salaries. So why should our federal government not have to do the same? President Obama and a majority of Democratic Congressmen and Senators seem to think that Uncle Sam is immune to such situations and they can just use our nation’s credit card and printing presses to keep the party going.
Much has been written that increasing taxes on the “rich” or closing corporate loopholes can help close the deficit gap. While I have no problem in eliminating special interest loopholes – including those used by Obama’s best friends at General Electric (NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, etc.), I know that raising taxes on the rich will be biting the hand that feeds the federal coffers and pays the salaries of countless working Americans. You need to encourage the wealthy individuals and corporations to keep doing what they are doing and not discourage them with punitive tax levels.
But even if Congress and the President have agreed on long-term spending cuts by the time you read this column, you can rest assured that unless our federal government’s spending is limited to a certain percentage of our nation’s gross domestic income except in times of national emergency, new spending will quickly make those cuts purely symbolic.
Friday, July 01, 2011
Political Scoundrels - July 2011
Mankind is not perfect. But what defines a person is his or her ability to take responsibility for his or her actions and accept the ramifications.
Many such imperfections are against the law and result in appropriate punishments. But others involve issues which are considered immoral or unethical – but are not illegal - for which the individual’s ultimate response upon getting caught is based on his or her character.
There has been much discussion in the media and at water coolers about the actions of Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner. It is good that he made the decision to resign from office because regardless of whether his actions eventually are found to be illegal, his behavior was simply unbecoming for a Congressman who should be a role model for our country and its children.
Although this wiener was shriveled by his public humiliation, Congressman Weiner is not alone in bringing scandal to the Capitol. As far back as the founding of our country, our elected and appointed officials have had illegitimate children, been involved with prostitutes, misused public funds, accepted bribes, and been involved in other types of pay for play scandals.
Such improper and illegal behavior is not limited to Democrats although I do enjoy watching the media always trying to defend them or rationalize their actions. I often watch MSNBC in the very early morning hours and like to hear their mostly liberal panelists citing Democratic talking points and protecting their own. Thankfully Weiner’s situation evolved as it did so those supposed experts had to finally join the chorus in condemning him.
I do need to ask though why Democratic leaders rarely or are the last to call for their misbehaving members to resign while Republican leaders do so quickly although not always successful in their efforts. Former Palm Beach Republican Congressman Mark Foley quickly resigned when asked as did former New York Republican Congressman Christopher Lee.
However, former Republican Senator Larry Craig from Idaho ultimately refused to resign his seat after being found guilty of disorderly conduct for his sexual acts in the Minneapolis-St Paul airport but did not run for re-election. Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter refused to resign after being listed as a long-time client of a prostitution ring. He ultimately was re-elected by his constituents to his current term. And Mark Sanford, the former Republican Governor of South Carolina refused to step down after admitting to an extramarital affair and then served out his term.
But I do not recall Democratic leaders aggressively calling for the resignation of current Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts who allowed his lover to run a male prostitution ring from his townhouse. Then there is New York Congressman Charlie Rangel who has still not been asked to resign for his myriad of income tax violations and misuse of public housing. And I do not recall any Democratic leaders calling for former President Bill Clinton to step down for his salacious affair with an intern or for lying to a grand jury.
To me, this whole issue of scandalous behavior is quite simple. Elected officials – be they from the City of Weston or the Towns of Davie or Southwest Ranches, or are our representatives on the School Board, County Commission, or in Tallahassee and Washington, DC – need to be held to a high standard of decency because they represent us and are looked upon by our children as role models.
Perhaps the number one cause for unacceptable behavior by our elected officials is because the power and fame of being a public figure inflates their ego and alters their perception of right and wrong. I have seen the subtle changes in a number of candidates for whom I have volunteered or contributed in years past. And, unfortunately, I have personally known a few who went over to the dark side and were jailed for wrong doings.
This is why I have always believed in term limits for any elected position. And why I have always respected those elected officials who come from successful business and professional careers over those who have made politics their life’s calling and have only a text book understanding of the real world. Only time will tell who our next scoundrel will be.
Many such imperfections are against the law and result in appropriate punishments. But others involve issues which are considered immoral or unethical – but are not illegal - for which the individual’s ultimate response upon getting caught is based on his or her character.
There has been much discussion in the media and at water coolers about the actions of Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner. It is good that he made the decision to resign from office because regardless of whether his actions eventually are found to be illegal, his behavior was simply unbecoming for a Congressman who should be a role model for our country and its children.
Although this wiener was shriveled by his public humiliation, Congressman Weiner is not alone in bringing scandal to the Capitol. As far back as the founding of our country, our elected and appointed officials have had illegitimate children, been involved with prostitutes, misused public funds, accepted bribes, and been involved in other types of pay for play scandals.
Such improper and illegal behavior is not limited to Democrats although I do enjoy watching the media always trying to defend them or rationalize their actions. I often watch MSNBC in the very early morning hours and like to hear their mostly liberal panelists citing Democratic talking points and protecting their own. Thankfully Weiner’s situation evolved as it did so those supposed experts had to finally join the chorus in condemning him.
I do need to ask though why Democratic leaders rarely or are the last to call for their misbehaving members to resign while Republican leaders do so quickly although not always successful in their efforts. Former Palm Beach Republican Congressman Mark Foley quickly resigned when asked as did former New York Republican Congressman Christopher Lee.
However, former Republican Senator Larry Craig from Idaho ultimately refused to resign his seat after being found guilty of disorderly conduct for his sexual acts in the Minneapolis-St Paul airport but did not run for re-election. Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter refused to resign after being listed as a long-time client of a prostitution ring. He ultimately was re-elected by his constituents to his current term. And Mark Sanford, the former Republican Governor of South Carolina refused to step down after admitting to an extramarital affair and then served out his term.
But I do not recall Democratic leaders aggressively calling for the resignation of current Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts who allowed his lover to run a male prostitution ring from his townhouse. Then there is New York Congressman Charlie Rangel who has still not been asked to resign for his myriad of income tax violations and misuse of public housing. And I do not recall any Democratic leaders calling for former President Bill Clinton to step down for his salacious affair with an intern or for lying to a grand jury.
To me, this whole issue of scandalous behavior is quite simple. Elected officials – be they from the City of Weston or the Towns of Davie or Southwest Ranches, or are our representatives on the School Board, County Commission, or in Tallahassee and Washington, DC – need to be held to a high standard of decency because they represent us and are looked upon by our children as role models.
Perhaps the number one cause for unacceptable behavior by our elected officials is because the power and fame of being a public figure inflates their ego and alters their perception of right and wrong. I have seen the subtle changes in a number of candidates for whom I have volunteered or contributed in years past. And, unfortunately, I have personally known a few who went over to the dark side and were jailed for wrong doings.
This is why I have always believed in term limits for any elected position. And why I have always respected those elected officials who come from successful business and professional careers over those who have made politics their life’s calling and have only a text book understanding of the real world. Only time will tell who our next scoundrel will be.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
2012 Republican Candidates - June 2011
Barrack Obama can be defeated in 2012. He has disappointed and demotivated his Democratic base by not governing as far left as he originally campaigned. He has alienated most independents by piling on trillions of dollars of debt. And his ongoing trashing of Republicans has certainly lit a fire in many of them who sat home in November 2008 rather than vote for John McCain.
Now the question is whether the Republicans will be able to field a Presidential candidate who can prove to the American voters that he or she is capable of bringing our country back to common sense federal governance as opposed to big government borrowing and spending which is a core Obama belief. And can he or she again put the United States in a world leadership role rather than being a passive follower as Obama has been.
In my mind, there is currently no clear choice for the Republican nomination for President in 2012 and I am not prepared to support any candidate just yet.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s strong business background gives me confidence he would focus the federal government on necessities and let private industry get back to leading the economy. But Mitt’s track record on healthcare reform when he was Governor is not good. He legislated a mandatory participation program in Massachusetts similar to that enacted by President Obama which puts Mitt in an odd position when trying to challenge the flailing Obamacare program although Mitt has said he would shut it down if elected.
Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels looks great on paper but lacks charisma. And Mitch’s marital record will become an unnecessary distraction. However, he did a phenomenal job in Indiana ridding his state of a budget deficit and slashing its operating budget. I believe his record proves he can bring common sense fiscal policy to Washington, DC which Obama is unwilling to do. Perhaps America will be happy with a boring fiscal conservative in the White House rather than a boisterous, self-centered, constitutional law professor currently serving there.
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was also a successful governor who did well for his citizens during his two terms. While also not very charismatic, he is capable of giving great speeches and making points at debates. He was a popular governor of a very unique state with liberal and libertarian tendencies so Tim may be able to relate very well with Americans throughout the toss-up states needed to win a presidential election these days.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich now wants to be President but I discount his candidacy for a number of reasons. While he likes to tell you he is a brilliant man, he has no common sense given his past efforts working with Democrat Nancy Pelosi regarding their belief that climate change is the fault of mankind. And his recent comments about Republican plans to overhaul Medicare did not win him friends in the Republican grass roots.
The libertarian leaning Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and businessman Herman Cain all sound great in debates when they focus on economic issues but their hands off belief regarding many foreign policy and safety net issues give them little chance of being elected President even if they are Tea Party darlings and may do well in Republican primaries.
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will most likely focus on earning big money with her speaking engagements, TV consultancies, and related businesses rather than risking such by running for President. She will follow the lead of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and billionaire Donald J. Trump by taking advantage of their popularity to earn the big bucks while they can.
There are also dark horse potential candidates like Congresswoman Michelle Bachman of Minnesota who, although a bright tax lawyer by training, lets loose too many dumb sound bites. And former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who believes his path to the presidency is with those of strong religious beliefs. Some are also hoping that current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie or current Texas Governor Rick Perry will step into the ring.
Many current polls show a generic Republican can beat Barrack Obama in November 2012. I just hope the Republican primary voters will choose a candidate who has the heft and experience to end this disastrous Obama presidency before our country is forever changed by his policies.
Now the question is whether the Republicans will be able to field a Presidential candidate who can prove to the American voters that he or she is capable of bringing our country back to common sense federal governance as opposed to big government borrowing and spending which is a core Obama belief. And can he or she again put the United States in a world leadership role rather than being a passive follower as Obama has been.
In my mind, there is currently no clear choice for the Republican nomination for President in 2012 and I am not prepared to support any candidate just yet.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s strong business background gives me confidence he would focus the federal government on necessities and let private industry get back to leading the economy. But Mitt’s track record on healthcare reform when he was Governor is not good. He legislated a mandatory participation program in Massachusetts similar to that enacted by President Obama which puts Mitt in an odd position when trying to challenge the flailing Obamacare program although Mitt has said he would shut it down if elected.
Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels looks great on paper but lacks charisma. And Mitch’s marital record will become an unnecessary distraction. However, he did a phenomenal job in Indiana ridding his state of a budget deficit and slashing its operating budget. I believe his record proves he can bring common sense fiscal policy to Washington, DC which Obama is unwilling to do. Perhaps America will be happy with a boring fiscal conservative in the White House rather than a boisterous, self-centered, constitutional law professor currently serving there.
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was also a successful governor who did well for his citizens during his two terms. While also not very charismatic, he is capable of giving great speeches and making points at debates. He was a popular governor of a very unique state with liberal and libertarian tendencies so Tim may be able to relate very well with Americans throughout the toss-up states needed to win a presidential election these days.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich now wants to be President but I discount his candidacy for a number of reasons. While he likes to tell you he is a brilliant man, he has no common sense given his past efforts working with Democrat Nancy Pelosi regarding their belief that climate change is the fault of mankind. And his recent comments about Republican plans to overhaul Medicare did not win him friends in the Republican grass roots.
The libertarian leaning Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and businessman Herman Cain all sound great in debates when they focus on economic issues but their hands off belief regarding many foreign policy and safety net issues give them little chance of being elected President even if they are Tea Party darlings and may do well in Republican primaries.
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will most likely focus on earning big money with her speaking engagements, TV consultancies, and related businesses rather than risking such by running for President. She will follow the lead of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and billionaire Donald J. Trump by taking advantage of their popularity to earn the big bucks while they can.
There are also dark horse potential candidates like Congresswoman Michelle Bachman of Minnesota who, although a bright tax lawyer by training, lets loose too many dumb sound bites. And former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who believes his path to the presidency is with those of strong religious beliefs. Some are also hoping that current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie or current Texas Governor Rick Perry will step into the ring.
Many current polls show a generic Republican can beat Barrack Obama in November 2012. I just hope the Republican primary voters will choose a candidate who has the heft and experience to end this disastrous Obama presidency before our country is forever changed by his policies.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
America's Role In Foreign Conflicts - May 2011
In 1823, President James Monroe gave a speech about when he thought the United States should get involved in events happening outside of our country. His comments became the basis for the Monroe Doctrine which stated that the United States would regard any interference in Western hemispheric affairs as a threat to its security.
In later years, that doctrine and America’s belief in its manifest destiny was used by subsequent Presidents to counter Spanish, French, and British involvement in Mexico, the Caribbean islands, and even in parts of the undeveloped western lands of North America.
In 1905, President Teddy Roosevelt expanded the use of Monroe Doctrine with his “talk softly and carry a big stick” philosophy in which he threatened other powers with military action if they did not listen to his foreign policy wishes. He used that philosophy in dealing with issues affecting Venezuela, Panama, and Cuba.
And then came Word Wars I and II in which the United States joined other nations in a defensive manner to battle Germany and Japan’s efforts to expand across Europe and the Far East. As a result of those wars, our foreign policy efforts expanded greatly beyond protecting our nearby interests to offensively fighting on behalf of democracy throughout the world.
This new philosophy resulted in our involvement in Korea in the 1950’s; Vietnam in the 1960’s; Lebanon in the 1980’s; the first Gulf War, Somalia, and Yugoslavia in the 1990’s; the ongoing War on Terrorism since 2001 in Iraq and Afghanistan; and most recently into Libya.
With all of these military conflicts costing American lives and costing our taxpayers trillions of dollars, the question must be raised whether such efforts are worth it. And are we really battling for the spread of democracy or are we simply doing so to protect the free world’s access to needed minerals and food stuffs?
To me, such a discussion is a moral one because I believe that no man or woman should live in a place that does not have basic human freedoms to speak their mind, to choose whatever path in life they desire, and to worship their choice of religion. Our country has benefitted greatly by such beliefs and I believe it is our obligation to ensure such for others wherever they live in this world.
But I also believe that such efforts should be repaid to some degree from the fruits of freedom and democracy established or protected in such lands. Certainly our efforts during World Wars I and II ensured that commerce would continue with a free West Germany and France. And our country initially benefitted greatly from the reconstruction of Japan. The ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union from our cold war efforts also opened up new bilateral trade channels which have enriched America.
Please do not think I believe the United States should be an economic mercenary always looking for a return on its military investment because the loss of one soldier is greater than any economic gain. But I do not believe that other world powers or private corporations should benefit more than Uncle Sam from whatever economic gains do come from a victorious effort in spreading democracy and freedom to a needed part of the world until our military expenditures are repaid.
Our efforts in toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq have not been repaid to our taxpayers with proceeds from those country’s main sources of income. And the recent conflict in Libya regarding the stability of Gaddafi is most likely to only benefit France which counts on Libyan oil for fueling its economy yet we are the ones spending billions on military efforts.
But why have we not gone after other despots throughout the world? Certainly freedom should be just as important to our fellow mankind in Sudan, Mynamar, Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and several former Soviet states.
The bottom line, unfortunately, is the bottom line. We cannot afford to be the police for the entire world unless our economic interests or national defense are at stake. And sometimes even when national interests are at stake such as Iran or North Korea, we have to avoid possible bigger conflicts with the likes of China and Russia.
And therein lies the importance of electing a President who has the gumption and persuasiveness to rally the world to support our efforts. Unfortunately, I do not believe President Obama is the right man for that job. Let’s hope the American people choose wiser in 2012.
In later years, that doctrine and America’s belief in its manifest destiny was used by subsequent Presidents to counter Spanish, French, and British involvement in Mexico, the Caribbean islands, and even in parts of the undeveloped western lands of North America.
In 1905, President Teddy Roosevelt expanded the use of Monroe Doctrine with his “talk softly and carry a big stick” philosophy in which he threatened other powers with military action if they did not listen to his foreign policy wishes. He used that philosophy in dealing with issues affecting Venezuela, Panama, and Cuba.
And then came Word Wars I and II in which the United States joined other nations in a defensive manner to battle Germany and Japan’s efforts to expand across Europe and the Far East. As a result of those wars, our foreign policy efforts expanded greatly beyond protecting our nearby interests to offensively fighting on behalf of democracy throughout the world.
This new philosophy resulted in our involvement in Korea in the 1950’s; Vietnam in the 1960’s; Lebanon in the 1980’s; the first Gulf War, Somalia, and Yugoslavia in the 1990’s; the ongoing War on Terrorism since 2001 in Iraq and Afghanistan; and most recently into Libya.
With all of these military conflicts costing American lives and costing our taxpayers trillions of dollars, the question must be raised whether such efforts are worth it. And are we really battling for the spread of democracy or are we simply doing so to protect the free world’s access to needed minerals and food stuffs?
To me, such a discussion is a moral one because I believe that no man or woman should live in a place that does not have basic human freedoms to speak their mind, to choose whatever path in life they desire, and to worship their choice of religion. Our country has benefitted greatly by such beliefs and I believe it is our obligation to ensure such for others wherever they live in this world.
But I also believe that such efforts should be repaid to some degree from the fruits of freedom and democracy established or protected in such lands. Certainly our efforts during World Wars I and II ensured that commerce would continue with a free West Germany and France. And our country initially benefitted greatly from the reconstruction of Japan. The ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union from our cold war efforts also opened up new bilateral trade channels which have enriched America.
Please do not think I believe the United States should be an economic mercenary always looking for a return on its military investment because the loss of one soldier is greater than any economic gain. But I do not believe that other world powers or private corporations should benefit more than Uncle Sam from whatever economic gains do come from a victorious effort in spreading democracy and freedom to a needed part of the world until our military expenditures are repaid.
Our efforts in toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq have not been repaid to our taxpayers with proceeds from those country’s main sources of income. And the recent conflict in Libya regarding the stability of Gaddafi is most likely to only benefit France which counts on Libyan oil for fueling its economy yet we are the ones spending billions on military efforts.
But why have we not gone after other despots throughout the world? Certainly freedom should be just as important to our fellow mankind in Sudan, Mynamar, Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and several former Soviet states.
The bottom line, unfortunately, is the bottom line. We cannot afford to be the police for the entire world unless our economic interests or national defense are at stake. And sometimes even when national interests are at stake such as Iran or North Korea, we have to avoid possible bigger conflicts with the likes of China and Russia.
And therein lies the importance of electing a President who has the gumption and persuasiveness to rally the world to support our efforts. Unfortunately, I do not believe President Obama is the right man for that job. Let’s hope the American people choose wiser in 2012.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Economic Choices - April 2011
The United States was built on a strong entrepreneurial foundation of risk taking and freedom to pursue one’s dreams and interests.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s belief in the strong role of a centralized federal government to regulate all aspects of our lives is presenting serious challenges to that foundation for success.
The latest assault on our lives is from retiring US Senator Christopher Dodd’s effort to turn our financial sector into an industry in which the government sets the rules for what products can be offered, how they can be sold, determines how financial industry employees can be paid, and limits hedging efforts by firms to balance their investment risks.
Don’t get me wrong. I find the Wild West nature of today’s financial industry and the current framework in which those firms operate to be unhealthy for the well being of our country. The 2008 collapse of many leading financial firms and the hundreds of billions of tax payer money needed to keep the financial system liquid and operating should never have happened.
Part of the problem goes back to 1999 when President Bill Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act which repealed part of the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933 which had kept investment firm and insurance company businesses separate from commercial bank operations. In essence, our checking and savings account monies were not to be put at risk by possible losses by a firm’s investment operations.
Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who came to the Clinton administration from Goldman Sachs, lobbied hard for the law’s passage since he was angling to be the head of Citigroup which wanted to own all types of financial firms under one roof.
And with the stroke of Clinton’s pen, our savings and checking accounts were again at risk of being wiped out by failure of a financial conglomerate’s non-banking operation. But, of course, those financial conglomerates knew that the FDIC would come to the rescue of the traditional account depositors. I am sure those financial conglomerates never dreamed the government would completely bail them out of all of their losses, or coordinate their sales to other firms, which partly came true for many in 2008 after their wrong bets on risky mortgages. Or that the government would end up buying and rescuing AIG which had insured many of those risky mortgage products sold by those financial conglomerates.
Today’s financial reform proposals focus on making sure investors are fully aware of the risky derivatives market such as those mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. And by making sure the agencies which rate those investments do not have any conflicts of interest by profiting from other products offered by the financial conglomerates who offer those investments. And by possibly setting up a multi-billion dollar government fund which would be ready to rescue those firms during future collapses.
I believe failure is good for a capitalist society whether it is for an individual investor who did not do their due diligence or whether it is from a large investment house which bet its money on the wrong side of the market. I am not in favor of the current reform proposals which would also put the federal government in charge of reviewing even the smallest financial transactions such as those created to fund small businesses including funding mechanisms from so-called angel investors.
Instead, I would favor a new Glass-Stegall type law which would again separate investment firm operations from the traditional banking operations which typically fund our mortgages, small business loans, and other working capital needs. If an investment house – and its clients – make bad market bets, let them fail but do not let their fall take down banking subsidiaries which will require FDIC rescue.
And I would also take a look at reforming the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 signed by President Carter which “encouraged” banks to make loans to questionable borrowers in low-to-middle income neighborhoods. Those types of loans are partly to blame for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are two quasi-governmental entities created by President Roosevelt to buy loans from banks so the banks would have more money to loan to others. When the housing market crashed during the 2008 financial meltdown, it was those questionable loans which provided fuel to that fire.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s belief in the strong role of a centralized federal government to regulate all aspects of our lives is presenting serious challenges to that foundation for success.
The latest assault on our lives is from retiring US Senator Christopher Dodd’s effort to turn our financial sector into an industry in which the government sets the rules for what products can be offered, how they can be sold, determines how financial industry employees can be paid, and limits hedging efforts by firms to balance their investment risks.
Don’t get me wrong. I find the Wild West nature of today’s financial industry and the current framework in which those firms operate to be unhealthy for the well being of our country. The 2008 collapse of many leading financial firms and the hundreds of billions of tax payer money needed to keep the financial system liquid and operating should never have happened.
Part of the problem goes back to 1999 when President Bill Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act which repealed part of the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933 which had kept investment firm and insurance company businesses separate from commercial bank operations. In essence, our checking and savings account monies were not to be put at risk by possible losses by a firm’s investment operations.
Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who came to the Clinton administration from Goldman Sachs, lobbied hard for the law’s passage since he was angling to be the head of Citigroup which wanted to own all types of financial firms under one roof.
And with the stroke of Clinton’s pen, our savings and checking accounts were again at risk of being wiped out by failure of a financial conglomerate’s non-banking operation. But, of course, those financial conglomerates knew that the FDIC would come to the rescue of the traditional account depositors. I am sure those financial conglomerates never dreamed the government would completely bail them out of all of their losses, or coordinate their sales to other firms, which partly came true for many in 2008 after their wrong bets on risky mortgages. Or that the government would end up buying and rescuing AIG which had insured many of those risky mortgage products sold by those financial conglomerates.
Today’s financial reform proposals focus on making sure investors are fully aware of the risky derivatives market such as those mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. And by making sure the agencies which rate those investments do not have any conflicts of interest by profiting from other products offered by the financial conglomerates who offer those investments. And by possibly setting up a multi-billion dollar government fund which would be ready to rescue those firms during future collapses.
I believe failure is good for a capitalist society whether it is for an individual investor who did not do their due diligence or whether it is from a large investment house which bet its money on the wrong side of the market. I am not in favor of the current reform proposals which would also put the federal government in charge of reviewing even the smallest financial transactions such as those created to fund small businesses including funding mechanisms from so-called angel investors.
Instead, I would favor a new Glass-Stegall type law which would again separate investment firm operations from the traditional banking operations which typically fund our mortgages, small business loans, and other working capital needs. If an investment house – and its clients – make bad market bets, let them fail but do not let their fall take down banking subsidiaries which will require FDIC rescue.
And I would also take a look at reforming the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 signed by President Carter which “encouraged” banks to make loans to questionable borrowers in low-to-middle income neighborhoods. Those types of loans are partly to blame for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are two quasi-governmental entities created by President Roosevelt to buy loans from banks so the banks would have more money to loan to others. When the housing market crashed during the 2008 financial meltdown, it was those questionable loans which provided fuel to that fire.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Scott's Budget - March 2011
Hooray for Governor Scott. While I may not agree with some components of his proposed FY 2011-12 state budget, it is great to see him taking his role seriously in proposing a budget which could cut nearly $ 5 billion from the spending levels approved by former Governor Charlie Crist who was more concerned with his Senate race than in responsibly leading our state.
Of course Governor Scott’s budget is just a proposal and the Florida House and Senate will ultimately write the budget. But the Governor has shown his intent to be a hard bargainer in ensuring fiscal sanity is brought back to our state spending levels during these hard economic times in which Floridians from all walks of life are struggling to balance their own household budgets.
These budget negotiations will also serve as the first major testing ground between Governor Scott’s outsider beliefs and those of the entrenched State Representatives and Senators who have worked their way through the legislative system and can sometimes be the protectors of the status quo. Hopefully the legislators will heed the calls from Florida citizens who need the state to justify every penny of its expenses rather than being allowed to simply budget this year based on last year’s expenditures.
I had the opportunity to listen to a talk by Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos who said he agreed in principle with the Governor’s ideas to change the state worker pension plan so it operates like that of every other state in our country and most businesses. I am hopeful that Speaker of the House Dean Cannon will agree. Currently our state workers make NO contribution to their retirement plans as it is funded 100% by our taxes. And it bases some of the retirement benefit calculations on the last years of salary earned rather than average career earnings credits which has resulted in many infamous cases in which state workers have gotten large raises nearest their retirement age to game the ultimate benefit payments.
The biggest pension challenge will be changing the plan from “defined benefits” which are guaranteed to “defined contributions” in which the state worker needs to guide their own dollars just as private employees do with their 401K and IRA plans. State workers who are closest to retirement should be protected from such changes but those just starting out their career or who have more than 20 years until retirement should be shifted immediately into the more sensible defined contribution plan.
Among the other controversial budget proposals by the Governor are to move Medicaid recipients from fee-for-service plans to managed-care plans , to add accountable performance goals for public education spending in relation to high school graduation levels, and to fold specific “trust” funds into the general operating budget. I am not comfortable with the last idea but I am a big believer in the first two proposals.
The Governor’s public school education budget which cuts about $ 1.7 billion from last year’s spending levels will certainly be the biggest battleground. Most of that amount was funded last year by President Obama’s controversial $800 billion in borrowed stimulus spending and Governor Scott believes that lawmakers should not have accepted or spent that money in the first place and feels no obligation to replace it with fresh state tax dollars.
Governor Scott is also living up to his campaign pledge to take control of economic development in the state by giving his office control of $ 300 million to be used to for incentives to lure new employers to the state rather than allowing several state agencies to continue doing so in their own ways. Similarly, the Governor wants to abolish the state’s growth management agencies to make it easier for major real estate projects which is an idea I cannot support given how developers of The Commons megamall in Davie had little trouble getting approvals from our local politicians but could not overcome sound concerns from those state agencies.
Lastly, Governor Scott is proposing a $ 459 million corporate income tax cut which he believes will provide those corporations with the dollars to grow their businesses and their employment levels. If the Governor can ensure those monies would be spent as such and not simply distributed to shareholders, then I applaud him in doing so.
Of course Governor Scott’s budget is just a proposal and the Florida House and Senate will ultimately write the budget. But the Governor has shown his intent to be a hard bargainer in ensuring fiscal sanity is brought back to our state spending levels during these hard economic times in which Floridians from all walks of life are struggling to balance their own household budgets.
These budget negotiations will also serve as the first major testing ground between Governor Scott’s outsider beliefs and those of the entrenched State Representatives and Senators who have worked their way through the legislative system and can sometimes be the protectors of the status quo. Hopefully the legislators will heed the calls from Florida citizens who need the state to justify every penny of its expenses rather than being allowed to simply budget this year based on last year’s expenditures.
I had the opportunity to listen to a talk by Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos who said he agreed in principle with the Governor’s ideas to change the state worker pension plan so it operates like that of every other state in our country and most businesses. I am hopeful that Speaker of the House Dean Cannon will agree. Currently our state workers make NO contribution to their retirement plans as it is funded 100% by our taxes. And it bases some of the retirement benefit calculations on the last years of salary earned rather than average career earnings credits which has resulted in many infamous cases in which state workers have gotten large raises nearest their retirement age to game the ultimate benefit payments.
The biggest pension challenge will be changing the plan from “defined benefits” which are guaranteed to “defined contributions” in which the state worker needs to guide their own dollars just as private employees do with their 401K and IRA plans. State workers who are closest to retirement should be protected from such changes but those just starting out their career or who have more than 20 years until retirement should be shifted immediately into the more sensible defined contribution plan.
Among the other controversial budget proposals by the Governor are to move Medicaid recipients from fee-for-service plans to managed-care plans , to add accountable performance goals for public education spending in relation to high school graduation levels, and to fold specific “trust” funds into the general operating budget. I am not comfortable with the last idea but I am a big believer in the first two proposals.
The Governor’s public school education budget which cuts about $ 1.7 billion from last year’s spending levels will certainly be the biggest battleground. Most of that amount was funded last year by President Obama’s controversial $800 billion in borrowed stimulus spending and Governor Scott believes that lawmakers should not have accepted or spent that money in the first place and feels no obligation to replace it with fresh state tax dollars.
Governor Scott is also living up to his campaign pledge to take control of economic development in the state by giving his office control of $ 300 million to be used to for incentives to lure new employers to the state rather than allowing several state agencies to continue doing so in their own ways. Similarly, the Governor wants to abolish the state’s growth management agencies to make it easier for major real estate projects which is an idea I cannot support given how developers of The Commons megamall in Davie had little trouble getting approvals from our local politicians but could not overcome sound concerns from those state agencies.
Lastly, Governor Scott is proposing a $ 459 million corporate income tax cut which he believes will provide those corporations with the dollars to grow their businesses and their employment levels. If the Governor can ensure those monies would be spent as such and not simply distributed to shareholders, then I applaud him in doing so.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Heated Political Rhetoric - February 2011
On July 11, 1804, a former Vice-President of the United States Aaron Burr killed the country’s former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton by gunshot as a result of a political duel. While our political rhetoric has certainly calmed down since then, many on the left are trying to use the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gifford in Tucson, Arizona, as a springboard to quash political debate.
Our local Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz – who personally witnessed the miracle of modern medicine and life when visiting Ms. Gifford as she opened her eyes for the first time since the shooting – is among those who quickly ran to the cameras to plead for a calmer America. I was disappointed shortly thereafter when Debbie then tried to tie that tragic shooting to the immigration debate by saying her daughter was fearful for her mom’s life if Florida passes an Arizona-style immigration law.
Such highly emotional rhetoric has been frequently used by leading Democrats including President Obama who during his last campaign said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”. He also called those Americans who opposed him “enemies”. Former Orlando Congressman Alan Grayson actually said on the House floor that the Republican solution to the healthcare crisis was “Just don’t get sick and if you get sick, die quickly.”
And who can forget Ms. Wasserman-Shultz leading a protest march last November outside of the campaign offices of then Republican candidate Allen West who was battling former Congressman Ron Klein. She called West “crazy” and stated with certainty that he believes in “denigrating women” just because an article he had submitted to numerous publications was run in a biker magazine.
It was so predictable that the Democrats and their liberal media friends would try to take advantage of the tragic Arizona mass murders to rally the country back to their side after they were shellacked in the recent November 2010 mid-term elections in which the American voters put the U.S. House of Representatives back in control of the Republicans and when those voters threw out nearly 700 Democrats in state legislatures throughout the country.
Although the New York Times, CNN, and a number of liberal blogs tried to immediately tie the Tucson shooting to Sarah Palin as well as Republican and Tea Party campaign rhetoric, it currently appears that the shooter was actually a left-wing lunatic who hated former President Bush, included the Communist Manifesto and Animal Farm amongst his favorite reading materials, and had been targeting Congresswoman Gifford since 2007 when he did not like her answer to a question he asked her. Did you know Sarah in 2007? And the Tea Parties did not even exist then!
Thankfully the American public has already discounted this Democratic political opportunism which not only attacked Republican rhetoric but also Arizona’s gun laws which are a matter up to that state’s voters. I only hope that the Democratic sheriff in Tucson who blamed political rhetoric without one ounce of proof has not given Jared Lee Loughner’s attorney an angle for his defense when the Sheriff should have simply done his job and taken Loughner off the street when concerning evidence about his life was becoming known throughout the local law enforcement community.
The reality is that the internet, cable television, and instant messaging are giving ordinary Americans more of an opportunity to participate in discussions about their country and their government than ever before.
It is not time - as some Democrats are proposing - to use the Federal Communications Commission to set new public guidelines for supposed proper use of those communication vehicles. And there is no reason to bring back the unfair Fairness Doctrine which used to dictate to the then handful of media outlets how each was to showcase all sides of a political issue.
Instead, the solution starts with the politicians and their campaign operatives who set the bar for public debate by focusing on the facts and not emotional symbolism and heated rhetoric. Hopefully President Obama will remember his own words at the Arizona memorial service for those killed and critically wounded. And hopefully our Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz will do the same.
Our local Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz – who personally witnessed the miracle of modern medicine and life when visiting Ms. Gifford as she opened her eyes for the first time since the shooting – is among those who quickly ran to the cameras to plead for a calmer America. I was disappointed shortly thereafter when Debbie then tried to tie that tragic shooting to the immigration debate by saying her daughter was fearful for her mom’s life if Florida passes an Arizona-style immigration law.
Such highly emotional rhetoric has been frequently used by leading Democrats including President Obama who during his last campaign said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”. He also called those Americans who opposed him “enemies”. Former Orlando Congressman Alan Grayson actually said on the House floor that the Republican solution to the healthcare crisis was “Just don’t get sick and if you get sick, die quickly.”
And who can forget Ms. Wasserman-Shultz leading a protest march last November outside of the campaign offices of then Republican candidate Allen West who was battling former Congressman Ron Klein. She called West “crazy” and stated with certainty that he believes in “denigrating women” just because an article he had submitted to numerous publications was run in a biker magazine.
It was so predictable that the Democrats and their liberal media friends would try to take advantage of the tragic Arizona mass murders to rally the country back to their side after they were shellacked in the recent November 2010 mid-term elections in which the American voters put the U.S. House of Representatives back in control of the Republicans and when those voters threw out nearly 700 Democrats in state legislatures throughout the country.
Although the New York Times, CNN, and a number of liberal blogs tried to immediately tie the Tucson shooting to Sarah Palin as well as Republican and Tea Party campaign rhetoric, it currently appears that the shooter was actually a left-wing lunatic who hated former President Bush, included the Communist Manifesto and Animal Farm amongst his favorite reading materials, and had been targeting Congresswoman Gifford since 2007 when he did not like her answer to a question he asked her. Did you know Sarah in 2007? And the Tea Parties did not even exist then!
Thankfully the American public has already discounted this Democratic political opportunism which not only attacked Republican rhetoric but also Arizona’s gun laws which are a matter up to that state’s voters. I only hope that the Democratic sheriff in Tucson who blamed political rhetoric without one ounce of proof has not given Jared Lee Loughner’s attorney an angle for his defense when the Sheriff should have simply done his job and taken Loughner off the street when concerning evidence about his life was becoming known throughout the local law enforcement community.
The reality is that the internet, cable television, and instant messaging are giving ordinary Americans more of an opportunity to participate in discussions about their country and their government than ever before.
It is not time - as some Democrats are proposing - to use the Federal Communications Commission to set new public guidelines for supposed proper use of those communication vehicles. And there is no reason to bring back the unfair Fairness Doctrine which used to dictate to the then handful of media outlets how each was to showcase all sides of a political issue.
Instead, the solution starts with the politicians and their campaign operatives who set the bar for public debate by focusing on the facts and not emotional symbolism and heated rhetoric. Hopefully President Obama will remember his own words at the Arizona memorial service for those killed and critically wounded. And hopefully our Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz will do the same.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
2010 Look Back And What's Next - January 2011
Should I ever choose to become a paid political consultant or a regular contributor on a political talk show, it appears my thoughts and recommendations will be worth their weight in gold if you base such on my 2010 predictions made last January in this column.
I predicted the American public would reject Obama’s big government plans and they did so this past November in a big way! I predicted that the Republicans would not win enough seats to gain complete control of Congress and unfortunately they fell a little short in the Senate but did win in a landslide in the House of Representatives and also took control of a vast majority of State Legislatures and Governorships across our great country.
I predicted that Republican firebrand Alan West would defeat Democratic Congressman Ron Klein in eastern Broward County and he did. Unfortunately my prediction that Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be returned to Congress also came true but thankfully her extreme liberalism will now only be part of a tiny minority in the next Congress. But there still is 2012 to put her on the same unemployment line that her mentor Nancy Pelosi says is a great stimulator for our economy.
On the economic front, I predicted slow growth in 2011 but I am not happy to report that I was correct since Obamanomics has affected my business and that of thousands of similar firms in our area and too many of our neighbors who are out of work and soon to be out of their houses. Thankfully, the American public and Congress did not pass Obama’s Cap & Tax plan for our energy industry as I predicted and thankfully I was correct that Climate Change would not cause the East Coast to sink into the Atlantic Ocean!
I also predicted that Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum would not win the Republican primary for Governor because he lacked charisma and was a long time career politician. Rick Scott beat him in a tight primary election and thankfully went on to win the general election where he will start implementing his “get to work” plan to help Florida recover from 4 terrible years under Charlie Crist.
As to the year 2011, I believe the American economy will start to kick into higher gear if the newly elected Republicans in Washington, Tallahassee, and elsewhere across our fruited plains stick to their guns about ensuring that our national, state, and local governments become more efficient and stay within their means.
I must admit that one of my predictions of just a few months ago is already looking wrong that Obama would not pivot to the center for the next two years in order to try and win a second term in the White House. His recent compromise with Republicans to extend the current tax rates enacted under George W. Bush and to offer additional tax breaks to businesses is a move to the middle although I did not support the reduction in the employee FICA payroll tax which is needed to keep Social Security solvent for the future nor did I support the new estate tax rates since I do not believe in any type of death tax.
In the coming year I predict that the Obama regime will still try to implement many of its leftist ideals by implementing new rules and regulations within the agencies under Executive Branch control. There is already talk about the Federal Trade Commission imposing net neutrality rules on the internet to please Google’s CEO and that the Environmental Protection Agency will drastically change the rules regarding carbon which will result in higher oil and gas prices for all Americans in order to make General Motor’s new electric Volt Car and General Electric’s wind turbines and solar panels seem more cost effective. I am sure you will remember that Google and GE have been big supporters of Obama and that Obama and his union buddies still control General Motors.
Lastly, I predict that Republican presidential hopefuls for 2012 will be all over Florida during the coming year. I do believe that none of the known names such as Romney, Palin, Huckabee, or Gingrich will ultimately be the Republican nominee to run against Obama. In the months to come, I will tell you the names of others on which to keep your eyes focused.
I predicted the American public would reject Obama’s big government plans and they did so this past November in a big way! I predicted that the Republicans would not win enough seats to gain complete control of Congress and unfortunately they fell a little short in the Senate but did win in a landslide in the House of Representatives and also took control of a vast majority of State Legislatures and Governorships across our great country.
I predicted that Republican firebrand Alan West would defeat Democratic Congressman Ron Klein in eastern Broward County and he did. Unfortunately my prediction that Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be returned to Congress also came true but thankfully her extreme liberalism will now only be part of a tiny minority in the next Congress. But there still is 2012 to put her on the same unemployment line that her mentor Nancy Pelosi says is a great stimulator for our economy.
On the economic front, I predicted slow growth in 2011 but I am not happy to report that I was correct since Obamanomics has affected my business and that of thousands of similar firms in our area and too many of our neighbors who are out of work and soon to be out of their houses. Thankfully, the American public and Congress did not pass Obama’s Cap & Tax plan for our energy industry as I predicted and thankfully I was correct that Climate Change would not cause the East Coast to sink into the Atlantic Ocean!
I also predicted that Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum would not win the Republican primary for Governor because he lacked charisma and was a long time career politician. Rick Scott beat him in a tight primary election and thankfully went on to win the general election where he will start implementing his “get to work” plan to help Florida recover from 4 terrible years under Charlie Crist.
As to the year 2011, I believe the American economy will start to kick into higher gear if the newly elected Republicans in Washington, Tallahassee, and elsewhere across our fruited plains stick to their guns about ensuring that our national, state, and local governments become more efficient and stay within their means.
I must admit that one of my predictions of just a few months ago is already looking wrong that Obama would not pivot to the center for the next two years in order to try and win a second term in the White House. His recent compromise with Republicans to extend the current tax rates enacted under George W. Bush and to offer additional tax breaks to businesses is a move to the middle although I did not support the reduction in the employee FICA payroll tax which is needed to keep Social Security solvent for the future nor did I support the new estate tax rates since I do not believe in any type of death tax.
In the coming year I predict that the Obama regime will still try to implement many of its leftist ideals by implementing new rules and regulations within the agencies under Executive Branch control. There is already talk about the Federal Trade Commission imposing net neutrality rules on the internet to please Google’s CEO and that the Environmental Protection Agency will drastically change the rules regarding carbon which will result in higher oil and gas prices for all Americans in order to make General Motor’s new electric Volt Car and General Electric’s wind turbines and solar panels seem more cost effective. I am sure you will remember that Google and GE have been big supporters of Obama and that Obama and his union buddies still control General Motors.
Lastly, I predict that Republican presidential hopefuls for 2012 will be all over Florida during the coming year. I do believe that none of the known names such as Romney, Palin, Huckabee, or Gingrich will ultimately be the Republican nominee to run against Obama. In the months to come, I will tell you the names of others on which to keep your eyes focused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)