The following are my alternate subtitles for last night's speech. Take your pick. Black and White and Red All Over, or Back to the Future, or Coyote Ugly. In either case, this was not one of Barack Obama's finest moments.
Black and White and Red All Over, refers to the black and white lapel ribbons worn by everyone in the room to honor those who lost their lives in the tragic shooting in Tucson. Apparently these are the colors that symbolize unity and hope for the Tucson community. Red is for the the collective deficits run up by our nation, states, and local governments. There's no joke here, it was just the first thing I thought of when I first saw that packed House chamber.
Back to the Future. It wasn't long into the president's speech before I thought to myself, this all sounds very familiar. In fact, the longer it went on it occurred to my that I have. Bill Clinton made this same speech some twenty years ago. President Clinton called for a hundred thousand new teachers. Or was it cops? Probably both. President Clinton charged Vice President Al Gore to reinvent federal government, streamline its processes, root out waste and duplication, and modernize it to meet the needs of a new generation. I don't think Mr. Gore was very successful and I don't believe President Obama, in this latest reiteration, will fair any better.
I think it was also Bill Clinton who first recognized that the term "investments" is a better euphemism for more spending and higher taxes, its focus group tested and has become standard lexicon in the progressive arsenal. Mr. Obama's much heralded march to the middle stops here. You can't spend masses amounts of new money and expect the deficit to go down. Unless perhaps you intend on massive cuts to offset the new spending, and once again Obama falls far short of that mark. By the way, what has all this ramped up spending over the past twenty or more years gotten us? According to the president, America lags the rest of the developed world in practically every indicator. How come we have fallen behind?
President Obama said that this is our "Sputnik moment." He spoke glowingly about President Kennedy's ambitious call in 1961 to land a man on the moon before the decade expired. That goal was accomplished in just eight years. Consider then Obama's goal of "80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources" by 2035. That's twenty-five years from now. That's really throwing down the gauntlet wouldn't you say?
As for increased spending on our nation's infrastructure, for my money, this was the best use of any of the stimulus funds. At least we have tangible evidence by driving on smoother roads. And there's no denying the fact that we need to maintain our roads, bridges, airports and power grid to keep up with the modern movement of goods and services that will attract additional job creation. But let's agree to do it without the yoke and chain of prevailing wage requirements set by Davis-Bacon. This federal relic from the past artificially and unnecessarily inflates the price of public works, thereby limiting the amount of work that can be done.
My disingenuous meter lit up when the president announced his support to lower the corporate income tax. It registered a little higher when he said that his administration had already made cuts to some of his favorite programs, such as community action groups. Read ACORN here, and only because of the extreme blowback from the public. But the one that really sent my meter into overdrive was his call, yet again, to veto any legislation with earmarks. I suppose he thinks that if he repeats this canard often enough he just might grow a pair and actually do it. I have thought for some time now that when words leave the mouth of Barack Obama, he no longer shares any ownership with them.
The whole "date night" aspect of the two parties sitting next to one another caused me to think Coyote Ugly, especially after seeing the shot of New York reps Anthony Weiner (D) and Peter King (R) sitting together. These two were obviously not digging each others' company. While Sen. Marco Rubio's (FL-R) date was fellow Floridian Sen. Bill Nelson (D), on the other side of Rubio sat Sen. Al Franken (MN-D). Just guessing, but I bet Al Franken felt more like his SNL character Stuart Smalley during the speech. His running affirmation being, "Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, the courts said I won the election."
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Revenge of the Nerd
Last night I posted on Facebook my top six initiatives as proposed by Governor Rick Snyder in his first State of the State speech. The are; 1) Incentivize revenue sharing to local municipalities based on best-management practices, 2) End the process, and do not adopt new ergonomic rules, 3) Revise Public Act 72 to speed the recovery of cities in financial distress, 4) End the practice of retail establishments pricing each item individually, 5) Revise and improve the implementation of the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP), and 6) Fully fund the Pure Michigan ad campaign. After reading it this morning it occurred to me that these things, while good for the state in general, might not sound so bold to someone outside of Michigan, or to others expecting to hear the reverberations of the populace rhetoric from the fall campaigns. It also occurred to me that my choices for the top six initiatives might only be appreciated by a fellow policy nerd. Nevertheless I can assure you that these are important measures, with short and long-term implications, and yes in addition to these, the governor did begin the conversation of implementing new and radical change for Michigan.
As a newly minted county commissioner, I applaud the governor's efforts to try and incentivize (and therefore modernize) our state's revenue sharing plan. For most municipalities across Michigan, struggling with increasing costs and declining tax revenues, the word on the street was that revenue sharing would be one of the first expenditure items to be eliminated from the state budget. Sadly, the idea of having to adopt best-practices at the local level in order to obtain precious funds from the state, may be, for some, more scary than an outright cut. Unfortunately, and much to my chagrin, I know it will be difficult for a majority of the Saginaw County Board of Commissioners.
Over the course of the last few years under the Granholm administration, eager bureaucrats intent on slowing the wheels of commerce have been trying to write and adopt new rules for ergonomics in the workplace. The rules they had been fashioning, if adopted, would have cost millions for businesses to comply, further eroding our state's abilities to retain and attract new business.
Michigan is one of just two states that still require every item on a store shelf to be individually labeled with a price tag. Given bar coding and modern technology, this relic from the past is simply archaic. While it may mean a loss of some jobs, the money it will save in the end could open the door for more and better jobs.
Under the original construct of the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program, designated farms were given a pass from over zealous environmental regulators. The designation stipulated and fortified the position that the bearer was perhaps a better steward of the land being farmed, than the Lansing bureaucrats who claimed to know better. Once again, over the course of the last decade, Granholm's environuts ran roughshod over Michigan's agriculture community.
While the above items caught my initial attention, I am also very excited by the rest of the governor's agenda. I believe his "Dashboard", comprised of important and relevant data points, will prove to be an integral component in measuring our state's (and his) progress on our race back to prosperity. A refocused Michigan Economic Development Corporation, with a broader view and egalitarian perspective, should serve our state well in the coming years. The establishment of a two-year budget, to replace the parochial and outdated annual budgets of the past, and to deliver such by the end of May, fully four or five months earlier than in previous years, should enable our lawmakers to be more circumspect in deciding how to spend our money. Lastly, the elimination of the Michigan Business Tax and replacement with a flat 6% corporate income tax.
While some of us conservatives may have felt gypped that we didn't get the tough talk about reigning in public employee compensation and benefits, right-to-work, or an end to redistributive practices and policies, I am confident that some of that will appear in the governor's budget proposals, as well as future messages to the legislature as mentioned in his speech. All in all, I think it was a great start for Governor Snyder, and I look forward to doing my part in helping him to realize our Michigan dream.
As a newly minted county commissioner, I applaud the governor's efforts to try and incentivize (and therefore modernize) our state's revenue sharing plan. For most municipalities across Michigan, struggling with increasing costs and declining tax revenues, the word on the street was that revenue sharing would be one of the first expenditure items to be eliminated from the state budget. Sadly, the idea of having to adopt best-practices at the local level in order to obtain precious funds from the state, may be, for some, more scary than an outright cut. Unfortunately, and much to my chagrin, I know it will be difficult for a majority of the Saginaw County Board of Commissioners.
Over the course of the last few years under the Granholm administration, eager bureaucrats intent on slowing the wheels of commerce have been trying to write and adopt new rules for ergonomics in the workplace. The rules they had been fashioning, if adopted, would have cost millions for businesses to comply, further eroding our state's abilities to retain and attract new business.
Michigan is one of just two states that still require every item on a store shelf to be individually labeled with a price tag. Given bar coding and modern technology, this relic from the past is simply archaic. While it may mean a loss of some jobs, the money it will save in the end could open the door for more and better jobs.
Under the original construct of the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program, designated farms were given a pass from over zealous environmental regulators. The designation stipulated and fortified the position that the bearer was perhaps a better steward of the land being farmed, than the Lansing bureaucrats who claimed to know better. Once again, over the course of the last decade, Granholm's environuts ran roughshod over Michigan's agriculture community.
While the above items caught my initial attention, I am also very excited by the rest of the governor's agenda. I believe his "Dashboard", comprised of important and relevant data points, will prove to be an integral component in measuring our state's (and his) progress on our race back to prosperity. A refocused Michigan Economic Development Corporation, with a broader view and egalitarian perspective, should serve our state well in the coming years. The establishment of a two-year budget, to replace the parochial and outdated annual budgets of the past, and to deliver such by the end of May, fully four or five months earlier than in previous years, should enable our lawmakers to be more circumspect in deciding how to spend our money. Lastly, the elimination of the Michigan Business Tax and replacement with a flat 6% corporate income tax.
While some of us conservatives may have felt gypped that we didn't get the tough talk about reigning in public employee compensation and benefits, right-to-work, or an end to redistributive practices and policies, I am confident that some of that will appear in the governor's budget proposals, as well as future messages to the legislature as mentioned in his speech. All in all, I think it was a great start for Governor Snyder, and I look forward to doing my part in helping him to realize our Michigan dream.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Until Tuesday
The mainstream media is still agog over "the speech", and the era of civility ushered in behind its delivery by the President Wednesday night in Tucson. "If only it could last", is their collective prayer. The Morning Joe crowd were all about "the speech" and "this moment" on today's program. John Meacham asked "how long can we keep this moment going?" According to him, "Obama has seized the initiative" with the speech, and "if we can get a couple of years of a better tone and a more constructive political dialogue, then we take it." At least until next Tuesday Mr. Scarborough warned. What happens next Tuesday you might ask? The Republican majority in the House of Representatives will vote on the repeal of Obamacare.
In other words, a mood of national unity will persist and prevail until those nasty Republicans start fiddling with our God-given rights to medical care, resist liberal efforts to curb gun rights, as a result of the tragedy in Tucson, or fight the left on trying to curb the tongues of Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck, through the FCC and the Fairness Doctrine. The mantle of decency, tolerance, and civility rests squarely, and singularly, on the right. Those are the parameters as ascribed by the mainstream media. Ironically, yet consistent with those parameters, the crawl underneath the talking heads of the Morning Joe crowd, as they discussed this new wave of civility, was this: "Sarah Palin accuses journalists and pundits of inciting hatred in wake of deadly Tucson shootings." Further irony, but again consistent with the above parameters and rules for debate as prescribed by the left, host Joe Scarborough blasted Palin for making her remarks on Wednesday morning "all about her." Funny, listening to Morning Joe, the remarks about Tucson were less about the poor souls and victims of the shooting, but more about how the whole event has elevated the status and future prospects of Barack Obama.
In other words, a mood of national unity will persist and prevail until those nasty Republicans start fiddling with our God-given rights to medical care, resist liberal efforts to curb gun rights, as a result of the tragedy in Tucson, or fight the left on trying to curb the tongues of Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck, through the FCC and the Fairness Doctrine. The mantle of decency, tolerance, and civility rests squarely, and singularly, on the right. Those are the parameters as ascribed by the mainstream media. Ironically, yet consistent with those parameters, the crawl underneath the talking heads of the Morning Joe crowd, as they discussed this new wave of civility, was this: "Sarah Palin accuses journalists and pundits of inciting hatred in wake of deadly Tucson shootings." Further irony, but again consistent with the above parameters and rules for debate as prescribed by the left, host Joe Scarborough blasted Palin for making her remarks on Wednesday morning "all about her." Funny, listening to Morning Joe, the remarks about Tucson were less about the poor souls and victims of the shooting, but more about how the whole event has elevated the status and future prospects of Barack Obama.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The New Sophists
Excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson, from Investor's Business Daily.
The New Sophists
Friday, December 31, 2010
Good Riddance
The end of Michigans long nightmare of Jennifer Granholm as governor ends tonite. Thanks for nothing Jenny. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Happy New Year everyone. Things are already looking up.
Happy New Year everyone. Things are already looking up.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
December Sundries
The 9/11 First Responders bill, aimed at providing additional healthcare coverage for the people who risked their lives in responding to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, is purportedly being held up by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). I don't want to sound too Grinch-like here, but I have a few questions.
1) Why does this have to be done now? This bill, or others like it, has been floating around Congress for nine years. This should wait until it can be fully debated in a more responsible Congress.
2) The original price tag on this bill was for $9 billion dollars. It's dropped to just over $6 billion to get more people to sign on. The legislation covers approximately 50,000 workers and their families. Have the needs of these people dropped by $3 billion dollars or was the price inflated to begin with?
3) The people this bill covers are public employees, mostly union, who have the best and most expensive healthcare plans available to anyone on earth (except for those serving in Congress). Why are those plans now suddenly inadequate?
4) When will Congress stop funding every perceived victim of every perceived disaster, like they are the nation's insurance company. Stuff happens! Nobody was wronged. Reparations aren't always necessary.
I was watching CNBC yesterday and they were promoting a show to be aired later that night about the "looming crisis" of student financial aid. From the promo, it was clear that the real target of this story was going to be "for-profit" schools, who apparently prey on the poor, and otherwise unsuspecting students, who sign up for expensive courses they can never repay. The host of the show alarmingly claimed that the default rate for student loans in the "for-profit" industry was 48%. Wouldn't that mean then that the majority of students defaulting on their loans were attending non-profit, government supported schools?
I was watching Fox News this morning and they showed a clip from Monday of ABC News' Diane Sawyer interviewing Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. She asked him about his thoughts on the seriousness of the recent arrests of 12 terror suspects in London this past weekend. He was stumped. Hadn't heard a thing about it. Don't you feel safer knowing this man is in charge or our nation's security?
1) Why does this have to be done now? This bill, or others like it, has been floating around Congress for nine years. This should wait until it can be fully debated in a more responsible Congress.
2) The original price tag on this bill was for $9 billion dollars. It's dropped to just over $6 billion to get more people to sign on. The legislation covers approximately 50,000 workers and their families. Have the needs of these people dropped by $3 billion dollars or was the price inflated to begin with?
3) The people this bill covers are public employees, mostly union, who have the best and most expensive healthcare plans available to anyone on earth (except for those serving in Congress). Why are those plans now suddenly inadequate?
4) When will Congress stop funding every perceived victim of every perceived disaster, like they are the nation's insurance company. Stuff happens! Nobody was wronged. Reparations aren't always necessary.
I was watching CNBC yesterday and they were promoting a show to be aired later that night about the "looming crisis" of student financial aid. From the promo, it was clear that the real target of this story was going to be "for-profit" schools, who apparently prey on the poor, and otherwise unsuspecting students, who sign up for expensive courses they can never repay. The host of the show alarmingly claimed that the default rate for student loans in the "for-profit" industry was 48%. Wouldn't that mean then that the majority of students defaulting on their loans were attending non-profit, government supported schools?
I was watching Fox News this morning and they showed a clip from Monday of ABC News' Diane Sawyer interviewing Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. She asked him about his thoughts on the seriousness of the recent arrests of 12 terror suspects in London this past weekend. He was stumped. Hadn't heard a thing about it. Don't you feel safer knowing this man is in charge or our nation's security?
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Professor Kelly on Economics
Full disclosure; I am not a trained economist nor a veterinarian, but I do think I learned enough in college to spot BS when I see or hear it. I offer the following examples for your consideration.
(Warning: I could be wrong (but I don't think so).
I keep hearing these bogus economic theories, espoused by the left and of course everyone on MSNBC, that for every $1 spent on unemployment benefits, another $2 is generated in economic activity. Same for food stamps, says Nancy Pelosi and the U. S. Department of Agriculture. They tell us that for every $1 spent on food stamps, another $1.84 is put back into the economy. Last summer, one of Jennifer Granholm's DHS bureaucrats tried peddling the magical multiplier effect of food stamps here in Saginaw. Well if that were all true, then why not put us all on unemployment and food stamps and watch our GDP explode to new and dizzying heights of prosperity!
The other morning I heard Donny Deutsch say that Barack Obama had "never run anything in his life", prior to being elected president. Donny is a big supporter of the Bamster. He was explaining why the president's negotiating skills might look weak to the uninitiated. Another honest moment emerged minutes later when Democrat Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, while defending the Obama/Republican tax deal as a defense against the possibility of a double dip recession, said quite frankly, "because he country is going to hell in a hand basket." Just a hunch, but Gov. Rendell's invitation to the White House Christmas, er Holiday Party, may get lost in the mail.
Here's another from Ed Rendell during the same segment. He said that Bill Clinton raised taxes on the highest 2% of income earners in the '90's and as a result, we had the "best period of economic growth in our lives." Once again, Democrats see the sanctioned confiscation of someone else's earnings (taxes) as "growing" our economy. Yes Virginia, when taxes go up they expand the governments' pockets, but for the private sector, and certainly for the individual who's paying those taxes, there is a net decrease. They had it, now someone else does. No new dollars have been added, so where's the "growth?"
Along those same lines, how can the extension of the "Bush tax cuts", our current rate of taxation by the way, which have been in place for several years now, add to the deficit? When they were first implemented, they were indeed a tax cut. The government raised x and then after the taxes were lowered, the government would presumably make less of x, right? (*See below) Seems simple enough. Okay, how then, if everything else stays the same, can we they say that by extending our current rate of taxation, we will increase our deficit by another trillion dollars? We weren't expecting the money in the first place! Why are we counting something that's not there? How can you raise an additional, and fictitious, percentage of money on an already fixed percentage? If I make $50,000 in salary, even though I'd really like to make $100,000, have I created a deficit for myself? Of course not. Only if I spend money like I was making $100,000. And that my friends is the problem.
* However, supply-siders will tell us that in reality, smaller tax rates increase the supply of money to the government because lower marginal rates leads to job growth which leads to more taxes being generated and subsequently paid to the government. At least that's the theory. The real problem is that promised reductions in government spending never follow the reductions in the tax rates. But I am getting way beyond safe territory here and what I wanted to try and explain.
(Warning: I could be wrong (but I don't think so).
I keep hearing these bogus economic theories, espoused by the left and of course everyone on MSNBC, that for every $1 spent on unemployment benefits, another $2 is generated in economic activity. Same for food stamps, says Nancy Pelosi and the U. S. Department of Agriculture. They tell us that for every $1 spent on food stamps, another $1.84 is put back into the economy. Last summer, one of Jennifer Granholm's DHS bureaucrats tried peddling the magical multiplier effect of food stamps here in Saginaw. Well if that were all true, then why not put us all on unemployment and food stamps and watch our GDP explode to new and dizzying heights of prosperity!
The other morning I heard Donny Deutsch say that Barack Obama had "never run anything in his life", prior to being elected president. Donny is a big supporter of the Bamster. He was explaining why the president's negotiating skills might look weak to the uninitiated. Another honest moment emerged minutes later when Democrat Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, while defending the Obama/Republican tax deal as a defense against the possibility of a double dip recession, said quite frankly, "because he country is going to hell in a hand basket." Just a hunch, but Gov. Rendell's invitation to the White House Christmas, er Holiday Party, may get lost in the mail.
Here's another from Ed Rendell during the same segment. He said that Bill Clinton raised taxes on the highest 2% of income earners in the '90's and as a result, we had the "best period of economic growth in our lives." Once again, Democrats see the sanctioned confiscation of someone else's earnings (taxes) as "growing" our economy. Yes Virginia, when taxes go up they expand the governments' pockets, but for the private sector, and certainly for the individual who's paying those taxes, there is a net decrease. They had it, now someone else does. No new dollars have been added, so where's the "growth?"
Along those same lines, how can the extension of the "Bush tax cuts", our current rate of taxation by the way, which have been in place for several years now, add to the deficit? When they were first implemented, they were indeed a tax cut. The government raised x and then after the taxes were lowered, the government would presumably make less of x, right? (*See below) Seems simple enough. Okay, how then, if everything else stays the same, can we they say that by extending our current rate of taxation, we will increase our deficit by another trillion dollars? We weren't expecting the money in the first place! Why are we counting something that's not there? How can you raise an additional, and fictitious, percentage of money on an already fixed percentage? If I make $50,000 in salary, even though I'd really like to make $100,000, have I created a deficit for myself? Of course not. Only if I spend money like I was making $100,000. And that my friends is the problem.
* However, supply-siders will tell us that in reality, smaller tax rates increase the supply of money to the government because lower marginal rates leads to job growth which leads to more taxes being generated and subsequently paid to the government. At least that's the theory. The real problem is that promised reductions in government spending never follow the reductions in the tax rates. But I am getting way beyond safe territory here and what I wanted to try and explain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
