At CPAC Marco Rubio showed some of the traits that make him a leading candidate for Vice President no matter who the Republican nominee happens to be. He mixed humor and personal narrative.

Rubio spoke with a degree of awe about arriving in the Senate. He wondered to himself, “How did I get here?” But after spending time in Harry Reid’s do-nothing Senate he looked around and wondered, “How did they get here?”

Getting more serious he talked about President Obama’s State of the Union address and how the president scrupulously avoided talking about his record. Why? Well, Rubio explained, for two years President Obama had a Democrat controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate, which until the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy and the election of Republican Scott Brown to replace him, they had a filibuster-proof majority. So for two years he got everything he wanted and since then, everything has gotten worse.

So what did Obama say in the State of the Union address? He chose to pit Americans against each other. He is trying to sell the American people on a bill of goods that says we are a zero-sum society. That is, for someone to get ahead, someone has to get pulled down. But that is not true, but Obama needs us to believe it so that he can get people to vote for him.

Rubio then related to his own family saying that he felt his father and grandfather were better men than he, but Rubio has advanced as far as he has because he was born in the greatest country in the world.

He then made a telling point. He said that Republicans try to attract followers by arguing who is more like Ronald Reagan. Do you ever hear Democrats argue about who is more like Jimmy Carter?

What is government’s role, he asked? We should have an understandable tax code so that individuals and businesses can make decisions for business reasons not tax reasons. We need regulatory reform. Yes, we all want clean air and clean water but with sanity. We don’t have an energy policy, we have energy politics. While in office for three years President Obama had no plan for Medicare, but as soon as Republican Paul Ryan came up with a plan, he attacked it.

Summing up, Rubio said that President Obama seems to be a really good father; he seems to be a really good husband; but he is a terrible president. I couldn’t agree more.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Congressman Tim Bishop continues to push his manufactured campaign issue, with the full union backing of the Communication Workers of America, to fight against outsourced call centers. He calls it a “surgical strike”. I think there are more appropriate names for it.

It’s always fun to listen to someone who hasn’t spent a day outside of academia or government tell the rest of us, a) what the problem is; and b) what the solution is. The first question that I would ask Congressman Bishop is “why is this such an important issue for your constituents?” Answer: It isn’t. There are no major call centers in his district and there are none that I know of that are weighing a move to his district. So why is this his major legislative focus?

He is desperately looking for an issue, any issue, that he can campaign on. He cannot campaign on his record. He cannot campaign on a record of supporting the Obama economic disaster. He cannot campaign on how much the debt ballooned on his watch. So Doctor Bishop wants to do a little surgery and penalize companies who outsource call centers. Since Bishop never held a job that produced anything for a profit he can be excused for not grasping the impacts of his proposed bill.

One of his provisions is to make companies that have outsourced call center jobs overseas ineligible for government contracts. Two of the largest US PC manufactures HP and Dell and they both have call centers overseas. So does Congressman Bishop want the stop the federal government from buying PCs from HP and Dell? Who should they buy them from? Chinese Lenovo, Taiwan based Acer? Japan’s Toshiba? Speaking like a general he says it is a surgical strike. Well surgical strikes are designed to limit collateral damage, and Bishop’s plan is chock full of collateral damage.

Here is how Bishop could really help the situation. First, take a basic economics course. Study how the global economy works and how free global trade helps everyone. Perhaps he should ask his backers at the Communications Workers of America, what they can do to make call centers in the US more cost-effective. Do they have too many work rules in their contracts? Do they force their members to pay union dues to pay for the union to back Bishop and Obama? If their dues were limited to collective bargaining, perhaps employers could afford more call center jobs in the US. Tell Obama we need to slash the corporate tax rate so that companies do not save billions of dollars by locating operations in overseas countries with lower tax rates and then trap those profits overseas so they can’t be brought back to create jobs here.

But that may be too much to ask of Mr. Bishop before November. So here’s a better idea. Step down, and let someone who has actually created jobs take your place.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

President Obama, always on the campaign trail, is now on the road trying to explain why his class warfare strategy is not class warfare. In his State of the Union address, he once again invoked the “Buffett Rule”, which is little more than a fig leaf to allow Obama to raise taxes. But what about some other “Buffett Rules”?

Spending

What is the Buffett Rule on spending? Does Warren Buffett agree with President Obama that we should spend 150% of what we take in? Did Warren Buffett become one of the richest men on the planet by spending 150% of what he takes in and borrowing the shortfall? I think Buffett’s counsel would be to live within our means; don’t spend more than you take in, but I didn’t hear President Obama invoke the “Oracle of Omaha” when he submitted his budget to the Senate that was voted down 97-0. I didn’t hear Obama mention spending at all other than to say some nonsense about cutting spending by $2 trillion over ten years. At the rate we are going that level of spending “cuts” will mean we are $8 trillion deeper in debt ten years from now rather than $10 trillion. We need to cut $1 trillion in spending next year. So let’s hear what Buffett has to tell Obama about spending.

Investing

Warren Buffett is regarded as a masterful investor. What’s the Buffett Rule on investing? President Obama took credit for saving the auto industry. Really? If that is his idea of a good investment why does the price of GM stock have to rise to $52 before the American people’s investment to break even? GM stock is currently trading around $25. How many people are expecting GM’s stock to double in the near future? Or is it more likely that union contracts will once again, drag GM beneath the waves? My research indicates that Warren Buffett does not hold any GM stock. I wonder why? I do know that Warren Buffett made a very tidy profit by investing in Goldman Sachs. Meanwhile American taxpayers, you know, the ones who are under taxed, bailed out that company and many others. How much did Buffett invest in Solyndra? How much money is Warren Buffett investing in high-speed rail in California? Why should the American people believe that someone who has never held a job in private industry (Obama) is suddenly the smartest venture capitalist in America? How big of a portfolio do the real venture capital firms put in the hands of new hire fresh out of college? But this president takes billions of our tax dollars and squanders them on his pet projects and then lectures us how we need to invest in our future when they go belly up. When is Warren Buffett going to tell him to stop?

The Buffett Rule on Taxes

At the State of the Union address we were introduced to the famous secretary of Warren Buffett. She’s the poor woman who pays a higher tax rate than Mr. Buffett on her income. It is estimated that the poor dear makes between $200,000 and $500,000, otherwise she would not be paying double the tax rate of Buffett. That could put her solidly in the top 1% of earners in the country, if she is at the high-end of that range (the top 1% is earnings above $343,000). So Barack Obama actually lamenting that the top 1% is over taxed? Of course not. It is not about who is paying too much, it is about who is not paying enough.

The problem is spending, plain and simple. There are not enough rich people in America, even if taxed at 100% to close the budget gap. What Obama is doing is class warfare. Let’s get people angry enough at the wealthy so that Obama can then link the wealthy to the Republicans and sneak back into a second term.

If Obama thinks he is playing by the rules, Buffett’s rules, then he should at least play by all of them.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Tim Bishop likes manufacturing. The manufacturing of campaign issues, that is. In his effort to manufacture a campaign issue around overseas outsourcing, he got a lifeline from the White House yesterday when President Obama held an “insourcing” forum yesterday to encourage companies to “bring jobs back to America.” An editorial in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Insourcing for Dummies” describes the effort.

Having spent his entire adult working life at either Southampton College, which went out of business and was acquired by the State University of New York, and the House of Representatives, Mr. Bishop should be forgiven if his grasp of economics is lacking. So let’s try to help get him up to speed.

Coming from academia, I am sure Mr. Bishop will give due deference to a study on outsourcing from an Ivy League University. Matthew J. Slaughter, an economist at Dartmouth’s Amos Tuck School of Business, conducted a study where he found that for every job outsourced overseas, two jobs were created in the U.S. How could that possibly be? It works something like this.

Let’s say a company has an opportunity to outsource its call center overseas and takes advantage of doing so. It utilizes a well-educated work force in India, and let’s say it cuts its cost allocated to that call center in half. It now has additional capital to invest in growing the business. To do so, it hires more sales people, who in turn need sales engineers to explain their widgets to their perspective customers, and when the customers buy more widgets, more people are needed to process the orders and build the widgets. This boost of growth results in a boost in jobs.

Slaughter studied Bureau of Economic Analysis data, reported annually between 1991 and 2001 for 2,500 multinational companies. This was a time when India and China were ramping up their operations to take on outsourcing roles. What Slaughter found was that while employment in their foreign affiliates grew by 2.8 million jobs, U.S. based employment in the parent firms grew by 5.5 million jobs. Taking it a step further, when that job growth is compared to total job growth, those multinational created more jobs faster than the economy as a whole.

Tim Bishop’s Plan

So what is Tim Bishop’s big idea? He wants companies to shut foreign outsourcing or have two call centers that callers can choose between. That means there is no savings from the call centers, which translates into fewer profits to use to grow the business and hire fewer people. Also lower profits, means less tax revenues because what are companies taxed on? Correct! Profits!

So in the midst of a dastardly economy with high unemployment, and staggering deficits, Tim Bishop wants to curtail corporate growth, reverse conditions for job growth, and reduce tax revenues. What a trifecta! This is all so that Tim Bishop can have something, anything, to build a reelection campaign around. There no major call centers in his district, so this is a bald-faced effort to cling to office. If he was serious about the economy, he would be advocating for slashing the corporate tax rate or even backing the Fair Tax, so that money held overseas could flow back to the U.S. and perhaps other countries would build factories here and create even more jobs. But that would require a grasp of economics, instead of an iron grasp on his House seat.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

As if sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi talking about global warming wasn’t enough, Newt Gingrich seems to have taken a seat next to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to attack free market capitalism.

The positive, knowledgeable “Uncle Newt” has left the stage to be replaced by his alter ego, “Nasty Newt.” These two personalities seem to be behind the lack of support for his candidacy from those who have worked with him in the past.

Gingrich is now going after Romney on his track record at Bain Capital and like the Obama administration that likes to pick winners and losers, Gingrich has decided what it good capitalism and what is bad capitalism.

“If somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism,” Mr. Gingrich said on NBC’s “Today” show.

I think what Gingrich is describing is robbery, not capitalism and he should call the police. How does someone come in and take all the money? You are either brought in by management or you buy your way in. In the former case you are a hired hand and you get paid a fee for your services, you don’t dip that hand into the till. If you buy your way in, you own the company and that includes the cash.

When you buy your way in you are putting your own capital at risk which includes losing it. If a company is in a turnaround situation it means there is a problem. If the problem isn’t fixed the company will probably go under and all jobs will be lost. In conducting a turnaround, yes some jobs are eliminated; uncompetitive plants are shut down; the resources consumed by those inefficient plants are put to better use elsewhere. That is capitalism. On balance it creates more jobs than it eliminates in the overall economy, because capital is free to move to where it is most productive. If Gingrich doesn’t like that, well, neither does Obama and we’re trying to get rid of Obama, not just change the name on the mailbox at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I Like to Fire People

That quote from Romney was taking out of context. The context being ObamaCare. Romney was saying that if our only provider of health services is ObamaCare, we have no choice and health care will not improve. He said if his health care provider was giving him lousy service he would fire them. He likes to fire people who give him lousy service. This is not about firing your own employees. That is always a difficult an unpleasant task. It is no wonder that Debbie Wasserman Schultz took that snippet and is making an ad to imply that Romney likes firing his employees. For proof of Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s intellectual dishonesty here in an appearance with Chris Wallace she tries to say that Romney is a bad guy because people lost their jobs at companies he invested in, but President Obama is not a bad guy for taking taxpayer dollars and investing in Solyndra which went bankrupt costing 1,000 jobs. At least Romney was not using our money for his investments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPAjxij9MZM

So the Democrats are attacking Romney because some people lost jobs in turnaround situations, and Gingrich, Huntsman, and Perry are doing the same. Ron Paul is holding his fire.

The term “firing” is completely different if shown in the full context. Many management books today say you should fire some customers. By that they mean that if a customer takes up more time and resources than they generate in revenue for you, let them go be someone else’s customer. Is that “firing” in the same sense of letting one of your employee’s go? No. Is firing the guy who cuts your lawn because he keeps running over your rose bushes  the same? No.

I am undecided on who I support for president. I have, at various times, considered Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum. But if this line of attack is perceived as a winner by any Republican or conservative, it is more likely to push people into backing Romney. Capitalism is not always pretty, but if Americans want a shot at a better future, capitalism is the system that gives them the best long-term chance at it.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

The Democrats are nothing if not persistent. After trying to hang this dismal economy on President Bush while the Obama administration repeats every mistake from the Great Depression to create their own version, Tim Bishop says let’s go all in!

After spending so much as to add more to the national debt than all previous presidents combined, all to no effect, why not move on to the next disaster of the Great Depression, a trade war. In the Great Depression it was the Smoot-Hawley tariffs. Today we have Tim Bishop looking to attack call centers in India and the Philippines. With allies like us, who needs enemies?  The governments in India and the Philippines are cranking up the diplomatic channels to stop Bishop’s bill. It will be interesting to see how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will react. I doubt she will be saying, “Thanks, Tim!”

The man who has spent his entire career in academia and government had this to say on the news of the diplomatic activity:

“Frankly, the fact that both the Indian government and the Filipino government are reacting like this says that our bill is very badly needed,” he said. Most of the call center jobs lost in the U.S. are “sent primarily to India and the Philippines. So I hope [the bill] does have an impact.”

Did I read that right? Legislation is badly needed to provoke our allies? Don’t we need India as a counterbalance to Pakistan? Wasn’t it Obama who came to office saying he was going to make nice with everyone around the world and apologize for that cowboy Bush’s behavior? Didn’t Tim Bishop get the memo? Here is some more Bishop deep thinking.

In addition to making them ineligible for federal loans, the call center bill would place stiff mandates on companies that chose to outsource their call centers. Customer service reps working in those companies’ call centers overseas would be required to disclose their locations when asked by American callers, as well as provide callers with the option of being transferred to a call center in the U.S. — stipulations likely aimed at pleasing constituents who are tired of dealing with customer service reps based in other countries.

Although I am sure most of my regular readers can see right through that, let me reveal the devilishly clever thinking of Mr. Bishop. By requiring that call centers provide the option of being transferred to a call center in the U.S., companies would basically have to have two call centers, thereby eliminating any savings. Mr. Bishop seems to believe that companies will gladly force bad service on customers to save some money regardless of any complaints. How does that explain how Dell Computer moved some of its call centers back to the U.S. in 2004 when the quality couldn’t keep up with the company’s growth. But who should make that decision, the CEO or Dell or Tim Bishop?

Why is Tim Bishop, a Congressman from Eastern Long Island, the driving force behind this? Are there a lot of call centers in his district that are moving overseas? None that I could find. It’s all about politics. Tim Bishop is facing a tough reelection battle and he is afraid to run on his record. So he needs to drum up an issue. He squeaked by his last reelection by accusing his opponent of being an outsourcer. It worked last time, so let’s fire up that old chestnut and see if it’s got legs. Don’t let the free market decide, don’t worry if it damages relations with our allies. It makes the Communications Workers of America union happy and isn’t that what’s really important?

I have a better idea. Why don’t we approach Tata Motors, the Indian automobile company that now owns Jaguar and Land Rover and get them to build factories in the U.S.? We can outsource low paying call center jobs to them while they outsource high paying manufacturing jobs to us. It makes economic sense, but then again, that won’t help Tim Bishop get reelected, will it? Oh, well.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Rick Santorum timed the wave perfectly and rode it to within eight votes of Romney in the Iowa caucuses. Whether it was timing or real support is not certain, but where does he go from here, and I don’t mean geographically?

In the 1964 Olympic 10,000 meter race there was an American named Billy Mills. Back in those days they ran on a cinder track and after a while the track would get chewed up and you would lose a little push on each step, sort of like how it feels running on the soft sand of the beach compared to the packed, wet sand down by the water. Toward the end of the race there was some jostling and Mills got bumped out a couple of lanes, but he found firmer footing there and started gaining ground, ultimately taking the gold medal. Rick Santorum in Iowa reminds me a bit of Mills. He chose to run on social issues, while the other candidate focused on economic issues. This gave Santorum some traction with those voters who felt strongly on those issues. But to quote former Clinton adviser James Carville, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Santorum’s strategy gained for him one of the coveted “tickets out of Iowa.” Well done. But that strategy won’t carry him very far in the nominating process, and definitely not in the general election. He needs to shift his focus to the economy and come up with something bold, if he hopes to beat Romney. If you go to Santorum’s web site and dig a little he has some sensible economic proposals, but they are too timid. If he want’s to beat Romney he needs to put more daylight between him and his opponent’s plans.

For example, he calls for cutting $5 trillion over five years. Mathematically that may not be very different from Ron Paul’s cutting $1 trillion in one year, but if so, just say it. Who knows if Santorum will be around in five years if he was to get elected and in Washington all spending cuts seem to come at the back-end of any time period, while tax increases always happen now. It didn’t take Obama five years to find a way to add more to the national debt than every president since Washington, combined, so why should it take five or ten years to unwind that disaster?

On taxes, he needs to be bold. If you read the tax policies on his website, it is a tweak here and a tweak there. Cain, Gingrich, and Perry all had bold plans. Scrap the IRS and you will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the economy, without raising a nickel in taxes. It may increase unemployment among tax preparers, accountants and lawyers, but that will be more than offset by businesses adding jobs with resulting from their new-found windfall. Eliminate the payroll tax. Congress has revealed what a fraud that is by creating a payroll tax holiday and then saying the Social Security Trust Fund will not face any shortfall. Why have multiple tax structures and mechanisms and associated bureaucracy if Treasury will just shuffle the money around as they see fit anyway? Why not pick up Cain’s 9-9-9 plan? Cain is out of the race, but Santorum would almost immediately pick up Cain’s support and many of his followers. Hell, for that matter, he should be even bolder and ask Cain to be his running mate if nominated.

Without a stark choice, Romney will probably end up the nominee. If Romney doesn’t start convincing conservatives that he has mended his ways, they may choose to stay home, but if they do, I don’t want to hear any griping about Obama if he gets reelected. If Santorum is bold, it will force Romney to be a little bolder to protect his right flank. If nothing else, we need whoever is the nominee to be battle hardened for the general election. This one won’t be pretty.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

In his recent telephone town hall meeting, Tim Bishop expressed his support for the continued payroll tax holiday but making it clear that it would have no impact on the Social Security Trust Fund. Money for Social Security would continue to go into the trust fund from other sources. What other sources you might ask? I may have an answer for you.

In an article in HousingWire magazine, the author points out that:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency will increase guarantee fees on single-family mortgage-backed securities charged by the government-sponsored enterprises by 10 basis points effective April 1, 2012, in response to the new funding mechanism for the payroll tax cut extension passed by Congress.

So it seems that the Social Security Trust fund will get its money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or more accurately, from new home buyers. So for a two month extension of the payroll tax holiday that will prevent taxpayers from paying an additional $130 into the Social Security Trust Fund, that everyone expects to get back anyway, new home buyers will have to pay thousands in new fees.

The g-fee increase will remain in effect through Oct. 1, 2021. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the g-fees would offset about $35.7 billion in the costs of the tax cut. Mortgage Bankers Association CEO David Stevens said the increase could mean an extra $4,000 in fees on a $200,000 mortgage.

One of the problems facing Long Island is affordable housing. Our young people are leaving Long Island for areas were there is a larger rental stock that they can start out in, rather than living in mom and dad’s basement, and where they can afford to buy a house after saving a down payment for a couple of years. Apparently for the benefit of a political talking point Tim Bishop votes to slam an already weak housing marking with additional fees. After all who can really call a two month anything sound fiscal policy? Notice there is no spending cut mentioned here, it is an increase in taxes and fees. This is what Tim Bishop was telling his constituents not to worry about in his town hall meeting? What will become of his district, if nobody lives here but retirees? Is that his plan to solve the unemployment problem? Drive enough young people away until the number of jobs fits the remaining population?

The problem is spending. It was only last week that Joe Biden was attacking Mitt Romney’s policies by saying:

“His proposal would actually double down on the policies that caused the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression and accelerated a decades-long assault on the middle class,” Biden added.

Decades long assault on the middle class? I guess he means you too, Bill Clinton. The greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression has been the Obama administration and if he were to get reelected it would finish America off. We have had the worst consistent unemployment since the Great Depression for the entire Obama administration. We have had the worst record of job creation, loss actually, since Herbert Hoover. The National Bureau of Economic Research says the recession ended in June of 2009. Does it feel like it to you? Most recoveries from economic downturns are mirror images of the slump. A gradual recession is followed by a gradual recovery; a sharp downturn is followed by a sharp upswing. Not this time. Just look at the job creation record of Team Obama.

This chart goes all the way back to Harry Truman and Obama’s performance stands alone.  Let’s put to rest the “eight years of failed Bush policy, yada, yada, yada” and face the fact that Obama and his spending, heavy-handed regulations, and insatiable appetite to fix everything by taxing more has put us into an economic winter. Tim Bishop has happily ignored the needs of his constituents to buy favor from the Democratic leadership and their special interest pals. They have done an awful job and we need to turn them out, before they turn us into Greece.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Tim Bishop has submitted legislation to punish firms that use overseas call centers. He is desperate. He needs an issue that he hopes will sneak him past the electorate into office for another two years. Outsourcing worked for him last time, so he is trying to put lipstick on that pig and pass it off as bold, new thinking. What I am thinking is when is Tim Bishop ever going to represent the people who actually live in his district?

How many call centers are in his district that are threatening to move overseas? How may call centers are trying to decide between locating in his district or locating in India? If the answer to either of the above questions is none, why is he spending time on this?

Over twenty years ago, while working at Citibank, they had a customer service center for credit cards in Melville. For cost reasons they were looking at shutting it down and moving it. I was asked to provide an analysis of the telecommunication costs in an effort to keep it in place. Based on the customer distribution, I showed that its current location was the best choice from a telecommunications basis, but it was not enough to offset the people cost. The alternatives considered were Maryland, South Dakota and Nevada. India was not on the list. But if you were a customer service rep on Long Island who didn’t want to move, was the fact that the job was staying in America, give you consolation? Your job went away

So what is Tim Bishop doing starting a trade war with India? How does that help his constituents?

 ”Outsourcing is one of the scourges of our economy and why we are struggling so to knock down the unemployment rate,” said Bishop.

In a previous post on Mr. Bishop’s insightfulness I pointed out that the largest Toyota factory outside of Japan is in Georgetown, Kentucky. Through a new free trade agreement that plant will now begin exporting Toyotas from the U.S. to South Korea. If Toyota didn’t outsource those jobs to the U.S. but kept them in Japan, there would be 7,400 fewer Americans employed in Kentucky than there are today. So how does Bishop square this with his statement that outsourcing is a scourge and contributes to unemployment when this is proof of the opposite? Perhaps if our tax structure wasn’t so abysmal, other companies would locate their factories here? But we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, so why build here? But when was the last time you heard Tim Bishop pounding the podium for lower tax rates?

With the stimulus plan, Congressman Bishop voted to spend a trillion dollars across the country to be paid for by whom? Well, consistent with the Democratic message of “tax the rich”, when compared to other states, New York is relatively rich, so we get a bigger share of the bill and a smaller cut of the benefits. How did Congressman Bishop’s vote help his district? Most of the money that did come here went to people who already had a job, and a union card, the teachers. Who is backing Mr. Bishop on his phone center folly? The Communication Workers of America. Bishop knows he needs union muscle if he has a prayer of getting reelected.

He also likes the idea of the payroll tax holiday and tells people at his town hall meeting, not to worry about the Social Security Trust Fund losing important funding, that money will come from elsewhere. Where exactly? Does Mr. Bishop have some magic beans or a goose laying golden eggs like a gatling gun? We’re broke thanks to Mr. Bishop and his pals spending, spending, and spending.

So Tim Bishop looks out for Tim Bishop first, Nancy Pelosi second, and if he can help his constituents cut through some bureaucratic red tape, cut through it but not eliminate it, he will do so. But he needs something, anything, to take the voters eyes off his dismal record in Congress, so let’s try another new twist on outsourcing, whether it is germane to his constituents or not. After all, where else is Tim Bishop going to land a job that pays $174,000 a year with his resume?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Congressman Tim Bishop held an online town hall meeting to hear questions from constituents and give his answers. Perhaps he thought this a safer forum than a live town hall meeting. Last year’s meeting in Setauket did not go well and was soon viral on You Tube.

I will comment on three of the topics from that meeting: the payroll tax cut, regulations, and manufacturing jobs.

Payroll Tax Cut

Congressman Bishop came out heavily pitching the extension of the payroll tax cut, from the normal level of 6.2% to the current level of 4.2% and even to go lower to 3.1%, for at least another year. He made the startling claim, quoting some experts that if the payroll tax cut wasn’t retained it would cost 400,000 jobs. It must be from the loss of all that spending power generated from a 2% cut in the payroll tax. I am sure pizza parlors will be devastated, as the weekly savings to a typical family will be about the cost of a pizza pie. The other statistic was that if the payroll tax was cut further to 3.1%, 750,000 new jobs would be created. Interesting. Raise the tax by 2% and 400,000 jobs would be lost, cut it by an additional 1.1% and nearly twice as many jobs would be created. Like prior predictions of how government intervention would affect jobs, we are supposed to believe that employers will start hiring if the cost of hiring a new employee  is reduced by 3.1% for just one year, before going back up. Only those people who never worked in private industry, like Bishop, Schumer, Obama, would believe that.

Bishop insisted that these cuts would have no impact to the Social Security Trust Fund. Considering that there is nothing in the Social Security Trust Fund other than a bunch of IOUs from Uncle Sam’s other pocket, he may be correct on that front, but he said that the cut would be paid for cutting spending elsewhere. Not surprisingly, he didn’t say where exactly “elsewhere” was.

Throughout the call, Bishop’s press secretary was conducting a dopey poll. To paraphrase, “If you are in favor of the payroll tax cut that will put $1,500 in your pocket, press 1, if not, press 2.” Who wouldn’t press 1? What would the results be if he asked, “If you are in favor of borrowing $600 from China that your children and grandchildren will have to pay back, so that we can give you $1,500 today, press 1, if you think more borrowing and debt is a bad idea, press 2,” I think the poll would turn out quite differently.

Regulations

A caller who owned a small construction company asked about all the regulations and paperwork that businesses had to deal with. Bishop said that President Obama had things well under control forming a commission to “zero base” all regulations and hundreds and hundreds of regulations have been taken off the books. In the Wall Street Journal today there is an editorial titled, “Regulation for Dummies,” that paints a very different picture.

To answer the most basic question—has regulation increased?—we’ll focus on what the government defines as “economically significant” regulations. Those are rules that impose more than $100 million in annual costs on the economy, though there are hundreds if not thousands of new rules every year that fall well short of that.

According to an analysis of the Federal Register by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, the Cabinet departments and agencies finalized 84 such regulations annually on average in President Obama’s first two years. The annual average under President Bush was 62 and under President Clinton 56

As the graph clearly shows the number of “economically significant” regulations under Obama has skyrocketed. This is what is causing the uncertainty that is hindering employment. How can this be curtailed? A bill just passed in the House of Representatives called the “Regulation from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS)”. This would require any of these economically significant regulations to be sent to Congress for approval before becoming being enacted. What the process is today is that Congress can vote against regulations, but that can be vetoed by the President. If the regulations are coming from the president, wouldn’t you expect him to veto it? This turns it around so that the Congress has to approve the regulations, if they don’t, there is nothing for the president to veto. The Democrats say this is a Congressional encroachment of the Executive.

“The REINS Act would undermine our ability to protect children from harmful toys, prevent asthma and lung ailments resulting from pollution, and ensure that our small businesses can compete fairly in the marketplace,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer added. “At the same time, it would force Congress to play a larger role in the regulatory process, leading to even more gridlock in Washington.”

Surely he forgot to mention killing bunnies in there somewhere. But let’s look at the process: Congress passes a law; departments in the Executive branch write regulations to carry out the law Congress passed. So why is it an outrage that Congress reviews economically significant regulations to see if the Executive is actually implementing what they passed? Tim Bishop voted against the REINS Act. This is another case of Democrats focusing on piddling regulations while saying “hands off” the really impactful ones.

Manufacturing Jobs

Another caller asked the Congressman about manufacturing jobs. He patted himself on the back for helping to bail out the auto industry. He said if he and others hadn’t done that that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost. I addressed the implausibility of this in an earlier post. In that post I argued that if GM and Chrysler went bankrupt and even if they didn’t come out of it leaner and meaner, people still needed transportation. They would buy Fords, Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas, etc., that are currently built here in the U.S. Those car companies would need to increase their purchases from suppliers and those who formerly supplied GM and Chrysler would be well situated to supply the remaining car companies. The argument that we don’t manufacture here anymore is a myth. On a dollar volume basis, we still manufacture more than any country on earth. A few miles from where I am writing this, in Georgetown, Kentucky, is the largest Toyota factory outside of Japan. Due to a free trade agreement with South Korea that the Democrats blocked for years, that Toyota plant will begin exporting about 6,000 Camrys a year from Kentucky to South Korea.

One of the reasons we don’t build more here is our lousy tax code. Fix it. A reason there is not more manufacturing in Mr. Bishop’s district on Long Island is high electric rates. Factories run on power and power on Long Island is expensive. One of the reasons for that is that government approved the building of a $5 billion nuclear power plant on Long Island, and then when it was ready to throw the switch, they changed direction and said it couldn’t open. So Long Island rate payers had to find and buy electric from other sources and pay for the mothballed plant that produced nothing. Once again, the government helping us out.

But Tim Bishop has a solution. He wrote a bill to ban offshore call centers from federal contracts or loan guarantees for five-year. Nothing like micromanaging a corner of the economy while the rest of it burns. Why not look to the root cause? Tax structure, too much regulations, ObamaCare, out of control government spending. If Congress would fix those problems maybe companies wouldn’t look offshore to set up call centers.

The Budget

Tim Bishop also touched on the deficit and debt. He said we need to cut spending, but he never said what he would cut; he said we needed to control entitlement spending, but he didn’t say how he would do that; and he said we needed to add revenue, but he knew exactly how to do that, tax the rich. Here’s how I see it. The government got us into this mess by spending too much money, they should get us out of it by spending less money. Asking for any more tax revenue is just shirking their responsibility for which they are paid handsomely, and passing the problem on to us. Who couldn’t solve the problem with enough money?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.