They are still using the same tired rhetoric, about inheriting the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. The truth is that the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression is the Obama administration. Barack Obama stands with Herbert Hoover as the only presidents with negative job growth during their administrations. As if stuck in the 1930s, Obama dusted off FDR’s playbook, since he had no personal executive experience to draw on, and that playbook didn’t work then and it’s not working now.

So along comes an opportunity for a major “shovel ready” project, backed by unions, that can create thousands of jobs, move us closer to energy independence, help us depend less on getting oil from Middle East despots, and what does Obama do? He kills it. What he wanted to do, was defer a decision on this until after the election, eleven months away. He wanted to do what he does best, vote “present”.

Congress, particularly the Republicans who seem to be the only adults working on Capital Hill, included a provision in the payroll tax holiday extension, to make a decision within sixty days. People are hurting, gas prices are creeping up, unemployment benefits have been extended to extraordinary lengths, and this incompetent president says that sixty days was not enough time to review the proposal so he had to, sadly, reject it. Perhaps if he hadn’t played all those rounds of golf, perhaps if he had studied it a little closer instead of spending all that time in Hawaii, perhaps if he put this job creating proposal on the top of the EPA’s to-do list instead of their focusing on the job killing regulations to limit power plant emissions, he would have gotten his job done. But no, sorry, I don’t have my homework, teacher, I dunno, I forgot, my dog…. Enough!

Let China make an oil deal with Canada. We can always buy the oil back from them at a premium. Why not, they probably don’t have enough of our dollars as it is now. Why not give them more? This president is making decisions that will cobble together a coalition of supporters to get him reelected. This is about appeasing the environmental movement so that they won’t abandon him.

At an event in Ottumwa, Iowa, on Dec. 31, Rick Santorum mocked the idea that the pipeline posed the threat of environmental damage, noting that there were already many other pipelines in the area it would go through. “This is just, again, pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon,” Mr. Santorum said.

The State Department, which has authority over this since it goes between us and Canada, “said there was not enough time to draw a new route for the pipeline and assess the environmental harm.” Bullfeathers. It’s a 1700 mile pipeline. The area in question is a fraction of that length. Agree to the pipeline, get started hiring people and building it in areas not in dispute, and work to resolve the section in question. But unless it is killed, Obama risks losing the green vote and what is more important, America or Obama’s reelection?

I’d like to ask my Congressman, Tim Bishop, to weigh in. What do you have to say about this, Tim? Or are you too busy manufacturing your own campaign issue around outsourced phone center jobs. If jobs are really important to you, you would stand up and challenge Obama for killing an opportunity for good, high paying, union jobs in America. On the other hand you can stay silent, not challenge President Obama’s error and risk his ire and possibly lose campaign funds and support. So what do you stand for, Tim? Putting America first or putting your interests right up there with President Obama’s and above America’s.

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.

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.

photo by kevin dooley

Tim Bishop is frustrated. He says so in an e-mail to constituents. When you have subsisted in Washington by spending other people’s money while making it appear you are Santa Claus, you get frustrated when the spending spigot is shut off. He laments that the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has not “advanced a real agenda”. Really? The House passed a budget. How are Tim’s Bishop’s colleagues in the Senate doing with that? With the nation sinking under $16 trillion in debt, about $6 billion of which was added since Tim Bishop went to Congress, the Republicans passed “Cut, Cap, and Balance.” Tim Bishop voted against it, and his colleagues in the Senate wouldn’t even vote on it. Just what does the term “real agenda” mean to Tim Bishop?

Tim Bishop voted against a bill that would halt new EPA regulations on cement companies until the matter was studied further. Tim Bishop voted billions of dollars for “shovel ready” projects that President Obama later snickered weren’t so shovel ready (another revelation for the most inexperienced president in our history). Who knew? Now if I am not mistaken, as an engineer I believe a fair amount of concrete would be needed in most construction projects. So again, we have Tim Bishop in a fight with himself. He calls for more infrastructure spending, and then opposes delaying new regulations on cement companies, cement being one of the primary ingredients in concrete. What a concept; let’s spend boatloads of money on construction and make construction more expensive at the same time so that we get the least amount of bang for our buck.

Tim Bishop voted against a bill that would require the economic impact of EPA regulations be evaluated. If it is okay to require an environmental impact statement on construction projects, why not require an economic impact statement on EPA regulations? Tim says that would be bad.

If that is not enough, he closes his e-mail by asking constituents to send him ideas on how Washington should get more involved. This is from the Congressman who had to intervene on behalf of Long Island wineries to get Washington to speed up on the approval of the shape of their wine bottles and their labels. This we need more of? If you look at the Constitution, half of what the federal government does is not in there and should be shut down.

Tim Bishop voted for the stimulus that will have to be paid back. Based on the fact that his district is wealthier than average (let’s chant together, “Tax the Rich! Tax the Rich!”), we will end up paying about $3 billion of that tab while the district got about $600 million in funds. That means that Tim Bishop voted in favor of a program that will provide about $3 billion in funding somewhere else at a cost of around $600 million to those citizens. This has typically been the case in New York. Our heavily Democrat congressional delegation keeps voting for bigger and bigger government that New Yorkers have to pay far more for than they ever receive in benefits and they wonder why New Yorkers are moving elsewhere? (Hint: that’s why we are losing two Congressional seats). How dumb is that?

Tim Bishop doesn’t have a clue, and doesn’t appear to be looking for one. It is time for a change.

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

President Obama Speaking at Solyndra

Congressman Tim Bishop has not been able to keep from spending, no matter what. The Postal Service has an $8.5 billion deficit, and Tim Bishop is out there fighting to keep an unneeded post office open. We are trillions of dollars in debt and he comes out blasting the Tea Party, because they want Congress to not waste anymore money on green boondoggles like Solyndra.

At issue is a Continuing Resolution, that is, a bill to provide temporary funding to the government. At the heart of the issue is that the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has run out of money, so there is an issue of whether to give them $3 billion more or $6 billion more. In addition the Republicans want to cut funding for such green projects like Solyndra, which just declared bankruptcy after getting a $500 million taxpayer-funded loan guarantee. How heartless can those Tea Party people be to not want to send good money after bad for progressive boondoggles? But of course we should listen to Tim Bishop. After all he has been such a trusted steward of our money so far, right?

The above chart shows how much debt limit has been increased by Congress to keep the government functioning, since 1940, when it was almost zero. Tim Bishop was sworn into Congress in January of 2003, from a point where it had leveled off, the line almost goes vertical. That is eight trillion dollars in additional borrowing in just ten years in office, and he has the utter gall to say the Tea Party’s calls for restraint are unwarranted? Somebody has to do it. If Tim Bishop and Nancy Pelosi had not spent trillions of dollars that the government didn’t have, maybe we wouldn’t be quibbling over $3 billion.

Waste and Fraud

It remains to be seen if Solyndra was a massive fraud or the Democrats thinking they are really investment bankers and venture capitalists rather than elected officials, but we could have used that $500 million rather than waste it. But Bishop objects:

“Even worse, the Republican bill calls for much of that sum to be funded by cutting federal loan programs that have encouraged new job creation by U.S. automakers and clean energy manufacturers.” — e-mail message from Tim Bishop to his constituents.

$39 billion in stimulus dollars have been earmarked for green energy jobs. So far, $19 billion has been spent and 3,500 jobs have been created. That’s $5.4 million per job, people, do you think we can do better than that in the private sector? But what is a “green job?” According to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, if you drive a hybrid bus, it’s a green job, if you drive a gas-powered bus it is not a green job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1scrqqWpFlM

As one pundit put it, Washington is the only place where the circus never leaves town. This is what Congressman Bishop decries that Republicans are trying to cut. Do you think your hard-earned money is being well spent?

There is a report out today that the federal government paid about $600 million to federal workers who are DEAD! The Justice Department buys muffins for a meeting that cost $16 each! Medicare and Medicaid routinely have $60-$100 billion per stolen, and Tim Bishop has no suggestions how to cut, and even takes the time to write his constituents that, “I am sick and tired of this divisive posturing we have come to expect from the Republican Tea Party Caucus.”

I have a piece of news for you, Congressman, in case you have not been paying attention. The last Democrat who thought it would be a great idea to attack his opponent as beholden to the Tea Party was a guy named David Weprin in the 9th Congressional District of New York special election. In a district that was 3:1 Democrat registered voters, he lost big. Many Tea Party members from the heart of your district traveled on their own time and at their own expense into Brooklyn and Queens to get out the vote for Bob Turner. If you think it is a winning strategy to attack the Tea Party, I have three words for you. Bring it on.

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

Boeing 787 Dreamliner photo by craezer

Yesterday, the House passed a bill that would prevent the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from telling Boeing, America’s largest exporter, that it couldn’t build a factory in South Carolina, a Right-To-Work state. Boeing built a $750 million factory (with their own money, not yours) and hired 1,500 workers, before the NLRB stepped in and called this union retaliation. But no jobs are being eliminated back in Washington state, in fact, Boeing has added  2,000 jobs.

So why is the federal government telling a private company where it can or cannot locate a factory? It is purely a union play, by a bunch of bureaucrats. Boeing faced a tough strike in 2008 for 58 days. Boeing’s new plane the 787 Dreamliner is way behind schedule, partly due to the strike. Boeing tried to negotiate a ten-year moratorium on strikes by the union. The union refused. So Boeing decided to add capacity in South Carolina. It didn’t shut down operations in Washington state, it didn’t relocate the plants in Washington to South Carolina, and yet the NLRB says it is a retaliatory move because of the 2008 strike. I guess in the bizarro world of the NLRB adding 2,000 jobs in Washington is retaliation.

What is President Obama doing about this? After all it is adding jobs in an economy that desperately needs them and doing so with private money. Obama says the NLRB is an independent board so his hands are tied. Now if you will excuse him, he has to get back to demanding more taxpayer money to create green jobs at a cost of around $600,000 each. Meanwhile, Obama’s jobs adviser, Jeffrey Immelt of GE is shipping jobs off to China to help the Chinese compete with Boeing. What the hell is going on here?

We have Congressman like Tim Bishop fighting to keep an unneeded post office open at taxpayer’s expense, and fighting to stop Boeing from creating jobs with private money in South Carolina. He is joined in this effort by his Congressional neighbor, Steve Israel, from the adjoining district who also happens to head up the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, responsible for giving control of the House of Representatives back to Nancy Pelosi. This is purely a union play. But I’ve got some bad news for the Congressmen. According to a recent Rasmussen poll 48% of Americans no longer see a need for labor unions, while 30% disagree.

The unions threw everything they had at Scott Walker in Wisconsin and lost; they came out in force against Bob Turner in NY-9 and lost; we have Jimmy Hoffa calling the Tea Party folks “sons of bitches” who should be taken out. Taken out? Maybe it’s just me, but that sounds like a violent threat, not that the unions are ever violent, but I am probably overreacting. We all know that violence always comes from the Tea Party.

It’s time to clean house people. Jobs are created by private industry, not government. Our president doesn’t understand that. Not only does he not understand that but his appointees at the NLRB are actively working to kill private sector jobs. President Obama for an equivalent time in office, has the second worst job creation record, only surpassed by Herbert Hoover. He and Hoover are the only two presidents since 1890 with negative job growth over their first two and a half years in office. If there are any moving companies that do business between Washington, D.C. and Chicago, you might want to add 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to your mailing list.

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

Photo by Violentz

Most presidents view an address to a joint session of Congress for serious non-partisan purposes. Outside the annual State of the Union address they are rare. President Bush only did it once, in the aftermath of 9/11, and while jobs are very important to the country at this time, it is no place for a lecture (saying pass this bill seventeen times) from the most inexperienced president in our history.

This is not to minimize the importance of getting the economy moving. Who does not know that this is a problem? But it rings hollow that it was not important enough for the president to call Congress back into session in August, nor to delay his own two-week vacation to Martha’s Vineyard. Even scheduling the speech was bungled. President Obama does not seem to understand that Congress is co-equal to the Presidency and to the Judiciary. They do not report to him. He does not commandeer their chamber for his use whenever he so desires. He can make a request and then Congress can pass a resolution to invite him.

But let’s look at it a different way. Can anyone imagine John Boehner requesting an audience in the White House where he would bring in television cameras and then lecture the president about how things are done around here? Preposterous. But this president used his State of the Union address to lecture the Supreme Court, also guests at that speech, on a ruling that they made. Just who does he think he is? He is not king; he is not a dictator. He is a candidate for reelection who is rapidly sinking in the polls and is looking for the Hail Mary that will save his sorry presidency.

Having added four trillion dollars to the national debt, he is back looking for more. After a bruising battle to raise the debt limit, all he can think about is spending. But this time it will be different. This time it is paid for. Let’s think about that. Paid for by whom?

The federal government has no money other than what it takes from the private sector. So how is it possible that President Obama and his merry men and women are smarter than 340 million of their fellow Americans? How do they think that they can take money from the private sector, and only they know how to best put it back into the private sector to make the economy grow? I know there are readers out there objecting that it is not just the private sector who pays for government, but actually it is.

Think of it this way. If a Congressman takes his $174,000 salary and, assuming he knows how to actually use TurboTax, he figures out that he owes $50,000 in income tax and pays it. Is he really paying for any part of government other than a portion of his own salary? To put it another way, would it be any different to cut the salary to $124,000 and make it tax-free? Not really. The Congressman will never pay enough in taxes to cover his own salary. The same can be said of any government worker. They will never pay enough taxes to cover their own pay and put additional money to pay for the rest of government. So the government is ultimately supported by the private sector. The more government spends, the less there is available to the private sector that really creates jobs, because at a minimum, some of the money collected has to go to paying the rest of the salaries and everything else that is government. If you leave a dollar in the private sector it is still a dollar, If you pass it through the government first, you will never get the whole dollar back into the private sector.

So if you want the economy to grow; if you want to create jobs, the way to do it is to make the government as small as possible to still meet its basic mission, as spelled out in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8), and leaving the rest to us. Shrink the government back to what the Founding Fathers laid out, and reduce the taxes accordingly. This is not the time for political posturing.

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

Phot by Minwoo

Another week, another code word. The new term being bandied about is Balanced, which really means soak the rich. It’s is class warfare, the stock and trade of the left. If you can’t beat ‘em, beat ‘em. But I guess the cat was let out of the bag when Neil Cavuto interviewed Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) and the Congressman had this brilliant piece of wisdom to share with us:

“The people that have the money are the ones that benefited from the economy…. Are you saying Willie Sutton Sutton shouldn’t have gone to the banks, he should have gone to the pawn shops? You go to where the money is.”

For those few out there who don’t know who Willie Sutton was, he was a bank robber. He was once asked why he robbed banks and he said, “That’s where the money is.” So a United States Congressman believes our country’s fiscal policy should be set by a bank robber. Does anyone now question why these people shouldn’t be thrown out on their ears? When a Democrat Congressman says that Washington should steal the money of those who have it so that they don’t have to stop spending it is beyond outrageous. But wrap it up in a nice bow and call it balanced and maybe the people won’t know it’s snake oil.

Current Tax Policy

This chart shows how the burden of taxation is shared in America. The bottom scale shows the percentile for Adjusted Gross Income, which is taken from the front page of tax returns. The vertical axis shows the cumulative amount of the all federal personal income taxes paid.

The part of the chart on the far right that is almost vertical is what our president and the left say is unfair. It is unfair because the line is not even steeper. Those greedy people should pay more. Yet if you look at the bottom of the chart, half of all taxpayers contribute only about 3% to support the government.

Now the nearly immediate response from the left is “That’s misleading! Those folks certainly do pay taxes, they pay state taxes and payroll taxes, so don’t say they are not paying taxes!” Okay, let’s break it down. State and local taxes are paid to support state and local functions. Police, fire, water, roads, libraries, schools are, or should be, financed locally. To do so, state and local taxes are for that purpose. As far as payroll taxes that is a red herring. When the folks who pay payroll taxes reach 66 years of age they want to start collecting that money from the government until they get every penny back and many will get more back than they paid it, which is why reform is needed, but that’s for another discussion. If payroll taxes are basically a forced savings plan, those taxes do not go to supporting the function of the federal government so let’s set that aside.

The real problem is that Washington’s spending has exploded and it has gone far beyond what is constitutionally authorized. It’s the spending that is a problem not the revenue. I believe most Americans are fair minded and if they took a serious look at this chart they would agree that it neither depicts balance nor fairness.

A Fair Approach

We need to cut spending. Period. The blueprint that I would recommend is the Constitution.  Let’s go back to Article I, Section 8 and anything that Washington is doing that is not authorized there should be stopped. Let’s the states and the people decide if they want to pick it up at the state or local level. This is clearly defined in the Tenth Amendment.

Those powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The next step would be to simplify the tax code and institute a flat tax. If you make more dollars, you pay more dollars, but the percentage paid should be constant. Allow a deduction, perhaps equal to the poverty rate, that would be excluded from taxation before taxes kick in. Even below that level some nominal amount should be paid, say $100. Everyone who enjoys the protection of our armed forces, the services of our courts, postal service, common currency, etc. should contribute to it. If so, more people might pay attention to what is going on, especially when they write that check.

We are approaching a dangerous point where the majority who hold political power through vote, require the minority to pay all the bills. This would destroy our country, but it would be heaven for the class warriors on the left. They could promise all the freebies in the world in return for electing them, and then they would turn around and tax the productive people until they stop producing and leave for somewhere that respects freedom and liberty.

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

Judging by the two mail pieces I just received from my congressman, Tim Bishop, it looks like he has settled on his reelection strategy. After all, he doesn’t want to run on his record (ObamaCare, bailouts, Stimulus, trillions in deficit spending); with the demise of earmarks he can’t say he’s bringing home the bacon; since he is facing a re-match in his reelection bid, using the same smear tactics this time around will be harder; so let’s scare the bejeezus out of the seniors.

The Medicare system is going broke. Medicare consumes 10% of GDP today and is forecast to consume 15% of GDP in twenty years, that’s growth of 50%. Tim Bishop says we need to cut spending. Okay, Tim, we’re listening, what would you cut? …Tim?…Anyone out there? Nothing.

Seniors will pay more for care – Tim Bishop

Tim Bishop says seniors will pay more for care. If you are currently on medicare or are over the age of 55, nothing will change. So why is Tim Bishop lying about that? Tim Bishop voted for ObamaCare which has already taking $500 billion away from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare. Remember how they were struggling to get the cost of ObamaCare under $1 trillion? This is how they did it. What Tim Bishop, I believe, is trying to say without telling all the facts, is with regard to future generations, starting in 2021. But Tim Bishop doesn’t want to change Medicare at all and as the table below points out, Medicare will be bankrupt by 2021. So other than scaring people what is Tim’s plan?

In his mail piece Tim Bishop says that “according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, a private health plan as good as Medicare will soon cost $30,000 per year.” Wow! But a little math will show how that is ridiculous. Total spending on all health care in the US runs around 16% of GDP. Total GDP for the US is about $14.6 trillion, so total health care spending comes out to about $2.33 trillion. There are 46.5 million people on Medicare. If they each paid $30,000 just for health care premiums, the premiums alone would total $1.39 trillion. So Tim Bishop wants us to believe that private health insurance premiums for seniors would cost 60% of all health care spending. It just doesn’t add up.

One of the techniques from ObamaCare to “bend the cost curve down” is to pay Medicare providers less and less. It is the same static thinking that the government can do what it wants and nobody will react to it. But in fact, here is one of the chief actuaries of Medicare testifying that 40% of service providers will stop serving Medicare patients. That means rationing and long waits. Who will decide? Not you, but a unelected panel of bureaucrats, accountable to no one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1igPowGu6M

Seniors forced onto for-profit insurance market — Tim Bishop

Tim Bishop makes his plug for socialism by quickly pointing out “for profit” insurance companies. Horrors. Just think of all the damage those “for profit” companies have done to us.

Yes those, for profit companies have made our lives hell compared to the altruistic, benevolent government enterprises. But we all know what happens when a free market is allowed to operate. Calculators that used to cost hundreds of dollars when first introduced are now throw away items; mobile phones that hit the market at $4,000 per copy are now $39; GPS systems that used to cost thousands and require a substantial unit be installed in the trunk of your car, are now a standard feature on your phone. Costs come down, features go up, service improves. Here is the actuary Mr. Foster talking about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z__m5IYoJBg

The True Cost Drivers of Medicare

Despite Tim Bishop’s scare tactics that costs will continue to skyrocket, let’s look at the true drivers of Medicare costs.

• Spending other people’s money. No one is going to spend a lot of time looking int to waste, fraud, and abuse if it is not directly affecting you. But it is about $2,150 per person per year. It is not going to get someone reelected to Congress to fix it, and the individual doesn’t care. If it affects the spending power of their premium and the profits of the evil “for profit” company, you can bet it will be attacked aggressively.
• The Government keeps expanding the goods and services covered by Medicare. I have seen quite enough TV advertisements for “The Scooter Store” telling me how I can get a “free” scooter completely paid for by Medicare.
• The Prescription Drug Plan passed by President Bush had no revenue stream associated with it, so this is all deficit spending. Let drug companies compete for the seniors’ business
• Medicare overpays for many items, because it sets prices higher than the free market would. Are you listening Congressman Bishop?
• Fee for Service – this encourages providers to deliver too many services. When in doubt, add it.

Where “for profit” companies are involved they watch the bottom line. A dollar saved in fraud, waste or abuse, goes straight to the bottom line. The company can decide to either increase profits or cut premiums to grow market share. Medicare is now soviet style centralized planning where a bunch of bureaucrats set prices on 30,000 items and somehow we are to believe they are smarter than all the doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and other health care providers.

Tim Bishop wants to kick the can down the road. Instead of making a contribution and working to fix the problem, he would prefer to scare seniors into voting for him so he can continue to draw his $174,000 salary and keep a low profile. It’s time to retire Congressman.

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

It is almost astounding to watch the news analysis programs after the latest jobs reports of the creation of a paltry 18,000 jobs and unemployment ticking up to 9.2%. Nearly lost in the data is that the news from prior months was revised in a negative direction and at the same time the progressive talking heads say the stimulus worked.

Well some do. Those with the courage to admit that it didn’t work are quick to say that it was only because it wasn’t big enough. Great! What we really need right now is to be $20 trillion in debt before we find out that didn’t work either. The other argument is the shoulda, coulda, woulda argument. “Imagine, how bad it would have been if we did nothing.” Back at you, “Imagine how great we would be doing if we didn’t have a Washington run ponzi scheme called Social Security and had personal savings accounts instead. Imagine how there would have been no financial crisis if Washington didn’t decided long ago that everyone has to own a home whether they could afford it or not. Imagine how energy independent we would be if Washington didn’t force us away from our own oil, natural gas, and nuclear power to buy from foreign despots.” I could go on, but I think you get the point.

When the talk on main street is about our massive debt and how concerned the average American is, the progressives launch into such things as saying the Republicans haven’t written a jobs bill, and cling desperately to their tax raising wealth transfer programs.

The Two Myths

The two progressive myths I refer to are that 1) government is responsible for creating jobs; and 2) we need the government to transfer wealth from those who have to those who don’t through taxes.

Private industry creates jobs, and more specifically small businesses create the most. The best way for the government to help with job creation is to stay the hell out of the way. As an example, there were a couple of wineries on Long Island whose business was stuck because they were waiting for word from Washington on approval of a change to the shape of the wine bottle and the label that would go on it. It took the involvement of a U.S. Congressman to get the process, which normally takes 48 hours but has been stuck for months, to break up the log jam. Why is Washington even involved? As a wine consumer, unless a skull and crossbones is on the label, there is nothing there that is a deal breaker in my decision on whether to buy that wine or not. It is a combination of price, type of wine, reputation of the winery, year that will most influence my decision. If the result is me is spraying the room with a mouthful of wine that tastes like dishwater, the news will spread about the reputation of the winery. Some clerk in a cubicle in Washington isn’t going to be the final arbiter of my choice.

Let’s look at innovation that is done by private industry and the fallacy of government genius becomes crystal clear. When a new technology product comes on the market it is typically expensive, often very expensive, and its features are few. In my own experience, when I first went to college to study engineering, on my first Christmas home I received a calculator as a present. I was thrilled. This was basically a four function calculator and it retailed for $130. Today, four function calculators are throw away items. The first automobile GPS system cost thousands of dollars and it required a large unit be installed in the trunk of the car. Today you can carry them in your pocket.

So what does all of this have to do with the topic at hand? Well, to get these products off the ground someone has to buy them. Who can afford them? The richer folks among us. In doing so, they have made a decision and a choice to take their wealth and exchange it for the new gadget. By doing so, their purchases fuel the innovation that improves the product and drives down the price. Driving down the price to the point where the masses can afford it with their lesser wealth while at the same time creating jobs by the thousands. All without a government program in sight. So there is your wealth transfer and job program, all without government programs, entered into willingly by all participants. We like to call that freedom and liberty.

“Wait a minute!” the progressives will exclaim, “How do you think GPS got invented if not for the government?” True enough. It was invented by or for the military, the same as was the case for the Internet. But the last time I looked the military is right there in Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution, so I am okay with that.

But so much for the invention, rolling it out to the masses was still done by private industry, not government. And because of the efforts of private industry, we are all a little bit richer than we otherwise might be, or than people elsewhere still are. Here is a further example.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FB0EhPM_M4

Can it be true? Those greedy capitalists thinking of ways to get rich by making products cheaper so that more people can afford them? The bastards! So the government should get out of the way of private enterprise. It cannot pick winners and losers. The Soviets couldn’t do it, the Cubans can’t do it, the Chinese are giving up on it, so why are the progressives clinging to it? We are not in the mess we are in because of a lack of government regulation and programs. We are in the mess we are in because 180 cases of wine sit on a loading dock on Long Island waiting for a phone call in Washington to say, “You’re label passed our excellent standards.” Please!

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