The Road to Financial Ruin:
Under Obama, instead of "hope and change" there will be "no hope" because there will be "no change". Our deficit is spiraling out of control, our GDP growth rate is anemic, and our unemployment rate is stagnant (and far worse than it appears because of the millions who have abandoned the work force out of a sense of hopelessness and despair).
The Deficit: Our government/the press isn't taking our 16 trillion dollar debt seriously enough. If we don't do something about this in the very near term, our country is going to go right down the tubes - just like Greece - riots and all. You would think you'd be hearing the politicans/press screaming about this from the rafters, but you hardly hear anything, and even when you do, it's seldom with any real sense of urgency.
The best comparison I can think of for this situation, is a snowball rolling down a hill - getting bigger and bigger, and rolling faster and faster. Pretty soon, it's pretty much unstoppable. Like the snowball, as our deficit gets bigger, it grows, not only by the yearly increase in the deficit, but by the ever growing interest on the deficit. Pretty soon, it's so far out of hand - that you can barely cover the interest on the debt, much less pay the deficit down any.
Entitlements: Changes need to be made to social security, medicare and medicaid. In the first four years of Obama's Presidency, he hasn't taken any actions to fix the long term problems inherent in our entitlement programs to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
GDP Growth: Under Obama, with a GDP growth rate of approximately 2%, we are experiencing the weakest recovery since the Great Depression. NOTE: During the Reagan years we hit a GDP growth rate of 7%.
Unemployment: Unemployment is holding at around 8%.
Most of the new jobs in the United States are created in small businesses. In order to create these jobs, we need the upper class (the rich) to invest in new or existing small businesses, and for the middle/lower class to be able to get loans and use it to create small businesses.
For the rich, they need to feel that there is a probability of making a profit, without which, they will not invest. For the middle/lower class, they need to be able to obtain loans to start their new businesses, and, again, to feel that there is propability of success. The likelihood of the rich, or the middle/lower class, investing is diminished if there is uncertainty. One factor of uncertainty is "Obamacare". A cost driver requiring businesses to either provide health care, pay a penalty, or make employees work part time. Another uncertainty would be the administration's proposed increase in the current income tax rate for the upper class. A third uncertainty, possible capital gains tax increases - which would lower the profit potential (while the risk of losing money on the new investment remains constant) also decreases the likelihood of investment. Uncertainty is not an inducement for investment.
For the middle/lower classes, they need to be able to get a loan to start their new business. Excessive banking regulations (Dodd/Frank) that inhibits, or prevents, the ability of people to get loans hurt job growth. We need to make sure that reasonable business ventures "get a shot" at being created and becoming a success.
Attitude and expectations play an extremely important role in job growth. Investors need to feel optimistic about the future - that their possible fiscal venture has a reasonable chance of success. Our goal needs to be to do everything we can to make the climate favorable for investment, business creation, and job growth. Without this investment, these businesses will simply not get built, and therefore the new jobs won't be forthcoming. For, in new startups, they "did build that".
Government's role: Before retiring I was a Comptroller of a organization with approximately 800 employees, and $400M/year in revenue. I sort of liken overhead costs at our organization with the function of the federal government. With the federal government being the overhead to the private sector. The federal govt has numerous vital functions - national defense, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc. However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal govt are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country at the lowest possible cost.
When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles. This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter. Vital means vital. If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it. We need government to be as small as it can be. Keeping costs down will help with the deficit, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage. We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficit), not the government sector. Growing the government sector just increases our debt.
I sort of like M. Romney's statement at the last debate, if it isn't worth borrowing money from China to pay for, it isn't worth doing.
Resource Utilization: "The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service" ( see - http://www.humanevents.com/2009/11/02/us-tops-in-energy-resources/).
Even a hardened progressive such as Walter Russell Mead was forced to admit the obvious (see http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/sectors/item/12355-america%E2%80%99s-exploding-energy-reserves-are-also-exploding-myths):
"If the energy revolution now taking shape lives up to its full potential, we are headed into a new century in which the location of the world’s energy resources and the structure of the world’s energy trade support American affluence at home and power abroad….
The energy bonanza changes the American outlook far more dramatically than most people yet realize. This is a Big One, a game changer, and it will likely be a major factor in propelling the United States to the next (and still unknown) stage of development — towards the next incarnation of the American Dream".
We need to fully utilize our natural resources - coal, oil, natural gas. We need to build additional nuclear power plants. We need to try to figure out a way to get nuclear fusion to work. We need to approve the Keystone pipeline. NOTE: The above actions will have the very important side beneifit of creating at least 1 million new jobs. We simply need to make ourselves energy independent. We need to be rid ourselves of our dependancy on countries that we are not friends with (middle east countries/Venuzeula). We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), it's time to garner and utilize this energy.
We should provide grants to state of the art research centers/colleges, and aggresively pursue research into nuclear fusion. Prizes could be offered that even someone working out of their garage could win. NOTE: If we could figure out nuclear fusion, we could solve the world's energy problems AND curtail greenhouse gas emissions.
We should discontinue providing funds to the Solyndra's of the world. This just throws money (money that we don't even have) down the proverbial black hole. A Solyndra is not competitive with the same sort of companies where cheap labor resides (like in China), and, even more importantly, they are not competitive with less the expensive fossil fuel utilization. The government should not be picking winners and losers between businesses.
The energy is out there, and countries will garner and use it. Energy is what makes the world run, and there is simply and ever growing need for it. If Obama is truly concerned about greenhouse emissions and their adverse effect on our planet, he should want the country that is in the best position to garner these resources in as climate friendly of a manner as possible to be the one doing so - and that would be us - certainly not a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia, a Venezuela, or a Brazil. Rather than being a "climate savior", which I suspect is how he thinks of himself, failure to garner and use our energy reserves is actually a disservice (I aliken it to planetary treason on Obama's part) to the long term viability of this planet.
The future looks bright - as long as President Obama and his overzealous EPA henchman don't ruin this opportunity for all of us. The man who said - "under my plan, electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket" ( if you want to see this 2008 Obama conversation do an internet search on - "Obama energy costs skyrocket"), and who stopped the Keystone Pipeline cold can't be trusted to do what is right for the American people on this issue.
Consolidation: Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area. Was kind of shocked at the real estate tax rates for same (at least as compared to where I lived before). Anyway, was looking at a Pittsburgh county map, and noticed that there were in excess of 50 townships (or they might call them bureaus).
Started thinking about the above. It's no wonder that taxes are so high - rather than consolidating, you have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc. Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible, huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers of the Pittsburgh area (and other cities, townships and counties across the U. S.). Probably the most logical consolidation level would be at the city level, or in absence of a big city, at the county level. Township governments should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Most people don't even know who their local township officials are.
Actually, I'd be shocked it Pittsburgh couldn't reduce taxes by at least 50% if they were to consolidate. Realize that such a proposition would be fought tooth and nail by all the political officials/the govt employees in the Pittsburgh area as consolidation would obviously be a real negative for them. But - it's what's best for the taxpayers............ Monies could be spent on what people wanted rather than on unnecessary duplication of effort.
We don't need over 50 sets of peoples doing exactly the same kinds of things. Consolidation could lead to massive tax cuts. Also, the long term burden for states and localities would be reduced - less employees = less retirement costs (pensions and health care costs) NOTE: You can attrition the personnel down, rather than have massive personnel cuts.
Consolidation should also be practived wthin the federal government to the maximum extent posible. The BRAC closings done by the Department of Defense in the 1980s and 1990s are perfect examples.
Too big to fail:
We need to fix this situation. Nothing should be too big to fail. If a bank is so big that we (the United States) can't afford to let it fail because of its probable adverse affects on the economy, it needs to be broken up. NOTE: An example of breaking up companies is Teddy Roosevlt back in the early 1900s. Believe they called it trustbusting.
Once the "too big to fail" banks are broken up, banks will know that a bail-out is no longer an option, and they will exercise due discretion in their business transactions.
Indeed, the housing bubble that caused "The Great Recession" was related to overvalued housing prices and bad mortgages - and not George Bush/Corporate greed - as Democrats are prone to say. The over valued housing prices set us up for a fall, but it was the bad mortages - a plan pushed by our federal government since the Clinton administration that forced banks to make loans to people who would not normally qualify for home loans that caused the recession. While getting people in their own homes is a laudable goal, getting people who can't afford their mortgage payments in a home was a recipe for disaster, and is what caused the recession. Some Democrats like to blame the practice of bundling of mortgages as one of the main causes of the recession. Untrue, bundling good mortages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.
Unions: Unionization in general is fine, but union members, and specifically union management, need to keep in mind that excessive demands, that make the companies/industries that their union members work for uncompetitive, is totally counterproductive - i.e., not in the best interests of, the union members that they are representing. On a totally related aside, kneejerk support by Democrats of unreasonable union demans is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.
All of the above was fixable, and would have been under a Mitt Romney Presidency.
Sadly, under Obama, the deficit will continue to snowball, we will be downgraded by lending agencies, and we will continue to march down the path to becoming the new Greece. I suspect it will take us a generation to recover - much as it took West Germany a generation (or more) to recover from WW2.
No comments:
Post a Comment