Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Education Report Card Ranking Performance
The sooner we can get the federal government out of education the better we will be. The states can do a much better job of deciding on performance of students and legislators.
The people have a much better chance of influencing outcomes for their students if they have a closer relationships with the people that control the money and educational material used in the class room.
Report Card on American Education
Source: Matthew Ladner and Dan Lips, "Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress and Reform," American Legislative Exchange Council, January 2012.
The American Legislative Exchange Council's 17th edition of the Report Card on American Education contains a comprehensive overview of educational achievement levels (performance and gains for low-income students) for the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The Report Card details what education policies states currently have in place and provides a roadmap for legislators to follow to bring about educational excellence in their state, say Matthew Ladner, senior adviser of policy and research for the Foundation for Excellence in Education, and Dan Lips, a senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute.
Focusing on the reforms recently enacted in Indiana, and with a foreword by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, the Report Card examines the experiences other states can learn from the struggles and triumphs in Indiana. Ladner and Lips analyze student scores, looking at both performance as well as how scores have improved over recent years. Additionally, each state is graded based on its current education policies.
The top five states for performance were:
Massachusetts.
Vermont.
New Jersey.
Colorado.
Pennsylvania.
The bottom five states for performance were:
West Virginia.
South Carolina.
Louisiana.
Mississippi.
Missouri.
Despite ranking 47th in performance, Missouri was the only state to receive an A-grade (A-) when it comes to education policy.
Green Energy Stealing Resources From the Poor
Green energy is not ready for public consumption as witnessed by the failure of all such projects. But then it was never really meant to be workable, just used as a means to stop fossil fuel expansion and use.
Green energy is a 'straw man' used by environmentalists to stop the expansion of industry in this country and around the world. What the environs see fossil fuel recovery as the destruction of 'mother earth' through the consumption of our natural resources, but the rest of us see industrial expansion with fossil fuels as the future of freedom and prosperity. More than 50% of all energy in this country comes from fossil fuels.
With cancellation of the XL pipe line and the creation of 20,000 new jobs immediately, the Obama administration believes it is more important to cater to his environmental base then help our country to survive. Again, it's not about the country, it's about power, getting it and keeping it no matter the cost.
When "Being Green" Means Favoring the Rich
Source: Iain Murray and David Bier, "When 'Being Green' Means Subsidies for Rich, Harm for the Poor," Washington Examiner, January 23, 2012.
During last year's Occupy Wall Street protests, President Obama expressed sympathy with calls for more "green" policies from the self-styled advocates for the 99 percent. So far, however, the environmental agenda has overwhelmingly favored the 1 percent, say Iain Murray, vice president, and David Bier, a research analyst, at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Consider the Obama administration's subsidies for electric vehicles.
To start with, there is the $7,500 credit for the car itself. Add to that the recently expired $1,000 credit for installation of a 220-volt charger. And on top of these, the government has thrown more than $3 billion at the Chevrolet Volt alone -- which totals out to $250,000 per vehicle.
Not only do these credits go to corporate giants like General Motors, they subsidize cars for the wealthy. The Volt sells for about $40,000, while the Fisker Karma sells for $100,000 -- well above most Americans' price range.
That means that the federal government is again working to benefit the rich so they can drive cars that ease their environmental conscience. In fact, nearly every environmental policy hurts the poor the most.
Last year, Americans spent more on gasoline as a percentage of their income than they have for 30 years.
Yet that hasn't stopped the president, cheered on by his environmentalist allies, from rejecting the Keystone XL oil pipeline or restricting offshore oil permits.
Green energy is a 'straw man' used by environmentalists to stop the expansion of industry in this country and around the world. What the environs see fossil fuel recovery as the destruction of 'mother earth' through the consumption of our natural resources, but the rest of us see industrial expansion with fossil fuels as the future of freedom and prosperity. More than 50% of all energy in this country comes from fossil fuels.
With cancellation of the XL pipe line and the creation of 20,000 new jobs immediately, the Obama administration believes it is more important to cater to his environmental base then help our country to survive. Again, it's not about the country, it's about power, getting it and keeping it no matter the cost.
When "Being Green" Means Favoring the Rich
Source: Iain Murray and David Bier, "When 'Being Green' Means Subsidies for Rich, Harm for the Poor," Washington Examiner, January 23, 2012.
During last year's Occupy Wall Street protests, President Obama expressed sympathy with calls for more "green" policies from the self-styled advocates for the 99 percent. So far, however, the environmental agenda has overwhelmingly favored the 1 percent, say Iain Murray, vice president, and David Bier, a research analyst, at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Consider the Obama administration's subsidies for electric vehicles.
To start with, there is the $7,500 credit for the car itself. Add to that the recently expired $1,000 credit for installation of a 220-volt charger. And on top of these, the government has thrown more than $3 billion at the Chevrolet Volt alone -- which totals out to $250,000 per vehicle.
Not only do these credits go to corporate giants like General Motors, they subsidize cars for the wealthy. The Volt sells for about $40,000, while the Fisker Karma sells for $100,000 -- well above most Americans' price range.
That means that the federal government is again working to benefit the rich so they can drive cars that ease their environmental conscience. In fact, nearly every environmental policy hurts the poor the most.
Last year, Americans spent more on gasoline as a percentage of their income than they have for 30 years.
Yet that hasn't stopped the president, cheered on by his environmentalist allies, from rejecting the Keystone XL oil pipeline or restricting offshore oil permits.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Health Care Spending Increasing : Competition Going Down
ObamaCare, and other government intervention in the free market, screws up everything. And who suffers the most, the poor and those that find themselves without a job, those without company sponsored health insurance. These are the very individuals that Obama said he wanted to be the basis of his health care plan. He lied.
The Obama intention was to make those that can afford the insurance to pay more and for those that can't pay more, the vast majority of the population, pay little or nothing. The eventual result is the complete destruction of the health care system. We will become Cuba.
Go figure!
If Health Spending Is Increasing Slower, Why Are Premiums Rising Faster?
Source: John Graham, "If Health Spending Is Increasing Slower, Why Are Premiums Rising Faster?" Pacific Research Institute, January 2012.
The financial crisis of 2008, which resulted in a significant jump in unemployment, meant that the number of Americans with private coverage dropped. As a result, the overall rate of private health spending has decreased, compared to recent years, says John Graham, director of health care studies at the Pacific Research Institute.
According the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the annual rate of increase in spending by private health insurance was 7.8 percent in 2007, but has since dropped to just 2.4 percent in 2010.
CMS data also shows that the "net cost of health insurance" (that is, the share of health insurance that does not pay for medical claims) shrank by an average of about 2 percent annually in 2008 and 2009.
These results are expected during a recession. However, these trends were rapidly reversed with the signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010, as premiums rapidly increased.
The "net cost of health insurance," which as mentioned above actually decreased in 2008 and 2009, jumped by 8.4 percent in 2010.
CMS' analysts pointed out that the rate of growth in total private health insurance premiums was greater than the growth in total benefits for the first time in seven years in 2010.
The Kaiser Family Foundation's latest survey of employer-based health benefits reported a significant increase in total health costs of 9.5 percent from 2010 to 2011. As these premiums become increasingly unaffordable for many small businesses, enrollment will drop as the proportion of small firms offering health benefits already decreased from 69 percent to 60 percent just from 2010 to 2011.
The rapid turnaround and subsequent increase in premiums is due to two separate factors. First, the PPACA introduced a number of "consumer protections" that inherently increase costs, such as the expansion of coverage to children until age 26.
Second, as insurers consciously reduce market share in a burdensome and uncertain market, those who can bear the regulations benefit from decreased competition, allowing them to increase rates without consequence. This drives up costs for recession-hit individuals and families nationwide.
The Obama intention was to make those that can afford the insurance to pay more and for those that can't pay more, the vast majority of the population, pay little or nothing. The eventual result is the complete destruction of the health care system. We will become Cuba.
Go figure!
If Health Spending Is Increasing Slower, Why Are Premiums Rising Faster?
Source: John Graham, "If Health Spending Is Increasing Slower, Why Are Premiums Rising Faster?" Pacific Research Institute, January 2012.
The financial crisis of 2008, which resulted in a significant jump in unemployment, meant that the number of Americans with private coverage dropped. As a result, the overall rate of private health spending has decreased, compared to recent years, says John Graham, director of health care studies at the Pacific Research Institute.
According the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the annual rate of increase in spending by private health insurance was 7.8 percent in 2007, but has since dropped to just 2.4 percent in 2010.
CMS data also shows that the "net cost of health insurance" (that is, the share of health insurance that does not pay for medical claims) shrank by an average of about 2 percent annually in 2008 and 2009.
These results are expected during a recession. However, these trends were rapidly reversed with the signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010, as premiums rapidly increased.
The "net cost of health insurance," which as mentioned above actually decreased in 2008 and 2009, jumped by 8.4 percent in 2010.
CMS' analysts pointed out that the rate of growth in total private health insurance premiums was greater than the growth in total benefits for the first time in seven years in 2010.
The Kaiser Family Foundation's latest survey of employer-based health benefits reported a significant increase in total health costs of 9.5 percent from 2010 to 2011. As these premiums become increasingly unaffordable for many small businesses, enrollment will drop as the proportion of small firms offering health benefits already decreased from 69 percent to 60 percent just from 2010 to 2011.
The rapid turnaround and subsequent increase in premiums is due to two separate factors. First, the PPACA introduced a number of "consumer protections" that inherently increase costs, such as the expansion of coverage to children until age 26.
Second, as insurers consciously reduce market share in a burdensome and uncertain market, those who can bear the regulations benefit from decreased competition, allowing them to increase rates without consequence. This drives up costs for recession-hit individuals and families nationwide.
Global Warming? No! Global Cooling Coming
Interesting stuff - the question I have is why is the scientific community even questioning the computer models used by the 'warmers' when so much of it has been proven to be fraudulent.
And even the guy on the street can tell you, when the sun doesn't shine in the summer it's cooler, and in the winter, when the sun is low in the sky, it's colder. Why would scientists who supposedly are the smartest people in the room say the sun really doesn't have much effect on climate? It's just common sense, isn't it?
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) UK Mail Online 1-30-12· Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
By David Rose
Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.
More...
Hotter summers 'may kill 5,900 every year', warns first national risk assessment of climate change
Winter bites back: Britain braced for first cold snap of year as ice and snow transform countryside in scenes of breathtaking beauty
What are the mysterious blue balls that fell from the sky over Bournemouth?
According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’ He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998. So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’. ‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said.
Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand. ‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific. ‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
And even the guy on the street can tell you, when the sun doesn't shine in the summer it's cooler, and in the winter, when the sun is low in the sky, it's colder. Why would scientists who supposedly are the smartest people in the room say the sun really doesn't have much effect on climate? It's just common sense, isn't it?
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) UK Mail Online 1-30-12· Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
By David Rose
Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.
More...
Hotter summers 'may kill 5,900 every year', warns first national risk assessment of climate change
Winter bites back: Britain braced for first cold snap of year as ice and snow transform countryside in scenes of breathtaking beauty
What are the mysterious blue balls that fell from the sky over Bournemouth?
According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’ He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998. So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’. ‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said.
Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand. ‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific. ‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
Sunday, January 29, 2012
ISOU Message Managed News : BHO Laughs At Public
This president will say anything to get votes. It's truly unprecedented in our history that a sitting president would knowingly lie to the public. Just think about this for a minute and try to comprehend the magnitude of this.
Try to comprehend how virtually the entire media, and much of the general public, accepts this without demanding retribution for such actions.
Imagine what would happen if this was George Bush or any Republican.
Energy. National Center for Policy Analysis
Although he was silent on his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, the President said, “This country needs and all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.”
He said we should open at least 75% of the potential offshore oil and gas resources and develop more clean energy. The President didn’t mention the $535 million bet that taxpayers lost when solar panel company Solyndra went bankrupt. Nevertheless, he said taxpayers should “double-down” on subsidies for clean energy.
Try to comprehend how virtually the entire media, and much of the general public, accepts this without demanding retribution for such actions.
Imagine what would happen if this was George Bush or any Republican.
Energy. National Center for Policy Analysis
Although he was silent on his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, the President said, “This country needs and all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.”
He said we should open at least 75% of the potential offshore oil and gas resources and develop more clean energy. The President didn’t mention the $535 million bet that taxpayers lost when solar panel company Solyndra went bankrupt. Nevertheless, he said taxpayers should “double-down” on subsidies for clean energy.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Sarah Palin's Message About GOP Savagery
This is a must read for all of us that thinks the character assassination going on in the GOP debates is really bad for Conservatives and our country.
http://t.co/9OIg92Q1
http://t.co/9OIg92Q1
Europeans Invest In America : A Rising Danger for EU
As bad as the United States is as a place for investment given our current financial condition, it is still a whole lot better than what is going on in Europe.
The Europeans still believe America is the most stable country in the world, but they should take a few moments to consider just what might be waiting just around the corner if Mr. Obama gets another term. Our economy is moving forward but is straining it's capacity with what workers it has now.
Industry has no plans to hire more works if it can push the ones that they have as hard as they can to achieve their future goals. And the workers know this and say nothing as they are aware of the thin line between having food on the table and staying warm in the winter against freezing in an unemployment line.
This is great news just the same on the investment front, but I must take the author to task on his stance that Republicans are against immigration. This is entirely untrue. What Republicans want is legal immigration, not the free-for-all that is taking place on our boarder now. To ignore this is as a problem, we do so at our own peril.
This Is America's Moment, If Washington Doesn't Blow It
Source: Joel Kotkin, "This Is America's Moment, If Washington Doesn't Blow It," New Geography, January 19, 2012.
The vast majority of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, and, according to a 2011 Pew Survey, close to a majority feel that China has already surpassed the United States as an economic power. However, these views ignore some of the greatest components of America's economic, political and social success that will continue or increase in importance in the near future, says Joel Kotkin, executive editor of NewGeography.com.
In energy resources, America finds itself in one of the best positions it has ever known: increased technology and new discoveries have made it the world's largest producer of natural gas, and it could emerge as the leading oil producer by 2017.
The U.S. agricultural sector is also booming, with exports reaching a record $135.5 billion in 2011, and food prices are projected to continue to increase.
In manufacturing, while China has been plagued with rumors of worker unrest (making investors uneasy) and Japan, Germany and Brazil have scaled back production, U.S. manufacturers have expanded their payrolls for two straight years.
These are advantages that America is rapidly exploiting, yet they are only a small manifestation of America's thriving economy. This can be seen in the demographic and competitive fundamentals of the economy, which remain strong and portend future growth.
America is one of the most competitive economies in the world, with foreign investment in the United States rising 49 percent in 2010, while overall investment in the European Union dropped 36 percent in 2009.
In information, America's domination appears invulnerable, with more than two-thirds of the world's 500 largest software companies and nine of the top 10 located in its borders.
In terms of demographics, America's population growth has remained relatively stable, thereby sidestepping the issues involved in having a large elderly population that Germany and Japan will encounter.
In order to capitalize on these fundamental boons, both political parties will need to amend their policies and belief systems. Democrats will need to realize the damaging effects of higher income taxes on entrepreneurialism and free markets. They must also embrace America's natural advantage in fossil fuels.
Republicans, on the other hand, will need to surrender their vendetta against immigrants, who diversify America's pool of skills, and bow to infrastructure needs.
The Europeans still believe America is the most stable country in the world, but they should take a few moments to consider just what might be waiting just around the corner if Mr. Obama gets another term. Our economy is moving forward but is straining it's capacity with what workers it has now.
Industry has no plans to hire more works if it can push the ones that they have as hard as they can to achieve their future goals. And the workers know this and say nothing as they are aware of the thin line between having food on the table and staying warm in the winter against freezing in an unemployment line.
This is great news just the same on the investment front, but I must take the author to task on his stance that Republicans are against immigration. This is entirely untrue. What Republicans want is legal immigration, not the free-for-all that is taking place on our boarder now. To ignore this is as a problem, we do so at our own peril.
This Is America's Moment, If Washington Doesn't Blow It
Source: Joel Kotkin, "This Is America's Moment, If Washington Doesn't Blow It," New Geography, January 19, 2012.
The vast majority of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, and, according to a 2011 Pew Survey, close to a majority feel that China has already surpassed the United States as an economic power. However, these views ignore some of the greatest components of America's economic, political and social success that will continue or increase in importance in the near future, says Joel Kotkin, executive editor of NewGeography.com.
In energy resources, America finds itself in one of the best positions it has ever known: increased technology and new discoveries have made it the world's largest producer of natural gas, and it could emerge as the leading oil producer by 2017.
The U.S. agricultural sector is also booming, with exports reaching a record $135.5 billion in 2011, and food prices are projected to continue to increase.
In manufacturing, while China has been plagued with rumors of worker unrest (making investors uneasy) and Japan, Germany and Brazil have scaled back production, U.S. manufacturers have expanded their payrolls for two straight years.
These are advantages that America is rapidly exploiting, yet they are only a small manifestation of America's thriving economy. This can be seen in the demographic and competitive fundamentals of the economy, which remain strong and portend future growth.
America is one of the most competitive economies in the world, with foreign investment in the United States rising 49 percent in 2010, while overall investment in the European Union dropped 36 percent in 2009.
In information, America's domination appears invulnerable, with more than two-thirds of the world's 500 largest software companies and nine of the top 10 located in its borders.
In terms of demographics, America's population growth has remained relatively stable, thereby sidestepping the issues involved in having a large elderly population that Germany and Japan will encounter.
In order to capitalize on these fundamental boons, both political parties will need to amend their policies and belief systems. Democrats will need to realize the damaging effects of higher income taxes on entrepreneurialism and free markets. They must also embrace America's natural advantage in fossil fuels.
Republicans, on the other hand, will need to surrender their vendetta against immigrants, who diversify America's pool of skills, and bow to infrastructure needs.
Debt Bomb Coming? No! It's Here
Just when is the right time to take responsibility for our own actions? Better yet, how do we make sure that those in charge of the national debt take the responsibility for not doing anything about fixing the problem?
Washington seems to have a way of always making things worse rather than better no matter what it is. The trouble now is we are at a 'tipping' point where if we do nothing to solve the problem, we are doomed to lives of subsistence. If we start now, it will take many generations for us to regain some kind of real prosperity but at least we have a chance.
Worst case scenario if we do nothing now, we will become like Greece in that our country is failing, but unlike Greece, we are much larger and our problems are much larger and harder to fix as well.
Writing Checks against the Future
Source: Emily Skarbek, "Writing Checks against the Future," Washington Examiner, January 22, 2012.
Despite its prevalence in the national dialogue, controlling the burgeoning government debt does not appear to be a priority of the federal government. Approval of the Budget Control Act last August did little to control deficit spending and the government continues on an increasingly perilous course from which it will be difficult to recover, says Emily Skarbek, a research fellow at the Independent Institute.
On January 9, the federal government's debt officially surpassed $15 trillion -- an amount larger than the total annual output of the U.S. economy.
At present, the Obama administration projects total debt to increase by $26 trillion in 10 years, which is more than 15 percent higher than the projected $22.5 trillion gross domestic product.
Public debt has increased by at least $500 billion per year every year since 2003. More than 30 percent of the current total (some $4.6 trillion) has been accumulated in just the past four years.
Dismissing these concerns, some argue that the debt only continues to grow because of low interest rates and that all is well because we owe this money to ourselves. However, this misleads a national audience to the point that they do not recognize the unprecedented nature of the current situation.
Public debts of this magnitude have historically been reserved for massive capital investments or emergencies. However, the current debt is ballooning solely because of current consumption, as tax dollars leak into the hands of a variety of interest groups. Large corporations, the big banks and financial institutions, federal entitlement recipients, health care providers, defense manufacturers and government workers each leech away public monies to the point that President Obama's call for a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling has become a formality.
Washington seems to have a way of always making things worse rather than better no matter what it is. The trouble now is we are at a 'tipping' point where if we do nothing to solve the problem, we are doomed to lives of subsistence. If we start now, it will take many generations for us to regain some kind of real prosperity but at least we have a chance.
Worst case scenario if we do nothing now, we will become like Greece in that our country is failing, but unlike Greece, we are much larger and our problems are much larger and harder to fix as well.
Writing Checks against the Future
Source: Emily Skarbek, "Writing Checks against the Future," Washington Examiner, January 22, 2012.
Despite its prevalence in the national dialogue, controlling the burgeoning government debt does not appear to be a priority of the federal government. Approval of the Budget Control Act last August did little to control deficit spending and the government continues on an increasingly perilous course from which it will be difficult to recover, says Emily Skarbek, a research fellow at the Independent Institute.
On January 9, the federal government's debt officially surpassed $15 trillion -- an amount larger than the total annual output of the U.S. economy.
At present, the Obama administration projects total debt to increase by $26 trillion in 10 years, which is more than 15 percent higher than the projected $22.5 trillion gross domestic product.
Public debt has increased by at least $500 billion per year every year since 2003. More than 30 percent of the current total (some $4.6 trillion) has been accumulated in just the past four years.
Dismissing these concerns, some argue that the debt only continues to grow because of low interest rates and that all is well because we owe this money to ourselves. However, this misleads a national audience to the point that they do not recognize the unprecedented nature of the current situation.
Public debts of this magnitude have historically been reserved for massive capital investments or emergencies. However, the current debt is ballooning solely because of current consumption, as tax dollars leak into the hands of a variety of interest groups. Large corporations, the big banks and financial institutions, federal entitlement recipients, health care providers, defense manufacturers and government workers each leech away public monies to the point that President Obama's call for a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling has become a formality.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Federal Employees Owe Millions in Unpaid Taxes
The question then is why isn't the IRS going after these people to get the money that the rest of us has to pay? Yeah, maybe they can't pay their taxes because they aren't paid enough.
Maybe the answer is if they don't want to pay, have them sweep the streets for a few hours a day to make payments!
Can you imagine these 'smartest guys in the room' types having to do actual work to pay their bills. Yikes!
Federal Employees Owe $1.03 Billion in Unpaid Taxes
Source: Ed O'Keefe, "Federal Employees Owe $1.03 Billion in Unpaid Taxes," January 23, 2012
Congressional staffers owed about $10.6 million in unpaid taxes in 2010, a slight increase from the previous year and a growing slice of the roughly $1 billion owed by federal and postal workers nationwide, says the Washington Post.
About 98,000 federal, postal and congressional employees owed $1.03 billion in unpaid taxes at the end of fiscal 2010, according to records provided by the Internal Revenue Service.
The total number of delinquent employees dipped slightly from 2009, but the amount owed jumped by $32 million.
On Capitol Hill, 684 employees, or almost 4 percent, of the 18,000 congressional staffers owed taxes in 2010 -- a jump of 46 workers from 2009. Four percent of House staffers owed $8.5 million and 3 percent of Senate employees owed $2.1 million, the IRS said.
Civilian employees of the Defense Department -- the federal government's largest employer -- fared the worst: More than 25,600 workers at the departments of the Army, Air Force and Navy owed a combined $225.7 million, while another 4,600 civilian Pentagon employees owed $39.4 million.
Overall, American taxpayers owed $114.2 billion in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties at the end of fiscal 2010, according to the IRS.
.
Maybe the answer is if they don't want to pay, have them sweep the streets for a few hours a day to make payments!
Can you imagine these 'smartest guys in the room' types having to do actual work to pay their bills. Yikes!
Federal Employees Owe $1.03 Billion in Unpaid Taxes
Source: Ed O'Keefe, "Federal Employees Owe $1.03 Billion in Unpaid Taxes," January 23, 2012
Congressional staffers owed about $10.6 million in unpaid taxes in 2010, a slight increase from the previous year and a growing slice of the roughly $1 billion owed by federal and postal workers nationwide, says the Washington Post.
About 98,000 federal, postal and congressional employees owed $1.03 billion in unpaid taxes at the end of fiscal 2010, according to records provided by the Internal Revenue Service.
The total number of delinquent employees dipped slightly from 2009, but the amount owed jumped by $32 million.
On Capitol Hill, 684 employees, or almost 4 percent, of the 18,000 congressional staffers owed taxes in 2010 -- a jump of 46 workers from 2009. Four percent of House staffers owed $8.5 million and 3 percent of Senate employees owed $2.1 million, the IRS said.
Civilian employees of the Defense Department -- the federal government's largest employer -- fared the worst: More than 25,600 workers at the departments of the Army, Air Force and Navy owed a combined $225.7 million, while another 4,600 civilian Pentagon employees owed $39.4 million.
Overall, American taxpayers owed $114.2 billion in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties at the end of fiscal 2010, according to the IRS.
.
Artic Becoming Battle Ground : Russia Will Sends Troops
This all seems like more things we have heard before, 'get together with our NATO allies and discuss what needs to be done'. What exactly needs to be discussed?
First, NATO will not be able to do anything as they are toothless. NATO nations want nothing to do with 'adventurism' in a part of the world far, far away. If something needs to be done, it will be up to the United States to do it. Secondly, Canada the other northern nations that have a stake in this will want to do their part but exactly what can they contribute?
And going to the United Nations for direction and cooperation on international law is just a joke.
Energy Needs Fueling Tensions in the Arctic
Source: Alan Dowd, "The Big Chill: Energy Needs Fueling Tensions in the Arctic," Fraser Institute, December 1, 2011.
While today's energy concerns turn focus disproportionately toward the Middle East, international tension over the last decade suggests that tomorrow's battleground will be the far off Arctic Circle. With vast untapped reserves of natural gases and oil, the region has increasingly become a topic of discussion among the northernmost countries as national leaders vie for a larger share of its resources, says Alan Dowd, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic may hold 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- 30 percent of the world's undiscovered gas.
According to that same study, the region also contains 90 billion barrels of oil, which constitutes 13 percent of undiscovered reserves.
The large endowment of these natural resources is not a new discovery, but the price of these commodities has only recently risen high enough that extraction from the Arctic Circle would be cost efficient. Furthermore, with forecasts from the Energy Information Agency estimating a 20 percent increase in daily world oil consumption by 2030, prices will continue to climb and the Arctic's resources will become more valuable.
Given this context, it is no surprise that the nations that line the Arctic Circle are increasingly searching for means to stake their claim to broad swathes of the territory. This is especially true of the United States and Russia: the United States cites Alaska and its proximity to the Arctic as substantive motive for involvement while Russia looks to an underwater ridge extending from its continental shelf. Their conflicting claims are a growing source of strife.
Russia claimed almost half the Arctic Circle in 2001, substantiating this claim in 2007 when it planted a flag below the North Pole. In 2011, Russia announced plans to deploy two army brigades (10,000 troops) to defend its Arctic claims.
In order to make progress on this front and help ensure that Russia is not allowed to take advantage of its outsized claims, the United States will need to cooperate with its NATO allies who also have an interest in the region, including Canada and the Scandinavian countries. It should also consider ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to establish standards for negotiation.
First, NATO will not be able to do anything as they are toothless. NATO nations want nothing to do with 'adventurism' in a part of the world far, far away. If something needs to be done, it will be up to the United States to do it. Secondly, Canada the other northern nations that have a stake in this will want to do their part but exactly what can they contribute?
And going to the United Nations for direction and cooperation on international law is just a joke.
Energy Needs Fueling Tensions in the Arctic
Source: Alan Dowd, "The Big Chill: Energy Needs Fueling Tensions in the Arctic," Fraser Institute, December 1, 2011.
While today's energy concerns turn focus disproportionately toward the Middle East, international tension over the last decade suggests that tomorrow's battleground will be the far off Arctic Circle. With vast untapped reserves of natural gases and oil, the region has increasingly become a topic of discussion among the northernmost countries as national leaders vie for a larger share of its resources, says Alan Dowd, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic may hold 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- 30 percent of the world's undiscovered gas.
According to that same study, the region also contains 90 billion barrels of oil, which constitutes 13 percent of undiscovered reserves.
The large endowment of these natural resources is not a new discovery, but the price of these commodities has only recently risen high enough that extraction from the Arctic Circle would be cost efficient. Furthermore, with forecasts from the Energy Information Agency estimating a 20 percent increase in daily world oil consumption by 2030, prices will continue to climb and the Arctic's resources will become more valuable.
Given this context, it is no surprise that the nations that line the Arctic Circle are increasingly searching for means to stake their claim to broad swathes of the territory. This is especially true of the United States and Russia: the United States cites Alaska and its proximity to the Arctic as substantive motive for involvement while Russia looks to an underwater ridge extending from its continental shelf. Their conflicting claims are a growing source of strife.
Russia claimed almost half the Arctic Circle in 2001, substantiating this claim in 2007 when it planted a flag below the North Pole. In 2011, Russia announced plans to deploy two army brigades (10,000 troops) to defend its Arctic claims.
In order to make progress on this front and help ensure that Russia is not allowed to take advantage of its outsized claims, the United States will need to cooperate with its NATO allies who also have an interest in the region, including Canada and the Scandinavian countries. It should also consider ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to establish standards for negotiation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
