Destinys Choice - America Is

Government Regulation Killing Ag Jobs : Who Knew?

2012-02-01T08:35:00.002-06:00

Just when do we say enough is enough with government intervention in our lives? These new regulations are managed as they don't say who was injured or where or how bad or what kind of injury it was.

This is just more people, miles away, making decisions for all us because they know what's best.

Proposed Federal Rules Would Limit Kids' Work on Farms
Source: Judy Keen, "Proposed federal rules would limit kids' work on farms," USA Today, January 25, 2012.

After four years of silence on the issue, the Labor Department has released a swathe of new regulations governing child labor in the agriculture sector. Citing injury and fatality reports from recent years, labor officials state that the new rules were proposed in order to protect youths from activities that have proven to be exceedingly dangerous, says USA Today.

Children under age 16 who are being paid will not be allowed to operate most power-driven equipment, including tractors and combines, with some exceptions for approved vehicles.
Those under age 18 will be prohibited from working at grain elevators, silos, feedlots and livestock auctions, and from transporting raw farm materials.

Youths under age 16 will be barred from cultivating, curing and harvesting tobacco to prevent exposure to green tobacco sickness.

Youths will not be allowed to use electronic devices while operating power-driven equipment.
These proposed regulations will not apply to children who are employed by their own parents. Nonetheless, many agricultural workers point out that their children will be limited from working on neighbors' and relatives' plots because of the burdensome new regulations.

Labor officials have justified the regulations by pointing out that youth injuries and fatalities on farms are a frequent occurrence, and that the rules target those activities that are most dangerous. According to the latest data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, more than 15,000 youths under the age of 20 were injured on farms in 2009, with most of these injuries stemming from the completion of farm chores.

However, this justification did not prevent the regulations from pulling a staggering 18,000 comments from the public after being published in the annual Federal Register.

Education Report Card Ranking Performance

2012-01-31T08:27:00.003-06:00

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

2012-01-31T08:05:00.004-06:00

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.

Health Care Spending Increasing : Competition Going Down

2012-01-30T07:59:00.003-06:00

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.

Global Warming? No! Global Cooling Coming

2012-01-30T07:36:00.002-06:00

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.’

ISOU Message Managed News : BHO Laughs At Public

2012-01-29T05:51:00.004-06:00

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.

Sarah Palin's Message About GOP Savagery

2012-01-28T07:56:00.005-06:00

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

Europeans Invest In America : A Rising Danger for EU

2012-01-28T06:40:00.005-06:00

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.

Debt Bomb Coming? No! It's Here

2012-01-28T06:21:00.003-06:00

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.

Federal Employees Owe Millions in Unpaid Taxes

2012-01-26T08:22:00.003-06:00

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.
.

Artic Becoming Battle Ground : Russia Will Sends Troops

2012-01-26T08:00:00.004-06:00

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.

Cats For Daily Life

2012-01-25T11:08:00.000-06:00

All it takes to make your day is a friendly face at your door. He is here for us. What a nice kitty.

California Spending On Education Up 95% : Tests Drop 4%

2012-01-25T09:49:00.003-06:00

Why is it to solve problems politicians, mostly Democrats, believe one has to spend more money. Given that California is a financial nightmare and in debt to the tune of billions they decide to raise more taxes. Are these people out of their collective minds or is it just more of the same fail policies that got them in debt to begin with?

More Spending Doesn't Lead to Higher Test Scores
Source: Andrew J. Coulson, "A Case against More California Taxes," Orange County Register, January 18, 2012.

Despite the grim economy, Governor Jerry Brown is asking Californians to approve a $7 billion tax hike. The governor emphasizes that without the increase in spending enabled by higher taxes, public education in the state would face significant cuts. The question for California voters, therefore, is a comparison of the respective benefits of lower taxes and higher education spending, says Andrew J. Coulson, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom.

In making this decision, voters should look to education spending in the past, and realize from this data that an ever-growing state education budget has done little to improve educational outcomes as measured by SAT results.

Between 1968 (the first year for which the data is available) and 2010, real spending per student increased by 95 percent. This represents increased spending of $27 billion dollars since 1974, adjusting for increased enrollment.

In almost the same time span, from 1972 to 2010, SAT scores among California high school student dropped by 4 percent, taking into account test rescaling in 1996.
Detractors argue that the use of SAT scores in assessing educational outcomes is ineffective and misleading, pointing out that it is unrepresentative and has limited participation.
However, none of the arguments put forth are particularly persuasive. While it is acknowledged that broader participation can lower scores, participation was actually 4 percent higher in the mid-1970s than it was in 2010. Moreover, white students nationwide have gradually seen a drop in scores, and therefore the increased inclusion of low-scoring minority students alone cannot explain the drop.

It is relevant that only the top third of students take the SAT, as this introduces the possibility that increased spending helps low-performing students (which is arguably not captured by the SAT variable).

However, voters should still question why increased spending actually hurt scores among SAT takers over the past four decades.

State Pension Problems ARE State Problems : Feds Stay Out

2012-01-25T09:21:00.003-06:00

This article is right on the mark - want an example for how this can be done, follow the trend in Wisconsin that solved a 3.6 billion dollar deficit in one budget. Of course, it took a good Conservative to make it happen, and one that is willing to stand up against the hate machine that is the progressive socialist left and their close friends the unions.

Scott Walker is fighting for his political life because of his insight and knowledge of the needs in Wisconsin. There has a huge number of people in this state that are unaware or uninformed about the true circumstances, or they just don't care enough to take the time to find out what is going on around them.

Worse, maybe they are just Democrats and have always been Democrats in which case we will have to rely on a slim majority of the Wisconsin population that is paying attention to solve the states problems.

States Created Their Public Pension Problems, and States Should Solve Them
Source: David John, "States Created Their Public Pension Problems, and States Should Solve Them," Heritage Foundation, January 17, 2012.

Today, 31 states are sponsoring public pension plans with funding ratios that are under 80 percent of what is needed to pay full benefits, says David John, a senior research fellow in retirement security and financial institutions at the Heritage Foundation.

Funding ratios measure a pension plan's current assets, projected contributions and investment earnings in relation to its predicted benefit obligations. A ratio that is under 80 percent indicates that the plan is in severe trouble and will have great difficulty meeting its obligations.

This is not a small problem.

A 2010 academic study estimates that 116 major state-sponsored pension plans have assets of about $1.8 trillion to pay pension promises of between $3.6 trillion and $5.2 trillion.
This leaves a gap of between $1.8 trillion and $3.4 trillion.

A follow-up study found that major pension plans for municipal workers in 50 major cities add an estimated $574 billion to the problem.

Fixing the problem will not be easy, but Congress should not step in and attempt to impose a solution, a model for reform, or a bailout of severely troubled states. Just as states and local governments created the public pension problems they now face, it should also be their responsibility to deal with these situations.

Indeed, data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) show that federal action does not appear to be necessary, as more states are taking actions that will reduce their underfunding. The states should be left to continue their efforts, prompted by pressure from taxpayers and the bond markets.

Congress should ensure that state and local government bond issues sold in national markets include a full and accurate disclosure of the risks, especially if any underfunded public pension programs might damage the issuing jurisdiction's ability to repay its debts as scheduled.

Otherwise, Congress should remain watchful but refrain from action.

Culture Changes Indicates Moral Decay

2012-01-25T09:15:00.002-06:00

I don't know if this is really from one of our military but it still says a lot about the current culture in which we live. Author unknown.

FOUND ON A SEABEE MESSAGE BOARD:

Piss on a Crucifix, and they'll call you an "Artist"
Piss on The American Flag, and they'll call you a Freedom of Speech "Constitutionalists"
Piss on a Police Car, and they'll call you an Occupy Wall Street "Freedom Lovin' 99 percenter" Piss on a Taliban piece of shit that just tried to kill you and your fellow Marines, and they'll call you a "Villain" Sure is a ****ed-up administration we have running this great country!!!!!

Be sure to vote them ALL GONE in November!!!!!

Solar Power in Germany Like the DoDo Bird

2012-01-25T07:42:00.004-06:00

Why do so many people forge ahead with strategic plans that they know will not work but do the wrong thing anyway. In their collective hearts they know when something is not right, but can't find the intestinal fortitude to move on this inner voice of common sense and experience.

It isn't as though there wasn't plenty of information before hand on all this nonsense of solar energy being the wave of the future, and we have to move right now to make it happen. Sure, there is a future for solar energy, but the technology is not here yet for it to be profitable. And without profits for those willing to take a chance in this industry, it is just another scheme to steal money by those in power.

Anyone that was paying attention knew it was about politics and just another way to take money from taxpayers and feed the accounts of those who control th purse strings in our government.

Germany Vows to Quicken Solar Power Subsidy Cuts
Source: "Solar Stocks Plunge as Germany Vows to Quicken Subsidy Cuts," Bloomberg, January 20, 2012.

Solar stocks plunged around the world after Germany, the largest market for panels, said it will make quicker cuts to subsidized rates and phase out support for the industry by 2017, reports Bloomberg.

German Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen said last week that he planned to reduce feed-in tariffs providing above-market prices for solar power every month instead of twice a year as he does now. He said he's working to curb an "unacceptable" surge in installations last year.

Yesterday's decision indicated ministers are speeding up efforts to restrain the boom in installations after developers added 7.5 gigawatts of panels last year, surpassing the 3 gigawatts that Roettgen said would be acceptable.

A slowdown in the German and Italian markets, which accounted for about half of worldwide installations last year, is bound to hurt the industry. Germany targets 2.5 to 3.5 gigawatts a year and seeks to phase out subsidies by 2017, Roettgen said.

The country was expected to cut tariffs by 15 percent in July, following a 15 percent reduction that took effect Jan. 1. Under the current law, lower rates are imposed automatically by above-target installations.

State of The Union Speech : Take From the Productive

2012-01-24T10:28:00.003-06:00

This is interesting when one contemplates the presidents speech tonight on the economy.

It must be that the new norm for the 'unwashed' in the country, 'do what the smartest people in the room say, but pay no attention to what they do'.

The liberal socialist progressive mind set is they have to take what ever is needed for them selves from the general population to accomplish their agenda and what is ever left over they divide up amongst those that bend the lowest.

Again, never, ever forget, it's about getting and keeping power no matter what it takes or who will suffer the consequence.

A good example is the fight in Wisconsin for control of the taxpayer proceeds. The union lost the control when Gov Walker won the election and took away the collective bargaining for the health care and retirement for the public sector unions.

Now the unions are furious and have issued a recall of Gov Walker collecting over 1 million signatures for this purpose, or so they say.

They have put out a emergency message to all union member across the country for funds as they are running low, even Obama's reelection war chest. This is just how desperate they are to regain control of taxpayer monies to feed their own war chests and donate to liberal politicians that are sympathetic to their demands.

The unions also see this as must win situation for the rest of the country where unions are fighting states contemplating similar actions to get their own budgets back into the black.

That the state of Wisconsin would be driven to catastrophic debt again means nothing to the unions or the liberal Democrats. It's all about the money and therefore the power to control the destiny of millions of people, taxpayers, that have nothing to do with the unions.

It's all about getting and keeping power.

CBO Predictions : Managed Information?

2012-01-23T07:41:00.004-06:00

The question is are the people in power at the time having an influence on the people that make the predictions of debt and deficit? Why are they called into question and why are they wrong most of the time? Just asking.

How Good Are the Government's Deficit and Debt Projections and Should We Care?
Source: Kevin L. Kliesen and Daniel L. Thornton, "How Good Are the Government's Deficit and Debt Projections and Should We Care?" Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, January/February 2012.

The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) annual Budget and Economic Output report provides deficit projections for the current fiscal year (FY) and the next 10 FYs. Though these reports are widely followed, CBO projections are consistently inaccurate, and become more inaccurate as the projection length increases, say Kevin L. Kliesen and Daniel L. Thornton of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

While the CBO predicted in 2001 that the publicly held debt of the federal government (then about $3.5 trillion) would be eliminated by 2010, it actually increased to $9 trillion.

While many defend the projection by arguing that much of the debt was accumulated ameliorating the effects of an unforeseeable recession, the projection was very inaccurate excluding the recession -- the debt level reached $5 trillion before the recession began.
In 2001, the CBO projected that government budget surpluses would span the entire decade, yet deficits began as early as 2002.

These failed projections took place over the course of a decade with predictions and estimates that reached relatively far into the future, yet the CBO's projection accuracy does not improve markedly even in the short term. While its January 2011 report estimated that the 2011 deficit would amount to 9.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), its August update released just seven months later amended this amount to 8.5 percent.

Furthermore, a study of CBO five year deficit projections from 1976 to 2006 shows that the agency's estimates have routinely been inaccurate. The average absolute projection error amounted to 2.65 percent of GDP. Twenty out of the 30 projections were under-projections of the actual deficit, indicating a chronic tendency to underestimate deficits.

It also bears mention that while they were slightly more accurate, even the CBO's one year estimates were significantly erroneous.

Governing Corruption Drives Down Prosperity

2012-01-23T07:27:00.004-06:00

The over powering effect of corruption in Belize is like a picture of what is happening here, in the United States, as well.

State and local governments are becoming dominated by agenda driven laws and regulations, especially where the agenda is designed for one reason and that is to gain control of the populations wealth and voting power.

Lucky, in this country, we are fighting back against the corrupting influence. The Tea Party.

Cayman Is Rich, Belize Is Poor. Why?
Source: Richard W. Rahn, "Tale of Two Small Countries," Washington Times, January 16, 2012.

Cayman is rich, and Belize is poor. Why? Both are small Caribbean countries with the same climate and roughly the same mixed racial heritage, and both were English-speaking British colonies. Belize received its independence in 1981, while Cayman is still not fully independent but is self-governing at the local level, with its own currency, laws and regulations, says Richard W. Rahn, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Back in the early 1970s, Cayman was as poor on a per capita basis as is Belize today. Both countries had ambitions to be tourist and financial centers. Cayman succeeded and has about six times the real per capita income of Belize. What did Cayman do right and Belize do wrong?

It comes down to one word: governance.

Perhaps most important is that Cayman had and maintained a competent and honest judicial system, which gave foreign investors confidence that their property would be protected.
Cayman also has a very low crime rate, allowing tourists to walk around freely without fear.
Unfortunately, many judges in Belize are poorly trained, incompetent and, in some cases, corrupt.

These issues cause foreign investors to consider higher-risk factors for projects in Belize as contrasted with Cayman. If Belize would clean up its courts, fully protect property rights and adopt the best economic practices of its competitors, it could quickly become rich.
For instance, it takes an average of 44 days to get all of the required permits to open a new business.

In some countries, such as Estonia, Singapore and even the Commonwealth of Virginia in the United States, the required paperwork to open a business can be done online, turning days into hours.

Golden Retrievers ARE Life Itself

2012-01-22T09:12:00.001-06:00

That title may sound a little over the top but I think this gang of pure gold is a house full of life. They bring so much love and friendship to us and to not believe that dogs are the handiwork of the Lord himself in all of our lives is just plain foolish.
Humanity can only be diminished without their presence.

Health Care Competition Smooths Out the System

2012-01-22T07:31:00.002-06:00

This seems like a good report at first reading but what bothers me is the kind of people that take advantage of the Medicare Advantage plan to start with skewers the outcome of this report.

I believe the individuals that take advantage of this plan are people that were smart enough to understand when they were growing up they needed to make good decisions based on logical conclusions or just plain common sense.

One might think that most health people that kept an eye on their health all their life will buy into a plan that will continue to work in positive manner when they are more susceptible to health problems. Where as those individuals that didn't care what happened during their formative years whined up less healthy and less able to afford the health care advantage program.

This means doing the right thing at the right time whether it was related to their personal financial health or their physical health.

Still, the researchers here are correct in that competition improves the system. The free market always is a better alternative to government interference.

How Competition Improves Quality: The Case of Medicare Advantage
Source: Kathryn Nix, "How Competition Improves Quality: The Case of Medicare Advantage," Heritage Institute, January 11, 2012.

Since 2005, seniors have had the option to receive their Medicare benefits through a private plan of their choice offered under Medicare Advantage (MA). Since that time, studies have increasingly shown that MA plans offer superior services to their participants with better health outcomes, says Kathryn Nix, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Since its inception with a population of 5.3 million participants, MA plans have doubled in size and continue to grow.

In 2010, close to 25 percent of the Medicare population was enrolled in an MA plan.
MA plans' increasing popularity is due at least partly to their above average services to participants. Research conducted by Niall Brennan, acting director of the Office of Policy at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and Mark Shepard, a Harvard University Ph.D. candidate in economics, shows that, based on several widely accepted measures of quality, MA plans outperform Medicare fee for service (FFS) in offering higher quality care.
Brennan and Shepard looked at 11 measures of the underuse of effective care starting in 2006 (the first year data was available).

For eight of the 11 measures, MA performed substantially better than FFS, and it performed slightly better on a ninth.

Though FFS outperformed MA on the final two, both variables are newer and considered to be relatively marginal in importance to overall care.

In a follow-up study conducted by America's Health Insurance Plans, researchers studied hospital utilization rates of FFS and MA participants with diabetes or heart disease, noting that the superior health care plan would offer preventative services that would reduce hospital stays.
The findings showed that for diabetes patients, all of the MA plans had fewer inpatient days and readmissions than FFS.

The vast majority of the plans had fewer emergency room visits, fewer admissions overall, and fewer potentially avoidable admissions. Though somewhat less consistent, heart disease patients followed these same trends.

Health Care Regulation (ACA) Causes Premium Increases

2012-01-21T09:03:00.006-06:00

No one, with an once of common sense, thought ObamaCare (ACA) would actually help our health care system, if for no other reason then it was a government project, but maybe even more so, that it is was a progressive Democrat government program.

If a program is developed by progressives Democrats, one can be assured it will be to gain power and control and for no other reason. Progressive Democrats have always used government as a tool for such an agenda, and health care now is just the biggest and most ambitious.

This is just who they are and always will be.

Overregulation Reduces Choice in Health Insurance
Source: John R. Graham, "Overregulation Reduces Choice in Health Insurance: An Update Health Policy Prescription," Pacific Research Institute, December 2011.

Many Americans complain that there is too little competition between health plans. To some degree, this is true. However, promises that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) implementation will increase competition between plans are misleading. On the contrary, concentration among health plans has largely occurred subsequent to government action. A comparison of premiums in the small-group market in 2008 (before the ACA) and 2010 (after the ACA) demonstrates this point, says John R. Graham, director of health studies at the Pacific Research Institute.

Of the 37 states that had available data, 36 experienced an increase in the average premium paid after the passage of the ACA (the lone exception was Utah).

The median percent increase in premiums amongst the states was 20 percent.
The state with the highest percent change was Washington, which experienced a 68 percent increase in the average premium paid.

This before-and-after comparison demonstrates that the promised drop in premiums that would result from increased competition did not occur. In fact, the opposite has occurred with insurance consumers in almost every state paying higher rates.

ACA advocates also point to the broadened use of "prior approval" as another means of controlling premium increases. A prior approval rule will require insurance providers to obtain permission for premium increases from a state's insurance commissioner. However, the aforementioned study of 37 states also demonstrates the inefficacy of this policy.

Of the 37 states, 18 already used prior approval, 16 were standard file-and-use states which merely required providers to file increases with insurance commissioner without seeking permission, and 3 states were completely unregulated.

The median increase over the period was 17 percent for states requiring prior approval, 22 percent for the file-and-use states, and 14 percent for completely unregulated states.
The highest increase in the file-and-use states was 50 percent (in Tennessee), the highest in the states that required prior approval was 68 percent (in Washington), and the highest unregulated state was 22 percent (Georgia).

Finally, the only state that experienced a decrease in premiums, Utah, is a file-and-use state.

These mixed results lend little credence to the argument that the ACA's spreading of prior approval rules will aid efforts to arrest premium increases.

Class Income Warfare : A Wedge Issues by Progressives

2012-01-21T08:31:00.003-06:00

Proof again that the Democrats are using income disparity between classes as a wedge issue to bring the two groups into conflict. Class warfare is not new to the progressive Democrats as they have used it in almost every election in memory.

The difference now is we have a sitting president that is willfully using class conflict as a tool to divide the country and thereby instigating an agenda that is out right Marxist in nature to gain control of a majority of the voting population. His idea is to develop a class of needy and dependent individuals that the progressive socialist left Democrats can use, and abuse, as they see fit to gain power.

May societies through out history have tried this and failed, and as a consequence the entire population of these failed societies became useless pawns to progressive ambitions. The results, of course, took generations to fix and some never recovered.

The question now, will we be one of the failures that could never recover, or if we can change this nightmare scenario, how long will it take, how many generations into the future? This November, be aware of history and the consequences of not taking responsibility for future generations.

Economic Gain Not Zero-Sum Game
Source: Veronique de Rugy, "For Richer and For Poorer," Reason Magazine, February

In making the argument that the income gap is an ever-widening disparity, many economists point to studies of the progress of the rich and the poor over the previous decade. The narrative portrayed by these studies paints the picture of an economic pie that is increasingly dominated by a small few at the expense of the public at large, says Veronique de Rugy, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

However, this perspective precludes the fact that economic gain is not a zero-sum game, and that
greater wealth for the wealthiest does not eliminate the possibility of higher incomes for the poor.
Even though lower earners have a smaller share of income today than they did in 1990, their absolute income is higher.

According to IRS statistics the bottom 50 percent of income earners reported 15 percent of real adjust gross income (AGI) in 1990 ($517 billion), while they reported only 12 percent of AGI in 2007, but this percentage amounted to more absolute dollars -- $1.1 trillion.

This speaks to the logical argument that a smaller slice of a larger economic pie can still yield significantly more income for lower earners.

Furthermore, traditional statistics about the income gap ignore the dynamic nature of income mobility in the U.S. economy. While studies point to the increased income share of top earners between two time periods, they ignore the fact that it is often not the same people earning large incomes over time -- the top 1 percent in 1990 are not necessarily the same people as the top 1 percent in 2012.

Using IRS data, the Tax Foundation has shown that of the 675,000 taxpayers who reported $1 million in income at some point between 1999 and 2007, only about half remained millionaires just one year later. A tiny 6 percent, or 38,000 people, retained their millionaire status for all nine years.

Meanwhile, 60 percent of households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 had moved to a higher quintile by 2007. Furthermore, about one-third of those in the lowest quintile moved to the middle quintile or higher.

Pension Funds Grossly Underfunded

2012-01-20T10:48:00.002-06:00

This question has come up so many times, government officials failure to fund promises to retirees, that to do it again is not the best thing to do, but maybe if it is repeated over and over again it will sink in.

The voting public has to show up at the voting booth with good knowledge of the people that they are putting into office, and then demand that they do what they said they would do no matter how painful the outcome.

At the same time the voter has to be ready to accept and live with these painful outcomes to fix the problems that loom in the very near future that are about to bring down our way of life.

Congress' Pension Math Doesn't Add Up
Source: Steven Malanga, "Congress' Pension Math Doesn't Add Up," Real Clear Markets, January 18, 2012.

Last week Sen. Orrin Hatch issued a report noting the rising unfunded liabilities of state and local defined benefit pension plans, and which illustrates the potential impact of those liabilities on the taxpayer, says Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Pointing out that local governments' unfunded retirement obligations may now approach $4 trillion, the Hatch report noted that the failure of a few big public sector pension plans could spark a credit "contagion" that would make it difficult for all governments in America to borrow money.

Federal safety-net programs like Medicaid and food stamps might be strained if retirees in government pensions saw their benefits cut sharply, as they have been in a few municipal bankruptcy cases.

Although defined benefit plans date back more than 100 years, when a few big employers like railroads began offering them, they were never widely used for very long. Over time, more and more firms switched to 401(k) style pensions, where an employer makes an annual contribution to a retirement account for a worker and the employer's liability ends there.

Today, only about 20 percent of private workers are covered by defined benefit plans.
Only in one area did traditional pensions continue expanding, in government, where the taxpayer is the backstop when these plans get in trouble.

Today, some eight in ten public workers are covered by defined benefit plans, though governments have done such a poor job of funding their promises to workers that one analysis predicts that without reform the pension systems of 11 states would exhaust their assets by the end of this decade.

Instead of encouraging private and public employers to assume obligations that wind up crushing them, Congress ought to be pointing the way toward a system where the costs are transparent, the liabilities are not open-ended, and where retirees can count on plans that will remain solvent so that the money will be there for their retirement.

Government Handouts The New Norm?

2012-01-20T10:33:00.003-06:00

Is this the new norm? With 48.6% of the population taking some sort of hand out from the government and the expectation is that could double in the next decade if nothing is done to turn the economy around.

The scary part here is the current administration is okay with this trend. They see the increased number of dependent individuals as useful to the progressive socialist Democrat agenda. That is, the more people that can't fend for themselves the more they will have to have assistance from the outside, see this as the federal government, the more they will have to vote to keep this type of government in power.

It is becoming a way of life for millions right now and tens of millions in the near future. When the economy can't afford to pay these people any more, what then? Oh wait, that's happening right now. We're broke!

Nearly Half of U.S. Households Receive Government Benefits
Source: Sara Murray, "Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefits," Wall Street Journal, January 17, 2012.

The pool of Americans relying on government benefits rose to record highs last year as an increasing share of families tapped aid in a weak economy, says the Wall Street Journal.
Expanding government programs combined with the worst downturn since the Great Depression have led to an explosion in the share of Americans relying on outside help.

Some 48.6 percent of the population lived in a household receiving some type of government benefit in the second quarter of 2010, up a notch from 48.5 percent in the first quarter, according to Census data.

To combat prolonged economic weakness, Congress extended unemployment benefits to a record 99 weeks (up from the normal 26-weeks offered in most states).

The food stamp program was tweaked so it was more generous.
Americans flocked to Social Security disability, a last bastion of support for some of the long-term unemployed.

The largest chunk of benefits flowing to families came from means-tested programs.
In the second quarter, 34.4 percent lived in a household benefiting from food stamps, subsidized housing or Medicaid, among others.

That number is up from 32.8 percent a year ago (when a total of 46.8 percent of the population lived in a home receiving benefits).

The biggest increases came from an uptick in those turning to food stamps and Medicaid.
Nearly 15 percent of Americans lived in a household receiving food stamps in mid-2010; almost 26 percent had access to Medicaid.

Only a small share of the population accessed cash welfare benefits as the 1990s overhaul made it more onerous in many cases to receive and maintain those payments. Some 1.9 percent of the population lived in a household that received welfare in the second quarter of 2010.

Climate Change : A Balanced Approach

2012-01-19T08:21:00.002-06:00

Interesting approach to climate change. Balanced in theory and common sense. Is this possible?

In the past it took thousands of years to see changes in the weather but now Al Gore and the eco-fascists environmentalists believe the end of the earth, as we have known it, is here and the only way to stop is to give them more money.

This article is fairly balanced in it's approach in that it uses approximate periods of weather change in the hundreds of thousands of years using some modern dating like ice cores. Still one has to read this some a jaundiced eye and then ponder the facts and assumptions before coming to any conclusions.

Are We Holding a New Ice Age at Bay?
Source: Matt Ridley, "Are We Holding a New Ice Age at Bay?" Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2012.

In the early 1970s, after two decades of slight cooling, many scientists were convinced that the end of Earth's 11,600 year old warm spell was at hand. Since then, of course, warmth has returned, probably driven at least partly by man-made carbon dioxide emissions, says the Wall Street Journal.

A new paper drew headlines last week for arguing that these emissions may avert the return of the ice age. Less noticed was the fact that the authors, by analogy with a previous warm spell 780,000 years ago that's a "dead ringer" for our own, expect the next ice age to start "within about 1,500 years." Hardly the day after tomorrow. Still, it's striking that most interglacial periods begin with an abrupt warming, peak sharply, then begin a gradual descent into cooler conditions before plunging rather more rapidly toward the freezer.

The last interglacial -- which occurred 135,000 to 115,000 years ago -- saw temperatures slide erratically downward by about two degrees Celsius between 127,000 and 120,000 years ago, before a sharper fall began.

Cyclical changes in the earth's orbit probably weakened sunlight in the northern hemisphere summer and thus caused this slow cooling.

Since the northern hemisphere is mostly land, this change in the sun's strength meant gradually increased snow and ice cover, which in turn reflected light back into space, further cooling the air and, gradually, the ocean too.
Carbon dioxide levels did not begin to fall much until about 112,000 years ago, as the cooling sea absorbed more of the gas. Our current interglacial shows a similar pattern. Greenland ice cores and other proxy records show that temperatures peaked around 7,000 years ago.

An erratic decline in temperature followed, culminating in the exceptionally cool centuries of the "Little Ice Age" between 1550 and 1850, when glaciers advanced all over the world.
In the Greenland ice cores, these centuries stand out as the longest and most consistent cold spell of the current interglacial.

In other words, our own interglacial period has followed previous ones in having an abrupt beginning and a sharp peak, followed by slow cooling. The question is whether recent warming is a temporary blip before the expected drift into glacial conditions, or whether humankind's impact on the atmosphere has now reversed the cooling trend.

Government Pay Inflated Over Priavte Industries

2012-01-19T07:59:00.004-06:00

Whatz new here? Like most large industries, the federal government, local and city to, has a huge number of employees that 'take the money and run'. That is, they are there just for the money. They scam the system as much as they can to get by with as little effort as possible. And being the government, scamming is easier than in larger corporations where they have efficiency requirements to meet.

The problem here then is the system is to large and therefore uncontrollable, and the only way to have any semblance of organization is to put the system on autopilot. Managers in the system, for the most part, are no better than the general employees as they have the same tendency to be unqualified for their jobs because they were promoted through longevity or just promoted through the 'good old boy' system.

The solution is to shrink the government to a size that is controllable.

Government Pay Is Inflated
Source: James Sherk, "Federal Compensation: Why Government Pay Is Inflated," Heritage Foundation,January 12, 2012.

In a new report, James Sherk, a senior policy analyst in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation, explores federal compensation by comparing it to market rates, and considering its policy concerns and economic effects.

How Does Federal Compensation Compare to Market Rates?

The average federal employee earns 57 percent greater cash pay and 85 percent greater total compensation (which includes benefits) than the average private-sector worker.

Controlling for observable skills and characteristics, the federal pay system gives the average federal employee hourly cash earnings 22 percent above the average private worker's. Including benefits raises the average compensation disparity to between 30 and 40 percent.
Despite these average pay differences, many federal employees are not overpaid. The General Schedule does not connect pay with performance. Many of the hardest-working and most highly skilled federal employees receive at- or below-market compensation.

Federal employees demonstrate with their actions that they receive better compensation in the public sector than in the private sector: They quit their jobs at one-third the rate of private employees.

Policy Concerns

Many federal employees retire in their late 50s, collect their pension and retiree health benefits, and then take a second job in the private sector, leaving taxpayers to subsidize this double-dipping.

It would be better to scrap the General Schedule, under which workers automatically receive step and grade increases in pay, and move to a performance pay system with federal pay tied to market rates and market signals of labor demand.

Economic Effects

Reducing federal pay to market rates would save taxpayers approximately $47 billion per year.
This reduces the deficit without reducing public services. This also frees up more resources for private businesses to save and invest, expanding the economy and creating more jobs.

Stimulus Ruines Lives/Destroys Cities

2012-01-18T08:24:00.003-06:00

Here is more proof that electing progressive socialist left Democrats to high office over and over again will destroy the government and the people they were elected to serve. The examples are everywhere.

And yet, the corrupt Democrats keep getting into office and they continue to feed at the public trough even when the trough is empty. The question asked over and again, are the citizens of these cities, like Detroit, ignorant of what is going on or are the just plain stupid!

Or maybe they are just Democrats and can't help themselves?

How Stimulus Spending Ruined Buffalo
Source: Steven Malanga, "How Stimulus Spending Ruined Buffalo," Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2012.

In his State of the State Address this month, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced $1 billion in incentives to attract new investment to Buffalo. Too bad Mr. Cuomo ignores the factors that help keep areas like Buffalo inhospitable to new investment -- namely steep tax rates and the high cost of government, says Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
This is an old story for Buffalo.

Ever since the city began losing its manufacturing base in the 1950s and gradually declined into one of America's poorest cities (the poverty rate today is nearly 29 percent), the federal and state governments have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into subsidized redevelopment schemes that have yielded few tangible benefits.

In 2004, the Buffalo News estimated that the city had garnered more federal redevelopment aid per capita than any other city in the country, a total of more than half a billion dollars since the 1970s. Yet, the paper noted, the city had virtually nothing to show for the money.

These massive investment subsidies failed partly because officials were ill-suited to select the right projects and often instead gave money to favored insiders. But Buffalo also struggles because it remains among the highest-taxed localities in the country.

According to Cato Institute scholar Dean Stansel, a Buffalo resident pays 25 percent more in income taxes than does the average resident in America's 100 largest metro areas.

Buffalo's 8.75 percent sales tax, according to the Tax Foundation, is the fifth highest among the country's 120 cities with more than 200,000 residents. And the property-tax burden in Buffalo and surrounding Erie County ranks in the top 10 percent nationwide.

These taxes have gone to support a spendthrift local government that nourishes itself at the expense of the private sector. The city also struggles to cut spending because of expensive state-imposed mandates, including a union-friendly binding arbitration law that results in rich public-employee contracts, and a state law that allows unionized public workers to continue receiving the benefits of a contract even after the contract has expired.

Iran Gone Nuclear Changes Everything

2012-01-18T07:43:00.003-06:00

One has to believe that our president doesn't care what happens to our country or the rest of the world as long as he can change the American way of life from one of individual freedom to one of total subservience.

Allowing Iran to become nuclear will change how we live and how future generations will not have the freedom that we know today. Even now, today, that freedom is slipping away before our very eyes and nearly half of the population doesn't care.

The Mortal Threat From Iran
Iran can sea-launch from off our coasts. Germany planned this in World War II. If cocaine can be smuggled into the U.S. without interdiction, we cannot dismiss the possibility of an Iranian nuke ending up in Manhattan.
By MARK HELPRIN WSJ 1-18-12

To assume that Iran will not close the Strait of Hormuz is to assume that primitive religious fanatics will perform cost-benefit analyses the way they are done at Wharton. They won't, especially if the oil that is their life's blood is threatened. If Iran does close the strait, we will fight an air and naval war derivative of and yet peripheral to the Iranian nuclear program, a mortal threat the president of the United States has inadequately addressed.

A mortal threat when Iran is not yet in possession of a nuclear arsenal? Yes, because immediately upon possession all remedies are severely restricted. Without doubt, Iran has long wanted nuclear weapons—to deter American intervention in its and neighboring territories; to threaten Europe and thereby cleave it from American interests in the Middle East; to respond to the former Iraqi nuclear effort; to counter the contiguous nuclear presences in Pakistan, Russia and the U.S. in the Gulf; to neutralize Israel's nuclear deterrent so as to limit it to the attrition of conventional battle, or to destroy it with one lucky shot; to lead the Islamic world; to correct the security imbalance with Saudi Arabia, which aided by geography and American arms now outclasses it; and to threaten the U.S. directly.

In the absence of measures beyond pinpoint sanctions and unenforceable resolutions, Iran will get nuclear weapons, which in its eyes are an existential necessity. We have long known and done nothing about this, preferring to dance with the absurd Iranian claim that it is seeking electricity. With rampant inflation and unemployment, a housing crisis, and gasoline rationing, why spend $1,000-$2,000 per kilowatt to build nuclear plants instead of $400-$800 for gas, when you possess the second largest gas reserves in the world? In 2005, Iran consumed 3.6 trillion cubic feet of its 974 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves, which are enough to last 270 years. We know that in 2006—generation exceeding consumption by 10%—Iran exported electricity and planned a high-tension line to Russia to export more.

Accommodationists argue that a rational Iran can be contained. Not the Iran with a revered tradition of deception; that during its war with Iraq pushed 100,000 young children to their deaths clearing minefields; that counts 15% of its population as "Volunteer Martyrs"; that chants "Death to America" at each session of parliament; and whose president states that no art "is more beautiful . . . than the art of the martyr's death." Not the Iran in thrall to medieval norms and suffering continual tension and crises.

Its conceptions of nuclear strategy are very likely to be looser, and its thresholds lower, than those of Russia and China, which are in turn famously looser and lower than our own. And yet Eisenhower and Churchill weighed a nuclear option in Korea, Kennedy a first strike upon the U.S.S.R., and Westmoreland upon North Vietnam. How then can we be certain that Iran is rational and containable?

Inexpert experts will state that Iran cannot strike with nuclear weapons. But let us count the ways. It has the aerial tankerage to sustain one or two planes that might slip past air defenses between it and Israel, Europe, or the U.S., combining radar signatures with those of cleared commercial flights. As Iran increases its ballistic missile ranges and we strangle our missile defenses, America will face a potential launch from Iranian territory.

Iran can sea-launch from off our coasts. Germany planned this in World War II. Subsequently, the U.S. completed 67 water-supported launches, ending as recently as 1980; the U.S.S.R. had two similar programs; and Iran itself has sea-launched from a barge in the Caspian. And if in 2007, for example, 1,100 metric tons of cocaine were smuggled from South America without interdiction, we cannot dismiss the possibility of Iranian nuclear charges of 500 pounds or less ending up in Manhattan or on Pennsylvania Avenue.

The probabilities of the above are subject to the grave multiplication of nuclear weapons. Of all things in respect to the Iranian nuclear question, this is the most overlooked. A 1-in-20 chance of breaking a leg is substantially different from a 1-in-20 chance of dying, itself different from a 1-in-20 chance of half a million people dying. Cost drastically changes the nature of risk, although we persist in ignoring this. Assuming that we are a people worthy of defending ourselves, what can be done?

Much easier before Iran recently began to burrow into bedrock, it is still possible for the U.S., and even Israel at greater peril, to halt the Iranian nuclear program for years to come. Massive ordnance penetrators; lesser but precision-guided penetrators "drilling" one after another; fuel-air detonations with almost the force of nuclear weapons; high-power microwave attack; the destruction of laboratories, unhardened targets, and the Iranian electrical grid; and other means, can be combined to great effect.

Unlike North Korea, Iran does not yet possess nuclear weapons, does not have the potential of overwhelming an American ally, and is not of sufficient concern to Russia and China, its lukewarm patrons, for them to war on its behalf. It is incapable of withholding its oil without damaging itself irreparably, and even were it to cease production entirely, the Saudis—in whose interest the elimination of Iranian nuclear potential is paramount—could easily make up the shortfall. Though Iran might attack Saudi oil facilities, it could not damage them fatally. The Gulf would be closed until Iranian air, naval, and missile forces there were scrubbed out of existence by the U.S., probably France and Britain, and the Saudis themselves, in a few weeks.

It is true that Iranian proxies would attempt to exact a price in terror world-wide, but this is not new, we would brace for the reprisals, and although they would peak, they would then subside. The cost would be far less than that of permitting the power of nuclear destruction to a vengeful, martyrdom-obsessed state in the midst of a never-subsiding fury against the West.
Any president of the United States fit for the office should someday, soon, say to the American people that in his judgment Iran—because of its longstanding and implacable push for nuclear weapons, its express hostility to the U.S., Israel and the West, and its record of barbarity and terror—must be deprived of the capacity to wound this country and its allies such as they have never been wounded before.

Relying solely upon his oath, holding in abeyance any consideration of politics or transient opinion, and eager to defend his decision in exquisite detail, he should order the armed forces of the United States to attack and destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons complex. When they have complied, and our pilots are in the air on their way home, they will have protected our children in their beds—and our children's children, many years from now, in theirs. May this country always have clear enough sight and strong enough will to stand for itself in the face of mortal threat, and in time.

Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, is the author of, among other works, the novels "Winter's Tale" (Harcourt) and "A Soldier of the Great War" (Harcourt).

Class Warfare As Weapon for Politic Agenda A Fraud

2012-01-16T12:11:00.004-06:00

As usual, the information that we rely on from "experts" in the government is managed to support an agenda that basis it's survival on reducing America's population of workers to subservients.

Does the progressive socialist think this is a problem? Of course not. It's who they are and what they do.

The Income-Inequality Myth
Source: Michael Tanner, "The Income-Inequality Myth," National Review, January 10, 2012.

Much reporting on income inequality in America has suggested that the incomes of the rich have been rising, while incomes for the rest of us have been stagnant or even declining. But that may represent a significant misreading of the data.

Most studies of inequality, including the recent widely reported study by the Congressional Budget Office, rely on IRS-reported taxable income. This metric is inaccurate for numerous reasons, including that it fails to account for many forms of income that went unreported in earlier decades, says Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

As more businesses have switched from filing under the corporate tax to individual taxes, high-income earners have increased their taxable income.

Furthermore, the tendency for executives to switch from accepting stock options taxed as capital gains to nonqualified stock options taxed as salaries has the same effect.

Finally, the 1986 decrease in income tax rates saw greater income reporting that the aforementioned studies interpret incorrectly as an increase in wealth. Additionally, studies that use taxable income as their measure of wealth do not take into account non-salary benefits and payments that the lower and middle classes have increasingly received in recent decades.

A recent study by Mark Warshawsky of the Social Security Advisory Board suggests that nearly all of the recent increase in earnings inequality is attributable to rising costs of benefits -- the new implementation of these benefits is most noticeable among the non-wealthy.
Similarly, many studies looking at low-income Americans fail to account for non-cash social-welfare benefits such as food stamps, housing subsidies and Medicaid.

When all of these inaccuracies are accounted for, it is likely that income inequality has not increased at all in recent decades. Furthermore, any increases that researchers do notice have a perfectly plausible explanation that has little to do with wealth-friendly public policy: a gradual transformation of the American economy from manufacturing to service-based industry. This drastic output change rewards workers with higher levels of education, causing them to earn more. Therefore, income inequality should not be attributed solely to government policies like the Bush-era tax cuts.

Finally, the presence of income inequality does not mean that someone must inherently earn less so that the wealthy can earn more. This defies the fact that prosperity is not a fixed value, and that all people have the potential to succeed.

ObamaCare : It's About The Money

2012-01-16T07:25:00.004-06:00

What is the motivation for these groups to support the individual mandate in ObamaCare? Why would they think they will benefit from a small group of bureaucrats deciding what health care is right for all individuals and corporate ententes?

After all, it about money and who will get the most of the allocations and who will not and the consequences of both. It's really not about health care, it's about the money, stupid!

NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
Obamacare update. With the Supreme Court slated to hear arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March, legal briefs from a variety of different interests are being submitted to the court.

The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the American Diabetes Association support the law while a group of 26 states filed a brief opposing the law. A group of state legislators from across the country joined together in a brief supporting the individual mandate, as did the American Hospital Association and a few other hospital groups. A possible record number of legal briefs are expected to be submitted over the coming weeks.

'The Liberal Mind' by Lyle Rossiter

2012-01-15T16:57:00.002-06:00

Here is synopsis of the book The liberal mind by Lyle Rossiter - this is good stuff if you know and love freedom and are afraid we are on the brink of losing it.

"In the course of this analysis, The Liberal Mind asks and answers the following critical question: Why would anyone want a political system that restricts personal freedom instead of enhancing it; denounces personal responsibility instead of promoting it; surrenders personal sovereignty instead of honoring it; attacks the philosophical foundations of liberty instead of defending them; encourages government dependency instead of self-reliance; and undermines the character of the people by making them wards of the state?"

Health Care Spending : A Few Consume Half of Total

2012-01-15T07:17:00.006-06:00

This is well within the scope of a previous report that said we have to change the health care for 87% of the population to fix the problems of the 12%.

Just where does the common sense come in this scenario? If we know who the spenders are and who the consumers are we should be able to work this out without destroying the entire system. Right?

Five Percent of Patients Account for Half of Health Care Spending
Source: Kelly Kennedy, "5 percent of Patients Account for Half of Health Care Spending," USA Today, January 12, 2012.

Just 1 percent of Americans accounted for 22 percent of health care costs in 2009, according to a recent federal report. That's about $90,000 per person, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. U.S. residents spent $1.26 trillion that year on health care, says USA Today.

While the report showed how a tiny segment of the population can drive health care spending, the findings included good news -- in 1996, the top 1 percent of the population accounted for 28 percent of health care spending.

The report's findings can be used to predict which consumers are most likely to drive up health care costs and determine the best ways to save money, said Steven Cohen, the report's lead author.

About one in five health care consumers remained in the top 1 percent of spenders for at least two consecutive years, the report showed. They tended to be white, non-Hispanic women in poor health; the elderly; and users of publicly funded health care.

Five percent accounted for 50 percent of health care costs, about $36,000 each.
The report also showed these characteristics of patients in the top 10 percent of health care spenders in 2008 and 2009:

Eighty percent were white.
Sixty percent were women.
Forty percent were 65 or older.
Only 3 percent were ages 18 to 29.
Only 2 percent were Asian.

The study also found that Hispanics, 16 percent of the population in 2009, spent less on health care. Twenty-five percent of Hispanics were in the bottom half of health care spenders, the report showed, while only 7 percent of Hispanics were in the top 10 percent of spenders.

Keystone Pipeline A Dead Issue : Fossil Energy is Bad

2012-01-14T16:22:00.005-06:00

I think our president really doesn't care about what happens in the Straits O Hormuz. As far he is concerned, if the oil stops flowing and the gas price goes up to $6 a gallon, all the better to force everyone to stay home and remember just who is in charge of their lives.

We really don't get that much oil from there anyway, and if the rest of the free world has to bend the knee to Iran to feed their industries, Mr. Obama and the liberal left thinks that's there problem.

Mr. Obama knows if he can control the movement of the population he can control everything else as well. A population that is dispirited and cold is much easier to manipulate. And given that at least 48% of population wants to be control and have others tell them what to do and think, the progressives have this one in the bag.

And the XL Pipeline, what a laugh. That's dead in the water. It's been said that Mr. Obama will look into this problem once he finishes the back nine at his favorite course in Florida.

Maybe next week sometime if he isn't too busy campaigning for reelection or getting together with a few friends for a pick-game of hoops in the WH gym. First things first. It's all about priorities.

"Keystone XL. At the same time President Obama is warning Iran not to jeopardize the flow of Middle Eastern oil through the Strait of Hormuz, the President can’t seem to decide whether the flow of Canadian oil through the Keystone pipeline is a good idea. Congress has set a February 21 deadline for the President to decide whether the Keystone pipeline is in the national interest. But with each passing day, it appears the President is looking for ways to sidestep the issue."

Regulation Nightmare Killing Companies and Jobs

2012-01-14T08:31:00.003-06:00

Bottom line here, cut the red tape and save billions of dollars which equates to thousands of new jobs. Isn't this what we all want to solve our financial problems? Maybe not.

Federal Regulations Cost Billions
Source: Steve Stanek, "Federal Regs: 231 Billion Dollars, 133 Million Paperwork Hours," Heartland Institute, January 4, 2012. "2011: The Year in Regulation," American Action Forum, January 2, 2012.

In yet another year of growing federal regulations, businesses faced enormous amounts of economic loss and wasted man-hours in compliance costs. A recent study by the American Action Forum found that these costs are concentrated strongly in only a small number of onerous regulations, says Steve Stanek, a research fellow at the Heartland Institute.

According to the study, federal regulations in 2011 added more than $231 billion in regulatory costs to private businesses and state and local governments.

The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards for light-duty vehicles had the highest single price tag with $141.4 billion in compliance costs.

Lost work hours associated with abiding by new regulations totaled an outstanding 133 million hours of paperwork.

Additional employee rights notifications will cost 12 million hours.

Medicaid eligibility changes under the Affordable Care Act will cost 11.07 million hours.

A new railroad conductor certification program will cost 10.99 million hours.

While these three are, according to the study, the most costly in terms of lost hours, they are only a small portion of the total regulatory burden. However, something can be said for the progress that was made in 2011 over 2010.

While the Obama administration published 82,480 pages of regulations in 2010, this figure dropped to 78,464 pages in 2011. Obama's Executive Order 13563, which called for an analysis of "outdated, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome" regulations, finalized $187 million in deregulatory actions in 2011.

Nevertheless, an administration that is serious about jumpstarting an economy and encouraging greater employment will do away with onerous regulations at a greater pace.

Social Democracy Kills Economic/individaul Freedom

2012-01-14T08:11:00.002-06:00

The message is clear - the more economic freedom, the more prosperous the country becomes. The messages is also clear as to why the United States is falling into a ditch when measured against those countries that have more individual and economic freedom.

Progressive socialism prevents progress on all fronts. But then that is what it is designed to do. A socialist democracy is an agenda to control the population through scarcity.

America is in the throws of becoming socialist democracy right now demanded by the people that can not see the danger or are willing to over look the danger that will be only a short term gain.

Are these people unaware or just ignorant of the calamity that awaits them.

A Step Backward for Economic Freedom in 2012
Source: Edwin J. Feulner, "A Step Backward for Economic Freedom in 2012," Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2012.

The 2012 Index of Economic Freedom, published Thursday by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, documents a world in which economic freedom is contracting, hammered by excessive government regulations and stimulus spending that seems only to line the pockets of the politically well-connected, says Edwin J. Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation.

Most of the decline in economic freedom was in countries in North America and Europe.
Canada, the United States and Mexico all lost ground in the index, and 31 of the 43 countries in Europe suffered contractions.

Government spending rose on average to 35.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) from 33.5 percent last year as measured by the 2012 index. The United States' economic freedom score dropped to 76.3 in 2012 from 81.2 in 2007 (on a scale of 0-100).

U.S. government expenditures have grown to a level equivalent to over 40 percent of GDP, and total public debt exceeds the size of the economy.

There are some bright spots.

Economic freedom has continued to increase in Asia and Africa. In fact, four Asia-Pacific economies -- Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand -- topthe Index of Economic Freedom this year. Taiwan showed impressive gains, moving into the index's top 20.

Eleven of the 46 economies in sub-Saharan Africa gained at least a full point on the index's economic freedom scale, and Mauritius jumped into the top 10 with the highest ranking -- 8th place -- ever achieved by an African country.

The 2012 index results confirm again the vital linkage between advancing economic freedom and eradicating poverty. Countries that rank "mostly unfree" or "repressed" in the index have levels of poverty intensity, as measured by the United Nations' new Multidimensional Poverty Index, that are three times higher than those of countries with more economic freedom.

Positive measures of human development in areas such as health and education are highly correlated with high levels of economic freedom, and economically free countries do a much better job of protecting the environment than their more regulated competitors.

Chinese Housing Problem : Communism/Progressive Socialism

2012-01-13T09:01:00.004-06:00

Who knew? All is not smooth sailing in China - even if the New York Times believes the Communist economic model is better than our market economy. The reality is Communism is a complete loser and always has been.

Now that the Chinese are coming to grips with their own housing problem, they are making the same mistakes as our progressive socialist left Democrats did with Fannie and Freddie. Government intervention in the free market.

The question now is what is the difference between the progressive socialist left in this country and the Communist Chinese?

A Shifting Market Stings Chinese Homeowners
Source: "A Shifting Market Stings Chinese Homeowners," BusinessWeek, December 15, 2011.

While property privatization has helped fuel one of the fastest episodes of wealth creation in world history, new buyers in China often mortgage their futures to afford a home in the country's expanding cities. After reforms that were implemented 13 years ago allowing for private ownership of real estate, housing values in China's cities have skyrocketed, forcing buyers to scrape together unprecedented amounts of money to be able to afford a dwelling, says BusinessWeek.

However, the central government is now attempting to douse the housing market, for fear of a bubble. The story of newlywed Danny Deng is demonstrative of the negative effects the government's policies can have for those who are caught on the wrong side of the sector.
Pooling his own and his parents' savings, a loan from his boss, and a 1.1-million Yuan ($172,000) mortgage, Deng bought his first apartment for himself and his new bride.

According to SouFun Holdings, China's largest real estate Internet portal, Deng purchased his
apartment for approximately 17,000 ($2,690) to 18,000 ($2,848) Yuan per square meter.
Several weeks after the purchase, government policies forced the building's developer to lower his asking price by 4,000 ($600) Yuan per meter, meaning that Deng took a 20 percent loss on the value of his home overnight.

Deng was not alone when he took to the streets in protest of the government's market intervention that cost him a large portion of his life's savings -- hundreds of his neighbors joined him in outrage. Yet while the government recognizes the plight of the protesters and the damaging effects that its policies have had, it maintains that the need to address the housing bubble is nonetheless paramount.

Urban residential values have risen 155 percent nationwide in the 13 years since the reforms were implemented.

Prices in Shanghai, famous for the strong growth of its housing sector, almost quadrupled over the past decade.

A potential bubble in China's housing market is particularly worrying for government officials because at least 12 percent of the country's gross domestic product is tied to the sector (this excludes related industries like building materials).

Unions A Drag on The Market Economy

2012-01-13T08:40:00.002-06:00

Market pressure on private sector unions forces them to deal with some reality when they want to increase wages higher then the market will bear. Government supported unions don't have to worry about market competition as they continually seek higher wages without worrying about who will pay - unions have always believed it's a bottomless pit of taxpayer money.

The problem now is, for the public sector unions, the money has run out. We have reached the bottom of the pit. For the private sector unions the problem is different - the national economy has tanked and workers are not happy having to pay dues to support someone else's life style, union bosses and Democrat politicians.

A Primer on What Unions Do to the Economy
Source: James Sherk, "The Union Difference: A Primer On What Unions Do To The Economy," Capital Research Center, January 3, 2012.

Unions create a substantial distortion within a market-driven economy. To raise their members' pay unions must control the supply of jobs in a company or an industry. Unions must prevent employers from hiring anyone without their permission. If they can do this, they can expect the laws of supply and demand to work in their favor. Holding down employment drives up union members' wages. In other words, successful unions are job cartels, says James Sherk, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Unions restrict competition for labor by limiting employers' hiring options.

Because unions often incorporate political efforts by forming interest groups and lobbying, they often employ government regulations and red tape to restrict market access to union-friendly businesses.

The union wage premium amounts to between 8 and 12 percent -- this pay differential over market rates reduces the total number of workers a business can hire (average businesses hire 5 to 10 percent fewer after unionization) and passes on higher costs to consumers.

Unions act as an anchor on corporate investment: because they tend to demand higher wages when businesses do well, businesses are less likely to allocate resources to investments that would lead to that end. This results in a 15-percent loss in physical capital, and research and development.

Fortunately, the market inefficiencies that are introduced by unions are under constant attack from an increasingly communicative and competitive global economy.

Within the United States, competition between states to attract employers, specifically between largely unionized states in the north and right-to-work states in the south, has caused a gradual migration of jobs towards the south.

Just as foreign imports damaged the United Auto Workers' stranglehold on American car manufacturing, increased international trade creates competition that undermines unions.

This growing competition offers only marginal comfort, however, because government-employed unions are largely unaffected by competition. Government services do not face the same competition pressures that the private sector does and have significantly deeper pockets provided by tax revenues.

Until public-sector unions disappear, taxpayers and consumers will continue to pay the price.

Doctors Going Broke : Gov Intervention or Stupidity

2012-01-12T08:07:00.005-06:00

How many times do we have to discuss government intervention into the free market before we decide enough is enough? The proof is all around us.

The country is failing and nearly 50% of the population is okay with this.

Doctors Going Broke
Source: Parija Kavilanz, "Doctors Going Broke," CNN.com, January 6, 2012.

American doctors increasingly find themselves in financial trouble, with some even going broke. This quiet reality is not isolated to a single area of medicine, but rather is affecting a wide range of doctors, including family physicians, cardiologists and oncologists. Industry watchers say the trend is worrisome.

Because half of all doctors in the nation operate a private practice, financial insolvency can rob a community of a vital health care resource. Among the most prevalent reasons for doctors' financial woes are the ever-changing government policies and regulations that constantly eat away at traditional revenue sources, says CNN.com.

For cardiologists, recent 35 percent to 40 percent cuts in Medicare reimbursements for key cardiovascular services, such as stress tests and echocardiograms, have taken a substantial toll on revenue.

In oncology, Medicare revised the reimbursement guidelines for cancer drugs in 2005, lowering reimbursements for many expensive cancer drugs below the actual cost of the drugs.
More broadly, the constant threat of the Medicare pay cut to doctors of 27.4 percent, which has been delayed by Congress 13 times, haunts doctors with the threat of bankruptcy.

For some providers, Medicare patients represent only a small fraction of their total clientele. However, Dr. William Pentz, a cardiologist with a Philadelphia private practice, explains that private insurers tend to follow Medicare rates, and that this tendency multiplies the impact of changes to Medicare rates.

Other experts do not believe that uncertainty about government policies is the primary culprit in the failure of private-practice doctors. Rather, they posit that a lack of business acumen causes doctors to fail to identify profit seepages and to make improper business decisions. Marc Lion, CEO of Lion & Company CPAs, LLC, has pointed out that within private practices there is typically a 10 to 15 percent profit leak.

Regardless of the reason, the closing down of private practice facilities nationwide can have drastic effects on aggregate supply and limit health care access for certain populations.

ObamaCare Will Not Work : Doctors Speak Out

2012-01-12T07:57:00.005-06:00

I'm not sure if the example of getting something for nothing is the best way to explain how ObamaCare will destroy health care in this country - remember the long lines in Detroit when Obama promised free money to assist the poor and what happened when the multitude found out they weren't getting any? Not a pretty sight.

How is this different then when the free heath care promised doesn't show up as there are no doctors or medical facilities to take care of the millions that demand care for nothing?

Doctors Say Affordable Care Act Is No Remedy for U.S. Health Woes
Source: Sally Pipes, "Doctors Say Obamacare Is No Remedy for U.S. Health Woes," Forbes, December 26, 2011.

America's doctors have conducted a full examination of the president's health reform law, assessing it in a number of variables, and have concluded that it will fail to live up to many expectations and will aggregately hurt consumers in the short and long runs.

Few people know more about the health care system than doctors working on the frontlines. Policymakers should pay heed to their indictment of the Affordable Care Act and revisit the disastrous law, says Sally Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute.

Nearly two-thirds of doctors expect the quality of care in this country to decline, according to a new survey from Deloitte.

Nearly seven of every 10 doctors believe that medicine is no longer attractive to America's "best and brightest."

Seventy percent of doctors believe that long wait times will plague emergency rooms.

Further, 83 percent of physicians foresee increased wait times for primary care appointments.
And doctors did not stop at criticizing the quality of care that health reform will deliver -- they also addressed its likely impacts on the cost of health care.

While Obama pledged $2,500 in health insurance savings for the typical American family, 90 percent of doctors believe that insurers will raise premiums for employers and individuals.
This argument is supported by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which estimates that premiums will actually rise for families in the non-group market by about $2,100.

Richard Foster, the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, concluded that American spending on health care through 2019 will be $311 billion higher than if the law had never passed.

Many of these results stem from two large impacts of the law: shutting down health care facilities and sharply increasing demand as it extends coverage to millions of people. Doctors respond to this latter "benefit" by pointing out that coverage counts for little if patients are unable to see doctors due to increased demand.

Muslims Are Not Happy : Why?

2012-01-12T07:52:00.002-06:00

UNHAPPY MUSLIMS!

Whoever thought this out is nothing less than genius

The Muslims are not happy!

They're not happy in Gaza .They're not happy in Egypt .They're not happy in Libya .They're not happy in Morocco .They're not happy in Iran .They're not happy in Iraq .They're not happy in Yemen .They're not happy in Afghanistan .They're not happy in Pakistan .They're not happy in Syria .They're not happy in Lebanon .

So, where are they happy?

They're happy in Australia .They're happy in England .They're happy in France .They're happy in Italy .They're happy in Germany .They're happy in Sweden .They're happy in the USA .
They're happy in Canada . They're happy in Norway .

They're happy in every country that is not Muslim.

And who do they blame? Not Islam. Not their leadership. Not themselves.

THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN! AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEM TO BE LIKE THE COUNTRY THEY JUST LEFT BEHIND!

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) MUST Now be Repealed

2012-01-11T10:50:00.004-06:00

The good news is the tax credit for Ethanol is running out but the bad news is the Renewable Fuels Standards requirement remains. This means the Federal government still has their collective hands on the production of corn which everyone knows means the market for corn will still be distorted.

It's interesting how the high cost of corn effects the poor here and all around the world and the bleeding heart liberal progressives pay little or no attention. It has always been the agenda of the progressive liberal left that everything they do is for the children.

Now and in the past decade of Ethanol production, the children have been starving and the liberal socialists power brokers were and still are silent.

The Renewable Fuels Disaster
Source: Aaron Smith, "Children of the Corn: The Renewable Fuels Disaster," The American, January 4, 2012.

Deficit hawks, environmentalists and food processors are celebrating the expiration of the ethanol tax credit. This corporate handout gave $0.45 to ethanol producers for every gallon they produced and cost taxpayers $6 billion in 2011.

However, the continuation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which creates government-guaranteed demand for corn, will limit the effectiveness of the tax break expiration and continue to distort the market for corn, says Aaron Smith, an associate professor at the University of California, Davis.

The RFS mandates that at least 37 percent of 2011-2012 corn crops be converted to ethanol and blended with the gasoline. The RFS has artificially stimulated the ethanol market for years, such that only a year after its introduction, 1.8 billion gallons of additional ethanol capacity was under construction.

The demand created by the RFS drives up the price of corn and related goods by diverting the use of corn toward non-food ends. While the specific market distortion is debated, careful estimation can offer insight:

In the 2005-2006 crop year (before the implementation of the RFS), 1.6 billion bushels of corn were used to produce ethanol; in 2010-2011 5.0 billion bushels were used, suggesting that 3.4 billion bushels are diverted to ethanol by the RFS.

Because one-third of the caloric value of the corn is retained and redirected after ethanol production, only 2.3 billion of this 3.4 billion is moved away from food consumption (16 percent of total corn production).

Estimates suggest that the market can absorb 5 percent more corn for every 10 percent price reduction, and this implies that the loss of 2.3 billion bushels of demand would drive down prices by 32 percent.

It is also estimated that this price reduction would decrease the price of other commodities such as soybeans, wheat and rice by 20 percent as well.

The true cost of this price increase is not born by domestic grocery shoppers, but by international consumers of commodities; namely, the world's impoverished. Final estimates suggest price increases from 2005-2008 forced 105 million people below the extreme poverty line ($1.25 per day). Thus, while the retirement of the ethanol tax breaks is a success, true relief lies in the elimination of the RFS.

Hospital Errors Covered Up? Unreported?

2012-01-11T10:37:00.002-06:00

This is only going to get worse as the economy gets worse - hospital employees will do what ever they can to cover their mistakes because if the report their mistakes it can mean their jobs and even their careers.

Depending on the severity of the mistake, and if it can be determined that is was just a mistake and not negligence, it would seem the whole system can benefit from attacking the problem rather than just attacking the incident.

Report Finds Most Errors at Hospitals Go Unreported
Source: Robert Pear, "Report Finds Most Errors at Hospitals Go Unreported," New York Times, January 6, 2012. Daniel R. Levinson, "Hospital Incident Reporting Systems Do Not Capture Most Patient Harm," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, January 2012.

Federal investigators have found significant evidence of hospital employees failing to report many errors, accidents and other events that harm Medicare patients while they are hospitalized. According to a study from Daniel R. Levinson, inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, administrators also often failed to adjust hospital practices to respond to those mistakes that were reported, says the New York Times.

According to the study, hospital employees report only one out of every seven mistakes/accidents that occur in the treatment of Medicare patients, including medication errors, severe bedsores, acquired infections, overuse of painkillers, and improper use of blood thinners.

The inspector general estimated that more than 130,000 Medicare beneficiaries experienced one or more adverse events in hospitals in a single month.

When federal investigators did an in-depth review of 293 cases in which patients had been harmed, only 40 of those cases were reported to hospital managers, only 28 were subsequently investigated by the hospitals, and only five led to changes in policies or practices.

The top reason for the failure to report mistakes is up for debate, as the study suggests that it may have changed over time. While the most common reason according to a 1999 study was that employees were afraid to admit having made a mistake, the most recent study found that failure to report resulted from a lack of awareness on the part of employees as to what constituted an error/accident.

With regard to the requirement that hospital administrators react to errors and mistakes by fixing hospital protocols, supervisors responded that many mistakes were considered to be non-systemic and therefore did not require adjustment.

Highway Spending Under State Control to Save Billions

2012-01-10T08:46:00.003-06:00

Goodness - have the free market take care of the highways and get the federal government out of the equation makes good sense, and good sense having local officals control what goes on in their individual states would save billions.

But wait a minute, we can't have that anywhere near federal programs as it would reduce federal fantasy to workable reality. A total no no.

Who Should Pay for Highways?
Source: Gabriel Roth, "Who Should Pay for Highways?" Independent Institute, December 28, 2011.

When Congress established the Highway Trust Fund in 1956 to finance the Interstate Highway System, it insisted that only monies paid into the fund by road users could be appropriated to meet its objectives. Now, Congress is considering a new guiding principle: spend what you want and if the usual funding sources are insufficient (in this case, the fuel taxes that replenish the trust fund), dip into general revenues to make up the difference. This move from "user pays" to "taxpayer pays" has distinct and substantial disadvantages, says Gabriel Roth, a research fellow at the Independent Institute.

The new principle encourages a lack of discipline in controlling spending, because members of Congress will be able to increase transportation spending without increasing the corresponding revenue sources. It would further politicize highway spending, making decisions more dependent on political preferences than consumer choice.

This first point is evident even in the most recent appropriations for transportation. The latest House Transportation Committee's bill would authorize some $230 billion to $285 billion over the next six years, while the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved a new bill authorizing some $109 billion in spending in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Both of these proposed allocations far exceed revenues provided by the fuel tax.

Congress could get out of transportation financing altogether, wind down the Highway Trust Fund, and leave highway financing and decision-making to states, local authorities and private entities.

This would encourage the more efficient use of transportation dollars, as state financing must gain approval from local voters -- this would likely eliminate high-cost, low-yield projects.
It would also reduce Washington's financial burden, as highways and city transit systems can be financed out of fares, fees, tolls and dedicated state fuel taxes that users pay.

Finally, it would improve upon the principle that the consumers of public services pay for them by ensuring that users only pay for transportation within their own area.

Federal Regulations Destroying Health Care

2012-01-10T07:44:00.004-06:00

Just what the country needs at this point in time, or ever, is more intervention from the progressive socialist left to "fundamentally change America".

Exactly what is the function of more regulations is still not clear other than to gain more control over the population. One thing that is clear, more regulation is driving the drug industry and the medical profession to modify our health care system in such ways that will change the way we live and die, now and into the foreseeable future.

That people die due this intervention is of little consequence to progressive socialists left. Can the America people be so stupid as to not see where this is headed when they vote this November?

Vast Web of Federal Regulation Causing Drug Shortages
Source: "Vast Web of Federal Regulation Causing Drug Shortages," Investor's Business Daily, January 4, 2012.

The number of prescription drug shortages reached record levels in 2011, far surpassing the same figure for even recent years. These shortages have been costly and have disrupted chemotherapy, surgery and care for patients in various states of health. Not surprisingly, government price and output controls are largely to blame for shortages, as they cause distortions within the market and adverse motives among market participants, says Investor's Business Daily.

There were 267 prescription drug shortages in 2011 -- the highest this figure has ever been.
This number is up from 211 in 2010.

As recently as 2004, just 58 drugs were in short supply.

Since 2010, at least 15 people have died as a direct result of these drug shortages.

Medicare practices and protocol serve as an excellent example of how government regulation distorts the market for prescription drugs. Because Medicare's Plan B reimbursements to drug makers often don't cover the cost of a drug, or shrink profits to such low levels it's no longer worth making it, they often price drugs out of the market completely. However, because hospitals still need those drugs, they are forced to use non-market means in order to obtain them.

A recent survey found more than half of hospitals routinely buy scarce drugs on the black market, which often demands exorbitant prices. Additionally, many hospitals respond to government-sponsored uncertainty in the market by stockpiling what drugs they can obtain.
This causes further shortages and further drives up prices.

Regulation in the drug market also harms innovators and drug creators by contributing to uncertainty and increasing risks associated with drug development. It costs nearly $1 billion and takes 12 years to bring a new drug to market, according to Pharma, the drug makers' industry group. Because of the large investment of both funds and time, in addition to compliance costs with onerous U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards, innovation in the prescription drug market has been suppressed irreparably.

Moreover, according to John Goodman, president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis, "[A] drug manufacturer must get approval for how much of a drug it plans to produce, as well as the time frame. If a shortage develops (because, say, the FDA shuts down a competitor's plant), a drug manufacturer cannot increase its output of that drug without another round of approvals."

Domestic Energy Sources : Lower Energy Costs : More Personal Freedom

2012-01-09T09:30:00.004-06:00

The Obama administration will not be happy about this article - a plentiful natural energy resource in this country that will help us ween ourselves from foreign oil and that will create 870,000 jobs now and in the future is not part of the Obama agenda.

Mr. Obama wants America to slow down our progress in industrial innovation that brings great prosperity for everyone. He believes individual freedom and the possession of personal property is a thing of the past. He believes the free market is the cause of all our problems. He believes we need to stop being a leader of the free world and the best way to do this is becoming more like the European Union. A socialist democracy.

Is this your idea of what's best for America?

A Shale Gas Revolution?
Source: Vicki Ekstrom, "A Shale Gas Revolution?" Massachusetts Institute of Technology, January 3, 2012.

Shale gas -- a relatively new and unexplored source of natural gas -- is cheaper and involves fewer emissions than traditional coal or oil. But recent environmental concerns, combined with shale gas' important role in the global economy, have prompted various groups to investigate the resource and its potential impacts. In a recent study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers study the market impacts that shale exploitation has in the long run.

Currently, shale gas constitutes one quarter of the domestic natural gas supply. The researchers found that without shale, gas prices would rise by about five times the current levels by 2050, and that electricity rates would also increase.

Conversely, with shale, prices for gas would only double in that same time frame. The shale input also reduces electricity price growth by 5 percent in 2030 and 10 percent in 2045, compared to a scenario without shale gas.

Shale gas does not have to be a unique energy form in order to accomplish the above-mentioned goals: it merely increases the aggregate gas supply and therefore extends the reliable life of that resource. However, shale does have several idiosyncratic advantages that further increase its attractiveness to American developers.

For every $4 we pay for energy from natural gas, we pay $25 for oil, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

According to a report from IHS Global Insight, the industry has the potential to create 870,000 jobs within the United States.

Because domestic gas prices are cheaper than normal rates abroad, the further development of domestic gas resources creates a real opportunity to increase exports.

Unemployment Numbers Fraudulent : Managed Numbers

2012-01-09T09:14:00.004-06:00

Conservatives have been shouting this fact of long term unemployment for the past two years ever since the main stream media started to manage the unemployment figures to protect the Democrats.

People like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity, among others, have made these figures one of their main themes on their radio and TV shows over and over again. With the combined audience of more then 50 million, one would think the media would change their tune, but that is not the case. The main stream media, TV and nearly all print media, still fixes the figures and dutifully believes their own numbers.

How can this be?

Tracking the Unreported Unemployed
Source: Aparna Mathur and Matt Jensen, "Tracking the Unreported (15.6%) Unemployed," Real Clear Markets, January 4, 2012.

The last three years have seen some of the highest unemployment rates reported since the Great Depression. Unfortunately, the reality is even worse than these oft reported figures suggest. This is because the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates the official unemployment rate by looking at those who are employed or who have actively looked for work within the last four weeks, say Aparna Mathur and Matt Jensen of the American Enterprise Institute.

As a consequence, the official rate excludes workers who have decided to drop out of the labor market altogether. The official rate also ignores those who settle for part-time work since they are unable to find a full-time job. Recognizing this shortcoming, the BLS also reports the U-6 rate, which includes those who have sought a job sometime in the last 12 months and those who have accepted part-time jobs but would prefer full time. The U-6 rate better demonstrates the true precariousness of the United States' economic situation.

The official unemployment rate moved from 5 percent in January 2008 to a high of 10.1 percent in October 2009, and a current rate of 8.6 percent. It rests 3 points above the 1948-2007 average of 5.6 percent.

The U-6, on the other hand, has moved from 8.8 percent in December 2007 to 17.4 percent in October 2009 and 15.6 percent in November 2011.

The U-6 best captures the true depth of the recent economic downturn. Furthermore, it bears mention that members of this group (which can be measured as the difference between the U-6 and the official rate) are reaching record numbers during the current recession.

Currently more than 5.7 million Americans have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks, or an astounding 43 percent of all unemployed.

Today the gap between the U-6 rate and the official rate is 7 percentage points, while at the start of the recession there was only a 3.8 percentage point difference. Since 1994, the gap between the official rate and the U-6 rate has averaged less than 4 percentage points and has only once exceeded 5 percent.

The danger of this record number of long-term unemployed is that in addition to harming their financial security, their skills rapidly deteriorate, which further worsens their employment prospects.

California & New York : Failed Ideolgy

2012-01-08T09:44:00.004-06:00

Need more proof of the 'nanny state' developing into the socialist state? New York and California are two models not to follow, and they are road signs with neon lights flashing saying 'turn back, take a different road before it's too late'. Both of these states have been controlled by liberal progressives for decades and the results are clear.

Another example of absolute destruction of a failed liberal progressive Democrat agenda is Detroit. Decades of taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive has produced a city in ruins. To make things worse, city governments that are totally corrupt.

The question remains, are people's ideology so strong they refuse to recognize failure when it stairs them in the face? Will this refusal of reality bring them to destruction along with our entire nation?

Does this denial of reality spell decline for our country? Does this mean Detroit, and other failed institutions, states, cannot change how or what they believe to be true if they won't or refuse to confront their problems?

Permanent Patients
Source: Sam Roberts, "Nowhere to Go, Patients Linger in Hospitals, at a High Cost," New York Times, January 2, 2012.

Medicaid often pays for emergency care for illegal immigrants, which allows them to be treated in hospitals at no cost to the individual. However, because this reimbursement does not apply toward continuing care, and because hospitals cannot discharge patients into shelters or the streets, many hospitals face the quandary of what to do with patients well enough to leave.

Many such patients have nowhere to go and no family to take them; meanwhile other health facilities have no incentive to accept patients who cannot pay. This leads to the problem of "permanent patients" -- healthy patients who spend years in hospitals after treatment has been concluded because they have no other options, says the New York Times.

New York City, a jurisdiction that has a particular problem with permanent patients, is estimated to have 300 of them throughout the city.

New York Downtown, a private health institution in Manhattan, spends about $2 million annually on such patients out of a total operating budget of about $200 million. Care for a patient languishing in a hospital can cost more than $100,000 a year, while care in a nursing home can cost $20,000 or less.

These patients, who have been caught between a bureaucratic nightmare and an ill-conceived Medicaid scheme, cost the hospitals where they take up residence millions of dollars per year. Additionally, as is evidenced by the price differential between hospital care and nursing home care, much of this post-treatment care can be more efficiently given (and with better outcomes) elsewhere.

However, the Medicaid reimbursement system discourages (to the point of prohibiting) the transfer of patients necessary to take advantage of these lowered costs.

An additional problem in this regard is that hospitals are a dangerous place to remain in the long term, as the risk of infection is significant. This makes it possible for patients who are brought in with a mild problem to develop something much worse over the course of their stay. Thus, for patients who stay for a longer period, the risks are even higher.

Finally, the phenomenon of "pop drop" has also developed in recent years. This is the method by which the grown children of illegal immigrants leave their parents at a local hospital and then leave for vacation. In this way, the parents receive free medical care and a place to stay while their children are out of town.

Social Security Reform Proposal Workable

2012-01-07T08:04:00.007-06:00

These proposals to change social security make a lot of sense in that like the ones Paul Ryan made previously, the current receipents will see no change in their incomes where as the younger workers will have the opportunity to plan for their retirement with the knowledge the old system will not be in place for them.

Knowledge is power and to not pay heed to it's significants is to insure future failures.

Entitlement Reforms Should Cut Benefits and Taxes
Source: Thomas R. Saving and John C. Goodman , "Entitlement Reforms Should Cut Benefits and Taxes," Investor's Business Daily, January 4, 2012.

Most Social Security reform proposals would result in fewer benefits for future retirees. However, if the program pays out less in benefits, the payroll taxes needed from younger workers to support the program will be lower than they otherwise would be. In this light, it is crucial to recognize how the most often proposed reforms will affect workers of various income levels by taking into account their loss of benefits and comparing it with their lower tax liabilities, say Thomas R. Saving, a senior fellow, and John C. Goodman, president and CEO, at the National Center for Policy Analysis. The following are three of the most commonly suggested reforms for reducing Social Security spending:

Progressive price indexing of benefits: a way of tying the growth of benefits to worker income such that high-income earners receive lower benefits as a percentage of their income.

Change the benefit formula: a way of reducing the size of monthly benefit checks.

Raise the retirement age: increasing it to age 70 by 2032 followed by increases of one month every two years. Were the retirement age raised, the loss of benefits would be greater than the recuperated taxes for all income groups. However, certain income groups would be harmed less than others.

A 41 year old with a lifetime average annual income would receive a reduction in benefits of about $60,000 but would pay $40,000 less in taxes, meaning that the loss in benefits would be 67 percent covered.

For a poverty-level worker, the lower tax burden would offset 40 percent of the benefit loss.
For a high-income worker (16 times the poverty level), the lower tax burden would offset 90 percent of the benefit loss.

A combination of changes to the benefit formula and a progressive price indexing scheme would also do a great deal to alleviate the burdens on Social Security. Simultaneously, many workers would actually recoup more in taxes than they lose in lowered benefits.

Changing the benefit formula lowers the average-income worker's taxes by more than the loss of benefits, and adding progressive price indexing causes lower taxes to exceed the accompanying benefit loss by $30,000.

Progressive price indexing would reduce the tax burden for today's 26 year olds in every income group by more than their benefit loss when compared with fully funding current law benefits.
The poverty-level worker's benefit loss would be offset 85 percent by lower taxes.

The efficacy of these options in lowering the burdens on the Social Security program, combined with the offsetting impacts of lower taxes, make them all feasible options.

Energy Independence Insures National Security

2012-01-07T07:48:00.002-06:00

In any event, given the information here, it still is to our advantage to aggressively build a substantial infrastructure of oil resources. It just makes good sense for our country to have this source of energy that we can depend on if worse comes to worse in the middle east.

To ignore the fact that oil is the life's blood of our nation is fool hardy and a dangerous blow to our national security.

U.S. Oil Dependency and the Middle East
Source: Ivan Eland, "No War for Oil: US Dependency and the Middle East," Independent Institute, December 21, 2011.

The one prominent issue that both American political parties can seemingly agree on is that the United States should be less dependent on foreign oil, especially from the Middle East. This goal has been made much more feasible by the fact that the United States is in the midst of a mini oil boom, which has temporarily reversed the country's increasing dependence on foreign sources of oil, says Ivan Eland, senior fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute.

However, this should not be seen as a great victory against dictatorships and terrorism-sponsoring governments in the Middle East, and portraying it as such is misleading. The simple fact is that increased domestic production, coupled with depressed domestic consumption, will have little effect whatsoever on those governments that partially lose the United States as a buyer.

Dependence on overseas oil has decreased from 60 percent of U.S. consumption in 2005 to a little less than half now.

Only about 18 percent of total imports originate from the Persian Gulf, and therefore changes in our supply and demand can have only a marginal impact on their economies.
Furthermore, the prices that these nations receive for their oil are not determined by individual buyers like the United States but by the world market, meaning that even if the United States were able to cut out Persian Gulf imports entirely, the resulting price change would be minimal.

Finally, the decision by American lawmakers to target the Middle East for removal from the nation's list of imports is largely mitigated by international buyers who have no moral qualms about buying from that region.

These facts make it clear that even if limiting imports from the Middle East is a desirable policy end, the effects on the local governments would be minimal.

Additionally, despite claims that the world will soon deplete its dwindling oil supply, the United States need not convert itself into an aggressive hoarder of oil. These claims preclude the fact that the oil production market is dynamic and capable of responding to market forces. As demand has increased in recent years, production methods that were previously not economical became feasible, and the world oil market reacted. This suggests strongly that the United States is in no immediate danger.

Living Wages Law Flawed : Minimum Wage Law Flawed

2012-01-06T07:11:00.004-06:00

Why is it that the bureaucrats never learn the lessons of the free market? Government intervention is always, always a bad thing when it comes to forcing the free market to do things that will change it's dynamics and therefore bring about failure of the very program that they had intended to fix.

The basic rule that government can not create jobs still stands and the sooner the bureaucrats learn this the better off we all will be.

The Hidden Dangers of the "Living Wage"
Source: Richard A. Epstein, "The Hidden Dangers of the 'Living Wage,'" Defining Ideas, January 3, 2012.

With 2012 upon us, the next labor market battle will be over the "living wage." Long backed by both unions and progressive groups, the living wage law looks like a good-old fashioned minimum wage law, with this critical twist: the living wage law is targeted at only those individuals who work in projects that receive some sort of government subsidy. The rationale here is that, if hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money will go to private developers to subsidize their projects, the money should be given with conditions to protect workers from exploitation, says Richard A. Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

For example, New York City's Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act would provide two wage increase options to private businesses that receive at least $1 million in subsidies for a given project: either pay workers $10 per hour in wages plus benefits, or pay them $11.50 per hour without benefits. This amounts to a wage boost of 58 percent for workers, and this is relatively in line with living wage stipulations in other jurisdictions.

The problems with a living wage increase are numerous and their associated costs are substantial. First, the reform hurts the very population that it seeks to help -- a lesson that can be seen in a similar situation of the increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. Prior to the increase, 6.6 million Americans were paid below $7.25 per hour. With the sudden increase, unemployment spiked as businesses responded to the significant additional cost of employing low-wage workers.

Thus, while the increase in the minimum wage helped some workers, this was only at the expense of their colleagues. In the same way, a living wage will help some low-wage workers while bringing unemployment for others.

Additionally, the living wage regulation is much more pervasive and broad than its advocates would suggest. Though they point to examples such as the construction of sports stadiums that were subsidized by the government, numerous small businesses could also fall under the umbrella of its broad rules. This creates an economic cost in terms of increased costs of compliance.

Finally, when they find out that their construction project will be subject to the living wage, many businesses will drop the project altogether, as happened with a proposed shopping mall in the Bronx. Many businesses cannot afford the additional expense of complying with a living wage.

Concealed Carry Laws Okayed : Crime Rate Down

2012-01-05T08:10:00.005-06:00

I have an idea why the crime rate is going down, 'concealed carry' laws are now in effect in nearly all states, even Wisconsin.

When Governor Walker came into power, he brought with him the 'concealed carry' law, as he promised he would, and now, so far, 65,000 people have applied for a license to carry.

Do you think the criminals might have second thoughts about who is 'carrying' and who isn't?

For Public Safety, a New Golden Age

Source: Steve Chapman, "For Public Safety, a New Golden Age," Reason Magazine, December 26, 2011.

The 1950s are often recalled as a golden age in American life -- stable families, rising incomes, wholesome TV shows and low crime rates. Doesn't sound like 2011, does it? When it comes to crime, though, there is a striking similarity: We are, believe it or not, in a new golden age, says Steve Chapman of Reason Magazine.

Anyone looking for reasons to fear going out of the house can find plenty. But the truth is our streets are safer than they have been in a long time.

The latest evidence came last month, when the FBI reported that in the first half of 2011, "violent crimes were down 6.4 percent, while property crimes fell 3.7 percent."
Murder declined by 5.7 percent, rape by 5.1 percent and robbery by 7.7 percent.

Six-month drops don't mean much by themselves, but this one continues an established trend.
Crime peaked in 1991 and fell steadily before flattening out somewhat in the mid-2000s.
Since 2006, both violent crime and property crime have plunged.
Today, your chance of being murdered is lower than it was in the late 1950s, a time of enviable peace and order. Robberies have been cut by more than half since their peak.
Car thefts are about as common as they were when the Beatles first appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show.

You would think such a welcome trend couldn't last, but it has. What accounts for the gradual onset of domestic tranquility? The truth, Carnegie Mellon University criminologist Alfred Blumstein says, is that "no one has a definite explanation." Lots of factors may have played a role, and simple lessons are hard to find.

Ethanol Subsides End : Whatz Next for Eco-Nutjobs

2012-01-05T07:46:00.003-06:00

Subsidizing a food product to support an energy agenda was never a good idea as it forced the price of all food that relies on grain to go higher.

This is just another government intrusion that was bad from the beginning. It cost all taxpayer billions in subsides and has forced other energy products, like fossil fuels, to cost more and retard future production.

Because of Ethanol subsides demanded by the eco-fascists in government, taxpayers have spent trillions more then they had to to heat and cool their homes or drive their cars over the past several decades. Increased fossil fuel costs, used by all manufacturing, have forced all industries to charge more for their products and therefore taking billions more from struggling consumers.

Worse maybe, other energy sources have been stalled causing more trillions that we all will pay for in the future. See all this as a progressive socialist agenda to cripple the American dream of individual freedom and install the 'collective' nightmare.

After Three Decades, Tax Credit for Ethanol Expires
Source: Robert Pear, "After Three Decades, Tax Credit for Ethanol Expires," New York Times, January 1, 2012.

A federal tax credit for ethanol expired on December 31, ending an era of strong federal government support for the product. While the tax breaks associated with ethanol had long seemed untouchable, Congress' preoccupation with deficits and debt brought pressure to bear. Fiscal conservatives joined liberal environmentalists to kill it, with help from a diverse coalition of outside groups, says the New York Times.

Most domestic ethanol is produced from corn with nearly 40 percent of the domestic corn crop going to ethanol and byproducts.

Ethanol also constituted 10 percent of the nation's gasoline supply.

The tax credit that helped subsidize ethanol production, which cost the government nearly $6 billion in 2011, has cost an aggregate $20 billion over its lifetime.

Many who opposed the continued tax break for ethanol emphasized the maturity of the sector. Explaining that suppliers are well-established and that most potential development had already been reached, they argued that the sector did not need to continue to be coddled by a generous, three-tiered government safety net:

Federal law requires that certain minimum amounts of renewable fuels like ethanol be blended into gasoline.

Refiners received the aforementioned tax credit for meeting this standard.

Finally, the government imposed a tariff on imported ethanol, protecting the domestic industry.

Other concerns focused on the higher prices that were caused by the government's protection of ethanol. By artificially stimulating demand for the product in the gasoline industry, the price of corn and other related goods were increased as a result. Meat and poultry producers, big food companies and other suppliers faced higher input costs because of expensive corn and higher land costs. These higher costs are passed onto the consumer.

In addition, ethanol production's use of pesticides, fertilizer and heavy industrial machinery, which cause soil erosion and air and water pollution, are heavily criticized by the environmental lobby.

Education Races to The Bottom : Obama's Plan

2012-01-04T08:49:00.004-06:00

Education seems to be another stumbling block for Mr. Obama along with most everything else he has done to try and destroy this country. Even when he has spent us into a financial nightmare that will take generations to bring us back to prosperity and only if he is defeated in November.

If Obama is reelected, all is lost for not just us today but our kids and their kids.

States Hit Turbulence in School Overhauls
Source: Stephanie Banchero, "States Hit Turbulence in School Overhauls," Wall Street Journal, December 28, 2011.

Race to the Top, President Barack Obama's signature education initiative, offered $4.3 billion to states that promised to transform their education systems. Competition for the grants prompted dozens of states to change laws governing teacher evaluations, adopt new academic standards, alter their approach to fixing low-performing schools and support the growth of charter schools.

Eleven states and the District of Columbia won the competition and then submitted ambitious overhaul agendas with timelines for completion. But all the winners since have applied for, and received, permission from the U.S. Department of Education to alter their plans, says the Wall Street Journal.

Hawaii, which qualified for $75 million in funding, has committed blunders to the point that the U.S. Department of Education has warned that they might have their funding revoked if they cannot get back on track.

The challenge to link student performance to teacher evaluations has held up some states (Delaware, Rhode Island, Georgia, Maryland) as they seek a solution that is agreeable with each of their respective public-sector teacher unions. New York has been delayed because it has been taken to court by its teacher union over its proposed evaluation system.

A number of factors and obstacles to reform have caused delays in all 12 funds-winning jurisdictions, yet the blame only adds to the criticism of the Race to the Top program as a whole. Congressional Republicans have condemned the program, stating flatly that the initiative only awards those reforms that are approved by the president. This partisan divide may also have contributed to state delays.

Regardless, many advocates and detractors of the program alike simply want those states that won funding to be held accountable to their promises. Chiefs for Change, a group of 10 state superintendents who advocate for education overhauls, have emphasized in a letter to the Department of Education that these winners must live up to their guarantees and that no further delays should be granted. Their argument emphasizes that additional slack encourages their behavior -- specifically, that they made overly optimistic promises in order to win funding only to default later.

Viet Nam Hero Dies - Metal of Honor Capt. Ed Freeman

2012-01-04T08:01:00.003-06:00

I wonder why the major media won't cover this story? Is it because it's a story of courage under extreme circumstances that frightens them, or just because it has to do with our military's love of country?

Or is it because the progressive left socialists see our voluntary military as standing in the way of them gaining total control of American society? Maybe it's all of the above.

You choose!

(Author unknown)
You're a 19 year old kid. You're critically wounded and dying in the jungle somewhere in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam. It's November 11, 1967. LZ (landing zone) X-ray.

Your unit is outnumbered 8-1 and the enemy fire is so intense from 100 yards away, that your CO (commanding officer) has ordered the MedEvac helicopters to stop coming in. You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out. Your family is half way around the world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.

Then - over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter. You look up to see a Huey coming in. But.. It doesn't seem real because no MedEvac markings are on it. Captain Ed Freeman is coming in for you. He's not MedEvac so it's not his job, but he heard the radio call and decided he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire anyway. Even after the MedEvacs were ordered not to come. He's coming anyway.

And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 3 of you at a time on board. Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire to the doctors and nurses and safety. And, he kept coming back!! 13 more times!! Until all the wounded were out. No one knew until the mission was over that the Captain had been hit 4 times in the legs and left arm. He took 29 of you and your buddies out that day.

Some would not have made it without the Captain and his Huey. Medal of Honor Recipient, Captain Ed Freeman, United States Air Force, died last Wednesday at the age of 70, in Boise, Idaho May God Bless and Rest His Soul.

I bet you didn't hear about this hero's passing, but we've sure seen a whole bunch about Lindsay Lohan, Joe Paterno and the bickering of congress over skyrocketing debt and socialized medicine. Medal of Honor Winner Captain Ed Freeman Shame on the American media !!!

Keystone Pipeline IS About Ideology Not Security

2012-01-03T06:45:00.005-06:00

How does the president explain why he thinks it's a good idea to stop the flow of oil, stop the creation of thousands of jobs and communities from getting millions in new tax dollars. Not only jobs and money, we get a secure source of energy to feed our homes and industry.

Oh wait, it's not really about all this stuff just mentioned, it's about bringing the country to heal position. It's about leveling the playing field so everyone in this country doesn't have more than anyone else, except the president and his progressive socialist left associates of course. Hey someone has to have more then others, right?

Can this really be the reasons for not approving the pipeline? Can Mr. Obama really believe we all deserve to live in cardboard boxes and eat roots as what's best for America? You decide.

Keystone.

National Center for Policy Analysis

While Iran threatens to block oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, the White House has 60 days to decide whether to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The 1,700-mile pipeline would transport crude oil from Canada to oil refining centers in Texas.

Apart from strengthening America’s energy security by increasing the supply of reliable oil, the Keystone pipeline will create about 20,000 jobs and lead to about $20 billion in private sector investment at no cost to taxpayers.

According to estimates, the pipeline will generate more than $585 million in new taxes along the pipeline route, as well as $5.2 billion in property taxes during the lifetime of the pipeline. President Obama has 60 days to decide whether to issue a permit for the pipeline. If he doesn't issue a permit, the President is required to explain why the pipeline is not in the national interest.

Mortgages Caught in 30 Year Bubble?

2012-01-02T09:39:00.003-06:00

Here again, government policy has brought the financial markets to the edge. This intervention regulation is left over from the Fannie and Freddie collapse. What is not so obvious here is the market for 30 year mortgages that are caught 'between a rock and a hard place'.

So many home owner are invested in 30 year mortgages and with the government promise to pay defaults, see this as tax payers, and the financial institutions can't move to fix the problems by instituting higher interest rates and the government could not pay defaults as they are broke. New governmental regulation can help as this article points out but how and when is the question.

What a fine mess this is, again.

New Bubble May Be Building in 30-Year Mortgages
Source: Edward J. Pinto, "New Bubble May Be Building in 30-Year Mortgages," American Enterprise Institute, December 23, 2011.

The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, the most common way U.S. buyers finance a home purchase, isn't the ideal instrument its supporters claim it to be. While it is most certainly useful in mortgage financing and would certainly have a place in a completely free market, the concentration of investment in this one type of mortgage is dangerous and could have disastrous effects. This can be seen in three separate factors that cause the 30-year fixed-rate mortgages to be a great deal less safe than it is advertised to be, says Edward J. Pinto of the American Enterprise Institute.

Its dominance requires permanent government subsidies.
It amortizes slowly, exposing homebuyers to years of unnecessary default risk.
It was responsible for two taxpayer bailouts in the last 20 years.

This first point, brought to the forefront by the government's absorption of Fannie and Freddie in 2008, underlines the danger of concentration in only a single type of security. Government policies have encouraged a disproportionate share of investment in 30-year fixed-rate mortgages to the point that they easily dominate the market. This causes a lack of diversified risk and leaves the sector vulnerable to shocks.

The combination of a federal funds rate of almost zero percent since late 2008 and injections of money into the economy by the Federal Reserve has kept borrowing rates artificially low.
These low rates artificially boost the value of the mortgages, and because the securities are backed by federal insurance, the technical risk allotted to them is nonexistent. These two facts together encourage significant concentration of investment.

Disproportionate investment, beyond what the market would recommend, is a large contributor to eventual bubbles. In the same way that European banks were able to accrue large amounts of Greek sovereign debt with little capital reserves to back it up (because it was ostensibly risk-free), American banks are able to invest in these mortgage giants and circumvent reserve requirements.

Were government policies to change suddenly and affect interest rates, volatility within the mortgage securities market would be substantial. If mortgage-loan rates went up only from 4 percent to 5.5 percent, the value of these securities would go down by about 6 percent.

Given current investment levels, this would result in a $100 billion loss.

A larger sudden interest rate hike would necessarily cause larger losses.

These scenarios are not unrealistic, and they emphasize the importance of a reversal in federal policies that artificially support the concentration of risk in a volatile security.

Environmental Research Skewed by Funding Money

2012-01-01T07:25:00.006-06:00

As with most endeavors that seek to change thinking to one agenda or the other, it boils down to who will pay the most to get the desired results. Bottom line for most poles or research results is they have been soiled by outside influences to such a degree we can't rely on them to provide accurate information at all times.

The age of new and free mass information has brought a wealth of skepticism upon truth tellers. It has also brought a new responsibility on all of us to take the time to look closer at our information sources before we make any definitive decisions about anything.

We have to believe that all aspects of mass information is biased in some way. To disregard this is to bring about bad decisions which will effect all aspects of our lives.

Evidence on the Value of Air Quality Improvements
Source: Douglas S. Noonan, "How Much Do We Care About the Air? Evidence on the Value of Air Quality Improvements," American Enterprise Institute, December 2011.

The impact of air quality improvements on individuals' well-being has been the subject of inquiry by many scholars over the past several decades. Hypotheses on the topic figure in discussions about the design and reform of air quality policies. However, these theories often rely on varying estimates of the value of air quality improvement, and this leads to drastically differing conclusions.

In assessing 50 separate empirical studies of air quality benefits (which measure the value of air quality improvement in terms of willingness-to-pay or WTP) enormous variations can be explained, says Douglas S. Noonan of the American Enterprise Institute.

Almost all studies concluded that the WTPperQ, the amount a person would be willing to pay for a 1 percent improvement in air quality, is significantly positive.
However, WTPperQ variation among studies was enormous: while 90 percent of the observations fall between $0.002 and $381.42, many studies still provided significant results over $1,000, while others still found negative results.

Within this framework and using the data provided, which yielded 142 observations, analyses were run to see what factors could explain variations within the data. WTP has a weak yet important correlation with income -- in developed countries, higher income is associated with higher WTP (each $1000 of more income increases WTPperQ by $4 on average).

Perplexingly, this same relationship is negative in developing countries, suggesting (without statistical significance), that the wealthier people in those nations are, the less likely they are to value air quality improvement highly.

As 75 percent of value estimates come from studies that acknowledged external financial support for the research, the effect of external funding is a key area to explore -- in this regard, it was found that more costly studies were more likely to report high estimates for WTP.
It remains crucial that lawmakers, in designing environmental policy, remain wary of estimated of the willingness-to-pay for air quality improvement.

High variability suggests that many reported values are unreliable or inaccurate.

Tax Reform / Repeal ObamaCare : Saving America

2011-12-31T09:04:00.003-06:00

Between getting rid of ObamaCare and ensheathing new tax reform, the future prosperity of America will be assured.

How to Judge a Tax Plan
Source: William McBride, "How to Judge a Tax Plan," Tax Foundation, December 15, 2011.

Tax reform has become the central issue in the presidential primaries and will likely remain an important issue in the general election. While the plans and proposals will vary considerably in their scope and intent, it is important that they all be judged against a standard set of guideposts or principles that define a sound tax system, says William McBride of the Tax Foundation.

The fairness and neutrality of a tax system.
The complexity of a system and how costly it is to comply with it.
How the system affects U.S. competitiveness and economic growth.
How it affects the stability or volatility of tax revenues

In regards to fairness and neutrality along with the complexity of the tax code, the removal of "tax expenditures," also called "loopholes," should be made a priority. These distortions manipulate the market and create enormous cost to comply with the tax code. Loopholes amount to over $1 trillion per year, or equal to about 7 percent of gross domestic product.
These loopholes are split between individual income taxpayers and businesses, with 90 percent allotted to the prior and 10 percent to the latter.

The complexity of the tax code, caused in no small part by the proliferation of loopholes, creates an aggregate cost of tax compliance of approximately $400 billion each year. This "deadweight" cost for compliance with the current individual income tax, amounting to roughly 11 to 15 percent of total income tax revenues, is equivalent to a burden of $110 to $150 billion on taxpayers and the economy.

The overall competiveness and economic growth of the country, especially in how the nation attracts multinational businesses, is also an important area of tax code analysis.

All four of these factors must be kept in mind as presidential candidates within the next year, and in future elections, share their goals for reforming America's tax system.

Budget Busting Gov. Mandates Unworkable : Busted 2030

2011-12-31T08:44:00.003-06:00

Little wonder we need a good strong Conservative in the White House and a super majority in both houses of congress. To say all we have to do is raise taxes on 1% of the population to solve the problem is just more lunacy from liberal left socialists that see only more spending as the way to prosperity? How does a thing like that work?

The last three years have shown 'taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive' does not work and we have spent borrowed trillions in these last years to prove the point. Why would anyone, that possess any common sense, think that more spending of resources that we don't have will actually be effective to solve financial problems?

The only people that believe this are insane. Doing the same thing over and over again but look for different out comes is the definition of insanity.

Medicare and Social Security to Total 50 Percent of Budget by 2030
Source: Veronique de Rugy, "Spending Surge for Seniors: Medicare and Social Security Total 50 Percent of Budget by 2030," Mercatus Center, December 19, 2011.

The annual share of the U.S. budget spent on programs benefiting senior citizens (i.e., those aged 65 and over) has increased rapidly in the past few decades. More importantly (and alarmingly) is that these same programs under current law are expected to continue to increase rapidly in decades to come. Data on Social Security and Medicare spending from the Congressional Budget Office is used to show the historical trends and projected share of the budget between 1970 and 2084, says Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center.

In 1970, spending on Social Security and Medicare was one-fifth of the budget. This portion has since grown to nearly 37 percent of the budget in 2010; this amounts to 8.4 percent of the country's gross domestic product.

The portion of the federal budget that is allotted to these two mandatory programs has begun to dwarf even the most traditional forms of government spending -- in 2010, they amounted to more than double defense spending.

Furthermore, this data underestimates the realities of federal spending for the old. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2004, a substantial portion of Medicaid spending went to those older than age 65. Thus, this amount must be added to the costs of Social Security and Medicare in order to establish a more accurate figure for the total budgetary burden of entitlement programs for the wealthy.

In 2004, 28 percent of Medicaid spending went to those older than 65. If this figure held constant through 2010, then the original estimate of 37 percent for the elderly population's share of the federal budget rises to roughly 40 percent.

This moves forward the timetable for the growth of these programs in the projected future, with these three areas of spending constituting more than half of the federal budget sometime in the next decade.

The growing number of beneficiaries due to the aging of the baby-boom generation will cause scheduled spending to surge. If current Social Security and Medicare policies continue without change, large deficits will undoubtedly emerge in the next decade and will grow even larger in subsequent decades. Undoubtedly, these trends are unsustainable, and current law cannot be allowed to stand if these entitlement programs are to remain solvent without bankrupting the federal government.

Generosity Defined by Who We Are

2011-12-30T09:02:00.003-06:00

I'm not sure what this all means except, we as a country, understand what it's like to be in need. This understanding is nearly genetic as we have be blessed with everything for generations yet we give where ever it is most needed.

I am so proud to be an American, a country that has given me everything I need.

Generosity in Canada and the United States: The 2011 Generosity Index
Source: Charles Lammam, "Generosity in Canada and the United States: The 2011 Generosity Index," Fraser Institute, December 15, 2011.

In comparing charitable giving among and between Canadian and American jurisdictions, researchers at the Fraser Institute, a free market think tank in Canada, found that trends over the past decade continue to hold strong. Among the trends, all Canadian provinces and territories have continued to be drastically outstripped by American states in charitable giving by a large margin. In both of the standard measures of giving (percentage of tax filers who report having given) and the total share of aggregate income that was donated, Americans out-give Canadians.

More than 26 percent of American tax filers donated to charity in 2009 (the most recent year for which data is available), compared to 23 percent of Canadians.

On a countrywide basis, Americans gave 1.32 percent of their aggregate personal income to charity, more than double the 0.64 percent that Canadians donated. Had Canadians matched the generosity of their American neighbors by donating the same percentage of total income, Canadian charities would have received an extra $8.3 billion in private donations in 2009.

These national differences are large enough that broad comparisons can be made regarding the giving behavior of Americans and Canadians; specifically, Americans are on the whole more generous than their northern neighbors. However, this should now shroud the substantial variability between jurisdictions within each country.

Among Canadian provinces, Manitoba had both the highest percentage of tax filers donating to registered charity (26.0 percent) and the highest percentage of total income donated (0.89 percent); meanwhile, Quebec again ranked lowest in both measures.

Similarly in the United States, Utah was by far the most generous jurisdiction with 33.4 percent of tax filers donating 3.09 percent of the total income earned in the state. The figures for Utah far exceed even the second-place state, Maryland, in which only 1.67 percent of total income was donated.

Public Workers Squeeze Still More in Pensions

2011-12-30T08:13:00.008-06:00

The question now is why allow this to continue? Why not stop the practice so future generations will not have to pay for this foolishness? Maybe those that have the power to stop this want to take advantage of this perk as well.

Allowing this to continue gives new meaning to the term 'brain dead' or just plain weak and corrupt.

Public Workers Pay to Add Work Time, Costing State Pensions
Source: Thomas Frank, "Public Workers Pay to Add Work Time, Costing State Pensions," USA Today, December 28, 2011.

Government workers in 21 states are using an obscure perk to retire early or to boost their annual pensions by thousands of dollars, which can cost taxpayers millions more in payments to retirement funds, a USA Today analysis shows.

The practice, called buying "air time," lets state, municipal and school employees pay to add up to five years to their work history so they are eligible to retire and collect a lifetime pension.
Workers already eligible for retirement can buy extra years to boost a pension by up to 25 percent. It's called "air time" because workers buy credit for non-existent work, in contrast to policies that let workers buy credit for military service or government jobs in a different state.

Dan Pellissier, a former adviser to California's previous governor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, paid $75,000 in 2004 for five years of work credit. When he turns 55 in 2015, he will get a California pension of $61,536 a year -- nearly $13,000 more than if he hadn't bought air time. That's $320,000 extra by the time he is 80.

Legislatures have allowed air-time purchases as both a perk to workers and an inducement for early retirement. Some states try to make air time cost-neutral to their retirement funds by charging an up-front sum equal to a worker's projected extra lifetime pension payments.
But nine states set the price in ways that could cost taxpayers money.

Michigan, Indiana, Montana and Nevada let workers buy air time years before they retire and pay a sum based on their salary at the time. If a worker's salary is higher at retirement, his pension will be based on the higher salary and the state may not have charged enough to break even, says David Driscoll of pension adviser Buck Consultants.

EPA Reports Managed Information On Fracking

2011-12-28T08:33:00.005-06:00

If there is an agency that needs to be totally gutted it is the EPA. As I have noted here in the recent past, this agency has taken on powers that even the president doesn't have. They have direct power to change the entire country simply through regulation.

The EPA, like other out of control agencies in this administration, Interior is another one, conjures up the idea that it's their personal duty to force the population to conform to their socialist environmental agenda, the people and congress be dammed.

These out of control agencies are almost reason enough to make sure they change hands this coming November.

The EPA's Fracking Scare
Source: "The EPA's Fracking Scare," Wall Street Journal, December 20, 2011.

The shale gas boom has been a rare bright spot in the U.S. economy, so much of the country let out a shudder a few weeks ago when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a "draft" report that the drilling process of hydraulic fracturing may have contaminated ground water in Pavillion, Wyoming.

The good news is that the study is neither definitive nor applicable to the rest of the country, says the Wall Street Journal.

This is the first major study to have detected linkage between fracking and ground-water pollution, and the EPA draft hasn't been peer reviewed by independent scientific analysts. Critics are already picking apart the study, which Wyoming Governor Matt Mead called "scientifically questionable."

The EPA says it launched the study in response to complaints "regarding objectionable taste and odor problems in well water." What it doesn't say is that the U.S. Geological Survey has detected organic chemicals in the well water in Pavillion for at least 50 years -- long before fracking was employed. There are other problems with the study that either the EPA failed to disclose or the press has given little attention to:

The EPA study concedes that "detections in drinking water wells are generally below [i.e., in compliance with] established health and safety standards."

The pollution detected by the EPA and alleged to be linked to fracking was found in deep-water "monitoring wells" -- not the shallower drinking wells.

To the extent that drilling chemicals have been detected in monitoring wells, the EPA admits this may result from "legacy pits," which are old wells that were drilled many years before fracking was employed.

The fracking in Pavillion takes place in unusually shallow wells of fewer than 1,000 to 1,500 feet deep. Most fracking today occurs 10,000 feet deep or more, far below drinking water wells, which are normally less than 500 feet.

Medicare Costs Go Unchecked : Failure by 2024

2011-12-28T08:18:00.002-06:00

It still boggles the mind to think congress and the president believe we can take on between 20 million and 30 million new recipients to medical care and not cost a cent more then it is costing now.

One has to believe the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have a different agenda in mind when they adopted Obamacare without any debate from Conservatives or the general public. It sure seems the idea was to get the bill past as fast as you can and prepare to defend the nightmare that surly will ensue.

History has proven this right on all levels of despair.

Medicare Whac-A-Mole
Source: Peter Suderman, "Medicare Whac-A-Mole," Reason Magazine, January 2012.

Medicare as we know it is the nation's biggest fiscal disaster. For years members of Congress and the executive branch have been trying, and failing, to find ways to restrain the growth of government health spending on seniors. As the single largest driver of long-term federal debt, the program is projected to increase in costs rapidly over the next few decades, with the twin drivers of a gradually aging population and rising health care costs that outstrip inflation and economic growth, says Peter Suderman, an associate editor at Reason Magazine.

Medicare is a $500 billion program on track to become a $1 trillion program before hitting estimated insolvency in 2024.

President Obama has made modest inroads, having signed a debt deal with Republicans over the summer that allowed for a 2 percent cut to Medicare spending. He also endorsed a $248 billion Medicare cut as part of his own debt reduction proposal in September.

Despite recognition of the great problems that Medicare faces for its fiscal future, the recent legislative schemes do not address the problem. Rather, by relying on a technical system of price controls and complicated payout formulas, Congress is continuing to play the same game that it has for years in which it drives down direct costs in one area only to see them spring up elsewhere.

In attempting to address the problems of Medicare and medical expenses on the whole, members of Congress should look to the history of the program. Upon the program's initiation, actual costs routinely outstripped projections because coordinators failed to account for a dynamic system in which consumers respond to market changes.

The House Ways and Means Committee, when charged with assessing the costs of the program, projected that total costs for the first year would run no more than $1.3 billion when total spending in the first year actually was $4.6 billion.

The committee did not improve its accuracy over time, projecting that hospital spending would amount to just $3.1 billion in 1970 when it was actually $7.1 billion.

John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, explains that these chronic projection mistakes are because analysts failed to account for increased demand as 19 million people were given free access to unlimited health care.

Today, Congress makes the same mistakes in different ways, failing to account for a dynamic market that undermines direct controls and ignores price-controlling efforts.

Regulate to Stop Innovation & Strangle Success

2011-12-27T09:19:00.004-06:00

Over regulation strangles innovation and success. Small businesses especially can't keep with all the rules and demands from agencies that have no idea what they do or the consequences of each new mandate on business. Worse, the federal agencies don't care, they live in a different insulated world devoid of reality.

Bottom line, just survive until the atmosphere of outside control clears.

Do More Regulations Equal Less Safety?
Source: "Do More Regulations Equal Less Safety?" Mercatus Center, December 2011.

American business must comply with a lot of rules. One of the chief rationales for many regulations is safety, and, as Congress expands regulators' mandates, regulators concentrate on writing highly detailed and specific rules to cover perceived gaps in the law. For the sake of protecting the health and safety of workers and consumers, the federal government accepts the significant drag regulatory compliance puts on the U.S. economy and the burden it places on all businesses.

Psychology, economics and organizational science, however, suggest that too many regulations may make society less safe, says the Mercatus Center.

Increased regulation often leads to reduced compliance, whereby businesses feel that they cannot possibly keep up with the number of rules and therefore give up all efforts entirely.
Heavy regulation also stifles safety innovation -- businesses spend so much energy and time attempting to abide by commanded rules that they do not create their own, firm-specific regulations that may be more needed.

Regulation also causes uncertainty as corporations are more hesitant to invest due to a lack of knowledge regarding the future regulatory landscape.

This first point of reduced compliance makes clear sense: businesses become so clouded with the number of rules by which they must comply that they often fail to adequately obey the most important ones. Minor rules that attempt to address small problems consume a disproportionate amount of time and often cause compliance failure in other areas. Furthermore, a plethora of minor regulations of minimal impact often cast a negative light on all regulations, even those of particular importance.

That regulation will reduce firm-specific safety standards is also a significant problem. Nationwide or even industry-wide regulations usually fail to take into account corporation idiosyncrasies. Thus, even if all regulations are obeyed, there remains significant room for improvement in safety. However, an exhaustive regulatory atmosphere often dampens efforts to create a more comprehensive system of rules.

Businesses hesitate to invest and make drastic changes in their production or line of work when they are uncertain about extraneous factors such as regulation. Managers often cite regulations as one of the greatest factors in their decisions not to hire, and this hesitation causes economic paralysis.

Gambling to Buffer Tax Rolls Replaces Spending Cuts

2011-12-27T09:00:00.004-06:00

This is interesting as most reports on gambling say it doesn't reap the rewards for most states that have decided to venture into gambling as a tax buffer. Not to mention one of the down sides is problem gamblers, people that can't afford to gamble, add to the already overburdened state medical establishment as wards of the state. Also, gambling money that is used to grease politicians for favors as well as organized crime trying to get a foot hold brings still more headaches to state capitals.

Still states will go ahead and give it a try knowing full well the problems associated with organized gambling will come as well.

Cash-Strapped States Bet On Gambling
Source: Ron Dicker, "Cash-Strapped States Bet On Gambling," Huffington Post, December 14, 2011.

Faced with mounting budget deficits, more states are expanding gambling options and loosening restrictions in a grab for revenue. Critics warn that the winnings are not worth the potential social and financial ills. Nevertheless, many states continue to enact legislation that will increase brick-and-mortar establishments within their borders.

While the federal government attempts to overcome its deficit woes, it bears mention that states face a combined $95 billion deficit for 2012. In this context, it makes fiscal sense that state lawmakers advocate the expansion of gambling options, as casinos and lotteries make up at least 2 percent of revenue in states that have them.

Recognizing the impending budget shortfalls, in 2009 and 2010 alone, 37 states pushed for increased gambling outlets. State lawmakers in Massachusetts, who recently approved the construction of three casinos after 20 years of the debate on the topic, could not help but emphasize the potential fiscal benefits. Estimates suggest that the casinos will collect $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year. That corporate income will translate into $300 to $400 million in tax revenue to chip away at the state's projected $1.8 billion 2012 deficit.

The fiscal benefits explain largely why so many states have made recent efforts to bring gambling options to their citizens. Additionally, it cannot be ignored that if a state chooses not to allow gambling within its borders it will watch potential tax revenue leak into other states that do.

Unemployment Worse Than Reported : Obama's Thumb on the Scale

2011-12-26T09:37:00.005-06:00

The accepted agenda for the unemployment rate that the Obama administration uses to report unemployment, is down but doesn't mention they are using ever changing numbers of people seeking work but not those that have decided to quit looking.

If you continue to reduce the number looking for work and use this number to calculate the unemployment rate, the numbers will continue to improve while the economy gets worse.

This is pure politics at the expense of the working class, the class the Democrats claim they represent.

Why Unemployment Is Worse Than You Think
Source: Ike Brannon and Matt Thoman, "Why Unemployment Is Worse Than You Think," The American, December 13, 2011.

The current unemployment rate of 8.6 percent hides the extent of the economic crisis. The widely quoted rate misses not only the underemployed and discouraged workers, but also major demographic factors. The large demographic shift that has taken place over the last few decades -- driven by the maturing of the baby boom generation -- now places considerable downward pressure on the unemployment rate, which makes the current malaise look a bit better than it really is, say Ike Brannon, director of economic studies, and Matt Thoman, coordinator of economic studies, at the American Action Forum.

The unemployment rate, firstly, fails to account for the older generation of workers in the United States (predominantly baby boomers), who have an increased tendency to accept early retirement or buyout packages when faced with possible layoffs.

It also fails to incorporate the large swathes of potential young workers who choose not to enter the labor force due to poor prospects and elect instead to stay in school.

When these two factors are integrated into a more comprehensive measure of unemployment such as the Demographically-Adjusted Unemployment Rate (DOUR), it is found that real unemployment is probably closer to 10 percent than 8.6.

Given this information, America's prospects in emerging quickly and coolly from the recent recession and back to "natural" unemployment levels seem somewhat bleaker. The nation may be on the cusp of having to accept a higher natural rate of unemployment, as it does not appear that the current rate of employment is moving rapidly towards its pre-recession levels.

It bears mention that this demographic effect that seems to suppress the unemployment rate by approximately 1 percent will wear off with the gradual retirement of the job-secure baby boomers. At that time, more attention will have to be paid to transitioning younger workers into the job market and maintaining an adequate level of unemployment.

Elections Have Consequences : Reasons Why

2011-12-26T07:32:00.003-06:00

These reasons to vote Democrat are just a few of the good reasons not to vote Democrat if you have any common sense and care for your family and friends. The most important lesson here is if the politician is liberal socialist left Democrat, don't vote for them.

There might be some good Democrats out there but why take a chance on making a wrong decision?

Top 12 Reasons To Vote Democratic

When your "friends" cannot explain why they voted for Democrats, give them this list. They can pick their reasons from this "TOP 12" List...

1. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

4. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

5. I voted Democrat because I believe people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

6. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

8. I voted Democrat because I believe business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few months to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

10. I voted Democrat because I think it's better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle or Gopher.

11. I voted Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised "HOPE AND CHANGE".

12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ***, it's unlikely I'll ever have another point of view.

Politicians Not the Problem : Voters Are the Problem

2011-12-26T07:23:00.003-06:00

It' really up to all of us, not the politicians, to make the right decisions to save our country. If we make the wrong decisions by voting for more of what we have now, then when it all comes down on our heads, look no further than what you see in the mirror for the blame!

Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling: Let's say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood.... and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings. What do you think you should do ...... Raise the ceilings, or pump out the sewage ?

Your choice is coming November 2012!

Liberal Progressive Agenda Rules for Success

2011-12-23T10:05:00.004-06:00

This is the road map for progressive liberal left Democrats in Wisconsin, but they apply to all liberal Democrats everywhere. Liberal Democrats need direction to focus their attacks on freedom and those that believe America is still the best place in world to live and raise a family.

Liberal progressive Democrats believe that what ever they can do to destroy law and order in this state, they will do it. This is why they believe "the ends justifies the means" or "by any means necessary" to accomplish their goals to "fundamentally change America".

These are from Charlie Skyes of Milwaukee radio - these rules are absolute and effective as Conservatives seem to not have the ability to defend themselves against these attacks. The question now then is, why?

For your Holiday (Pre-Recall Madness) reading... a re-posting of my "rules" from earlier this year. (With apologies again to Saul Alinsky.)

Never acknowledge conservative victories as legitimate.
Never concede defeat in legislative votes. There is always a cloud.
Litigate everything.
Rely on Dane County judges whenever possible.
Elections only matter if liberals win.
Shut down schools, bring legislative process to a halt, tie up the courts, extort businesses, try to overturn elections … and then say “this is what democracy looks like.”
Private businesses, families, personal lives are all fair game. Get the Mainstream media to say that “both sides’ are equally guilty.
Create appearance of scandal and misconduct wherever and whenever possible.
Chant “shame, shame, shame,” a lot.
Break laws, ignore rules, commit fraud, flee the state, change standards at will – but hold conservatives to a standard of absolute compliance. (For example, using the open meetings law to tie up the union bill.)
If we can’t defeat conservatives at the ballot box, we can discredit them and demoralize them. If we get inside their heads, we win.
Encourage conspiracy theories. Use the phrase “Koch Brothers,” as often as possible.
Create chaos whenever possible.
Demand investigations, even if there is nothing to investigate. It adds to appearance of chaos and misconduct. Media will always bite.
Bully, intimidate, and threaten, unleash union thugs… but repeatedly accuse Scott Walker and the GOP of being bullies.
Hold many rallies.
Remember: there is no voter fraud, except when the charge works for our benefit.
Invoke ‘civility,’ when it is in our interest (to get conservatives to shut up), but otherwise feel free to use the vilest language possible.
It doesn’t matter if an accusation against a conservative is true or false; the only question is: can we use it to win (or discredit and demoralize conservatives).
Don't respond to talk radio or other conservative media: discredit them. Remember they are never to be considered a legitimate alternative viewpoint: they are liars." (Politifact will be helpful.)
Rely on the conservative base to hold their own to a higher standard than we do. We don’t care about the private lives of Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, or Chris Abele, but they will turn on their own in cases where we would just look the other way. (The MSM accepts and embraces the double standard so use it.)
Accuse conservatives of hypocrisy a lot. Obviously we are immune to the charge, since we don’t have any standards… except getting our way.
Use every controversy to stoke leftist anger and paranoia and raise money.

Never, ever stop

America As Founded : Battle Hymn of the Republic

2011-12-23T07:57:00.004-06:00

Given the nightmare that we currently have in the White House and the Democrats in Congress, this helps to save the spirit that brought this country into being the most beautiful and prosperous nation on the planet.

God bless America!

http://www.greatdanepro.com/Battle%20Hymn/index.htm

Green Bay Packers New America's Team

2011-12-22T13:52:00.001-06:00

The voting is in and the winner of America's Team is Green Bay - but wait, we knew this from the beginning. Go Pack!

Yahoo Sports
Americans love a winner and that's not the Dallas Cowboys these days. The team from deep in the Republic of Texas has been replaced as the nation's most popular team.
Aaron Rodgers' Super Bowl-winning Green Bay Packers were picked by 22 percent of voters as their favorite team in the NFL, according to Public Policy Polling's newest national survey. The Cowboys finished second, with 11 percent of the vote, followed by the Bears, Giants and Steelers.
NFL Films famously gave the Cowboys the title of "America's Team" in a 1978 highlight film. The program opened up with this intro: "They appear on television so often that their faces are as familiar to the public as presidents and movie stars. They are the Dallas Cowboys, America's Team."

A generation later, Dallas was actually picked as America's least favorite NFL team. The Cowboys got 22 percent of the negative vote, beating out the Chicago Bears' 8 percent and Green Bay's 7 percent for the title.
This was a bi-partisan pigskin vote: Republicans (60 percent), Democrats (44 percent) and independents (44 percent) all picked the Packers over the Cowboys.

Russian Markets Ready for Trade with US

2011-12-22T08:55:00.003-06:00

Just where does one go to find common sense when it comes to trade and the Russian bear. If we trade with these people, just where is the down side to such huge markets? Remember China?

Russia's Entry into the World Trade Organization Is in America's Interest
Source: Daniel Griswold and Douglas Petersen, "Trading with the Bear: Why Russia's Entry into the WTO Is in America's Interest," Cato Institute, December 6, 2011.

Russia is poised to join the World Trade Organization (WTO), solidifying its transition from a closed communist economy to a full participant in the global marketplace. The only question is whether the United States will embrace Russia as a fellow WTO member or forfeit the benefits for the sake of an outdated policy rooted in the Cold War. The 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment requires Congress to annually pass a special exemption for Russia extending it conditional access to the U.S. market. If the law is not revoked, American exports will not benefit from the market-opening policies that Russia will adopt upon its accession, say Daniel Griswold and Douglas Petersen of the Cato Institute.

Through the first three quarters of 2011, Russia ranked 31st among nations as a market for U.S. goods exports and 16th as a source of U.S. goods imports.
In two-way trade (exports plus imports), Russia ranks as America's 23rd largest trading partner.

Russia is by far the largest economy in the world to have not been granted membership into the WTO, with Iran as the only other economy among the largest 50 in the same position.
Not only is Russia one of America's top trading partners, but also this relationship has been severely underdeveloped by previously existing trade barriers. If these barriers to commerce are removed, trade will probably expand even further, granting substantial benefits on each economy.

From 2000 to 2010, U.S. goods exports to Russia increased by 187 percent and U.S. imports from Russia increased by 235 percent.

During the same period, total U.S. exports and imports to and from the entire world grew only 63 percent and 57 percent, respectively.
By some estimates, U.S. exports to Russia could double in the five years following its accession to the WTO.

These facts and estimates suggest that the removal of trade barriers could greatly spur commerce with Russia and act as a significant boon to President Obama's National Export Initiative goal to double exports from 2009 to 2014. There remain substantial obstacles to expanded trade with Russia; however, if these obstacles can be overcome, the benefits to America's trade balance could be substantial.

EPA's New Regulation Power (Green Book) Seeks Total Control

2011-12-20T10:23:00.003-06:00

If you were never really scared before about what the EPA is all about, that is the power that they have to control all of our lives with no over-sight from anyone, including Congress, then after you read this you will know that just being scared doesn't cover the situation.

What this new proposal entails is a complete take over of all aspects of our lives by an unelected agency head. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency will be more powerful than the President of the United States. This one person will control all industries and related institutions which means anything that will effect the environment in any way. This will include all financial and social institutions as well as they are connected to industry in one way or another.

Take a minute and think about this. How does one person assume so much power with no over-sight?

The EPA doesn't need anything or anybody to tell them they can't do something that they believe is in our best interest. And not only in this country, but the entire world through new regulations at the United Nations!! Not only will we all become subservient to any whim at the EPA, we will become subjects to a tyrant with unlimited power.

EPA Ponders Expanded Regulatory Power In Name of 'Sustainable Development'
By George Russell
Published December 19, 2011 FoxNews.com

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants to change how it analyzes problems and makes decisions, in a way that will give it vastly expanded power to regulate businesses, communities and ecosystems in the name of “sustainable development,” the centerpiece of a global United Nations conference slated for Rio de Janeiro next June.

The major focus of the EPA thinking is a weighty study the agency commissioned last year from the National Academies of Science. Published in August, the study, entitled “Sustainability and the U.S. EPA,” cost nearly $700,000 and involved a team of a dozen outside experts and about half as many National Academies staff.

Its aim: how to integrate sustainability “as one of the key drivers within the regulatory responsibilities of EPA.” The panel who wrote the study declares part of its job to be “providing guidance to EPA on how it might implement its existing statutory authority to contribute more fully to a more sustainable-development trajectory for the United States.” Or, in other words, how to use existing laws to new ends.

According to the Academies, the sustainability study “both incorporates and goes beyond an approach based on assessing and managing the risks posed by pollutants that has largely shaped environmental policy since the 1980s.”

It is already known in EPA circles as the “Green Book,” and is frequently compared by insiders to the “Red Book,” a study on using risk management techniques to guide evaluation of carcinogenic chemicals that the agency touts as the basis of its overall approach to environmental issues for the past 30 years.

At the time that the “Green Book” study was commissioned, in August, 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson termed it “the next phase of environmental protection,” and asserted that it will be “fundamental to the future of the EPA.”

Jackson compared the new approach, it would articulate to “the difference between treating disease and pursuing wellness.” It was, she said, “a new opportunity to show how environmentally protective and sustainable we can be,” and would affect “every aspect” of EPA’s work.

According to the study itself, the adoption of the new “sustainability framework” will make the EPA more “anticipatory” in its approach to environmental issues, broaden its focus to include both social and economic as well as environmental “pillars,” and “strengthen EPA as an organization and a leader in the nation’s progress toward a sustainable future.”

Whatever EPA does with its suggestions, the study emphasizes, will be “discretionary.” But the study urges EPA to “create a new culture among all EPA employees,” and hire an array of new experts in order to bring the sustainability focus to every corner of the agency and its operations. Changes will move faster “as EPA’s intentions and goals in sustainability become clear to employees,” the study says.

The National Academies and the EPA held a meeting last week in Washington to begin public discussion of the study.

Even as it begins to go public, EPA, which has come under renewed fire for its recent rulings on new auto emissions standards and limits on coal-fueled power plant emissions, is being determinedly low-key about the study. Initially questioned about the document by Fox News weeks ago, an EPA spokesman eventually declared that “we are currently reviewing the recommendations and have not yet made any decisions on implementation.” During the deliberations, he said, “the agency will seek a wide range of perspectives on the recommendations from the business community, non-governmental organizations, the scientific community, and others.” The spokesman also said that EPA had “no current plans” for the so-called “Rio + 20” environmental summit next summer “that pertains to the Green Book’s recommendations.”

The U.N. summit meeting, however, is mentioned in the Green Book itself as an instance where “sustainability is gaining increasing recognition as a useful framework for addressing otherwise intractable problems. The framework can be applied at any scale of governance, in nearly any situation, and anywhere in the world.”

When it comes to applying the framework via EPA, the study says it is likely to happen only “over time.” The Red Book risk assessment approach now in use, it notes, “was not immediately adopted within EPA or elsewhere. It required several years for its general acceptance at EPA and its diffusion to state and local agencies.”

What is “sustainability” in the first place? That is a question the study ducks, noting that it is only advising EPA on how to bring it within the agency’s canon.

The experts take their definition from an Obama Administration executive order of October, 2009, entitled Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance. It defines sustainability in sweeping fashion as the ability “to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.”

The study specifically notes that “although addressing economic issues is not a core part of EPA’s mission, it is explicitly part of the definition of sustainability.” The experience of the European Union is deemed “particularly relevant” to achieving the sustainability goal.

That European strategy involves a virtually all-encompassing regulatory vision. The study notes that its priorities include “climate change and clean energy; sustainable transport; sustainable consumption and production; conservation and management of natural resources; public health; social inclusion, demography, and migration; and global poverty and sustainable development challenges.”

In an American context, the study says sustainable development “raises questions that are not fully or directly addressed in U.S. law or policy.” Among them: “how to define and control unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and how to encourage the development of sustainable communities, biodiversity protection, clean energy, environmentally sustainable economic development, and climate change controls.”

The study notes that sustainable development is “broader than the sum of U.S. environmental and conservation laws.”

It adds that “a great deal more needs to be done to achieve sustainability in the United States.”
The experts say they found the legal authority for EPA to foster sustainable development without further congressional approval in the wording of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or NEPA. The study says the law, the cornerstone of U.S. environmental policy, declared that the “continuing policy of the Federal Government” is to “create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.”

(In fact, the study quotes selectively from that portion of NEPA. What that section of the Act says in full is that “it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.)

What ends that tacit authority should be used for are far less clear, because the study asserts that they need to be made up and codified as EPA goes along.
“EPA needs to formally develop and specify its vision for sustainability,” the study says. “Vision, in the sense discussed here, is a future state that EPA is trying to reach or is trying to help the country or the world to reach.”

The study offers up new tools for EPA to do the job. As opposed to environmental impact assessment, the study encourages the use of “sustainability impact assessment” in the evaluation of the hundreds and thousands of projects that come under EPA scrutiny to see whether they are moving in the proper direction

“Environmental impact assessment tends to focus primarily on the projected environmental effects of a particular action and alternatives to that action,” the study says. Sustainability impact assessment examines “the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability”—a greatly expanded approach.
One outcome: “The culture change being proposed here will require EPA to conduct an expanding number of assessments.” As a result, “The agency can become more anticipatory, making greater use of new science and of forecasting.”

The catch, the study recognizes, is that under the new approach the EPA becomes more involved than ever in predicting the future. “Forecasting is unavoidable when dealing with sustainability, but our ability to do forecasting is limited,” the document says.

One forecast it is safe to make: the study shows whatever else the new sustainability mission does for EPA, it aims to be a much, much more important—and powerful-- federal agency than it is, even now.
George Russell is executive editor of Fox News and can be found on Twitter@GeorgeRussell

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/19/epa-ponders-expanded-regulatory-power-in-name-sustainable-development/print#ixzz1h0Ltapa0

Mortgage Meltdown Cause : One Third House "Flippers"

2011-12-19T07:26:00.003-06:00

The very idea of bring up the Fannie and Freddie executives on charges of malfeasance and fraud, and not mention Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, is ludicrous. These two guys are the very root of the mess along with the Democrat party that was unanimous in support of the mortgage free-for-all that we all suffer under now.

On numerous occasions, after pointed statements from concerned legislators that Fannie and Freddie were out of control, mostly Republicans, they stated, on the floor of congress, these two agencies were solvent and no further control was needed even after their presiding officers where charged with fraud, fired and fined millions. Jim Johnson and Franklin Rains.

Nothing to see here was the attitude of the Democrats. They still insisted nothing was wrong.

Investor Speculation and the Housing Bubble
Source: Andrew Haughwout et al., "'Flip This House': Investor Speculation and the Housing Bubble," New York Federal Reserve, December 5, 2011.

The recent financial crisis -- the worst in 80 years -- had its origins in the enormous increase and subsequent collapse in housing prices during the 2000s. The New York Federal Reserve has taken advantage of unique data to suggest that real estate "investors" -- borrowers who use financial leverage in the form of mortgage credit to purchase multiple residential properties -- played a very important role in the housing downturn by defaulting in large numbers.

Investor shares of home purchases roughly doubled between 2000 and 2006.
At the peak of the boom in 2006, over a third of all U.S. home purchase lending was made to people who already owned at least one house.

In 2007-2009, investors were responsible for more than a quarter of seriously delinquent mortgage balances nationwide.

The effects of investors on the housing bubble are even more pronounced in those states that faced the harshest effects of the bubble. Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada had the most severe housing downturns, and they also had some of the highest activity of home investors.

While investors were responsible for one third of all home purchases nationwide in 2006, this number is approximately 45 percent in these four states. Furthermore, investors with three or more properties constituted 20 percent, which is triple their share from 2000.

In the years following the bubble burst, investors were responsible for more than a third of delinquent balances in Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada.

The impact of investors on the housing market can be understood by taking a closer look at their basic strategy. By "flipping" a house, an investor attempts to buy it and sell it as quickly as possible while maximizing profit. Because they have little intention of holding onto or living in the house in the long term, they often accepted high interest rates on mortgages in order to minimize down payments.

However, when the housing market dried up and investors were no longer able to clear houses, they were left with unforeseen interest payments that were too high to be kept up with. This caused a disproportionate number of investors to become delinquent and for their flipping to contribute strongly to the housing crisis.

Educational Gap In Science and Math : US Falls Bhind

2011-12-17T09:07:00.005-06:00

Given the mess that the educational system is in now, teachers unions fighting for more money rather then excellence in education, finding a way to produce changes to the systems ideology will be nearly impossible.

What will be needed is a strong Conservative leaders in the White House, along with majorities in the congress, to move the control away from the federal government and place the responsibility for excellence on the local school boards and the teachers.

Wisconsin is one of the leaders in this effort and it's working by producing individual leadership among the teachers and school boards. Unions have attacked the Govenors budget for it's striking of the collective bargaining from the teachers for pensions and health care, but the result is nearly no teachers were laid off and local communities have saved millions in the process.

The reality is if this new governor hadn't gotten this new budget passed, more the 5000 teachers and public employees would have been laid off. The 3.6 billion deficit demanded changes to the system and the best way to do this was ending the collective bargaining of the public sector unions. Collective bargaining is still in force for wages.

The union said they didn't care about laid off teachers, what they wanted was the collective bargaining left in tact. Without this in place, the unions have no way to force the collection of dues. Now it's voluntary and the teachers and public employees like it that way as their pay checks went up by more than $800. Go figure!

Maybe we can change the system from 'me' to 'them'. Only time and hard work will tell.

The Excellence Gap
Source: Sol Stern, "The Excellence Gap," City Journal, Autumn 2011.

Virtually all education reformers recognize that America's ability to remain an economic superpower depends to a significant degree on the number and quality of engineers, scientists and mathematicians graduating from our colleges and universities. Professionals working in these "STEM" areas produce greater scientific innovation, which has generated as much as half of all U.S. economic growth over the past half-century, on some accounts.

But the number of graduates in these fields has declined steadily for the past several decades as students gradually move away from those areas of study that are most beneficial to the economy on the whole, says Sol Stern, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute.

A report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation found that bachelor's degrees in engineering peaked in 1985 and are now 23 percent below that level.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 6 percent of U.S. undergraduates currently major in engineering, compared with 12 percent in Europe and Israel and closer to 20 percent in Japan and South Korea.
The World Economic Forum now ranks the United States fifth among industrialized countries in global competitiveness, down from first place in 2008. The fact that students are moving away from these fields has damaged the United States' competitiveness in the international scope. Yet this trend is only one of the dangers that currently plague the American education system.

In tandem with this growing profession shift among students has been the pervasive effects of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Some 10 years down the road, it is easy to see the good intentions of the law, which was one of the most significant education reforms in modern history. Yet its negative effects are now much easier to identify and quantify than they were at the outset.

Among them is the negative effect on top-performing students. By focusing on closing achievement gaps and lifting up the worst-off students, the law encourages educators to ignore talented learners. Additionally, because NCLB ties federal funding to a given school's performance within state-created metrics, state lawmakers are encouraged to lower standards. This artificially boosts scores and warrants greater shares of federal dollars.

Moving forward, Congress should reconsider some of the most damaging aspects of NCLB and should include policies that encourage the development of talented students who will drive innovation. Additionally, lawmakers should encourage further creation of math and science academies that will encourage greater entrance into STEM fields.

Pensions Extended : Groups Demand More

2011-12-17T08:29:00.003-06:00

In the face of what is happening all over the country with individual states facing bankrupcy, why would a state continue to dig the hole deeper instead of finding a way out before the whole thing collapses in on themselves.

To find the perfect example one needs look no further than California, the poster child for corruption, ineptness and out right ignorance of reality. New York is right up there as well and Michigan may as well be standing next to these two.

But what is the common thread that binds these states to failure? They have been governed by progressive Democrats for decades. If proof is what you want, okay, let's take a look a Louisiana and how that was a sink hole dispare being trashed by Democrats for the past 60 years.

Now the people elected a Conservative to clean up the mess and the results are stunning. It works every time. Will it work for the entire country? Of course. Could it possibly to be worse then what we have now, not possible.

States Expand Lucrative Pensions to More Jobs
Source: Frank Thomas, "States Expand Lucrative Pensions to More Jobs," USA Today, December 10, 2011.

As states tighten budgets and prepare to address massive deficits, special retirement benefits are constantly being extended to additional groups of workers. While the exclusive packages were once reserved for police officers, firefighters and other public workers in dangerous areas, tens of thousands of state workers such as park rangers, dispatchers, coroners, even highway laborers, museum guards and lifeguards are being incorporated into the programs. These packages contain privileges and benefits that far exceed traditional compensation, says USA Today.

The minimum age of retirement is usually substantially lower for those with special retirement plans. The compensation package that retirees receive is a larger percentage of the beneficiary's working income and fewer years of service are necessary to qualify.

The additional cost per worker that is allowed to qualify for a special package is approximately $1 million over the course of the worker's retirement. The budgetary impacts of this growing tendency can be seen in California. The number of workers eligible for enhanced or early retirement jumped to 77,394 from 59,685 in 2000.

Simultaneously, the number of workers in regular retirement plans fell to 170,942 from 175,495, state records show. State records also show that enhanced early retirement plans cost taxpayers $1.5 billion this year, up from $385 million in 2000.

Many former and current lawmakers discuss this situation and recognize the inability to sustain current trends. As more workers are given special retirement packages, the burden of public worker pensions increases and states find themselves in an ever-growing pile of debt. Many have also recognized the snowball effect of the highly distinguishable plans: as one group requests special privileges, it becomes increasingly difficult to withhold those benefits from another group.

While each state is free to supply or deny special benefits to classes of workers, the growing tendency suggests that more and more workers will be found to have "dangerous" positions that warrant exceptional retirement.

Climate Change Advocates Found Lying : Again! Still!

2011-12-16T07:52:00.005-06:00

The nightmare that is climate change marches forward with little or no evidence to support it. What 'proof' that has been distributed is tainted by gross negligence on the part of advocates.

With the release in 2009 and now this new batch of emails it is clear, there was no doubt even before 2009 that this was a scam, climate change can not be 'proved' one way or the other, yet hundreds of millions of tax dollars are still being spent to support a lie.

Green energy advocates use this false information to support their agenda that fossil fuel must be taken down or all is lost for the human race. The truth be dammed.

In reality, the worlds climate is way bigger than man's meager attempts to reduce it to just computer models. Of course this never stopped Al Gore and his ilk from their grab for more money and power.

Climategate 2.0 and Scientific Integrity
Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "What's Going on Behind the Curtain? Climategate 2.0 and Scientific Integrity," National Association of Scholars, December 14, 2011.

Climategate, both 1 and 2, are textbook cases of gross lapses in professional ethics and scientific malfeasance. To understand why, one must first understand what science is and how it is supposed to operate, says H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Science is the noble pursuit of knowledge through observation, testing and experimentation.
Scientists attempt to explain, describe and/or predict the implications of phenomena through the use of the scientific method, which consists of gaining knowledge or explanatory power through a process.

Progress is made in science by proposing a hypothesis and developing a theory to explain or understand certain phenomena, and then testing the hypothesis against reality. A particular hypothesis is considered superior to others when, through testing, it is shown to have more explanatory power than competing theories or hypotheses.

Every theory or hypothesis must be disconfirmable in principle, which means that, if the theory predicts that "A" will occur under certain conditions, but instead, "B" and sometimes "C" result, then the theory has problems. The more a hypothesis' predictions prove inconsistent with or are diametrically opposed to the results that occur during testing, the less likely the hypothesis is to be correct.

Which brings us to Climategate.

Climategate parts one and two are a series of leaked e-mails from arguably the most prominent researchers promoting the idea that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. The first group of e-mails released in 2009 showed scientists, among other things, attempting to suppress or alter inconvenient data, destroying raw data so that others would be unable to analyze it and trying to suppress dissent by undermining the peer review process.

Climategate 2 is a second release of e-mails with little new information, but more hiding of data.
To be clear, these e-mails do not disprove that humans are causing potentially catastrophic global warming, but what clearly emerges is that the scientists claiming that "the science is settled" and that there is "consensus" among scientists, can't be trusted, nor can their research be pointed to as solid proof of anthropogenic global warming, says Burnett.

Education That Works for Students : For-Profit Education

2011-12-15T08:03:00.004-06:00

The real fear among the teacher's union is the general public is waking up to their excesses in wages and other demands drives the insanity that is the riots in Wisconsin over it's new budget. The New budget allows teachers to voluntarily pay union dues, which less than 50% are willing to do it seems, and they must now contribute a small amount to there own retirement and health care instead of nothing. How outrageous is that?

In Wisconsin, as other states, they are called Charter Schools and their success is another nail the coffin of the unions. With every school that opens and is successful, not all are successful, the unions push harder for the election of government officials that will support their agenda of total control of public education and millons of tax dollars.

The fact that the teacher's union in Wisconsin didn't even apply for rectification this year wasn't lost on anyone that's paying attention. Freedom of choice works.

For-Profit Higher Education
Source: Ben Wildavsky, "Crossing to the Dark Side?" American Enterprise Institute, December 13, 2011.

In the past year, for-profit higher education providers have been thrust into the spotlight. Largely missing from the debate, however, has been a more detailed look at how traditional and for-profit institutions differ in important areas like administration, instructor experience, mission and governance, data collection and use, and student recruitment and retention.

Ben Wildavsky, a senior fellow in research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation, tries to get beyond sensationalized headlines and examine these questions from the point of view of individuals who have moved from the traditional to the for-profit sector -- or kept a foot in both.

Trial, Error and Measurement: Entrepreneurial for-profits can move much faster to create new programs, adjust staffing levels and change curricula, according to Geri Malandra, a former University of Texas administrator and now provost of Kaplan University.

Rethinking the Faculty's Role: As a result of for-profit institutions' reliance on trial and error, a heavily standardized curriculum, and responsiveness to consumer demand, their faculty tends to look quite different from those at many traditional not-for-profit institutions.

First and foremost, they are instructors rather than researchers. For-profits also evaluate prospective hires on their teaching skills and give new instructors explicit pedagogical training.

Practical Instruction and Student Support: Interviewees noted that for-profits often hire working professionals or retired college instructors to teach courses with a relentlessly practical emphasis. Since for-profits also enroll a higher proportion of nontraditional and at-risk students, they must provide more intensive student support services and flexible course options.

Quality Concerns and Governance: Those interviewed were generally quick to acknowledge some serious problems in the for-profit sector while underscoring that nontraditional students often face comparable difficulties and frequently experience poor outcomes in conventional institutions.

For-profits will certainly need to work hard to prove their worth, but the observations and experiences of those interviewed suggest that traditional colleges and universities will be badly mistaken if they assume that the travails of for-profits today mean that useful lessons cannot be drawn from their successes to date -- and those likely to occur in the future.

Electrical Rate Sky Rocket : Obama's Promise Come True

2011-12-15T07:22:00.005-06:00

This story in the 'lame stream media' does have some worth in that it details how electricity costs are sky rocketing. What's missing here is why. It does mention the closing of coal fired generating plants and the building of new ones that have not come on line yet, and that they must meet new restrictive regulations imposed by the EPA and other agencies.

But the story line of crushing cost increases to heat and cool our homes and industry is brought to you straight from the White House but conveniently and purposefully leaves out the progressive 'green energy' agenda.

Remember Obama's very words before the election in 2008, " under my administration and how I will capture green house gases, electrical rates will necessarily skyrocket. No matter what companies build to generated power, whether it's coal or gas, under my administration it will cost a lot more and these companies will pass this cost on to the consumer."

If you never watched Fox News or listen to Conservative radio, you would never have heard him say this, and the main stream media depends on the general public remaining ignorant to his real intentions which are, in his words again, " I want to fundamentally change America".

Is the general public really that ignorant to vote for this guy again? If they do, then it will be shame on him for trying to destroying our country the first time he was elected, but shame on you if you allow him to complete the job.

Household Electricity Bills Skyrocket
Source: Dennis Cauchon, "Household Electricity Bills Skyrocket," USA Today, December 13, 2011.

Electric bills have skyrocketed in the last five years, a sharp reversal from a quarter-century when Americans enjoyed stable power bills even as they used more electricity, says USA Today.
Households paid a record $1,419 on average for electricity in 2010, the fifth consecutive yearly increase above the inflation rate.

The jump has added about $300 a year to what households pay for electricity. That's the largest sustained increase since a run-up in electricity prices during the 1970s.

Electricity is consuming a greater share of Americans' after-tax income than at any time since 1996 -- about $1.50 of every $100 in income. Greater electricity use at home and higher prices per kilowatt hour are both driving the higher costs, in roughly equal measure:
Residential demand for power dropped briefly in 2009 but rebounded strongly last year to a record high. Air conditioners and household appliances use less power than ever.

But consumers have bigger houses, more air conditioning and more electronics than before, outpacing gains in efficiency and conservation.

Prices are climbing, too, hitting a record 11.8 cents per residential kilowatt hour so far this year, reports the Energy Information Administration. The increase reflects higher fuel prices and the expense of replacing old power plants, including heavily polluting -- but cheap to operate -- coal plants that don't meet federal clean air requirements.

Electricity cost varies widely depending on where you live. Cheapest: Northwest communities near hydropower dams -- as low as 2 cents per kilowatt hour. Most expensive major utility: Consolidated Edison, supplier of New York City -- 26 cents per kilowatt hour.

A potential bright spot: Electric bills appear roughly the same so far this year as last when adjusted for inflation, based on preliminary reports. However, the future of energy prices and the upcoming closure of more polluting coal plants make the long-term outlook cloudy for consumers.

Illinois Businesses Ready to Flee the State

2011-12-14T08:25:00.002-06:00

It's just not Ohio or Indiana that is after these businesses in Illinois but Wisconsin is after them as well. They have a sign at the boarder that says businesses are welcome to relocate to lower taxes.

Governor Walker has turned the state around as he said he would. The budget is balanced and jobs are coming back. For all his efforts, the unions and progressive liberals are try to recall him.

Liberal Democrats hate success.

Businesses Threaten to Leave Illinois
Source: "Illinoyed," The Economist, December 3, 2011.

In January, in an attempt to grapple with its budget problems, Illinois raised corporate taxes from 7.3 percent to 9.5 percent and personal income tax from 3 percent to 5 percent. Although the tax hikes are theoretically temporary, both the rises and the continued failure of politicians to get to grips with the budget crisis are starting to worry businesses, says The Economist.

Over 17 percent of the state's operating budget, or about $5.8 billion this year, goes on meeting public-pension obligations -- a burden that will worsen as longevity increases. Many companies, fearing that they, and their employees, will ultimately have to pick up the tab, are demanding tax breaks to stay in the state.

In May Motorola Mobility was offered $100 million in financial incentives to retain its corporate headquarters in Illinois, in the hope of retaining 3,000 jobs. Last year Navistar, a truck and engine firm, also managed to extract incentives worth $65 million from the state.

Now Sears, a chain of department stores and one of the state's largest employers, is playing the relocation card. Two Chicago-based financial exchanges -- CME Group and CBOE Holdings -- say they will go as well.

The state's general assembly has responded by preparing legislation that offers these companies a deal. Although a final bill has yet to be agreed, legislative approval looks very likely. Although each new individual arrangement may seem justifiable to the politicians, together they further undermine the state's financial position.

Laurence Msall, president of the Civic Federation, an independent watchdog, says the current state budget contains more than $2 billion of promises for which there is no money. In addition, the state has carried over $5 billion in unpaid bills from previous years. The vultures are circling.

Ohio has offered Sears $400 million to move to the Buckeye State. Indiana has a personal taxation rate of 3.4 percent, and has promised to reduce corporate tax to 6.5 percent over the next four years.

Katelyn Hancock, a spokesperson for the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, points out that the way to compete is not through incentives but via lower taxes, a predictable regulatory climate and fiscal stability.

Student Aid Drives Up Cost of Education

2011-12-14T07:49:00.004-06:00

Nothing is free. There are always consequences for every good or bad intention. It's just human nature. The problem with student aid is that history has proven it causes more problems then it solves. Worse, those that demand more of the student aid know what the problems are but believe they work to their advantage.

Most everyone knows that college and university tuition is out of the realm of common sense. Yet people flock to these schools to get their sheep skins which they believe will assure them of success in their future endeavors. These students believe it's a slam dunk for success no matter what their degree field is.

The Problem : People will pay anything for a free ride. Colleges and universities know this and jack up tuition fees to take a huge piece of the educational pie. How does the saying go, ' there's a sucker born every minute and two to take him'. But that's not all, in the end you find the education you got is marginal at best, or completely worthless. Welcome to higher education.

WOW! Reality is a harsh teacher as this economy has proven to most resent graduates. A degree in Women's Studies, English literature or Economics doesn't exactly assure one of fame and fortune. And after all their efforts to get through school, and in debt up to their necks for years to come, the graduates find there are no jobs for them and won't be for the foreseeable future.

U.S. Universities Feast on Federal Student Aid
Source: Virginia Postrel, "U.S. Universities Feast on Federal Student Aid," Bloomberg, December 8, 2011.

Any serious higher education policy reform has to start by considering a heretical idea: Federal subsidies intended to make college more affordable may have encouraged rapidly rising tuitions, says Virginia Postrel, the author of "The Future and Its Enemies" and "The Substance of Style."

It's a phenomenon familiar to economists: If you offer people a subsidy to pursue some activity requiring an input that's in more-or-less fixed supply, the price of that input goes up. A 1998 article in the American Economic Review explored an example: federal research and development subsidies.

The supply of scientists and engineers is fairly fixed, at least in the short run. So instead of spurring new activity, much of the money tends to go to increase the salaries of people already doing such work.

From 1968 to 1994, a 10 percent increase in research and development spending led to about a 3 percent increase in incomes in the subsidized fields.

In the short-term, the number of slots at traditional colleges and universities is relatively fixed. A boost in student aid that increases demand is therefore likely to be reflected in prices rather than expanded enrollments. Over time, enrollments should rise, as they have in fact done. But many private schools in particular keep the size of their student bodies fairly stable to maintain their prestige or institutional character.

On the whole, it seems that if the government hands their customers the equivalent of a discount coupon, the institutions can capture at least some of that amount by raising their prices -- especially when demand for their product is increasing independent of aid, because a college degree promises to pay off in higher wages.

This doesn't mean that colleges capture all the aid in higher tuition charges. But it does set up problems for two groups of students in particular: those who don't qualify for aid and who therefore have to pay the full, aid-inflated list price, and those who load up on loans to fill the gaps not covered by grants or tax credits only to discover that the financial value they expected from their education doesn't materialize upon graduation.

Regulatory Agencies Don't Need Facts To Write Regulations

2011-12-13T08:13:00.004-06:00

Who would have thought that a governmental agency would write regulations without knowing the problem?

This is prevalent in the private sector as well in that managers make decisions about situations they know nothing about just because they are managers and because they believe they are being paid to make decisions.

Hard to believe? Maybe, but it happens all the time. Little wonder things don't get screwed up more then they do.

A Foundational Problem with Regulations
Source: "'Ready, Fire, Aim!' A Foundational Problem with Regulations," Mercatus Center, December 2011.

The regulatory authority Congress grants to government agencies is an immensely powerful tool for altering behavior in the marketplace. But while intended to solve problems that otherwise would not be addressed, the regulatory process often yields excessively broad and burdensome rules that fail to achieve the desired public objective.

Regulations are imposed prematurely, without any realistic examination of whether alternative approaches would be more effective or efficient at solving the problems, says the Mercatus Center.

All too often, the method of operations for a regulatory agency resembles the following:

Decide what it wants to do.
Write up a proposed regulation.
Perform analysis to justify the regulation.

The greatest problem with the status quo is that the economic analysis is conducted as an afterthought when it should instead be an integral part of the decision-making process.

Instead, the process should be expanded and reformed to match the following:
Define the problem.

Identify the desired outcome.
Consider all alternatives, including actions that can be taken by other governments and non-government actors.
Assess tradeoffs.
Review the efficacy of the regulation after the fact.

Decades of yielding presidential orders have failed to align regulatory agencies with this proven method of decision-making; this fact alone should compel Congress to act. Statutory legislation will be required to force agencies to conform to the correct principles.

Clinate Change Insanity Goes On : IPCC Ignores Facts

2011-12-13T07:48:00.007-06:00

In light of the new email dump from the 'climate change" head quarters in England, some 5000 new emails with another 225,000 to come at a later date, this finding by the IPCC is just proving the definition of insanity, 'committing over and over again to the same agenda, but believing they can get different results each time'.

Truly, the climate change, global warming proponents, are insane. Do these people really believe they can fool all the people all the time?

It is extremely difficult for the average person to comprehend how these people can continue to advocate climate change in the face of so much evidence that is now available to the general public that these people lied. And yet they continue down the same path!

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports Are Misleading
Source: Indur M. Goklany and Julian Morris, "How the IPCC Reports Mislead the Public, Exaggerate the Negative Impacts of Climate Change and Ignore the Benefits of Economic Growth," Reason Foundation, December 7, 2011.

By the year 2100, developing countries will be richer than the United States is today, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) worst-case temperature change scenario. Moreover, the faster developing countries grow and the more emissions they produce, the wealthier they will be -- even taking into account all the damage that is expected from climate changes caused by those emissions.

These surprising findings about developing countries and global warming are based on the very studies that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's own reports rely upon. But you wouldn't know it based on the IPCC's dire warnings, say Indur M. Goklany, who has represented the United States at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change negotiations in the past, and Julian Morris, vice president of research at the Reason Foundation.

In a new study, Goklany and Morris detail how studies on the impacts of climate change disregard the economic and technological advances that poor countries are expected to make -- even under the IPCC's worst-case global warming scenario.

"Using the IPCC's own highest emission scenario, we show that by 2100 the gross domestic product per capita of today's 'developing' countries will be double that of the United States in 2006, even taking into account any losses resulting from climate change," Goklany says.

"Thus developing countries will have significantly more resources and better technology to cope with climate change than even the United States does today."

The study outlines three approaches to tackling climate change: cutting emissions of greenhouse gases; focused adaptation; and economic growth. "The best strategy by far to combat climate change is economic growth," says Morris.

Pensions On Thin Ice : Private Sector Now

2011-12-13T07:33:00.003-06:00

Here we go again - government intervention causing the problem and then government coming to the rescue with taxpayer's dollars. Can these people, that we have representing us, be so far out of the common sense loop as to not see or understand what they are doing?

The Private-Sector Pension Predicament
Source: Charles Blahous, "The Private-Sector Pension Predicament," Hoover Institution, December 1, 2011.

Recently there has been substantial attention paid to underfunding in state and local government pension plans, a longstanding problem made more urgent by recent troubles in the larger economy. There has of yet been comparatively less attention given to a similar (though smaller) set of mounting financial risks associated with private-sector worker pensions covered by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

Yet here, too, public policy corrections are required to address underfunding and avoid another taxpayer-financed bailout, says Charles Blahous, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
PBGC's latest annual report shows a net deficit of over $23 billion.

The PBGC estimates its exposure to reasonably possible plan terminations at approximately $170 billion.

The funding gap in the PBGC's finances is not due entirely to the recent economic downturn, as its deficits have amounted to more than $10 billion in each year since 2003. PBGC's multiemployer program is also presenting increased risks: in 2010, "reasonably possible" exposure in multiemployer plans suddenly rose from roughly $300 million to approximately $20 billion.

These pension plans have continued to be chronically underfunded for years, and the result is a significant budget gap that persists and grows as years pass. This pattern has been allowed to go on for so long because a number of factors have prevented the implementation of corrective measures.

Because asset values have traditionally been blended with previous years' levels, the loss of assets has not been realized until a substantial amount of time has passed. Pension funding liabilities have been regularly underestimated as accountants fail to account properly for the number of beneficiaries and the amounts that they will withdraw. Volatility in interest and yield rates complicate accounting efforts to convert dollar amounts into present value.
Loopholes in the recent 2006 Pension Protection Act allowed and encouraged underfunding by permitting certain contributions to be double-counted.

The PBGC's gross underfunding and potential for insolvency requires greater independence from government regulation such that the organization can resolve its own shortfalls. It is imperative that such a policy of autonomy be paired with requirements for greater transparency, as the potential sources of moral hazard in this regard cannot be ignored.

CBO Report on 1%ers Income Faulty/Managed

2011-12-12T07:56:00.004-06:00

How did Reagan know all this stuff about cutting taxes and increased federal revenues? Why is this lost on the progressive liberal left that insists more taxes and higher rates for the wealthy will solve our financial problems?

Another question that must follow these first two, how did the progressive become so illiterate, ignorant of history? In reality, it isn't about what's true or workable, it's about the agenda, the ideology. All other considerations must bow.

Tax Rates, Inequality and the 1 Percent
Source: Alan Reynolds, "Tax Rates, Inequality and the 1 Percent," Wall Street Journal, December 6, 2011.

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says, "The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8 percent in 1979 to over 17 percent in 2007." This news caused quite a stir, feeding the left's obsession with inequality, says Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.

But here's a question: Why did the report stop at 2007?

The CBO didn't say, although its report briefly acknowledged -- in a footnote -- that "high income taxpayers had especially large declines in adjusted gross income between 2007 and 2009."

Once these two years are brought into the picture, the share of after-tax income of the top 1 percent by Reynolds' estimate fell to 11.3 percent in 2009 from the 17.3 percent that the CBO reported for 2007. The incomes that top earners report to the IRS have long been tightly linked to the ups and downs of capital gains.

Changes in the tax law in 1986, for example, evoked a remarkable response -- with capital gains accounting for an extraordinary 47.7 percent of top earners' reported income as investors rushed to cash in gains before the capital gains tax rose to 28 percent.

When the top capital gains tax fell to 20 percent in 1997 and remained there until 2002, realized capital gains rose to 25.4 percent of the top earners' income, and it explained much of the surge of their income share to 15.5 percent in 2000.

Similarly, because the CBO estimates top incomes from individual tax returns, it looked like a big spurt in top income in 1988 when thousands of businesses switched to reporting income on individual rather than corporate returns as the top individual tax rate dropped to 28 percent from 50 percent.

In short, what the Congressional Budget Office presents as increased inequality from 2003 to 2007 was actually evidence that the top 1 percent of earners report more taxable income when tax rates are reduced on dividends, capital gains and businesses filing under the individual tax code.

America's Past/Future in Graphics : Deficits

2011-12-11T07:48:00.003-06:00

Goodness - is this our future if Obama gets another 4 years? Can a Conservative turn this around before it's to late?

The only way to find out is to elect a Conservative. The alternative is unacceptable. Catastrophic.

The Truth about Obama’s Budget Deficits, in Pictures
Mike Brownfield and Emily Goff
July 28, 2011 at 7:54 am
(69)

Through the fog of the debt limit negotiations, President Obama has attempted to shift the blame for America’s deficit crisis to politicians at large, claiming that “neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem.” Though the culture of overspending is endemic in Washington, don’t let the President fool you—some are a lot more guilty than others.

The fact is that Obama’s budget would set America on a dangerous fiscal course that leads to massive deficits well into the future—hitting $1.2 trillion in 2012 and, after dipping slightly, rising back to $1.2 trillion again by 2021.

The chart above illustrates what the country’s fiscal future looks like. As analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, even after the massive tax hikes included in Obama’s budget, federal deficits total $9.5 trillion. In other words, under his budget, the President would more than double the national debt in just 10 years. Simply put, Obama’s budget (which didn’t even win the support of his own party in the United States Senate) would push America over a fiscal cliff.

The President’s media apologists are attempting to carry water for Obama and shift the blame for the budget mess squarely at the feet of President George W. Bush. Specifically, they argue that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and the recession are all to blame for today’s deficits. It’s an argument we heard before from Obama since the days of his campaign, and it’s an argument that is as flawed today as it was then. One simple number explains it well: the budget deficit figure in 2007, the last Bush year prior to the recession. The tax cuts were in full effect, both wars were raging, and the recession had not yet struck, yet the budget deficit in 2007 was $160 billion, or about a tenth of Obama’s deficit this year.

Then there’s the President’s stimulus spending binge, which made matters worse. The policy was rooted in the false premise—recited by The New York Times—that government spending can propel the economy out of a recession. Well, it hasn’t. The economy is stuck in slow, and the hundreds of billions of stimulus dollars have only added to today’s debt and deficits.
So much for the past.

Looking forward, America’s fiscal woes aren’t due to wars, recessions, or tax cuts. As Brian Riedl explained, the root of America’s fiscal woes is entitlement spending: Entitlements and other obligations are driving the deficits. Specifically, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and net interest costs are projected to rise by 5.4% of GDP between 2008 and 2020. The Bush tax cuts are a convenient scapegoat for past and future budget woes. But it is the dramatic upward arc of federal spending that is the root of the problem.

To be fair, President Obama did inherit these programs. So, has he proposed remedial action? No, he’s acted to make the entitlement excesses worse by pushing through his Obamacare health care reform, which created a whole new entitlement.

Without a doubt, deficits during the Bush Administration were too high, especially in the early years. More could and should have been done to restrain spending. But, without a doubt, the Bush deficits were puny compared to what Obama and his congressional allies have inflicted.

For Obama’s apologists to seek cover in the Bush deficits is shameless. To use these diversions to now take attention away from the real problem to which Obama has added is outrageous.

Skilled Labor in Demand

2011-12-11T07:00:00.002-06:00

This is not rocket science when you consider the number of college graduates that have degrees in worthless disciplines but expect to get good paying jobs.''

I graduated with an MBA but who wanted that when most employers were looking for skilled workers in just about any field. This was some years ago but still holds today as this article can attest.

I wound up in manufacturing but the money was marginal. Then again, maybe I was paid what I was worth. I had no experience. I had no workable skills.

Wanted: Blue-Collar Workers
Source: Joel Kotkin, "Wanted: Blue-Collar Workers," City Journal, Autumn 2011.

There is a shortage of skilled workers capable of running increasingly sophisticated, globally competitive factories, says Joel Kotkin, a distinguished presidential fellow at Chapman University in Orange County, California.

Driving the skilled-labor shortage is a remarkable resurgence in American manufacturing.
Since 2009, the number of job openings in manufacturing has been rising, with average annual earnings of $73,000, well above the average earnings in education, health services and many other fields, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Production has been on the upswing for over 20 months, thanks to productivity improvements, the growth of export markets (especially China and Brazil), and the lower dollar, which makes American goods cheaper for foreign customers.

Also, as wages have risen in developing countries, notably China, the production of goods for export to the United States has become less profitable, creating an opening for American firms.

The industrial resurgence comes with a price: a soaring demand for skilled workers. Even as overall manufacturing employment has dropped, employment in high-skill manufacturing professions has soared 37 percent since the early 1980s, according to a New York Federal Reserve study. These jobs can pay handsomely -- an experienced machinist at the Ariel Corporation in Mount Vernon, Ohio, earns over $75,000.

The shortage of industrial skills points to a wide gap between the American education system and the demands of the world economy. For decades, Americans have been told that the future lies in high-end services, such as law, and "creative" professions, such as software-writing and systems design. This has led many pundits to think that the only real way to improve opportunities for the country's middle class is to increase its access to higher education.

The oversupply of college-educated workers is striking, however, when you contrast it with the growing shortage of skilled manufacturing workers. A 2005 study by Deloitte Consulting found that 80 percent of manufacturers expected a shortage of skilled production workers, more than twice the percentage that expected a lack of scientists and engineers and five times the percentage that expected a lack of managerial and administration workers.

Employers Training Existing Workers for New Positions

2011-12-11T06:33:00.004-06:00

Here is another reason why the unemployment rate is still going up. Corporation and even small businesses are pushing the workers they have to do more resulting in higher productivity and more profit. Why hire new people when you can do more with the work force that you have now?

It makes sense when the stock market doesn't tank given the amount of unemployed workers and yet companies are still moving forward. This does not bode well for our country for the future. Sometime, in the near future, unemployment will run out.

What do we do with those that will never be employed again because they are untrainable, those that just don't want to work anymore as it is easier to live on welfare and technology that came on the scene to replace workers that priced themselves out of the market?

Fine-Tuning the Perfect Employee
Source: Lauren Weber, "Fine-Tuning the Perfect Employee," Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2011.

Faced with a dearth of skilled labor, more companies are taking employee education into their own hands. Unemployment figures are high, but finding workers with the right skills for the job -- especially for highly specialized roles such as power plant technicians or laboratory chemists -- remains a big challenge, says the Wall Street Journal.

In a survey from Lloyd's, the British insurance concern, U.S. executives considered lack of skilled workers one of the greatest risks their companies faced in 2012, second only to loss of customers. So rather than wait for the perfect candidates to walk through the door, companies have decided to school their in-house staff or train new hires who may lack the exact skills they are looking for.

Companies have long devoted resources to training and development, either internally or through partnerships with universities and community colleges. But many companies cut back on programs or cancelled them altogether to save money during the downturn. That appears to be changing:

According to the American Society for Training and Development, U.S. employers spent 36 percent more on learning and development in 2010 than in 2009.

Direct expenditures for learning, as a percentage of payroll, rose to 2.7 percent in 2010 from 2.3 percent in 2006.

Aegis Sciences Corp., which conducts drug-screening services and other forensic testing, says it puts about 5 percent of its revenues into training.

There are about 50 positions for scientists and lab technicians, among others, open at any given time, according to Cheryl Hild, Aegis's director of quality. The company says it can't find enough experienced workers to fill those jobs, so it taps recent chemistry graduates who have university lab training but little or no experience at a professional lab, where quality control and consistency are critical. Aegis then trains employees in skills such as how to extract certain materials from blood or urine samples and analyze them for the presence of various drugs.

Public Sector Union 1%er Mandates Crushing New York

2011-12-10T07:26:00.004-06:00

This is incredible - 20% of state revenues are dedicated to public employee pensions and growing in New York city? What about the rest of the state? Do the other public sector employees get that kind of retirement? Probably not.

Municipal "Millionaires"
Source: Lawrence Mone, "Municipal 'Millionaires': Tax Hikes to Fund Gov't 1 Percent-ers," New York Post, November 30, 2011.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, under enormous pressure from public-employee unions and Democrats in the state Legislature to extend New York's "millionaires' tax," is considering at least some higher taxes on higher incomes. The big irony here is that much of the money raised from any "millionaire" tax hikes would go to fund the growing phenomenon of public-sector millionaires, says Lawrence Mone, president of the Manhattan Institute.

These millionaires on the city payroll have been made so by generous salaries, but more so by astoundingly large pension benefits that are included when calculating a person's net wealth.
A New York City public school teacher earning $100,000 can retire at age 55 with a pension of $60,000. A private-sector worker would need $1.2 million to buy an annuity with the same yield.

It would take an even larger nest egg to replicate the pension income of city police officers -- they typically retire in their 40s and collect an average pension of $58,563 with a $12,000 annual supplement.

In the private sector, however, the Federal Reserve states that the average worker in his late 50s has a balance of $85,600 in his retirement account, and a net worth of $222,300 overall.
Many are quick to point out that many of these public workers labor in fields that are vital to America's growth or that are disproportionately dangerous, and that these facts warrants larger compensation packages.

Yet, regardless of a comparison between private sector and public sector workers, it seems that public compensation at current levels is unsustainable. New York City, specifically, offers a guaranteed 8-percent annual rate of return for its pension holders.

This benefit, in addition to the sheer volume of public workers, has led to increased city pension costs from about 4 percent of city tax revenues to 20 percent over the past decade, crowding out other vital public investments.

Therefore, lawmakers should consider more carefully the populations that they are taxing and the current status of the recipients of city revenue before key decisions are made.

Public Education Funding Follows Good Teachers?

2011-12-10T07:05:00.003-06:00

This is puzzling in that why would it happen at all without the teachers union screaming to high heaven that some teachers were being taken advantage of. I wonder as well if some the migration of good teachers has to do with violence related to urban locations?

After all it's the teachers wages from which dues are extracted that support the union and , in turn, their Democrat allies in congress from witch all things bright and beautiful flow.

Poorer Schools Not Getting Fair Share of Funding
Source: Ben Wolfgang, "Poorer Schools Not Getting Fair Share of Funding," Washington Times, November 30, 2011.

Loopholes in federal education law have allowed districts to funnel more state and local money to wealthy schools at the expense of their low-income counterparts, according to a new report released by the Education Department. Districts are required to maintain financial parity between their schools by federal law to prevent such a phenomenon. However, the loophole that is currently being exploited allows districts to exclude teacher salaries from calculations, says the Washington Times.

More than 40 percent of low-income schools don't get their "fair share," the report says, despite federal requirements that districts spend "comparable" amounts of money at poorer schools eligible for Title 1 funding.

Poor schools that are underfunded often attempt to make up the budget gap by reducing programs and benefits for disabled or disadvantaged children. The average district could fix the problem by redirecting about 1 percent of annual spending, the report states, though such a change would mean a reduction in funds for wealthier schools in a district.

Activists who recognize the lack of equality that is currently created by the exploitation of the loophole have called on Congress to redefine the accounting standards. Such a bill has been created in the Senate, and it would force schools to include teacher salary in their financial breakdowns.

The end result, it is hoped, is that the current disparities between wealthy schools and poor ones will be eliminated. Currently, affluent schools are able to pay higher wages for teachers, allowing them to attract high-quality veteran teachers that deliver a superior education for their students.

Meanwhile, younger teachers with less experience are forced to seek employment at the poorer schools that have lower wages. Critics complain that this experience exodus from poor schools to wealthy exacerbates education gaps.

Wisconsin Brought Low : Progrssives Hate Success

2011-12-09T10:45:00.003-06:00

Thank you progressive socialist liberal left Democrats for taking success away and leaving in it's wake poverty and destruction. Liberals see this as their legacy.

Liberal left Democrats hate success.

So to make sure this is the story the world will always see as Wisconsin, liberal progressives want to recall the guy who is trying to bring back the greatness that was Wisconsin.

Isn't this the best reason to vote for more Democrats - !

(author unknown)

Downward Wisconsin

We used to make things here in Wisconsin .

We made machine tools in Milwaukee , cars in Kenosha and ships in Sheboygan . We mined iron in the north and lead in the south. We made cheese, we made brats, we made beer, and we even made napkins to clean up what we spilled. And we made money.

The original war on poverty was a private, mercenary affair.
Men like Harnishfeger, Allis, Chalmers, Kohler, Kearney, Trecker, Modine, Case, Mead, Falk, Allen, Bradley, Cutler, Hammer, Bucyrus, Harley, Davidson, Pabst, and Miller lifted millions up from subsistence living to middle class comfort. They did it - not Fighting Bob La Follette or any of the politicians who came along later to take the credit and rake a piece of the action through the steepest progressive scheme in the nation.

Those old geezers with the beards cured poverty by putting people to work. Generations of Wisconsinites learned trades and mastered them in the factories, breweries, mills, foundries, and shipyards those capitalists built with their hands. Thousands of small businesses supplied these industrial giants, and tens of thousands of proprietors and professionals provided all of the services that all those other families needed to live well. The wealth got spread around plenty.

The profits generated by our great industrialists funded charities, the arts, education, libraries, museums, parks, and community development associations. Taxes on their profits, property, and payrolls built our schools, roads, bridges, and the safety net that Wisconsin s progressives are still taking credit for, as if the money came from their council meetings. The offering plates in churches of every denomination were filled with money left over from company paychecks that were made possible because a few bold young men risked it all and got rich. Dont thank God for them; thank them that you learned about God.

Their wealth pales in comparison to the wealth they created for millions and millions of other Wisconsin families. Those with an appreciation for the immeasurable contributions of Wisconsins industrial icons of 1910 will find the list of Wisconsins top ten employers of 2010
appalling: Walmart, University of WisconsinMadison, Milwaukee Public Schools, U.S. Postal Service, Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Menards, Marshfield Clinic, Aurora Health Care, City of Milwaukee, and Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs.

This is what a century of progressivism will get you.
Wisconsin is the birthplace of the progressive movement, the home of the Socialist Party, the first state to allow public sector unions, the cradle of environmental activism, a liberal fortress walled off against common sense for decades. Their motto, Forward Wisconsin, should be changed to Downward Wisconsin if truth in advertising applies to slogans.

There is no shortage of activists, advocates, and agitators in this state. If government were the answer to our problems, we would have no problems. The very same people or people just like them who picketed, struck, sued, taxed, and regulated our great companies out of this state are now complaining about the unemployment and poverty that they have brought upon themselves. They got rid of those old rich white guys and replaced them withnothing.

Wisconsin ranks 47th in the rate of new business formation. We are one of the worst states for native college graduate exodus; our brightest and most ambitious graduates leave to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Why shouldnt they? Our tax rates are among the worst in the nation and our business climate, perpetually in the bottom of the rankings, has only recently moved up thanks to a Governor who now faces a recall for his trouble.

In 1970, the new environmental movement joined unions and socialists in a coordinated effort to demonize industry. When I was in college, the ranting against polluting profiteers was like white noise always there. They won, and here is the price of their victory: in 1970, manufacturers paid 18.2% of Wisconsin s property taxes the major source of school funding - and in 2010 those who remained paid 3.7%.

So who is it that caused the funding crisis in our schools and the skyrocketing tax rates on our homes? It is the same ignoramuses who are sitting on bridges, pooping on things, and passing around recall petitions.
The unemployed 26-year old in the hemp hat looking for sympathy might look instead for some inspiration from Jerome I. Case, who started his agricultural equipment business at the age of 21, miraculously without an iPhone 4s.

Mr. Case got rich by asking people what they want and making it for them. He did not get rich by telling people what he wanted and waiting for them to do something about it. If you want to declare war on your own poverty, memorize that.

In the last decade alone we have lost 150,000 manufacturing jobs in this state over 25%. And its not just jobs that have been lost; the companies that provided them are gone. Those jobs are not coming back, no matter how long we extend unemployment benefits pretending they are. The
450,000 people who still work in manufacturing in Wisconsin are damn good it at, but we are now outnumbered by people who work for government. A significant number of the latter are tasked with taxing, regulating, and generally harassing the former. While it is true that many manufacturers chased low-wage opportunities on their own, many more were driven out of the state by the increasing cost of doing business here.

It is a myth that unions improve wages. If you consider only the 1,000 jobs in a closed shop, you might think an average union wage is, say, $30/hr. But if you add in the zero wages of the 10,000 jobs lost in companies chased out by union harassment, the average of all 11,000 union workers is reduced to $2.72/hr. Do you know the average wage of union iron miners in this state? Zero. And the left is fighting hard to keep it that way in Northern Wisconsin - looking out for the working man, they call it.

It is also a myth that free trade causes job losses. Over the past three years, U.S. manufacturers sold $70 billion more goods to our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners than we bought from them. Conversely, we suffered a $1.3 trillion trade deficit with countries where no FTAs exist. I doubt that kids are going to learn that in our government-union monopoly schools it doesnt fit the narrative.

No one wants to see another person suffer in poverty, and liberty is the best economic policy there is. The great industrialists of Wisconsin took less than a generation to lift millions up to a life of dignity, pride, prosperity and good will. When enterprise was free and government was limited, we all prospered.

Those great men of industry were not anointed at birth to be rich; they rose from nothing to great wealth through their own hard work and the value they added to their employees and their customers through choice, competition, and voluntary exchange. That is the only sure path to real prosperity; the debt economy is a temporary illusion.

Look again at the list of our famous industrialists and the list of our current employers. Who would you wish your child or grandchild to grow up to be? Who do you think will do more good on this earth Jerome I Case and his tractors, or the Coordinator of Supplier Diversity at Milwaukee Public Schools?

If you chose MPS, then apply now that job is open, and it pays up to $72,000 plus benefits and early retirement. Go in peace and save the world. Me, I'm going with the tractor guy.

Deer Hunting Explained by Ted Nugent

2011-12-09T10:30:00.002-06:00

Great Quote!
Deer Hunting Story...even if you don't care about hunting...Gotta Love Ted!

Ted Nugent, rock star and avid bow hunter from Michigan , was being interviewed by a liberal journalist, an animal rights activist. The discussion came around to deer hunting.

The journalist asked, 'What do you think is the last thought in the head of a deer before you shoot him? Is it, 'Are you my friend?' or is it 'Are you the one who killed my brother?

Nugent replied, 'Deer aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, what am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the Democrats in Congress.'

The interview ended.

Husbands and Wives : Clash of Titans - Humor

2011-12-09T07:43:00.002-06:00

Take a break, okay?

The wife has been missing for a week now. Police said I needed to prepare for the worst. So, I have to rush back to the thrift shop and get all of her clothes back.

Property Taxes Driven by Public Labor Mandates

2011-12-08T09:28:00.002-06:00

Interesting - but here is something else that local boards do to stick to the home owner - they send out the tax man to review the property after several years to raise your property values for future estimated taxes. They set the limits very high but don't use that figure for the present mill rate. See how this works?

Okay, here it is, the new valuation will not necessarily raise one's taxes immediately because of the caps that are in place, but local boards will have the option to raise the taxing to the level they set in prior years if they need more money regardless of the caps.

And you guessed it, they always need more money.

How Taxes Drive Down Home Values
Source: Nicole Gelinas, "How Taxes Drive Down Home Values," National Review, December 1, 2011.

In the past five years, house prices have declined to 2003 levels, and the average home declined in price by 3.9 percent over the last year alone. National politicians are scrambling to reverse the trend. But the remedy lies in state houses and town halls, says Nicole Gelinas, a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute's City Journal.

A house is worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it in monthly costs. But when you buy a house, you're not just committing to a mortgage -- you are also promising to pay the future property taxes on that house.

What drives those local property taxes are the future costs of paying state and local workers and retirees, particularly retirees' pensions and health care. These costs are going in one direction: up.

Unless state and local governments take steps now to reduce future costs, or unless they plan on suddenly repudiating their promises to their public-sector work forces one day, every dollar in unfunded pension and health care costs is up to a dollar less in the future value of a house.

Take one example, New York's Westchester County, the highest-taxed county in the nation.
According to the Tax Foundation, property taxes in Westchester average $9,044 annually -- up by $1,707, or 23 percent, in the five years from 2005 to 2009.

What if property taxes in Westchester were to increase by another 23 percent, to $11,124, in the next half decade, or even the next decade? That's an extra $2,080 in annual costs per house, or nearly $175 every month. Even after deducting these levies from his federal tax bill, a homeowner would end up losing $1,456 a year.

Families that considered buying a house would sensibly lop that extra amount off the price they are willing to pay -- and the seller would lose about $23,500 in investment value.

Yes, it's true that New York and New Jersey recently enacted caps on property-tax hikes, and California has long had such a cap. But unless state and local governments rein in costs, local governments will have no choices but to find a way around these caps.

Bicyclists Must Be Aware of Road Rules

2011-12-08T09:06:00.004-06:00

How true - in fact I am a bike rider, racer, and have been for the last twenty years, and find that I do not stop at stop signs in the suburbs if no one is coming. I do stop for red lights and four way stops.

It makes sense when you can see potential danger to make the right decision. To disregard all rules of the road because you are a bike rider just means you're stupid.

Bikes and Red Lights
Source: Nate Berg, "The Uncomfortable Relationship between Bikes and Red Lights," Atlantic Cities, December 2, 2011. Aaron Cole et al., "Red Light Behavior between Motor Vehicles and Bicycles," Portland State University, November 28, 2011.

It'll come as no surprise to cyclists -- not to mention irritated drivers -- that bike riders tend to have what we might kindly refer to as selective vision when it comes to stop signs and traffic signals. Cyclists regularly run stop signs and signaled intersections when the coast is clear. Momentum is key for the bike rider and coming to a complete stop when nobody's around is hard to justify. But even so, there's an inherent risk in not obeying traffic laws, says Nate Berg of Atlantic Cities.

A recent study by Portland State students monitored intersections around campus to see how well drivers and cyclists adhered to red lights. The report shows that of the 497 cars observed only 36 ran red lights, while 58 of the 99 bicycles observed blew right through.
That's about 7 percent of cars compared to 58 percent of bicycles. Two of the three intersections the students chose to study have a cycle track, or a bicycle lane separated from traffic lanes.
The researchers found that cyclists were more likely to run red lights at the intersections with the cycle track, with about 70 percent of riders running lights compared to less than 40 percent on the shared street intersection.
While it's not likely that cyclists will begin to comply fully with the laws of the road, this study does shed some more light on the potential dangers of the road. More pedestrians are put in danger when other users of the road ignore the rules. And though bike-person accidents aren't incredibly widespread, they do happen.

Even more concerning should be the increasing potential of car-bike accidents that can occur when stop lights are ignored.

Remember Dec 7th, 1941 : It Can Happen Again

2011-12-07T15:42:00.005-06:00

It's interesting when you hear some of your friends discuss the new enemies of this country on this day of remembrance, December 7th, 1941, like they are some kind of ill tempered, angry children.

'After all this is the United States. We have never had to worry about being attacked.' hmmmm It was minutes before someone said, 'Oh wait, how soon we forget just 10 years ago in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania. We have been attacked but it's not likely it will happen again. We're ready now'. Poor dumb cows.

These people live in fantasy of liberal speak as it was only weeks ago the said we really don't all the military now that we are leaving Iraq and soon Afghanistan. Clinton said the same thing and reduced our military by nearly twenty percent. He called it the 'Peace Dividend. Remember?

The following article lays out some good ideas and possible scenarios for our future engagements with the angry children of the world.

Pearl Harbor, Iran and North Korea

Don't be surprised if one of our underestimated adversaries does the unthinkable.
By WARREN KOZAK WSJ 12-7-2011
Mr. Kozak is the author of "LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay" (Regnery, 2009).

On Dec. 7, 1941 the United States suffered the worst intelligence failure in its history—before or since—when Japanese planes destroyed much of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.
The most astounding aspect of the Pearl Harbor attack was that the U.S. had already broken the Japanese code and was listening to its communications. The U.S. had hundreds of cryptologists and linguists, mostly from the Navy, listening to Japanese wireless communications. But it wasn't enough.

"We knew something was going to happen on Sunday, December 7th at around noon Washington time," Henry Kissinger said at a speech I attended two years ago in New York City. "The problem is that nobody knew that when it's noon in Washington, it's around 7 a.m. in Hawaii."
In other words, despite being on a war footing with Japan and knowing from intercepted communications that the Japanese were planning for a significant event to affect Japanese-U.S. relations that Sunday, our government couldn't conceive of—and didn't defend against—an attack on its largest Pacific naval facility, Pearl Harbor.

This was a failure to think outside the box, coupled with a strong belief that the Japanese were inferior and incapable of mounting such an attack. Eight U.S. battleships, three cruisers and three destroyers were either damaged or sunk, 188 aircraft were destroyed (almost all on the ground), and 2,402 Americans were killed. All of this was accomplished in 90 minutes with 353 small Japanese planes.

Twenty years earlier in a highly publicized demonstration, Gen. Billy Mitchell had proven the vulnerability of naval vessels to airplanes in the waters off Virginia. In July 1921, Mitchell's planes sank a surplus German destroyer, a light cruiser and the battleship Ostfreisland in full view of hundreds of visitors who were brought to see the exercise.

Associated Press
The destroyer USS Shaw explodes after being hit by bombs during the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

One of those visitors was Osami Nagano, a Japanese naval captain who was part of Japan's diplomatic corps. Nagano clearly understood the demonstration's implications. But the U.S. wasn't in the mood for military spending after World War I, when a strong sense of isolationism took hold of the country.

Just as the lessons of Vietnam shaped today's U.S. military, the lessons of Pearl Harbor shaped our armed services through the 1960s. In 1942, only months after the attack, then-Colonel Curtis LeMay was forced to take ill-trained troops into combat and watched hundreds of them die. He never wanted to see the U.S. in that position again, a goal that guided his creation of the Strategic Air Command—America's nuclear punch—during the earliest years of the Cold War.

LeMay understood that in a nuclear war the U.S. wouldn't have the luxury of two years to build the Army, Navy and Air Force that it needed in World War II but didn't yet have in December 1941. LeMay drilled into his crews the idea that their first mission might well be their only mission, which is why they had to be constantly prepared. Partly because of that strength, there was never a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.

Seventy years after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. finds itself in much the same situation that it was in prior to World War II. There is a great effort to cut military spending, bring troops home from abroad, and scale back our international exposure. The country's critical financial situation is one reason.

Yet a nuclear-obsessed Iran, an emerging China and Russia, along with smaller rogue actors are enough of a threat to justify a vigilant and even aggressive guard. Add to this the weariness of two prolonged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the comparison is complete.

Two weeks ago, National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" examined Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's statement of concern about the possibility of an "EMP" attack on America. That's an electro-magnetic-pulse attack—a huge shock wave of electricity that could come from a nuclear weapon detonated high in the atmosphere above the homeland. Such a wave could destroy the country's electrical grid, stop almost all cars and trucks, cause sewage to back up in every city, and disrupt the food and water supply—essentially sending us back 250 years.

NPR's guest, Wired magazine reporter Noah Shachtman, was skeptical. He called Mr. Gingrich a "charter member" of the "professional EMP, scare-monger, worry-wart crowd," and he wondered if it really made any sense that "Iran or North Korea or some other country is going to be so mad at us" that they would actually do something like this.

The doubters may indeed be right. But 70 years ago similar doubters believed Japan would never be so foolish as to take on the United States of America—until, of course, it did.

Regulation Identified As THE Problem

2011-12-07T07:42:00.002-06:00

Holy cow batman, this sounds like common sense! Find out what the problem is and identify it before you write regulation to fix it. The bigger question is here, why do we have to tell governmental bureaucrats they have to identify a problem before they try and fix it?

Can this be happening? Have we just slipped into another parallel universe that is totally inhabited by mindless government regulators?

Regulation: What's the Problem?
Source: Jerry Ellig and James Broughel, "Regulation: What's The Problem?" Mercatus Center, November 2011.

For more than three decades, the president has required executive branch agencies to identify the systemic problems they wish to solve when issuing major regulatory actions. This principle reflects the commonsense notion that before making a decision, decision makers should understand the root cause of the problem the regulation is supposed to solve.

Unfortunately, in practice regulatory agencies often decide what they want to do, write up the proposed regulations, and only then hand the proposals to their economists, relegating problem identification to the late stages of the process, say Jerry Ellig and James Broughel of the Mercatus Center.

A Mercatus Center study rating 87 regulations in 2008 and 2009 for their timely identification of a systematic problem gave the maximum score of five to only one regulation. That same study rated 17 regulations zero out of five, recognizing that the regulatory analysis had little or no content assessing the systemic problem at all.

In each of the four subcategories assessed in the study, regulation averages ranged between zero and two for both 2008 and 2009, with no statistical difference between administrations.

To create more effective regulatory policy that follows the legal directives set down in the aforementioned executive order, agencies must follow four best practices:

Identify a clear market failure or government failure.
Identify a problem and offer a theory to explain how the problem came to exist.
Provide data-driven, empirical evidence that shows the problem exists and the agency's hypothesis about the root cause is true.
Perform a "sensitivity analysis" to assess likely uncertainties about the existence or size of the problem.

Government Wrong on Salt Intake : Bad Science

2011-12-07T07:35:00.003-06:00

This is great - a regulatory agency deciding how and what we should eat. Is there no end to the dynamics of power and control needed by people willing to do and say anything to stay in power?

Federal Effort to Commandeer the Nation's Salt Shakers Is Based on Bad Science
Source: Steve Chapman, "Federal Effort to Commandeer the Nation's Salt Shakers Is Based on Bad Science," Reason Magazine, December 1, 2011.

Last year, the government's Institute of Medicine urged the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to "gradually step down the maximum amount of salt that can be added to foods, beverages, and meals." The FDA is listening. In September, it published a notice concerning issues "associated with the development of targets for sodium reduction in foods to promote reduction of excess sodium intake," says Steve Chapman, a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.

It is currently focusing on voluntary steps to "promote gradual, achievable and sustainable reduction of sodium intake over time." But if it doesn't get its way, it may go beyond gentle encouragement. "Nothing is off the table," a spokesperson declared last year.
Salt has always been prized as a culinary marvel -- perking up flavors, masking bitter elements and preventing spoilage. But many experts and public health organizations see salt as a killer, which in excess amounts causes high blood pressure and heart disease.

But experts' certitude keeps getting clouded by confounding evidence. The Journal of the American Medical Association has reported that people who consume less salt are actually more likely to die of heart disease.

Recently, a study in the American Journal of Hypertension found that reducing dietary sodium can cause a harmful response from the body. Nor is it clear that third parties can get people to reduce their ingestion of sodium. We have been hearing for decades about the alleged hazards of a high-salt diet, and anyone looking for alternatives can easily find them. But today, Americans consume the same amount of salt as they did 50 years ago.

But even if we assume too much salt is a bad thing, federal regulators have no grounds to dictate how much our food may contain. Any consumers who want less sodium, after all, are free to spurn restaurant meals and grocery items laden with heavy doses. Indeed, classifying excess sodium consumption as a "public health" danger mutilates a useful concept, says Chapman.

California Socialist Agenda Coming for You?

2011-12-06T09:31:00.002-06:00

WoW - here is the face of the Democrat party in California and one has to believe this will be the norm for the rest of country if Obama has another 4 years. This is a clear message from the progressive socialist left Democrats in this country. They aren't hiding out in the shadows any longer - they have come out into the light to show us just who they are.

Believe that this is what they want to do. This is no accident. They believe that the majority of the country is ready to become dependent, slaves, to big brother in Washington so they are going full speed ahead. But it's a risk for them in that a lot of people aren't fooled about progressive socialism and it's end results. Total collapse of country as we knows it.

Wisconsin is in this fight right now with the teachers union as the attacks on teachers that are speaking out for Gov Walker and his budget that saves the state and jobs. Death threats are common!!

Even the governor's wife and children are threatened with rape and death!!!!!

http://webmail.frontier.com/service/home/~/Parasitesaredevouringthehostculture.wmv?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=11600&part=2&disp=a