If you were never nervous about where are health care system is going through before, this situation of health care 'exchanges' will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up tall.
What we have here is the seeds of extreme discontent between the states and the federal government which in the end will begin the end of states rights or the beginning of the end of the federation.
Government run health care is just the final straw in a long run of federal government intrusion into states rights and by far the worst, as it will bring down most states into bankruptcy given the financial mess they are in now. What will follow then is chaos and where there is social and financial chaos, the progressives socialists believe there is profit.
Remember Rahm Emanuel's statement, ' a crisis is too good a thing to waste. We can get things done we could never do otherwise'. Barack Obama and national health care is the result of the public's increasing inability to cope with uncertainty.
The crisis presented it self in 2008 just before the election and that's when Rahm and Barack started this country toward a socialized culture of dependents. Little wonder we are still country in crisis after three years.
States Squirm over Health Exchanges
Source: Jason Millman, "States Squirm over Health Exchanges," Politico, November 28, 2011.
For state governments, the coming Supreme Court ruling on health reform isn't an abstract argument about the U.S. Constitution. It's a highly practical question about whether, when and how to proceed with one of the health law's most important and complicated pieces: setting up health insurance exchanges.
Already facing political strife over implementation of health reform, some states are wondering if they should sit tight on exchange decisions until the court rules. However, the timetable for their decisions is tight, and could significantly complicated last-second efforts by state legislatures if they choose to wait, says Politico.
June 2012: The Supreme Court is expected to rule on health care, yet this is also the final month during which states can petition the federal government for grant money to fund their efforts to create an exchange.
January 2013: The federal government will assess each state's progress towards creating an exchange and will begin creating federally-run exchanges for those states that are unlikely to have exchanges completed in time.
January 2014: Each state must have a fully functioning exchange, whether run by the federal or state government.
Many state legislators want to ignore the timetable and continue to put off the establishment of exchanges until the Court has ruled -- two Midwestern governors have already declared their states won't set up an exchange until that time. And that idea is growing popular among powerful state legislators vigorously opposed to health reform.
Irrespective of the outcome, the dynamic between states and the federal government in creating exchanges has espoused a new source of states' rights tension. Many conservative lawmakers are balking at the idea of a federally-run exchange, with Kansas going so far as to send back a $31 million grant to build one. Regardless, it is clear that much will remain undecided until the Court rules.
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Government Motors Screw-Ups : Taxpayers Tapped
This is a 'no brainer' - when you have sold so few cars, or anything for matter as a manufacture, buying back a bad product is easy. GM sold only several hundred of these 'green energy' disasters to the general public at a cost of two of any other vehicle, but no matter, tax payers are picking up the bill for the recall.
Most of the cars that are on the raod to day were bought by corporations as fleet cars. These corporations are supporters the socialist regime.
But wait, nothing to see here, when it's a government operation, and you are using tax dollars, who cares what it costs. Further, if you are a socialist, the tax payer is obligated to do this as it is their duty to support the government at any cost. What a country!!
General Motors Willing to Buy Back Volts
Source: Tom Krisher, "GM Willing to Buy Back Volts," Associated Press, December 1, 2011.
General Motors (GM) will buy Chevrolet Volts back from any owner who is afraid the electric cars will catch fire, the company's CEO said Thursday, reports the Associated Press.
GM CEO Dan Akerson insisted that the cars are safe, but said the company will purchase the Volts because it wants to keep customers happy.
Three fires have broken out in Volts after side-impact crash tests done by the federal government. Akerson said that if necessary, GM will recall the more than 6,000 Volts now on the road in the United States and repair them once the company and federal safety regulators figure out what caused the fires.
The fires happened seven days to three weeks after tests performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). GM has said there's no threat of fires immediately after crashes and that no Volts involved in real-world crashes have caught fire.
Still, NHTSA has opened an investigation into the fires and has asked other companies that make electric cars for battery testing data. NHTSA said the safety testing hasn't raised concerns about electric vehicles other than the Volt.
The Nissan Leaf, a fully electric car and the Volt's main competitor, has not had any similar fires after crash tests or real-world crashes. The Leaf battery is cooled by air rather than a liquid used to cool the Volt battery.
Most of the cars that are on the raod to day were bought by corporations as fleet cars. These corporations are supporters the socialist regime.
But wait, nothing to see here, when it's a government operation, and you are using tax dollars, who cares what it costs. Further, if you are a socialist, the tax payer is obligated to do this as it is their duty to support the government at any cost. What a country!!
General Motors Willing to Buy Back Volts
Source: Tom Krisher, "GM Willing to Buy Back Volts," Associated Press, December 1, 2011.
General Motors (GM) will buy Chevrolet Volts back from any owner who is afraid the electric cars will catch fire, the company's CEO said Thursday, reports the Associated Press.
GM CEO Dan Akerson insisted that the cars are safe, but said the company will purchase the Volts because it wants to keep customers happy.
Three fires have broken out in Volts after side-impact crash tests done by the federal government. Akerson said that if necessary, GM will recall the more than 6,000 Volts now on the road in the United States and repair them once the company and federal safety regulators figure out what caused the fires.
The fires happened seven days to three weeks after tests performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). GM has said there's no threat of fires immediately after crashes and that no Volts involved in real-world crashes have caught fire.
Still, NHTSA has opened an investigation into the fires and has asked other companies that make electric cars for battery testing data. NHTSA said the safety testing hasn't raised concerns about electric vehicles other than the Volt.
The Nissan Leaf, a fully electric car and the Volt's main competitor, has not had any similar fires after crash tests or real-world crashes. The Leaf battery is cooled by air rather than a liquid used to cool the Volt battery.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Gasoline Taxes Funding Social Projects
More proof that government interference for social agenda projects only cause more problems. Another example is the tax on cigarettes to fund health care issues but at the same time huge amounts of money is spent from these taxes on information to quite smoking. Consequence of this action made revenues run short so taxes are raised again to cover mandates.
In Wisconsin, the past governor took money from the transportation fund, 540 million, to pay off a voter base so he could get reelected. Of course for this to happen, all branches of the government belonged to one party and so did members of the supreme court along with the government accountability board.
Given the media and this governments screed on infrastructure, how do you think that worked out for the maintenance of highways and bridges?
Paying for Pet Projects at the Pump
Source: Brian Bodine and Pamela Villarreal, "Paying for Pet Projects at the Pump," National Center for Policy Analysis, December 2, 2011.
The federal and state governments levy taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel primarily to fund highway construction and repair. These taxes average nearly 49 cents on every gallon of gas purchased. However, a significant portion of revenue is diverted to other purposes, such as education and public safety. In addition, states dedicate some of their revenues to nonroad projects mandated by the federal government, say Brian Bodine, a graduate student fellow and Pamela Villarreal, a senior fellow, at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
A one cent per gallon federal gasoline tax was first enacted in 1932.
Today, it is 18.4 cents.
Sixty percent of federal gas tax revenue goes to highways and bridges, and the remainder is earmarked for specific programs, such as repairing lighthouses, paving bike paths and building museums.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) uses a complex series of calculations to allocate funds to the states to build and repair highways, including the interstate highway system, and for other transportation projects. Motorists in half of the states, including Texas, pay more taxes into the fund than their state receives back in federal apportionments.
Indeed, U.S. Department of Transportation data show that for every dollar Texans pay in federal fuel taxes, they received only 83.5 cents back. On average, American motorists pay 30 cents per gallon in state gasoline taxes. Like federal taxes, these are used for some nontransportation projects.
For example, the Texas Constitution requires 25 percent of its state gas tax revenue to be spent on public education. The amount going to other nontransportation items varies from 20 percent to 25 percent, with $600 million to $750 million put toward nontransportation items in 2009.
Legislators claim their state must divert state highway funds due to budget shortfalls and insufficient general revenue. However, funds diverted to a popular cause, such as education, may displace rather than supplement other funding, say Bodine and Villarreal.
In Wisconsin, the past governor took money from the transportation fund, 540 million, to pay off a voter base so he could get reelected. Of course for this to happen, all branches of the government belonged to one party and so did members of the supreme court along with the government accountability board.
Given the media and this governments screed on infrastructure, how do you think that worked out for the maintenance of highways and bridges?
Paying for Pet Projects at the Pump
Source: Brian Bodine and Pamela Villarreal, "Paying for Pet Projects at the Pump," National Center for Policy Analysis, December 2, 2011.
The federal and state governments levy taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel primarily to fund highway construction and repair. These taxes average nearly 49 cents on every gallon of gas purchased. However, a significant portion of revenue is diverted to other purposes, such as education and public safety. In addition, states dedicate some of their revenues to nonroad projects mandated by the federal government, say Brian Bodine, a graduate student fellow and Pamela Villarreal, a senior fellow, at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
A one cent per gallon federal gasoline tax was first enacted in 1932.
Today, it is 18.4 cents.
Sixty percent of federal gas tax revenue goes to highways and bridges, and the remainder is earmarked for specific programs, such as repairing lighthouses, paving bike paths and building museums.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) uses a complex series of calculations to allocate funds to the states to build and repair highways, including the interstate highway system, and for other transportation projects. Motorists in half of the states, including Texas, pay more taxes into the fund than their state receives back in federal apportionments.
Indeed, U.S. Department of Transportation data show that for every dollar Texans pay in federal fuel taxes, they received only 83.5 cents back. On average, American motorists pay 30 cents per gallon in state gasoline taxes. Like federal taxes, these are used for some nontransportation projects.
For example, the Texas Constitution requires 25 percent of its state gas tax revenue to be spent on public education. The amount going to other nontransportation items varies from 20 percent to 25 percent, with $600 million to $750 million put toward nontransportation items in 2009.
Legislators claim their state must divert state highway funds due to budget shortfalls and insufficient general revenue. However, funds diverted to a popular cause, such as education, may displace rather than supplement other funding, say Bodine and Villarreal.
Education Spreads the Wealth to Middle Class
Free enterprise wins again - open markets create jobs for all skill levels. Government interference in the job market destroys jobs creation.
The spreading effect of higher education in the job market proves the saying, 'a rising tide lifts all boats'.
Recipe for Middle-Class Jobs
Source: Conor Dougherty, "Recipe for Middle-Class Jobs," Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2011.
The rise of "brain hub" cities has had many unexpected yet nonetheless welcome impacts on local economies. These cities, with the largest percentages of residents with higher level education, attract inordinate amount of investment, young workers and entrepreneurial endeavors that, as can be expected, boost tremendously the local economy. Yet an unexpected aspect of this occurrence has been the resurgence in jobs available to the middle class in these areas.
Looking to a key example, Austin, Texas, has had great successes in attracting college-educated workers to the area, with significant benefits not only for those workers but for large swathes of the city's population, says Conor Dougherty.
An economic-development consultancy estimates that Austin added 50,000 "middle-skill" positions in the past decade, running contrary to national trends.
The growth of these jobs (the median annual salary for which is $38,000) in Austin outpaces metropolitan giants such as New York and Phoenix by factors of three and two, respectively.
In Austin, the 7.1 percent average unemployment rate in 2010 was well below the nation's during the same period.
Beyond creating new middle-skill jobs, such brain hubs have generally higher incomes and for the most part have performed better through the recession. They do so first by offering substantial upward mobility within the young companies they tend to attract. Though low-education employees may initially be hired into gloomy positions with minimal prospects, these companies tend to promote from within because they value the internal employee's knowledge of the company.
Additionally, the "human capital spillovers" within these companies are substantial, such that low-skilled workers are able to acquire skills and knowledge far beyond their education level. This occurs because of the complementary nature of skilled and unskilled workers -- each one brings comparative advantages to the completion of a given project, yet knowledge and understanding flows with relative freedom between both of them. In this way, the prospects of middle class employees are enhanced.
The spreading effect of higher education in the job market proves the saying, 'a rising tide lifts all boats'.
Recipe for Middle-Class Jobs
Source: Conor Dougherty, "Recipe for Middle-Class Jobs," Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2011.
The rise of "brain hub" cities has had many unexpected yet nonetheless welcome impacts on local economies. These cities, with the largest percentages of residents with higher level education, attract inordinate amount of investment, young workers and entrepreneurial endeavors that, as can be expected, boost tremendously the local economy. Yet an unexpected aspect of this occurrence has been the resurgence in jobs available to the middle class in these areas.
Looking to a key example, Austin, Texas, has had great successes in attracting college-educated workers to the area, with significant benefits not only for those workers but for large swathes of the city's population, says Conor Dougherty.
An economic-development consultancy estimates that Austin added 50,000 "middle-skill" positions in the past decade, running contrary to national trends.
The growth of these jobs (the median annual salary for which is $38,000) in Austin outpaces metropolitan giants such as New York and Phoenix by factors of three and two, respectively.
In Austin, the 7.1 percent average unemployment rate in 2010 was well below the nation's during the same period.
Beyond creating new middle-skill jobs, such brain hubs have generally higher incomes and for the most part have performed better through the recession. They do so first by offering substantial upward mobility within the young companies they tend to attract. Though low-education employees may initially be hired into gloomy positions with minimal prospects, these companies tend to promote from within because they value the internal employee's knowledge of the company.
Additionally, the "human capital spillovers" within these companies are substantial, such that low-skilled workers are able to acquire skills and knowledge far beyond their education level. This occurs because of the complementary nature of skilled and unskilled workers -- each one brings comparative advantages to the completion of a given project, yet knowledge and understanding flows with relative freedom between both of them. In this way, the prospects of middle class employees are enhanced.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Britain's Carbon Floor Tax Crushes Energy Industry
One has to wonder how things have gotten so far out of control in the Western world? Given the facts that climate change and carbon dioxide have no proven scientific foundation, released emails from climate change proponents show managed facts and results, politicians still move forward to institute the insanity of CO2 reduction.
As this article and others over the past several years have pointed out, environmentalist demands to curb CO2 are agenda driven. The facts do not support the clams of disaster that is coming if we don't move back to the 17th century.
The only fact that is founded in reality is we will all suffer the catastrophic effects of reduced industrialization and innovation to the point where we will be reduced to blood letting and leaches to cure diseases that plaque modern civilization.
Industrial Masochism: The Carbon Floor Price and Energy Intensive Industry
Source: Matthew Sinclair, "Industrial Masochism: The Carbon Floor Price and Energy Intensive Industry," Taxpayers' Alliance, November 16, 2011.
The carbon floor price introduced in Britain in 2011 threatens to increase energy prices while reducing them elsewhere in Europe. Combined with other measures that increase prices such as renewable energy subsidies it will increase bills for domestic customers. But it will also create particular problems for energy intensive industries, says Matthew Sinclair of the Taxpayers' Alliance.
For some major industries -- such as steel -- energy represents between a quarter and well over half of total costs, with any substantial increase in those costs seriously affecting their ability to compete.
The largest energy consumers are already at a disadvantage relative to government-sheltered competitors in Germany and France that pay 10 to 25 percent less and 60 to 75 percent less, respectively, than British industries.
The carbon floor price alone will add another 10 percent to their energy costs by 2020.
The consequences of this policy, adopted in addition to a complex emissions trading scheme that is already in place in the EU, are substantial, while the benefits that it purports to supply are insignificant.
Due to the phenomenon of carbon leakage, energy-intensive industries will simply move operations out of the United Kingdom to other countries with lower standards and less efficient capital, raising emissions in the long run.
As this policy is not accompanied by a decrease in the carbon cap for emissions in the EU as a
whole, total emissions will remain constant and will simply be redistributed out of the United Kingdom and toward other major European economies.
It is estimated that the new policy, combined with the emissions trading scheme, will not only increase energy costs in the United Kingdom but will decrease them by 8 percent in other countries, lending credence to theories about redistribution without reduction.
This new tax, therefore, has the potential to be deadly to the business model of energy-reliant industries without actually delivering the benefits of reduced emissions.
The fallacy of unilateral climate-change policies is again evident, as markets will simply respond to higher costs in on region by moving operations to another.
As this article and others over the past several years have pointed out, environmentalist demands to curb CO2 are agenda driven. The facts do not support the clams of disaster that is coming if we don't move back to the 17th century.
The only fact that is founded in reality is we will all suffer the catastrophic effects of reduced industrialization and innovation to the point where we will be reduced to blood letting and leaches to cure diseases that plaque modern civilization.
Industrial Masochism: The Carbon Floor Price and Energy Intensive Industry
Source: Matthew Sinclair, "Industrial Masochism: The Carbon Floor Price and Energy Intensive Industry," Taxpayers' Alliance, November 16, 2011.
The carbon floor price introduced in Britain in 2011 threatens to increase energy prices while reducing them elsewhere in Europe. Combined with other measures that increase prices such as renewable energy subsidies it will increase bills for domestic customers. But it will also create particular problems for energy intensive industries, says Matthew Sinclair of the Taxpayers' Alliance.
For some major industries -- such as steel -- energy represents between a quarter and well over half of total costs, with any substantial increase in those costs seriously affecting their ability to compete.
The largest energy consumers are already at a disadvantage relative to government-sheltered competitors in Germany and France that pay 10 to 25 percent less and 60 to 75 percent less, respectively, than British industries.
The carbon floor price alone will add another 10 percent to their energy costs by 2020.
The consequences of this policy, adopted in addition to a complex emissions trading scheme that is already in place in the EU, are substantial, while the benefits that it purports to supply are insignificant.
Due to the phenomenon of carbon leakage, energy-intensive industries will simply move operations out of the United Kingdom to other countries with lower standards and less efficient capital, raising emissions in the long run.
As this policy is not accompanied by a decrease in the carbon cap for emissions in the EU as a
whole, total emissions will remain constant and will simply be redistributed out of the United Kingdom and toward other major European economies.
It is estimated that the new policy, combined with the emissions trading scheme, will not only increase energy costs in the United Kingdom but will decrease them by 8 percent in other countries, lending credence to theories about redistribution without reduction.
This new tax, therefore, has the potential to be deadly to the business model of energy-reliant industries without actually delivering the benefits of reduced emissions.
The fallacy of unilateral climate-change policies is again evident, as markets will simply respond to higher costs in on region by moving operations to another.
Colonel West is a Republican Rep to the United States Congress from Florida and a decorated Iraq war hero - Rep West's thoughts on Muslin extremist is thought provoking and realistic, and given Col. West back ground of experience, sound.
Dealing With Muslims
Two Black Americans were elected to congress this cycle, and both are Republican. Col. West is from southern Florida . He won in a walk.
This new Congressman was an extremely popular commander in Iraq . He was forced to retire because during an intense combat action a few of his men were captured. At the same time his men captured one of the guys who were with the Iraqis who captured his men.
Knowing that time was crucial and his interrogators were not getting anywhere with the prisoner, Col. West took matters into his own hands. He burst into the room and demanded thru an interpreter that the prisoner tell him where his men were being taken. The prisoner refused so Col. West took out his pistol and placed it into the prisoner's crotch and fired. Then the Col. told the prisoner that the next shot would not miss. So the prisoner said he would show where the American service members were being taken.
The Americans were rescued. Someone filed a report on incorrect handling of prisoners. Col. West was forced to retire.
Col. West was just elected in November 2010 to Congress from Florida . During the elections he was part of a panel on how to handle or how to relate to Muslims. You will see his answer here explaining in just over a minute the truth about Islam. Please watch and if you agree, please forward it to your friends.
http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/takeaction.asp?id=384
Dealing With Muslims
Two Black Americans were elected to congress this cycle, and both are Republican. Col. West is from southern Florida . He won in a walk.
This new Congressman was an extremely popular commander in Iraq . He was forced to retire because during an intense combat action a few of his men were captured. At the same time his men captured one of the guys who were with the Iraqis who captured his men.
Knowing that time was crucial and his interrogators were not getting anywhere with the prisoner, Col. West took matters into his own hands. He burst into the room and demanded thru an interpreter that the prisoner tell him where his men were being taken. The prisoner refused so Col. West took out his pistol and placed it into the prisoner's crotch and fired. Then the Col. told the prisoner that the next shot would not miss. So the prisoner said he would show where the American service members were being taken.
The Americans were rescued. Someone filed a report on incorrect handling of prisoners. Col. West was forced to retire.
Col. West was just elected in November 2010 to Congress from Florida . During the elections he was part of a panel on how to handle or how to relate to Muslims. You will see his answer here explaining in just over a minute the truth about Islam. Please watch and if you agree, please forward it to your friends.
http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/takeaction.asp?id=384
Saturday, December 03, 2011
Federal Funding on Infrastructure Agenda Driven
This explains why the government persuades local governments to take 'seed' money for projects that big brother deems essential. Once the local or state government takes the money, they become entangled in the federal web of over-sight and control.
If one takes a moment to see how this works to imprison state and local authorities and forces them to do things that constituents don't want them to do, didn't elect them to do, it then isn't difficult to understand why the people are gathering out front of the state houses with their pitch forks.
It's becoming clear, the voters don't like being 'enemies of the state'. They don't like being cast aside while the people they elected perform tasks unrelated to the needs of the voter. Is this the start of the second American revolution? You decide.
Infrastructure Funding: Taking the Wrong Path
Source: Peter Swanson, "Infrastructure Funding: Taking the Wrong Path," National Center for Policy Analysis, December 1, 2011.
A recent American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) report estimated the United States will need to spend $2.2 trillion over the next few years to bring the country's infrastructure to acceptable levels. A $2 trillion projected estimate for infrastructure sounds daunting, but it is important to examine what planners consider "infrastructure," says Peter Swanson, a Hatton W. Sumners Scholar at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Traditionally, infrastructure spending included highways, railroads, bridges and waterways. Infrastructure now encompasses public parks and recreation, schools, and high-speed rail and transit projects. Public transit is often inefficient, underutilized and subject to cost overruns. Yet the ASCE Report Card includes these items as investment needs, rather than optional amenities. For example:
The $2.2 trillion in infrastructure spending needs outlined in the civil engineers' report card includes $63 billion for improvements along highly questionable Amtrak routes as well as railways that carry freight.
The total also includes $160 billion for schools and $85 billion for parks and recreation. In addition, there is $265 billion for public transit bus and light-rail projects.
Although there has been a push by the federal government to increase federal infrastructure investment, states and localities account for the lion's share of the spending. Consider:
Federal spending represented only 23 percent of total public spending on infrastructure in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office report. Of this 23 percent, just 7 percent went toward operating and maintenance expenses for already established infrastructure. The other 16 percent was capital funding for new projects.
The United States has the capability to address the country's infrastructure issues, but there is only a loose connection between federal spending and improvements in public infrastructure because of misguided federal policies. Typically, the federal government offers seed funding to states to initiate capital spending projects, but leaves the states to complete and maintain them.
As a result, state and local governments are encouraged to spend money on projects that may be a lower priority than projects initiated and funded locally.
If one takes a moment to see how this works to imprison state and local authorities and forces them to do things that constituents don't want them to do, didn't elect them to do, it then isn't difficult to understand why the people are gathering out front of the state houses with their pitch forks.
It's becoming clear, the voters don't like being 'enemies of the state'. They don't like being cast aside while the people they elected perform tasks unrelated to the needs of the voter. Is this the start of the second American revolution? You decide.
Infrastructure Funding: Taking the Wrong Path
Source: Peter Swanson, "Infrastructure Funding: Taking the Wrong Path," National Center for Policy Analysis, December 1, 2011.
A recent American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) report estimated the United States will need to spend $2.2 trillion over the next few years to bring the country's infrastructure to acceptable levels. A $2 trillion projected estimate for infrastructure sounds daunting, but it is important to examine what planners consider "infrastructure," says Peter Swanson, a Hatton W. Sumners Scholar at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Traditionally, infrastructure spending included highways, railroads, bridges and waterways. Infrastructure now encompasses public parks and recreation, schools, and high-speed rail and transit projects. Public transit is often inefficient, underutilized and subject to cost overruns. Yet the ASCE Report Card includes these items as investment needs, rather than optional amenities. For example:
The $2.2 trillion in infrastructure spending needs outlined in the civil engineers' report card includes $63 billion for improvements along highly questionable Amtrak routes as well as railways that carry freight.
The total also includes $160 billion for schools and $85 billion for parks and recreation. In addition, there is $265 billion for public transit bus and light-rail projects.
Although there has been a push by the federal government to increase federal infrastructure investment, states and localities account for the lion's share of the spending. Consider:
Federal spending represented only 23 percent of total public spending on infrastructure in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office report. Of this 23 percent, just 7 percent went toward operating and maintenance expenses for already established infrastructure. The other 16 percent was capital funding for new projects.
The United States has the capability to address the country's infrastructure issues, but there is only a loose connection between federal spending and improvements in public infrastructure because of misguided federal policies. Typically, the federal government offers seed funding to states to initiate capital spending projects, but leaves the states to complete and maintain them.
As a result, state and local governments are encouraged to spend money on projects that may be a lower priority than projects initiated and funded locally.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Employeers Fight Back Against Regulation : Layoffs
It seems correct, the more someone interferes with an operation, the more complicated it becomes. Read this as 'too many cooks spoil the broth'.
With the crush of new regulations coming from the federal government, Obama, to control all aspects of industrial production, Fascism, employers will pull back their expansions for fear they will not be able to control costs and therefore hiring will cease.
Where is the rocket science here? The answer is there is no rocket science, it's just common sense that says the more you force someone to do something, the more they will fight back to protect their future.
Joblessness and Regulation: The "Mass Layoff" Fallacy
Source: James Gattuso, "Joblessness and Regulation: The "Mass Layoff" Fallacy," Heritage Foundation, November 21, 2011.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently argued that the idea that regulations cost jobs was a "myth," pointing to a 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics poll of employers who had recently laid off 50 or more employees. Only 0.3 percent of respondents cited government regulation as the primary reason for the layoffs. However, the statistics are of doubtful accuracy and have little to do with the primary cause of joblessness: the lack of job creation, says James Gattuso, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
The poll was taken only among employers who had laid off 50 or more employees at once, yet many small businesses do not even have 50 employee and many large corporations do not lay off workers en masse.
The poll focused on job losses, yet this is not the true culprit of persistently high unemployment -- since late 2009, gross job losses in the economy have been below their prerecession levels.
The poll should instead have focused on the lack of job creation -- in the first quarter of the year, only 6.3 million new jobs were created, which is far below the 7.6 million being created each quarter before the recession.
The poll's inaccuracies are also clear in its lack of comprehensiveness, in that it forced responding employers to assess exactly why they had been forced to cut their workforce. In reality, such respondents have little direct knowledge of such matters. While they may be able to say that demand slumped, they likely do not know if this is because of a loss of consumer confidence or if a recent government regulation made their product less attractive.
This speaks to the overall danger of regulations: their pervasiveness and aggregate effect is difficult to track and assess. A more accurate poll would focus on general employer concerns, as these hint at why job growth has been so stagnant.
In a recent Gallup poll, the "myth" cited by Harry Reid seems very real:
Twenty-two percent of respondents stated that government regulation was their primary concern.
Fifteen percent of respondents cited consumer confidence.
A mere 12 percent pointed to "lack of consumer demand."
The results of this poll speak to the truth of the damage done by regulatory policies, as they decrease employer confidence and reduce job creation.
With the crush of new regulations coming from the federal government, Obama, to control all aspects of industrial production, Fascism, employers will pull back their expansions for fear they will not be able to control costs and therefore hiring will cease.
Where is the rocket science here? The answer is there is no rocket science, it's just common sense that says the more you force someone to do something, the more they will fight back to protect their future.
Joblessness and Regulation: The "Mass Layoff" Fallacy
Source: James Gattuso, "Joblessness and Regulation: The "Mass Layoff" Fallacy," Heritage Foundation, November 21, 2011.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently argued that the idea that regulations cost jobs was a "myth," pointing to a 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics poll of employers who had recently laid off 50 or more employees. Only 0.3 percent of respondents cited government regulation as the primary reason for the layoffs. However, the statistics are of doubtful accuracy and have little to do with the primary cause of joblessness: the lack of job creation, says James Gattuso, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
The poll was taken only among employers who had laid off 50 or more employees at once, yet many small businesses do not even have 50 employee and many large corporations do not lay off workers en masse.
The poll focused on job losses, yet this is not the true culprit of persistently high unemployment -- since late 2009, gross job losses in the economy have been below their prerecession levels.
The poll should instead have focused on the lack of job creation -- in the first quarter of the year, only 6.3 million new jobs were created, which is far below the 7.6 million being created each quarter before the recession.
The poll's inaccuracies are also clear in its lack of comprehensiveness, in that it forced responding employers to assess exactly why they had been forced to cut their workforce. In reality, such respondents have little direct knowledge of such matters. While they may be able to say that demand slumped, they likely do not know if this is because of a loss of consumer confidence or if a recent government regulation made their product less attractive.
This speaks to the overall danger of regulations: their pervasiveness and aggregate effect is difficult to track and assess. A more accurate poll would focus on general employer concerns, as these hint at why job growth has been so stagnant.
In a recent Gallup poll, the "myth" cited by Harry Reid seems very real:
Twenty-two percent of respondents stated that government regulation was their primary concern.
Fifteen percent of respondents cited consumer confidence.
A mere 12 percent pointed to "lack of consumer demand."
The results of this poll speak to the truth of the damage done by regulatory policies, as they decrease employer confidence and reduce job creation.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
Speed Limit Increase to Save Lives
Interesting discussion - everyone drives at least 10 mph over the limit as it is now and the cops will let that go, but what if the limit was 10 mph faster than it is now, would the cops let that go?
The question I have is how many drivers are capable of diving at speeds of 85 mph and are the cars that the eco-fascists are demanding we drive built for this speed?
I guess what we need is more regulation on car manufacturing and demands for cars with a top speed of 50 mph and a range of 30 miles. Cool! More control from Washington by the smartest people in the room. What better place then Washington to tell the hicks out in the sticks what is best for them.
Save the planet. Stay home. Where could you go anyway with a car that won't go thirty miles without a charge. Oh, and by the way, you might need a permit to leave the state. Wait, you might need a permit to leave the county.
States Should Consider Modest Increases in Speed Limits
Source: Baruch Feigenbaum, "States Should Consider Modest Increases in Speed Limits," Reason Foundation, November 21, 2011.
Prior to the 1973 political oil crisis the speed limits in many states exceeded current levels. As a result of the 1973 events the federal government instituted a 55 miles per hour (mph) speed limit. This limit, in effect until 1988, required states to set 55 mph as their top speed limit or lose federal transportation funding.
With no national speed limit currently in effect states are free to raise their speed limits back to pre-1973 levels. The benefits of doing so ought to be appealing to many state lawmakers, says Baruch Feigenbaum, a transportation policy analyst with the Reason Foundation.
Americans currently obey speed limits that are far more stringent than international counterparts: parts of the Autobahn in Germany have no speed limits and rural speed limits in Poland and the United Arab Emirates are 87 mph, while Americans top out at 75.
Countering the claim by environmentalists that increasing the speed limit will decrease aggregate fuel efficiency, it is crucial to point out that the Department of Transportation found that the national 55 mph speed limit only decreased gasoline usage by 1 percent at most.
Furthermore, with proposed increases of 5 mph, the total impact if all states raise their speed limits would be a 0.3 percent increase in gasoline use.
An argument submitted by critics of raising limits is that it will hinder transportation safety efforts. However, studies have shown that increasing speed limits will actually increase safety and decrease the likelihood of accidents. These studies recognize that the true cause of many accidents is not high speeds but large differentials between low-speed and high-speed drivers. For this reason, many engineering guidebooks recommend setting the speed limit at the rate at the 85th percentile of drivers.
Another argument is that increases in population density should extinguish desires to increase speed limits. However, given that most recent population gains have been confined to urban and suburban areas, this argument does not address the policy benefits of increasing limits in rural areas.
The question I have is how many drivers are capable of diving at speeds of 85 mph and are the cars that the eco-fascists are demanding we drive built for this speed?
I guess what we need is more regulation on car manufacturing and demands for cars with a top speed of 50 mph and a range of 30 miles. Cool! More control from Washington by the smartest people in the room. What better place then Washington to tell the hicks out in the sticks what is best for them.
Save the planet. Stay home. Where could you go anyway with a car that won't go thirty miles without a charge. Oh, and by the way, you might need a permit to leave the state. Wait, you might need a permit to leave the county.
States Should Consider Modest Increases in Speed Limits
Source: Baruch Feigenbaum, "States Should Consider Modest Increases in Speed Limits," Reason Foundation, November 21, 2011.
Prior to the 1973 political oil crisis the speed limits in many states exceeded current levels. As a result of the 1973 events the federal government instituted a 55 miles per hour (mph) speed limit. This limit, in effect until 1988, required states to set 55 mph as their top speed limit or lose federal transportation funding.
With no national speed limit currently in effect states are free to raise their speed limits back to pre-1973 levels. The benefits of doing so ought to be appealing to many state lawmakers, says Baruch Feigenbaum, a transportation policy analyst with the Reason Foundation.
Americans currently obey speed limits that are far more stringent than international counterparts: parts of the Autobahn in Germany have no speed limits and rural speed limits in Poland and the United Arab Emirates are 87 mph, while Americans top out at 75.
Countering the claim by environmentalists that increasing the speed limit will decrease aggregate fuel efficiency, it is crucial to point out that the Department of Transportation found that the national 55 mph speed limit only decreased gasoline usage by 1 percent at most.
Furthermore, with proposed increases of 5 mph, the total impact if all states raise their speed limits would be a 0.3 percent increase in gasoline use.
An argument submitted by critics of raising limits is that it will hinder transportation safety efforts. However, studies have shown that increasing speed limits will actually increase safety and decrease the likelihood of accidents. These studies recognize that the true cause of many accidents is not high speeds but large differentials between low-speed and high-speed drivers. For this reason, many engineering guidebooks recommend setting the speed limit at the rate at the 85th percentile of drivers.
Another argument is that increases in population density should extinguish desires to increase speed limits. However, given that most recent population gains have been confined to urban and suburban areas, this argument does not address the policy benefits of increasing limits in rural areas.
Renewable Energy Wasting Millions Every Where!
Good news for big government : Bad news for taxpayers! Green energy is a bust were ever it is implemented. Nothing new here.
Maryland Spends Millions on Renewable Energy for Just Thousands in Savings
Source: Hayley Peterson, "Maryland Spends $2.3m on Renewable Energy for $637,000 in Savings," Washington Examiner, November 21, 2011.
For the past three fiscal years, Maryland residents have been eligible to reap the benefits of a state-run grant program that helps homeowners pay for the purchase and installation of solar energy systems, geothermal heat pumps and small wind turbines. The grant program is part of Maryland's aggressive push to expand the state's renewable energy industry, after lawmakers passed a measure requiring utilities to buy 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2022. However, a recent report by the state's energy agency has shown that the costs of the program significantly outweigh the benefits, says the Washington Examiner.
According to that agency, Maryland has spent $150 million on clean energy initiatives between
fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2011.
The state spent $2.3 million last fiscal year on the grant program, but it brought in only $637,000 in savings. Ongoing savings from the grants will add up to roughly $3.2 million over the course of five years, yet this will still fail to compensate for the expense of the program.
The grants are distributed to individual residents on a first-come, first-serve basis, yet there are anomalies within the pattern of grant distribution. Montgomery County residents received one of every five grants the state distributed for a total of $1.3 million.
Howard County residents came in second for most state spending on the program, winning a total of $771,192 in grant money. By comparison, Prince George's County residents received roughly 5 percent, or $265,200, of the grant money.
Dee Hodges, president of the Maryland Taxpayers Association, argues that renewable energy sources are simply not profitable enough to confer significant savings. The outcome of the grant program seems to speak to the truth of this observation.
Again, it's not about saving energy or the environment, it about taking control of the population. An organized effort to direct the lives of everyone to satisfy the agenda of an elite few. Sound familiar?
Maryland Spends Millions on Renewable Energy for Just Thousands in Savings
Source: Hayley Peterson, "Maryland Spends $2.3m on Renewable Energy for $637,000 in Savings," Washington Examiner, November 21, 2011.
For the past three fiscal years, Maryland residents have been eligible to reap the benefits of a state-run grant program that helps homeowners pay for the purchase and installation of solar energy systems, geothermal heat pumps and small wind turbines. The grant program is part of Maryland's aggressive push to expand the state's renewable energy industry, after lawmakers passed a measure requiring utilities to buy 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2022. However, a recent report by the state's energy agency has shown that the costs of the program significantly outweigh the benefits, says the Washington Examiner.
According to that agency, Maryland has spent $150 million on clean energy initiatives between
fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2011.
The state spent $2.3 million last fiscal year on the grant program, but it brought in only $637,000 in savings. Ongoing savings from the grants will add up to roughly $3.2 million over the course of five years, yet this will still fail to compensate for the expense of the program.
The grants are distributed to individual residents on a first-come, first-serve basis, yet there are anomalies within the pattern of grant distribution. Montgomery County residents received one of every five grants the state distributed for a total of $1.3 million.
Howard County residents came in second for most state spending on the program, winning a total of $771,192 in grant money. By comparison, Prince George's County residents received roughly 5 percent, or $265,200, of the grant money.
Dee Hodges, president of the Maryland Taxpayers Association, argues that renewable energy sources are simply not profitable enough to confer significant savings. The outcome of the grant program seems to speak to the truth of this observation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
