Today’s Washington Times has an op-ed piece titled, “Immaturity In Power”.   The article makes some interesting points in its description of immaturity in the current ‘political class’:

“Current examples are all too numerous. Much of the present global financial crisis was caused by the issuance of too much debt by both governments and by private players. A mature thinker would understand that part of the solution must be a reduction in debt, and only an immature mind would advocate the creation of mountains of new and almost never-ending debt – yet this is precisely what the majority of the political class in the United States and many other countries is doing in issuing many trillions of dollars of new government debt.”

The article cites the consequences of the massive debt the government has recently incurred.   Stanford University economics professor John B. Taylor has shown how the proposed additional U.S. government debt could cause 100 percent inflation over the next few years, which means most people will see their real standard of living fall as prices double.  The obvious solution for the immature members of the political class is to raise taxes, but in order to cover the debt, taxes would have to be raised 60 per cent.  This would kill any incentive to grow the economy by the private sector.

The article lists some other aspects of the immaturity in our political class.  The move by the countries with high taxes on corporations to go after revenues earned in low-taxed countries is another example of this trait.  Rather than act responsibly with their own economic system, they attack the people who are successful because of wise tax policies.

Bloomberg.com reported yesterday that Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said that if President Obama’s tax plan to impose higher taxes on U. S. companies overseas profits goes through Congress, Microsoft would move some employees offshore.  The idea of President Obama’s plan is to increase corporate revenue into the U. S. Treasury by changing the tax policies on U. S. business operating overseas.  There are, however, a few things that need to be considered.  Businesses are in business to make a profit.  If taxes on a business are increased, the business will either find a way to avoid those taxes or they will pass the cost of those tax increases on to the consumer.

There are two possible end results on changes to the tax laws concerning companies doing business overseas.  The first is that U. S. companies such as Microsoft will move jobs out of this country into other countries.  The second is that the companies affected by the changes in the tax code will simply charge more for their products, causing a possible reduction in sales.  Both actions result in less, not more, money coming into the treasury.  I think the Obama Administration needs to rethink this.

Today’s American Thinker has a few numbers on the cost of healthcare and where the increases in costs have been coming from.  President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released a study listing several benefits that would result from lowering the annual growth rate of health care spending by 1.5 percentage points, including:

•    Increase gross domestic product by 8 percent in 2030
•    Increase family income by $10,000
•    Reduce unemployment by 500,000 people per year

Just for the record, there is no basis for these numbers.  According to the article:

“All of the benefits that the CEA attributes to President Obama’s health care plans are based on nothing but a political “goal.”  The bogus study released by the CEA simply assumes that President Obama will reduce health care spending increases by 1.5 percent per year, then lists pages of resulting benefits for the unquestioning media to report.”

Wow.  If I ran my household this way…   However, some of the study’s numbers are accurate.  The study notes that the share of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) devoted to health care almost doubled between 1980 and 2007.   During the same time frame, the share of health care spending paid for by the government increased by 10.1 percent, while the share paid for privately decreased by 7.3 percent.   This is an indication that when the government begins to pay for something it gets more expensive (for a further example look at the rise of college tuition in relation to the availability of student loans!).

The transferring of healthcare from the private sector to the public sector will have a negative impact on the income of all working Americans who pay taxes.  It will also slow down economic growth in general.  Rather than helping end the current recession, it will prolong it and make it more difficult to maintain a healthy economy in the future.
 

USA Today has posted an article stating that one out of every six dollars earned by Americans is from the government.  This income amounts to 16.2 % of personal income during the first quarter of 2009.  That is the highest percentage since record keeping began in 1929.  This includes all government benefit programs–Social Security, food stamps, medical benefits, and unemployment insurance. 

The article states that:

“In all, government spending on benefits will top $2 trillion in 2009 — an average of $17,000 provided to each U.S. household, federal data show. Benefits rose at a 19% annual rate in the first quarter compared to the last three months of 2008.”

That is not sustainable.  There has been a $209 billion increase in government benefit costs from a year ago.  Part of the problem is that we have reached the tipping point where more than 50% of Americans do not pay any income tax.  Therefore, there is no incentive among voters to rein in spending.  If this trend continues, prosperity and the American dream will become a distant memory.

According to today’s The Hill, the first draft of the Democrat plan to reform healthcare will be unveiled next week.  According to the article:

“The legislation will certainly include a federally run public plan that would provide health benefits in competition with private insurance,

“The proposal is anathema to Republicans but Kennedy favors the public plan and Obama’s letter emphasized his insistence on it. Dodd said the panel was considering four of five models for the public plan.”

Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Republicans will get their first look at the bill later this week.  The idea here is to rush the legislation through before July 31st (before anyone has a chance to see what is actually in the bill).  There is nothing wrong with the idea of cutting costs of healthcare for Americans, but this is not the way to do it.  A public healthcare plan opens the door for all kinds of abuses–mismanagement, lobbying abuses, unmanageable cost overrunns, etc.–all of which we have seen in the current Medicare program.  This bill needs to be stopped in its tracks until it can be studied, analyzed, reviewed, and revised.  This bill does not need to be passed without the necessary scrutiny.

President Obama will be speaking to the Muslim world tomorrow from Cairo, Egypt.  The Wall Street Journal has an interesting op-ed by Paul Wolfowicz on the challenges involved in making that speech. 

Mr. Wolfowicz points out that there is an expectation that President Obama will walk away from what was called “the freedom agenda” of the George Bush Administration.  To walk away from this agenda would be a mistake.  President Obama is speaking in Egypt, a country that mistreats its own people, and also a country that may be pivotal in the Middle East ‘peace process’.   To act as if America supports the status quo in a country that tortures and discriminates against its own citizens would be a mistake.

According to the article:

“The denial of equal rights to women is unjust. It hurts society as a whole when half the population is prevented from achieving its full potential. The countries in the Muslim world that have developed most successfully are those — such as Indonesia, Turkey and Malaysia — where women have been able to play a substantial role. Those same countries have also benefited enormously from giving scope to Christian and Jewish minorities to prosper, although the record is imperfect. Turkey’s Jewish minority found refuge there 500 years ago from the Spanish Inquisition. In those days, when Islamic civilization was the most advanced in the world, it was also one of the most tolerant.”

President Obama needs to remind the Muslim nations of their former tolerance.  He also needs to remind them of the benefits of freedom and democracy in the prospering of a country.  Hopefully he will be as willing to put pressure on the Muslim nations to move toward freedom (and the acceptance of the existence of Israel) as he has been willing to put pressure on Israel to give up more land.

On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that:

“In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” He sought to downplay the expectations of the speech, but he said he hoped the address would raise awareness about Muslims.”

I took the whole paragraph because I wanted to post the whole statement in context.  However, even that does not show the full context.  What he said was:

“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” Mr. Obama said. “And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.”

There are a few concepts in both of these statements that bother me.  If you look at the founding documents of America, we are founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic.  Many of the people who settled this country were looking for religious freedom, and our laws reflect that.  There is no religious freedom in Muslim countries.  Saudi Arabia burns Bibles and tortures people who become Christians.  Other Muslim countries have similar policies.  I am not willing to give up my freedom of religion.  If Muslims choose to settle here, they are entitled to freedom of religion, but not in infringe upon other people’s freedom of religion.  I am not willing to see America as a Muslim country.

In certain airports of America, Muslim cab drivers refuse to accept blind people as passengers if they have seeing-eye dogs (dogs are considered unclean in Islam).  Some Muslims working in grocery stores have refused to handle pork products.  Other working Muslims have asked that special allowances be made for them in the workplace for prayer rooms and prayer times.  Unless these same allowances are made for other religions, they are discriminatory.  Becoming a Muslim country would not be a step forward for America, it would be a step away from freedom.  I hope our President realizes that.

As the Obama Administration begins its push to increase the amount of ethanol required in gasoline from 10% to 15%, the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday will run an article on the actual costs of ethanol.  According to the article:

“The Congressional Budget Office reported last month that Americans pay another surcharge for ethanol in higher food prices. CBO estimates that from April 2007 to April 2008 “the increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices.” Ethanol raises food prices because millions of acres of farmland and three billion bushels of corn were diverted to ethanol from food production. Americans spend about $1.1 trillion a year on food, so in 2007 the ethanol subsidy cost families between $5.5 billion and $8.8 billion in higher grocery bills.”

In addition to the extra cost to American consumers, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality — explains that the reduction in CO2 emissions from burning ethanol are minimal and maybe negative.  The article further points out:

“Both CBO and EPA find that in theory cellulosic ethanol — from wood chips, grasses and biowaste — would reduce carbon emissions. However, as CBO emphasizes, “current technologies for producing cellulosic ethanol are not commercially viable.” The ethanol lobby is attempting a giant bait-and-switch: Keep claiming that cellulosic ethanol is just around the corner, even as it knows the only current technology to meet federal mandates is corn ethanol (or sugar, if it didn’t face an import tariff).”

The increased use of ethanol has not been the success that was hoped.  It has been a boon to corn farmers and that’s about it.  Because it has been good for the agricultural states, Congress has been reluctant to end an unsuccessful program.  Someone needs to find the courage to say that ethanol in America has not worked and that we need to develop our other energy resources. 

It’s ironic that when there are places in southern California where oil is literally seeping through the ground and causing pollution, the government will not allow us to drill for that oil yet we subsidize a fuel program that does not work

Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co. of China has bought the Hummer division of General Motors.  According to Breitbart.com:

“As part of the proposed transaction, GM said, Hummer will continue to contract vehicle manufacturing and business services from GM during a transitional period. For example, GM’s Shreveport, La., assembly plant would continue to contract to assemble the H3 and H3T through at least 2010.”

This is an interesting development.  Will Hummers be sold in the America after this deal goes through?  Evidently there are ongoing talks to sell some of the other divisions also.  According to the article, there are 16 buyers interested in Saturn and 3 interested in Saab.  The new, smaller General Motors will focus on its Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC divisions.

Townhall.com has an article today on the five character flaws that are destroying America.  It’s a very basic list, here it is:

1.  Lack of personal responsibility

2.  Short attention span

3.  Excessive self-esteem

4.  Short term thinking/instant gratification

5.  Immorality

Please read the full article for the expansion of these ideas.  Some of these traits are qualities we don’t think about often, but the article explores how they impact our society in a negative way.

According to today’s Washington Post President Obama has stated that Iran has the right to nuclear energy as long as it is used for peaceful purposes.  He plans to pursue direct diplomatic talks with Iran to discourage it from developing nuclear weapons.

The article states:

“The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.”

The question that remains unanswered is whether or not Iran will have nuclear weapons by the end of the year.

According to the News-Leader.com in Springfield, Missouri, state Representative Sara Lampe, D-138th, of Springfield, came up with the perfect solution when a group of Neo-Nazis, claiming free speech rights, succeeded in getting MoDOT to let them erect a sign for their group along West Bypass, between Sunshine and Farm Road 142 as part of the adopt-a-highway program.  She introduced a piece of legislation to rename the half mile of the West Bypass the “Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel Memorial Highway.”   The legislation was made into an amendment to a larger transportation bill that passed the House and the Senate.

According to the article:

“The bottom line: the neo-Nazis will now be helping to keep clean a stretch of road (between Sunshine and Farm Road 142) honoring one of the most famous Jewish theologians in modern history.”

 

What a perfect way to handle the situation!! 

Now that it’s no longer General Motors, but Government Motors, some changes will be made.  The extreme environmentalists that are friends of this administration want GM to now manufacture ‘green’ cars.  The problem is that the American public has not been particularly interested in ‘green’ cars.  So how do you change the market place?  Easy, raise the cost of fuel to the point that driving anything else is impractical.  So let’s look at one of the early steps in that direction.

According to the American Thinker, Representative Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee is proposing measures that will limit the production of domestic energy supplies.  This will make us more dependent on foreign oil and more subject to the price hikes that come our way because of that dependency. 

The measures proposed:

• End the “payment-in-kind” option that allows companies to pay royalties in oil and gas rather than cash. Mr. Salazar has said he would consider ending the program.
• Tighten royalty payment rules through new penalties, elimination of interest on overpayments, and other adjustments.
• Consolidate Interior Department leasing activities into a new Office of Federal Energy and Mineral Leasing, and end leasing by the Minerals Management Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
• Require the adoption of five-year plans for oil and gas leasing on federal lands similar to those developed for offshore leasing.
• Create an Oceans and Coastal Trust Fund funded by revenues from Outer Continental Shelf leases and royalties.
• Impose new environmental restrictions to curtail pollution from offshore oil drilling.
• Impose royalties for the first time on uranium mining.

It’s amazing to me that at a time when the oil producing countries of the world are not our friends, a Representative is moving to make us less energy independent.