Are people realizing yet that the party you swear on may not have the answers? I know the reason I started looking into the Libertarian Party had everything to do with the big government disappointments I had with the Republican Party. In the last few years I haven't been happy voting Republican, I did it because they would take us to the cliff slower. You should know though, we are headed toward a cliff. You can pick your piper, but it will take a lot of drastic change and focus from the populous to actually affect a change that would alter our course.
I'm also not saying the Libertarian Party has the answers. I don't really believe that. Their growing popularity comes at an overwhelming desire from the populous to reduce the burden our government is continually placing on them.
The real change is going to come from the grass root groups. The Tea Party movement is incredible, and if you are already of the opinion that they could never hold a successful gathering on the same day as the Daytona 500 you are following the wrong piper. Actually, if you share the opinion that the Tea Party is made up of a bunch of racist, white trash, rednecks then that is all the more reason for you to get involved, and I'm about to tell you why.
The Tea Party represents a movement by the people. The Liberal media would have you believe that a respectable person would never get involved in this movement, and chances are this has everything to do with control. Right now you are told what to think. These grass roots groups are ran in YOUR local communities, by YOUR local communities. They represent the tone in YOUR town. They result in a raised awareness of who YOU are voting for, and what their motive is for wanting to represent YOU. The Tea Party itself has no official party, or platform. It's fueled in similar ways to the Bostonians who grew tired of the burden England was putting on them. There are Democrats and Republicans alike who believe that major changes need to be made to our government for our country to be successful.
The chances of you knowing who is in Washington to help you, and who is there to be a career politician are not likely if you just skim through your local paper, or turn the volume up when you see your Senator speaking on TV. Most people don't spend the time watching debates on C-Span, or following bills to really be informed, but these grass roots groups are made up of people who do. They can pick out local talent to replace worn out bureaucrats, and really, that is how the real change will be made.
So get involved, if you don't like the Tea Party find something else, but apathy is no longer acceptable. The country is eroding at record rates and voting on a party line is not going to stop it.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Pay-go + $1.9 trillion increase to debt ceiling?!
So it seemed like business as usual in Washington yesterday. The House Democrats voted to pass a bill that would not only institute a pay as you go law, but also approves an increase in the debt ceiling so great that it actually exceeds last years GDP. According to this Bill the acceptable debt for 2011 is $14.35 trillion and actually increases to $17.1 trillion in 2014. This under the name of fiscal responsibility.
I watched the debates absolutely fascinated by the rhetoric from both sides. All you see in Washington today is finger pointing at the opposing party. So while they should be trying to bring the country out of it's economic slump, they choose instead to campaign for their party's success in November. Nearly every speaker called for a bi-partisan effort while refusing the ideas of the other party. I don't believe any Democrat mentioned the increase of the debt ceiling, while the Republicans treated pay as you go in a similar manner. I can see it in the campaigns now, everyone who voted can claim that they fought for fiscal responsibility. While at the same time everyone who campaigns against them can accuse them of voting against it. It was a ridiculous Bill, and seems to be completely superficial.
Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) may have been the only person who had any substance in the debate. He actually seemed to care about the direction of the country. Shortly after Nancy Pelosi spoke about how proud she was that the House Democrats voted Pay-Go, as a rule, on her second day as speaker, he pointed out it's failure. It turns out, the same people who brought you Pay-Go also brought TARP, and every other big government program since. He points out four major flaws here:
He calls for serious people from both parties to come up with serious solutions. I like this, because there is a lot to be gained from both sides. The Pay-go deal could be useful with a few more restrictions. Maybe a budget where you don't increase the limit each year. Why don't we use a pay-go with an annual decrease until we reach a certain percentage of the GDP. Instead of 27%, why not 15%? Why don't we create a program that monitors all government programs and forces them to justify their need and holding them accountable to wasteful spending? It seems to me that Washington was restricted in size they would be forced to be a lot more efficient. Maybe if the taxpayer wasn't held accountable to every bright idea that came out of Washington our economy would once again become manageable.
I'd be lying to say that I'm not looking forward to next November, but a Congress worried more about campaigning than solutions doesn't give me much hope for either party's success.
I watched the debates absolutely fascinated by the rhetoric from both sides. All you see in Washington today is finger pointing at the opposing party. So while they should be trying to bring the country out of it's economic slump, they choose instead to campaign for their party's success in November. Nearly every speaker called for a bi-partisan effort while refusing the ideas of the other party. I don't believe any Democrat mentioned the increase of the debt ceiling, while the Republicans treated pay as you go in a similar manner. I can see it in the campaigns now, everyone who voted can claim that they fought for fiscal responsibility. While at the same time everyone who campaigns against them can accuse them of voting against it. It was a ridiculous Bill, and seems to be completely superficial.
Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) may have been the only person who had any substance in the debate. He actually seemed to care about the direction of the country. Shortly after Nancy Pelosi spoke about how proud she was that the House Democrats voted Pay-Go, as a rule, on her second day as speaker, he pointed out it's failure. It turns out, the same people who brought you Pay-Go also brought TARP, and every other big government program since. He points out four major flaws here:
- The $787-billion “stimulus” bill (now estimated by CBO to be $862 billion) was designated as an “emergency,” so pay-go did not apply to it.
- According to CBO, H.R. 3961, adjusting the sustained growth formula [SGR] for dodged pay-go in this case by burying this cost in the budget baseline. Thus, relative to the pay-go baseline, this $200 billion in real spending and deficit increases disappeared.
- The State Children’s Health Insurance Program expansion (H.R. 2) provided an increase of $74 billion over 10 years. So Congress wrote into the bill a spending “cliff” – a provision that cut SCHIP spending by 65 percent in 2014, meeting pay-go’s requirement with a reduction that will never occur.
- In 2008, the war supplemental (H.R. 2542) included $66 billion in mandatory spending that otherwise would have been subject to pay-go.
He calls for serious people from both parties to come up with serious solutions. I like this, because there is a lot to be gained from both sides. The Pay-go deal could be useful with a few more restrictions. Maybe a budget where you don't increase the limit each year. Why don't we use a pay-go with an annual decrease until we reach a certain percentage of the GDP. Instead of 27%, why not 15%? Why don't we create a program that monitors all government programs and forces them to justify their need and holding them accountable to wasteful spending? It seems to me that Washington was restricted in size they would be forced to be a lot more efficient. Maybe if the taxpayer wasn't held accountable to every bright idea that came out of Washington our economy would once again become manageable.
I'd be lying to say that I'm not looking forward to next November, but a Congress worried more about campaigning than solutions doesn't give me much hope for either party's success.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
$3,800,000,000,000
In the same speech President Obama proposed a budget of 3.8 trillion dollars he has the audacity to say this,
"But we can't simply move beyond this crisis; we have to address the irresponsibility that led to it. And that includes the failure to rein in spending, as well a reliance on borrowing –- from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street –- to fuel our growth. That's what we have to change. We have to do what families across America are doing: Save where we can so that we can afford what we need."
He's right too, that is exactly what the problem is, but while two of the three are doing their part, he's now proposing even more spending by the government. In 2009 our country's GDP was 14.25 trillion dollars. So President Obama, who recognizes that part of the problem is excessive spending in Washington, is now proposing a budget that makes up %27 of last year's GDP. Are people really falling for this? Does it not sound at all like what he said at the end of his speech?
"is the same old grandstanding when the cameras are on, and the same irresponsible budget policies when the cameras are off."
What cracks me up is that no one seems to be calling him out on this. I hear a lot of comments about how he continues to bash Bush though. It's true, President Bush, and Congress that in those 8 years was dominated by both parties, are to blame for this crisis. Anyone in Washington trying to claim innocence should be seriously questioned. That Republican Party wasn't fiscally responsible, or a proponent of small government. So why don't we accept this and move on? Why don't we choose to call him out for saying one thing and doing another? I mean really, I've heard of politicians changing policy ideas when standing in front of different crowds, but I have never heard of this being done in the exact same speech. Someone should seriously tell this guy that you can't brag about budget cuts while at the same time proposing an even larger budget. It doesn't make sense.
Really, is it too much to ask to listen long enough to see what's really going on, instead of getting distracted by petty party politics?
"But we can't simply move beyond this crisis; we have to address the irresponsibility that led to it. And that includes the failure to rein in spending, as well a reliance on borrowing –- from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street –- to fuel our growth. That's what we have to change. We have to do what families across America are doing: Save where we can so that we can afford what we need."
He's right too, that is exactly what the problem is, but while two of the three are doing their part, he's now proposing even more spending by the government. In 2009 our country's GDP was 14.25 trillion dollars. So President Obama, who recognizes that part of the problem is excessive spending in Washington, is now proposing a budget that makes up %27 of last year's GDP. Are people really falling for this? Does it not sound at all like what he said at the end of his speech?
"is the same old grandstanding when the cameras are on, and the same irresponsible budget policies when the cameras are off."
What cracks me up is that no one seems to be calling him out on this. I hear a lot of comments about how he continues to bash Bush though. It's true, President Bush, and Congress that in those 8 years was dominated by both parties, are to blame for this crisis. Anyone in Washington trying to claim innocence should be seriously questioned. That Republican Party wasn't fiscally responsible, or a proponent of small government. So why don't we accept this and move on? Why don't we choose to call him out for saying one thing and doing another? I mean really, I've heard of politicians changing policy ideas when standing in front of different crowds, but I have never heard of this being done in the exact same speech. Someone should seriously tell this guy that you can't brag about budget cuts while at the same time proposing an even larger budget. It doesn't make sense.
Really, is it too much to ask to listen long enough to see what's really going on, instead of getting distracted by petty party politics?
Friday, January 29, 2010
"The Party of NO!"
Let's be real clear on something. The problem arises when the Republicans are known as anything other than "the party of no." There is a reason Republicans and Democrats are known as conservatives and liberals. I'll make my point with salt. To add it conservatively you risk blandness, but you can add more to taste later. To add it liberally you may luck out, but you risk ruining the whole meal. So in politics we need guys to come up and say "it needs salt," but you need the other guys to come up and say, "let me have a look at that." It's a balance. Republicans aren't Libertarians, they believe that there are times when the government can offer a solution, but they are supposed to be slow to come to that conclusion.
Siding first with Capitalism doesn't deny a problem, it denies the understanding of a proper solution. Siding with Capitalism assumes that if there is a need or a desire that someone will figure out a way to fulfill it. If the solution is poor it will fail and disappear. This cycle continues until there are desirable solutions at hand. A solution too liberal can be bad while also restricting or inhibiting a quality solution in the private sector. Unfortunately a bad, or outdated, solution made by the government is hard to turn away from. This can be seen with the Social Security system. It's far inferior to other methods, and yet people have paid into it their whole lives. It would be completely unfair to say they are out of luck, but it currently seems unfair to those paying into it now. For this reason we should be incredibly slow to assume that the government has the best ideas.
Let's say for example that a charismatic politician decides that he wants to end poverty. He comes up with this grand scheme and figures out that he can reduce the poverty level in America to virtually 0%. All he needs is a trillion dollar budget and we will have a record that will leave the rest of the world in a state of awe. It takes someone with a conservative mind to stay, hey wait a minute, that tax burden may destroy our economy and leave us all in a bread line. Simply put, naming a problem doesn't create a solution. A poor solution via stage one thinking can leave us in deeper water then we started in.
The same can be said about a health care bill so bad that they have to bribe Democrats with hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars just to pass it. You need people questioning what will happen to the state of health care if the government decides to take over the insurance business. How will this effect us in the long term? What will this do to the overall quality of healthcare? Or, How will this effect our economy. Are we sure that we are making the right decision, since backtracking seems to be nearly impossible in the world of government? It doesn't mean that national healthcare is a bad idea. It's a great idea, it simply assumes that the right solution has not been presented, and a commitment so large and expensive needs to be handled with extreme caution.
So to all the Republicans out there, when you hear the title "the party of no," be proud. The politicians are doing their job.
Siding first with Capitalism doesn't deny a problem, it denies the understanding of a proper solution. Siding with Capitalism assumes that if there is a need or a desire that someone will figure out a way to fulfill it. If the solution is poor it will fail and disappear. This cycle continues until there are desirable solutions at hand. A solution too liberal can be bad while also restricting or inhibiting a quality solution in the private sector. Unfortunately a bad, or outdated, solution made by the government is hard to turn away from. This can be seen with the Social Security system. It's far inferior to other methods, and yet people have paid into it their whole lives. It would be completely unfair to say they are out of luck, but it currently seems unfair to those paying into it now. For this reason we should be incredibly slow to assume that the government has the best ideas.
Let's say for example that a charismatic politician decides that he wants to end poverty. He comes up with this grand scheme and figures out that he can reduce the poverty level in America to virtually 0%. All he needs is a trillion dollar budget and we will have a record that will leave the rest of the world in a state of awe. It takes someone with a conservative mind to stay, hey wait a minute, that tax burden may destroy our economy and leave us all in a bread line. Simply put, naming a problem doesn't create a solution. A poor solution via stage one thinking can leave us in deeper water then we started in.
The same can be said about a health care bill so bad that they have to bribe Democrats with hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars just to pass it. You need people questioning what will happen to the state of health care if the government decides to take over the insurance business. How will this effect us in the long term? What will this do to the overall quality of healthcare? Or, How will this effect our economy. Are we sure that we are making the right decision, since backtracking seems to be nearly impossible in the world of government? It doesn't mean that national healthcare is a bad idea. It's a great idea, it simply assumes that the right solution has not been presented, and a commitment so large and expensive needs to be handled with extreme caution.
So to all the Republicans out there, when you hear the title "the party of no," be proud. The politicians are doing their job.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Our Economic Fall and Future Rise
I don't know about everyone else, but it really bothers me to hear President Obama blame the "fat cats" of Wall Street for all of our economic problems. They are to blame, but there are two other groups that are just as guilty, and just as necessary for economic recovery. I believe two of the three are making progress, but the third is just not doing their part. We have the banks, the American consumer, and the government. I think I can base my entire argument around Dave Ramsey, or just about any financial counselor in the last 10 years. It should become obvious, because of the popularity these guys have gained recently, that we have been absorbed by debt, and are attempting to change our financial culture.
First of all, that great economy we lived in for years wasn't even real. While at the beginning of the 20th century most of the jobs in our country dealt with the production or sale of food, it's now based on product sales and customer service. Our economy has been driven by the creation of debt rather than an equal percentage of the production and sale of products. While people may not have seen this on a grand scale, it's obvious that they saw it in their own lives. Everyone that decided to do something about their enormous debt knows that life changes dramatically when you transition from the love of things to some sense of financial responsibility. First, you quit making irresponsible large purchases that weren't really needed in the first place. Second, you break down your bills in a way to start getting out of debt. Third, you start to save and buy your products with money you've already earned. It takes time, but life becomes a lot easier once you get through it.
When the banks started failing as a result of their irresponsible decisions the government thought they could step in and save them. It's more than a little ironic that they chose to do this through the creation of debt by our government. The debt doesn't go away, instead it is managed by the "fat cats" of Washington. It's ultimately useless, and if by chance it would have worked we would have found ourselves in a similar situation a few years later. Sadly, result or no result, the American people now shoulder the financial burden. While people don't want to see it this way, we are worse off for saving them than we would have been had we let them fail.
So where is the solution? I believe the government needs to take a good look at itself. It needs to quit making huge financial commitments we don't really need, pay off the debt we've incurred, and change the financial culture of our government. I believe that they should take a lesson from the rest of our country, and I hope we as voters force them to do so.
First of all, that great economy we lived in for years wasn't even real. While at the beginning of the 20th century most of the jobs in our country dealt with the production or sale of food, it's now based on product sales and customer service. Our economy has been driven by the creation of debt rather than an equal percentage of the production and sale of products. While people may not have seen this on a grand scale, it's obvious that they saw it in their own lives. Everyone that decided to do something about their enormous debt knows that life changes dramatically when you transition from the love of things to some sense of financial responsibility. First, you quit making irresponsible large purchases that weren't really needed in the first place. Second, you break down your bills in a way to start getting out of debt. Third, you start to save and buy your products with money you've already earned. It takes time, but life becomes a lot easier once you get through it.
When the banks started failing as a result of their irresponsible decisions the government thought they could step in and save them. It's more than a little ironic that they chose to do this through the creation of debt by our government. The debt doesn't go away, instead it is managed by the "fat cats" of Washington. It's ultimately useless, and if by chance it would have worked we would have found ourselves in a similar situation a few years later. Sadly, result or no result, the American people now shoulder the financial burden. While people don't want to see it this way, we are worse off for saving them than we would have been had we let them fail.
So where is the solution? I believe the government needs to take a good look at itself. It needs to quit making huge financial commitments we don't really need, pay off the debt we've incurred, and change the financial culture of our government. I believe that they should take a lesson from the rest of our country, and I hope we as voters force them to do so.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Tax Cuts VS. Stimulus Packages
I've been wondering for the longest time if people have given any thought to the difference in effect of a tax cut and a stimulus package. It took me awhile to figure out, but I think I finally came up with a few reasons why a stimulus package would be preferred by our wonderful politicians. Though really, why the populous refuses to think this through and see how ridiculous the idea is on an economic level just drives me nuts.
First of all, the politician's motive. Unlike a tax cut, a stimulus package is a one time deal. They don't have to vote to raise or lower later, and it comes with a lot less controversy. Second, if successful, which we will soon see is hardly possible, they gain popularity. Third, it would seem to work a lot quicker, if it worked at all.
Unfortunately, from an economic standpoint, it stands a very slim chance of having any long term effects. One example of this would be the cash for clunkers idea. The theory is that people would go out and sell their old cars and buy new ones. Saving the jobs our auto industries are so quickly losing. It's real effect though is that while costing taxpayers billions of dollars, it only created a temporary incentive to buy cars at a time when Americans aren't wanting to make such a large financial commitment. What good does this do for the auto industry in the months to follow? It would seem to me that these stimulus packages are nothing more than life support for the terminally ill. Which is great for comforting friends and family, but doesn't much matter in the big picture fate has to offer.
Tax cuts, however, would reward the successful and ambitious companies who still had valuable products to offer. Auto industries that didn't make decades worth of poor decisions would still thrive, while the foolish would fade to black. I think we can assume that the demand for vehicles isn't going away any time soon. So we can also assume, in a world of supply and demand, that other companies would come up to replace them. From the failures we would have numerous lessons for the up and coming. Subjects such as; overpowering unions, pensions vs. 401k's, distribution of labor, rate of new technology, etc... We would come out bigger, stronger, and with the kind of jobs that would last for decades. This is how Capitalism works friends, it recycles. If we get in it's way it doesn't mean we are going to stop the process, we just may get lucky and prolong it until the next guy is in office.
Real effective change requires us to quit prolonging the inevitable, and to let nature take it's course.
First of all, the politician's motive. Unlike a tax cut, a stimulus package is a one time deal. They don't have to vote to raise or lower later, and it comes with a lot less controversy. Second, if successful, which we will soon see is hardly possible, they gain popularity. Third, it would seem to work a lot quicker, if it worked at all.
Unfortunately, from an economic standpoint, it stands a very slim chance of having any long term effects. One example of this would be the cash for clunkers idea. The theory is that people would go out and sell their old cars and buy new ones. Saving the jobs our auto industries are so quickly losing. It's real effect though is that while costing taxpayers billions of dollars, it only created a temporary incentive to buy cars at a time when Americans aren't wanting to make such a large financial commitment. What good does this do for the auto industry in the months to follow? It would seem to me that these stimulus packages are nothing more than life support for the terminally ill. Which is great for comforting friends and family, but doesn't much matter in the big picture fate has to offer.
Tax cuts, however, would reward the successful and ambitious companies who still had valuable products to offer. Auto industries that didn't make decades worth of poor decisions would still thrive, while the foolish would fade to black. I think we can assume that the demand for vehicles isn't going away any time soon. So we can also assume, in a world of supply and demand, that other companies would come up to replace them. From the failures we would have numerous lessons for the up and coming. Subjects such as; overpowering unions, pensions vs. 401k's, distribution of labor, rate of new technology, etc... We would come out bigger, stronger, and with the kind of jobs that would last for decades. This is how Capitalism works friends, it recycles. If we get in it's way it doesn't mean we are going to stop the process, we just may get lucky and prolong it until the next guy is in office.
Real effective change requires us to quit prolonging the inevitable, and to let nature take it's course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
