The US debt crisis for the politicians is more about politics than economics.
When the Republican-controlled House of Representatives finally came up with a bill this Friday afternoon to send over to the Senate, it was one-sided. When it reached the floor of the Democrat-controlled Senate, it was "tabled," i.e. put on the back burner. When the Democrats in the Senate presented its one-sided bill Friday evening, the Senate Republicans fell silent. If nothing gets done by next Tuesday some time, the United States would be in default for the first time in its 235 years of existence.
There is nothing like grand standing until the last minute as the financial markets react negatively. The House, the Senate and the White House together have taken the American people and the world economy hostage, each to its selfish ends. Ironically, they share a common label - political terrorists - and are engaged in political terrorism.
Friday, July 29, 2011
What I Like About President Obama
I think President Obama is a good man, but I don't always agree with him. I also think that the presidency is a job that at times is beyond his ability to handle. Thankfully, he is not idiotic and arrogant like his predecessor.
He passed the health care bill in honor of his mother who died without the money to pay for health care. What son cannot identify with such an act? What mother would not be proud to have such a son? But at what cost when the country was carrying a huge deficit and on the verge of a depression and could not afford such a huge burden?
He extended his predecessor's tax cuts. That was good for the rich but as it turned out, it is adding to the deficit while unemployment remains high.
He approved the $787 billion stimulus package that stabilized the financial markets. Unfortunately, it did not stimulate the economy to grow as fast as everyone, especially he had hoped.
He found Osama bin Laden in Pakistan within 3 years of his presidency when GW Bush could not find him anywhere in 7 tortuous years.
He is unwinding GW Bush's mistake in Iraq, a sitting duck of a nation that GW Bush invaded for no good reason and found its leader, Saddam Hussein, in a gutter, lol, at a cost of 3 trillion (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html) and counting, countless lives and immeasurable, and on-going, human suffering, not funny at all (nfaa). It's unconscionable, it's devilish and it's repulsive.
He repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, paving the way for equality for gay military personnel. It's about time. There's nothing more threatening than having a bitter, sex-deprived soldier carrying a big gun, ready but forbidden to shoot even when fully loaded.
He passed the health care bill in honor of his mother who died without the money to pay for health care. What son cannot identify with such an act? What mother would not be proud to have such a son? But at what cost when the country was carrying a huge deficit and on the verge of a depression and could not afford such a huge burden?
He extended his predecessor's tax cuts. That was good for the rich but as it turned out, it is adding to the deficit while unemployment remains high.
He approved the $787 billion stimulus package that stabilized the financial markets. Unfortunately, it did not stimulate the economy to grow as fast as everyone, especially he had hoped.
He found Osama bin Laden in Pakistan within 3 years of his presidency when GW Bush could not find him anywhere in 7 tortuous years.
He is unwinding GW Bush's mistake in Iraq, a sitting duck of a nation that GW Bush invaded for no good reason and found its leader, Saddam Hussein, in a gutter, lol, at a cost of 3 trillion (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html) and counting, countless lives and immeasurable, and on-going, human suffering, not funny at all (nfaa). It's unconscionable, it's devilish and it's repulsive.
He repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, paving the way for equality for gay military personnel. It's about time. There's nothing more threatening than having a bitter, sex-deprived soldier carrying a big gun, ready but forbidden to shoot even when fully loaded.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Debt Crisis - The President Has No Plan
A lot of republicans who had gone On the Record with Greta Van Susteren on Fox had complained that President Obama had not presented a plan to solve the debt crises. Even the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) director Douglas Elmendorf remarked, "We don't estimate speeches. We need much more specificity than was provided in that [April 13, 2011 budget] speech for us to do our analysis."
In President Obama's defense, I say that it is not the duty of the Office of the President to come up with a budget that would pass both houses of Congress. It is the Congress that holds the nation's purse strings. Having said that, I also maintain that President Obama could be dollar-specific with his budget in leading this country out of its $14.5 trillion public debt, see http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The reason that President Obama is unable or unwilling to be specific is that he does not want to his executive decisions to be limited by a budget. After all, who can renovate a home without money or credit?
Republicans do not want this President to spend anymore money the Unites States does not have. They want to cut spending and refuse to raise taxes.
To cut spending means no new spending. No new spending means no new programs, and it is new spending for new programs that define a presidency, positively or negatively.
In the case of GW Bush, his recklessness in spending is still costing the United States and world today in terms of economics and human suffering. In the case of Barack Obama, the verdict is still out, even though it is not looking good for him. This debt crisis impasse, even if resolved next week, may mark the beginning of the end of his one-term presidency.
President Obama can probably hear it already: No budget. No leadership. No jobs.
Perhaps there is a speech that he could give. Better yet, a prayer that he could say.
In President Obama's defense, I say that it is not the duty of the Office of the President to come up with a budget that would pass both houses of Congress. It is the Congress that holds the nation's purse strings. Having said that, I also maintain that President Obama could be dollar-specific with his budget in leading this country out of its $14.5 trillion public debt, see http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The reason that President Obama is unable or unwilling to be specific is that he does not want to his executive decisions to be limited by a budget. After all, who can renovate a home without money or credit?
Republicans do not want this President to spend anymore money the Unites States does not have. They want to cut spending and refuse to raise taxes.
To cut spending means no new spending. No new spending means no new programs, and it is new spending for new programs that define a presidency, positively or negatively.
In the case of GW Bush, his recklessness in spending is still costing the United States and world today in terms of economics and human suffering. In the case of Barack Obama, the verdict is still out, even though it is not looking good for him. This debt crisis impasse, even if resolved next week, may mark the beginning of the end of his one-term presidency.
President Obama can probably hear it already: No budget. No leadership. No jobs.
Perhaps there is a speech that he could give. Better yet, a prayer that he could say.
A Prayer in the Midst of Worldy Concerns
In the words of Saint Francis, directing them to an "'eminent cleric'" if he were to join his Order: "And so I wish an educated man world first offer me this prayer: 'Look, Brother; I have lived for a long time in the world and have not really known my God. Grant me, I pray you, a place removed from the noise of the world, where I may recall my years in sorrow and where I may gather the scattered bits of my heart and turn my spirit to better things.'" (Emphasis original)
Bibliography:
Armstrong, Regis J. O.F.M. Cap. et.al. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, Volume II, The Founder. Page 329. New York: New York City Press, 2000.
Bibliography:
Armstrong, Regis J. O.F.M. Cap. et.al. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, Volume II, The Founder. Page 329. New York: New York City Press, 2000.
Workers, Deadbeat Citizens & the Income Tax
This paragraph below applies to those who work. For those who don't, maybe you should work for "free" for the government that is giving you so much support in return. You don't have to work anymore that what you receive in benefits. So, don't be a deadbeat citizen.
Income tax is a transfer of income from one person or entity to another person or entity. In other words, part of your pay does not belong to you. You have in effect worked for free for the beneficiaries of taxes you pay. However, if you benefit from the quality of life in general in the United States, the military protection and so on, then only a portion of every dollar you earn, it is earned for someone else or some cause involuntarily.
The percentage of tax you pay indicates how much the governments thinks it costs to provide a benefit to each individual, whether or not legally present in the United States. It also thinks that the richer you are, the more tax you would have to pay. On the one hand, it is unfair because a rich person benefits the same from the same defense plan as a poor person and therefore the rich ought to be taxed the same as the poor. On the other hand, the richer the person the more he/she has to lose without governmental protection, then a graduated tax rate is fair.
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party thinks that what the federal government provides each citizen is just about right at these present tax rates. For individuals in 2010, they are here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf Corporations have a different tax structure and it can be very complicated. President Obama and a majority of democrats thinks that nobody is paying enough and ought to pay for more than what one receive in government benefits, in order that those incapable of supporting themselves can receive help from you by law.
Therein lies the core question: Is the United States a country for the survival of the fittest or a compassionate one that comes to the aid of those in need? I think the answer is somewhere along the spectrum between these extremes.
The balance is between the United States affording to accumulate a bigger and bigger debt in order to be a compassionate nation at the expense of the capable who are shouldering a heavier and heavier burden that they may one day be incapable of shouldering, and the United States saying to the needy that you, too, need to do sacrifice for the common good, for the future youth of our country and for those seniors and needy poor who will come after you.
As it stands now, unless the economy grows in leaps and bounds and generate enough tax revenue to pay down the deficit, the deficit will continue to grow, and grow out of control, leading to the certain suffering of all economically. The race therefore is between economic expansion and the expanding budget deficit. With the world economic disaster still looming, one that began under GW Bush's careless presidency, one that not only fed the unbridled greed on Wall Street, but also started a gratuitous war in Iraq against all wisdom, the prospect of an economic boom capable of eradicating or shrinking the United States deficit anytime soon is unlikely, even though there are signs that there is an economic recovery underway.
Short of a miracle, therefore, cuts must take place without raising taxes that could slow a recovering economy and result in extending the current recession indefinitely.
Income tax is a transfer of income from one person or entity to another person or entity. In other words, part of your pay does not belong to you. You have in effect worked for free for the beneficiaries of taxes you pay. However, if you benefit from the quality of life in general in the United States, the military protection and so on, then only a portion of every dollar you earn, it is earned for someone else or some cause involuntarily.
The percentage of tax you pay indicates how much the governments thinks it costs to provide a benefit to each individual, whether or not legally present in the United States. It also thinks that the richer you are, the more tax you would have to pay. On the one hand, it is unfair because a rich person benefits the same from the same defense plan as a poor person and therefore the rich ought to be taxed the same as the poor. On the other hand, the richer the person the more he/she has to lose without governmental protection, then a graduated tax rate is fair.
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party thinks that what the federal government provides each citizen is just about right at these present tax rates. For individuals in 2010, they are here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf Corporations have a different tax structure and it can be very complicated. President Obama and a majority of democrats thinks that nobody is paying enough and ought to pay for more than what one receive in government benefits, in order that those incapable of supporting themselves can receive help from you by law.
Therein lies the core question: Is the United States a country for the survival of the fittest or a compassionate one that comes to the aid of those in need? I think the answer is somewhere along the spectrum between these extremes.
The balance is between the United States affording to accumulate a bigger and bigger debt in order to be a compassionate nation at the expense of the capable who are shouldering a heavier and heavier burden that they may one day be incapable of shouldering, and the United States saying to the needy that you, too, need to do sacrifice for the common good, for the future youth of our country and for those seniors and needy poor who will come after you.
As it stands now, unless the economy grows in leaps and bounds and generate enough tax revenue to pay down the deficit, the deficit will continue to grow, and grow out of control, leading to the certain suffering of all economically. The race therefore is between economic expansion and the expanding budget deficit. With the world economic disaster still looming, one that began under GW Bush's careless presidency, one that not only fed the unbridled greed on Wall Street, but also started a gratuitous war in Iraq against all wisdom, the prospect of an economic boom capable of eradicating or shrinking the United States deficit anytime soon is unlikely, even though there are signs that there is an economic recovery underway.
Short of a miracle, therefore, cuts must take place without raising taxes that could slow a recovering economy and result in extending the current recession indefinitely.
Extending Debt Talks Beyond the Next Election
The reason for extending the debt talks beyond the election year is to prevent a repeat of the contentiousness that Congress and the President is now experiencing, except that the discussion does not have to be contentious when the common goals are to cut spending and balance the budget.
An effective way to account for responsible spending accurately is to balance the books daily, or continuously with an IBM mainframe. With numbers clearly on the table, both President Obama and members of Congress can look at the books at any moment and discuss the need for cutting spending if necessary, and allocate the cuts by predetermined percentages.
If allocation is the point of contention and a compromise cannot be reached before the next pay day, then nobody, including staff members, in both the executive and the legislative branches will get paid until one is reached and for everyday past the deadline, each person's salary will decrease by ten (10%) percent per day, and when a negative number is reached, then each of them will start owing the government. The amount owed will be subtracted from the next paycheck, and the next and so on.
I think that is a good way to bring the concept of a deficit home quickly to everyone involved.
An effective way to account for responsible spending accurately is to balance the books daily, or continuously with an IBM mainframe. With numbers clearly on the table, both President Obama and members of Congress can look at the books at any moment and discuss the need for cutting spending if necessary, and allocate the cuts by predetermined percentages.
If allocation is the point of contention and a compromise cannot be reached before the next pay day, then nobody, including staff members, in both the executive and the legislative branches will get paid until one is reached and for everyday past the deadline, each person's salary will decrease by ten (10%) percent per day, and when a negative number is reached, then each of them will start owing the government. The amount owed will be subtracted from the next paycheck, and the next and so on.
I think that is a good way to bring the concept of a deficit home quickly to everyone involved.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Un-United States
It is appalling that so simple a concept - to spend only up to the amount taken in - can be so contentious. Of course, nothing is simple when it involves a government that has the power to tax and to print money. Then the equation becomes complex for it involves policy, like economic policy, taxing policy, defense policy, social policy and balanced-budget policy to name a few, and politics.
I am a fiscal conservative. That means I am a social conservative by default since nowadays the Unites States is no longer rich enough to be a social liberal. The United States is in debt. Even in debt, the United States is still giving out freebies. This is not the way to run a country, even though it can print more and more money to pay the interest on a bigger and bigger debt, for more pieces of paper will end up costing everyone in the form of inflation and the devaluation of the dollar, unless there is a corresponding increase in economic growth but there is not. There is no free ride, whether it is an individual, a business, a country like Greece which does not have its own currency or for a country like the United States which does.
Until the United States can collect enough tax revenue without taxing its economy into a deeper recession than it is currently in, it must stop spending and not go further into debt.
Some would argue that the seniors and the poor will suffer from spending cuts because they would lose their benefits. They are right, but what is the alternative? Continue to incur more and more debt so that the next generation of seniors and poor can bear the burden? What will this next generation of poor people and seniors do? Incur more debt and pass it on? When will this transfer of a bigger and bigger debt stop? At some point, when the debt is so huge, can it even be stopped? The dollar will have to depreciate. Will the borrowing stop when bread then start costing $500 a loaf or will the government borrow even more to buy bread for the hungry? Which generation of seniors and poor people will stand up to put a stop to this madness and stand for what is right?
Perhaps none. People have become so selfish and so short-sighted that the next generation seems like another species, unrelated by blood and dispensable. The "me" generation and the baby boomers have become the "me now - hell with everyone else" voting bloc. Sadly, the liberal politicians are catering to them.
I am with the conservatives this time around. In fact, I will go one step further. I will raise the debt ceiling by an amount enough to cover the next three months, making sure spending does not exceed receipts. The amount of debt ceiling to be raised will be evaluated quarterly, making sure that the United States debt is not getting bigger but being trimmed back steadily.
I am a fiscal conservative. That means I am a social conservative by default since nowadays the Unites States is no longer rich enough to be a social liberal. The United States is in debt. Even in debt, the United States is still giving out freebies. This is not the way to run a country, even though it can print more and more money to pay the interest on a bigger and bigger debt, for more pieces of paper will end up costing everyone in the form of inflation and the devaluation of the dollar, unless there is a corresponding increase in economic growth but there is not. There is no free ride, whether it is an individual, a business, a country like Greece which does not have its own currency or for a country like the United States which does.
Until the United States can collect enough tax revenue without taxing its economy into a deeper recession than it is currently in, it must stop spending and not go further into debt.
Some would argue that the seniors and the poor will suffer from spending cuts because they would lose their benefits. They are right, but what is the alternative? Continue to incur more and more debt so that the next generation of seniors and poor can bear the burden? What will this next generation of poor people and seniors do? Incur more debt and pass it on? When will this transfer of a bigger and bigger debt stop? At some point, when the debt is so huge, can it even be stopped? The dollar will have to depreciate. Will the borrowing stop when bread then start costing $500 a loaf or will the government borrow even more to buy bread for the hungry? Which generation of seniors and poor people will stand up to put a stop to this madness and stand for what is right?
Perhaps none. People have become so selfish and so short-sighted that the next generation seems like another species, unrelated by blood and dispensable. The "me" generation and the baby boomers have become the "me now - hell with everyone else" voting bloc. Sadly, the liberal politicians are catering to them.
I am with the conservatives this time around. In fact, I will go one step further. I will raise the debt ceiling by an amount enough to cover the next three months, making sure spending does not exceed receipts. The amount of debt ceiling to be raised will be evaluated quarterly, making sure that the United States debt is not getting bigger but being trimmed back steadily.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
A Very Smart Jewish Man and the Raising the Debt Ceiling
When I was young, a very smart Jewish man and I had a conversation about the money I lost in the stock market. He told me not to spend time brooding over what I had already lost, but that I should spend my time working on making it back.
The United States is bleeding red ink. It should take the advice of this brilliant Jewish man. Instead of raising the debt ceiling, the President and Congress should and think of ways to make money to pay the debts of the United States and continue with handouts to the poor, lazy, and/or stupid.
So rather than cutting spending and raising taxes, the federal government ought to invest in the best companies in the world and become the biggest illegal drug grower, maker and dealer on earth.
The United States is bleeding red ink. It should take the advice of this brilliant Jewish man. Instead of raising the debt ceiling, the President and Congress should and think of ways to make money to pay the debts of the United States and continue with handouts to the poor, lazy, and/or stupid.
So rather than cutting spending and raising taxes, the federal government ought to invest in the best companies in the world and become the biggest illegal drug grower, maker and dealer on earth.
Revisiting a Prayer
In April, I wrote a prayer that I just re-read. Re-reading it was worthwhile because it states a sin (the betrayal of truth), the effect of betrayal (anger and torment) and the need for divine intervention (the prayer).
Dishonesty is not limited to individuals, it is part of business, it is in politics, in the government bureaucracy, in the laws of San Francisco and in the enforcement of its laws.
Just like a party to a contract who would intentionally and unethically breach a contract knowing that the cost for the non-breaching party to litigate the matter is higher than the cost for breaching party to fulfill its promise, the City of San Francisco has unjust and unconstitutional laws that have nothing to do with the public good in order to serve certain special interests, knowing full well that an individual unwittingly trapped by such a law would rather pay an unjust fine than to challenge its constitutionality.
I see the corruption of man and the corruption of his institutions and that infuriates me. May God grant me calm and inner peace while being tormented by the realities of sin.
Dishonesty is not limited to individuals, it is part of business, it is in politics, in the government bureaucracy, in the laws of San Francisco and in the enforcement of its laws.
Just like a party to a contract who would intentionally and unethically breach a contract knowing that the cost for the non-breaching party to litigate the matter is higher than the cost for breaching party to fulfill its promise, the City of San Francisco has unjust and unconstitutional laws that have nothing to do with the public good in order to serve certain special interests, knowing full well that an individual unwittingly trapped by such a law would rather pay an unjust fine than to challenge its constitutionality.
I see the corruption of man and the corruption of his institutions and that infuriates me. May God grant me calm and inner peace while being tormented by the realities of sin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
