SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sandintoes who wrote (47279)11/17/2010 8:53:05 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Can't figure out how he thinks that!

One clue is the author claims Obama is an intellectual. There is no doubt that President Bush 41 was an intellectual and not much evidence to support the thesis that Obama is.



To: sandintoes who wrote (47279)11/18/2010 9:49:08 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
California Suggests Suicide; Texas Asks: Can I Lend You a Knife?
Nov. 15 2010 - 10:36 am | 63,920 views | 0 recommendations | 59 comments
By JOEL KOTKIN

In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits.

California has drifted far away from the place that John Gunther described in 1946 as “the most spectacular and most diversified American state … so ripe, golden.” Instead of a role model, California has become a cautionary tale of mismanagement of what by all rights should be the country’s most prosperous big state. Its poverty rate is at least two points above the national average; its unemployment rate nearly three points above the national average. On Friday Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was forced yet again to call an emergency session in order to deal with the state’s enormous budget problems.

This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests.

In the new year, the once and again Gov. Jerry Brown, who has some conservative fiscal instincts, will be hard-pressed to convince Democratic legislators who get much of their funding from public-sector unions to trim spending. Perhaps more troubling, Brown’s own extremism on climate change policy–backed by rent-seeking Silicon Valley investors with big bets on renewable fuels–virtually assures a further tightening of a regulatory regime that will slow an economic recovery in every industry from manufacturing and agriculture to home-building.

Texas’ trajectory, however, looks quite the opposite. California was recently ranked by Chief Executive magazine as having the worst business climate in the nation, while Texas’ was considered the best. Both Democrats and Republicans in the Lone State State generally embrace the gospel of economic growth and limited public sector expenditure. The defeated Democratic candidate for governor, the brainy former Houston Mayor Bill White, enjoyed robust business support and was widely considered more competent than the easily re-elected incumbent Rick Perry, who sometimes sounds more like a neo-Confederate crank than a serious leader.

To be sure, Texas has its problems: a growing budget deficit, the need to expand infrastructure to service its rapid population growth and the presence of a large contingent of undereducated and uninsured poor people. But even conceding these problems, the growing chasm between the two megastates is evident in the economic and demographic numbers. Over the past decade nearly 1.5 million more people left California than stayed; only New York State lost more. In contrast, Texas gained over 800,000 new migrants. In California, foreign immigration–the one bright spot in its demography–has slowed, while that to Texas has increased markedly over the decade.

A vast difference in economic performance is driving the demographic shifts. Since 1998, California’s economy has not produced a single new net job, notes economist John Husing. Public employment has swelled, but private jobs have declined. Critically, as Texas grew its middle-income jobs by 16%, one of the highest rates in the nation, California, at 2.1% growth, ranked near the bottom. In the year ending September, Texas accounted for roughly half of all the new jobs created in the country.
Even more revealing is California’s diminishing preeminence in high-tech and science-based (or STEM–Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) jobs. Over the past decade California’s supposed bulwark grew a mere 2%–less than half the national rate. In contrast, Texas’ tech-related employment surged 14%. Since 2002 the Lone Star state added 80,000 STEM jobs; California, a mere 17,000.

Of course, California still possesses the nation’s largest concentrations of tech (Silicon Valley), entertainment (Hollywood) and trade (Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach). But these are all now declining. Silicon Valley’s Google era has produced lots of opportunities for investors and software mavens concentrated in affluent areas around Palo Alto, but virtually no new net jobs overall. Empty buildings and abandoned factories dot the Valley’s onetime industrial heartland around San Jose. Many of the Valley’s tech companies are expanding outside the state, largely to more business-friendly and affordable places like Salt Lake City, the Research Triangle region of North Carolina and Austin.

Hollywood too is shifting frames, with more and more film production going to Michigan, New Mexico, New York and other states. In 2002, 82% of all film production took place in California–now it’s down to roughly 30%. And plans by Los Angeles County, the epicenter of the film industry, to double permit fees for film, television and commercial productions certainly won’t help.

International trade, the third linchpin of the California economy, is also under assault. Tough environmental regulations and the anticipated widening in 2014 of the Panama Canal are emboldening competitors, particularly across the entire southern tier of the country, most notably in Houston. Mobile, Ala., Charleston, S.C., and Savannah, Ga., also have big plans to lure high-paid blue collar jobs away from California’s ports.

Most worrisome of all, these telltale signs palpable economic decline seem to escape most of the state’s top leaders. The newly minted Lieutenant Governor, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, insists “there’s nothing wrong with California” and claims other states “would love to have the problems of California.”

But it’s not only the flaky Newsom who is out of sync with reality. Jerry Brown, a far savvier politician, maintains “green jobs,” up to 500,000 of them, will turn the state around. Theoretically, these jobs might make up for losses created by ever stronger controls on traditional productive businesses like agriculture, warehousing and manufacturing. But its highly unlikely.

Construction will be particularly hard hit, since Brown also aims to force Californians, four-fifths of whom prefer single-family houses, into dense urban apartment districts. Over time, this approach will send home prices soaring and drive even more middle-class Californians to the exits.

Ultimately the “green jobs” strategy, effective as a campaign plank, represents a cruel delusion. Given the likely direction of the new GOP-dominated House of Representatives in Washington, massive federal subsidies for the solar and wind industries, as well as such boondoggles as high-speed rail, are likely to be scaled back significantly. Without subsidies, federal loans or draconian national regulations, many green-related ventures will cut as oppose to add jobs, as is already beginning to occur. The survivors, increasingly forced to compete on a market basis, will likely move to China, Arizona or even Texas, already the nation’s leader in wind energy production.

Tom Hayden, a ’60s radical turned environmental zealot, admits that given the current national climate the only way California can maintain Brown’s “green vision” will be to impose “some combination of rate heights and tax revenues.” Such an approach may help bail out green investors, but seems likely to drive even more businesses out of the state.

California’s decline is particularly tragic, as it is unnecessary and largely unforced. The state still possesses the basic assets–energy, fertile land, remarkable entrepreneurial talent–to restore its luster. But given its current political trajectory, you can count on Texans, and others, to keep picking up both the state’s jobs and skilled workers. If California wishes to commit economic suicide, Texas and other competitors will gladly lend them a knife.

blogs.forbes.com



To: sandintoes who wrote (47279)12/3/2010 9:42:13 AM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
Cutting Obama's Monster Deficits Down To Size
by Donald Lambro

12/03/2010

There’s something for everyone to hate in the deficit-cutting plan by the co-chaimen of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, but there’s also a lot to like, too.

Whether or not the plan receives the supermajority 14 votes from President Obama’s 18-member commission may be irrelevant in the end. It contains the seeds of some much-needed tax cut proposals to grow the economy, suggestions to slow down the growth of Social Security and other entitlements, and a way forward to place a “tight” cap on the growth of domestic discretionary spending and eliminate 200,000 workers from the federal payroll.

While the national news media’s focus has been on the panel’s mission to come up with spending cuts, one of its strongest deficit-fighting proposals takes a page out of Ronald Reagan’s supply-side book to cut the top marginal income tax rate to between 23 percent and 29 percent -- and the 35 percent corporate tax rate down to 28 percent -- by eliminating corporate welfare and other tax breaks.


Not only would the commission’s plan sharply cut the corporate tax (the second highest corporate rate in the industrialized world), it would stop taxing overseas profits of U.S-based global companies.

These tax reforms, as U.S. economic history has shown, would unlock a tsunami of capital investment, business expansion, jobs and higher incomes that will significantly boost tax revenues which will reduce borrowing and help to shrink and eventually eliminate the deficits.

House Republican Leader John Boehner, who is in line to become the House speaker, and other GOP conservatives, have embraced the idea of closing loopholes in the tax code to bring down the tax rates and simplify the monstrously complex tax system.

Former Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota, a congressional leader in Reagan’s supply-side revolution of the 1980s, is urging Republicams to endorse the idea again, along with the commission’s proposal to lower the marginal tax rates.

“I’m telling Republicans to acknowledge that a positive argument has come out of the deficit commission. Let’s say yes to something,” Weber told the Washington Post.

But there are also a number of provisions in the commission’s tax and spending proposals, which underwent some minor revisions in the past several weeks, that would not only retard economic growth, fail to cut spending deeply enough, or are nonstarters. Among them:

-- Doubling the federal gas tax to 15-cents a gallon is going nowhere in the new Congress, especially when regular gas at the pump is $3 a gallon or more, and the Republicans’ election war cry was “no tax increases period.”

-- Taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income under this plan could actually raise taxes on both and further lock up capital investment and risk-taking. If anything, neither one should be taxed, but at the very least the rate should be further reduced.

-- Mortgage interest deductions are a sacrosanct part of the tax code and it is hard to see Congress buying into the commission’s $500,000 cap on a primary residence. It would be a backdoor tax hike on the wealthy.

-- Imposing “tight” caps on agency budgets sounds promising, but the commission wimped out on this one, and a near-freeze on the Pentagon budget is especially irresponsible in a still very dangerous world.

Where are the proposals to privatize costly, needless and waste-ridden federal enterprises like Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae and Amtrak?

The panel’s plan calls for a ban on earmarks, the pet spending projects that lets lawmakers use the U.S. Treasury as their private checking account. And cutting the federal payroll by 200,000 workers through attrition is.... well, a start. But where is the list of agencies and programs that should be abolished altogether?

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, farm subsidies, Small Business Administration, Community Development Block Grants, and the Economic Development Administration, to name a few.

But the chairmen set forth some longterm steps to keep Social Security solvent for presumably decades to come: Gradually raising the retirement eligibility age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075, and using a less generous formula to set cost-of-living increases. But raising the cap on income subject to the payroll tax will no doubt be hotly debated.

The original plan unveiled earlier this fall by the panel’s co-chairs, Erskine Bowles, former White House chief of staff under President Clinton, and former Sen. Alan Simpson, Wyoming Republican, has undergone some tinkering since then.

Spending cuts have been increased a bit. The caps on medical malpractice suits, to bring down health care costs, were dropped. Instead, they proposed changes in how the awards are made.

Unfortunately, the commission acknowledges that despite all of their efforts, the plan would still leave the budget deficit -- expected to hit $1.3 trillion by the end of this fiscal year -- at $421 billion in 2015.

That figure was reached through what is known as “static analysis” which scores income tax cuts as revenue-losers. When President Kennedy proposed cutting income tax rates across the board (yes, even for the wealthy) in the 1960s, all the experts testified that they would worsen the deficit. By the end of the decade the budget was running a surplus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lambro is a nationally syndicated columnist and former chief political correspondent for the Washington Times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

humanevents.com



To: sandintoes who wrote (47279)12/7/2010 2:49:54 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Obama's Jimmy Carter Parallels Are Eerie
Liz Peek, FOX News
December 5, 2010

Hooray for Amazon. The online giant announced Wednesday that it was booting WikiLeaks off its servers, requiring the notorious organization to retreat. Not that it seems to matter much; WikiLeaks’ site is still going strong. Still, at least somebody is doing something to retaliate against the dumping of U.S. state secrets.

The Obama administration appears inert. Though pledging to forestall any future releases after the devastating leaks of military records last month, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have responded to the recent publishing of hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables by…..what exactly?

Apparently, people can divulge classified information from our government agencies with impunity.

Americans are understandably angry. Not only are the leaks seriously compromising our military and diplomatic missions, they are embarrassing. They show the U.S. to be powerless; we feel humiliated.

The American people are proud – proud of our country and our accomplishments. We don’t do humiliated well.

The last president to learn that lesson was Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was that rare bird -- a one-term president – mainly because he made the United States look weak on the world stage.

He cozied up to North Korea, sending hundred of millions of dollars in aid to the outlier nation, which nonetheless continued to pursue its nuclear ambitions.

He was mocked by Russia, despite memorably exchanging a kiss with Communist leader Leonid Breshnev to celebrate the signing of the Salt II treaty. The Russians celebrated on their own by invading Afghanistan a mere six months later.

Where his “love your enemies” program really came unglued, of course, was in Iran. After lecturing the Shah – a long-time ally of the U.S. – on human rights and pressing him to release thousands of dangerous dissidents, he allowed the takeover of Iran by Islamic extremists, who promptly took our embassy staff hostage. In one of the most humiliating chapters in our history, Carter’s administration was unable to secure the release of the hostages. A bungled rescue attempt was the last straw. Americans veritably raced to the polls to elect Ronald Reagan president.

Is any of this sounding familiar? It should. Like Carter, President Obama arrived in Washington naively convinced that he could woo the despots of the world by dint of his winning personality. In North Korea, in Iran, we continue to pander to tyrants who delight in embarrassing us.

The similarities extend beyond international relations. Carter was also defeated because he left the economy in tatters. Inflation during his tenure rose to nearly 15% -- a record level – and we headed into a recession.

His response to a rapid increase in fuel costs was to impose price controls, which naturally magnified the problem, resulting in long lines at the gas pumps and tremendous market dislocations. Just as Obama has produced record budget deficits heeding the guidance of left-leaning economists, so did Carter willingly experiment.

The parallels are eerie. Trying to appease environmentalists and in response to the Three Mile Island accident, Carter banned the transmutation (processing) of nuclear fuel – procedures that have safely taken place in Europe for thirty years - in effect shutting down our nuclear energy program and increasing our dependence on oil imports. (President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981.)

Just this week the Obama administration, also to curry favor with eco-warriors and in response to the Deepwater Horizon spill this past spring, shut down offshore drilling in several promising (and politically crucial) regions. The billions of barrels potentially available from within our own country will have to wait til the next president, or the next oil crisis.

And there will be a next oil crisis. Both Carter and Obama have pressed for a more even-handed approach to Middle East peace. Carter has famously backed Palestinian demands while Obama presses friendship with the Muslim community. So far, his overtures have resulted in disappointment and frustration in the Arab world and a dangerous chill in our relations with Israel. A more belligerent Iran could well read this fissure as opportune; nothing would better secure the power of Iran’s rulers than a confrontation with Israel.

Presidents Obama and Carter both arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue carrying the slimmest of dossiers, swept into office by a wave of anger against Republicans. Both appear strangely poor at reading the American people.

On day one of his term, Jimmy Carter pardoned all Vietnam draft dodgers. That did not go over well – it went almost as badly as Obama’s decision to hold 9/11 terror trials in New York City.

Their personalities overlap, too; for instance, both men are quick to blame others for their shortcomings.

Carter has famously held the late Ted Kennedy responsible for his inability to pass health care legislation; Obama blames George W. Bush for, well, everything.

Both Carter and Obama have been criticized for talking down to Americans; both tend to lecture, instead of lead.

Any minute now we can expect Obama to deliver his version of the famous “Malaise” speech, in which Carter whined about the despair pervading the country. Carter didn’t realize that the despair was emanating from the White House. The minute he was gone, the sun came out, ushered in by Ronald Reagan.

Ironically, former President Jimmy Carter dropped by the White House on Wednesday. He must have felt entirely at home. The nation is reeling from self-inflicted embarrassments that have Americans feeling impotent and humiliated – just like the good old days when he lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Oh – and here's one more parallel: Presidents Carter and Obama simply hate Fox News.

Liz Peek is a financial columnist who writes for The Fiscal Times. She is a frequent contributor to Fox News Opinion. For more visit LizPeek.com.

foxnews.com



To: sandintoes who wrote (47279)12/11/2010 10:45:30 AM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
Is Congress Above the Law?
Posted by Ilya Shapiro

The first item on this election campaign’s Contract with America was that, if elected (as they have been), the House Republicans would require that all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress. We’ll see if that and the other promised reforms materialize, but it does raise yet another issue in the context of Obamacare.

As my colleague Michael Cannon pointed out to me, the new health care law kicks congressmen out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. (The current FEHB is no different from the health coverage provided by any private employer -– federal employees choose from a series of private plan options (none of which is run by the government), and receive a subsidy from the federal government acting in its role as an employer.)

My first reaction to hearing this was: Good — if the rest of us lose our health care freedom, so should those who forced this new atrocity on us. But apparently this result was not intended, so the Obama administration has decided to ignore that part of the law.

No joke. Here is the Congressional Research Service report on the provisions that oust members of Congress from their health insurance. And here is the letter in which an Obama appointee announces that the administration will ignore the law. These two articles also provide important information.

Now, assuming that something constitutionally problematic is going on here, what can anyone do about it? To put it in legal terms, who has standing to sue for this apparent constitutional violation? It’s a tough row to hoe — taxpayers cannot bring suit based on generalized grievances — but off the top of my head, I can think of two possibilities: (1) members of Congress suing the president or the Department of Health and Human Services for essentially passing new law and therefore infringing on congressional prerogatives (thereby violating the separation of powers); or (2) an insurance broker or carrier who would otherwise be signing up new clients.

And there are two additional related questions:

1. Why did Congress expand Medicaid while refusing to participate in it themselves? Obamacare expanded Medicaid to an estimated 18 million new Americans, none of whom will have a choice of private plans, instead being dumped into Medicaid, a program notorious for access problems (and which in Arizona now doesn’t cover organ transplants). Yet all Senate Democrats voted against an amendment enrolling members of Congress in the new Medicaid program (all Republicans voted for it, except one who was absent).

2. Will members of Congress use their own salaries to pay any fines assessed because their employees have “unaffordable” health coverage? Obamacare includes a $2,000 per worker penalty for any employer that does not provide “affordable” coverage, beginning in 2014. Many junior staffers have incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($43,320 for a single person, or $88,200 for a family of four), and thus could be subject to the new statutory test of whether their health insurance options are “affordable.” While it’s unclear how this particular provision will be implemented for Hill staff – due to the “significant unintended consequences” of sloppy drafting — it’s entirely possible that member offices could be assessed a $2,000 penalty for every worker needing insurance subsidies because they have no “affordable” alternative. If that scenario happens, will the members of Congress who voted for the law pay the penalty out of their own salaries or will they rely on taxpayer funds to finance an obligation they imposed on themselves?

cato-at-liberty.org