Saturday, July 11, 2009

Manufactured Issues

Quote of the day:

“Everyone has a lesson to learn here, including you and me. We have to live within our means.” - Dr. Mark Dotzour, PhD., chief economist and director of research for the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University.

I know that we all have some hard positions formed on issues like healthcare, energy, taxation, etc... but just for a moment, loosen up, work with me...

Imagine for just a second, that Americans, and Westerners in general, actually SAVED MONEY.  I am not talking 3% per year in their 401k.  I am talking Asian style saving, 12%, 15%, even 25%.  Just kidding, let's go with 12%.

Now let us take healthcare.

In an environment of 12% savings, how many fewer medical bankruptcies would occur?  I will give you a "guesstimate" - OVER 90% OF BANKRUPTCIES DUE TO MEDICAL BILLS WOULD NO LONGER BE NECESSARY.  

Let me give it to you straight.  This is not empirical, but there was enough data for what I would be willing to bet would turn out to be a pretty accurate hypothesis.  Just from surfing the web and reading, it seems to me that the vast majority of bankruptcies were for less than, get this, $35,000!  The 3 major reasons for bankruptcy were unemployment, divorce, and medical bills - and not necessarily in that order.  

People under 40 have fewer health problems than people over 40, so it is a reasonable assumption that more of the over 40 bankruptcies would be for medical debts, but the amount of debt being discharged did not vary much with age.  It seems that there is a point of hopelessness at about $25,000 of debt.  It also makes sense that the total debt to be discharged would be capped by market forces (inability to borrow more) and government programs like Medicaid and Medicare Disability (don't understand how these programs work?  Neither do most Americans - but that does not stop them from having some VERY HARDENED POSITIONS on healthcare...).

If Americans had a culture of savings (and savings are for rainy days, no?), and saved 9% to 12% of their household income, and did not view savings ONLY for vacations and other consumer items, the issue of healthcare bankruptcy would be next to ZERO (as savings at 9% to 12% of average household income would pile up many multiples of $35,000 by the time people reached 40).

I can do this same trick with Social Security, College, your daughter's wedding, etc...

The problem is that as a society, we are all debtors, not savers, and it will take some time and continued forced adjustment of expectations to fix it... but every government policy we have rolled out has been designed to increase your debts - NOT YOUR SAVINGS.  

The vast majority of our issues would be cured, over time, by increasing our savings rate and accepting that we must all live within our means.  The problem with our political system is that our politicians must tell voters what they want to hear, or already believe, in order to get elected.  Americans do not want to have to save (savings means delayed gratification, and even when we do save we don't it to be for securing life's risks, we want it for consumables).  They want to run their lives right on the edge of financial disaster and then gnash their teeth if one of life's wheels runs off the road.

I have an idea... if government really feels the need to interfere with the free market... Let it limit Law School slots and INCREASE Medical School and Nursing School slots. The increased number of physicians will increase competition and drive down prices.  In addition, government should create tax free medical savings accounts that people get to KEEP if they do not use them, while at the same time decriminalize drugs.  This would give folks serious incentive to keep fit and not abuse tobacco and alcohol and drugs, and the savings from law enforcement for drug prohibition could be used to expand Medicaid and Medicare Disability for people who exhaust their Medical Savings Accounts.

Or we could just keep doing what we are doing, and have a bunch of innumerate lawyers (the mathematical equivalent of illiterate) coming up with policies without doing a SHRED of cost/benefit analysis.

"The first years of man must make provision for the last."   Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784

Mentatt (at) yahoo (d0t) com



Friday, July 10, 2009

The "Mirror"

In economics, trade, taxation, healthcare spending, transfer payments, marriage etc... in any transaction... there is a "mirror", often more than 1, sometimes many - like in an amusement park's "House of Mirrors".

Newton's Laws stated that "for every force, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

If we raise taxes on the "Rich", they spend less and have less incentive to work at the margins (say you put in a 10% surtax on income above $250k per year... many of the folks making $251k to say, $500k might decide that is better to go fishing than to work the extra hours only to pay far more in taxes. No, this won't disincentive a $10 million per year pro baseball pitcher or movie star, but their contribution to the economy is not as great as the multitude of high earning little guys and their $300k incomes). They spend less on EVERYTHING, and this in turn harms the business and incomes of all of the businesses that serve these people AND the TAX REVENUES the taxing authority was trying to enhance.

If you increase payments to people for unemployment, etc... they have no incentive to take a lower paying job. In my life I have worked as a garbage man, building painter, gas pumper, landscaper, driver, ditch digger for sprinkler systems, repo man... I did what I had to do in order to make a living. I have been broke twice and "rich" 3 times, and if I go broke again, I will do whatever it takes to make a living. None of these "menial" jobs were all that bad, and most paid a living wage (though I never had a "wage" with the exception of being a garbage man and paper collator, mostly I just hustled to turn my hand at what ever someone was willing to pay me to do.) Being from the working class, I never turned my nose up at anything.

(Where is it written that you are guaranteed to make $40 per hour for no skill and less risk, with 5 weeks vacation, get as fat as a house, smoke, drink, do drugs, have your healthcare paid for (by whom?), fail to save for a rainy day and then complain about your life becasue it is raining? Let's face it, this describes a large percentage of the unemployed industrial AND financial services workers. Clearly, I am not running for office... and if you were looking for feel good, politically correct discussion... well, you came to the wrong blog.)

The cure for all the West's economic problems is to let the correction (in the larger sense of the word, not the stock market) run its course. People's expectations NEED to be corrected. If that were to occur, we might actually get through Peak Oil, Climate Change, the housing crash, and all of the other myriad and self created issues that the collective WE have done to ourselves.

But talking like that ain't going to get people elected. Guys who want to get elected need to "Keep Hope Alive" (hope for what?), "Feel Your Pain" (then you are not doing it right), and promise "Change" (fear not, "Change" you can believe in is coming).

Mish Shedlock recently posted an article saying that "Deflation is the Cure", and needs to be embraced - though I doubt he will be elected anytime soon, either - and I believe his point to be essentially correct.

The folks on the Left want to deny Newton's Laws and the guys on the Right lied to us about everything and spent like the Left would have. The bill for the "Free Lunch" just arrived at the table - and both sides are pointing for the waiter to give it to the other.

The People's Republic of California is going to go the way of the Soviet Union.

BTW... So far, the only idea I have received of my challenge to the Left as to how to save California is that Obama Administration is going to bail them out. I hope you guys can do better.

Yours for a better world,


Mentatt (at) yahoo (d0t) com








Wednesday, July 8, 2009

U.S. Oil imports Decline Rate Accelerates

Quote of the Day:

"The devil is in the fact that there is not enough economic output in the US to support all of this. We have floated on a real estate bubble for 35 years while we have deindustrialized. The private economy is not big enough at this point to support all of this spending. Tax revenue plus government borrowing won't cover it anymore." AEC commentator "Coal Guy" (emphasis added).

I was going to write a quick post about that last line from Coal Guy, but since he stole my thunder... What "Coal Guy" is referring to is a fairly simple and obvious metric:  A government can only spend what it receives in taxes, borrows, AND/OR PRINTS.  We have come up against the upper limit of taxing and borrowing.  If the Government tries to increase taxes as a method of increasing revenues in a recession the unintended consequences can be rather dire - and not just economic.  Make things bad enough and an economic crisis can morph into a political crisis.  It is the folks that deny this possibility that are willing to push the envelope... perhaps just a bit too far.

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

Total petroleum products imported into the U.S. is down 6.9% for the first 183 days of 2009 vs the first 183 days of 2008.  2008 total petroleum imports were down 8% from 2007.

We are being told that the reason is the recession has caused Oil demand to fall. Fair enough.

But 15% in 2 years!?  Still, could be...

So I was bouncing this off the Mad Scientist, who had been doing some research into the world auto market.  His research appeared to show that car sales were actually UP in many parts of the world, year over year.  Not enough to sop up all of the unsold car inventory piling up around the world, but that ain't the point.  The point is that as the international auto fleet expands RELATIVE to the U.S. auto fleet, the competition for petroleum products will increase for the U.S., which can cause the rate of decline of U.S. petroleum imports to really accelerate.  

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

Pickens' Plan to save the U.S. from having to adjust to a non car-centric society is no more.  Simple physics says that without increasing electricity generation the U.S. is not going to move significant amounts of payload in electric vehicles (cars).  Either we burn more Coal, Nat Gas, or increase Hydro, or Wind/Solar/Tidal... or the required increase does not happen.

Well, Wind just had its bottom reddened in front of the class...  Rig counts for Nat Gas have fallen below 700, far below the absolute minimum needed to maintain production over the medium term... U.S. Oil imports are down 15% in less than 550 days... That leaves Coal.

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

I have been following the 'Food Stamp Metric" for several years, as my long term readers know.

I regret to inform you that 11.5% of the U.S. population is now receiving assistance for food. Some might argue that food prices have come down - clearly not enough to make food affordable for the wages these folks earn.  When I began blogging in 2005, the number was just under 8%.  I had previously posted that a sustained  "food assistance" rate of 15% would be untenable politically, and 20% would lead to an outright constitutional crisis.  I picked those numbers out of thin air - and unfortunately I think we will see how close my "guesstimates" where.

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

California!  Agh!  The word alone makes me happy.

I am looking for a guest post from an Obamaphile, clueing me in on how your gang is going to save California from the fiscal incinerator.  I await your tretise with great anticipation.  Please email me at:

Mentatt (at) yahoo (d0t) com



Ron Paul vs The Fed


He should have named the rest of Democratic Leadership as well as the Obama Administration.

Congressman Ron Paul wants to audit the Federal Reserve.

Can you imagine? The nerve of the guy. You mean to tell me that a Member of the People's House wants a full accounting of Fed activities and its balance sheet?

You mean to tell me that this isn't public information?  Yes, that is EXACTLY what I want to tell you.

99.9% of Americans have not read the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  It would also appear that no presidential candidate since Woodrow Willson has, either - considering the claims of job creation and management of the economy these nit wits promise to an even less informed electorate.

The fact is this: The Federal Reserve is not audited by Congress, is completely independent (lol!), Bank Presidents cannot be fired (merely not reappointed), and for those of you busy looking for an economic boogey man - The Fed is as good as it gets.  The Federal Government does not even own the Federal Reserve (which begs the question - who does?).  (Feel free to Google away, I am not going to provide sources for such common knowledge stuff.)

Its hard to believe, but the Democratic Leadership in the Senate today used procedural techniques to stop the Audit of the Federal Reserve.  I wonder why.






Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Misc.

T. Boone Pickens has thrown in the towel on his plan to save America through wind energy.

I took some heat last year when I mentioned that building the transmission lines from the wind to the coasts and big cities was a fraught with logistical issues (not to mention the financing for the construction of what would likely have been a project that would have DWARFED the U.S. Interstate Highway construction project of the 1950's and '60's).

Don't let the specious reasons for "shrinking" the size of the project fool you... this thing is done; you can put a fork in it.

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

The Natural Gas guys are claiming they can arrange the Second Coming with hydro fraction and horizontal drilling.  I don't believe their claims are supported by the data just yet... and it may well be little more than an attempt to gain cooperation for the industry's projects (I think this is very likely the case, but that is just my cynical, questioning, cut-the-cards curmudgeon style talking).  This is not to say that the U.S. won't go into winter with NG storage filled to capacity - I think we will.  I think, too, that this will likely prove to be the bottom for NG in my lifetime (and I reserve the right to change my mind and eat those words with something good to make them go down easy).

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

Hydrogen:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOL HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, that got away from me.

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

Tidal, Geo, Methane Hydrates, etc... see Hydrogen above.

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


Denial II – Why we deny our Energy Condition

“Denial is the psychological process by which human beings protect themselves from things which threaten them by blocking knowledge of those things from their awareness. It is a defense which distorts reality; it keeps us from feeling the pain and uncomfortable truth about things we do not want to face. If we cannot feel or see the consequences of our actions, then everything is fine and we can continue to live without making any changes.” - CAIP website, author unknown

Before I delve further into the psyche of our national denial I want to make clear that I am not hoping for an energy crisis, population decline, financial crash, or even a date with Jessica Simpson (I'm happily married). I just call it as I see it. Further, I am more than willing to change my conclusions and assertions the VERY MOMENT THAT THE DATA CHANGES. I merely wish to explore the truth. That said, let's get to it.

Our collective denial regarding our society’s energy situation begs the questions why and how (or, more precisely, the process of how)? The “why” is, perhaps, more simply explained. The “how” is somewhat more complicated. 

I am often asked: Does the “government”, or “the President”, or do “They” know about “Peak Oil”? And, “if this is true, why haven’t I/we been thoroughly informed”? Though the United States federal government has funded and received detailed reports on the issue from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Pentagon, the American body politic, and the American people, have and must continue to deny the reality of a permanent and accelerating decline in energy supplies – if we do not continue this denial WE WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. And those “somethings” are going to have real and immediate intended AND unintended consequences, much to the chagrin of our political leaders.

Why isn’t this front-page news? Why, indeed. It is not a conspiracy. The mainstream media is in the business of selling advertising, not public service. While they delight in the opportunity to bleed one unfortunate sot or another on the rack, they have little incentive to gore their holy cow(s) – the energy intensive industries that make up the backbone of their advertising revenues - residential real estate and automobiles. 

Don’t count on Big Oil to be forthcoming on the issue. The executives at Big Oil are pulling down as much as 9-figure (that’s over $100,000,000) yearly compensation, and not for their brilliant execution (although that’s what the press releases claim). The record profits these corporations are enjoying at the moment have nothing to do with executing and everything to do with commodity prices (which these executives have no control over and have provided no value added, although they have been paid as such), but if you were in line for a $400 million compensation package, would you let ”Peak Oil” and high commodity prices take credit?

Corporate America outside of the energy sector is in no mood to be a hero (martyr). Once this issue breaks into the national dialogue corporate America’s stock options and 401k’s are going down like a rock in a pond.

If the media, corporate America, and our elected officials are disinclined to bring this issue to the fore… why would John Q. Public? It is far easier for John Q. Public to use his highly developed sense of denial (the same technique he uses for his obesity, smoking, drinking, lack of savings… we might not be able to save for the future but we sure can work the denial button).

Consider what might result should a sitting President (I should say "when", because this speech is coming, relatively soon) of the United States hold a news conference and state:

"My fellow Americans. It is my unfortunate duty to inform you that our petroleum supplies have entered a period of sustained and accelerating decreases in supplies. Within 15 years America will have 50% less oil available to its citizens than today, and within 30 years approximately 90% less….” (This speech does not have to take place all at once… it might be delivered over the course of several years by many political leaders. It might have already begun with the “America is addicted to oil” line in the last State of the Union address.) The speech will be entirely reactive. Most informed people will already know that we have entered terminal decline of energy supplies, and the uniformed will just be angry. 

Of course the speech would be much longer and filled with pointless platitudes about the American people’s ability to handle adversity, blah, blah, blah… but then things get interesting. Upon waking from their denial, and once the idea is in the public domain and now without fear of ridicule, the American inteligencia would begin to explore the ramifications, combinations, and permutations of all of the possible outcomes, as well as the timing, of the overwhelming impacts that energy descent will have on our political, social, and economic structures, and they are going to do it OUT LOUD. Denial is going to evaporate instantly, only to be replaced by something worse – panic. Right now there is the heavy brake of denial slowing its momentum, but once we reach critical mass, nothing, and none of us, will be able to stand in its way.

The inteligencia will be the spark - but it is “middle management” on down to migrant farm worker that will become the fire. The lumpen masses will figure out that their ship ain’t coming in, and some might even be bright enough to figure out that they were the victims of societal propaganda, and that their ship was NEVER going to come in – and then they might get mad (more on that in the next article in this series titled ANGER). But first they will hoard. 

They will hoard gasoline, propane, kerosene, etc… they will hoard food, water, and medicine, etc… they will hoard gold, silver, diamonds, etc… they will hoard weapons, etc… THEY WILL HOARDE EVERYTHING (everything except US dollars). This is the point when systems will likely begin to break down. But I digress; we are talking denial here…

I received more emails about the implications of declining energy availability and population on the housing market than anything else! What happens to housing when people can’t get to their second home in the mountains or at the beach, and there are less people in the society in the first place? Talk about denial: This is barely worth discussing – we have much bigger problems, folks.

Can the U.S. fiat currency system survive the knowledge that most fossil fuel energy supplies will dwindle to nothing before my infant son reaches middle age? NAFC (Not A Freaking Chance). Will people continue to pay back their 30-year mortgage? They won’t be able to (and will have no incentive to do so). So what happens to the financial markets and the banking system if people do not pay back their loans and the currency collapses? Nothing good. Unemployment in this environment would make the 1930’s look like a prom date.

Just “how” did we get to this level of denial? Not enough space here to do that justice. It was not some great conspiracy; more of a phenomena. Our method of government is purposely decentralized and its missions fragmented, our corporate institutions were not charged with saving us from ourselves, the media is there to entertain (after all, how can the media explain such a complicated issue in 12 minute segments punctuated by 3 minutes of 30 second distractions extolling the virtues of eating, driving, and then dieting, with the occasional “hope in a bottle” pitch?), and our educational institutions were too busy deceiving the American proletariat into believing that if you spent 10% of your working life and several hundred thousand dollars at their schools getting a certificate that says you were competent in sports massage therapy, art appreciation, or sensitivity training, or some other impossible to measure, nearly worthless “skill” (easy, if you think the skills have value, why are their compensation rates so low?), that you could compete with Ivy League graduates from establishment families, get a job at a Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, or Bear Stearns (where the AVERAGE employee compensation, including secretaries, is over $500,000 per year) and live in a mansion in Greenwich, irrespective of your families social position. 

I am not suggesting American life is, or should be, fair. Only that we have deceived ourselves into believing that it is. Life has always been a competition with its resultant “winners” and “losers”. If you are a self-made “winner” that came up out of the muck and mire, you understand this without further explanation. If you were born into a “winner” family, advantages such as private schools, summers on the Vineyard, a semester abroad, before beginning your career on Wall Street, the Law, or Medicine were the norm. Our very own George W. Bush, an admitted “C” student, was accepted to the prestigious Harvard Business School. Considering how limited seating was at HBS my bet is that some less-well-connected straight “A” student was the “loser” in that competition (it gets even better… “W” once said in commenting on performance enhancing drug use by athletes that “there are no short cuts to success” – "W" was a Yale legacy student (his family were Yale Aumni)! Hypocracy knows no bounds.) If you were born into a “loser” family, your experience was somewhat different than W’s. Still, “losers”, at least in America, did not starve. The rest of the world’s “losers” have not been so fortunate.

The definition of “winner” is going to be markedly different in our new environment: your progeny will survive. “Losers”, in the 21st century, will get a far less satisfactory consolation prize than the “losers” of the 20th century. That’s what population decline means. It’s just that when the U.N. says it, it sounds nicer.

We were all too busy with our nose to the grindstone to notice that the scale of growth in our population, energy, food consumption, and environmental impacts (over-fishing, anyone?) had grown beyond our ability to sustain them. Well, not everybody. SOMEONE OR SOMETHING spent an awful lot of money to dissuade Americans from accepting mankind’s contribution to climate change and that they could pump CO2 into the atmosphere with reckless abandon and without consequence. It wasn’t until the Chinese threatened to usurp our position as the CO2 emission leader that we began to realize that, while it is OK if WE do it, everybody can’t live like this (and by the way, why are you guys trying to steal “our” oil?).

I continue to maintain that there is no macro solution to this condition - and it is a condition, not a problem; problems have solutions - any more than there was a solution to the Tsunami of 2004, or the 1918 flu pandemic. You either survived these challanges or you did not, you were either a "winner" (survivor) or a "loser" (casualty). There will be "winners" and "losers" in the new paradigm brought to you courtesy of energy descent, and all of our denial in the aggregate will not change that outcome.

My infant son, born earlier this year, will likely never need a driver’s license. His children will not experience air travel. My older son’s first car will survive its fuel supply. Our denial is most prominently displayed in the way we prepare our children for their future – a future that will not exist. 


End of post

Any of you Obamaphiles notice my commentary re: GWB? Nobody gets a pass around here.

Funny I mentioned how hard it was going to be to get those big paying jobs at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers!

As I said before, we are 40% through the shock, with another 3 years or so to go to get to the long, grinding wipe out of the industrial age, which will last no more than 30 to 40 years, at the end of which 40 acres and a mule will be about as good as one could hope for (just kidding, it will be much worse than that... just divide human population by the world's land mass after subtracting Antarctica... 40 acres would be quite the luxury...

Anyway, the good news is that it won't happen all at once.

40 % through the shock period

The West, and especially the U.S., is about 40% through the shock period of declining Oil and declining credit. As I said in my in November 28, 2007 post, the shock will occur and unwind over a 5 year period to be followed by years of grinding and slogging until the "alternatives" materialize - or we shrink population and GDP to fit within the new environment. We are nearly 2 years into the 5 year shock period (40%) - there will be more jolts - big ones - coming, and it is impossible to know what they are or when they will occur.

For folks that still have money: You might think you have dodged the bullet, and you are right - sort of. You have dodged A bullet, not THE bullet. There are more bullets coming your way.

I have written many posts about California, how they got to the end of their fiscal rope and why California could easily drag the U.S. currency off the proverbial cliff... but this was on the front page of Bloomberg today:


With California mired in a budget crisis, largely the result of a political impasse that makes spending cuts and tax increases impossible, Controller John Chiang said the state planned to issue $3.3 billion in IOU’s in July alone. Instead of cash, those who do business with California will get slips of paper.

The California morass has Democrats in Washington trembling. The reason is simple. If Obama’s health-care plan passes, then we may well end up paying for it with federal slips of paper worth less than California’s. Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.

It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.

California has engaged in an orgy of spending, but, compared with our federal government, its legislators should feel chaste. The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.

Bleak Picture

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S. I would imagine that he would be the intergalactic champion as well, if we could gather the data on deficits on other worlds. Obama has taken George W. Bush’s inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.

The Obama administration has no shame, and is willing to abandon reason altogether to achieve its short-term political goals. Ronald Reagan ran up big deficits in part because he believed that his tax cuts would produce economic growth, and ultimately pay for themselves. He may well have been excessively optimistic about the merits of tax cuts, but at least he had a story.

Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth. Nobody believes that it will pay for itself. Everyone understands that higher spending today begets higher spending tomorrow. That means that his economic strategy simply doesn’t add up.
For the James Carville wannabee's out there, responding that Ronald Reagan, or GWB, or Abe Lincoln, did this, that, and the other thing, I want to share with you something that I learned from Sister Mary Ancilla at Transfiguration grade school in 1966:

"Two Wrongs don't make a Right."

I will GRANT you that history is replete with dumb ideas and mistakes. But we are here, NOW. And what this administration is doing is going to have unintended consequences that are going to blow your mind. I sincerely hope Obama and his team know what they are doing, but it does not look like it to me.

More from the article at Bloomberg

Character Deficit

Back in the 1980s, Reagan’s own economist, Martin Feldstein, spoke up when he felt that the Reagan administration was pushing the deficit too far. Where are the economists with such character today? Apparently, the job description for economists has transformed from recommending policies that are defensible to defending whatever policies that the political hacks in the West Wing dream up.

As bad as the California legislature has been over the years, it has never entered a fiscal crisis like the one that we face today and then doubled down with a massive spending increase. In the end, when times got tough, patriotic and sensible Californians of both parties stood up and began acting like adults.

Maybe the same thing is starting to happen in our nation’s capital. The key players in Washington are Senator Evan Bayh and 15 Senate Democrats who joined him this year in forming a coalition of moderates. One thing that has distinguished moderate Democrats from the garden variety of the species is heightened concern about fiscal responsibility.

Off a Cliff

With the price tag of Obama-care likely to exceed $1 trillion, moderate Democrats face a simple choice. They can jump off the cliff with the president, or they can stay true to the principles that they have espoused throughout their careers.

There are reassuring signs that principle is winning. One of the most expensive components of the Obama plan is the so- called public-insurance option, which opponents fear would result in massive government subsidies. Senator Mary Landrieu said that she is “not open” to a public option that will compete with private insurance.

Many other Democratic Senators, including Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Tom Carper, also oppose the public option. As the cost estimates increase and support wanes, the Senate Finance Committee is even going as far as to pursue its own health-care plan, meaning that the health-care end game is now in sight.
$4.5 Trillion of deficit spending over 2 years is going to yield another 2 year, $5 Trillion deficit. Obama is going to have a $10 Trillion first term deficit. That will be nearly 70% of GDP in a 4 year period!!

I beg the Liberals and Democrats that read my blog to contact their representatives and sphere of influence - don't let this happen.

The alternative is not pleasant - but at least it is something we may recover from absent something far less pleasant.


Saturday, July 4, 2009

Libertarian America

Happy Independence Day, 2009!

I want you to know how much I appreciate our American freedoms - like the one I have been exercising in this forum - outright criticism of their government and political leaders is simply not possible for BILLIONS of human beings the world over.

Politics in the United States needs some new blood, a fresh cool breeze of REAL change.  The politics of the Republicans has been rejected by the majority of the people - though I have been a life long Republican, a Yankee Republican if you will, they appear to me to be winding down as a political party.  The politics of the Left has brought the American people to fiscal ruin, and to an indefensible ethic of NO personal responsibility.  Just take a hard look at the Center of Liberalism in America - California - as well as the Budget Deficit of the United States Federal Government.  We must find a better way.

The politics of the Looney Left and the Whacky Right should not be, MUST NOT BE, the only game in town/nation.  These 2 groups represent 15 % or so of the U.S. population, yet they have the rest of us by the g!shg@s.

AMERICAN culture and history is uniquely suited for our own brand of Libertarianism - American Libertarianism if you will - consistent with U.S. Constitutional rights and protections, and completely rejecting the idea of Government intrusion into our personal lives, a Government that maintains order and defense but does not legislate morality, a Government uniquely concerned about INDIViDUAL rights rather than special interest groups, and a society that preaches AND practices an ethic of work, frugality, self-reliance, and personal freedom and responsibility.

The alternative will be a "Tyranny of the Majority" or a "Tyranny of a Minority", but a Tyranny nonetheless.  

So happy 4th of July to my American brothers and sisters, and happy freedoms to my international readers not censured and able to read this.  We have crossed some strange dividing line these last few years, and have entered the land of the surreal.  I think now is an excellent time to bring it on home politically and socially.  To end the Tyranny of Left and Right - hypocrites, liars, and human beings all - and truly "Let Freedom Ring".

Yours for a better world,

Greg T. Jeffers