The Governmentally & Policy Department of Chemical and Engineering News gave a good rundown on the activities of the lame-duck 111th Congress. Kudos to the people who made the C&EN report in the January 3 Issue, although no specific person was mentioned. Most of the Congressional action was in the span of less than a week, which shows how much damage a Congress can do in a short period of time.
Congress agreed to extend the Bush era tax cuts through 2012 and continue a series of business tax breaks, including a tax credit designed to encourage investment in research and development. This was good and bad. We need tax reduction to foster general business development and employment. The government should not be confusing the issue by giving other specific tax breaks including tax credits for R&D. It should have permanently reduced taxes and been done with it. The inclusion of a one-year extension of the renewable energy grants and tax credit for ethanol producers is ridiculous, in these times of attempts to reduce government expenditures. We need to question the ideology and loyalty of 138 Republicans who voted for it.
The Senate passed legislation to overhaul food safety in the US. Two days later the House approved. This is another increase in government expenditures, which I believe is not necessary. Senate Majority Leader Reid said that our food safety system has not been updated in almost a century. Is that any reason to update it? Our Constitution has not been updated in two centuries. Does that mean we should update it now?
The Senate unanimously approved reauthorizing the America Competes Act of 2007. This will double the research budgets of the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science
over 10 years. The bill allows budget increases of 20% over two years. Is this a way to reduce the size of government and to reduce government expenditures? American companies can compete with any other worldwide company, if left unimpeded by the United States government. The bill also direct NSF to establish a dedicated green chemistry basic research program to award grants supporting research on green products and practices. Any research grants by the federal government are political in nature, with recipients expected to come up with answers supporting government ideology on a particular subject. I cite as an example the numerous federal government grants to so-called "climate scientists" to do research supporting the ridiculous ideology that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and emissions should be taxed.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Unified Congress?
In the last few weeks, we have heard from President Obama and other Democrats about their desire for a unified Congress. I don't recall hearing anything about a unified Congress prior to the past November elections.
More recently, I have heard about a proposal having Democrats and Republicans as a mixed audience during President Obama's State of the Union Address. This would presumably demonstrate a unified Congress. The traditional separation of Democrats and Republicans by a center aisle would be eliminated.
I do not want foxes mixed in with my hens in my chicken house. I do not want Democrats mixed with Republicans in Congress. I will grant that the analogy is not complete. Hens have no fox-like attributes, while many Republicans have already taken on socialistic attributes, similar to Democrats. If there is any semblance of differentiation, let's keep them separate, so the we can know which team they are playing on. We already have Senator Snow of Maine, who parades is a Republican while she is a socialist.
The US has an antitrust law, which basically prohibits private enterprise collaboration, since such collaboration would act to the disadvantage of the American public. The antitrust law promotes competition, in order to offer the public a choice of products or services from which they can choose to its best advantage. This system seems to work very well, although in many cases it is not reasonably enforced. Why should we not be using the same system with the federal government as a supplier of services to the American public. There are two suppliers; Democrats and Republicans. If we combine them, we have created a monopoly, which will then operate to the disadvantage of the American public.
A general attribute of Democrats is that they are loud-speaking with emotion. Some of them, such as President Obama, have a more refined, developed approach and are very effective in speechmaking capability. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to be significantly less effective as a public speakers. It's possible that this can be changed, but will not be easy. Meanwhile, mixing Democrats with Republicans will give the Democrats an opportunity to eat the Republicans alive. Republicans are already partially digested.
We do not want a unified Congress. A unified Congress will tend to kill the Republican spirit. The combination would be a monopoly which would serve against the interests of the American public.
More recently, I have heard about a proposal having Democrats and Republicans as a mixed audience during President Obama's State of the Union Address. This would presumably demonstrate a unified Congress. The traditional separation of Democrats and Republicans by a center aisle would be eliminated.
I do not want foxes mixed in with my hens in my chicken house. I do not want Democrats mixed with Republicans in Congress. I will grant that the analogy is not complete. Hens have no fox-like attributes, while many Republicans have already taken on socialistic attributes, similar to Democrats. If there is any semblance of differentiation, let's keep them separate, so the we can know which team they are playing on. We already have Senator Snow of Maine, who parades is a Republican while she is a socialist.
The US has an antitrust law, which basically prohibits private enterprise collaboration, since such collaboration would act to the disadvantage of the American public. The antitrust law promotes competition, in order to offer the public a choice of products or services from which they can choose to its best advantage. This system seems to work very well, although in many cases it is not reasonably enforced. Why should we not be using the same system with the federal government as a supplier of services to the American public. There are two suppliers; Democrats and Republicans. If we combine them, we have created a monopoly, which will then operate to the disadvantage of the American public.
A general attribute of Democrats is that they are loud-speaking with emotion. Some of them, such as President Obama, have a more refined, developed approach and are very effective in speechmaking capability. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to be significantly less effective as a public speakers. It's possible that this can be changed, but will not be easy. Meanwhile, mixing Democrats with Republicans will give the Democrats an opportunity to eat the Republicans alive. Republicans are already partially digested.
We do not want a unified Congress. A unified Congress will tend to kill the Republican spirit. The combination would be a monopoly which would serve against the interests of the American public.
Changing the Unemployment Picture
Will US unemployment decline significantly in the foreseeable future?
The answer is no. The only qualification is that we can possibly achieve more complete socialism and hire significantly more government workers, who would then be considered employed. The claims of the newly elected House of Representatives tend to forestall that, but we will have to wait and see.
The ideal employment rate is considered 3%. More realistically, most pundits place it at 6%. It is presently 9 to 10%, not only in the US but also in Europe.
There are several reasons for this increase from the standard. Government has made it more convenient for the unemployed to stay unemployed, and coincidently keeps the unemployment rate at the high level. However, the major factor is the productive capacity of private companies, which supply our physical goods and much of our services.
The simple fact is that these companies have become much more proficient in supplying goods and services with fewer employees, through increased use of new technology and systems development. They need fewer people to produce the same volume. Part of this program has been to move the manufacturing supply base from the US to foreign countries, where labor per unit product is significantly less than the labor cost in the US.
There have been and will continue to be cost increases to the consumer in goods and services, but these cost increases are not caused by shortages in productive capacity. They are the result of decreasing value of the dollar; i.e. inflation. The fact is that there is a surplus of available goods and services. Visit a local supermarket and check your possible choices in the cold cereal aisle. In most cities there continues to be a drugstore on every major corner, and where those are missing, gas stations have taken their place. Be not confused by the fact that gasoline prices are approaching $3 per gallon. That is a result of government activity in handling the money supply, not availability of gasoline.
If the handwriting is on the wall to accept 9 to 10% unemployment in our society, what can the ordinary citizen do? If he is now unemployed, he can continue to look for another job, which will probably be futile. A more realistic approach is to accept the position of unemployment and become a ward of the state. For those who have a job, they likely have the capabilities to survive in a competitive job world. They will be faced with higher taxes to support the unemployed as wards of the state.
Is it possible to break this system? Possible but not likely. We have traveled down the road toward socialism for the last 50 years, so that much of the public is now inclined toward socialism, which is to let government handle everything. However, government elected officials and employees, by the nature of their jobs and benefits, do not have the incentive to imaginatively produced programs which would generate real jobs. Real jobs are created by people who are hungry for food, recognition, or private wealth. That is the real capitalistic segment of the society. While it still exists, there is now a more futile atmosphere and government has imposed various regulations, which would defeat the aspirations of new capitalistic enterprises.
Is the expectation of change futile? Not entirely. The new House elected in November will have a tendency to fall into the traditional ways of Washington. To avoid that happening, such that we can start to dismantle big government, people of independent and capitalistic bent must continue the pressure which was started prior to the November election. The Tea Party is our best organized hope. Give it your support. Additionally, stay in touch with your Congressman to give him your opinion on anything you think is significant. Continually remind him that if he doesn't perform in a productive manner of reducing the size of government and various restrictions on business, he will lose your vote.
The answer is no. The only qualification is that we can possibly achieve more complete socialism and hire significantly more government workers, who would then be considered employed. The claims of the newly elected House of Representatives tend to forestall that, but we will have to wait and see.
The ideal employment rate is considered 3%. More realistically, most pundits place it at 6%. It is presently 9 to 10%, not only in the US but also in Europe.
There are several reasons for this increase from the standard. Government has made it more convenient for the unemployed to stay unemployed, and coincidently keeps the unemployment rate at the high level. However, the major factor is the productive capacity of private companies, which supply our physical goods and much of our services.
The simple fact is that these companies have become much more proficient in supplying goods and services with fewer employees, through increased use of new technology and systems development. They need fewer people to produce the same volume. Part of this program has been to move the manufacturing supply base from the US to foreign countries, where labor per unit product is significantly less than the labor cost in the US.
There have been and will continue to be cost increases to the consumer in goods and services, but these cost increases are not caused by shortages in productive capacity. They are the result of decreasing value of the dollar; i.e. inflation. The fact is that there is a surplus of available goods and services. Visit a local supermarket and check your possible choices in the cold cereal aisle. In most cities there continues to be a drugstore on every major corner, and where those are missing, gas stations have taken their place. Be not confused by the fact that gasoline prices are approaching $3 per gallon. That is a result of government activity in handling the money supply, not availability of gasoline.
If the handwriting is on the wall to accept 9 to 10% unemployment in our society, what can the ordinary citizen do? If he is now unemployed, he can continue to look for another job, which will probably be futile. A more realistic approach is to accept the position of unemployment and become a ward of the state. For those who have a job, they likely have the capabilities to survive in a competitive job world. They will be faced with higher taxes to support the unemployed as wards of the state.
Is it possible to break this system? Possible but not likely. We have traveled down the road toward socialism for the last 50 years, so that much of the public is now inclined toward socialism, which is to let government handle everything. However, government elected officials and employees, by the nature of their jobs and benefits, do not have the incentive to imaginatively produced programs which would generate real jobs. Real jobs are created by people who are hungry for food, recognition, or private wealth. That is the real capitalistic segment of the society. While it still exists, there is now a more futile atmosphere and government has imposed various regulations, which would defeat the aspirations of new capitalistic enterprises.
Is the expectation of change futile? Not entirely. The new House elected in November will have a tendency to fall into the traditional ways of Washington. To avoid that happening, such that we can start to dismantle big government, people of independent and capitalistic bent must continue the pressure which was started prior to the November election. The Tea Party is our best organized hope. Give it your support. Additionally, stay in touch with your Congressman to give him your opinion on anything you think is significant. Continually remind him that if he doesn't perform in a productive manner of reducing the size of government and various restrictions on business, he will lose your vote.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Dangerous Speakers
On talk radio this morning, Neal Boortz and his guest were discussing Pres. Obama's speech last night concerning the Arizona shooting. They agreed that Pres Obama is a tremendous speaker. to which I agree.
I also recall that prior to World war II, when I was about 21 years old, I heard may of the speeches of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Although I understood neither the German nor the Italian language at the time, I was moved by the emotional rhetoric of the speakers. In effect they were also tremendous speakers. They were so effective that they were able to lead the German and Italian people down a path to destruction.
Do we now have such a dangerous, capable speaker in President Obama? Two years of his presidency has seemed to bring a lot of destruction on the cultural and financial aspects of the United States.
I also recall that prior to World war II, when I was about 21 years old, I heard may of the speeches of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Although I understood neither the German nor the Italian language at the time, I was moved by the emotional rhetoric of the speakers. In effect they were also tremendous speakers. They were so effective that they were able to lead the German and Italian people down a path to destruction.
Do we now have such a dangerous, capable speaker in President Obama? Two years of his presidency has seemed to bring a lot of destruction on the cultural and financial aspects of the United States.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Arizona Shootings and Logic in Government
What happened to logic in the Federal Government?
Last November, we, the American public, voted in a new House of Representatives to stop the damage and correct much of the economic damage caused by the last Socialistic/Communist House. The news media subsequently reported all the good things that the new House would instigate when convened in January. The new House Speaker and various Freshman Congressmen appeared in person to confirm what the news media has been reporting.
Yesterday, the news media reported the death of six individuals shot by a lunatic in Arizona. This morning the news media is full of reports of condolences to the families, questions on the sanity of the shooter, and security measures to protect other members of Congress. It is also reported that the house has basically shut down its business to consider these same condolences and related factors.
I am not a person without compassion. I am very sorry for the family losses of their loved ones. Those families have a right to expect some indication of compassion from the public at large, but let's put this in perspective. Thousands of people die daily from automobile accidents, where their lives have been cut short by the neglect of individuals and society. Murders are committed daily under other circumstances, generally related to emotional disturbances.
May I suggest that the House cut short its bereavement on the death of Congresswoman Giffords and get on with the business of correcting the financial lives of millions of Americans.
Last November, we, the American public, voted in a new House of Representatives to stop the damage and correct much of the economic damage caused by the last Socialistic/Communist House. The news media subsequently reported all the good things that the new House would instigate when convened in January. The new House Speaker and various Freshman Congressmen appeared in person to confirm what the news media has been reporting.
Yesterday, the news media reported the death of six individuals shot by a lunatic in Arizona. This morning the news media is full of reports of condolences to the families, questions on the sanity of the shooter, and security measures to protect other members of Congress. It is also reported that the house has basically shut down its business to consider these same condolences and related factors.
I am not a person without compassion. I am very sorry for the family losses of their loved ones. Those families have a right to expect some indication of compassion from the public at large, but let's put this in perspective. Thousands of people die daily from automobile accidents, where their lives have been cut short by the neglect of individuals and society. Murders are committed daily under other circumstances, generally related to emotional disturbances.
May I suggest that the House cut short its bereavement on the death of Congresswoman Giffords and get on with the business of correcting the financial lives of millions of Americans.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
"Working" with Democrats
Open letter to Representative Neugebauer:
This is a second word of warning on a very important subject.
The House Democrats are all over the news this morning saying how they want to work together.
The answer must be: No, No, No! Remember that when they were in the majority, their "working together" meant your cooperating with projects involving their socialistic ideology. You can be sure this hasn't changed.
The only reason I can see why you would work with them is if you support a socialistic agenda even though you designate yourself as a Republican.
This is a second word of warning on a very important subject.
The House Democrats are all over the news this morning saying how they want to work together.
The answer must be: No, No, No! Remember that when they were in the majority, their "working together" meant your cooperating with projects involving their socialistic ideology. You can be sure this hasn't changed.
The only reason I can see why you would work with them is if you support a socialistic agenda even though you designate yourself as a Republican.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Dangerous Democrat Socialist/Communists
Open letter to Representative Randy Neugebauer:
I have read your latest newsletter.
My first suggestion is to eliminate the picture of the wind turbines on your letterhead. Energy from wind turbines is a loser, compared to that from coal, oil, and natural gas. A picture of wind turbines is a negative distraction.
With respect to the change in style of Nancy Pelosi compared to John Boehner, that is fairly obvious. What is more insidious and dangerous is the absolute change of style of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama. They are now much more amenable to bilateral cooperation. Don't be taken in by it. The devil is also two-faced. Democrat socialists/communists are autocratic opportunists. They use a very heavy hand when they have the power. When the power is reduced, they play a more moderate game only on a temporary basis. They are dangerous people. Do not believe what they say, and under no circumstances be cooperative. Think back. Every time you tried to cooperate with these people they let you have the short end.
The mandate by the people in the November election was absolutely clear. Persecute Democrats out of office to positions of absolute weakness. They will never go away, and they will never be rehabilitated. Treat them like the criminals they are, because they have tried to destroy your country and mine to some ridiculous ideology.
I have read your latest newsletter.
My first suggestion is to eliminate the picture of the wind turbines on your letterhead. Energy from wind turbines is a loser, compared to that from coal, oil, and natural gas. A picture of wind turbines is a negative distraction.
With respect to the change in style of Nancy Pelosi compared to John Boehner, that is fairly obvious. What is more insidious and dangerous is the absolute change of style of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama. They are now much more amenable to bilateral cooperation. Don't be taken in by it. The devil is also two-faced. Democrat socialists/communists are autocratic opportunists. They use a very heavy hand when they have the power. When the power is reduced, they play a more moderate game only on a temporary basis. They are dangerous people. Do not believe what they say, and under no circumstances be cooperative. Think back. Every time you tried to cooperate with these people they let you have the short end.
The mandate by the people in the November election was absolutely clear. Persecute Democrats out of office to positions of absolute weakness. They will never go away, and they will never be rehabilitated. Treat them like the criminals they are, because they have tried to destroy your country and mine to some ridiculous ideology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
