We Cannot Have Gestapo-like Arrests

Open e-mail to Rep Neugebauer:

Randy,

I heard on the Neal Boortz radio program this morning that there is a rumor concerning a bill in the Senate which would allow the President to declare, at his discretion, any US citizen in the United States to be a terrorist, and arrested by the military.

The difficulty with this bill and any subsequent law, which may follow, is in the definition of "terrorist". In the strict interpretation of the term, a terrorist is a person who actually commits a physical act detrimental to the general public. However, the interpretation has generally been extended to include any person who by previous background, MAY perform an act, which is perceived to be detrimental to the general public. Notice that this would include not only physically destructive acts, such as explosions, but also intellectual acts involving criticism of the government.

I now take you back to Germany in 1938. With the advent of NAZI control, the Gestapo was given broad arrest powers. They came to domiciles, broke in if necessary, and arrested people, who the administration had previously considered enemies of the state. This action was primarily against Jews, but likely included defenders of Jews. The arrested persons were sent to concentration camps, without benefit of trial. You know the rest.

If our President and his Administration are allowed to declare any person or group of persons as enemies of the state, through a government perception, and allow an arrest without subsequent trial, we will have a repeat of Gestapo action. We cannot allow that.

Another Ridiculous Budget Buster

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I just learned that the House and Senate passed minibus bill H. Rept.112-284, and it was on its way to the President for signing. He has possibly signed it by now.

According to C&E News, the bill contains funding for five federal agencies. Total expenditure will be $33 billion. Only NASA will see a budget cut. Three other see increases of 3 to 7%. The FDA budget is unclear in the C&E News report, but it is presumably up.

I continue to hear about a huge deficit in the total federal budget. How do you rationalize these increases, when we should be having significant decreases?

In the last federal election, we elected a bunch of fiscal conservatives to the house. What happened to them? Did they become brainwashed? How did you vote on this minibus bill?

I'm a scientist, but I'm not ignorant about money. I can tell you that these so-called "science" agencies are budget busters, and you and your organization have contributed greatly to the continued decline of US economic power.

I was also under the impression that we were supposed to shrink government. How do we do that, if we keep throwing money at these various agencies?

It appears that House of Representatives Appropriations Committee Chairman, Harold D. Rogers was very favorable to this budget. He said that, "this minibus represents a fiscally responsible bipartisan compromise that will prevent a potential government shutdown." I suppose it's unreasonable to ask you you how he could come up with such a ridiculous statement. Rogers is ostensibly a Republican from Kentucky. Based on his recent work, he is not a Republican. He is a socialist, with the cloak of a Republican. Get him out of there. He is doing a lot of damage.

Good Intentions and Abuse of Regulations

I see that Rudy Baum is back to his old program of supporting big government and excusing its abuses.

Rudy is the Editor in Chief of Chemical & Engineering News, the house organ of the American Chemical Society. Rudy uses C&E News as a forum to promote his Communistic/Socialistic ideology. He does this through his editorials and also presumably by applying pressure on his reporters, who write individual articles.

In the November 14 issue of C&E News, Rudy has an editorial, entitled "The Cost of Prevention". As is standard for Rudy, he usually uses a title intended to enlist sympathy of the readers, while the essence of the article is somewhat different. In this case, Rudy is defending the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In the present editorial, Rudy starts his dissertation by expounding on the pleasures of his recent boat trip on the Chicago River. He says that at one time the Chicago River was the sewer of Chicago, but with the introduction of the Clean Water Act by Congress, and the appointment of the EPA for enforcement the river's environment changed. However in spite of Rudy's accolades, the EPA still calls it a sewer, unfit to swim in.

I doubt that many persons will dispute the value of the Clean Water Act, and likely most will support the action of the EPA in attempting cleanup of the Chicago River, but that is not the main point.

What we need to consider is the bad decisions and actions of the EPA, as well as the good. More importantly, we need to address the likely supposition that the EPA has changed its operational vision from improving the environment to becoming more of a political arm of the President in establishing a global redistribution of wealth, which leads to destruction of a previous strong US economy.

Related to this is my previous condemnation of US environmental organizations. My claim is that they have been taken over by Communists/Socialists, who also are major donors to the Obama reelection fund. This also fits in well with Obama's Communist/Socialist agenda and with Obama's control of EPA, as an arm of the same program.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said there were no government regulations which had a negative effect on jobs. He seems to have neglected the fact that the federal government sharply restricted logging in a 2,000-acre radius around known spotted owl nests, required that at least 500 acres of the largest trees in that zone be left uncut, and prohibited logging within 70 acres of a nest. Before the restriction, annual production of lumber in the 1980s from the Sweet Home Ranger District in the Willamette National Forest was 86 million board feet of timber. By 1992, the height of the Northern Spotted Owl controversy, the district produced only 100,000 board feet. Men showed up for work at the mills and went home early--with pink slips. Timber dependent small family-owned businesses closed their doors. Men needing to support their families moved elsewhere to find family-wage jobs. The local timber industry no longer offered jobs to high school youth dropouts, nor provided work for those not versed in modern computer technology. Many former mill workers and loggers, when possible, retrained for other jobs. The other jobs all too often proved to be entry level, minimum wage jobs. Men could not support their families on such jobs. They lost their houses.

The Internet is full of such cases, but I'll mention only one more. That is the case of the snail darter, which is a small fish living in rivers. As an excuse for preserving the snail darter, the EPA was able to shut down a nuclear power plant, with the obvious loss of commercial power to support and enlarge our economy. This was consistent with the new environmental movement and Pres. Obama's agenda to redistribute global wealth.

The obvious problem, with the Clean Water Act and the use of the EPA to administer it, is the usual situation with government. Intentions are initially good and first actions are helpful, but then outside influences begin to change the program, in order to satisfy the avarice of individuals and political organizations, including other branches of government. There is an obvious answer to this. Congress needs to have some mechanism by which it continually follows operations resulting from previous Acts, and when necessary, make appropriate changes. It is now past time to do this with EPA, to remove its political action.

Professors at Public Universities Have Sold Their Academic Freedom

Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled "Freedom of Information Versus Academic Freedom", in the November 14 issue of Chemical & Engineering News.

The article essentially covers an argument about the writings, particularly e-mails, of professors at public universities. Specifically, the American Tradition Institute (API) is requesting the University of Virginia to supply copies of Michael Mann's e-mails, which he issued when he was an employee of the university. It will be recalled that Michael Mann has been one of the leading advocates for acceptance of the theory that climate change is caused by man. The significance of his promotion is that it aids in supporting a program of global redistribution of wealth, by using a taxing approach called Cap & Trade to limit economic development of advanced countries, such as the United States.

Public university professors and associated organizations have supported the University of Virginia's refusal to supply the requested e-mails. Their main reason is that making all such information public would lead to grossly limiting communication among professors and inhibit the development of science.

However, many states including Virginia have freedom of information laws, which allow anyone to request information involving University operations which involve use of public (taxpayers) funds. Since Michael Mann was a University employee supported by public funds, there seems to be no legal basis for the University of Virginia to withhold the requested e-mails.

Many public university professors are essentially saying that in spite of state laws they should not be required to make their writing public information. They claim this as their right to academic freedom.

However, it seems clear that in accepting the benefits of public funding for their work, they have essentially sold their academic freedom. If academic freedom were of primary importance, and they wished to continue their academic work, they could have sought employment at private colleges and universities.

Rep. Neugebauer's News Letter

Open E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer

Randy,

I read your latest newsletter.

Balanced Budget Amendment
It's nice that you support it, but what are you doing to expedite it?

US Supreme Court on Obama Care
You didn't need to report this. The news media already has it well covered. We also know you are against it.

Super Committee on Spending Cuts
We already know about the Super Committee, and we know your favorable position on spending cuts.
You didn't mention that even if the Super Committee fulfills its objective, it will be insufficient with respect to our needs on total spending cuts. We can anticipate another downgrading of US government bonds. What are you doing to correct the situation?

National Adoption Month
I say again you should not be promoting culture. When asked whether you support motherhood, you can reply in the affirmative, but there's no reason that I can see why you should be taking the time to write about adoption, when we have significant government problems, which are your direct responsibility.

Foreign Investments in the US

Pres. Obama recently said we have been lazy in trying to attract foreign investments to the US. This statement leads to a couple of questions to Pres. Obama.

First Question: Who specifically is the "we"? Do you mean I should personally be doing more? Do you mean that the Chamber of Commerce, should be doing more? Or, do you mean that your own Administration should be doing more?

Second Question: Why would foreign investors want to invest in the US at higher corporate taxes and more restrictions on business operations than in most other countries, with a promise of continued increases by your Office, the EPA, and the Department of Labor, which you supervise?

What Happened to the Jobs?

What happened to the jobs?

1. The low point of unemployment was 5% in January '08. The high point was 10% in October '09, 21 months later.

2. We must use annual 12 month average data, because monthly data is not available. Average annual data shows a job loss of 4.4%, rather than the actual 5% for 21 months.

3. In 1 year, we lost 6.0 million jobs (4.4%). What were they?

4. Construction job loss was 1.1 million (16% of Construction jobs). Construction is internal; it cannot be exported.

5. The largest loss was 1.6 million Manufacturing jobs (11.6 % of manufacturing jobs).

6. Next largest losses were 1.4 million in Trade jobs (5.3% of trade jobs) and 1.2 million in Professional jobs (6.5% of professional jobs)..

7. The lost 1.6 Manufacturing jobs were mostly transferred to Korea, Taiwan, China and various Pan American Countries. We have seen the names of these countries on much of our US purchased goods.

8. Trade jobs include various sales ancillaries, such as customer service, brochures and instruction booklets. The lost Trade jobs were moved to India, China, Taiwan, Korea, and other countries. Most of us have had the experience of trying to deal with foreigners on customer service and have seen the sometimes stilted writing of foreigners in brochures and instruction booklets.

9. Professional jobs include accounting, architecture, design, R&D, and others. These activities were also moved to the same countries mentioned in #8. We don't see much of these activities but have heard about them.

10. It is not unreasonable to suppose that we have lost 12% of our manufacturing jobs, 5% of our trade jobs and 6% of our professional jobs to other countries. These collectively amount to a loss of 4.2 million US jobs.

11. Why were these jobs lost to other countries?

12. Company executives are primarily interested in holding their own jobs and maximizing their salaries and bonuses.

13 The executives understand that the best way to accomplish their objectives is to maximize company profits, because the boards of directors, who control the top company jobs, are mostly large stockholders who are themselves interested in stock value appreciation and dividends.

14. The few ways to increase company profits are to reduce manufacturing cost per item, sales and administrative costs, and taxes. This not only gives an increased profit per item after taxes, but gives an opportunity to boost item volume sales through competetive price advantage.

15. Most less developed countries have lower labor costs than the US. In most cases, the labor is sufficiently capable of producing quality products at rates equivalent to the US, which reduces cost per item. The leadership of most less developed countries have an interest in manufacturing US type goods to improve their countries' economies.

16. To attract US manufacturing, less developed countries use fewer government restrictions, and lower company taxes. In many cases, foreign governments will give a corporate tax holiday.

17. The free trade policy of the US allows the US company foreign manufactured goods to easily flow back to US markets.

18. For Trade and Professional work, the situation is somewhat similar. Contracts for supply of sales service, brochures, instruction booklets, computer programs, computer designs, accounting services, architectural documents, etc, are almost always less costly when supplied by India or China.

19. The collective low labor costs, tax advantages, friendly foreign government attitude and US free trade were strongly recognized and acted upon by US companies in shipping jobs overseas in the 21-month period between January '08 and October '09.

20. Labor costs in the foreign countries continue to rise, which tends to reduce the incentive for foreign operations by US companies, but foreign tax benefits and restrictions for US companies have not. Free trade persists.

21. US jobs can be returned from abroad by addressing and correcting each of these entities: low foreign labor cost, company taxes, operating restrictions, and free trade.

Strategy on Imports of Solar Modules from China

Jeff Johnson has an article entitled, "Solar Panel Makers Cry Foul" in the October 31 issue of Chemical & Engineering News. A group of seven solar panel makers submitted a petition to the Department of Commerce alleging "dumping" of crystalline solar panels in the US by Chinese companies.

An attorney for the seven companies says, "the Chinese industries are using dump and subsidized pricing to drive US companies from the US market". Solyndra has been in the news as one of the bankrupt companies, and there has been a total of seven other US solar module producers who have gone bankrupt in the past 18 months.

There is no doubt that the US companies filed for bankruptcy, because they had been unable to sell their US manufactured products at prices as low as the Chinese. However, the kettle is calling the pot black.

The concern in the recent Solyndra scandal is that the US government had given Solyndra a half billion dollars in a loan guarantee. This is obviously subsidization at the US level. And, there have been others.

The question then is whether the Chinese are out-subsidizing their solar module manufacturers, as compared to US subsidizing of its manufacturers. The petition of the remaining seven US manufacturers has asked for custom duties against the Chinese products. This would certainly be better than a subsidizing war, which has already cost the American taxpayers dearly.

However, a better approach might be to allow these seven American companies to file for bankruptcy and have the Chinese continue to supply the market at reduced prices. This would give low-cost materials for US installations. If the Chinese later decide to raise prices, bankruptcy laws in the US are such that these companies could go back into production. And then we could give them a further advantage by belatedly applying custom duties to the Chinese imports, in retaliation for the then proven Chinese objective of using dumping to gain control of the US market.

How To Make the Data Quality Act Honestly Effective

Open e-mail to Rep Neugebauer:

Randy,

Sen. James Inhofe recently wrote a letter to Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator. The letter concerned EPA's new Utilities MACT rule, which involves air pollution from coal-fueled power plants. In that letter, Sen. Inhofe refers to the Data Quality Act (DQA). My present e-mail is concerned with the DQA. I will return later to discuss MACT in a separate e-mail.

Congress likely had all good intentions in passing the Data Quality Act, but has missed target, which was to ensure that all data used by the Administration is of sound quality.

The DQA directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines that "provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies".

The problem arises in the administration of the act by the OMB.

The Executive Office of the President has 14 entities, of which the OMB is the largest. The Director, is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The President controls the actions of the Director and presumably data quality through the job appointment and the Director's salary. Confirmation by the Senate starts the appointment, after which the President has full control, resulting again in the fox being in charge of the chicken house.

When the constitution was established, the framers saw the need for checks and balances among the 3 branches of government. They likely did not foresee how complex government would eventually become. It is also a rule of thumb that the more complex an operation is, the more likely there will be fraud and deceit. We see from the above that the potential for presidential partiality in operation of the OMB can seriously jeopardize integrity of OMB reports and conclusions, in spite of the Data Quality Act. This must also be true in many other segments of government.

There are some obvious answers to this. Shrink the size of government, which would automatically simplify operations and give increased transparency. In addition, both House and Senate should have over-seeing responsibility, where each Department Director's performance, including entities of the Executive Office of the President, is periodically reviewed. This function can be assigned to existing committees in the House and Senate. The House, Senate, and President should each have a vote on each Director. Two votes against would require an immediate replacement.

Stop Federal Grants to Industry & Revoke the Bayh-Dole Act

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer;

Randy,

Melody Bomgardner has an article entitled, "DOE Demands Solar Patents" in the October 17 issue of Chemical & Engineering News. It involves the bankruptcy of Evergreen Solar, a solar wafer manufacturer.

In the bankruptcy filing, Evergreen said that it would sell at auction its intellectual property rights related to solar wafer manufacturing. That technology includes three patents. The Department of Energy claims the title for the three patents, which would then not be available for auction by Evergreen.

The Bayh-Dole confirms intellectual property rights of the technology, including patents, to any small businesses which had obtained government financial support. The DOE says that Evergreen received $3 million in a government grant. However, to retain the property rights, a small business must adhere to nine requirements of the Bayh-Dole Act. Three of these requirements are:

1. Report each disclosed invention to the funding agency
2. Elect to retain title in writing within a statutorily prescribed timeframe
3. Grant the federal government a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice or have practiced on its behalf throughout the world.

Evergreen didn't do the three.

In a single associated case, the court held that since the appellant failed to comply with the Bayh-Dole Act.invention disclosure provisions of a contract, the court upheld the transfer of an invention title to the U.S. Army.

Other than obtaining title transfer, the government can also obtain "march in" rights, which allows the funding agency to effectively ignore the exclusivity of a patent awarded under the act and grant additional licenses to other "reasonable applicants."

While it hurts me to say so, it looks like the DOE is within its rights to restrict Evergreen from selling patents and know-how under auction.

I am bothered in two ways. The DOE should never have granted $3 million of taxpayer money to Evergreen. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to dole out taxpayer money to private companies for anything it considers worthwhile at the time.

Evergreen is only another aspect of the Solyndra scandal and Congress should put a stop to it. It also appears to me that the Bayh-Dole Act was ill-conceived. My original thought was that Congress should modify it, but I now believe my first suggestion takes preference. That is, government should not be granting taxpayer funds to private industry, in which case the Bayh-Dole Act becomes moot. Bayh-Dole should only be wiped off the books for organization sake.

Excessive Restrictions in EPA's Clean Air Program

Randy,

Glenn Hess has an article entitled, "EPA Clean Air Rules Challenged", in the October 24 issue of Chemical & Engineering News.

In general, House Republicans are criticizing the EPA for excessive regulations, which negatively affect jobs in these times of economic weakness. More specifically, the House passed a wide-ranging bill (HR 2401) that would halt the EPA efforts to sharply curtail emissions of mercury, soot and acid gases from coal and oil fired power plants and impose stricter limits on toxic air pollution that often drifts across state lines.

I agree with the general implication of the EPA that major air contamination from mercury, soot and acid gases should be eliminated. However, I have a difference of opinion, when we start to consider quantities and concentrations. The House may be on the right track with its HR 2401 in its objection to the proposed EPA regulation, based on the term "sharply curtail".

Congress passed the Clean Air Act 40 years ago. In those 40 years, the EPA has made strides with industry in controlling air pollution, to what I now consider is a low-level. I believe that the several scientists invited by the GOP majority to testify have put their finger on the problem. They say that the US is reaching a point of diminishing returns in setting standards for toxic air pollutants at lower and lower concentrations. Each reduction becomes more difficult and costly to achieve, while yielding minimal, if any, additional health benefits. In other words, the EPA doesn't know when to stop.

The EPA makes exaggerated claims of health benefits, such as "avoiding tens of thousands of premature deaths, preventing tens of thousands of heart attacks and thousands of hospital visits for respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and alleviating hundreds of thousands of childhood asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses". Just as an example of the exaggeration, Michael Honeycutt, of the Texas, Commission on Environmental Quality, pointed out that the EPA's claims of mercury causing lower IQ and heart disease scare the public into avoiding seafood. But, the Japanese eat 10 times more fish than Americans do and have higher levels of mercury in their blood. They have a lower rate of coronary heart disease and high scores on IQ tests.

This again reverts to the problem I previously recognized, which is that the EPA is taking its marching orders from its socialistic/communistic boss Pres. Obama. Congress must in some way change the administration, so that a reasonably scientific EPA can perform its duties without political control of the EPA agenda.

Remove the EPA from Presidential Administration

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled, "Alleged Science Manipulation" in the October 24 issue of Chemical & Engineering News.

At in October 6 hearing of the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Environment & the Economy, GOP lawmakers said they were probing whether EPA's scientific assessments of chemicals hazards are skewed to lead to tighter regulations.

The lengthy article covers various complaints against the EPA. Some say the EPA acts too slowly. Others say it acts to rapidly. Some say the scientific information it collects is skewed toward a preconceived idea. Etc.
This is all based on a general distrust of the EPA, as it has reacted favorably to President Obama's directives over the last several years. As we know, President Obama has a socialistic/communistic agenda with accent to a growth of government, through higher taxes and at the expense of private industry. Many of the EPA decisions in the last three years have shown a strong leaning toward the ideologies of its boss. One outstanding decision was to declare carbon dioxide a poisonous contaminant, with attempts to regulate its emissions from power plants and other sources.

I believe the House is on the right track of pressing the EPA on detail, but I also believe that stronger action must be taken. As Congress originally set up the EPA, it arranged for administration by the President, as was standard for all Congressional formed agencies. The system needs to be changed, because it is now recognized that these agencies have tremendous power through the generous budgets allocated by Congress, and that this power is being used by the President to support his political agenda of reforming the US to a socialistic/communistic model.

Federal Court Suit Against EPA on Boiler Emission and Coal Ash Standards

E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

Glenn Hess has an article entitled "House Bills Would Undermine EPA" in the October 24 issue of Chemical & Engineering News. It involves the EPA's issuance of new boiler and incinerator emission and coal ash standards at the end of October.

House Bill 2250 directs the Agency to develop new standards that can be met with existing technology. Is there something wrong with that? Is it reasonable to expect industry to conform to regulations which are not attainable using current technology, and in consideration of present budget deficits, joblessness, etc.?

The EPA has been operating on the basis of absolute considerations only of environmental contamination with the use of legal controls on industry, and without consideration of economic factors. That is obviously an unreasonable position.

House HR 2250 will go nowhere, because it will not be supported in the Senate and would be vetoed by the President. The net result is that, since it is not a matter of primary public interest, the House is only making a statement. However, without some additional action, the EPA will go on its merry way of instituting another restriction, which will grossly and negatively affect our economy.

I strongly suggest that the House file suit against the EPA in federal court to obtain an injunction to postpone institution of the EPA boiler, incinerator, and coal ash standards, on the basis that it would do nonrepairable damage to an already ailing economy.

Comments on Rep. Neugebauer's News Letter

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I read your latest news letter.

VETERANS
Nice touch on Veteran's Day. Like agreeing to mother's milk, I suppose you have to do a little of this, but let's not overdue the compassion. Give them the benefits they deserve, with thanks, and get on to the present important problems.

WINDSTORMS
You should not be involved in this. Neither you nor anybody else can control the weather. You can only see that The National Weather Service is doing its job of giving the public notice of forth-coming dangerous weather. We have private insurance companies to reimburse clients for storm damage. Anyone dumb enough to not buy insurance deserves an opportunity to lose their property, without your interference.

HUD
This is simple. I told you previously to shut it down. You also need to pressure the FBI and Justice Dept. to prosecute thieves, in and out of government.

MILITARY ACADEMY NOMINATIONS
Good going on this, but one feather in your cap is enough. Don't overdo it in seeking favorable publicity.

Free Trade Deal with Korea, Panama, and Columbis Is a Bust for the US.

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

SUMMARY

I am sorry to report that Congress has pulled another boner by confirming the free trade deal with South Korea, Panama and Columbia, which had been 3 years in hiatus.

DETAILS
The White House claims the free trade deal COULD increase exports by $13 billion a year and support 70,000 jobs. That seems rather far-fetched, as we look at some of the details.

Market Size
Let's take a look at the relative market sizes, which can be judged by each country's population since it is the individuals who purchase the goods.

COUNTRY POPULATION IN MILLIONS
South Korea 48.2
Panama 3.4
Columbia 46.2
United States 312.5

With the free trade deal, South Korea gains access to a market six times larger than its own; Panama 92 times, and Columbia 7 times.

Market Quality
We measure market quality by Gross National Product per person. This is a measure of the amount of money that each person in the country has access to directly or indirectly. The higher the GNP per person, the more money that person has access to for the purchase of goods.

COUNTRY GNP PER PERSON
South Korea $29,997
Panama $4626
Columbia $2292
United States $43,723

With the free trade deal, South Korea gains access to a market where each customer can buy 46% more goods than can be purchased by each South Korean. For Panama, it is 9 times. For Columbia, it is 19 times.

US Imports

At the free trade deal, we can import duty-free from each of the countries the products which those countries have available for export. These are as follows:

From Korea

Semiconductors, wireless telecommunications equipment, motor vehicles, computers, steel, ships, petrochemicals.

But we already manufacture all of these things ourselves. If we import, we lose manufacturing jobs.

Motor vehicles are a big item, but it is said that due in great part to Koreans' preference for locally made cars, there are no expectations that the new trade pact will result in dramatic increases in the number of American vehicles sold in Korea. S. Korea now imports 50,000 vehicles from all sources. It exports 600,000 (12 times as many) vehicles to the US.

From Panama

Bananas, shrimp, sugar, coffee, clothing.

Bananas can be imported from many Latin American countries. Bananas are already one of the cheapest fruits in the United States, with a retail price of $.59 per pound. Even local pears in season and on sale run $.99 per pound.

We already harvest our own shrimp at the Gulf Coast and could easily locally produce more clothing. Sugar and coffee are available commodities from many countries in Latin America and Africa at low prices.

From Colombia

Petroleum, coffee, coal, nickel, emeralds, apparel, bananas, and cut flowers.

We already have large supplies of petroleum and coal. Bananas and coffee are available from many suppliers at low prices. We can easily make our own apparel. Emeralds is innately a very small market. I'm not sure about the significance of nickel. Cut flowers are likely available from many tropical and semi tropical countries.

Special Factors

Chemical Industry

The Chemical industry has become global in nature. Petrochemicals are manufactured in whatever country raw materials are available and there is a favorable business climate, including taxes and regulations. Raw materials are generally petroleum and natural gas. The primary petrochemical products are monomers, from which polymers and other downstream products are made.

The monomers for bulk plastics are mostly ethylene, propylene and vinyl chloride. These are not easily shipped and usually are converted to bulk polymers on site and then shipped to processors for conversion into film, auto parts, doors & frames, etc..

However, some monomers are easily shipped, and conversion to polymers and subsequent downstream processing can be done away from the monomer production site. Monomers for paints and coatings generally fall into this category. A few examples are acrylates, methacrylates, methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), toluene diisocyanate (TDI), and terphthalic acid.

Dow Chemical

CEO Liveris of Dow Chemical had been strongly and personally promoting the free trade agreement. The question is "why"?

Dow Chemical's SEC 10 K Report shows a Dow Chemical subsidiary in Korea. Dow's effective ownership of Dow Chemical Korea Limited is 100%, of which Dow Chemical owns 85.82%
and Dow Europe Holding B.V. owns 14.18%.

An Internet search on the activities of Dow Chemical Korea brings up disjointed information, which still helps to form a picture of why Liveris was strongly promoting the free trade deal.

Dow Chemical Korea has activity with the following: Crude methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI),diisopropanol amine, epichlorohydrin, epoxy resin, ethylene acrylic acid, ignition-resistant polystyrene resin (styron), ion exchange resin, low density polyethylene, magnesium ingot, methyl cellulose, polypropylene glycol, propylene glycol, propylene glycol ether, styrene acrylonitrile resin, synthetic rubber latex, trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, triethylene tetramine, and vinyl chloride monomer. The quantities of these materials, which will now enter the US duty free is not known. However, the custom duty aspect is not the significant point. The main consideration is that these materials are manufactured abroad, with a loss of investment and jobs to the US.

Some other miscellaneous but related reports are as follows:
1. Dow Electronic Materials is constructing a plant in South Korea to test and make advanced-chip-packaging metallization materials.
2. Dow Chemical Korea manufactures polyurethane with 50-100 employees.
3. Dow Chemical Korea imports products from Dow Chemical Canada in Vancouver, BC via Seattle, Washington.
4. Dow Chemical Korea Hong Kong Br exports products to Edow Chemical Company in Long Beach via Busan.
5. Dow Chemical Korea ships polycarbonate flake / resin to Long Beach, California.
6. Dow Chemical announced in April 1993 the acquisition of a methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) distillation plant from Sung-Hwa Petrochemical Industrial Company, Limited in Korea. The MDI plant located in Yocheon, Korea, had an annual capacity of 25,000 metric tons. The plant is a source of products for HD Polyurethane Company, a 50/50 joint venture recently formed in Korea between Dow and Hannam Chemical Corporation. MDI is used in a wide range of industries such as automotive, appliance and construction.

Randy, the next time something like this comes up, ask me to do the research for you, before you and your associates vote the wrong way.

Pay Attention to Spending Cuts, Not Culture Change

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I read your latest newsletter.

You devoted the whole newsletter, which was four long paragraphs, to your personal position on abortion and rights of the unborn.

I believe it is not the function of government to change society's culture. In fact, this is my main objection to the Obama Administration and the reason I want it out.

If you believe the same, you should be addressing your attention to the more pragmatic aspects of government business.

We also need you to remain in office to continue with your assigned responsibilities. Generally speaking, society is split on its position with respect to abortion and rights of the unborn. Those diverse opinions are strongly held by the different factions, and there is nothing that you can do to change that, even if you desire to do so. Conversely as you ill advisedly enter the fray, you are bound to lose reelection votes from one side or the other. This is obviously unnecessary, because it is self-defeating.

We have a horrendous budget and debt problem. Government has the responsibility to get both under control and the technique is to radically shrink government spending. This will obviously involve government expenditures for health care, including abortions.

Close down HUD; Support the Motto, "in God We Trust "; Withdraw from the UN

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I read your newsletter.

I was not aware that you chair the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Congratulations!.

With respect to tomorrow's joint meetings to examine fraud in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) HOME Investment Partnerships Program, I believe, from your side comments, that you're on the right track.

For many years and with millions and perhaps billions of dollars of taxpayer money, the federal government has been trying to supply the "impoverished" with suitable housing. It doesn't work. Time and again, we have seen construction projects, which after a few years of operation, have again been torn down. The answer for the failure is very simple. The occupants have "no skin in the game", which rapidly leads to destruction of the facilities. In addition, HUD has also proven time and again that it has no capability to police these operations.

The conclusion is obvious. Congress must shut down HUD. This does not mean that the "impoverished" will have no place to live. Private industry has sufficient capital to build multi-occupant units, and more importantly the motivation and facilities to defend their investments.

During World War II, the government needed synthetic rubber and penicillin for the war effort. It built factories to supply these products. At war's end, government sold these facilities to private industry. As you know, these industries have further developed under private ownership. We now travel many thousands of miles farther on improved tires, and we now have a host of antibiotics to treat various illnesses.

HUD is another example where government should not be involved. The operation should be left to private industry. Government should concentrate on aspects of more fundamental significance, such as defense against foreign invaders, control of immigration, etc.

Close down HUD. Sell the existing facilities to private industry at a very nominal price. Leave a vacuum. Private industry will fill it, providing the Administration doesn't hamstring it with ridiculous restrictions.


Support the motto "in God we trust".


Withdraw from the United Nations. It routinely makes decisions which are contrary to the interests of the US. It may continue to do that with or without our presence, but at least we will not be supporting it financially.