Is the Decline of US Leadership in Science & Technology Real?.

    

According to an article entitled "US Competitive edge Narrows" in the January 23 issue of C&E News, the US is on a leadership decline in science and engineering. The information comes from the SEI, which is part of the NSB, which is part of the National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF is one of the major US government agencies handing out taxpayer money as grants to academic institutions and private industries. I specify the origin of the report, to imply that this is not objective information. The NSF motivation for such report and particularly their interpretation, is likely an intention to obtain from Congress even larger sums of money for grant distribution they have in the past.
    

The C&E News summary says that scientific research and high-tech manufacturing are continuing to shift from the US and the European Union to Asian countries. Part of this is that US multinational companies are significantly increasing the amount they spend for research and production overseas. In the four years between 2004 and 2008, overseas R&D jobs from US companies increased by 41% and foreign investments increased by 30%. It is not clear why we don't have more current data. However, I will not dispute these figures.
   

Rather than looking at the picture of how we can immediately reverse this trend by throwing more US taxpayer money at it, let's look at the reasons this has occurred and perhaps we can change it.
    

Let's first look at Research and Development (R&D) jobs. For those not knowledgeable, Research and Development is a normal part of business enterprises. The intent is to spend approximately 5% of revenue investigating projects and opportunities which would contribute to expanding the business revenues and guaranteeing the continuance of the business in its present or associated lines. If in this expenditure, a better return on the buck can be obtained by doing it overseas, as opposed to the US, the obvious choice is overseas. However, let us not assume that the results of such US corporate foreign R&D is available to foreign governments or foreign enterprises. It is not. The results, which are paid for by US corporations, are the property of those same corporations.
    

With respect to high-tech manufacturing jobs, the situation is similar. If a US Corporation can use its technology in manufacturing goods in a foreign country at low cost, because of lower foreign labor cost and lower taxes, the operation can be more profitable. This is particularly advantageous with the free-trade policy of the US, where such foreign manufactured goods can be imported for sale to US customers without paying custom duties. Regulations on labor use and environmental considerations are usually significantly less in many Asian countries than they are in the US.
    

Therefore, the picture is not as bad as portrayed by this NSF report, but the fact remains that use of US R&D labor and capital investment in production are significantly reduced. The primary reason is the US government antibusiness attitude, with burdensome regulations and high taxes. This can be changed in a major way by changing the administration, but we already see some slight semblance of hope, as the Obama administration recognizes that some changes to promote job growth will be advantageous for his reelection.

HR 4646 & 1125 - 1% Financial Fees - Continued

Randy,
    

Thanks for your reply and the referenced article (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_61/-30466-1.html)
    

 I'm not sure why you desire that your e-mails be strictly off the record, since we are communicating on public business, but I will adhere to your wishes.

    

While the referenced article does not cover directly the point I was trying to make, it is related. The article says that two sessions ago, 14,000 bills were introduced into the House. Only 3% of these became law and one third of those involved things such as renaming a federal building.
    

As you know, both houses of Congress have a very poor reputation with the general public. There are probably a variety of reasons, but I suspect that inefficiency would be one.
    

My previous point concerned not how many of the proposals introduced in the House of Representatives actually became law, my suggestion was that 14,000 bills should not receive numbers implying that they are being realistically considered. Unless a proposal has at least some semblance of group support among House members, it should not be given a number nor referred to a committee, which would subsequently be burdened by having to at least carry the proposal on the committee's books.
    

How can we make the House operate more efficiently and hopefully obtain better support from the American voting public?

-----Original Message-----
From:  Randy Neugebauer

Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:01 PM
To: 'Arthur Sucsy'
Subject: RE: HR 4646 and 1125 - 1% Financial Fees

 (Confidential Reply) 

From: Arthur Sucsy [mailto:asucsy@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:22 PM
To: asucsy@suddenlink.net
Subject: FW: HR 4646 and 1125 - 1% Financial Fees

Randy,
    

Thank you for your reply. I am pleased to hear that you believe Rep. Fattah's proposal will go nowhere.

    

However, you have not replied to my other question concerning whether a House bill with a number indicates that it is a House- passed bill or just a proposal. If the latter, why are we cluttering up the House agenda and the public mind with such trash?

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Randy Neugebauer

Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:12 PM
To: 'Arthur Sucsy'
Subject: RE: HR 4646 and 1125 - 1% Financial Fees

As you know, I can’t respond to most of your emails but I wanted to make sure we got back to you on this one. We get so many people writing in about it but it isn’t going anywhere.

Thank you for writing me and expressing your concerns about the Debt Free America Act. Your input is appreciated, and it is an honor to represent you in Congress. 

As you may know, H.R. 4646, or the Debt Free America Act, was introduced during the 111^th Congress in Congress by Representative Chaka Fattah. This act would impose a transaction fee of 1% on the entire amount of specified intermediate and final transactions. Revenue raised from this fee would be sufficient to eliminate the national debt during a 10-year period and phase out the income tax on individuals. According to the bill, the term specified transaction means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. The fees would be collected by the seller or financial institution servicing the transaction and would be paid to the U.S. Treasury. The bill would also establish a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, which would identify factors affecting the long-term fiscal imbalance, analyze potential courses of action, and provide recommendations and legislative language to improve the long-term fiscal imbalance.

H.R. 4646 had no cosponsors, and was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means where it never received a hearing, even during a Democrat-controlled Congress. Representative Chaka Fattah reintroduced the Debt Free America Act in the 112^th Congress as H.R. 1125 on March 16, 2011. Again, this legislation does not have any cosponsors and no hearings have been held. With the current Republican majority in Congress, I do not foresee this bill being considered by the Ways and Means Committee. However, I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind should this legislation come before the full House of Representatives for a vote.

From: Arthur Sucsy [mailto:asucsy@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:07 AM
To: asucsy@suddenlink.net
Subject: HR 4646 and 1125 - 1% Financial Fees

Randy,
   

A businessman friend in Michigan called to my attention the existence of HR 4646, which is said to be a 1% fee on all financial transactions.
   

Independent further investigation shows that this bill was introduced by Rep. Fattah (PA) in 2010. It is said to be part of a line of similar bills, which Rep. Fattah introduced in prior years. The latest version is HR 1125 introduced in 2011.
    

The commonality of these later bills is a 1% fee on all financial transactions. However, it appears that while the financial institutions might be collecting 1% fees, the money actually would go to the government. We usually consider monies going to government as taxes rather than fees.
    

My first question to you is whether HR 1125 is a proposal or a bill which has been passed by the House? Secondly, if it is a proposal, what is the likelihood of passage in the House? Lastly, if it is a proposal without any general support from other House members, why does the House even allow its entrance, which existence confuses House Representatives and the general public?
    

Please comment on the above.

An Organization Gone Bad

10 or 20 years ago, I received my 50-year member pin from the American Chemical Society. Looking back over those years, I have been generally satisfied with my membership in the ACS. Even today, the ACS significantly contributes to the advancement of chemistry as a science and gives financial advice to its members, as it has done for these many years.
    

However, I notice a distinct change in the political ideology of the organization. Whereas, it was once seemingly oriented toward private enterprise, it has now become much more socialistically oriented, particularly involving so-called financial benefits from big government for ACS members.
    

The February 6 issue of Chemical and Engineering News has an article entitled, "ACS Revamps Policy Statements". An excerpt from that article is as follows:
   
    "In another move this year, ACS consolidated seven funding position statements released in 2010 into a single funding statement, says ACS Board Chair William F. Carroll Jr. With federal programs coming under intense pressure, ACS has moved away from drafting funding statements that set specific spending targets or spending growth rates for various agencies, he says. Those agencies, which promote science education, research, and development, are the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Education.
    “We all recognize that the funding-doubling track we were once on now seems obscure and not at all in sync with what is going on in the economy,” says Carroll, referring to previous congressional authorization to double the physical sciences budget in the same way that NIH’s budget had been doubled in the previous decade. “We’re now hoping for predictable, sustained funding in science and technology that leads to innovation. And we know that innovation leads to new jobs and better economic health in the U.S.,” he adds. “Given that the prior agency-specific funding statements were similar to one another in logic and justification, it makes sense to combine them to simplify and clarify our position.”

 

    

In the above quotations, note the mention of various agencies. There is no mention that these are US government agencies, with the implication that the agencies are so all-important no further specification is required. Notice also the use of the word "funding". The whole essence of these two paragraphs involve ACS is complicity in aiding members to obtain monetary grants from the federal government.
    

Many years ago, ACS was complicit in obtaining what was then called jobs for ACS members. The jobs always involved salaries, which in the traditional sense is payment for "work". The opportunity for jobs involved private industry, academic institutions, and government departments. In all cases, the implication was that through job fairs and other information about where jobs would be available, including "want ads" in C&E News, members could obtain adequate compensation for their work. It should be noted that employers had the opportunity of evaluating the work contributions of employees, and if the financial gain to the employing organization was insufficient, the employee could be fired.
    

With the new socialistic agenda involving big government, monetary compensation still exists through salaries, but a more significant "funding" source has developed for members. Federal government has now become so big with the handling of tremendous monetary assets that various government agencies have instituted grant programs to university professors and private industry. I personally find this regrettable, because this new type of funding is from taxpayers, who only have a very remote opportunity to control the amounts spent and the purposes for spending. Note the difference between this and an employer who can easily identify competence of a worker and take immediate action, if performance is found wanting. In other words, we have apparently gone from a complete system of efficiency in worker compensation to a partial modification where there is at best only partial control through a third-party bureaucrat. The bottom line is that since the general public has only a periodic four-year control over this system through voting, the general public, which is also the taxpayer and fund supplier, is being fleeced.
    

With the present situation and the position of the ACS as described in the above excerpt, I find this ACS complicity abhorrent, and the ACS policy should be changed to avoid promotion and complicity in federal grant programs. Since these programs exist, it is not possible to ignore them, but is also unnecessary to become a part of them.
    

I rewatched the TV program "Nuremberg Trials" the other evening. The essence of the program was whether four local judges were guilty of cooperating with the Nazi government and were in part responsible for the ultimate devastation of World War II. The judging international tribunal found the local judges guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment. It was also implicit that the total German citizenry also had a high degree of responsibility, even though it was not on trial.
    

The question here is, whether the ACS in its promotion and complicity with the socialistic principles of large government grants, which are likely to lead to the financial destruction of the US, will bear its responsibility in the event of such disaster.

1% Financial Fee - Continued

Randy,
    Thank you for your reply. I am pleased to hear that you believe Rep. Fattah's proposal will go nowhere.

    However, you have not replied to my other question concerning whether a House bill with a number indicates that it is a House- passed bill or just a proposal. If the latter, why are we cluttering up the House agenda and the public mind with such trash?

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: Rep. Randy neugebauer
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:12 PM
To: 'Arthur Sucsy'
Subject: RE: HR 4646 and 1125 - 1% Financial Fees

As you know, I can’t respond to most of your emails but I wanted to make sure we got back to you on this one. We get so many people writing in about it but it isn’t going anywhere.

Thank you for writing me and expressing your concerns about the Debt Free America Act. Your input is appreciated, and it is an honor to represent you in Congress. 

As you may know, H.R. 4646, or the Debt Free America Act, was introduced during the 111^th Congress in Congress by Representative Chaka Fattah. This act would impose a transaction fee of 1% on the entire amount of specified intermediate and final transactions. Revenue raised from this fee would be sufficient to eliminate the national debt during a 10-year period and phase out the income tax on individuals. According to the bill, the term specified transaction means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. The fees would be collected by the seller or financial institution servicing the transaction and would be paid to the U.S. Treasury. The bill would also establish a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, which would identify factors affecting the long-term fiscal imbalance, analyze potential courses of action, and provide recommendations and legislative language to improve the long-term fiscal imbalance.

H.R. 4646 had no cosponsors, and was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means where it never received a hearing, even during a Democrat-controlled Congress. Representative Chaka Fattah reintroduced the Debt Free America Act in the 112^th Congress as H.R. 1125 on March 16, 2011. Again, this legislation does not have any cosponsors and no hearings have been held. With the current Republican majority in Congress, I do not foresee this bill being considered by the Ways and Means Committee. However, I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind should this legislation come before the full House of Representatives for a vote.

From: Arthur Sucsy [mailto:asucsy@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:07 AM
To: asucsy@suddenlink.net
Subject: HR 4646 and 1125 - 1% Financial Fees

Randy,
    A businessman friend in Michigan called to my attention the existence of HR 4646, which is said to be a 1% fee on all financial transactions.
    Independent further investigation shows that this bill was introduced by Rep. Fattah (PA) in 2010. It is said to be part of a line of similar bills, which Rep. Fattah introduced in prior years. The latest version is HR 1125 introduced in 2011.
    The commonality of these later bills is a 1% fee on all financial transactions. However, it appears that while the financial institutions might be collecting 1% fees, the money actually would go to the government. We usually consider monies going to government as taxes rather than fees.
    My first question to you is whether HR 1125 is a proposal or a bill which has been passed by the House? Secondly, if it is a proposal, what is the likelihood of passage in the House? Lastly, if it is a proposal without any general support from other House members, why does the House even allow its entrance, which existence confuses House Representatives and the general public?
    Please comment on the above.

1% Financial Fees

Open E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,
    

A businessman friend in Michigan called to my attention the existence of HR 4646, which is said to be a 1% fee on all financial transactions.
    

Independent further investigation shows that this bill was introduced by Rep. Fattah (PA) in 2010. It is said to be part of a line of similar bills, which Rep. Fattah introduced in prior years. The latest version is HR 1125 introduced in 2011.
    

he commonality of these later bills is a 1% fee on all financial transactions. However, it appears that while the financial institutions might be collecting 1% fees, the money actually would go to the government. We usually consider monies going to government as taxes rather than fees.
    

My first question to you is whether HR 1125 is a proposal or a bill which has been passed by the House? Secondly, if it is a proposal, what is the likelihood of passage in the House? Lastly, if it is a proposal without any general support from other House members, why does the House even allow its entrance, which existence confuses House Representatives and the general public?
    

Please comment on the above.

Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net

Excess Electric Car Batteries and a Shortage of Electricity

   
We have another gross error by the Obama Administration in the form of electric automobile batteries.
    
For some unspecified reason, the Obama Administration has been promoting electric automobiles. This has been demonstrated through various actions. The first of these was a government bailout of General Motors, which put the Obama Administration In the position of specifying products which General Motors would offer. We now see regular TV advertisements by General Motors for the Chevrolet Volt, which is an electric car.
    
With promotion of an electric car, the Obama group did foresee that it would be necessary to have electric batteries to power the vehicles. They then established a system of loan guarantees and grants for production of electric vehicle batteries. C&E News covers this in its February 6 issue in an article entitled, "Battery Boom". The article indicates that the Department of Energy made major grants to battery producers using taxpayer funds allocated by the Congress, in the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009. A few of the companies which jumped into production were indicated as A123 Systems, Dow Kokam, and Eneri. Eneri recently filed for bankruptcy. The other two have been producing batteries at a rate grossly exceeding market needs. The article does not indicate the rate of inventory accumulation, but the implication is that it is substantial.
    
The basic problem is that typical of most government operations, government does things in access. In contrast, private investment companies are regularly more astute in determining market needs. A foreign example of this is the time of the Soviet Union, which routinely did things in excess, leading to tremendous wastes in some areas and shortages of materials in other areas.
    
The market has clearly indicated a lack of interest in electric automobiles. We can guess that the primary motivation for continued use of gasoline and diesel powered vehicles is the feeling of power that the driver gets with his vehicle. The low power of electric vehicles does not satisfy that emotional need. The low power or high thrust capability of electric vehicles could theoretically change, but there is no such technology change on the horizon. The average driver does not care whether his vehicle has carbon dioxide emission. He wants power and will pay to get it.
    
California has been an example of the similar desires of the Obama Administration on promotion of electric vehicles. It has mandated a certain percentage on the road in future years. However, I personally believe that the feelings of the average drivers are so strong that these California regulations and any subsequent similar federal regulations will lead to strong driver objection in some form of revolt.
    
It is also interesting to note that electric vehicles require a source of electricity to charge the batteries. Approximately 50% of electricity production is from coal burning power plants. The EPA has for several years had a program to inhibit electricity production by coal burning power plants. They've done this by restrictions on emissions. The largest one, which they have been pressing, is controlling carbon dioxide. Fortunately, this has not yet come to pass, but there is always a possibility that it could be pushed through. In that case, what would be the consistency of promoting electric cars which use electricity and simultaneously reducing electricity generation?

Government Spending and "Free" Abortions

Open E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

 Randy, I have read your latest newsletter.

    

You say that in Pres. Obama proposing to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years, "Clearly, President Obama still does not understand that continuing to spend money we don’t have jeopardizes America’s chances of a stable and secure future".
    

Neither of us can read the man's mind, but I have long suspected and continue to suspect that Pres. Obama does not want a "stable and secure future". I believe what he wants is dictatorial leadership in a huge government oriented along national socialistic lines. In effect, National Socialism, or in the German translation, a Nazi government. As said previously, I do not know his intention, but all actions and statements to date have been consistent with such development.
    

You are the American Reichstag. You can put a stop to it now or wait until it's too late. Notice that I'm not talking only about the spending program, but rather about the whole reestablishment of government.   

    

Providing taxpayer paid "free" contraception, sterilization, and abortions to the public is only another manifestation of the movement to a Nazi government. It is an apparent attempt to gain women's votes for reelection. The gamble is that there are more women who will vote for this program than there are Catholics and other religious group members who will oppose it. With the uproar of religious organizations, it may be that the President has miscalculated and his "accommodation"  of passing cost away from the religious groups and onto insurance companies is a secondhand attempt at maintaining his program by means of a deceptive maneuver. Fortunately, the religious groups are able to see through this, knowing that while their direct costs are reduced through general insurance premium increases for the public, they will at least be paying something for a program which is contrary to their moral religious codes. Nice try with your sponsorship of H.R. 1179, the Respect the Rights of Conscience Act, but you and I know it is a futile operation. It will go down to defeat in the Senate, and in any event, would eventually be vetoed by the President. You will have to do better than just tactical maneuvers that mean nothing. Consider impeaching the President for his programs and ignoring the Constitution and in particular the Bill Of Rights. Alternatively, take him through the federal courts.

    

I see no point in your arguing with Mr. Richard Cordray, who was recently appointed director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by President Obama, concerning access to $548 million from the Federal Reserve’s budget. If I understand this correctly, the CFPB was established by Pres. Obama without Congressional approval. Therefore, Congress should declare it an outlaw organization and take the case to the federal courts for its elimination.

Pres. Obama's State of the Union Address

It has been a while since Pres. Obama gave his "State of the Union" speech to Congress and the general public. I have been silent on the subject, because I really did not know what to say. The fact is that I am a sucker for great rhetoric in a speech. Pres. Obama had such wonderful rhetoric that it left me speechless.

Fortunately, others have better ability to keep their eye on the ball and listen to what he really said. It is also fortunate that Chemical and Engineering News Reporters have this ability, and I have access to their writings through the weekly magazine editions. The track record shows that C&E News reporters generally slant their articles in a socialistic manner consistent with the ideology of Rudy Baum, the Editor-In-Chief. However, I have never found the stated facts to be incorrect.

In the January 30 edition of C&E News, the major "News of the Week" was Pres. Obama's speech, as reported by Jeff Johnson and Glenn Hess. The subtitle of the C&E News article was "A Focus on Manufacturing".

"Creating US manufacturing jobs is the goal of an array of federal initiatives Pres. Barack Obama laid out on January 24 in the annual State of the Union address". The President has apparently finally seized on the idea that employment can be stimulated by increased investment in manufacturing. To that end, he plans to penalize corporations for moving jobs overseas and grant credits for keeping them in the US. Other tax credits are planned for renewable energy manufacturing, educational support, worker training, and government research. This is at least a partial about-face from Pres. Obama's previous position, which was fundamentally antibusiness, including manufacturing, other than dumping some billions of dollars into General Motors and renewable energy. Notice also that he retains the aspect of big government control through tax incentives and penalties, and he has not given up the idea of promoting renewable energy and continuing nebulous government basic research. However, the apparent improved recognition of unemployment and the intended action to create jobs was well received by the general public, which in the last week has shown, through polls, a generally improved acceptance of his job performance.

The President has also done an about face on domestic oil and gas production. For at least the past year, he has withheld drilling permits. He now says he will open more federal territory to offshore oil and gas exploration. Calvin Dooley, head of the American Chemistry Council says, "it's a game-changer for the chemical industry and other manufacturers, who can use more affordable and stable supplies to expand exports and create jobs". The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates had a contrary opinion, saying the administration's regulatory, tax, and trade policies will make it difficult to renew US manufacturing capability. Even looking at it from the most favorable aspect, the question is whether the President will follow through. He doesn't have a good record of actually doing what he says he will do. Also, does "exploration" mean just that or will there be follow up with actual production? One worry for me is his stated concern about the ecological dangers of gas production through the fracking process. The fact is that fracking has been found to be ecologically viable, because it is used at depths well below the locale of aquifers. Is he hedging on the frackng topic, with intention of using it as an excuse to counteract his stated good intentions?

One sad aspect is the President's continued intention to push renewable energy. Fox News recently pointed out that our present use of renewable energy is 3% of the total, in spite of the fact that we have spent many billions of taxpayer dollars on renewable energy development. I liken this to an analogy where fishing fleets are able to bring in many tons of mackerel to feed the populace, but the government will allow only fishing for barracuda, which constitute a very small segment of fish availability.

The last sad aspect is Pres. Obama's urging that Congress continue federal funding for basic research in US laboratories and universities. In this connection, he is using a play on words with the implication that all basic research is meritorious and that there is international competition in this respect. The fact is that through the grant system involving federal agencies and particularly the National Science Foundation, the taxpayers have dispersed billions of dollars to ridiculous pet projects of university professors. This must stop. Any significant basic research needs will be recognized by private industry, which also without government restriction has the ability to perform the necessary tasks of obtaining information for practical development into usable products and systems.

Once again, there was apparent good news in the President's speech, but will it be realistic and implementation? How many new drilling permits have been issued in the past week?