Congratulations to Cheryl Hogue and Jeff Johnson of C&E News for their honest reporting on House Federal Funding Slashes in the February 28 issue. A grudging congratulation also to Rudy Baum for allowing Hogue and Johnson to do some honest reporting.
Rudy and I are opinionists. We choose our data and put our personal slants on it to support the political points we desire based on our ideologies. Rudy is a socialist/communist. I am the reverse, whatever term you want to apply.
On the various items covered by Hogue and Johnson in their article, I now make the following personal comments.
Total Spending Cuts - The House wants $61 billion in budget cuts. The Senate is opposed. It's a push and shove contest with the possibility of some temporary compromise. I say temporary, because I think the handwriting is on the wall from the midterm elections that both the House and Senate and new President will be favorable to budget cuts in the next administration. In other words, I think there is hope for a return of government programs at least partial sanity.
The Department of Energy - The House wants to cut $3 billion. This is a step in the right direction but with the wrong momentum. The budget is $13 billion. The DOE has been spending tremendous amounts of money for many years with no practical improvement of our energy supplies. In fact they have been instrumental in reducing energy supply through a program to eliminate oil and gas from the economy. Let's pound the DOE into insignificance.
Office of Science - The House wants to cut $900 million from a $4 billion budget. I don't know what the Office of Science does and they likely don't know either. I suggest we eliminate the Office.
Renewable Energy - I don't know what departments this falls under, but the House wants to cut $800 million from a $1.5 billion budget and eliminate loan guarantees for solar and wind power developments. Good suggestions, but they don't go far enough. Wipe out the whole $1.5 billion budget. We have sufficient oil and gas to supply all of our energy needs for an indeterminate number of years with the possibility of falling back on an indeterminate number of years for coal, which can be used to make syngas. There is a minor place for solar and wind energy, but it can be developed by private industry without government taxpayer support. Oil is presently in short supply, but that is only the result of government restrictions. That can be changed quickly.
EPA - The House wants to cut $3 billion out of a $10.3 billion budget and restrict EPA regulation of carbon dioxide and five other of what they call greenhouse gases. This is a great move to curtail projected expenditures for carbon dioxide control, which has no basis of involvement in climate change. Carbon dioxide and it's associated Cap & Trade have only been used in a political sense as an effort to increase tax revenues and redistribute wealth worldwide. We need the EPA, but we also need them to be an organization concerned with science and the financial aspects of pollution control. It may be that the five other greenhouse gases should eventually be controlled, but there should be scientific data to justify such action.
Other Climate Change - The House wants to eliminate financial support for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That organization is a boondoggle. There will continue to be climate change. We have it every day and every year, but until we have data which supports any supposition that the basis is anthropogenic, we don't need to study efforts to control it. Starve the Intergovernmental Panel.
Ethanol in Gasoline - The concentration of ethanol in gasoline was previously capped at 10%. The EPA later raised to 15%. The House bill cuts it back to 10%. A good move but this doesn't get at the basis of the problem. Ethanol is more expensive to produce than gasoline. The only reason for the dilution is subsidies to ethanol producers, which makes the apparent cost of ethanol less than that of gasoline. Cut off the subsidies for ethanol and the uneconomical dilution will die on the vine.
Research Agencies - The House wants to cut $300 million from the total budgets of the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The National Institute of Standards & Technologies would receive a cut of $70 million. The establishment of a National Climate Service would be killed. The budget for the NSF is $6 billion. I don't know what the budgets are for the National Institutes of Health and the Institute of Standards and Technologies, but they are likely of the same order of magnitude as that for the NSF. All three of these agencies should obtain zero budgeting, which means they should define every project that they plan to work on, with the objectives, amounts of money necessary to conduct the research, and estimates of the probability for success. I am very familiar with industrial research and know full well the opportunity of pouring money down a rat hole to pursue projects that have little or no significant value.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Use of a Trade Magazine As a Political Forum
Chemical & Engineering News is a trade magazine for the chemical industry and academics. The Editor in Chief is Rudy Baum, who is a confirmed socialist. He periodically writes editorials which mostly are politically oriented. I have suggested previously that in view of the magazines purpose, he should be confining himself to matters of chemistry. If he wants to discuss politics, he should run for some political office or become a columnist for some socialistic rag.
In the February 28 issue of C&E News, Rudy writes about the present political controversy concerning the federal budget. In his last paragraph he says, "The current budget debate, you see, isn't really about the budget at all. It's about using the power of the purse to accomplish ideological goals that are unpalatable to most Americans in and of themselves". I usually disagree with most of what Rudy says, but in this case, I agree at least in part with his last statement. Conversely to what he says, the budget debate IS about the budget. The motivation for the debate is about the power of the purse to accomplish ideological goals. I don't understand what he means about the ideological goals being unpalatable to most Americans in and of themselves.
Socialists, also known as Democrats, believe in big government with power to confiscate the assets of private individuals, in order to establish programs which the leaders will supervise to their own advantage. Rudy touches on this by discussing taxes. He says the taxes do three things. Taxes remove money from our pockets, money that we would like to keep possession of, to save, invest, or spend on goods and services of our own choice. He calls that a negative impact of tax. He says a positive impact of taxes is paying for services and institutions, such as defense forces and infrastructure like highway bridges. I can agree with the need for taxes, since it is difficult and sometimes impractical for individuals or private industry to do an effective job in establishing and maintaining military forces for defense and establishing major projects such as a national highway system.
Rudy says the third thing that taxes do is influence behavior. He calls this a good thing, and uses an example of a 29% increase in the budget for Food and Drug Administration "to improve food safety, develop technology for responding to emergency diseases and develop an approval pathway for genetic versions of biologic drugs". I don't see that any of this has a significant relationship to influencing behavior. The practical aspects of higher taxes are to discourage investment in productive enterprises benefiting the public and reduce the incentive for job creation.
Just where Rudy has obtained the background for his socialistic leanings is unknown to me. It is probably not the same as that of President Obama, whose early cultural training was in Indonesia and Hawaii before it became a US state. Whatever the source of Rudy's beliefs, I believe he has a right to hold them. My only objection is that he does not have the right to use a trade journal as a forum for political persuasion.
In the February 28 issue of C&E News, Rudy writes about the present political controversy concerning the federal budget. In his last paragraph he says, "The current budget debate, you see, isn't really about the budget at all. It's about using the power of the purse to accomplish ideological goals that are unpalatable to most Americans in and of themselves". I usually disagree with most of what Rudy says, but in this case, I agree at least in part with his last statement. Conversely to what he says, the budget debate IS about the budget. The motivation for the debate is about the power of the purse to accomplish ideological goals. I don't understand what he means about the ideological goals being unpalatable to most Americans in and of themselves.
Socialists, also known as Democrats, believe in big government with power to confiscate the assets of private individuals, in order to establish programs which the leaders will supervise to their own advantage. Rudy touches on this by discussing taxes. He says the taxes do three things. Taxes remove money from our pockets, money that we would like to keep possession of, to save, invest, or spend on goods and services of our own choice. He calls that a negative impact of tax. He says a positive impact of taxes is paying for services and institutions, such as defense forces and infrastructure like highway bridges. I can agree with the need for taxes, since it is difficult and sometimes impractical for individuals or private industry to do an effective job in establishing and maintaining military forces for defense and establishing major projects such as a national highway system.
Rudy says the third thing that taxes do is influence behavior. He calls this a good thing, and uses an example of a 29% increase in the budget for Food and Drug Administration "to improve food safety, develop technology for responding to emergency diseases and develop an approval pathway for genetic versions of biologic drugs". I don't see that any of this has a significant relationship to influencing behavior. The practical aspects of higher taxes are to discourage investment in productive enterprises benefiting the public and reduce the incentive for job creation.
Just where Rudy has obtained the background for his socialistic leanings is unknown to me. It is probably not the same as that of President Obama, whose early cultural training was in Indonesia and Hawaii before it became a US state. Whatever the source of Rudy's beliefs, I believe he has a right to hold them. My only objection is that he does not have the right to use a trade journal as a forum for political persuasion.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Support the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya?
EIN News says, "Discord Grows in Washington Over a Potential Role in the Libya Conflict Nearly three weeks after Libya erupted in what may now turn into a protracted civil war, the politics of military intervention to speed the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi grow more complicated by the day รข€” for both the White House and Republicans. President Obama, appearing with Australia's prime minister, tried to raise the pressure on Colonel Qaddafi further by talking about "a range of potential options, including potential military options" against the embattled Libyan leader. (nytimes.com)".
I'm glad to see discord in Washington, because with such discord there is little likelihood of action, which is really the correct approach.
The basis of the apparent discord is not revealed, but presumably it is those who are for and those who are against military intervention.
For those who are favorable to military intervention, I ask, as I have before, do you really want to support a rebel organization which is likely to result in Libyan control by the Muslim brotherhood, whose doctrine is to either convert Christians to Islam or kill them.
I'm glad to see discord in Washington, because with such discord there is little likelihood of action, which is really the correct approach.
The basis of the apparent discord is not revealed, but presumably it is those who are for and those who are against military intervention.
For those who are favorable to military intervention, I ask, as I have before, do you really want to support a rebel organization which is likely to result in Libyan control by the Muslim brotherhood, whose doctrine is to either convert Christians to Islam or kill them.
NPR - A Leftist Organization
I recently wrote an article, entitled "When Is a Budget Not a Budget?". This was submitted to a group of what I call my Political Advisers and was also printed on my blog, with a reference from Twitter.
My daughter responded with a suggestion that perhaps I should make application to read the article on NPR, since NPR has a program fostering such readings. I responded as follows:
"Karen,
I'm sorry to report some bad news concerning National Public Radio (NPR). Neal Boortz reported it on his radio program this morning.
NPR CEO Schiller and an associate were set up for a luncheon meeting with two imposter Muslims. The imposter status of the "Muslims" had not been revealed to Schiller and associate. The subsequent conversation was also secretly recorded.
The "Muslims" explained that they represented the Muslim Brotherhood. They felt that since significant financial support exists for Israel propaganda, the Brotherhood would like to donate $5 million to NPR in order to establish some sort of balance.
Schiller responded that this would seem justified. Similar to the previous program to bring women's voices more into public radio, he felt that Muslim voices should have similar growth. He also revealed his personal political leanings by denigrating the Tea Party as a group of white supremacists. Conversely, he felt that the Liberals, such as himself, were more intelligent, and better educated to see the broader picture.
Unfortunately, I was interrupted by a phone call and was unable to learn whether Schiller accepted the $5 million offer.
CEOs and Boards of Directors make the policies of all organizations. In a continuing organization, there is uniformity of beliefs between the CEO and the Board.
NPR is a leftist organization. I will not work with them, will take every opportunity to denigrate their operations, and continue efforts to eliminate their existence."
My daughter responded with a suggestion that perhaps I should make application to read the article on NPR, since NPR has a program fostering such readings. I responded as follows:
"Karen,
I'm sorry to report some bad news concerning National Public Radio (NPR). Neal Boortz reported it on his radio program this morning.
NPR CEO Schiller and an associate were set up for a luncheon meeting with two imposter Muslims. The imposter status of the "Muslims" had not been revealed to Schiller and associate. The subsequent conversation was also secretly recorded.
The "Muslims" explained that they represented the Muslim Brotherhood. They felt that since significant financial support exists for Israel propaganda, the Brotherhood would like to donate $5 million to NPR in order to establish some sort of balance.
Schiller responded that this would seem justified. Similar to the previous program to bring women's voices more into public radio, he felt that Muslim voices should have similar growth. He also revealed his personal political leanings by denigrating the Tea Party as a group of white supremacists. Conversely, he felt that the Liberals, such as himself, were more intelligent, and better educated to see the broader picture.
Unfortunately, I was interrupted by a phone call and was unable to learn whether Schiller accepted the $5 million offer.
CEOs and Boards of Directors make the policies of all organizations. In a continuing organization, there is uniformity of beliefs between the CEO and the Board.
NPR is a leftist organization. I will not work with them, will take every opportunity to denigrate their operations, and continue efforts to eliminate their existence."
When is a Budget Not a Budget?
I was reading the article on the Federal Science Budget by Susan Morrisey in the February 21 issue of Chemical & Engineering News . I started to compare that with treatment of my own financial expenses.
When I have an expense, I write it as an amount for a purpose. For example, if I spend $200 on my electric bill, I list it as $200 for electricity. It is unstated, but I know and everybody else knows, that the electricity is used to run my refrigerator, lights, computers, etc.. In other words, there's nothing hidden in the financial entry. When I make a budget, I use the same procedure. The only difference is that the budget involves anticipated expenses, rather than current expenses.
I looked at the federal budget listing for R&D and concentrated on the following:
Energy $13 billion up 20%
National Science Foundation $6 billion up 18%
Commerce $2 billion up 29%
Education $0.5 billion up 35%
Maybe everyone else understand what that is all about, but I don't. I asked myself, "Why there are increases ranging from 18 to 35%". R&D stands for Research and Development. Perhaps everyone is satisfied with such specificity, but I am not. It would be the same as my putting in my budget an amount for "Projected Expense". I want to know what the additional expected federal expenses will be used for. What new projects are there? Am I just supposed to leave it to a bureaucrat's judgment concerning the necessity for the expense, without explanation, or do I have a right to have some information on what basis to make a judgment concerning legitimacy? A typical bureaucratic reply would be that it's too complicated for me to understand. But that's hogwash. If I couldn't understand it, neither could the bureaucrats.
Let's go on to the budgeted amounts. They range from $0.5 billion for Education to $13 billion for Energy. If I were to ask what those funds will be spent for, I would likely not get an explanation. If I did get an explanation, it would likely specify salaries, space rental or amortization, scientific equipment, legal fees, and a host of other individual expenses. But that would not be an answer to my question. My question is really why are we spending these sums of money at the federal level? What are the various projects? What are we trying to accomplish? Can it be done cheaper at the local levels?
I guess it all boils down to one simple question that can be applied to every individual expense and every project involving those expenses. Why?
Until the general public recognizes that the federal government, and governments at all levels should operate on the same financial basis as individuals and corporations, we, the public, will be victims of fraud and deception on the part of bureaucrats pursuing their personal unexplained objectives.
When I have an expense, I write it as an amount for a purpose. For example, if I spend $200 on my electric bill, I list it as $200 for electricity. It is unstated, but I know and everybody else knows, that the electricity is used to run my refrigerator, lights, computers, etc.. In other words, there's nothing hidden in the financial entry. When I make a budget, I use the same procedure. The only difference is that the budget involves anticipated expenses, rather than current expenses.
I looked at the federal budget listing for R&D and concentrated on the following:
Energy $13 billion up 20%
National Science Foundation $6 billion up 18%
Commerce $2 billion up 29%
Education $0.5 billion up 35%
Maybe everyone else understand what that is all about, but I don't. I asked myself, "Why there are increases ranging from 18 to 35%". R&D stands for Research and Development. Perhaps everyone is satisfied with such specificity, but I am not. It would be the same as my putting in my budget an amount for "Projected Expense". I want to know what the additional expected federal expenses will be used for. What new projects are there? Am I just supposed to leave it to a bureaucrat's judgment concerning the necessity for the expense, without explanation, or do I have a right to have some information on what basis to make a judgment concerning legitimacy? A typical bureaucratic reply would be that it's too complicated for me to understand. But that's hogwash. If I couldn't understand it, neither could the bureaucrats.
Let's go on to the budgeted amounts. They range from $0.5 billion for Education to $13 billion for Energy. If I were to ask what those funds will be spent for, I would likely not get an explanation. If I did get an explanation, it would likely specify salaries, space rental or amortization, scientific equipment, legal fees, and a host of other individual expenses. But that would not be an answer to my question. My question is really why are we spending these sums of money at the federal level? What are the various projects? What are we trying to accomplish? Can it be done cheaper at the local levels?
I guess it all boils down to one simple question that can be applied to every individual expense and every project involving those expenses. Why?
Until the general public recognizes that the federal government, and governments at all levels should operate on the same financial basis as individuals and corporations, we, the public, will be victims of fraud and deception on the part of bureaucrats pursuing their personal unexplained objectives.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Is the Obama Administration Planning to Work with Islam to Destroy US Culture?
EIN News says, "Obama Administration Prepares for Possibility of New Post-Revolt Islamist The Obama administration is preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region's politics. (washingtonpost.com)".
The Obama administration has consistently avoided considering that the Middle East uprisings likely will bring to power a new group of Islamic clerics, who will work to the disadvantage of the US. Let's also remember that a doctrine of Islam is to kill Christians if they cannot be converted to Islam.
President Obama has had foreign Islamic training in his early education, and because of that education in Hawaii and Indonesia, he appears to have no understanding or loyalty to traditional US culture. We must grudgingly congratulate the members of his administration for the fact that they are loyal to their boss, even though they are misguided and working against the interests of the US.
Notice that in the Obama administration's preparation for Islamist governments take-over in North Africa and the Middle East, it does not say what that preparation involves. Since the Administration has previously shown favoritism toward Islam, it may be that the current preparation is to develop procedures to more effectively work with Islam toward the destruction of traditional US culture.
The Obama administration has consistently avoided considering that the Middle East uprisings likely will bring to power a new group of Islamic clerics, who will work to the disadvantage of the US. Let's also remember that a doctrine of Islam is to kill Christians if they cannot be converted to Islam.
President Obama has had foreign Islamic training in his early education, and because of that education in Hawaii and Indonesia, he appears to have no understanding or loyalty to traditional US culture. We must grudgingly congratulate the members of his administration for the fact that they are loyal to their boss, even though they are misguided and working against the interests of the US.
Notice that in the Obama administration's preparation for Islamist governments take-over in North Africa and the Middle East, it does not say what that preparation involves. Since the Administration has previously shown favoritism toward Islam, it may be that the current preparation is to develop procedures to more effectively work with Islam toward the destruction of traditional US culture.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The US Should Stay Out Of the Libyan Conflict
The US should not become involved in the Libyan uprisings for the following reasons:
1. We do not know the ideology of the rebels. It is likely that they are Muslims, who may seize political control and become more of a US adversary than the Gaddafi administration.
2. We already have a poor record on nationbuilding.
3. We are already over-extended militarily with the pursuit of two ridiculous wars.
4. We cannot get our own financial house in order on present budget considerations and cannot consider additional military outlays.
5. We should not deceive ourselves into thinking that US establishment of a "no-fly zone" over Libya would be a low-cost help. In fact this would be a high-cost declaration of war.
6. We should not deceive ourselves into thinking that the poor people of Libya, need our humane help or our support to establish their freedom. Libya actually has good financial resources through petroleum sales and the likelihood is that the rebel leadership if successful will only be another form of autonomy.
1. We do not know the ideology of the rebels. It is likely that they are Muslims, who may seize political control and become more of a US adversary than the Gaddafi administration.
2. We already have a poor record on nationbuilding.
3. We are already over-extended militarily with the pursuit of two ridiculous wars.
4. We cannot get our own financial house in order on present budget considerations and cannot consider additional military outlays.
5. We should not deceive ourselves into thinking that US establishment of a "no-fly zone" over Libya would be a low-cost help. In fact this would be a high-cost declaration of war.
6. We should not deceive ourselves into thinking that the poor people of Libya, need our humane help or our support to establish their freedom. Libya actually has good financial resources through petroleum sales and the likelihood is that the rebel leadership if successful will only be another form of autonomy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
