You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Economy’ category.
It appears inevitable that Mitt Romney is going to get the Republican nomination for President. Identified as the “prohibitive favorite,” Romney is the GOP candidate with the majority of delegates, the majority of the popular vote, a superior organization, “financial firepower”, and he is developing the reputation as the “most electable Republican” in the field. Of the four GOP candidates, Romney was the least offensive to many of us, as he wasn’t advocating colonization of the moon,
he didn’t have a google problem
and he wasn’t in favor of legalization of all drugs.
Because he is a Republican I assumed he was a “fiscal conservative,” and given the debt facing our country, that wasn’t a bad thing. I was wrong! The first clue was Romney’s praise for the George Bush economic disaster that President Obama inherited. Remember when Bush admitted that our “entire economy was in danger” on September 24,2008.
On that same day, John McCain declared that there was such an urgent financial crisis facing the country that he was suspending his campaign.
Again, on January 18, 2008 George Bush addressed the country, before the inauguration of Barack Obama, to announce that the risk of recession was eminent, and his solution was to cut taxes and refund money to the American people.
Even though it was George Bush’s administration that started the bank bailout program, known as the “Troubled Asset Relief Program” (TARP), almost half of voters in America, attribute TARP to the Obama Administration. It seems Mitt Romney is banking on the fact that Americans have forgotten just how bad the economy became under the Bush Administration.
Mitt Romney has credited George Bush with “keeping us out of a full scale depression.” It was Romney’s praise for the economic policies of George Bush that caused me to focus on details of Romney’s economic plan, hoping that he wouldn’t be the disaster that George Bush was. Many articles have documented the catastrophe that George Bush was for the U.S. economy.
Time magazine featured an article in January 19, 2009, looking back on the Bush administration’s disastrous economic policies. They were identified in the following categories:
Bush’s Budget Blunders
The Return to Deficits
Tax Cuts for the Rich
Financial Regulation
Telling Us to Go Shopping
Energy Policy
So given the total disaster of the Bush administration for the U.S. economy, how could Romney praise the Bush policies, and what would Romney do to improve our current crisis?
The answer is that Mitt Romney’s approach is to lower income for the U.S. by reducing taxes, and at the same time spend more money. “That can’t be right” you say? Here is what Romney has said:
1. ENTITLEMENTS
While in New Hampshire Romney railed against “President Obama’s entitlement society” but in Florida Romney declared that “we will never go after Medicare and Social Security.” To ease the concerns of retirees and those near retirement, he has said no benefit changes will apply to those over 55 and that Medicare’s market shakeup will wait until 2022. By 2022, most of the retirees will be dead, and Romney wouldn’t be President, even if he won two terms. Thus his plan is to attract all senior-citizen voters, and postpone, yet again, the painful reality of the deficit.
2. TAXES
Originally Romney said he would “maintain current tax rates on personal income.” However he has changed that plan too, announcing that he NOW favors cutting the marginal tax rates for individuals by 20%. The people in the top bracket would have their taxes reduced from 35% to 28%. This new plan has been described as a “substantial cut and quite the switch.”
3. MILITARY SPENDING
Over 50% of our current budget is devoted to military spending and service of debt on past military spending. Instead of reducing military spending, Romney is in favor of more spending. He is in favor of building more new ships, more aircraft, and growing military personel by aroung 100,000 troops.
Contrast Romney’s economic proposals of reduction in taxes, and increase in military spending, and maintaining entitlement spending, to Obama’s plan. Obama has proposed tax increases on the affluent, cuts in military spending, and prioritization on education, public works, research and clean energy.
Romney’s economic plan is clearly designed to help him win the 2012 election, but to increase the deficit. Because we have failed to enact term limits, there is no incentive for a candidate to make the difficult decisions to work toward a balanced budget. President Obama is facing his last term in office, so he is more likely to address the deficit problem in the country. Romney by contrast wants two terms in office, so his incentive is to say what people want to hear. By promising the impossible Romney characterizes himself as the “fiscal conservative.” He favors cuts during someone else’s term, in 2022, and supports spending more now, while reducing taxes. If Mitt Romney should be elected we would experience a financial tsunami, from which we could never recover. We are on the precipice of a financial disaster in America. We can’t afford to elect a politician who isn’t willing to be accountable for the economic crisis until 2022. Run away from any politician who advocates postponing making difficult choices until 2022. By 2022 the Red Cross would likely be broke too!
This is a very informative article regarding the truth about jobs in Texas.
One of the most famous quotes in modern American politics came from Bill Clinton when discussing the upcoming presidential race. “It’s the economy, stupid” were the few, simple words that so clearly summed up what American politics at that time was all about. Bill Clinton left office in 2001 .
It’s STILL the economy stupid! The focus of the country, and every politician, is necessarily the economy. It seems people have forgotten that when the last Democrat left office there was a budget surplus. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans had not been instituted, and the economy was thriving. Somehow the “job creators” were creating jobs even without tax cuts. After the Bush tax cuts, we have higher unemployment, and escalating debt.
Every Republican Candidate in my lifetime has advertised themselves as a “fiscal conservative.” At a time when the nation debt is threatening our ability to survive, being a “fiscal conservative” sounds pretty good. Unfortunately being a “fiscal conservative” seems to mean whatever politicians want it to be. President Obama was unable to negotiate with the Republican majority in Congress, those “fiscal conservatives,” who insisted on renewing the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts cost the United States $2.8 trillion, with the Bush years costing roughly $1.5 trillion, and now $1.3 trillion is attributed to the Obama presidency. Total income for the country was reduced during the Bush years by $2.74 trillion. The Bush tax cuts benefited 1 out of 1,000 tax payers who were part of the top tenth of 1 percent of Americans.
Mike Lefgren, a RETIRED Republican Staffer explained it this way”
“My party talks a good game, railing about the immorality of passing debt on to our children. But the same Congressional Budget Office that punctured Obama’s budget also concluded that the major policies that swung the budget from a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion in 2001 to the present 10-year deficit of $6.2 trillion were Republican in origin.
The Bush tax cuts have added another $3 trillion in red ink. While Republican leaders wail that Americans — particularly their rich contributors — are overtaxed, the facts say otherwise: U.S. taxpayers, particularly the wealthiest, pay far less in taxes than they would in most other developed countries.Today, the 400 wealthiest Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 125 million. The GOP insists that those wealthy people use their money to create jobs, and that taxing them more heavily would ultimately hurt the economy. But, if that’s so, why was the rate of job creation in the decade after the Bush tax cuts the poorest in any decade since before World War II?
Like a drunk swearing off hooch for the hundredth time, Republicans are now trying to show they are serious about controlling the deficit…”
Given the importance of economic issues in the 2012 election, consider these facts:
NET WORTH
Mitt Romney - $85-264 million.
Herman Cain - $18 million
Sarah Palin – $14 Million
Michele Bachmann - $1.05 million.
Rick Perry - $1 million
SOURCE OF WEALTH
Mitt Romney inherited his wealth.
Herman Cain earned his fortune through various entrepreneurial undertakings, including Godfather’s Pizza.
Sarah Palin earned her wealth as a result of political notoriety and the resulting celebrity status. At the time she became a politician the money she earned was the highest income she had earned in her lifetime.
Michele Bachmann has earned her wealth from working for the IRS, being a US Representative, and from her ownership interest in a farm and clinic. The farm and clinic have each received payments from the government through farm subsidies and Medicaid payments. Thus all of Bachmann’s wealth is the result in whole, or in part, of governmental support.
Rick Perry has been employed by the government of the state of Texas since 1984. (any connection to the book is purely coincidental)
Obviously the critical criterion for determining whether someone is a true “fiscal conservative” is not the amount or the source of their wealth. Sam Walton died in 1992 and was at the time the world’second richest man. At the time of his death Wal-Mart had grown to over 2300 stores with annual revenues of $104.8 Billion per year. This wealth was created by a man who came from extremely modest beginnings and who did his part during the depression to help the family income by delivering newspapers and helping his mother run a small milk business she started with a few cows. Mr. Walton explained that :
“We learned how much hard work it took to get your hands on a dollar, and that when you did it was worth something.”
Sam Walton was known also for living very frugally, in spite of his wealth. Today, his son, Jim C. Walton, runs the company created by his father, so his wealth is the result of both inheritance and his entrepreneurial spirit. Jim Walton’s net worth has been estimated to be $16.4 Billion. In spite of wealth that most of us could never imagine, Jim drives a 15-year-old Dodge Dakota.
I wonder what Sam Walton would have to say about the spending of the Republican candidates to decorate the buses they are using for the Presidential campaigns.
Mitt Romney
Michele Bachmann
Rick Perry
Herman Cain
Sarah Palin
The bus that appears to be the least decorative, and the bus that appears to have cost the least to decorate, is the bus of Hermain Cain, the only candidate who is a true entrepreneur. Palin’s bus is the most extravagantly decorated, is estimated to have cost $35,000.00 just for the temporary decoration. This extravagant bus was rented in May of 2011, and she still appears to be using the same bus. Given the “Sarah Palin” name emblazoned on the bus, and the trademark infringement words of “One Nation,” it seems likely the rental company is charging Palin the rental fee for the bus as it sits unused in a parking lot for most of the last three months. The kind of bus or car a person drives tells a lot about just how fiscally conservative they really are. Moreover, because of the poor judgment of Palin and the trademark infringement claim, it is likely that this bus will cost her far in excess of the cost of rental and decoration.
Sarah Palin has been a frequent and loud opponent of raising taxes. When specifically asked about the consideration of raising taxes to address the national debt, she said it would be “idiotic to increase taxes at a time like this.”
When she first appeared on the national stage, she became a champion for not raising taxes. To this day she has taken the position that:
1. “Everybody benefits when government takes less from the people…that’s how jobs are created. And that’s how we’re going to grow our economy.” Fox News Interview on Sept 17th 2008.
2. Raising taxes will harm people.
3. As Mayor she reportedly cut property taxes and CUT sales taxes. However the truth is quite the opposite. As Mayor, she actually RAISED sales tax.
Thus, it was hypocritical to characterize herself as a fiscal conservative when she raised taxes and worked to obtain earmarks.
In April 2011, I wrote an extensive article on the ACES program initiated by Palin and demonstrated why the dramatic increase in taxes on oil companies in Alaska was actually causing oil companies to limit future production in the state, and reduce revenue for Alaska in the long term.
Sean Parnell actually proposed legislation to reverse Palin’s ACES program. The ACES program, while temporarily raising revenue for Alaska, was an extreme burden on oil companies, and the result was that oil companies began selecting other states in which to focus their new drilling efforts where the imposition of state taxes was substantially less. The point of the article at that time was to point out the hypocrisy of Palin taking credit for being an oil “expert.” She failed to appreciate that the taxes imposed on oil companies were so extreme that it had the effect of diverting future business and revenue from Alaska. Today the hypocrisy of Palin’s ACES program is even more offensive.
Now that the country has been downgraded by S&P to a AA+ credit rating, conservatives4palin has proclaimed Sarah Palin as the champion of economic success citing the AAA rating of Alaska. C4P gives Palin credit for the AAA rating due to revenue raised under the Palin administration as a result of the ACES program. However here is the bond rating of Alaska during the Palin administration, in 2008. Moreover, the long term effect of the ACES program, the decline in revenue for Alaska, and the inevitable decline in Alaska’s credit rating are not mentioned.
So, let’s review. Sarah Palin raised taxes as Mayor of Wasilla and as Governor of Alaska. As soon as she was tapped by McCain she became a vocal opponent of raising taxes. For the last two years, after the election of Barack Obama, she has continually criticized Barack Obama’s plea to allow the Bush Tax cuts to expire to help raise revenue and reduce the deficit. After Palin left office the ACES program, although it temporarily raised revenue for Alaska, caused a reduction in the willingness of Oil companies to continue production of oil in Alaska. Sean Parnell has had to work to reverse the ACES program, reducing taxes on Oil Companies, in an effort to bolster the Alaskan economy. Now because the ACES program temporarily increased revenue for Alaska, and Alaska has a AAA credit rating, proponents of Sarah Palin suggest that she should get credit for her economic brilliance.
The reason that Palin is able to take credit for the ACES program is because she resigned her job as Governor. If she were still Governor, she like Sean Parnell, would be faced with reduction in revenue coming into the state. Oil companies are relocating their new production efforts because they are unwilling to pay such high taxes. Because Sarah Palin is a celebrity and not a politician, she is able to take a firm stand against increasing taxes, and at the same time warn of the dangers of the ever increasing national deficit. Those positions are logically inconsistent, but consistently popular with uneducated fans.
Palin also advocated not raising the debt ceiling. If that had happened the AAA rating of the United States would have surely been downgraded. The debt ceiling was raised, and S&P nevertheless downgraded the credit rating of the United States. Now that the US credit rating has been downgraded, Palin attempts to suggest that she could have managed the economy better, even though failure to raise the debt ceiling would have surely resulted in a down grade.
Sarah Palin’s economic philosophy for the country of reducing spending and not increasing taxes is totally opposite to the best interest of Alaskans. Scott Goldsmith, a Professor of Economics, explained in July 2008, that Alaska’s Economy was extremely vulnerable to reduced Federal spending. He explained that 1/3 of jobs in Alaska can be traced to federal spending. In the past decade the rapid increase in federal spending was responsible for much of the economic growth in Alaska. Federal spending in Alaska more than doubled between 1995 and 2005, and in 2006 it was $9.25 billion. Mr. Goldsmith estimated that federal spending cuts could cost Alaska 7,000 to 20,000 jobs.
The unmistakable conclusion is that Sarah Palin will say and do whatever she perceives will be to her advantage at the moment, with no concern for the long term effects on her state, or her country. The difference between politicians and celebrities is that politicians may be held accountable for the problems they create, and celebrities simply increase their personal wealth by saying and doing outrageous things.
Friday, after the markets closed, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit rating of the United States from AAA to AA+. This is the very first time in American History that this has happened. Until Friday the United States has always enjoyed the highest possible credit rating of AAA. While the specific consequences of this poor rating are unknown, we are sure that they will be dramatic and long lasting. Just a few of the likely impacts of this change include increase in interest rates, the country will incur additional debt simply because of higher interest rates in the form of roughly $75 Billion Dollars per year. It is also predicted that the decline in credit rating will cause fewer jobs to be created because business can not afford the higher rates associated with the creation of new businesses, or the expansion of the old.
Even with the agreement to raise the debt ceiling, S&P said the U.S.’s debt may rise to 74 percent of gross domestic product by year-end, to 79 percent in 2015 and 85 percent by 2021. S&P also changed its assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush would expire by the end of 2012 “because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues.”
This downgrade was no surprise. Regardless of political party, everyone knew that this result was likely. Standard & Poor gave the United States a warning saying that it was growing “more pessimistic about U.S. debt because of the bitter political fight over raising the debt ceiling. The political brinksmanship of recent months,” the company said, “highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed.”
The agency pointed to political reluctance to make cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, and Republicans’ refusal even to consider increasing revenues by, for instance, ending the Bush tax cuts.
With no background in politics and no education in economics, a couple of things were obvious to me and to every American, as early as May of 2010.
1. The national debt is unsustainable. America can’t continue on this path indefinitely.
2. Solving the National Debt will require an “all-of-the-above approach.” We must raise taxes and reduce spending.
3. Raising the debt ceiling was not about raising the debt, but about paying the debts we had already incurred.
Republicans, Democrats, and Tea Baggers have failed the American people. Instead of dealing with immediate economic crisis, each is dealing with a potential re-election crisis. To make matters worse, as the stock market declines and the credit rating for our country is lowered, politicians continue to blame each other, instead of attempting to find common ground. Standard and Poor’s explained the problem, just in case there was any question:
“The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed.”
Both Palin and Bachmann were in favor of NOT raising the debt ceiling. Now that the United States is not going to default, both Palin and Bachmann have taken an even more polarizing stand than before. Instead of working to solve the problem they are making the problem worse. Instead of attempting to encourage a compromise, they are doing everything in their power to antagonize all who would disagree with them.
The national debt is not new. Raising the debt ceiling is not new. The only really new event is the political unrest in the country. Whatever your political party; whatever your ideas about the debt, surely you believe that it will only be solved through compromise between all parties. Palin and Bachmann make that less likely every time they open their mouths. They aren’t looking for solutions, but for victory in November of 2012.
Republicans and Democrats agree on virtually nothing. They do agree that if the debt limit for the U.S. is not raised, we would be inviting economic catastrophe. People on both sides of the aisle have always recognized that default on the national debt would be devastating to the United States, and to the global economy. Since early June it has been documented that even approaching the deadline without a resolution would have an impact on global markets, even if a resolution was ultimately achieved. We have seen proof that the markets have already been affected by the delay in reaching a resolution of raising the debt ceiling. What markets once thought financially unimaginable has now become politically possible. Because the unimaginable is now imaginable, the U.S. economy may never be perceived as secure or as stable as it once was.
Most polls contemplate a Republican and Democratic candidate. Thus candidates like Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin are often lumped together. However the fundamental assumption of these polls is that there will only be two parties involved in the 2012 election. Consider the possibility that Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin might run as Tea Party Candidates. Bachmann is chair of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus. Sarah Palin has been called the “darling” of the Tea Party.. In February of 2010 Palin was invited to give the keynote address to the Tea Party Conference. During that speech she referred to the Tea Party as a “” ”beautiful movement.” Just this week it has been announced that Palin will give the keynote address on Sept 3rd at the Tea Party rally in Iowa.
Unlike the Republicans and Democrats, Bachmann and Palin have been outspoken critics of raising the debt ceiling. Bachmann said: “ I am committed to not raising the debt ceiling.” Palin has also said that she doesn’t want the debt ceiling raised. While it seems inevitable that the debt ceiling will ultimately be raised, it will be in spite of Bachmann and Palin. It seems predictable that anything negative that happens in the economy will be cited by Bachmann and Palin as a reason we should elect them. While neither can claim responsibility for authorship of any bill or proposal to deal with the debt, it is likely that they will blame politicians on both sides of the aisle for the problems in the economic status of the U.S. Palin has long been recognized as not doing things conventionally. I predict she will engage in an “unconventional” campaign as a representative of the Tea Party
President Obama explains in a short time in easily understandable language why the country MUST enlarge the debt ceiling. Contact you Congressmen and women now, especially if they are Republicans.
”You can’t underestimate the power of fear.” Tricia Nixon. Scott Adams said, “You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.” Sarah Palin is betting on both. She is inspiring fear. She is doing all she can to take advantage of the lack of understanding of the general public about what the debt ceiling is. She is hoping that people will confuse raising the debt ceiling with raising the national debt. Is there any dispute that the United States should continue to be responsible to pay the debt the United States HAS ALREADY INCURRED?!
Sarah Palin is accusing President Obama of trying to “scare” the American people regarding the failure to raise the debt ceiling. Three days ago I highlighted the Twitter comment of Palin which was her attempt to create the impression that Republicans should refuse to compromise, even if it caused a default by the United States on payments of our existing debts. The American people should be scared of NOT raising the debt ceiling. Failure to raise the debt ceiling would ensure default. Nothing would guarantee economic failure faster than default on our existing debts. Palin’s comments are clearly designed to promote an economic disaster for the country. The current national debt is “unsustainable” . By saying that it is “unsustainable” it means that if we continue to go further and further in debt we will eventually be unable to pay our debts and the United States will default. Default on our existing debt by not raising the debt ceiling would simply result in financial disaster sooner than later for the United States. It’s as if Sarah Palin wants an economic disaster so she can blame Obama for the failure. She is not the Governor, a Senator, or a Representative in the House. She is not even the Mayor of Wasilla. She is not accountable for anything she says. While President Obama is doing everything in his power to avoid the disaster of not raising the debt ceiling, Sarah Palin is attempting to make that happen. If it should happen, and disaster in the economic state of the country should result, Palin would be the first to blame Obama. Regardless of your political philosophy or your attitudes regarding the economy, everyone, except Sarah Palin, agrees that defaulting on our debt which we already owe would throw the country into a crisis, the likes of which we have not seen in our lifetime. If it should happen, it is doubtful that we will live long enough to witness a complete recovery. Either Sarah Palin is ignorant and doesn’t understand the consequences of our failure to raise the debt ceiling, or she is so narcissistic that she is willing to do permanent harm to the entire country by doing what she perceives to be in her own self interest. Either way she is intolerable.
Recent Comments