PostBadge tag to show // FeedBurner FeedFlare. // ------------------------- // FeedBurner account and feed required. // Sign up at http://feedburner.com //================================================ class module_feedflare { function init(){ global $gregarious; $gregarious->add_settings ( array ( 'feedburner_url' => '' ) ); $gregarious->add_page ( 'FeedFlare', 'modules/feed-flare/icn_Flare.png', 'page_feedflare();', 'feedFlare' ); } function postbadge_tags(){ return array ( array ( 'tag' => '%FLARE%', 'replacewith' => 'feed_flare("",false)' ), ); } function update_info(){ return 100; } } //------------------------------------------ // TEMPlATE TAGS //------------------------------------------ function feed_flare($settings = '', $echo = true){ global $wp_query; $post = $wp_query->post; $sets = array('postID' => $post->ID, 'before' => '', 'after' => 'Gregarious FeedFlare', 'force' => 0 ); grab_sets($settings, $sets); if ( !$sets['force'] && hideOnID($sets['postID']) ){ return ''; } if( !$path = _get_feedburner_url() ) return ''; if( substr( $path, -1 ) == '/' ){ $path = substr( $path, 0, strlen( $path ) -1 ); } $path = str_replace ( 'feedburner.com/', 'feedburner.com/~s/', $path ); $path .= '?i='.get_permalink($sets['postID']); $result = $sets['before'] . "" . $sets['after']; if($echo) echo $result; else return $result; } function _get_feedburner_url(){ $feedurl = greg_get_option( 'feedburner_url' ); if ( $feedurl ){ return attribute_escape($feedurl); } else { $feedburner_settings = get_option('feedburner_settings'); if( is_array($feedburner_settings) && ($feedurl = $feedburner_settings['feedburner_url']) ) { return attribute_escape($feedurl); } else { return false; } } } //------------------------------------------ // OPTIONS PAGE //------------------------------------------ function page_feedflare(){ $feedurl = _get_feedburner_url(); ?> Tag Archive for ‘President’ at spencerb.net

Tag Archive for 'President'

Concern for Our Future

Published on February 8, 2010 in Economics, News and Politics. 0 Comments

The question to ask about the president’s eye-popping budget, also rolled out last week, is whether it prepares the country for its future—or shackles it to past decisions that our leaders would rather not confront.

This quote from an article written by the dean of the Columbia Business School summarizes many of my feelings on the subject of the size and budget of the U.S. government. Most of you probably heard recently about the $3.8 trillion Obama budget with future ‘plans’ for reducing the deficit. As I have said many times on this blog, budget deficits and national debt do not concern me too much. It certainly does not worry me nearly as much as a major meltdown of our financial system (which it appears has been avoided). But in the long-run a growing national debt can pose problems for the economic health of a nation. The analogous situation for an individual seems obvious:

Click to continue reading “Concern for Our Future”

Short Post on Cap and Trade

Published on June 26, 2009 in News and Politics. 1 Comment

Mr. Obama on Thursday called it “a vote of historic proportions … that will open the door to a clean energy economy” and green jobs. “It will create millions of new jobs,” Ms. Pelosi insisted.

From: WSJ Link

This makes absolutely no sense to me. It refers to a recent House vote that clears a hurdle for passing a cap and trade bill. I’ll give Obama the claim that it will lead to green jobs. Of course, when you effectively tax carbon through a cap and trade system, it will cause a shift to renewable “green” energy sources. This will likely lead to the creation of green jobs.

Pelosi’s claim that enacting cap and trade will create millions of jobs makes 0 (zero) sense. First, just think about that claim–millions of jobs. We’ve been losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month. Charging companies for emissions is going to create millions of jobs?

Yes, thousands of jobs will be shifted to other, possibly new, industries, as Obama’s comment indicates. Millions of jobs are not going to appear because of a RELATIVE change in price.

Example: Ketchup becomes more expensive than mustard. The condiment industry employs 100 people. The relative increase in cost of ketchup is not going to cause the total jobs to go to 120 (for instance). Instead, as demand for mustard goes up to lower costs, production will increase for mustard and fall for ketchup. A relative price increase will not effect overall consumption in a way that will dramatically change the total level of employment. Some ketchup folks will move to the mustard industry.

This example is simple, but the logic holds, in my opinion, for analyzing a cap and trade scheme. Especially, against such a ridiculous claim like creating millions of jobs. Shifting jobs is far appropriate.

Alternative example would be an absolute change in price, something that effects overall productivity. If condiments become cheaper, people will change their buying habits to buy more overall. This will increase the employment level because overall production increased. This example could include where mustard benefits more than ketchup and the mustard industry DOES uniquely create a bunch of new jobs.

This post was supposed to be short, but just realize Nancy Pelosi said something ridiculous.

I’m Not Convinced

Published on June 24, 2009 in News and Politics. 0 Comments

I watched an interview with President Obama by Diane Sawyer. I am not convinced by President Obama’s arguments. Who are these people that suggest we do nothing? These supposed people are the focus of Obama’s arguments. His argument goes along the lines of ‘the people who say we do nothing have the burden of proof.’ If these people do not exist, then there is no actual opposition to Obama’s argument, as framed by him. That is a pretty easy argument to win.

Furthermore, it problematically paints opponents of the Administration’s plan as people who want to do nothing. This seems to be the actual strategy of Obama’s health care strawman. This is not reality. There are Republicans who are proposing reforms that focus on fixing our current system through market reforms, adjusting the tax code, and nationalizing the insurance market.

[Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Richard Burr of North Carolina, and Reps. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Devin Nunes of California] proposal — called the Patients’ Choice Act — is to leave in place the tax deduction companies receive for providing employees with health insurance and to create a “Medi-Choice” tax rebate that will give individuals $2,200 and families $5,700 to spend on health insurance.

The rebate will make health insurance more affordable, especially for young people. It also will make health insurance portable, which will free people from being locked into jobs they hate because they are afraid of losing their health insurance.

One issue that bothers me that people don’t seem to be talking about is the impact of adding healthcare to the government’s budget. The current recession has made one thing abundantly clear, state budgets are not rock solid. This is not new news though. Yes, California is suffering incredibly bad right now and using federal money to finance its operation, but Minnesota has had several budget crises. What happens during a recession? States cut back. Right now, states are cutting healthcare benefits to children. The only way to avoid this is to make healthcare a dedicated part of the budget and let the federal government run deficits, if necessary, to finance it.

Again, I implore people to ask themselves this question: If competition and price-cutting is the answer, why don’t we foster an environment for healthcare that creates a more competitive industry?

The private market may not be able to handle this public-option because the market is so riddled with regulation. There are a lot of reforms that we have not tried yet. Before we commit the government to financing our healthcare system (a truly dangerous proposition), let’s try these things first.

Wow = :(

Published on June 9, 2009 in Politics. 3 Comments

NY Times delivers this bombshell:

The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

What went wrong?

Business Cycle, Bush, more Bush, Bush that Obama extended, and Obama.

Their share of the damage (in the same order): 37, 33, 20, 10 (percent)

Politics aside, I think that this is pretty clear evidence that government has grown too big. The national debt is a symptom of that. A surplus disappearing over several years is another symptom of that. As soon as some money frees up, it disappears. People do the same thing, in anticipation of a paycheck, you might go out to eat or buy a few new movies. Except if you start going in the red, you stop your poor spending habits. Once money is allotted for a federal program, it is hard as hell to remove from the budget.

I don’t think our leaders need to quibble about debt as a percentage of GDP, size of the budget, earmarks, etc. They need to seriously consider what services government should provide and what role it should play in people’s lives. I think by bickering about numbers we are missing a fundamental question. Answering that question (provided the answer is what I expect it to be) will do a lot toward solving the other problems.

Telling Quote from the OMB

Published on June 9, 2009 in Politics. 0 Comments

From ABC News’ White House Correspondent Jake Tapper’s questioning:

ORSZAG: It includes a lot. I mean, again, if — look, if health care costs grow at the same rate over the next four decades as they did over the past four decades, Medicare and Medicaid go from 5 percent of the economy today to 20 percent of the economy by 2050. That is the core driver of our entitlement problem.

If we succeed in bending that curve, we will have done more to improve the long-term health — fiscal health — of the nation than any other single thing we could do. Which is not to say other things aren’t important, but what I’m saying is, over the next two months we have an opportunity, our best shot, at addressing that problem, and that’s what we want to do. (emphasis added)

I am pretty concerned about what health care reform means for the country. I have a lot of thoughts on it and want to post more in-depth, but I thought this quote from a WH press conference would be a good start.

This quote has nothing to do with ’socializing’ health care in the United States. It does have a lot to do with the Obama Administration’s recent foray into health care industry meetings. The OMB has cited studies out of Dartmouth reporting that regional health care costs differ dramatically with no tangible results. The belief of the Administration is that if costs can be lowered to the cost of the low-cost region, the cost of care will drop without diminishing the quality of care.

That is the basis for the bolded portion of the quote. I think it is interesting that in a quote about health care, the meaning of health has to be clarified to fiscal health. In particular, he is talking about fiscal health to the year 2050. Will Obama’s policy help actual health care over the next four decades? That does not seem to be a concern of this policy.

It seems to me that it takes several key assumptions to accept the conclusion that regional cost differences can be eliminated and the quality of not care will be change. It is pretty common that health care procedures are the most expensive during their initial use, as companies attempt to recoup R&D costs. If some of the regional discrepancy comes from introducing new procedures, do we want to eliminate those costs?

Philosophically, this issue stands as extremely interesting to me. In a competitive industry there are strong incentives for efficiency. To maximize profits a firm needs to minimize costs. Government, on the other hand, is no model citizen for efficiency. If cost savings are really the way out of the entitlement mess that we have created for ourselves, shouldn’t we maximize the incentives for a competitive industry to flourish?

For instance:
Hospital A in Region 1 is providing services at cost X.
Hospital B in Region 2 is providing services at cost Y.
X

Therefore A has an incentive to move to Region 2 and sell it's services at a lower cost, thus making a higher profit than Hospital B. It seems if this discrepancy can be resolved the greenback would have induced these savings long ago, unless entrenched government policies are preventing those changes. Chiding from the Obama Administration does not seem like the solution. I'm guessing that government intervention and tax incentives are not aligned to create a low-cost market for health care. Just a guess. Maybe we should try that first?

Obama Administration Sheds 500,000 Jobs

Published on February 16, 2009 in Economics, Politics and Uncategorized. 0 Comments

When we found out the U.S. economy lost about the same number of jobs in January, Obama chided Republican congressmen for not passing stimulus legislation faster. Now, with little fanfare the Obama administration has downgraded their estimate of the stimulus bill’s ability to generate jobs. In fact, it moved form 4 million jobs down to 3.5 million jobs. Of course, the people in January who lost their job are real, not fictional estimates about a ill-planned and rushed bill. They have families, needs and concerns. Futhermore, many Americans have worries about what the future holds.

Republicans chided Obama and House Democrats for not thinking about the opportunity cost of this bill. In other words, if we spend $1, what opportunities do we give up in the future. Put one more way, by spending $1 on ‘the arts’, we give up $1 toward aiding the credit markets or $1 for preventing a home from foreclosing, or from giving up $1 by cutting the taxes of businesses or individuals.

The federal deficit could balloon up to as much as 14% of GDP that is huge. Many economists and politicians (as well as myself) agreed that budget deficits and the national debt should not be a huge concern, especially considering the amazing reputation of government-issued debt from the Treasury (how we finance the debt). If we have a suitable means to finance the debt and the money we are spending seems to be necessary, then we should do it without a concern for debts and deficits. That equation changes when the yearly deficit is predicted to be 14% of GDP. That means the government is spending more than it is taking to the point of being 14% of our entire economy. The world’s largest mind you. That is a dangerous precedent and we have to think about coming back from that.

In 2004 and after, politicians and military advisers warned not to go on a military junket with out an exit plan. Do we have an exit plan for the stimulus bill and the crisis? It does not appear so. The new Treasury Secretary gave us a new proposal that was nearly as vague as Henry Paulson’s. That makes me believe we have just authorized Congress and the President to throw the kitchen sink at the list of solutions to fix the economy. If the Treasury Secretary, hand-picked to deal with this crisis, doesn’t have a specific solution, why are we authorizing Congress to pass a hodge podge bill with different pet projects and Keynesian rhetoric?

We should really think about this crisis…and given a $1 trillion dollars (less than spending a million dollars everyday since Christ’s birth), we should be able to fix this. Throw a $1 trillion against the wall, maybe it’ll stick, but it won’t solve the crisis. Target a $1 trillion solution at the root(s) of the problem and I suspect we’ll get something done.

Obama Appointees

Published on February 3, 2009 in News and Politics. 0 Comments

Ms. Killefer is the third Obama nominee to confront tax problems. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed despite disclosure about his failure to pay certain taxes. Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for Health and Human Services, is under scrutiny for his delinquent payment of some $140,000 in taxes and interest.

-From WSJ

Treasury Secretary, Potential Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, and former contender for the new performance officer appointment all have one thing in common. Okay, beside being chosen by Obama for a cabinet level post…Tax Problems!

I don’t like taxes very much either, as you could probably tell from my blogging during the election. I feel good about not paying taxes when I shop for clothing in Minnesota. The state loses maybe $30 in revenue. Truthfully, I’d rather give Minnesota $30 than the federal government, but they don’t give me a choice, so I’d rather just keep my money. The tax problems we are talking about for Daschle are about $140,000. That is a lot of money. What does this say about him and his eligibility to serve the President?

This post is a bit rambling, but I think it shows something that several people have been outed for corrupt activities. Whether its Blago in IL or any one of these 3 appointees. People in government are acting unethically and expecting to get away with it.

Pay your taxes. Lobby your legislators to lower the tax rate so you pay less!

Will Obama’s Administration Deliver on its Promise of Change?

Published on December 5, 2008 in Politics. 0 Comments

This is a tough question that a lot of people are asking themselves in light of the recent Obama appointments. How can a leader who campaigned on a message of change deliver his promises if he is appointing Washington ‘insiders’ from the Clinton era and his primary opponents? A lot of people would say he can’t. To take one extreme example, Defense Secretary Gates will stay on to administer the war in Iraq. In my opinion, this is a good decision, but it does not bring to mind images of the immediate withdrawal from Iraq that Obama campaigned on. Furthermore, the Clintons will be back in the White House (as Cabinet officials and spouse) and so will some of former-President Bill Clinton’s administration. Again, this does not sound like a radical departure from the past.

Frankly, to me this was all fine and dandy. It is good to see that the President-elect is not being extreme in his choices, especially in foreign policy.

The Financial Times (FT) had a very interesting editorial today that argued against concerns about Obama’s team. I find this article to be both convincing and likely. The article puts the concerns this way:

Familiar faces, Washington observers yawn, promise familiar policies.

These concerns aren’t just coming from the right-wing trying to nay-say Obama, but from his supporters as well. The articles response:

Seen in this light, Mr Obama’s choice of foreign policy heavyweights is significant for its ambition rather than its caution. If he really does want to recast America’s relationship with the world, surrounding himself with seasoned players will make the task easier rather than harder. Why would a president who wanted to change things put the task in the hands of inexperienced acolytes?

This makes perfect sense, if you want to institute change, you do not do it by appoint political lightweights. You need people who can throw their weight around and know the system.

In one final point, the FT piece says this:

In Truman’s adage, the buck stops with the president.

I found this even more interesting, relative to a post I wrote a while back about taking responsibility. I think Bush has done a decent job of doing that, unlike any of the presidential candidates during the campaign. I hope things change once Obama takes office.

Obama Removing Elected Officials From Posts

Published on December 3, 2008 in News, Politics and Uncategorized. 0 Comments

I was unsure how to phrase the title of this post, but it is interesting the number of prominent elected officials that have received appointments to the Obama administration. Taking another look at the title, it is way more negative than I intended to be. It sounds like Obama is going to issue executive orders this January to remove people from office. Clearly, that is not the case.

I’m not sure that I am politically astute enough to understand the motivation behind this yet. Maybe it is just a coincidence. Certainly, one can tell from this list that Obama is drawing from his contenders from the Democratic primary. If they had a shot at president, I suppose they might make a decent Secretary of State. On the other hand, there are plenty of qualified individuals to fill roles like that, potential great Secretaries of State don’t run around running for president usually.

What does everyone else think?

A quick look at some elected official entering the Obama administration:

Former-Senator Obama, himself
Senator Biden
Senator Clinton
Representative Emanuel
Governor Napolitano
Governor Richardson

If I’m missing anyone, let me know. Of course there are other appointments, I think this is all of the elected officials who will become Obama cabinet members. Should be an interesting 4 years.

How Will Conservatives Reach Out to Obama?

Published on November 19, 2008 in Politics. 0 Comments

Note: this post has been incubating for a while and I decided to publish it in its current form. Part of an effort to get back into political musings.

I am of the belief that this is a critical issue for the GOP to resolve. Conservatives cannot mimic what the Democrats did for the last eight years. I have a post titled “Bush 43″ that has been ruminating in my draft section for more than six months. Bush is not popular among the vast majority of the country, but he is also hated among the vast majority of liberals. This really bothers me, I don’t want to mime this ridiculous behavior.

I have noticed evidence of conservatives reaching out to Obama. One, he campaigned on promises of bipartisanship. Granted, he won, he gets the spoils of that. (No one is expecting a fairness doctrine-esque regulation of the cabinet). Two, every conservative wants to see policies implemented that are best for the country. That doesn’t happen by alienating everyone! Ironically, only a strong Obama presidency will result in this outcome. A strong presidency will be guided by the beliefs of the nation, a moderate-conservative standpoint. I think that we can see this move to the center in Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Update: Recently, we have Obama reaching out to McCain in a formal meeting. Also, Obama has indicated he might keep on Defense Secretary Gates. I hope we see more of this kind of “reaching across the aisle”. It needs to go both ways though because conservatives will absurdly alienate themselves otherwise.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes
Close
E-mail It