Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Will Boxer side with Goldman Sachs yet again?

Another day, another dollar (to print). Goldman Sachs has called for more of the same economic policy, in other words, more irresponsible Federal monetary creation, and more government debt. This shouldn't be surprising, as Goldman Sachs are some of the main beneficiaries of cheap money from the Federal Reserve and the subsequently derived financial products (and profits). Government debt? No problem to them as long as government keeps the "monetizing debt and printing money" pyramid scheme going. Remember, those who profit the most from pyramid schemes are those that are closest to the top, and Goldman Sachs could hardly be any closer to that peak than if they actually became the Federal government. Come to think of it, many of them are already there.

And what is the downside? Just those nasty "asset bubbles". The same kind that made Goldman Sachs billions. And when the bubble popped, it drove much of their competition out of business, and almost collapsed the entire global financial system. It worked out so well for them last time, they might as well recommend a second go at it. It's a no lose proposal for them.

Are our politicians foolish enough to continue taking advice from the people who profit from the economic demise of the United States? Perhaps someone can ask former stock-broker and current Senate candidate Barbara Boxer what her position is on increased government debt and money printing. Don't forget to call her "Senator". In all fairness, the same question should be asked of her main opponent in the Senate race, GOP candidate Carly Fiorina, who also may have taken some advise from Goldman Sachs in the past.

An excerpt from the Goldman Sachs paper:

Our recently released Global Economics Paper No. 200 entitled “No Rush for the Exit” argues that policymakers should react to the combination of a sluggish recovery and declining inflation with additional policy easing, either via a return to unconventional monetary policy or via further fiscal stimulus. The obvious counterargument is that monetary and fiscal easing carries long-term costs in the form of, respectively, a risk of a renewed asset bubble and a higher public debt burden.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Glenn Beck discusses Cap and Trade Connections

Glenn Beck recently discussed the carbon emissions trading scheme and the people who are working behind the scenes to make it a reality via Cap and Trade.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

It's all about the spending

Fiscal Responsibility

What does it mean to be truly fiscally responsible? There can be no doubt that it includes strict budget control, and never spending more than we have. The primary goal of present day fiscal responsibility must be spending reductions. In government, Republicans and Democrats alike have been on a no limit shopping spree with Uncle Sam's credit card, and Uncle Sam doesn't make money: he takes it from all of us. Every dollar spent by the government comes out of the taxpayer's pocket in one way or another. Even when the government creates money out of thin air, they are still taking your money: excess money creation results in inflation, which makes every dollar in your pocket, and every dollar in your next paycheck, worth less. The inflation tax hurts the working poor more than it does the rich. A reduction in spending and earning power is far more painful for people that live from paycheck to paycheck. No one is spared, rich or poor, Democrat or Republican. Inflation hurts all of us.

The only solution is to reduce government spending in all areas. We can not play favorites. The game of advocating spending reductions in one area, and increased spending in our favorite areas has to end. This is a non-partisan issue.

Supporting our troops

In light of a limited Federal Budget, how do we best support our troops? When our troops must be used, we want them to be the best trained, armed and supplied military in the world. But how about deployment? Can budget dollars be saved by reducing our overseas military activity? When asked recently about the use of our troops around the world, a 93 year old WWII veteran used very colorful language to object to putting our troops in harm's way for nation building and policing the world. This was born of real world experience in war; of losing friends and comrades. This member of the greatest generation was adamant about the prudent and conservative use of our troops. In today's political climate, it takes some courage to oppose the constant calls for troop deployment. But considering the goals of limiting Federal spending, and utilizing our troops in the most wise and effective way, it makes sense to revisit US foreign policy.

US Senate candidate Chuck DeVore (R-CA) recently wrote an Op-Ed piece titled "Right should fashion own foreign policy". Several points were made regarding recent foreign policy positions:
"Conservatives spent the Clinton administration years largely in opposition to his frequent overseas deployments."
A very good point. During the Clinton administration, the conservative position was to oppose nation building and policing the world. This included the undeclared war on Serbia. As a result, George W. Bush successfully used the humble foreign policy position as part of his first election campaign:
"George W. Bush came to power in 2001 calling for an end to Clinton's open-ended nation-building commitments."
Barrack Obama also won an election calling for an end to the post-war US military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Post-war due to the fact that the armies and governments of those countries had already been defeated). But President Obama succumbed to politics (and the military-industrial complex), and went back on those promises that were so popular with the majority of Americans. The past two Presidents, one Republican, and one Democrat, have won their first Presidential campaigns based on campaign promises to limit and conserve the use of our military.
"As a result of culture and geography, Mr. Obama's Afghan surge will likely fall short of its objectives while spending $40 billion per year. Employing conventional forces in pursuit of terrorists and guerrilla forces is always an expensive proposition. Attempting to build nations on soil not yet fertile to the concepts of democracy and national unity is even more problematic."
DeVore is correct in that it is time to review our budget and our foreign policy; a review of what is effective, prudent, and conservative. With massive unemployment, a recession/depression and rapidly growing, astronomical government debt, can we afford expanding our foreign nation building costs, and continue to put US military personnel in harm's way? In the opinion of a WWII veteran, the answer is a resounding "no".

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Cap and Trade is a Wall St. Scam

Cap and Trade is a Wall St. scam, first proposed by Enron, now being championed by former stock broker Barbara Boxer. The following CSPAN clip shows Al Gore being questioned about the Enron connection:

"Boxer worked as a stockbroker for the next three years..."

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Chuck DeVore on Barbara Boxer's Cap and Trade burden on America

Barbara Boxer’s Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax Won’t Work
by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore

What is Cap-and-Trade? Cap-and-Trade is a political scheme ostensibly aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions with the goal of reducing the global temperatures.

With a Cap-and-Trade law in place, the government would set a yearly greenhouse gas emission target (carbon dioxide is the most common man-made greenhouse gas, you are exhaling right it now) and would reduce that yearly ceiling over time. This is the “Cap” of Cap-and-Trade.

The “Trade” part of this scheme comes in when the government (read: politicians) gives out greenhouse gas emission credits, valued at billions of dollars, to favored industries. So, industries with greater credits than emissions would be able to sell their valuable credits (basically, a right to emit greenhouse gases) to those industries (such as the coal industry or the oil and gas industries) which would need the credits to stay in business.

Over time, the government makes money, commodities traders make money, such as those on the Chicago Climate Exchange (yes, it exists, they make money trading carbon dioxide credits), politically favored industries make money (such as those former Vice President Al Gore has invested over $100 million in), and the rest of us get hit with the bill – up to $2,000 per family per year of higher energy costs. Thus, Cap-and-Trade is actually a huge energy tax on working Americans.

Senator Barbara Boxer is in charge of pushing the Cap-and-Trade energy tax scheme through the Senate. She says that Cap-and-Trade will create American jobs and reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. She is wrong on both counts.

Let’s take jobs first. Recent studies from Spain show why. In March of 2004, an al-Qaeda affiliate launched a terror attack on the Spanish transit system, killing 191 people. Days later, the conservative Spanish government was defeated by the Socialists who pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq and launched an aggressive “green jobs” program. The results of this experiment are now in and it doesn’t look good for Sen. Boxer and her allies. Juan Carlos University in Spain completed a study in March, 2009 of the effectiveness of the effort to create a large amount of solar and wind energy green jobs. Their findings: each “green” job created with a government subsidy caused the loss of 2.2 regular jobs; each “green” job cost about $800,000 to create; while 110,000 other jobs were lost due to higher energy costs in metallurgy, mining, and other industries. The net result: some 60 percent of the Eurozone’s newly unemployed are Spaniards. This makes sense: increasing the cost of energy makes any energy-intensive industry less competitive with companies located in lower energy cost areas such as coal-powered China.

Now, let’s examine emissions, will they be reduced under a Cap-and-Trade scheme? They might be – in America only. To the extent that politicians reduce the emissions cap and don’t give out too many credits, the cost of emitting greenhouse gases will go up in America. As this cost of doing business soars, energy-intensive industries will be under increasing pressure from their lower cost competitors overseas. The net result will be a shifting of jobs from the U.S. to China, India and other low-cost regions. The irony here is that these nations will produce the same products we used to, but will do so with less efficiency and with far higher emissions because they are more reliant on coal to produce energy. The net result will be a drop in U.S. emissions, but an overall rise in global emissions.

The bottom line: Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Cap-and-Trade energy tax will cost your family up to $2,000 per year, will destroy about 2.4 million American jobs and will actually increase global greenhouse gas emissions.

If we were really serious about reducing emissions and creating jobs, we would look to modern nuclear power as the best way to achieve both.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

The Cap and Trade Mystery

There seems to be some mystery and controversy surrounding the contents of the Cap and Trade Bill being drafted by Barbara Boxer's staff. What is being slipped into this legislation? Special favors to insider lobbyists? More taxpayer money redistributed to Wall Street? Why are experts abruptly resigning from the effort?

Excerpts from a recent article:
Boxer Loses Key Committee Staffer, Cap-And-Trade Expert

Published: October 6, 2009

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is hemorrhaging staff as it faces a critical test in the coming weeks to pass a comprehensive global warming bill.

One of the country's leading experts on environmental legislation resigned Friday to join U.S. EPA as a senior counsel on climate and air pollution issues.
Neither Goffman nor Boxer's office would comment on the personnel move, leaving some to question why someone with such a high degree of experience would make such a jump during a critical moment in the legislative debate over one of the Obama administration's top agenda items.

"It'd be very odd for the chief health care person to leave the Health Committee or the Finance Committee a couple weeks before they were supposed to mark up their bill," said one Senate Democratic staffer. "That's just strange."
The staff departures come during a particularly tough stretch for Boxer, the three-term senator who is up for re-election next year. Boxer has repeatedly come under fire from Republicans and some moderate Democrats for how she has handled the drafting of the climate bill.

Several Democratic aides complained last week that they had not been given a chance to review the latest version of Boxer's cap-and-trade bill until Sunday, Sept. 29, just two days before the public introduction. And even then, staffers say they were not allowed to leave the committee room with their own copies of the bill.

Many said their first chance to review the proposal in any meaningful way came when the proposal leaked to the media just before last Wednesday's introduction. And some are questioning whether the small circle of people who worked on the complex bill may be contributing to errors and other inconsistencies in the early draft.
And some complained that Boxer did not listen to their concerns even after repeated attempts for help from moderate Democrats who represent states with heavy supplies of coal, oil and natural gas.
This year, Boxer has handed over top billing on the climate legislation to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) even though it is her staff that took the lead in writing the key pieces of their bill (pdf). Boxer will remain a central figure as her committee votes on the bill, perhaps as early as this month.