The stimulus package is wrong for America. It is an expenditure we cannot afford without putting the long-term fiscal security of this country at risk (I refer to the recent CBO study on the Stimulus Package). On one hand, congress chides Americans for spending beyond their means, mortgaging their future, and not saving enough and then turns around and does precisely that on a national level.
Beyond simply bad fiscal policy, the stimulus spending does not meet the administration’s own test for what constitutes a good stimulus package: it is not timely, it is not targeted, and it is not temporary. It is an attempt by tax-and-spend liberals to push through congress their progressive socialist agenda without debate. Two-thirds of the spending is structural and will remain with us for years and years to come, further increasing the interest we will have to pay on our "revolving" credit card account.
Last, our experience to date on the TARP program suggests that the spending will be ineffective: preliminary indications are for every $100 of spending we receive $66 of value. If you want to stimulate the economy, reduce the marginal individual and corporate tax rates to put money back into the hands of those who create value. My hometown of Virginia Beach does not need another tennis court, which is what we will receive under the Obama plan. It needs the ability to compete in a world that is becoming more competitive and connected.Every financial decision I have ever made that was driven by deadlines created by fear has not turned out so good. I cannot imagine that a $1 trillion dollar, 30 day decision will turn out any better. Perhaps the congress should stick to capitalism and try fact based decision making. That would be refreshing.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, February 9, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Department of the Interior Public Comment Period on Off-Shore Leasing
My understanding is that the Interior Department is soliciting public comment, for a sixty day period, starting January 21, on a five-year plan to lease offshore properties for oil and gas exploration. As is the case with most things in big government, I have searched for a web site that would allow me to provide my input, but to no avail. So instead, I wrote ALL of my elected representatives to provide them with my input so that they make sure my comments were placed in the hands of the proper bureaucrat. I suggest that you provide your comments to your elected representatives www.congress.org. My input to the Department of the Interior follows.
Dear Sir or Madam:
To place my comments in context, energy independence is not only a matter of economic prosperity; it is a matter of national defense. It represents a path forward for putting people back to work, while displacing $700B of payments to countries that are not friendly to us. Gross domestic product and per capita energy consumption are directly correlated: as we consume more energy, GDP goes up. The converse is also true.
This said, regardless of the current price of a barrel of oil, the United States should aggressively pursue development of all of its natural energy resources, starting with those that are proven, abundant, and under its direct control or the control of friendly nations. The following technologies should be deployed / developed in the order shown.
· Energy conservation education should be funded.
· We should be drilling for oil and natural gas wherever it is the least expensive to do so and where a high probability of success exists.
· We should be building more nuclear plants, an energy source that reduces greenhouse gases; is a “high density” energy source (viz., produces more power per acre of land than any other); is abundant in America, Canada, and Australia; is renewable if the country were to reprocess fuel; and could be the basis for conversion of coal to oil or supply of electric energy to automobiles.
· Clean coal should be pursued, because the United States has greater reserves of energy in the form of coal than Saudi Arabia has in oil. As noted above, coal and oil shale can be converted to oil through the use of electricity produced by nuclear power plants.
· The natural gas pipeline from Canada should be completed and the use of natural gas as an alternative to gasoline should be developed. Natural gas is also important to the development and deployment of fuel cell technology, which could over time become a significant source of residential energy supply as well as power transportation solutions.
· Monies should be invested in battery storage technology and fuel cells. These technologies are the key to unlocking the commercial potential of alternative energy sources, because they allow energy to be stored and deployed in mobile form.
· Wind power should be developed and deployed in those situations where it economical to do so. At present, this is a “feel good” technology. The energy density of a “wind farm” is .01 Megawatts per acre of land used compared to 2.8 Megawatts per acre of land used by a commercial electric coal plant (this calculation not only takes into consideration the capacity of the energy source but also its availability). Translation: a 2,259 Mw super-critical fossil plant uses 800 acres of land; an equivalent wind farm uses 200,000 acres of land. Even so, it is a proven technology that has more market share than any other alternative energy source, except conventional hydroelectric power. Wind power is followed closely by biomass.
· Other alternative energy sources should be explored based upon an “investment in success” principle rather than some “religious” fanaticism that we need to save the earth. Photovoltaic technologies should continue to be developed, but one should come to grips with the fact we have been investing in this technology for almost 40 years and to date solar represents 498 Mw of summer capacity in the United States out of 998,837 Mw of total deployed capacity. It is also very expensive in terms of dollars per kilowatts installed. A more promising source, in my view, is algae based oil production, which has demonstrated the ability to produce 18,000 to 22,000 gallons of fuel oil per year per acre of non-arable land, compared to the government’s “ethanol” mandate that produces 12 gallons of gasoline per arable acre of land.
Last, I do believe that global warming is occurring; however, I do not believe that man’s presence is contributing in any significant sense to that warming. I believe – based on scientific evidence – that the principal driver behind the warming is solar activity and that this is a naturally occurring, cyclical phenomenon. Spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to counter it will be throwing money down a rat hole. In fact, the wrongheaded belief that man’s carbon based activities are the culprit will exacerbate the problem by moving us toward investing in “green technologies” that are high cost, low energy density. The developmental costs will be borne disproportionately among the “successful” (otherwise known by “the rich” in progressive / socialist circles) so that the “poor” can have access to these energy sources. The end result of this will be another failed government program that has negative economic consequences, especially for the poor, which in turn affects our ability to address more pressing matters.
Dear Sir or Madam:
To place my comments in context, energy independence is not only a matter of economic prosperity; it is a matter of national defense. It represents a path forward for putting people back to work, while displacing $700B of payments to countries that are not friendly to us. Gross domestic product and per capita energy consumption are directly correlated: as we consume more energy, GDP goes up. The converse is also true.
This said, regardless of the current price of a barrel of oil, the United States should aggressively pursue development of all of its natural energy resources, starting with those that are proven, abundant, and under its direct control or the control of friendly nations. The following technologies should be deployed / developed in the order shown.
· Energy conservation education should be funded.
· We should be drilling for oil and natural gas wherever it is the least expensive to do so and where a high probability of success exists.
· We should be building more nuclear plants, an energy source that reduces greenhouse gases; is a “high density” energy source (viz., produces more power per acre of land than any other); is abundant in America, Canada, and Australia; is renewable if the country were to reprocess fuel; and could be the basis for conversion of coal to oil or supply of electric energy to automobiles.
· Clean coal should be pursued, because the United States has greater reserves of energy in the form of coal than Saudi Arabia has in oil. As noted above, coal and oil shale can be converted to oil through the use of electricity produced by nuclear power plants.
· The natural gas pipeline from Canada should be completed and the use of natural gas as an alternative to gasoline should be developed. Natural gas is also important to the development and deployment of fuel cell technology, which could over time become a significant source of residential energy supply as well as power transportation solutions.
· Monies should be invested in battery storage technology and fuel cells. These technologies are the key to unlocking the commercial potential of alternative energy sources, because they allow energy to be stored and deployed in mobile form.
· Wind power should be developed and deployed in those situations where it economical to do so. At present, this is a “feel good” technology. The energy density of a “wind farm” is .01 Megawatts per acre of land used compared to 2.8 Megawatts per acre of land used by a commercial electric coal plant (this calculation not only takes into consideration the capacity of the energy source but also its availability). Translation: a 2,259 Mw super-critical fossil plant uses 800 acres of land; an equivalent wind farm uses 200,000 acres of land. Even so, it is a proven technology that has more market share than any other alternative energy source, except conventional hydroelectric power. Wind power is followed closely by biomass.
· Other alternative energy sources should be explored based upon an “investment in success” principle rather than some “religious” fanaticism that we need to save the earth. Photovoltaic technologies should continue to be developed, but one should come to grips with the fact we have been investing in this technology for almost 40 years and to date solar represents 498 Mw of summer capacity in the United States out of 998,837 Mw of total deployed capacity. It is also very expensive in terms of dollars per kilowatts installed. A more promising source, in my view, is algae based oil production, which has demonstrated the ability to produce 18,000 to 22,000 gallons of fuel oil per year per acre of non-arable land, compared to the government’s “ethanol” mandate that produces 12 gallons of gasoline per arable acre of land.
Last, I do believe that global warming is occurring; however, I do not believe that man’s presence is contributing in any significant sense to that warming. I believe – based on scientific evidence – that the principal driver behind the warming is solar activity and that this is a naturally occurring, cyclical phenomenon. Spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to counter it will be throwing money down a rat hole. In fact, the wrongheaded belief that man’s carbon based activities are the culprit will exacerbate the problem by moving us toward investing in “green technologies” that are high cost, low energy density. The developmental costs will be borne disproportionately among the “successful” (otherwise known by “the rich” in progressive / socialist circles) so that the “poor” can have access to these energy sources. The end result of this will be another failed government program that has negative economic consequences, especially for the poor, which in turn affects our ability to address more pressing matters.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Geithner Confirmation
The following is an open letter to my elected senators, from Virginia, Messrs. Webb and Warner:
“I respectfully request that you vote NOT to confirm Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury. Character counts.
“I am sure that at least one qualified democrat, out of a population of 300 million citizens, can be found to fill this position other than Geithner. If Obama can make the argument that the means does not justify the ends when it comes to interrogating terrorists using water boarding, then confirming a person who has an absolute disregard for the tax code to head the agency that makes those laws does not "hold water" either.
“I also reject the argument that "time is of the essence." Since when has time been of the essence to congress? If congress had addressed the housing issue, social security, Medicare, and energy issues over the last thirty years, we would not be facing this crisis.”
I encourage you to write your elected representatives and let them know what you think.
“I respectfully request that you vote NOT to confirm Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury. Character counts.
“I am sure that at least one qualified democrat, out of a population of 300 million citizens, can be found to fill this position other than Geithner. If Obama can make the argument that the means does not justify the ends when it comes to interrogating terrorists using water boarding, then confirming a person who has an absolute disregard for the tax code to head the agency that makes those laws does not "hold water" either.
“I also reject the argument that "time is of the essence." Since when has time been of the essence to congress? If congress had addressed the housing issue, social security, Medicare, and energy issues over the last thirty years, we would not be facing this crisis.”
I encourage you to write your elected representatives and let them know what you think.
Where is Obama’s Aunt?
In late November, 2008, I contacted by elected representatives concerning the illegal immigration status of President Obama’s Aunt Zeituni Onyango. The content of my communication was:
“In a local newspaper article (The Virginian Pilot), it was reported that president-elect Barack Obama's aunt (Aunt Zeituni Onyango) has been in this country for 4 years illegally. She violated a deportation order and has taken up residence in subsidized housing in Boston. Because this is a country that is based on the rule of law, I respectfully request that you notify the appropriate authorities of her status, and have her deported immediately. I look forward to your positive response to my request. I will expect a follow-up from you within 30 days. If I do not hear from you, I will report this to my local newspaper as well as the 200 people I reach through my blog. I will have them direct their concerns to your office.
“I realize that, as democrats, this places you in a tough spot, since Aunt Zeituni is a close relative of the president-elect. However, a price exists for doing the right thing.”
Well … surprise, surprise … my elected senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner, did not respond, so I am moving to plan “B.” If you are a Virginian and wish to contact your senators, you may reach them electronically through www.firstgov.org. You may have to fax Mr. Warner. He is our former governor and was elected, in part, because of his experience as a high-tech, IT executive. Unfortunately, he does not have an e-mail address, as of this writing. You will have to contact him by fax or snail mail. Perhaps that is why he has not responded. Apparently he is too busy to communicate with his constituents, and instead is voting for a stimulus package to build infrastructure for everyone else but those who are in charge of spending the peoples’ money.
If you are not from Virginia, I urge you to contact your representatives directly and ask them to simply enforce the law. Unfortunately in America today, we do not recognize laws anymore unless they seem to be ones that fit our political agenda.
“In a local newspaper article (The Virginian Pilot), it was reported that president-elect Barack Obama's aunt (Aunt Zeituni Onyango) has been in this country for 4 years illegally. She violated a deportation order and has taken up residence in subsidized housing in Boston. Because this is a country that is based on the rule of law, I respectfully request that you notify the appropriate authorities of her status, and have her deported immediately. I look forward to your positive response to my request. I will expect a follow-up from you within 30 days. If I do not hear from you, I will report this to my local newspaper as well as the 200 people I reach through my blog. I will have them direct their concerns to your office.
“I realize that, as democrats, this places you in a tough spot, since Aunt Zeituni is a close relative of the president-elect. However, a price exists for doing the right thing.”
Well … surprise, surprise … my elected senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner, did not respond, so I am moving to plan “B.” If you are a Virginian and wish to contact your senators, you may reach them electronically through www.firstgov.org. You may have to fax Mr. Warner. He is our former governor and was elected, in part, because of his experience as a high-tech, IT executive. Unfortunately, he does not have an e-mail address, as of this writing. You will have to contact him by fax or snail mail. Perhaps that is why he has not responded. Apparently he is too busy to communicate with his constituents, and instead is voting for a stimulus package to build infrastructure for everyone else but those who are in charge of spending the peoples’ money.
If you are not from Virginia, I urge you to contact your representatives directly and ask them to simply enforce the law. Unfortunately in America today, we do not recognize laws anymore unless they seem to be ones that fit our political agenda.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Obama on Redistribution of Wealth
Somehow I missed this one, but you should not: a You Tube 2001 radio interview with Barack Obama in his own words on government's responsibility to redistribute wealth. No wonder the markets are in a turmoil: with three branches of government controlled by the socialist democrats, the economy in turmoil (aided and abetted by the republicans), Obama's social engineering programs will drive the final nail in the coffin of capitalism.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Road Not Taken
As we wind down the 2008 presidential election, I think we will look back on it and ask ourselves many questions about how we ended up with a Marxist-socialist in the White House. This election will have profound negative consequences on us as a people and on the world. As I have stated in previous postings, this trip did not start yesterday, it started over 70 years ago. It will take us at least 70 years to reverse this course, if we can do it all. I doubt that we can, but that does not mean that we cannot -- or I will not -- try.
So, for those of you who are committed to an Obama presidency, I would ask you to consider three decision criteria in selecting our next president: character, experience, and accomplishment. In the business world, these three criteria are generally evaluated through a review of a written resume, validated through a personal interview, and a final hiring decision confirmed through personal references. With respect to a personal resume, you have Obama's own books (Dreams from My Father and Audacity of Hope) and books written about him (The Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi and The Case Against Barack Obama by David Freddoso). With respect to interviews, you have Rick Warren's Saddleback debate, the Presidential Debates, and interviews with numerous cable pundits. However, one is hard pressed to confirm the hiring decision through personal references, as this is not an area the media wants to fully explore. So, I decided to find the most comprehensive list I could so that you could make an informed decision. They are summarized and illustrated through video documentary in the Cloward Piven Strategy - Part 2 - Political Allies and Advisors. As my father told me "You will be judged by the company you keep." I guess this does not apply to Barack Obama.
As for me, I think I will stay on The Road Not Taken (Robert Frost, 1920).
"I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
So, for those of you who are committed to an Obama presidency, I would ask you to consider three decision criteria in selecting our next president: character, experience, and accomplishment. In the business world, these three criteria are generally evaluated through a review of a written resume, validated through a personal interview, and a final hiring decision confirmed through personal references. With respect to a personal resume, you have Obama's own books (Dreams from My Father and Audacity of Hope) and books written about him (The Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi and The Case Against Barack Obama by David Freddoso). With respect to interviews, you have Rick Warren's Saddleback debate, the Presidential Debates, and interviews with numerous cable pundits. However, one is hard pressed to confirm the hiring decision through personal references, as this is not an area the media wants to fully explore. So, I decided to find the most comprehensive list I could so that you could make an informed decision. They are summarized and illustrated through video documentary in the Cloward Piven Strategy - Part 2 - Political Allies and Advisors. As my father told me "You will be judged by the company you keep." I guess this does not apply to Barack Obama.
As for me, I think I will stay on The Road Not Taken (Robert Frost, 1920).
"I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
Friday, October 17, 2008
Second Open Letter to the United States Congress
The following letter was sent to my elected representatives on October 17, 2008. I suggest you write one to your elected rerpesentatives requesting your "stock" certificates be sent directly to you for safe keeping.
"The purpose of this letter is to request information about the contractual nature that the US Treasury has with the various financial institutions, which Congress has authorized the Treasury to nationalize. Specifically, is the Treasury receiving voting shares for its investment? If so, how and by whom will these shares be voted? If shares are being issued, I would like to receive mine in the mail. Otherwise, I am concerned that when these shares appreciate, as they must according to Mr. Paulson (as he knows that the mark to market rule allowed him to buy these shares at a depressed value), then I want to make sure that my pro rata share of the proceeds are returned to me. Otherwise, I fear they will be absorbed by the US Government and returned to organizations such as ACORN, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other entities who do not have my best interest in mind.
While I await word from you, I will spend my time in retirement working to recover one-third of my life savings. Plan B is to figure out how to die 33% sooner than my actuarial age, which will be bad for me, but even worse for those who were depending on my continued contribution to their prosperity and ultimate realization of the 'American Dream.' ”
"The purpose of this letter is to request information about the contractual nature that the US Treasury has with the various financial institutions, which Congress has authorized the Treasury to nationalize. Specifically, is the Treasury receiving voting shares for its investment? If so, how and by whom will these shares be voted? If shares are being issued, I would like to receive mine in the mail. Otherwise, I am concerned that when these shares appreciate, as they must according to Mr. Paulson (as he knows that the mark to market rule allowed him to buy these shares at a depressed value), then I want to make sure that my pro rata share of the proceeds are returned to me. Otherwise, I fear they will be absorbed by the US Government and returned to organizations such as ACORN, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other entities who do not have my best interest in mind.
While I await word from you, I will spend my time in retirement working to recover one-third of my life savings. Plan B is to figure out how to die 33% sooner than my actuarial age, which will be bad for me, but even worse for those who were depending on my continued contribution to their prosperity and ultimate realization of the 'American Dream.' ”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)