Donald Trump & Carrier

President-elect Donald Trump called the head of Carrier Air Conditioning's parent company and had a "heart to heart" talk with him. With that and some additional serious negotiations, the Carrier plant in Indiana will remain open instead of moving to Mexico, saving 1,000 jobs.

If President-elect Donald Trump could do that without yet being in office, why couldn't President Barack Obama do anything like it?

Looks like it's because Donald Trump actually gives a damn.
He cares.

Not even in office yet, and he's saving jobs.

Reflections on the Brexit Vote

Since the Brexit vote, in which voters in the high-turnout UK referendum, voted to leave the European Union, I've seen a lot of words from a number of commentators. The most laughable to me (somewhat paraphrased) was

The only reason I can think of for people to vote against their economic self-interest is racism.

There are several things wrong with this. The two biggest are these:

• It's a huge assumption to say voting to leave the European Union is against the economic interests of the UK. This is what the "Remain" partisans claimed, but I don't see that should be given a lot more weight than the claims by the "Leave" partisans that Brexit would be better for the UK economically. Indeed, I would say leaving the European Union would be more likely to be in the UK's economic interests (see below).
• "Racism"? Really? Racism of Europeans against Europeans? How dumb is that? Europeans are all pretty much the same stock — just ask Ancestry.com.

Other commentators have said

the votes to leave the European Union came from those who feel they haven't shared in the economic benefits of EU membership.

Essentially, they are saying the Brexit vote result was a matter of "sour grapes." But the statistics don't bear this out. Poll results just before the vote show the difference in voters was between the young who favored "Remain" and the older voters who favored "Leave". Or as one correspondent put it,

Millenial socialists who don’t understand vs. older folks who remember what Britain was.

As if to hammer the point home, here's a picture of one of London's young Millenials.

Aside from the voters who don't think of themselves as British, it seems to me a primary motivation was probably a lot simpler: They simply got tired of the overregulation and stupid regulation coming out of the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Little things like orders that a series of popular products could no longer be sold. Little things like a bureaucratic decree that drinking water is ineffective against dehydration. Little things like labor regulations Britain never had (or needed) till they were imposed by the EU to match those in other parts of Europe. A lot of those objectionable regulations are economic, and getting rid of them may well free the UK economy to grow at a faster rate. But it's also true that some of the recent (and projected soon to come) directives are in the "hot button" area of immigration and EU demands that eath country in the Union take their "fair share" of "Syrian" migrants.

In other words, a key issue area — regulatory overreach and objectionable regulations — is the same there and here. But with the Brexit vote there's an additional factor:

Economic Ignorance

Governments don't understand economics. That is clear. Or maybe it's just that governments don't care. All they worry about is their budget numbers, without caring caring about the impacts of budgetary decisions. But those impacts make a big difference to those affected by the changes. This is just one example of how.

The State of U.S. Politics Today

In the past few days, I've run across a number of cartoons pertaining to the state of politics in the United States today. These few cartoons vary across existing programs and the presidential campaign. There is also an image of much more general applicability.

One cartoon has to do with our president and the economy he and his regulators run.

This one is an historical comparison of current events to events from long, long ago. Why can't some people follow the rules?

Here's another variation on the question of why can't some people follow the rules?

Of course, all of this makes us think (or at least makes me think), along with Mark Twain, that

Argentina — A History Lesson

This link was received by e-mail. The video it links to is worth watching and thinking about.

        Don't Cry for Me Argentina America

This echoes some of the concerns I (and others I know) have had for a long time. I'd seen some of these figures and comparisons before, but this is a more striking and elegant presentation.

A friend I forwarded the e-mail to agreed with me and said this:

Simply an elegant presentation. I've been screaming in the wilderness about the propensities of governments to over-promise benefits for three decades. As far as I can tell, my screaming has done absolutely no good, because politicians are still mortgaging our future beyond any ability to every pay off the debt. Argentina conveys the message, but much more elegantly than I ever did.

I have forwarded to many friends. Regrettably, all of my friends are in the same camp. Those people who most need to get this message are those who are the least likely to watch the video (much less heed its conclusions).

There is still time for us to avoid sliding into Argentina's fate, I think. But this country is a very large ship and slow to turn — as Argentina once was. It will take a lot of effort to get us back onto a positive slope. But we must try.

The Last Communist City

The following is provided without unnecessary commentary.

Cuba was one of the world’s richest countries before Castro destroyed it — and the wealth wasn’t just in the hands of a tiny elite. “Contrary to the myth spread by the revolution,” wrote Alfred Cuzan, a professor of political science at the University of West Florida, “Cuba’s wealth before 1959 was not the purview of a privileged few. . . . Cuban society was as much of a middle-class society as Argentina and Chile.” In 1958, Cuba had a higher per-capita income than much of Europe. “More Americans lived in Cuba prior to Castro than Cubans lived in the United States,” Cuban exile Humberto Fontova, author of a series of books about Castro and Guevara, tells me. “This was at a time when Cubans were perfectly free to leave the country with all their property. In the 1940s and 1950s, my parents could get a visa for the United States just by asking. They visited the United States and voluntarily returned to Cuba. More Cubans vacationed in the U.S. in 1955 than Americans vacationed in Cuba. Americans considered Cuba a tourist playground, but even more Cubans considered the U.S. a tourist playground.” Havana was home to a lot of that prosperity, as is evident in the extraordinary classical European architecture that still fills the city. Poor nations do not — cannot — build such grand or elegant cities.

But rather than raise the poor up, Castro and Guevara shoved the rich and the middle class down. The result was collapse. “Between 1960 and 1976,” Cuzan says, “Cuba’s per capita GNP in constant dollars declined at an average annual rate of almost half a percent. The country thus has the tragic distinction of being the only one in Latin America to have experienced a drop in living standards over the period.”

    — Michael J. Totten

Thoughts on the Sequester

I find it really interesting! The Obama White House came up with the idea of sequestration — reportedly by Tresury Secretary Designate Jack Lew and with the explicit approval of President Barack Obama. But now that it looks like his idea will go into effect, President Obama is attacking it as the worst idea ever. Fascinating!

Let's look a little more closely at President Obama's idea. A couple of key things stand out.

1. The first is IT IS NOT A CUT! — it's just a small reduction in the projected increase in the budget. Even with the sequestration, federal spending this year will still be higher than last year — just by not as much as automatically projected.
2. The second is that the sequestration amounts to just a SMALL PERCENTAGE CUT in the PROJECTED INCREASE in federal spending. IT IS NOT AN ACTUAL CUT IN SPENDING.

In other words, it really looks like the White House hype doesn't match the reality.

And then there are the issues of how the sequester's "cuts" are laid out. This, too, is in a couple of parts.

1. As the Obama White House designed it, 50% of the cuts are taken from defense — which is less than 20% of the federal budget. That's a much bigger cut, in relative terms, than the cut to the rest of the budget. And ...
2. The sequester does not specify where those cuts are to be taken. That specification is entirely up to the Executive Branch — the officials of the Obama Administration.

In other words, when President Obama tells us about all the terrible things that will result from the sequester, every single one of those things ie entirely up to him. He will choose where the cuts will be taken. If national parks are closed, it's because Obama chose to close them. If FBI agents are furloughed, it's because Obama chose to furlough them. If teachers are laid off, it's because Obama chose to lay them off. No one else has the authority to make those choices — only President Barack Obama.

So the one person doing all the fear-mongering — for his own purposes — is the one person responsible for whatever damage will be done.

This is what we need to keep in mind throughout the coming weeks and months. And to us all I say buena suerte.

UPDATE: Here's another view of the sequester's impact.

Obama & the Fiscal Cliff

The Congress and President Barack Obama went right up to the edge of the "fiscal cliff". Efforts to find at least a temporary solution went so badly that everyone involved dumped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and brought in Vice President Joe Biden to provide the Democrat side with at least a little rationality.

Why was that? It was because of President Obama's insistence on a fiscal cliff deal that increased taxes without any attached spending cuts. In other words,

Yes, President Obama said he (eventually) wanted a "balanced" approach — just not all at the same time. He wanted the tax increases now, and the spending cuts later. In other words, President Obama is today's version of Wimpy.

The trouble is that this gambit has been run on the Republicans before. It's always the promise of spending cuts later for tax increases now. The tax increases have always come quickly, but the promised spending cuts never materialize. So we see that that President Obama's "balanced approach" really looks like this:

Seems to me it's been just a giant scam on all of us. And it hasn't fixed anything about the deficit problem — in fact, it's added to it.

I'm Paying Your Share, Too!

This is a letter to the editor, printed in the Albuquerque Journal on January 8

I received a nice letter from the Social Security Administration last month, informing me that my Medicare Part B premium would be the standard $104.90, plus an income-related monthly adjustment of $230.80, for a total of $335.70. That figures out to $11.03 per day. I get no better coverage, of course, just pay more than three times as much as most people pay.

So "means testing" is here. I could cover all utility costs or eat for less per day. But, hey, the good news is I must be rich. I thought I was middle class.

Anyway, I am not complaining, because I know if I do, my coverage will likely be cut, too. How do I feel about all this? Oh, I'm happy to pay my share and the shares of at least two others.

What, you don't believe that? Yeah, I know. You think I'm a greedy old skinflint who doesn't want to pay is "fair" share. But if you work in a restaurant or retail business, don't expect to see me as often.

The "rich" are already paying more than their fair share — which is not good enough for the rich liberals who what to take even more from those a rung below them, so they can give it to others who (they hope) won't notice the loss of their rights and prosperity.

Gas Prices

This is the political season. That's what made this gas station owner give us a reminder about gas prices at his station the day Barack Obama took office as our president.

Here's today's reality in California, both in the mid-coast area

and in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.

And here's a gas station owner who has captured the cause as well as the effect.

Guess I don't need to add any comments. You all know the conditions out there.

UPDATE: Here is a one-image definition of the Obama presidency, now known to some as Gasmageddon.

A Minimum Wage Increase — How Can This Work?

There is now a proposal on the ballot in Albuquerque to raise the minimum wage (already above the national minimum wage) by an additional dollar. The measure's proponents say the higher minimum wage will infuse a bunch of new money into the city's economy.

How?

The measure won't bring in any new money. Yes, it will give more money to those making minimum wage. It will take that money from one of two sources:

    1. From the business owners who will find their return on their investment reduced, or
    2. From other employees either fired or not hired as a result of the higher labor costs.

Either way, this proposal brings no new money into the economy, but simply shifts money from one person to another -- both of whom would spend it.

In other words, this proposal will damage business owners and/or workers without producing any economic improvement.

Jobs Numbers Don't Add Up

The jobs report came out the day after President Barack Obama's speech at the end of the Democrats' national convention. It said the United States' economy had created 96,000 jobs in August. That's down a bunch from the revised 141,000 jobs in July. But it was enough to take the unemployment rate to 8.1% from 8.3%. The White House called this good news, saying “ today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression.”

I don't buy it. I don't believe the White House thinks this report is good news. They're just shoveling a heaping load of ****. The only alternative would be that the White House and the Obama campaign believe this — and are alone in this assessment. After all, 96,000 is well below the estimates made by the economists, and those estimates were down from the prior month's performance. In other words, even if the jobs numbers had been no worse than the estimates, that still would show the economy on a clear and strong downward trend. That's far from good news. It indicates a slowing economy, with job creation below its poor 2010 level.

There are a few other problems — like the Administration is "cooking the books." To get a reduction in the unemployment rate from that puny 96,000 jobs number, a number far too small even to keep up with the normal population increase in the labor force, the Bureau of Labor Statistics had to assert that 368,000 Americans left the labor force, gave up looking for work, and probably decided to give up their addictions to food and shelter. This was they only way they could artificially reduce the unemployment number.

The 96,000 jobs number itself is also suspect, at best. It is certainly not a net jobs increase. That is an absolute certainty. If 96,000 is the number of jobs created in August, then there were 215,000 jobs destroyed in that month. That's because there were 119,000 fewer people employed at the end of August than at its beginning.

Obama keeps trumpeting his claim to have created 4½ million jobs since June of 2010. The August jobs numbers make me wonder just how many million jobs he has destroyed in that time.

Obama Economics, Part 2

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner testified to the House Budget Committee last Thursday that the Obama Administration had no answer to the nation's long-term budget problem. The article I saw that reported this little nugget also showed a White House chart that demonstrates that Obama and White House statements -- that Obama's budget bends the debt curve over -- are false. White House statements disproven by a White House chart.

Committee Chair Paul Ryan had a similar chart that showed US debt passing 900% of GDP by about 2080.

Geithner took some offense, producing the following exchange.

GEITHNER: You could have taken [the chart] out [to the year] 3000 or to 4000. [Laughs]

RYAN: Yeah, right. We cut it off at the end of the century because the economy, according to the CBO, shuts down in 2027 on this path.

It's really looking like Barack Obama and his Administration are actively trying to destroy this country.

Obama Economics

The version of economics being pushed by President Barack Obama has a few problems. Among them are:

1. The end of the "Bush tax cuts", plus the increased surtaxes in the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (Obamacare) will increase the national tax bite by $0.5 trillion per year, beginning next year.
2. Gasoline prices are at new highs, and heading higher.
3. Barely over half the U.S. population pay any income taxes at all.
4. Only 33% of the U.S. population are
   1. taxpayers, and
   2. not government employees.
5. People making minimum wage (quoted here as $14,500/year) are better off than people making four times as much.

None of this is sustainable.

Obama Loves America

Got this in an e-mail a day or so ago

Definitely a very sharp pointed comment.

And then, today, there's this

That encapsulates a lot of worldwide history and experience.

Obama Actions on Jobs

President Barack Obama is "focused like a laser" on job creation, according to his supporters. So what has this focus accoumplshed?


In other words, not much.

If these are the results of his focus on jobs, can we please get him to focus on something else? Anything else? Please?

Obama Actions on Jobs

President Barack Obama is "focused like a laser" on job creation, according to his supporters. So what has this focus accoumplshed?

1. Obama decided to delay (at least) the Keystone XL pipeline that would have brought Canadian oil to the US and created at least 20,000 jobs.
2. Obama's Agriculture Department has decided to delay (at least) drilling in Ohio's Utica shale that would have created more than 200,000 jobs.
3. Obama's Interior Department continues to stall deepwater drilling for oil, despite supposedly having lifted the moratorium (ban) it imposed, thus blocking restoration of the Gulf region's jobs and oil production.
4. "The President’s plan is to simply say ‘no’ to new energy production," House Natural Resources Committee chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash, said to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar during a Congressional hearing.

If these are the results of his focus on jobs, can we please get him to focus on something else? Anything else? Please?

Both Sides of His Mouth

A prime example from the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto:

Two Former Enron Advisers in One!

• "There's obviously a relationship between tax rates and revenue. That relationship is not, however, one-for-one. In general, doubling the excise tax rate on a good or service won't double the amount of revenue collected, because the tax increase will reduce the quantity of the good or service transacted. And the relationship between the level of the tax and the amount of revenue collected may not even be positive: in some cases raising the tax rate actually reduces the amount of revenue the government collects."--from "Economics," by former Enron adviser Paul Krugman and Robin Wells (Mrs. Krugman), second edition, 2009

• "In Democrat-world, up is up and down is down. Raising taxes increases revenue. . . . But in Republican-world, down is up. The way to increase revenue is to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy."--Krugman, New York Times, Nov. 18, 2011

Clearly, President Barack Obama and his supporters believe the second Paul Krugman, and not the first. But it was the first that won the economics prizes.

Supercommittee Democrats' Bait & Switch

There had supposedly been negotiations between the Democrats and the Republicans on the "supercommittee". The Republicans had made what appeared to be a good offer. The Democrats "had sounded amenable to the possible deal, but their position suddenly hardened after going back to their caucus." Translation: They got their orders, from whoever, and followed them.

A little more detail:

Sen. Pat Toomey had worked out a framework that he considered pro-growth and a reasonable first step toward fiscal restraint, while making a major concession to Democrats on revenue in the interests of getting a deal. Max Baucus especially had sounded open to it and a sub-group of the supercommittee had been discussing it seriously — but no more.

Apparently, the Democrats on the committee were ordered to "dump" the agreement.

Why do I say that? The Democrats claimed they wanted a "balanced" approach, one that included revenue increases as well as spending cuts. Their intransigence was there would be no deal at all without revenue increases. To get a deal, the Republicans gave the Democrats what they said they wanted. Revenue increases — half a trillion dollars over the ten year period. But, from the Democrats' perspective, there was one thing wrong: The Republican plan had revenue increases, but not tax rate increases, and what the Democrats really want is tax rate increases.

In short, the Republicans gave the Democrats what the Democrats said they wanted, but the Democrats lied.

I also saw on TV an analyst saying (approcimately)

The Democrats have always regarded the "supercommittee" as a scam — a means of conning the Republicans into accepting major tax increases.

We can only hope the Democrats don't get what they want.

UPDATE: Here's further confirmation. Once again, as in past years, their proposed "deal" is $1 in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases. Trouble is, the tax increases always take effect and the spending cuts always prove to be mirages.

All the supercommittee Democrats want is huge tax increases.

The "Christmas Tree Tax"

The Obama Administration announced the imposition of a new fee on the sale of every Christmas tree in the nation. The new levy was first announced in the Federal Register yesterday. It is being imposed to fund a public relations campaign to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States.”

Opponents popped up immediately. One opponent said “The economy is barely growing and nine percent of the American people have no jobs. Is a new tax on Christmas trees the best President Obama can do? And, by the way, the American Christmas tree has a great image that doesn’t need any help from the government.”

But the Administration is adamant that the new levy is not a tax — it is a fee. The White House has sent out its spokesmen to push this assertion. In one instance, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich told ABC News that “I can tell you unequivocally that the Obama Administration is not taxing Christmas trees. What’s being talked about here is an industry group deciding to impose fees on itself to fund a promotional campaign, similar to how the dairy producers have created the ‘Got Milk?’ campaign.”

I guess it can't be a tax since it's being done by an executive department and not by Congressional legislation. But this White House statement is quite dishonest. If it were true, there would be no need for government involvement. And there would be no government involvement. If it were true, the industry groupd would implement the fee, and Christmas tree sellers — at worst — would have to choose between paying the fee or withdrawing from the organization. But this fee is mandatory. It is implemented by the government, to be used for projects managed by the government. And you can bet the first costs paid from the fee will be for the government bureaucrats to manage the program — in this case, the new federal Christmas Tree Promotion Board. That's not "an industry group deciding to impose fees on itself." Especially since a significant number of Christmas tree sellers don't want it and are pretty vocal about saying so.

The only bright spot in this story is that the White House has apparently wised up just a little. It has announced that implementation of the new tax/fee will be delayed, and its existence will be revisited. Since I'm feeling a bit cynical today, I'll guess that means they'll put it through at a time they think people won't notice till it's too late.