BECKLEY— As Mr. Obama holds his “job summit” I’d like to share some thoughts. There is something to admire in “do nothing” President’s that have the courage and political fortitude to leave Americans the right to do as they please and the freedom to make our own economic choices. President Obama has proved not to be a “do nothing” President. However, it is getting to a point where he has spent much, if not arguably all, of his political capital on very unsuccessful programs and policies. A recent CNBC.com article points out the fact that there is very little else Obama is able to do. I would like to disagree. Even while I admire some of the “do nothing” President’s of past history we are at a point and time in history where action at all levels of society are important and critical. There is much Mr. Obama must do and we should not begin to give him a pass. We should hold him accountable as much for what he has done as what he could have or should have done. There is no excuse for the fact that as his term closes the contry should be near full employment, with strong GDP (4-5%), and declining trade imbalances.
Barack Obama rode an economic crisis into the White House in November 2008. Now he’ll have to ride out the last of that economic storm if he’s to keep his own job in three years.
But with unemployment surging and the President’s poll ratings sinking, there’s growing debate about what—if anything—the President can do about the situation.
“There’s nothing new here,” says crisis management expert and former senate aide Larry L. Smith. “We have become a very impatient people. When things don’t turn around overnight, we get impatient.”
—As Jobs Summit Approaches, Obama Faces Limited Options
I simply do not buy into this lie. We should be impatient. We are heading over an insolvency cliff and we are going to end up being owned by foreign debtors. Their is much the President should be doing and much that needs to be changed from prior administrations.
The very first thing Obama should be doing is cutting government spending. Any monies not yet spent but promised should be rescinded. This is just a first step though as their are entire departments which are wasteful.
I’ve previously pointed out much of what could be done. It’s not like their isn’t any BIG pork barrel spending going on right now that could be cut! Medicare and Social Security to name a few are gigantic wastes! But it would take somebody with courage to tackle this. So what about elimination of some useless government agencies such as the The Office of National Drug Control Policy, The Department of Agriculture, The Department of Education, The Department of Health and Human Services, The Department of Housing and Urban Development, or The Department of Labor. This is merely a short list of some of the most wasteful and useless enterprises known to man! Even if Mr. Obama is too cowardly take such actions why couldn’t he cut some quasi-government agencies which opperate wrecklessly, like the FTC, FCC, FRS, the African Development Foundation, or the EPA to name a few! There is plenty Mr. Obama could AND should be doing.
Cutting many of these agencies would eliminate some regulations and regulatory enforcement which would be a good second step. Let American business compete freely! For example, the ignorance of CAFE legislation would be a nice place to start (especially because we’ve blown $50 billion on General Motors). Mr. Obama, and his party-controlled legislative branch, could do some serious damage to bad government regulation, but he won’t. This could create serious jobs.
The final item on my list, after spending control and deregulation, would be tax reform. Do it in a way that strengthens our economy but doesn’t hurt total tax receipts. Encourage the average American to save more and yet change the tax code so that they can also spend more. Fix our tax code by empowering private businesses to be competitive globally, increasing exports while reducing consumption of imports thus helping to lower the trade imbalance and increasing the financial solvency of this country.
A total of 29 OECD nations removed the taxes on exports. The U.S., with our horrible income and payroll taxes, does not do this! This creates both a large and artificial price advantage for foreign competitors. Some estimates put this disadvantage over 18%. Even MIT estimates this costs our economy in excess of $100 billion annually! That is a trillion dollars in cost every decade! Mr. Obama could do something to fix this and he should. This would top his stimulus bill by nearly $200 billion without costing the U.S. anything while also correcting the trade imbalance and creating serious long-term jobs.
Don’t buy into the rhetoric of “be patient, let’s see how this economy plays out” and “there is ‘nothing more’ that can be done”. It’s just merely an excuse, not a fact. There is a lot that can and should be done for unemployment today, and for the sake of our country tomorrow. We’ll see how Mr. Obama comes out of the job summit and what he points towards for action or inaction.
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
Interesting analysis. I concur with cutting wasteful spending, though politically, axing some of those departments you list would be basically impossible. I’m not so sure there would be much support for axing the department of education, for instance (even though I’m not a personal fan). And whether we like it or not, Social Security and MediCare are here to stay. We need reasonable reforms over those agencies that limit costs and move towards increased privatization of services- but eliminating them altogether is an impossibility. If anyone tried, they would be politically marginalized and rendered politically ineffective.
I will say, in terms of taxes, we still have one of the lowest (if not the lowest) overall tax burdens in the OECD. That’s the argument liberals use- they say we have headroom for much bigger tax increases. They are right on the overall tax burden, but wrong we need to increase taxes significantly.
I’m for reform of the tax code. But I think some modest tax increases are probably necessary in order to get our fiscal house in order.
I think the best approach to the deficit is a plan to cut government wasteful spending through axing various departments (as you say), privatize certain government functions (including private SS accts at some point), continue to extend retirement ages for SS and MediCare, and throw on modest tax increases (maybe capping them to the levels in the 1980′s – or at least under Clinton). I think politically they will have to take an all-in approach.
We have to do something that is politically plausible, because we really will ruin this country if we don’t attack the deficit with some real-world plans.
Oh – and let’s not forget. Obama CAN do something by calling off health care reform and cap-and-trade If he did those two things, you would see a pick-up in business optimism.
You’re right politically there might not be much he can do. But to say he shouldn’t try or should do nothing is, to me, letting him off to easy. Health care reform and cap-and-trade should go of course. But there is a lot of spending according to CAGQ.org
Their are billions in waste. As you say maybe he can’t eliminate Medicare and Social Security but he sure could stop the bleeding buy cutting them, extending age limits, and privatizing them. Do you know what the return on investment is for your social security funds if you live to your life expectancy? What a joke! He’s Obama he should have some political muscle to do something. Unless he’s just a horrible leader.
We may have one of the lowest tax rates compared to OECD but we don’t refund the taxes on items exported to make them price competitive like most other OECD nations. So, when you compare trade imbalances the rate is much worse. It doesn’t really matter if they raise or lower taxes because as long as the current system operates we’d still be uncompetitive. Raising taxes of course hurts but lowering them doesn’t really help much towards the insolvency issue because we sell our dollars for little Chinese goods causing another type of tax…inflation.
Again, Obama shouldn’t be sitting on his heals he should be doing things. Lots of things.
Pork doesn’t necessarily mean waste. Stuffing a project into an appropriations bill doesn’t inherently equate to waste.
Please define more clearly what deems an spending item as waste. These generalizations are hasty at best and too broad to be honest.
I’d be stricter then CAGR.org’s definition of pork spending which is as follows:
-Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
-Not specifically authorized;
-Not competitively awarded;
-Not requested by the President;
-Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or
the previous year’s funding;
-Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
-Serves only a local or special interest.
As to me government spending by definition is wasteful as government doesn’t (i.e. can’t be definition) add value. Some of Mr. Barack “Pork” Obama’s spending he has signed for is as follows:
$4,545,000 for wood utilization research in 10 states by 19 senators and 10 representatives. This research has cost taxpayers $95.3 million since 1985. One would think that after 24 years of research all the purposes for one of the world’s most basic construction materials would have been discovered.
$5,750,000 for nine projects by House appropriator Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), including: $1,100,000 for the Drew University Environmental Science Initiative; $300,000 for the Fairleigh Dickinson University Law Enforcement Distance Education Project; $200,000 for the County College of Morris planetarium; and $150,000 for traffic safety improvements in the town of Bridgewater. This spring, the Drew University Department of Environmental Studies hosted an “Environmental Film Festival” (“Fast Food Nation” premiered on March 2). On March 26, the department hosted spoken word artist George Watsky who, according to the department’s website, “is deeply involved in the sustainability movement and whose work highlights both the frustrations and humor of modern life.” In one of Watsky’s spoken word performances, he blames Hurricane Katrina on global warming and says we are “driving ourselves off a cliff with a bag of money in the trunk.”
I’m laughing what about you?
What about anonymous projects that are secret???
On the strength of an extremely expensive collection of “anonymous” projects, which do not contain the name of any representative or senator, dollar amounts in the 2009 Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act skyrocketed by 53.5 percent, from $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $11.2 billion in fiscal year 2009. The absence of such information violates congressional rules and contradicts repeated claims of more transparency in the appropriations process. Since the number of projects increased by only 1.1 percent, from 2,108 in fiscal year 2008 to 2,131 in fiscal year 2009, it would not have been too much work to fill in the blanks. The DOD Appropriations Act proved yet again that given the opportunity members of Congress would rather fund parochial projects instead of the Pentagon’s defense priorities.
I guess because it’s anonymous it can’t be pork then huh???
What about rebuilding Louisiana so it can be flood again that’s not pork is it…
$35,260,250 for 24 projects by Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee member Mary Landrieu (D-La.), including: $1,903,000 with scandal-plagued then-Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) for a clean power energy research consortium; $735,000 for Livingston Parish; $478,000 for the Port of Iberia; $400,000 for East Baton Rouge Parish; $287,000 for Spring Bayou; $254,000 for the city of Gretna; $229,000 for Cross Lake; $119,000 for ecosystem restoration of the Amite River and its tributaries; $191,000 for Bossier Parish; and $155,000 for the Calcasieu River and pass navigation.
$132,729,000 for 84 programs by Senate Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), including: $5,471,000 for the Iowa Department of Education to continue the Harkin Grant Program and $381,000 for the Cedar Rapids Symphony Orchestra’s residency program. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) proposed an amendment to eliminate funding for the Harkin Grant Program, which failed by a vote of 43-61. On the floor of the Senate on March 4, 2009, Sen. Harkin defended the earmarking process: “I basically disagree with sort of the underlying premise that somehow executive branch employees, all those bureaucrats, have a much better understanding of where and how Federal funds should be spent most effectively … over the years we have permitted that to happen, but we, through our oversight functions, can look at how that money is being spent … I am proud of both of those earmarks or congressionally directed spending, and I stand behind them.”
But I guess you’d agree if Sen. Harkin knows it all, just get rid of those pesky bureaucrats and earmark every penny of the budget?
What about giving internationally to poor countries like – Ireland!
$15,000,000 added by the House for the International Fund for Ireland (IFI). Established in 1986, IFI’s objectives are to “promote economic and social advance and to encourage contact, dialogue and reconciliation between nationalists and unionists throughout Ireland.” Projects funded by IFI in the past have included building a replica of the Jeanie Johnson (a Canadian ship that once ferried famine victims across the Atlantic), and Ben and Jerry’s ice cream stores. In his review of a glowing book about IFI released in January 2009, Sean Donlon stated, “While the fund will continue its work for the next couple of years it would be unreasonable to expect external support thereafter, especially in the current relatively stable political and security situation in Northern Ireland.”
CAGW from which I’m getting all this data has identified $264 million for this above project since 1995. Yes, that is $264,000,000.00 for poor IRELAND!
I could go on and on but it’s really to funny.
As to me government spending by definition is wasteful as government doesn’t
This is a slippery slope. Defense is a necessity and a cost requiring spending. I don’t find it to be a waste either. Defense spending has brought back developments of incredible value, the MRI for one…
Additionally, perhaps there is a stated need for acquiring high end materials for use in a defense department system. The materials need to be made by specialist companies. Open bidding on this does not procure resourceful spending as not all companies are capable of creating the material at the proper quality. If, say, extensive research has been completed through a peer review process and company X consistently demonstrates the capacity to fabricate the needed goods to the quality and standards needed for the defense project, it would be in the best interest of the nation that the money be specifically assigned to that company for the purchase of that product.
As described above:
-Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
-Not specifically authorized;
-Not competitively awarded;
-Not requested by the President;
-Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or
the previous year’s funding;
-Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
-Serves only a local or special interest.
All of the above could be attributed to a defense program. Example:
Unobtainium is needed for a satellite.
The satellite is part of a larger defense measure.
The measure was requested indirectly by the President.
“I request that we improve our defenses”
Company X has proven capable of providing Unobtainium in the volume and quality needed. Other companies can create it in varying degrees of capacity, but the market as a whole would require around 25 years to reach the volume and/or quality of company X. Should defense be put aside while competitive industry catches up with a company in control of proprietary information so as to favor competitive bidding?
Should the project be put on hold because the President didn’t specifically ask for this material?
Should the project be put on hold because it is a new project and therefore exceeds the previous years budget?
Should the purchase of the material be put on hold because the company wasn’t dragged in front of a congressional hearing and forced to disclose its proprietary information?
Should the project be put on hold because a disgruntled small government citizen views any award to a specific company an award to a local or special interest?
Again, there are many, many obvious wastes in the bills. I don’t doubt that. But one must be careful not to paint with too broad a stroke concerning spending. Otherwise you leave yourself standing there blind and unarmed.
As was posted by a Twitt on Tweeter on the NYT: Sure it’d be nice to get bin Laden, but we are war weary and it would cost too many billions more.
Transpose to reality: Sure it’d be nice to defend the country, but I’m tired and would rather not spend the cash.
Paul, I think we agree.
War by it’s very act of destruction is wasteful. It is best that it be waged by government. Could you imagine a war that by it’s nature was designed to add value… You end up with concepts like Auschwitz which was a military industrial complex (a business) designed to clean out the wasteful (in their eyes) people of society. The Nazi’s were paying (I think) 500 marks per Jew to Poland (I think). It was a business venture that the Nazi’s believed would add value.
Could a research firm not have invented the MRI? Perhaps cheaper and with out the cost of lives. I’d tend to think so.
Perhaps I should qualify. Government spending is wasteful but sometimes that waste is necessary. For example, in military spending where we want the waste to fall under bureaucratic control and elected officials because of it’s nature. We don’t want the military power in the hands of a few private companies. Regardless of whether or not the military could operate more efficiently under private organizations.
This would hold true for your satellite example as well. You point out that you don’t want to wait until the price get’s competitive and competition catches up. If it was under private control then they may decide by cost benefit to wait.
Your example, it’s to expensive and we’re tired. Perhaps it is expensive and we are tired but that is a decision for voters as a whole and not privatized industry. So, I don’t disagree. And when you point out that the government won’t wait for competition I think in a way your agreeing with what I’m saying – it’s wasteful but necessary.
The question is what do we want to waste money on? Big Pork Obama apparently want’s to waste money on a lot of things.
Several things.
I believe the MRI was further developed through the space program through research conducted in outer space. Could be mistaken on the item I’m citing being the MRI, but I do know there are many items in use today which were a result of space research, an extension of defense spending. So, maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but I don’t know that many companies have this ability.
But I think I strongly disagree with the semantics here. My contention is with the meaning of the term “waste”. “Waste” to me, means to use, consume, spend, or expend thoughtlessly or carelessly. Hence, I do not find government spending on defense inherently thoughtless or careless.
Regarding the MRI issue. Many companies don’t have that ability because of all the money the government soaked up running the space program and monopolizing it in trying to out do communism. However, what if Kennedy hadn’t pushed the issue onto the government, would we have lost the space race? That’s a big what-if which I doubt could be answered. And again I’m not sure that if left alone space flight wouldn’t have been dominated by corporations with a similar result. Imagine if NASA was able to effectively monetize all it’s technologies over the years, whew… I’d think they would have added more value to the U.S. economy then NASA government owned.
Yes, I think it is the semantics. As I don’t think I’m defining waste in the same manner that you are. As indeed a lot of thought and care can go into say defense spending. I’m defining waste more as something that doesn’t add value to the human experience or the country or in the case of the above thoughts U.S. economics.
The counter argument here against myself would be that defense spending does add value in that it keeps us safe. But this I think could be argued against just as easily (as liberals often do) that it doesn’t keep us safe it creates competition and arms races which militarize the globe making things less safe. Look at the lives of Christ, Ghandi, and ML King sometimes the world is a better place by turning the other cheek. A better investment would be making everybody our friends. Which I don’t buy either. I think there is a balance here Christ whipped the money changers after all.
The problem lies in the fact that evil exists as man is imperfect and fallen in nature. If good always won then we could all just turn our cheeks and walk away from evil but we are called to run a race and fight the good fight. In other words good doesn’t always win sometimes you have to go after those that are corrupting the temple. Thus, defense spending I would conclude doesn’t intrinsically add value because it doesn’t improve on the human condition, country, or whatever. The alternative is to try and improve on the human condition, people of other countries or our own, or whatever but this is DEFINITELY NOT the governments job because that’s just plain crazy. Again you end up with Auschwitz. Waste isn’t necessarily thoughtless and careless in my definition although it can be.
Am I making any sense?
I’m defining waste more as something that doesn’t add value to the human experience or the country or in the case of the above thoughts U.S. economics.
This is a very subjective definition.
Are you making sense? Nah. You lost me when you suggested the liberal counter argument to defense is valid. The arms race argument is weak and futile. Project that on personal self defense. So it’d be best to present oneself as terminally futile and entirely unable to defend against an agressor? This doesn’t make the world a safer place. It simply allows aggressors to get their way where ever they please. It leads to chaos and anarchy. Ghandi and Jesus are fine examples of peaceful action, but those examples are not wholesale road maps to defending a nation. God also armed the Isrealites with weapons. He didn’t send them out there naked.
As for the Government monopolizing space… I disagree. Companies are free to attempt it, and some are, but it is ridiculously expensive in terms of time, resources, and knowledge. And it isn’t like scubba diving. You don’t just take a couple of classes and slap on a space suite and bounce around a space can.
I wrote a reply that made up for all the previous confusing rhetoric from my previous posts with sheer intellectual genius…
Alas, for some reason it didn’t post and I’m not re-writing it except to say.
I do think the government has had an effective monopoly over space flight although not absolute (competition wasn’t disallowed but why compete with $416 billion dollar gorilla).
And second value added is subjective. However, I can’t agree that waste is completely thoughtless and careless. Waste can SOMETIMES be thoughtless and careless but everything operates at different levels of waste. Their is no endeavor that is ever or will ever operate at 100% efficiency. Life is about managing chaos and waste and when waste happens being able to recognize it and correct is what it is all about. The less waste you have the more value you can add. But nobody will every make the perfect widget. There will always be a better, cheaper, or newer design. I was trying to get at the point that the government tends to be on the higher inefficiency scale and usually makes pretty poor widgets. Weather this is a necessity like defense spending or a total waste like measuring the effect of cow farts on the ozone.
Their is no endeavor that is ever or will ever operate at 100% efficiency
Lies. I made a machine which does just this. It kept operating faster and faster. Eventually it just flew away.
Who is John Galt?
He IS a ” horrible leader” – and a classic “interventionist”. The only change that will come about under his administration is a continuing increase in government jobs at all levels and a corresponding loss of jobs in the private sector.
Until we get out from under the iron heel of Obama’s socialistic policies a return to the prosperity that a free market is out of the question. Obama’s path is obvious and set and unless Congress can come up with the courage to counteract him and his far-Left allies, America will continue to decline.
I find myself gravitating more and more toward the Forbes’ concept of a “Flat Tax” which I can see as the only way to achieve true equality.
I just don’t like the idea of an income tax. To me a long lived society is one that saves and invests when this stops that culture is doomed. Taxing income discourages savings and investing (because they create income). Taxing consumption on the other hand…
I encourage you to check out FairTax.org. They’ve got a Noble Prize winner as well as many other economists behind them.
Very interesting analysis and discussion FT.
For me it is a very simply equation:
Voter Involvement / Government Control = Freedom
The higher the numerator the greater our individual freedom.
The higher the denominator the more freedom we lose.
History, I believe, shows us that as the nation’s misery index rises the numerator increases and vice versa. We are simply not yet at the tipping point.
When we get there, we will have a chance to affect the change you describe.
Thanks. I might be somewhat elitist here however with modern media and internet access I think the voter’s are pretty plugged in already. I’d like to purpose an addition to your formula.
(Voter Involvement x Voter Education) / Government Control = Freedom
This is to say that an educated public versed in the philosophies of our historical Judeo-Christian world view, the history of the Republic, and the origin’s of our rights to individual freedom to mention a few key areas would bring greater freedom. The same is true in the inverse though if “Voter Education” is negative with voter’s being educated in popular culture, American Idolism, and socialist leanings of a leftists intelligentsia (a la Krugman, MSNBC, public schools, etc.) then we will get less freedom.
Yeah – good points, Chuck. I think we’re getting there, thank goodness.
Even Time magazine is expressing shock and dismay that Obama’s efforts to increase government intervention during this recession are being widely rebuffed by the electorate.
>In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, only 23% of respondents said they trust the government “always or most of the time”–the smallest proportion in 12 years.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1945357,00.html#ixzz0YpWzGHOB