20090223
20090213
Senator vs Secretary
Several prominent politicians have given up their Senator status in exchange for positions as Secretary in Obama's Cabinet. I do not understand this as I view it a step down. As a Senator, you are serving the people of your state directly. As a Cabinet Secretary, you are serving the President of the US. Firstly, since I assume most politicians are ego driven, I would have thought being a Senator a more independent and prestigious position. Secondly being in public service I would have thought serving the people directly would be better than serving an individual, even the PotUS. Finally, as a political career move, what have past Secretaries risen to become?
20090209
Reject the Stimulus Package as is
Having listened to Obama on TV encouraging support for the Stimulus package, I have to come out fully against it. He is clearly fear mongering of economic collapse, and thus some action is better than inaction. He never fully explain why the stimulus would create jobs rather than works.
And he is clearly the opposite of W. He speaks a lot but doesn't really say much. No efficiency of words.
Update: sign the petition at NoStimulus
And he is clearly the opposite of W. He speaks a lot but doesn't really say much. No efficiency of words.
Update: sign the petition at NoStimulus
Economic Stimulus: Work vs. Job
This exchange between Steele & Stephanopoulos highlights something that has been adequately addressed by the media's discussion regarding Obama-Democrat's "stimulus/pork package."
When the government spends money on short term projects, such as construction, work is created but not jobs. A job is something is stead work, something you can go to the bank with and use to get credit for a house or a car. A work is a temporary arrangement where you get paid for a limited duration, whether it be picking crops in the field or building a bridge. Any stimulus spending should keep this difference in mind.
The more I think about it, the less it make sense for the Government to spend money as a stimulus. Firstly, it takes money from taxes to spend, and in the process serves as the middle men. Be certain that the money it collects and the money doled out is not one for one. Secondly, the Government consistently acts in the short term, without sufficient thought to long term consequences. The government emphasis on works rather than jobs is a clear example of this. Thirdly, the taxpayer is in a much better position through his or her interaction with out capitalistic economy to direct spending dollars to what he, she, and the community needs as a whole. Fourthly, the increased in government spending for any stimulus package will only drive the deficit up, further limiting the availability of credits to the economy while increasing foreign ownership of our economy.
As such, the government stimulus should primarily be in the form of tax cuts. This will also have the added benefit of forcing the government to trim its budget. The primary spending of the government should be directed toward national defense.
The only stimulus spending at this point that makes sense to me are grants for research (both scientific, industrial and economic) that will lay the foundation for further discoveries.
HT: Right Wing Sparkle
When the government spends money on short term projects, such as construction, work is created but not jobs. A job is something is stead work, something you can go to the bank with and use to get credit for a house or a car. A work is a temporary arrangement where you get paid for a limited duration, whether it be picking crops in the field or building a bridge. Any stimulus spending should keep this difference in mind.
The more I think about it, the less it make sense for the Government to spend money as a stimulus. Firstly, it takes money from taxes to spend, and in the process serves as the middle men. Be certain that the money it collects and the money doled out is not one for one. Secondly, the Government consistently acts in the short term, without sufficient thought to long term consequences. The government emphasis on works rather than jobs is a clear example of this. Thirdly, the taxpayer is in a much better position through his or her interaction with out capitalistic economy to direct spending dollars to what he, she, and the community needs as a whole. Fourthly, the increased in government spending for any stimulus package will only drive the deficit up, further limiting the availability of credits to the economy while increasing foreign ownership of our economy.
As such, the government stimulus should primarily be in the form of tax cuts. This will also have the added benefit of forcing the government to trim its budget. The primary spending of the government should be directed toward national defense.
The only stimulus spending at this point that makes sense to me are grants for research (both scientific, industrial and economic) that will lay the foundation for further discoveries.
HT: Right Wing Sparkle
20090208
Government Bailout & Executive Pay Cap
I am all for the government imposing a cap on executive compensations with regard to salary, bonuses, and buy-outs. Firstly, it only applies to companies accepting government buy-outs and thus the government has a responsibility to see to it that the money is well spent and not wasted. This occurs in most other circumstances of government financial supports whether it be NIH research grants or federal moneys to states. Federal money should always come with restrictions. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, I hope this executive compensation restriction is such that the vast majority of large companies, those that are "too big to fail" would think twice about asking for federal hand-outs. I rather them take a chance on failure. I think this would be better for the companies, the economy, and the tax payers. Now small companies might be tempted to take government money but since our economy is built on the back of small and medium companies, I am fine with this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)