Occupy Canada

The Occupy [Insert Location] movement is coming to Canada.  Now, why can't the tea party movement come here?  It's not fair, dammit.  I guess Canada's conservatives are just too busy with their jobs and families (except for me).

Canadian organizers of the so-called Occupy movement are ramping up efforts to rally "against spiritual wickedness in high places" during a global day of action Saturday that now has the backing of at least a couple of major unions [unsurprisingly], and has put police and businesses on alert.

Thousands in at least 15 Canadian cities — from Vancouver to St. John's — were holding meetings Friday to complete plans for the weekend marches, sit-ins and other efforts to decry what the movement says is an uneven distribution of wealth caused by government policies favouring big business.

 So its communism they're demanding.

"I'm encouraged to see citizens rightfully stand up and take action against what are gross injustices in our economic and social structures," said CAW national president Ken Lewenza in a release Friday.

I thought that's what the tea party was for.

"It's time for people to take ownership of their streets, their economy and fight back against corporations and governments championing right-wing, neo-liberal policies that support a select few, at the expense of the majority."

I thought that's what left-wing policies did.

Canadian police units, notably in Toronto and Vancouver where the G20 protests in June 2010 and hockey riots this past June, respectively, have led to violence and arrests, have for days been planning their strategies for handling the Occupy protests. 

Police officials have been as tight-lipped about how they'll handle Saturday's mass events as the Occupy Canada organizers, who keep a low profile and let their Facebook, Twitter and other social networking efforts drive their planning.

No matter what happens, I predict there will be complaints of police brutality.  There always seem to be when left-wing protests are concerned.  However, when a large, unruly crowd is threatening the safety of people and businesses, the police should be able to do whatever they have to (with reasonable limits, of course), to contain that crowd and prevent any further escalation of violence.  If the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver are any indication, hooligans will use any excuse to create further disorder.

Tom Caldwell, chairman and CEO of Caldwell Securities Ltd., which has offices in Toronto and New York City, also isn't exactly sure about the Occupy movement's goals.

"The medium is the protest but what is the message?" he said.

I think the goal of the movement is communism, or at least socialism.  At the very least, it is an excuse for professional protesters to protest over nothing in particular.  I see this movement basically as a manifestation of an emotion-driven desire to turn North America into a left-wing "utopia".  But, with powerful American politicians that are sympathetic to the movement, such as Barack Obama, who knows how much influence this movement will have.  Perhaps Obama will take the movement as America wanting socialism, and I believe he is delusional enough to think that.  Maybe he will enact far-left policies in an attempt to appease the participants of this movement, thinking it will gain him votes.  Or maybe he will simply use this movement as an excuse to enact far-left policies.  Fortunately the Republicans control the House of Representatives.  I wonder what creative (/sarc) ad hominems Obama, the Democrats, and other liberals will use for the Republicans in this hypothetical situation.        

How to Create Jobs

Instead of attacking corporations in an attempt to get them to create jobs (as some union thugs have apparently suggested), which won't work, a better idea would be to minimize the impact of regulations and cut spending (to reduce uncertainty and the debt).  

Watching the US economy is like watching a slowly dying animal that is in agony.  The humane thing to do, in that case, would be to kill the animal to put it out of its misery.  Similarly, people in the US are suffering because of the economy.  For these people, the humane thing to do would be to get the recession over with so economic expansion can resume (and preferably not a "bubble" (i.e. artificial economic expansion)).  

When Obama gives his speech on the subject (which is on the 8th, I think), I am guessing his plan will not involve any of what I have said above. 

After I study economics a bit, I will write a post with a detailed plan for the US economic situation (I promise, I think).   

An Evil Corporation

From the Vancouver Sun:

BC Ferries says it is in the process of "discontinuing its sponsorship agreement with the Vancouver Canucks" in a letter accompanying its cagey reply to a Freedom of Information request regarding the amount it spends on tickets, luxury suites and advertising at Rogers Arena. 

BC Ferries has been a sponsor of the Canucks for years, an agreement which includes ads along the boards and access to a corporate box the ferry corporation can use to entertain guests.

But the publicly owned ferry corporation is refusing to tell the public just how much money it spends on the sponsorship and seats.

BC Ferries is the crown corporation that operates the various ferries throughout the province, most of which connect the Lower Mainland (Vancouver Metropolitan Area) to Vancouver Island.

I am glad that their sponsorship of the Canucks is ending, but why does a monopoly need to advertise?  They are spending taxpayer money to advertise something that people have to use if they want to take a ferry to Vancouver Island (or anywhere in the province).  The fact that taxpayer money is spent on tickets and luxury boxes is just outrageous.  Taxes are supposed to benefit taxpayers, not give VIPs a comfortable location from which to watch an NHL game.  These are the kinds of things that can be cut from the budget (instead of increasing fares).

Like many other crown corporations, BC Ferries should be privatized.  The government has no business running a corporation (particularly a monopoly).

But They're Obviously Racist

Most business economists favor spending cuts over tax increases (h/t Instapundit).  This is not a surprise to me, but it may inspire a few ad hominems from leftists (seeing as how that seems to be their preferred method of "debate").

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts. 

The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases. 

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending. 

The latest survey by the NABE was conducted in the two weeks ending Aug. 2, the day that the Senate passed and President Obama signed legislation to cut spending by more than $2 trillion and raise the nation's debt ceiling. 

The agreement managed to avert a potential default, but Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. credit from AAA to AA+, citing the political wrangling over the deal as a reason.

Insurance "Fraud"

If you live, or have lived, in British Columbia, you are likely familiar with the bureaucratic behemoth that is ICBC (Insurance Corporation of British Columbia).  That crown corporation has been responsible for many scandals and controversies throughout my memory.  The most recent is quite egregious.  At least three separate cases in which victims of car accidents have been forced by ICBC to pay for the damage.

This is yet another example of why ICBC needs to be abolished.  There doesn't seem to be any accountability, and British Columbians do not have much choice when buying insurance.  I am sure many people have their own reasons for despising ICBC.  I am sure it would be quite a process to dismantle this behemoth, and it would take time, but it would be worth it.  The government is a cancer.  ICBC is just another cancer-infested appendage that cannot perform its function effectively and needs to be amputated.

War, French Style

From Yahoo:

We all work hard at the office, right? Of course. But sometimes, you have to take a break and let off some steam. And sometimes, a challenge must be met, and a battle joined. Thus it was that when employees at Ubisoft Montreuil in France decided to blow off some creative steam by decorating their building's windows with animated characters created out of Post-it notes, their neighbors across the street at BNP Bank declared a Post-it War.

How stereotypical.  The French would rather make art than work.  When I first saw this, the first thought I had was "what about all of the lost productivity?"

Steam, Baby, Steam

Here is a fascinating article (h/t Instapundit) on the scientific process involved in mining oil from sand that occurs in Alberta's oil sands.  And, here is a very salient point (from that article):

Modern capitalism and the technology it engenders has lifted a significant proportion of humanity out of our natural state of abject poverty for the first time in history. 

Indeed, Alberta's oil sands stimulated the economy and caused an economic boom there.  Alberta has, by far, the highest per capita GDP of all provinces.  Its median income, as recorded by the 2006 census, was $70,986 CAD (approx. $63,900 USD in 2006, or $71,631 USD now).  According to Canadian free market think tank the Fraser Institute, Alberta trailed only Delaware and Texas in economic freedom among US States and Canadian Provinces.  

Also, the oil sands tick off environmentalists, which is always a bonus.

A subsequent article, by the same author (Ronald Bailey), describes the benefits the US would amass by importing Canadian oil:

TransCanada’s Robert Jones, who is in charge of getting the Keystone XL pipeline approved and completed, pointed out the energy security benefits to the United States of importing oil from Canada. He asked, why would the U.S. want to depend on “conflict oil” imported from countries run by unsavory regimes like those of Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia? And whose oil is dirtier? After all, producing oil sands crude in Canada already includes the costs of reclaiming the land and a whole panoply of other environmental regulations.

 The assembled Canadian oil moguls cited studies [PDF] that project the creation of as many as 600,000 jobs and a $775 billion boost to the U.S. gross national product by 2035 as a result of importing Canadian oil. 

To environmentalists concerned about disturbing boreal forest, the percentage of Canada’s total area covered by boreal forest that is disturbed for oil development is about 0.019%.  That article also describes another method of extracting oil from sand that is used for oil 350 feet below the surface, steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) and its environmental impact:

Interestingly, anti-oil sands activists who eagerly highlight photos of the vast oils sands mining pits, don’t tend to show photos of SAGD facilities. Likely this is because such pictures would not do much to scare target audiences—the footprint of SAGD operations typically occupies only 5 percent of the land from which oil is being recovered, leaving most of the forests undisturbed. 

Back to "Dirty Oil Sands," to which I linked earlier in this post, they present a number of beautiful images on their website.  Personally, I have always been awestruck by massive industrial structures and works.  

Cycling and Socialism

One thing that irritates me immensely is when politicians are obstinate about implementing unpopular programs or initiatives because “they are better for everyone.”  An example is Vancouver’s mayor, Gregor Robertson, and his zeal for cycling.  Among cyclists, Vancouver is known as a cyclist-unfriendly city.  Mayor Robertson is hell-bent on changing that.  He has established numerous cycle paths in Vancouver, despite opposition from motorists and business owners.

Montreal, on the other hand, is known among cyclists as a cyclist-friendly city.  Montreal has sacrificed parking spaces downtown for bicycle paths.  This has created problems such as a shortage of parking and lower profits for businesses.  Because parking spaces at the sides of streets are converted into bicycle lanes, there is less parking available which means less patrons for businesses. 

The motivation of having a cyclist-friendly city is to reduce traffic, thereby reducing congestion, as well as pollution, and offering an alternate commute.  Those are all noble causes, or whatever, but they should not be pursued at the expense of parking, which, especially in Vancouver, is a sparse commodity.  Montreal is having problems, and Vancouver’s nascent bicycle lanes are already causing problems as well.

So, given that bicycle lanes cause problems, and given that there is much opposition to the establishment of bicycle lanes in downtown Vancouver, Mayor Robertson's obstinacy is quite irritating.  Of course, given that he is a leftist, this is unsurprising.  One of the central tenets of leftism (or liberalism, progressivism, socialism, social democracy, or whatever you want to call it) seems to be that (private) business can be sacrificed for anything else.  I suppose this is logical, considering socialists treat the private sector like an ATM.  

I Love Sweden

About seven days, two hours, and forty minutes ago, I wrote a post about Norway.  Entitled "What is Wrong With Norway?," I quoted a description of Norway's economic model, called the Nordic Model, from Wikipedia:

This particular adaptation of the mixed market economy is characterised by more generous welfare states (relative to other developed countries), which are aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights and stabilizing the economy. It is distinguished from other welfare states with similar goals by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, large magnitude of redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.

When I wrote that post, I said this:

I must say that I am disappointed in some of the information I am learning, as I have always been quite fond of Scandinavia...

Since then, I have learned a bit more about Scandinavia (and other Nordic nations).  And this time, I am not disappointed in the least.  Watch the following video.  Not only does it explain my new-found love for Sweden, but it also explains the benefit of a free-market economy. 

(h/t to GayPatriot reader ILoveCapitalism)

That video contains the URL of a CATO Institute policy analysis.  How can you not love a country whose economic model is praised (loosely speaking) by the CATO Institute?

Notwithstanding problems associated with a large welfare state, there is much to applaud in Nordic nations. They have open markets, low levels of regulation, strong property rights, stable currencies, and many other policies associated with growth and prosperity. Indeed, Nordic nations generally rank among the world's most market-oriented nations. 

Nordic nations also have implemented some pro-market reforms. Every Nordic nation has a lower corporate tax rate than the United States, for example, and most of them have low-rate flat tax systems for capital income. Iceland even has a flat tax for labor income. And both Iceland and Sweden have partially privatized their social security retirement systems. 

The Nordic nations offer valuable lessons for policymakers, but they do not fit the traditional stereotype. Conservative critics correctly condemn the large welfare states, but often overlook the positive results generated by laissez-faire policies in other areas. Liberals, meanwhile, exaggerate the economic performance of Nordic nations in an effort to justify welfare-state policies, while failing to acknowledge the role of free market policies in other areas.

Here is a link to the CATO Institute's policy analysis.  What follows are some excerpts from that analysis:

Before drawing conclusions about the desirability of the Nordic model, however, it is important to answer three relevant questions: 

1. Why are Nordic nations relatively rich?
2. Has the welfare state has helped or hindered these countries’ economic performance?
3. Does the Nordic Model create more prosperity than the (relatively speaking) limited-government model in the United States?

The answer to all of those questions is that Nordic nations are reasonably successful in spite of the welfare state. Nordic countries benefit from institutions—such as property rights, stable currencies, and the rule of law—that facilitate economic growth. And although they have large welfare states and concomitantly high levels of taxation, their economic systems in other respects are very market-oriented. Combined with the fact that before the mid-1960s the burden of government in Nordic nations was modest, these factors help explain why those countries today are relatively prosperous.

 ...

The two main ways of comparing economic performance are rate of growth and level of output. One measures how fast gross domestic product (or some similar measure of economic output) is expanding. The other compares the absolute level of economic output (or some similar measure of prosperity). By both measures, the Nordic nations generally do not fare well when compared to the United States. ... According to the OECD, the U.S. grew by an average of 3 percent between 1981 and 1991and 3.3 percent between 1992 and 2006 (mean-ing average growth of 3.2 percent for 1981 to2006). The Nordic nations, by contrast, grew by an average of 2.2 percent between 1981 and 1991 and 2.7 percent from 1992 to 2006 (meaning average growth of 2.5 percent over the entire period). The IMF, meanwhile,reports that U.S. growth averaged 3.1 percentfrom 1981–2006 compared to an average of 2.6percent for Nordic nations in the same period.

... 

...the tax burden in Nordic nations and America was remarkably similar until 1960. Not coincidentally, it was during this pre-1960 era that Nordic nations grew rapidly and became rich.  

Beginning in the mid-1960s, and accelerating through the 1970s and into the 1980s, however, the Nordic nations created large welfare states. Indeed, this is the key difference between America and the Nordic nations. The United States has a medium-sized welfare state and the Nordic nations have large welfare states. Otherwise, America and the Nordic nations have many features in common. Both the Nordic nations and America have sound institutions, including stable currencies, rule of law, and property rights. Both the Nordic nations and America have relatively open markets. Indeed, if the “size of government” factor is removed from the Economic Freedom of the World indicators, Nordic nations score an average of 8.35, ranking above the 8.25 score for the United States.

...

The Nordic nations also have excellent reputations for honest government. According to Transparency International, the five Nordic nations rank among the eight least corrupt nations in the world, with Finland and Iceland tied for first place. The United States also does well, with a ranking of 20 out of 163 nations, but the higher scores for the squeaky-clean Nordic nations presumably help offset the larger burden of government.

The Nordic nations also deserve attention for important reforms. Iceland, for instance, has a flat tax (albeit with a 36 percent rate), personal retirement accounts, and quasi-privatized fisheries. Sweden, meanwhile, has an extensive school choice system and personal retirement accounts.

... 

Before the 1960s, Nordic nations had modest levels of taxation and spending. They also enjoyed—and still enjoy—laissez-faire policies and open markets in other areas. These are the policies that enabled Nordic nations to prosper for much of the 20th century. Once their countries became rich, politicians in Nordic nations focused on how to redistribute the wealth that was generated by private-sector activity. This sequence is important. Nordic nations became rich, and then government expanded. This expansion of government has slowed growth, but slow growth for a rich nation is much less of a burden than slow growth in a poor nation.

What I take from this is that the Nordic nations can learn from the United States.  Based on that video, it seems Sweden is slowly returning to its pre-1960 model.  Because I have ancestors from Sweden, I feel a closeness to it.  This is very welcome information indeed.  

It is important to note that that CATO Institute analysis is from 2007, before the worldwide economic crisis.  The Nordic nation of Iceland has since undergone a major financial crisis, and so any reference to Iceland may not be reliable.  I think an analysis of Iceland's current economic situation is required to ascertain exactly how Iceland fits into all of this.  To my knowledge, the other Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland) were relatively unaffected by that worldwide crisis.

Rhetoric, Fear and REAL Hope and Change

I can't get past Obama's rhetoric.  Many, many other people have pointed out what a hypocrite Obama is.  He promised post-partisanship, but it seems like every speech he makes contains some sort of vilification of Republicans (not to mention "millionaires and billionaires," and my personal favorite, "corporate jet owners").  Obama might have his rhetoric and the obsequious media to rely upon, but the reality of reality should hopefully be enough to evict Obama from the White House.  Obama's and the media's rhetoric cannot be enough to obfuscate the facts (low unemployment, high inflation, et cetera) when so many people are well aware of them, and since they are having such a profound effect on peoples' lives.

Any prosperity loving citizen of a Western nation should support the Tea Party Movement, given how inextricably linked the US's economy is to that of the rest of the world.  I really hope Americans nominate the right Republican to challenge Obama.  I do not believe a RINO like Mitt Romney would be able to effectively curtail government spending, and everyone in the Western world should be paying close attention.  It is too early to determine who the right candidate is, in my opinion, however.  At this point, I would probably support Herman Cain.  I think someone with leadership experience in the private sector may be the perfect person to deal with what the next president will inherit from Obama.  Yes, it would be a risk to elect an outsider, but, at this point, it would be a risk that is well worth taking.  Having said that, I would not support Herman Cain completely at this point.  It is too early.  And, if either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio enters the running, well, they are just too damn good not to support.  But that doesn't look like it will happen.

I am a concerned Canadian.  I am also a university student with a very tight budget.  I don't need a stagnant economy to make things more difficult than they will already be.  I don't have nearly as much at stake as most Americans, but the prospect of another Obama presidency, which will almost inevitably lead to an economic crisis the likes of which Americans haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression (if my amateur reasoning can be relied upon), and hence one the likes of which Westerners haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression, frightens me.

UPDATE: After re-reading this, I realized the last sentence didn't make any sense, so I fixed it.

Does Obama Know What Fair Means?

President Obama has frequently demanded "the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share."  However, I do not believe Obama knows the definition of the word "fair."  According to the Free Dictionary, "fair" means:

a. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.

b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.

So, if Obama really wanted "the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share," he would propose a flat income tax or a sales-based tax.  Also, taxes aren't really fair in the first place.  Essentially, when the government collects taxes, it is stealing the hard-earned money of hard-working people.  Isn't that also kind of what labour unions do?  

When Politics and Sports Collide

Arizona must be one of the USA's most scenic states.  The desert, the mountains, the canyons, and the red rocks are all things that contribute to Arizona being one of my favorite states.  Obviously, Arizona is one of the states that borders Mexico.  And, as such, it is prone to illegal immigration.  To anyone who has been reading my blog, it should come as no suprise that I would be all for toughening immigration laws as well as enacting laws that are designed to prevent illegal immigration.  So, when I first heard about Arizona SB 1070, I was proud of Arizona for trying to solve its immigration problem.  The reactions of some people, however, left me confused.  For example, the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis, and St. Paul all boycotted Arizona in some form.  I can understand Los Angeles, but how could Minneapolis possibly know how bad the situation in Arizona is with illegal immigrants?  Also, there were accusations that the bill was racist.  That is ridiculous, since the bill was designed to solve a problem that was getting out of hand.  Anyway, there was one particular reaction that I wanted to mention.

Last may, the Phoenix Suns wore jerseys that read "Los Suns" both to celebrate Cinco de Mayo and to protest Arizona SB 1070.  Since the Phoenix Suns are a private corporation, they should have the right to protest the bill.  However, I am not so sure that would make business sense.  Since it is a sports team, perhaps its fans who support the bill would overlook that protest.  It just seems kind of odd to me that they would take the risk of alienating some of their fans, especially when some polls suggested that over 70% of Arizonans supported the bill.   It was over a year ago, so maybe most people have forgotten about that protest.  I have no idea.  

In case anyone is wondering, there is really no reason I am mentioning this now.  I just saw something that reminded me of it, so I decided to opine.  

The Green (and Red) Economy

An electric car company, based in Salinas, California, is the latest example of a "green" company that cannot sustain itself, even with the assistance of the taxpayers.  Here is an excerpt from an excellent article at Forbes  (and thanks to Vicki at Frugal Café for citing that article):

...in the name of environmental activism, and most particularly global warming, government is squandering billions of dollars each year giving taxpayer money to companies that have no hope of producing a marketable product. Companies like Green Vehicles pocket the money and then go bankrupt. Other companies, like wind and solar power companies, perpetually maintain their station at the government pork trough, yet never produce products at a remotely competitive price. As a result, money that could have and would have been invested in goods and services that actually improve people’s lives is instead flushed down the big green toilet.

There is nothing I need to say that isn't said in that article.

The Anger of the Green Party is Proportional to my Happiness

The government of Canada is cutting funding to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by 43.1%, shortly after a 6.9% cut.  Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, is outraged:

Harper’s Throne Speech in June committed to improving the environmental assessment process, and instead he is driving a stake into its heart, it makes absolutely no sense to be giving $1.4 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry while allotting a measly $17 million to CEAA. In what way is that protecting our environment? 

I disagree with subsidies to oil companies, but this is good news to me.  Anything that infuriates Elizabeth May makes me happy (in general). 

The priorities of the Harper government are obviously not in line with those of Canadians.

Really?

A poll released this week found 45 per cent of surveyed Canadians said the federal government should make health care — a topic the government and federal politicians are often shy to talk about — a priority in next week's budget.  That's compared to 35 per cent who chose the economy, and 15 per cent who picked the environment.

Emphasis added.
In a throne speech, Harper stated:

“Our Government is committed to developing Canada's extraordinary resource wealth in a way that protects the environment. It will support major new clean energy projects of national or regional significance, such as the planned Lower Churchill hydroelectricity project in Atlantic Canada. It will engage the provinces, territories and industry on ways to improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects, while ensuring meaningful consultation with affected communities, including Aboriginal communities.”

Perhaps eliminating excess spending on this environmental agency is what Harper meant when he said the government will “improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects.”

I direct you to Bjørn Lomborg, whose views are similar to mine:

Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.

 I don't agree with him about spending money on fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and water, but with everything else I agree.

The radical environmental movement is largely based upon emotion and fear rather than rational analysis.  Protecting the environment should be a priority, but it should be done within reasonability.  The Earth belongs to humans, and it is ours to exploit for our own personal gain.  But we have to keep in mind that protecting the environment is also in our best interest.  We just can’t let emotion dictate how we approach environmental protection.

Industrial activity does not equal environmental destruction.  Industrial sites can be reclaimed. In addition, the environmental friendliness of industrial practices has drastically improved in recent decades.  The role environmental regulations has played in that should not be ignored, but, in my opinion, the reach of environmental regulations is overkill.  It just doesn’t make sense to impede business with regulations, especially regulations that have questionable efficacy.  In some cases, environmentally friendly business practices are good for business.  For example, environmentally friendly products are ubiquitous and the efficient use of energy saves money.  

This brings me back to the original topic of this post, the federal government’s cut on the funding for the CEAA.  In addition to the obvious advantage (decrease in government is (generally) always good), I applaud this move for the reasons above.  That Elizabeth May and the Green Party are angry is always a bonus.  

Marco Rubio's Wisdom

On CBS's Face the Nation, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says this on the debt problem:

Well, certainly the debt limit is an issue but I think the bigger issue here is the debt and I think what troubles me, Bob, is that no one is focusing on the real problem here. The real-- the real problem here is not the debt limit, the real problem here is the debt and a lack of a credible plan to deal with the debt. And it’s not me saying, it is the rating houses are saying it. If you read the S&P report, they made it very clear that simply raising the debt limit is not enough it needs to be accompanied by some serious effort to credibly deal with the American’s debt problem. And if that is not what we do we’re going to have a big problem, perhaps bigger than anything the administration has been talking about.  

...I think everybody in Washington would like to see more revenues. The question is number one how do you get more revenues? And number two, what do you do with it? I think more revenue should come from economic growth. And I think it should come from that because I think it’s impossible for it to come from tax increases. None of the tax increases the President is proposing solves the problem. They don’t raise enough money. In fact, they make it worse. They kill jobs. And by the way, I don’t trust Washington, because they have shown time and again that any time they get their hands on more money, they don’t use it to pay or avoid debt, they use it to grow the government. So, that’s what I’m in favor of. I’m in favor of-- of more revenue that comes from economic growth, the creation of new jobs. And if you talk to job creators, not politicians, not presidents, you talk to job creators, they will tell you that what they are looking for is a fair and simpler tax code, so I do support tax reform and I think there is a lot of support for tax reform in Washington. And they are looking for some regulatory reform as well because they think these regulations that are being imposed make America a more unfriendly place to do business.

And this on entitlements:

I come from a state that has a massive number of retirees and I’ve stood before cameras like this and made it very clear that if we don’t do something to save Medicare and Social Security they will bankrupt themselves and bankrupt our country. That those-- those programs are unsustainable as they are currently structured, that we are going to lose those programs unless we do something to deal with it. I did that during the campaign and everybody told me I’d lost my mind in terms of talking about these issues. So I think as far as I am concerned and many like me, we have stepped up and talked about some of these issues that face America. I mean, senator, I’m sorry, Representative Ryan, Congressman Ryan has played a terrible political price early on this year for even offering a potential solution to some of these problems. 

...we don’t have to do anything for current beneficiaries, people like my mom or people near retirement. I do think we have to look at the retirement age. I do pe-- do think that people like me, I’m forty, just turn forty a month ago, people like me have to accept the fact that there will not be a Social Security for us, unless we are willing to retire a little bit later. That’s-- that’s-- and people in my generation are going to have to accept that. And I am open to other people’s suggestions. Absolutely, I’m open to people’s suggestions, because I want to save Social Security and I want to save Medicare. As far as our solutions are concerned to the overall problem I think a credible solution to our debt problem has to have two components. It has to have budgetary reforms, in essence a de-- decrease in spending, of at least four trillion dollars or more and it has to come with some sort of growth enhancers, something that helps grow our economy. You cannot get yourself out of this debt problem at nine percent unemployment with over twenty-four million Americans either unemployed or underemployed.

A Thought on Taxes

If you use the justification that businesses are making good profits to raise taxes on businesses, what will they cut from their budget to pay for the new taxes?  Since the purpose of a business is to make profit, I would guess that the business would cut from the budget whatever would have the lowest impact on their profit.  I highly doubt that they would take that money that they need to pay for the new tax directly out of the profit.  And I highly doubt that that business's executives would cut their own salaries. They might lay off some employees instead.  Who knows, I do not have experience in business, so I could be way off.  However, it goes against my reasoning that any taxes on business would be a good idea.

Debt Talks Stalled

House speaker John Boehner walked out on talks to reduce the US debt and prevent the US from defaulting.  It appears that the Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling (so they can spend more money, presumably) and raise taxes in an attempt to reduce the deficit, while the Republicans want to cut the budget:

The Treasury Department has warned that failure to do so by August 2 could lead to a possible default, which could push interest rates to skyrocket and cause the dollar to plummet. But Republicans, including those controlling the House, have insisted on large-scale budget cuts before raising the ceiling.

Both parties have thus far been unable to reconcile their radically divergent strategies to solve the nation's economic crisis, as Republicans refuse to raise taxes in a weak economy and Democrats denounce proposed cuts to entitlement programs as draconian and unacceptable.

The Democrats want to continue using their Keynesian approach, which so far, has worked out very well.  Or, at least, according to “experts,” has shown unexpectedly poor results.  So, if the poor results were unexpected, then it means that good results were expected, so it follows that the best approach would be to continue using the same approach that failed in the past (what is that called again? Insanity?).  The Republicans want to do something, that according to basic economics, might actually solve the debt crisis and stimulate the economy at the same time.  But, of course, doing so would entail performing unspeakable, evil acts such as pushing grandma off a cliff and not stealing so much money from people who actually deserve it.  How evil and “draconian.”  I mean, they use draconian as if it were a bad thing.  If they weren’t so blinded by their compassion they might actually realize that most people who deserve it would actually benefit from entitlement cuts because of the aforementioned economic stimulation that budget cuts would provide.  People might actually be able to find a job so they would not need to rely on the government to babysit them.

However, it does seem that maybe President Obama is not completely insane:

President Barack Obama had signaled a willingness to include reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare as part of a broad agreement for $3 trillion to $4 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade, said Democratic officials familiar with the negotiations.

I will reserve judgement until the president actually acts.

But Boehner's announcement Saturday appears to diminish the chances for such a sweeping deal, although he kept open the door for some sort of less grand agreement.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said the group, spearheaded by Biden, has identified "between $2 trillion and $2.5 trillion in spending cuts that could represent the framework of the agreement." But he said that any tax hike cannot, and will not, be part of any deal."A tax increase cannot pass the House, and it is the last thing Congress should be doing with so many people out of work," said Brad Dayspring, the Virginia Republican's spokesman.A House GOP leadership aide said earlier this week that both Cantor and the No. 2 Senate Republican, John Kyl, voiced reservations at a White House meeting Thursday about the prospects for getting a $4 trillion package if it included $1 trillion in new tax revenues. Republicans were hesitant, the aide notes, to agree on any proposals that go much farther than simply closing loopholes.

The republicans should be resolute during these negotiations, given that they seem to have some grasp on reality.  And, if the United States does default, perhaps that would be an opportunity to get things over with so prosperity may resume sooner, rather than later.

While he didn't specify what tax hikes, if any, the president had proposed, Pfeiffer said it was important to spread the burden of any deal."We cannot ask the middle class and seniors to bear all the burden of higher costs and budget cuts," he said. "We need a balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share as well, and we believe the American people agree."

Yes, because the evil rich people (some of whom actually earned their money) are always the ones responsible for destroying the country.  If the Democrats really wanted to be fair, they would end the redistribution of money and enact a flat tax across all income brackets or a sales-based tax.  Oh, and since when do budget cuts cost money?  I would think that they would actually save money.  I mean, that is the whole point of cutting the budget.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, said he was "disappointed that Republicans are unable to work with us to take a dramatic step forward that would have dramatically reduced our deficit."

"We asked Republicans to consider a balanced approach that would have required shared sacrifice, but they would not," said Reid, D-Nevada. "We still need to make sure we avert the economic catastrophe that would occur if we were to let America fail to pay its bills for the first time in our history, and I am confident that we will."

Harry Reid is always reliable to offer some sort of twisted logic.  They want to raise taxes to close the deficit, while increasing the debt ceiling?  And they are disappointed in Republicans, whose proposal is much more viable?  And Reid wants the shift the burden from the people who are living off the government to the people who are actually suffering?  Am I not understanding this properly?

President Obama's Press Conference, 06/29/11

I watched President Obama’s press conference on CNN.  While I was watching it, I noticed some things on which I wanted to comment.  The press conference covered numerous topics, such as the budget, the economy, Libya, and gay marriage.  I was watching the press conference while taking notes, so I am relying solely upon my notes and my memory in writing this.  I apologize if I got something wrong or if I left out anything pertinent.

The Budget and the Economy

Obama impugned Republicans for not doing anything about the economy.  Overall, I found Obama’s analysis of the economic situation to be simplistic in that he appeared to equate cutting entitlement spending to eliminating scholarships for students, cutting funding for critical research, and asking seniors to pay more for Medicare and social security (he used these things as examples of what would happen).  He mentioned having a balanced approach, and he stressed the need for Republicans and Democrats to compromise.  He laid out on what, specifically, he was willing to compromise.  In short, his plan is to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires,” oil companies, and people with private jets; cut defense spending; increase spending on infrastructure to create jobs; finance small businesses; reduce the debt and the deficit; and reform the tax code.  Overall, Obama stressed the importance of debt and deficit reduction as well as job creation.  Of course, Republicans have laid out a plan.  From what I can tell, these plans seem to be at odds.  It does not seem as though Obama would be willing to compromise further or address Paul Ryan’s common-sense plan to cut spending on entitlements.  My opinion is that the main priorities of the federal government of the United States should be to do what it was meant to do and not cater to the failings of its citizens.   

There is one thing Obama said that I think is important to mention.  I apologize if the quote is incorrect, but it is approximately correct.  He said, “Keep in mind, businesses always complain about regulation” and “businesses will always complain about regulation because they want to be able to do whatever they can to maximize profits” and “it is my responsibility to uphold good regulations that protect the environment and safety” and “lets get rid of regulations that don’t make sense.”  Obama speaks of profits as though they are a bad thing.  Of course businesses are going to do whatever they can to maximize profits.  And if they cannot do that in the US, they will do it somewhere else.  Profit, after all, is the point of having a business.  Again, Obama’s understanding of the economic situation is simplistic.  

Then, he talked about Boeing in South Carolina.  He said that companies should have the freedom to relocate (within the US, I presume), as long as the law is followed, and that companies should be encouraged to create jobs in the United States to maintain competition with other countries.  I agree with his general statement, but I would say that this encouragement should consist of business-friendly regulations that make companies feel as though they (specifically, their profits) would benefit from creating jobs in the country in question.  

Later in the press conference, he started talking about the debt ceiling.  He said that it needs to be raised (before the deadline when the US will reach its borrowing limit, August 2nd) to avoid more problems.  What he said was approximately “August is a hard deadline.  This is a jobs issue.  If the US government cannot pay its bills, if it defaults, the consequence for the economy will be unpredictable.  If the US government does not pay its bills, if the US has to raise interest rates to pay its bills, more people will have to pay higher interest rates which will increase economic worries.”  He then faulted Republicans for “picking and choosing” which bills to pay. 

Now, here is my favorite part.  Obama talked about his leadership concerning people that have said that his leadership has been insufficient.  He said that he has had leadership.  He then said, “At a certain point, congress members need to do their job.”  He said he is doing all the work and that congress is not doing anything.  He said they are not making tough choices and not leading.  He said that he has been working on Afghanistan, bin Laden, and Greece, and that congress needs to lead on the domestic front.  This sentiment of his is important, because this part effectively summarizes his entire presidency.  He has relied on others to lead, while he takes credit for the success of others, again reminding America that he was in charge during the death of Osama bin Laden.  He heavily criticized congress for not leading with regards to the economy, while they, unlike Democrats, have put forward a budget.  The remainder of the portion of his press conference consisted primarily of rhetoric along the lines of “we need to put aside politics to get things done” and “these are solvable problems but it requires us to get out of the short term and selfish approach that politics breeds, we need to think about it long term.”    

Libya

Obama defined the goal of the mission in Libya as protecting the Libyan people, which he said would ultimately necessitate removing Muammar Gaddafi from power.  He made clear that Gaddafi needs to go.  My question is, what about Syria?  Isn’t the situation in Syria worse than that in Libya?  If it is, and if the situation in Libya warrants military action, shouldn’t the situation in Syria also warrant military action?  The people of Syria are being slaughtered under an oppressive regime.  So, the US military (and NATO) should either commit to both Libya and Syria (if the reason for intervening in Libya is to protect the Libyan people, as the president says), just Syria (if Syrians are, in fact, in more danger than Libyans, which it seems as though they are), or neither.  

Gay Marriage

Obama applauded New York for its decision in legalizing gay marriage.  He said DOMA was unconstitutional and that the decision on whether or not to legalize gay marriage should be left up to the states.  I agree with this.  However, he also praised the courts and court decisions granting gay marriage as being “how the system should work.”  With this, I disagree.  Gay marriage should only be legal if the majority of the population agrees that it should or if the majority of democratically elected representatives of the population agree that it should.  He also mentioned how “gays, lesbians, and transgender” (he apparently ignored or forgot about bisexuals) should not be discriminated against (presumably by the government).  However, he also refused to state whether or not he personally supports gay marriage.  I agree that, as long as he is not pursuing an agenda, that his personal view of gay marriage is irrelevant.  He mentioned that he has accomplished more concerning gay rights during his presidency than all other presidents have. 

In conclusion, l found that what Obama said during this press conference was specious.  I agreed with some things he said (for example, he mentioned that he would like to reform the tax code to make it more efficient), but actions are needed to back up his statements. 


UPDATE: I forgot to mention  the "stimulus."  Obama spent hundreds of billions of dollars getting into this mess.  Now he is expecting Republicans to get out of it.  


UPDATE: I missed a quote from Obama's press conference that has appeared in a few places. It is along the lines of "Republicans need to ask their constituents if they are willing to sacrifice their children's safety for a tax break for corporate jet owners."  This demonstrates Obama's specious reasoning and the overall absurdity of this conference.