Skip to content

York: Final count could show Romney lost Iowa

Posted by James D. Kellogg on 17 January 2012, 10:41 am

Think the ultimate outcome of the Republican primary election is set? Don’t believe the media hype that Mitt omney has it all wrapped up. After the New Hampshire primary, Romney has 12 of the 1144 electoral votes needed to secure the nomination. Rick Santorum has 7. That’s a pretty close race and there are 48 states that have yet to vote. But here’s another interesting point in a piece by Byron York. Romney’s supposed victory in Iowa has yet to be certified.

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. — It’s conventional wisdom in Republican circles here in South Carolina that if Mitt Romney wins the state’s primary this Saturday — having already won in Iowa and New Hampshire — he’ll be the GOP presidential nominee.

“If for some reason he’s not derailed here and Mitt Romney wins South Carolina — no one’s ever won all three — I think it should be over,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday. “That would be quite a testament to his ability as a candidate and a campaigner.”

But what if Romney did not actually win Iowa? That could change the calculation considerably. And there is a very real chance that the Republican Party of Iowa will announce this week that Rick Santorum, and not Romney, won the Iowa caucuses. Read more…

Filed under Elections. Tagged , , , ,
Comment

Consumer Finance Protection Bureau undermines the Constitution

Posted by James D. Kellogg on 17 January 2012, 9:58 am

Beltway politicians have identified a parade of scapegoats for the onset and longevity of current economic woes in the America. Among the favorites is Wall Street greed and “risky” investment practices. In truth, federal government expansion and interjection into the free market was the primary culprit.

Instead of being held accountable, Washington, D.C. asserted more control over the financial industry with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The coup d’etat came when President Obama side-stepped Congress and unilaterally appointed Richard Cordray as director of this bureaucracy, granting him power over most aspects of our financial lives.

CFPB gives the executive branch vast new powers

The CFPB was created pursuant to the Dodd-Frank bill that enacted the “financial overhaul of America” in July, 2010. This agency’s realm includes mortgages, credit cards and student loans. The director holds unparalleled regulatory powers, the consolidated authority previously wielded by seven federal agencies.

Funds for the CFPB are not appropriated by Congress. Money comes from the Federal Reserve, drawn from its “excess” earned on assets. In fact, Dodd-Frank explicitly bars Congress from reviewing the funding of the bureau.

The CFPB director will implement and enforce all consumer-related laws regarding the financial industry and credit. Any company offering or transacting consumer financial products and services can be stopped from “committing, or engaging in an unfair, deceptive or abusive act or practice”. The law is purposely vague on what those terms actually mean. Unbelievably, the courts must defer to the bureau’s interpretation of its authority.

Republicans wanted to limit CFPB authority

Congressional Republicans asserted the CFPB and director are too powerful and unaccountable. Lawmakers from the House and Senate demanded changes. One stipulation was to replace the director with a bipartisan commission. They also wanted Congress to have direct control over the agency’s budget.

President Obama and Democrats refused to bend. The President pushed forward, nominating Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general, to head the CFPB. By law, the bureau must have a director to exercise all its powers. In response, Senate Republicans blocked the confirmation, hoping to leverage a compromise. A political stalemate ensued.

The law and precedent regarding appointments

Article II of the Constitution requires Presidents to seek “Advice and Consent of the Senate” to “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.” That means the President was required to obtain Senate approval for Cordray…unless the Senate was in recess.

Presidents have Constitutional authority to fill vacancies during a recess of the Senate. According to a 1993 brief from the Clinton Justice Department, Congress must remain adjourned for at least three days before the adjournment constitutes a “recess”.

The virtual monarcy of President Obama

The House and Senate never jointly agreed to adjourn and both chambers met at three day intervals for all of 2011. As the end of the first session of the 112th Congress neared, the Senate shifted to “pro forma” sessions with no actual business planned. Democrats commonly operated the Senate in this manner during President Bush’s Tenure.

Despite Constitutional law and Congressional precedent, President Obama made a “recess appointment” of Cordray on January 4, 2012 when the Senate was not adjourned. Essentially he usurped authority to determine whether Congress was in session or not. This contradicts Obama’s own Justice Department comments that validated pro forma sessions.

Mr. Obama decreed, “When Congress refuses to act …I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them.” Apparently, the President believes he has unlimited powers, that he’s subject to periodic elections but not the rule of law.

The CFPB is an audacious expansion of executive branch power beyond Constitutional limits. It comes at the expense of American citizens’ liberty. Yet the more egregious offense is arguably President Obama’s unilateral determination of legislative branch rules and operations. Such radical action undermines the principle of separation of powers.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison professed the combination of legislative, executive, and judicial powers as “the very definition of tyranny.” The Framers firmly believed that power must be divided and set against itself to prevent abuse. The President’s appointment of Cordray exemplify what they intended to prevent in the United States of America.

Filed under Financial Reform, Liberty and the Constitution, Politics and Power. Tagged , , , , , ,
Comment

Are you better off now than when Barack Obama was inaugurated?

Posted by James D. Kellogg on 1 January 2012, 1:24 pm

Will 2012 be better than 2011? How will it compare to the two years before that? It’s a Presidential election year and voter’s are pondering one question above all others; “Am I better off in 2012 than when Barack Obama was inaugurated as President of the United States?” For most people, the answer is, “no”. That means Mr. Obama may be looking for a new job in ten months.

Presidential elections usually turn on the economy. During the past few months, the media has eagerly reported slight increases in consumer spending and hiring. Many pundits point to this as inarguable evidence that economic growth and recovery are underway. Really?

A closer look at unemployment

Chris Christopher, an economist at HIS Global Insight calculates that at least one third of increased consumer spending is due to rising prices. Inflation, which doesn’t include food and energy costs, has risen by more than 2 percentage points over the past year. The “misery index”, which stems from the Jimmy Carter years and combines unemployment with inflation, has risen from 7.8% to 12% during the Obama Presidency. Consumers have dipped into savings and used credit to finance the additional spending.

Here’s more sobering news. In a December 14 statement, the Federal Reserve cautioned that business investment has slowed and unemployment remains high. It now stands at 8.6% compared to 7.8% in January of 2009 when President Obama took office. That’s less than the 10.1% peak in early 2009, but much of that drop was people leaving the labor force.

Did you know the federal unemployment rate isn’t based on people who don’t have jobs? It’s a measure of jobless people actively looking for work. That means it doesn’t include legions of individuals who’ve exhausted local job listings and temporarily given up searching. Ed Luce of the Financial Times wrote, “According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent.”

Then there are the underemployed, those people working part-time and temporary jobs. The so called “U6″ unemployment rate is nearly 20 percent. Regardless of calculation methods, few economists predict nationwide unemployment to drop to 7.4%, the number that existed when President Reagan was re-elected in 1984, prior to November. No President since Roosevelt has been re-elected with higher unemployment.

Against this somber backdrop, median family income has dropped since 2009. The combination of dwindling income and rising expenditures has resulted in more households defaulting on mortgage payments. Today about 12.6% of U.S. mortgage holders are in foreclosure.

Americans want new leadership

Not surprisingly, a recent Associated Press poll indicated 52% of Americans believe President Obama should be voted out of office. His economic policies meet with 60% disapproval. Most polls show at least 70 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. That doesn’t bode well for a political campaign.

In February of 2009, Mr. Obama said if the economy wasn’t fixed in three years, “there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” By his own standard, President Obama doesn’t deserve a second term…unless you move the goal posts.

Facing a losing re-election battle, the Obama administration now insists they didn’t know how bad the economy was. That’s hard to believe. In 2008 and 2009, Mr. Obama incessantly claimed, “We are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.” And the administration’s favorite economist, Paul Krugman, professed, “This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression.”

The first votes of the Republican primary are being cast in the Iowa caucus today. Other states will follow suit in the coming weeks and months. The candidate who emerges victorious must convey a clear message; American’s are not better off with Barack Obama as President, whether he was ignorant about the magnitude of the economic “crisis” or not. Couple that with a solid conservative platform and Barack Obama will be ousted from the White House like Jimmy Carter.

Filed under Elections, Unemployment, economy. Tagged , , , , , ,
1 Comment

Americans Should Oppose EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation

Posted by James D. Kellogg on 9 December 2011, 12:20 pm

Domestic natural gas provides nearly 25 percent of electricity in the United States. This proportion stands to increase as additional shale gas deposits become accessible due to the combination of directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking). This vast resource can provide the nation with plentiful and affordable energy, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and stimulate job creation and economic growth.

EPA has Proposed New Regulations on Fracking

Unfortunately, the federal government appears poised to stymie natural gas production and collection with federal regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed new rules aimed at air quality and wastewater associated with hydraulically fractured gas wells. And while experts agree the likelihood of properly injected fracturing fluid reaching drinking water through fractures is remote, an EPA study on the effects of fracking on drinking water resources is underway.

Many states, and the gas industry, see EPA actions as unwarranted, stripping state regulatory programs of control and flexibility. This position is bolstered by the comments of EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson.

In a November 20, 2011 interview, Ms. Jackson stated, “We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process.” The next day she said, “States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be the EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.”

Why is EPA Asserting Control of Fracking?

So why is EPA attempting to wrest regulatory control from states? Part of the answer is apparent in assertions by the Sierra Club. They say, “fracking should not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that drinking water aquifers and surface waters are adequately protected from contamination.” The burden of proof is on the accused.

Not surprisingly, the federal government responded to the environmental special interests. President Obama instructed Secretary of Energy, Stephen Chu, to form a subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) to “make recommendations to address the safety and environmental performance of shale gas production.”

States and Industry are doing a Good Job Regulating Fracking

In a draft final report released November 18, 2011, the SEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee deemed that state regulators and companies are deeply involved in environmental management. It also opined that the State Review of Oil and Gas Environmental Regulators (STRONGER) and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) are effectively enhancing regulatory policy and practices at the state level.

The report also expressed support for FracFocus.org, an online disclosure of fracturing fluid chemicals used by the industry. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is contemplating a requirement that fracking companies operating in Colorado use this website. However, the subcommittee did recognize the need to protect legitimate fracking fluid trade secrets.

In short, SEAB confirmed that state and local governments should continue to take the lead on regulating the natural gas industry. Yet SEAB still recommended that EPA continue new rule-making regarding shale gas production. It’s no wonder states and industry feel the system is rigged against them.

Unwarranted EPA Regulations will Impose a High Cost on America

 The industry-wide cost of coming into full compliance with the proposed EPA regulations on air pollution would be more than $700 million annually.  “Green completions”, which reduce gas escape during the final stages of well construction, would be required for every well, not just when it is operationally and economically feasible.

Despite a lack of data, EPA claims federal pre-treatment standards will reduce risk of contamination downstream of facilities that treat wastewater from fracking operations. The federal regulations would not consider local geology and disposal methodology like current state rules. We will all pay the price for this.

Americans should oppose federal overregulation of fracking. States and local governments are already committed to environmental stewardship with qualified personnel and local knowledge. They have the greatest stake in the economic benefits and environmental impacts of gas production. Excessive federal regulation will provide minimal additional environmental protection at the expense of affordable energy and economic recovery.

Filed under Energy, Environment. Tagged , , , , ,
Comment

Recent Election Results are a Bellwether for 2012

Posted by James D. Kellogg on 15 November 2011, 10:24 am

The recent election results speak volumes about the attitude of voters in Colorado and across the United States. Americans resoundingly rejected the tax-and-spend proposals pushed by progressive politicians and media pundits. Informed citizens understand government doesn’t create jobs and tax increases don’t translate to better education.

Stop Pouring Taxpayer Dollars into a Broken Public Education System

In Colorado, voters shot down the only statewide ballot measure in the country to raise taxes (by nearly $3 billion) for school funding. Eighteen of 23 proposed mill levy increases in school districts around the state met the same fate. A majority of citizens simply insist that the public school system prioritize spending like businesses and households. Taxpayers are tired of pouring money into facilities and top-level administrators while our great local teachers and principals are an afterthought.

Politicians and bureaucrats who threaten school closures because of tax revenue shortages are tied to a big-government agenda. Such ideology asserts that other government spending is too important to cut in favor of pay increases for teachers. So who is hindering the education of kids? Most parents support higher salaries for teachers, but they are tired of forking over their dwindling income to fund a broken bureaucratic system beholden to teachers’ unions.

Stop Blaming Americans for the Failure of Big Government

The failure of expansive big-spending government is most glaring at the federal level. Politicians of all stripes in Washington, D.C. have chipped away at our freedom, spent unfathomable amounts of taxpayer dollars, and accumulated insurmountable debt. Yet, many of our so-called leaders have the audacity to blame citizens for economic stagnation and a dour outlook for the future.

President Obama spent weeks pushing a jobs bill (i.e., stimulus package) that amounted to raising taxes to fund a new conglomeration of federal gimmicks. He stated that America has “lost its competitive spirit” and people need to quit complaining. Is that so? The real complaint from hard-working Americans is that government is stifling their competitive spirit.

Repeal the Unaffordable and Unconstitutional Obamacare

Take Obamacare as an example. Expensive ramifications of this monstrosity threaten the economic viability of businesses. And individuals are on the verge of being forced to buy health insurance, a violation of Constitutional law. An overwhelming majority of taxpayers believes the true costs of government-run health care far outweigh any supposed benefits. In fact, most people see Obamacare as nothing more than free health care for those who won’t pay for it.

The public anger displayed in the 2010 election, is simmering across America. Democrats instituted unwanted socialized medicine, despite massive government debt and a weak economy. Voters are eager for the chance to elect leaders who will repeal Obamacare and reclaim the power usurped by activist judges.

Adopt an Energy Policy that Promotes Economic Growth

Similar voter sentiment pertains to energy. The Obama administration is engaged in a concerted effort to shut down domestic production of coal, oil and natural gas. President Obama’s use of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to target carbon as a means to regulate American industry is economic suicide and an expansion of powers beyond Constitutional limits. Meanwhile, “renewable” energy technologies have been propped up (e.g., Solyndra) with billions of taxpayer dollars.

Americans see the holes in the man-induced climate change claims. Catering to the scientific consensus is a recipe for the economic ruin of our country. There is a growing demand for leaders who see responsible development of our domestic energy resources as vital to a strong and secure nation.

Big Government is the Problem, not the Answer

In difficult times people are especially shrewd in assessing what’s really important. The United States is founded on independence, ambition, and resolve. The solid majority of Americans is poised to rein in government power and spending in 2012. Like Thomas Jefferson, they understand that American independence is dependent on free-market economics and jeopardized by the perpetual debt and taxes of government.

Filed under Elections, Politics and Power. Tagged , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

The TEA Party and Occupy Wall Street are Polar Opposites

Posted by James D. Kellogg on 31 October 2011, 10:40 pm

Our public parks are at risk. The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement threatens to camp out in every community until they get what they want…whatever that is. Cheered on by the mainstream media, these protestors are billed as the “progressive” version of the TEA Party. Keep dreaming.

Unified by hatred of the wealthy, OWS promotes “world revolution” as the only solution to the perceived social injustices of capitalism. Interestingly, they adopted the raised fist of the communist revolution as their symbol. That gives their message some coherence.

By contrast, the TEA Party is rooted in the founding principles of America and the rule of law. While members hold diverse views on many issues, they are united in a desire for limited government, a free-market economy, and fiscal responsibility. TEA Party affiliates believe the United States should not be divided by class, but united by the Constitution that guarantees individual liberty and underlies economic success.

After commandeering public spaces in many large cities, OWS has accosted ordinary citizens, threatened businesses, and provoked law enforcement. The hooligans have no regard for public or private property. Gatherings have become physically violent in some cases. In a month of protests around the nation, several thousand people have been arrested.

TEA Party events are civil affairs. Organizers get permits and cooperate with police. They respect the rule of law and provide their own food, water, medical care, and bathrooms. No one gets arrested and no property is damaged. And attendees pick up their trash.

The Hypocrisy of Occupy Wall Street

The website http://occupywallst.org/  asserts that OWS is “a leaderless resistance movement…using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic” to achieve objectives. Though objectives are unspecified, they state, “we don’t need Wall Street or politicians to build a better society”.  So why does OWS support President Obama, Senator Chris Dodd, and Congressman Barney Frank? Big banks and investment firms were among Obama’s top donors in 2008. Dodd and Frank are directly responsible for the mortgage-backed security crisis that sparked our current economic crisis.

The TEA Party holds Republicans and Democrats accountable. They opposed the Wall Street bailout, handouts to GE and Solyndra, the insurance mandates of Obamacare, and choosing winners in the automobile industry. And TEA Party affiliates are resolute in electing Constitution-based fiscal conservatives to political office.

The Irony of OWS

It’s a laughable claim that OWS represents the 99% of our nation who will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. They can’t even get their own house in order. Reportedly, the OWS finance committee garnered nearly $500,000 in recent donations, but refuses to share the wealth. For instance, protestors at Zuccotti Park in New York are apparently incapable of providing their own socks and underwear. Demonstrators are angry that the finance committee isn’t springing to supply these items for the masses. They want to know where the money is going. Oh, the irony!

Freedom Fosters Prosperity

While OWS is trashing city parks and threatening financially successful people, the TEA Party is working for change at the source of the problem, which is Washington, D.C. Bigger government that redistributes wealth, enabling more people to live off the efforts of a dwindling number of taxpayers is a bad solution to a fictional problem. The real answer for economic revival is less government, more freedom, and individual responsibility.

Don’t accept the assertion that capitalism only rewards the greedy. Instead, consider the paraphrased words of economist, Milton Friedman. “The record of history is clear. There is no alternative way of improving the lot of ordinary people than the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system. The masses are worst off in societies that depart from that.”

Filed under Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party. Tagged , , , , ,
Comment

Local Governments Should Scrutinize Green Political Activists

Posted by James D. Kellogg on 31 October 2011, 10:37 pm

I respect citizens who dedicate their time and energy to serving in local government. But I am dismayed that our western slope counties, municipalities, and quasi-government authorities are adopting the agendas of groups like CORE and CLEER with little scrutiny.

The Community Organization for Resource Efficiency (CORE) recently led the push to ban plastic grocery bags. Their website states that “human activities and fossil fuel energy consumption have already and are continuing to change the composition of the earth’s atmosphere such that it traps more heat and contributes to the overall warming of the planet.” Never mind that temperatures were warmer in Roman and Medieval times.

Colorado Clean Energy Economy for the Region (CLEER) has enticed entities such as Garfield County, the City of Glenwood Springs, and the Roaring Fork Transit Authority to enter into partnerships (using taxpayer dollars) to “accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, increase energy independence, and reduce our contribution to climate change.” They fail to mention that climatologists believe we’re entering a cooling period induced by deceased solar activity.

Science Trumps Consensus

There’s ample proof that the consensus of global-minded, pseudo-scientists is wrong. A wealth of information is available at the Carbon Sense Coalition website http://carbon-sense.com/ as well as links to dozens of other sites that shine the light of truth on the phantom menace of man-induced climate change.

Carbon is not a pollutant. This element is the building block of every living organism on the planet. It is also the basis of inanimate substances like diamonds, coal, oil, and natural gas. Carbon dioxide gas (CO2) comprises less than 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, yet it’s critical for life. Higher CO2 levels actually stimulate vegetative growth with less water.

Turning up the Heat on Climate Change Propaganda

Despite the facts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims increasing CO2 in the air is causing dangerous climate changes. Their campaign to curtail energy production from hydrocarbon sources is ostensibly to reverse supposed global warming.

IPCC points to polar ice core data that shows a correlation between historic temperature and CO2 levels. But global warming pushers fail to mention that changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 by about 1,000 years. In other words, warming causes increased CO2 levels. It’s not the other way around.

The vast majority of atmospheric CO2 originates from the oceans, carbonate rock weathering, and volcanic eruptions. Human activity is responsible for less than 3 percent. All mankind produces about 1 molecule of CO2 in every 90,000 air molecules. And scientific research indicates the average lifespan of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is only about 5 years.

The Math Doesn’t add up with Solar and Wind Power

When backed into a corner by science, political activists will be undeterred, insisting “renewable” energy is a just a better choice than fossil fuels. Let’s do the math.

Typical modern fossil fuel power plants continuously generate about 800 Megawatts of electricity. Dr. Martin Hertzberg, an accomplished combustion research scientist, calculated that a solar collector would need to be about 4,000 times larger than the inside area of a fossil fuel boiler to generate the same amount of power. That translates to about 12 square miles, completely covered with solar panels. Dr. Hertzberg notes that’s about twice the size of Dillon Reservoir near Frisco, Colorado.

The largest wind turbines, with heights of about 600 feet, only generate about 4 Megawatts. It would take 200 of them to generate the power of one fossil fuel power plant. Also keep in mind that wind and solar are only fully functional for about 6 hours a day.                                                                                                                             

Energy efficiency and environmental stewardship make sense; blind adoption of agendas does not. I question the motives of activist groups that refute simple mathematics and sound science. With all due respect, it’s time our local leaders did the same.

Filed under Environment, Green Political Activism, Uncategorized. Tagged , , , , , , ,
Comment

The U.S. Economy needs Leadership from the President, not Political Posturing

Posted by James D. Kellogg on 3 October 2011, 10:41 pm

The United States economy is sagging under more than $14.7 trillion of debt. Unemployment exceeds 16% when the underemployed and those who have given up on looking for work are counted. And inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index has run at an elevated rate of 3.6% for the past year. It’s no shock that consumer confidence and spending are at rock bottom levels. And it’s no surprise that President Obama is selling the same old failed policy of higher taxes and bigger government.  

The President is demanding passage of his American Jobs Act (i.e., stimulus package) that would spend nearly $450 billion to ostensibly, “put Americans back to work”. Mr. Obama claims a hodge-podge collection of temporary tax cuts, short-term tax credits, and infrastructure spending will create 2 million jobs. Even if this dubious assertion comes to fruition, it amounts to about $225,000 of government spending for each new job.

Just for a moment, put aside the faulty notion that government can or should create jobs. Where is the federal government going to come up with the money for this boondoggle?

Tax Increases and Promises to Cut Spending

Obama’s answer is $1.5 trillion in tax increases coupled with supposed spending cuts that will result in $3 trillion of budget savings over 10 years. Some of the austerity measures would be minor changes to Medicare and Medicaid. There is an assortment of promises to chip away at domestic spending. The President also takes credit for $1 trillion in savings from ramping down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which was already claimed as a savings mechanism for his earlier spending forays.

Notice true structural reform of the main sources of American debt — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — are not on the table. For all practical purposes, the size, scope, and spending of the federal government will remain unchanged.  

So here’s a recap. A lot of money will be spent to create a few jobs and government spending won’t really decrease. What an epiphany! The Obama jobs plan is just the latest ploy to raise taxes on the wealthy individuals and businesses that create jobs in the United States. Taxing “the rich” has poll-tested populist appeal.

Punishing the Job Creators

The problem is that the President’s tax increases are aimed at individuals making $200,000 and families and businesses earning $250,000. Are these the “wealthy” people and companies we want to punish?

According to an analysis of IRS data for 2009 by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, taxpayers earning more than $200,000 accounted for 25 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income for that year but paid 50 percent of the $866 billion in income taxes. It seems the job creators are already paying their fair share of taxes. And our current 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the developed world. It makes no sense to increase these burdens.

Obama’s Class Warfare Campaign

Engaging In truth, President Obama’s sudden interest in job creation and debt reduction is a reaction to sinking poll numbers. Class warfare tactics are intended to shore up support from his leftwing base.  The President also hopes to lure back independents with the appearance that he is working hard to create jobs while obstructionist Republicans staunchly defend the portfolios of wealthy oil executives.

Good luck with all that, Mr. President. The majority of Americans is far more interested in genuine economic recovery than your political future. They want leadership, not transparent political posturing.

Only a robust, confident, and unencumbered private sector can create jobs in the pursuit of economic opportunity. Genuine government spending cuts and lower tax rates are incentives for the investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship that will stimulate real job creation and a brighter future for America.

Technorati Tags:

Filed under Free Markets and Capitalism, Taxes, economy. Tagged , , ,
Comment

Free Market Environmentalism Should Supplant Green Political Activism

Posted by James D. Kellogg on 3 October 2011, 10:32 pm

I’m a proponent of Free Market Environmentalism (FME), a philosophy founded on the Constitutional rule of law, property rights, and free markets. These principles are fundamental to the economic growth and prosperity of the United States of America. The correlation between an increased standard of living and a commitment to environmental stewardship is irrefutable. Liberty fosters enterprise, property rights allow environmental elements to become assets, and capitalism provides the means to engage in cooperative trade that benefits our environment.

On the contrary, the green political activism of groups like the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is rooted in the ideology of social equity and restricted economic activity. ICLEI advocates assert that environmental quality and conservation are dependent on zealous government regulation and control. At best this approach is detrimental to economies and counter-productive to conservation and environmental preservation.

FME is an Effective Approach to Environmental Stewardship

Just as free societies are preferable to socialist states, FME is superior to green political activism. Becoming a true environmentalist, involves far more than buying local, stuffing everything in the recycling bin, and banning plastic bags. Entrepreneurs who adopt the FME philosophy devise smarter solutions to environmental problems. Instead of more regulation, government bureaucracy, and financial waste, they focus on the convergence of profit and conservation.

Businesses and private individuals can accomplish any environmental goal if they have the opportunity to prosper from their efforts through markets. As a case in point, FME entrepreneurs have been instrumental in setting up water banks in Colorado. A water bank uses free-market transactions to facilitate the transfer of water rights between water rights owners and those in need of additional water supplies. Confusion and costs associated with trading water are reduced while the potential for water shortages are alleviated.

On the other hand, green political activism focuses on programs like curbside recycling, which is mandated in many communities. It feels good…as long as we ignore the fact that this endeavor depends on more trucks. That means more steel and rubber, more fuel, and more emissions. The end result is consumption of valuable resources and a net negative effect on the environment.

Long before local governments contemplated recycling, it was a productive and essential part of the market system in manufacturing. Informed voluntary recycling programs driven by private industry actually conserve resources and increase wealth. FME approaches often utilize symbiotic business relationships in which the waste of one manufacturer is sold as a raw material for another industry. That’s critical because recycling itself is a manufacturing process with environmental impacts.

The Green Jobs Debacle

Of course, any discussion of the environment must include mention of “green jobs”. Green political activists have prompted every level of government to embrace measures aimed at creating these fabled careers. Proposals are built on government subsidies for favored technologies and wishful thinking about alternative energy sources. Accordingly, states like Colorado adopt mandates that require power companies to produce power from “renewable sources”. This makes energy more expensive and less reliable, with negligible effect on the local environment.

Those who espouse to FME understand that energy efficiency is a critical component of the free market. Companies that reduce the cost of desired goods and services through reduced energy consumption reap economic rewards. Without a doubt, there are boundless opportunities to develop new energy resources, industries, and jobs. Ultimately, market-based competition will be the catalyst of these advancements.

The Power of Liberty and Capitalism

There’s plenty of evidence that governments are poor environmental stewards. And special interest-driven regulation is punitive and ineffective. It’s time to implement smarter solutions to environmental goals. The FME strategy entails liberty and economics instead of political activism. By focusing on profits, capitalism can be the engine for true long-term environmental sustainability.

Technorati Tags:

Filed under Environment, Free Markets and Capitalism. Tagged , , , , ,
Comment

Raising Revenue by Punishing Achievement

Posted by James D. Kellogg on 19 September 2011, 10:58 pm

The President is out spreading lies about who pays what amount in taxes. You may have heard him say that Warren Buffet is taxed at a lower rate than teachers and plumbers. That’s another Obama lie. He’s comparing the federal tax rate on capital gains from investments to the federal income tax rate. It’s an apples and oranges comparison. Furthermore, the reality is that “rich” investors pay income tax on money they earn, prior to investing it. If those investments subsequentlyearn a profit, they pay capital gains taxes as well. Of course, we don’t expect Mr. Obama to give us the whole story. This video clip from the O’Reilly Factor helps fill in the information gaps.

Filed under Taxes, economy. Tagged , ,
Comment
« Older Entries