Americanly Yours

Check out this chart from Coyote Blog before reading on:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/02/voting-with-their-feet.html

I find this to be very interesting.  With the exception of Louisiana, every one of the States listed in the bottom 10 is a State that is heavily unionized, has more social programs, and higher corporate taxes (and even Louisiana has high corporate tax rates).

The States with the highest positive net migration, however, are all “business friendly” states.  In these States, unionization is minimal, corporate taxes are generally low, and social programs are not as abundant.

You might think that people would want to live in places where corporations are taxes at a higher rate (so that they pay their “fair share).  You might think that people want to live in a place where there are more social programs to help those who are less fortunate.

The numbers, however, tell a different story.  While sticking a faceless corporation with a higher tax bill sounds great, higher taxes mean more expensive goods and either fewer jobs, or jobs that pay less (or give fewer benefits).  Social programs might help people temporarily, but they are no substitute for jobs.  The States above that taxed their corporations at higher rates and spent more of their budgets on social programs saw people leave.  Those people came to States like Georgia, Texas, and Tennessee.  States with low (or no) corporate income taxes and little if any union control over jobs.

While automakers in Detroit are moving out and leaving the country, foreign automakers from Toyota, to Kia, to Honda have built plants in the South where labor unions do not have an iron grip and corporations are not taxed for the “social good.”

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal back in September comparing the economic policies of Michigan with those of then-Senator Obama.  Here is an interesting excerpt from that article:  “While the population of the three highest-performing states grew twice as fast as the national average, per-capita real income still grew by $6,563 or 21.4% in Texas, Florida and Arizona. That’s a $26,252 increase for a typical family of four.”

Policies of higher corporate taxation, heavy union control, and costly government programs impede economic growth. Would you rather have a government run safety net, or an extra $6,563 for each person in your family each year?

And more importantly, will people begin to leave this country if we pursue these policies on a national level?  They just might.  I just might too…

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has climbed by over 1,000 points in the past two weeks.  Durable goods orders are up.  Housing starts as well as houses sold are up.

Typically, when the market hits a bottom and then starts to rebound, the recession will end in six months.  Of course, this is not a “typical” recession and past historical trends are never a guarantee of future results.

Yet, combine the recent rise in the stock market with the other factors that I mentioned above, and I think we have good reason to be optimistic that recovery is now under way.

This doesnt mean that we are out of the woods yet, or that things are going to magically get better over night.  In fact, the economy will probably shed another 1-2 million jobs or more before it begins adding them.  Still, the economy is fixing itself.

This is what recessions and recoveries have looked like since World War II (notice how our current one is not nearly happening as quickly, no as bad as most other recessions):

This is occurring despite government intervention, not because of it.  Markets are very powerful and they will always find a way to bounce back.

The massive “stimulus” bill passed by Congress last month was $787,000,000,000 [$787 billion] in size.  Very little of this money has been spent so far, and in fact the vast majority of this money is to be spent in 2010 and beyond (23% of the money will be spent in 2009 and 51% in 2010).  This bill is very costly and is being financed completely with debt that Americans will have to pay back in the future–with interest.

Members of Congress had only 10 hours to read the final bill before they were required to vote on the bill which was over 1,000 pages in length.This bill was passed by Congress urgently under the assumption that it was necessary that the bill be passed quickly.  I still dont understand why such urgency was required for a spending bill that wasnt going to spend most of its money for until the following year.

Well, now the economy is beginning to recover–before the “stimulus” has been spent.  As I have written several times before, both the CBO and the Federal Reserve are now saying that the recession will be over in late 2009 or early 2010 at the latest.  Even if their “latest” estimate is correct, the recession will have ended before the vast majority of the “stimulus” money is spent.  Because this bill is so costly, and because there is no need for an economic stimulus in a growing economy (which the experts say we will have by this time next year), I urge Congress to repeal the “stimulus” bill.

If the bill is not repealed, then Congress is in effect forcing the American people to borrow money to buy something costly that we dont need.  The economy will recover with or without the “stimulus” bill.  The difference is that if we allow it to recover without the costly bill, our future will not be [as] burdened by debt.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

The following story isnt true.  It is more of a “political joke” of sorts.

When Nikita Khrushchev was forced out of power in the Soviet Union he left his successor (Leonid Brezhnev) with two letters.  He told his successor to open the first letter when he came to his first major crisis and follow the instructions.   He was told that following the instructions would get him through the crisis.   He was also told that when a second major crisis stuck, he should open the second letter from Khrushchev and follow its instructions.

The inevitable crisis happened and Brezhnev became worried that the crisis could cause him to be removed from power.   He opened Khrushchev’s first letter which said “Blame everything on me.  The only way that you can stay in power is to blame everything on my poor leadership and announce that you have to reverse my policies in order to save the State.”

So, Brezhnev followed the instructions in the letter and things in the Soviet Union got better for a while.   However, after a few more years, the economy began to stagnate and Brezhnev once again became worried that he would lose power.  He realized that the advice from Khrushchev’s first letter had saved him once and that maybe it could do so again.

Brezhnev opened the second letter and it read “Sit down and write two letters.”

As I said above, this is not a true story.  It is however, a useful lesson on political survival.

I would argue that President Obama began reading his first letter during the campaign when he blamed everything wrong in the world on President Bush.  He has continued to beat up on President Bush’s record in a constant attempt to convince the public that the current crisis is not his fault.

He will likely continue to read from this letter for several years.

For example, if the situation in Iraq continues to improve and we can pull our troops out, Mr. Obama will undoubtedly take all of the credit, despite the fact that President Bush’s controversial Surge plan was a complete success and has effectively won us the war.  If on the other hand, the situation in Iraq deteriorates and we either do not leave within Mr. Obama’s promised 16 months or we end up leaving in disgrace, there can be no doubt that President Obama will blame Mr. Bush.

Similarly, if the economy turns around in the next year or two, Mr. Obama will take all of the credit.  If however, the situation worsens, the economy continues to contract, and unemployment approaches or reaches double digits, President Obama will claim that he inherited this mess.  In his speech last night President Obama said “I can’t tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope, but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis as well as the pain felt by millions of Americans.  My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing a little or nothing at all will result in even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income, and even greater loss of confidence.” This was effectively Mr. Obama hedging his bet:  if the economy turns around, he can take credit, but if it doesnt work, he will say that things are still better than they would have been if the bill wasnt passed and besides, it is still President Bush’s fault.

This is why President Obama still sounds like his is running for President, rather than holding the office.  It is safe to say that President Obama was not elected to office based any past accomplishments that he had.   He was also not elected based on any future plans that he had.  Rather, he was elected because the American public was (and still is) fed up with President Bush.  The fact that Mr. Obama was elected President is really only an externality of the perceived failure of the Bush Administration.  Mr. Obama really didnt run against John McCain; he really ran against President Bush. How many times did you hear Mr. Obama refer to “8 years of failed policies?”   Because Mr. Obama was elected as an opposition candidate–a reactive candidate rather than a proactive candidate– he is likely to continue this course of acton.  Expect him to continue to beat up on President Bush’s record.  Furthermore, you can expect him to denounce Republicans who vote against his programs (in a manner that will probably become much more hostile in the near future).

The problem is that Mr. Obama cannot continue on this course for too long.  The American people are fickle and grow tired of things quickly.  Remember that when the War in Iraq started Bush (who was cheered on to war by the American public as well as the media) had an approval rating of near 70%.  At some point, the American public will grow tired of hearing Mr. Obama blame all of the country’s problems on the previous administration–especially if things get worse.  The people want solutions and when President Obama realizes that he cannot deliver them, he may have to reach for that second letter.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

I have some interesting quotes from President Obama which he said this week at a Democratic Party retreat:

“If you’re headed for a cliff, you’ve got to change direction.”

This is true, but the problem is that Mr. Obama has misidentified the direction of the cliff that we are headed for.  A year ago, we were about to enter what would have been a somewhat minor recession.  Mr. Bush and Congress flipped out and spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a stimulus that completely failed.  Then, rather than allowing failing business to fail, Mr. Bush and Congress bailed them out one by one and then bought a bunch more.  I am not going to fully detail this now, but in a free market system prices are important not just because they tell us the value of something, but they also contain a lot of information within any given price.  Mr. Bush and Congress should have allowed the banks and insurance companies to fail and for the debt to be repriced, rather than subsidizing bad banks and investments and keeping debt priced at the same level.  But Mr. Obama is continuing the exact same policies that got us into this mess. If you disagree, then read about how Japan’s economy stagnated for 15 years when their government shored up bad private sector bank loans.

Our economy is racing toward a cliff and Mr. Obama is hitting the accelerator, rather than slowing down or changing directions.

“When you start hearing arguments, on the cable chatter, just understand a couple of things.  Number 1, when they say, ‘Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we’ve got this huge deficit?’  First of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, number 1.”

Um… yeah you did.  But how is that an excuse for spending $800 billion.  Remember the cliff that he mentioned above?  Didnt he also mention changing directions?

“I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.”

The above quote from President Obama is almost true (the debt increased by about 85% during President Bush’s two terms).  But Mr. Obama has already requested about $1.2 trillion ($350 billion from TARP and over $800 billion from this “stimulus” bill) since he became President a few weeks ago.  That is an increase in the size of the National debt of about 10% in about 3 weeks!  Change, Mr. Obama?  Or just more of the same?

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

I received my property tax bill the other day and noticed a substantial increase.  I think that property taxes are entirely inappropriate and should be abolished for several simple and logical reasons.

If you buy a house or some land, you become the owner of that property.

When the government charges a property owner a property tax, they are essentially charging the owner to use property that he already owns.  To me, at least, this idea is completely baffling.  I could not imagine how vocal the opposition would be if the government began assessing a 5% annual tax on the value of your jewelery or your ipod.  Why then should the government be allowed to charge you money to live in a house that you have already purchased?

The government does this because it has a captive audience, meaning that most of us cannot simply pick up and move our property to another county.  They also claim that in exchange for the increases, you will be given a better standard of living—new roads, better schools, and more parks.  I’m not even going to address the fallacy of these claims now.

The main problem now is that the government is raising property taxes at a time when foreclosures are growing and the unemployment rate is surging higher.  Simply put, people are hurting for money and they are afraid of losing their jobs.  This is the wrong time for the government to raise property taxes on its citizens.

You might be saying that you dont own your home, and therefore the increases in property taxes do not affect you.  However, you are wrong.  If you rent your home or apartment, the owner of the property still has to pay property taxes to the government.  Any increases in his property taxes will likely lead to increases in your rent.  Homeowners arent the only people who are required to pay property taxes.  Businesses also pay them.  When property taxes on businesses increase, so does the cost of goods and services produced by the businesses.  Even worse, these increased costs on businesses could cause companies to cut down on their employees’ hours, or even cause the businesses to fire some workers.
Property taxes are immoral because they result in the government charging you a fee to use something which you have already purchased.  When the government charges a property tax, they are essentially saying that even though you have already bought the land, the government still considers it to be their land, and they reserve the right to charge you to use it.  In fact, you could argue that property taxes are nothing more than the government charging you rent to use your own property.

Besides this, property taxes are not fair to older Americans.  Retired Americans who are earning a fixed income from Social Security or their corporate pension already have to deal with inflation in the costs of everyday goods.  It is unfair for them to also have to continue to pay taxes on something that they may have purchased decades ago.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet