No Nobel Prize for Economics

It’s a good thing that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize last year before he raised our troop level in Afghanistan.  He certainly would not win it now and neither would he win it for Economics this year.

As charming and charismatic as he is, Obama can’t seem to win people over any more.  He might even have to revert back to the presidential candidate that he was and compromise with Republicans.  He may even have to become (do I dare write it?) bipartisan.  Before the Presidential election my friends overseas were absolutely gushing that a “great man” like Obama might win the Presidency and were practically orgasmic when he did.  I asked them why they liked him but their response was little more than, “He’s not George Bush.”  Strangely, however, now they are silent on the matter.  “Wow!” I thought, “I am not George Bush, too.  Maybe I could be president!” but in a rare moment of self control, I held my tongue.

Other than apologizing to Muslims and telling them that he does not consider them our enemy, what has he done internationally?  The short answer is, “Mostly fail.”  He failed to secure the Olympics for Chicago.  The failed to win over the G20, which does not like his fiscal policies, and he is now flooding the world’s market with another $600 Billion.  OK, actually it’s the Federal Reserve but do the people here or abroad understand that?

Sorry, Mr. Obama, but just like the President takes the credit when Congress acts fiscally responsible, he gets the blame when it does not.  Likewise, he gets the credit when the Federal Reserve stabilizes our economy and he’ll get the blame when the US economy drags the rest of the world down with it.

Rather than wasting your first 2 years socializing our medicine and taking over banks and car companies, perhaps you should have focused more on what makes the economy tick.  And that, Mr. President, is small business.  Obama’s policies punish the capitalists that ruin the leftist Socialist Utopia.  Make them scared to hire people because of punitive health care “reform” and they won’t hire. Tax them to death so that they have to reserve more money to pay at the confiscatory tax rates and all you’ll have are people dependent on the government.

Perhaps Khrushchev was right when he told the US, “We will bury you!”  Soviet-style socialism is doing that step by step and inch by inch.  It’s not too late for President Obama to act more like Candidate Obama and help turn things around.

A Time for …?

Today’s USA Today had a headline that read, “Now what?  Obama, Republicans face choices of compromise or conflict.”  That may be true for Obama but sadly, each time that Republicans have gotten any kind of power in recent times, they took another choice: Cave.

Mainline Republicans want so much to be loved by Democrats and the main stream media that they have been willing to sacrifice values and their political careers to get on their good side.

When will the learn that some people live to hate them?

This new crop of Republicans in congress seem to have heard the message that this election was not an embracing of Republicans but a repudiation of the Obama plan.  The Republicans seem to have heard this but I doubt the President has.

For once the people have had a chance to speak where Obama and Congress were forced to listen, and for many of them, the message was, “Good bye!”

President Obama in his address yesterday essentially said that he lost track of the voters but that we were not smart enough to understand his policies so he should have explained better.  Which pieces of his policies did the voters not understand?

Was it Cap and Trade, which promised to raise energy prices and put coal miners out of work?  This in a time when unemployment is still very high and most families don’t have a lot of extra money to spend on higher energy bills?

Was it treating the Christmas underwear bomber as a criminal which allowed him to “lawyer up” in place of treating him as the terrorist he is?

Was it the give away programs to the labor unions (Harry Reid owes them big time for his re-election)?

Was it the rising debt that will bankrupt our children and grandchildren as it races to $14 Trillion?

Was it the growing government?  During this time of unemployment, the federal payroll continued to grow.

Was it ObamaCare, the unprecedented takeover of the health system?  I don’t think it was just an unfortunate coincidence that the last big Republican take over of the House happened after HillaryCare was soundly rejected by society.

Every one of the problems that these “fixes” were designed to address have  fixes.  Many of the fixes don’t require rampant socialism.

It is doubtful that the new Congress can repeal ObamaCare outright.  Obama still has the veto pen.  They can, however, deny funding for the federal programs and enact legislation that address the real problems without sacrificing liberty and our futures.  If necessary, we can address some of the more rational fixes.

I sincerely hope the new Congress will follow the mandate given to them in this election.  Let’s break with tradition.  It will take some compromise and a lot of conflict.  Let’s not cave this time.  Maybe the Democrats and media won’t like them but “We the People” will.

A New Beginning or More of the Same?

OK, we all know that the Republicans have taken control of the US House of Representatives.  They seem (as of this writing) not to have taken control of the Senate.  Is this good?  It depends on which side of the aisle you find yourself.

For Republicans, this may be the best result.  They may not be able to undo the unpopular policies such as ObamaCare or bailouts. They don’t have the votes to override a Presidential veto and Democrat Senators can block their proactive legislation.  They can, however, not fund them.  Money is the grease of politics.   Without money, the programs will grind to a halt.  Afterall, how many bureaucrats will work for free?  Their main task will be to show the American public what they try to do and make the case in 2012 that they need help by having more Republicans in office (including the Presidency).

On a related note, the Republicans picked up several state legislatures and governorships.  This year’s census will reapportion the seats in the House of Representatives and the states set their districts.  This can be important for the next round of national elections.

For Democrats, the moderates lost.  There mostly Liberal Democrats got reelected.  Will there be conciliation or will there be entrenchment?  They can pass any bill they want (except spending bills which Constitutionally must start in the House) but will the Republican-controlled House pass them also?

The victor in 2012 will the one who can blame the other side the best.

For President Obama, this is a national repudiation of his policies.  As seen in the past few weeks, there have been empty seats at places where he spoke to support some candidates.  This in itself is telling.  Who would not want to see the President in person, regardless of your political persuasion?  People for whom he campaigned simply lost.

The next two months will be important.  Will outgoing Democrats push through more unpopular bills that Obama will quickly sign or will they finally listen to the people whom they still represent until January 3rd?   Will President Obama reach out to the new Republican majority in the House?  Will there be gridlock?

If Harry Reid’s comment in his victory speech is any indication, We’re not in for a change of direction.  He simply called this “the next round”.  To him and the remaining liberal Democrats, the next two years will have many bloody battles.

One thing is certain, there are now several unemployed Democrats.  I wonder how this will affect the jobs numbers next month.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has said that this election is all about “jobs, jobs, jobs”.  He’s right, however, I think the job he’s most interested in is his own.

The unions are spending about $1 Billion of their members’ mandatory dues on this election.  Union rank and file, by the way, are not happy with this spending.  If there has to be a strike, that’s money not available for the strike fund to pay the out of work members.  Besides, it is money being spent for candidates that the average union worker doesn’t support or want in power!

I think the logic goes like this: If the people that the union leaders support win, then they will be beholden to the unions who spent money to put them in power.  If that’s the case, then the money would have been well-spent as unions get tougher laws that put more companies on the brink of bankruptcy.  On the other hand, if those people lose, then we can expect to see a shakeup in the union leadership.

The union bosses claim that they want to move “forward” and not “backward” to the time when businesses “controlled” Washington.  Apparently with their spending, moving forward means going to a time when unions control it.

Democrats claim this is “George Bush’s recession”.  Granted, in George Bush’s 8 years, there were arguably 11 million jobs lost.  Obama has lost only 6 million in his two years, and that was slightly moderated by the over 72,000 federal jobs he has created.  72,000 people getting a paycheck from your taxes and producing nothing of value to improve the economy.  The federal force grew while state and local jobs shrank by 258,ooo.

That may sound harsh but it’s true.  Government employees, regardless whether federal, state, or local, don’t add to the economy.  They produce no food, goods, or services.  They don’t build or ship anything.  Unions, on the other hand, force their workers to spend money on programs and politicians they don’t support for a minimal assurance of better pay or working conditions.

Communism is the political system where everyone works for the government in one big union.  As we continue to grow government, a larger and larger percentage of the workers will be state-controlled.  For more and more people, a shrinking government means their jobs may be in jeopardy.

This is an important election.  Bank and union bailouts are in danger.  ObamaCare is in danger, irrespective of its questionable Constitutional basis which is being fought in the courts.

Should Republicans make the large gains projected, on one extreme, a lot of the Obama policies will be slowed or reversed, on the other side, there may be gridlock in Congress.  However, is gridlock bad?

Should we continue on the track we’re on, we can expect more bailouts, perhaps even for union pension plans since they’re spending so much money on these elections and not protecting their members’ money.

The people for whom you vote will show if you want government to control more and more of your life, or if you believe in personal responsibility and that you know better how to direct your life.

It’s your vote.  Don’t waste it by not voting.  Even if your guy or gal loses, it will show to what extent his or her platform has support.

When your 401(k) becomes a 201(k)

It’s not just the recession that has decimated (six-fold in some cases) your retirement savings.  There is also talk among many policy wonks about making your personal retirement more restricted and restrictive.

US News and Word Report reported in October of 2008 of a plan to nationalize personal retirement plans.  These plans would transfer your money from “shaky”, evil (in their minds) personal accounts into government-controlled annuities.  Of course, those annuities would be funded by Treasury Bills and Bonds.

The plan did not go anywhere at the time but I believe we could see increased pressure to start “encouraging” tax payers and savers to switch to these plans very soon.  “Just look,” the argument will go, “at what your bad decisions did to your retirement funds.  We (the government) can obviously do a better job by guaranteeing growth.”  Of course that growth will in no way even keep up with inflation and to be sure it will be capped for the “richest” among us to help the “poorer” who, for whatever reason, didn’t save enough, or even save at all.

Government sponsored retirement plans, be they IRAs or the various flavors like 401(k)s (such as those for educators and other workers), and whether they are of the traditional or Roth variety, are not always the best choice for all investors.  You have to weigh deferred taxes of ordinary income (will we see 70% or more again? — I think, yes) versus tax rates now with only gains taxed at possibly the long term gains rates, and things like that.  Consult your financial adviser (preferably one that doesn’t advise you to buy one of his or her products) before making any investment decision.

What we are seeing is the potential take over of several trillion dollars in retirement savings.  As I said it didn’t get a lot of traction two years ago but we can expect more now for three big reasons.  There are no doubt more but I want to keep this short.

First of all, we will have an ever-growing national debt that will soon reach $14 trillion by even conservative estimates.  Uncle Obama has to get the money somehow and the way they will continue to fund our debt is by borrowing money.  They can’t borrow from Social Security any more because there is no Social Security surplus to take.  Social Security now pays out more each month than it takes in payroll taxes.  Now the feds have to start feeding the money they took back into the system.  Where better than to get it from you?

Second, to sell the debt, someone has to buy it.  Most foreign countries don’t have the money to do it and those that do have the money, don’t want to carry more of our debt.  They see massive inflation and currency devaluation coming and don’t want to be stuck paying the bill.  So where will that money come from?  From the funds that you can’t touch without massive penalties and taxes until you are 59-1/2 years old.

Third, it simply galls big-government socialists that you have control over any part of your personal economy.  You know Social Security won’t be there to hold you over through retirement.  You will need extra funds.  Your IRA and 401(k) were designed to do that.  Take those away from you and voilà!  You are once again dependent upon (or shall we say “at the mercy of”) the government in your waning years.

As long as President Obama can continue to blame George W. Bush for our financial problems, he and his cronies who rammed ObamaCare down our throats will feel that they can get away with this new retirement takeover scheme.

I’m sure this plan will be voluntary, just like our income tax system is “voluntary”.  You “volunteer” to pay your taxes (you gotta love governmental double-speak), albeit potentially at the point of a gun.  Expect the same kind of encouragement here as well.