Posted by Warner Todd Huston (Profile)
Friday, February 27th at 7:44AM EST
5 Comments
Obama is about to unleash a $3.552 TRILLION budget on this poor nation. So, if we each of us were expected to fork over our share of that tab, what would it cost us? Well, according to Toby Harnden, blogger for the Daily Telegraph, it would amount to $25,573.48 each.
I don’t know about you but, I just don’t have it.
So how much will President Barack Obama’s budget cost us? The projected 2010 budget of $3.552 trillion can be found on page 114 of the “New Era of Responsibility” budget here.
The US Census bureau estimates that the current US population is 304,059,724. Dividing the $3.552 trillion by that gives us close to the $11,833 that Drudge came up with. ABC’s Jake Tapper reports that there wil be $989 billion in new taxes over the next decade.
I’m an American taxpayer and the starkest figure is what this could cost me. The latest figure I could find for the number of US taxpayers is 138,893,908 returns in 2007 here. By my reckoning, that’s $25, 573.48 each.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Really?
Posted by Rep. John Shadegg
Last night President Obama said, “I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan…Not because I believe in bigger government - I don’t.”
Really?
If that’s true, why was every single policy the President suggested last night…big government?
Mr. President, if you don’t like big government, perhaps you should consider not making it the centerpiece of your administration. That makes about as much sense as holding a fiscal responsibility summit days after passing one of the biggest spending bills in history.
Wait. That already happened.
Okay, how about this: saying you don’t like big government while promoting it, would kind of be like railing against earmarks while getting ready to sign a bill with, oh say, 9,000 of them.
Wait – that’s also really happening, house Democrats passed it today.
I guess we’re seeing a trend. The President tells the American people he’s not into big government, while he proposes expanding government. It’s like that high school crush you didn’t want to tell anyone about.
But of course, it’s not much of a secret in this case. After all, it’s hard to hide things like trillion-dollar spending bills and pork stacked a mile high. I’m also sure Americans will notice when the government tries to take over their health care and raise their taxes. And they won’t be happy.
There’s a reason, Mr. President, lines in your speeches saying you don’t like big government are a big hit – it’s because, believe or not, people hope you mean it.
Last night President Obama said, “I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan…Not because I believe in bigger government - I don’t.”
Really?
If that’s true, why was every single policy the President suggested last night…big government?
Mr. President, if you don’t like big government, perhaps you should consider not making it the centerpiece of your administration. That makes about as much sense as holding a fiscal responsibility summit days after passing one of the biggest spending bills in history.
Wait. That already happened.
Okay, how about this: saying you don’t like big government while promoting it, would kind of be like railing against earmarks while getting ready to sign a bill with, oh say, 9,000 of them.
Wait – that’s also really happening, house Democrats passed it today.
I guess we’re seeing a trend. The President tells the American people he’s not into big government, while he proposes expanding government. It’s like that high school crush you didn’t want to tell anyone about.
But of course, it’s not much of a secret in this case. After all, it’s hard to hide things like trillion-dollar spending bills and pork stacked a mile high. I’m also sure Americans will notice when the government tries to take over their health care and raise their taxes. And they won’t be happy.
There’s a reason, Mr. President, lines in your speeches saying you don’t like big government are a big hit – it’s because, believe or not, people hope you mean it.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Hey! Let's allow Big Brother to keep track of our highway mileage!
Rick Moran
As it stands now, road maintenance is funded largely through the gas tax. It is a pretty fair way to allocate the tax burden since the more you drive and use those roads, the more taxes you pay.
But our new Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood doesn't think we're getting enough cash as a result of the gax tax - or at least not enough for the Obama administration. So, instead of the gas tax, there are proposals to fund road building and maintenance by charging drivers for every mile they drive.
How would the government know how much to bill you for your driving? They want to stick a GPS device in your car and monitor where you go and how much you drive. Of course, they would also be able to determine who you visit, what stores you shop at, and all sorts of other juicy information that Big Brother would love to get his paws on:
"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said.
Most transportation experts see a vehicle miles traveled tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.
The idea also is gaining ground in several states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island are talking about such programs, and a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.
Besides a VMT tax, more tolls for highways and bridges and more government partnerships with business to finance transportation projects are other funding options, LaHood, one of two Republicans in President Barack Obama's Cabinet, said in the interview Thursday.
"What I see this administration doing is this — thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America," he said.
I've got a great idea, Ray. Instead of "thinking outside the box" on this, let's just put this back in the box, close the lid, seal it, and never bring it out again.
This is a bad idea on so many levels one wonders at the brazenness of the Obama Administration and whether the press would make a stink about such a massive intrusion into the privacy of American citizens.
Chances are, they would meekly accept it as the price to pay for "energy independence" or "to stop global warming" or any other excuse the Administration could use to keep track of us.
We can always stop driving, I guess.
As it stands now, road maintenance is funded largely through the gas tax. It is a pretty fair way to allocate the tax burden since the more you drive and use those roads, the more taxes you pay.
But our new Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood doesn't think we're getting enough cash as a result of the gax tax - or at least not enough for the Obama administration. So, instead of the gas tax, there are proposals to fund road building and maintenance by charging drivers for every mile they drive.
How would the government know how much to bill you for your driving? They want to stick a GPS device in your car and monitor where you go and how much you drive. Of course, they would also be able to determine who you visit, what stores you shop at, and all sorts of other juicy information that Big Brother would love to get his paws on:
"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said.
Most transportation experts see a vehicle miles traveled tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.
The idea also is gaining ground in several states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island are talking about such programs, and a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.
Besides a VMT tax, more tolls for highways and bridges and more government partnerships with business to finance transportation projects are other funding options, LaHood, one of two Republicans in President Barack Obama's Cabinet, said in the interview Thursday.
"What I see this administration doing is this — thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America," he said.
I've got a great idea, Ray. Instead of "thinking outside the box" on this, let's just put this back in the box, close the lid, seal it, and never bring it out again.
This is a bad idea on so many levels one wonders at the brazenness of the Obama Administration and whether the press would make a stink about such a massive intrusion into the privacy of American citizens.
Chances are, they would meekly accept it as the price to pay for "energy independence" or "to stop global warming" or any other excuse the Administration could use to keep track of us.
We can always stop driving, I guess.
Reverend Wright lives on in the Obama administation
Meghan Clyne of the Weekly Standard reports that President Obama has appointed Reverend Dr. Otis Moss Jr. to serve on the President's Advisory Council established as part of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (did you get all that?). Moss is the father of Reverend Otis Moss III, who succeeded the infamous Jeremiah Wright as the spiritual leader of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, which Obama attended for something like 20 years.
Moss Jr. himself has close ties to Wright. According to Clyne, they shared a mentor in Samuel DeWitt Proctor, who helped give rise to black liberation theology. Ironically, it was the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference that sponsored Wright's appearance at the National Press Club last April -- the one that finally caused Obama to break with his racist, anti-American pastor.
Moss is full of praise for Wright. Last February, after Wright's anti-American ravings had come to light, Moss said he had been blessed by Wright's "genius, his creativity, his scholarship, his discipleship, his sensitivity as a prophet, and. . .his rhythmic poetry." Moss' own rhetoric is less deranged than Wright's but, as Cline shows, it is inflammatory enough. And Moss is the co-author, with Wright, of a book that refers to U.S. education and health care policy as "weapons of mass destruction."
Moss should fit in well on Obama's new Advisory Council. Other members include black liberation theologist Vashi McKenzie, who has preached at Trinity, and Jim Wallis a former (?) Marxist and a defender of Wright.
Even before breaking with Wright, Obama argued (in his Philadelphia speech) that his pastor and those like him didn't get that America had changed from when they were young. Yet Obama has now selected a misguided (according to him) "race man" to advise on spiritual matters.
Apparently, Obama finds it useful to keep the grievances of Wright and Moss alive even though he knows, and his election confirms, that they are seriously outdated.
Moss Jr. himself has close ties to Wright. According to Clyne, they shared a mentor in Samuel DeWitt Proctor, who helped give rise to black liberation theology. Ironically, it was the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference that sponsored Wright's appearance at the National Press Club last April -- the one that finally caused Obama to break with his racist, anti-American pastor.
Moss is full of praise for Wright. Last February, after Wright's anti-American ravings had come to light, Moss said he had been blessed by Wright's "genius, his creativity, his scholarship, his discipleship, his sensitivity as a prophet, and. . .his rhythmic poetry." Moss' own rhetoric is less deranged than Wright's but, as Cline shows, it is inflammatory enough. And Moss is the co-author, with Wright, of a book that refers to U.S. education and health care policy as "weapons of mass destruction."
Moss should fit in well on Obama's new Advisory Council. Other members include black liberation theologist Vashi McKenzie, who has preached at Trinity, and Jim Wallis a former (?) Marxist and a defender of Wright.
Even before breaking with Wright, Obama argued (in his Philadelphia speech) that his pastor and those like him didn't get that America had changed from when they were young. Yet Obama has now selected a misguided (according to him) "race man" to advise on spiritual matters.
Apparently, Obama finds it useful to keep the grievances of Wright and Moss alive even though he knows, and his election confirms, that they are seriously outdated.
Dear President Obama:
I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?
You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.
As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.
When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.
After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."
Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.
Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.
I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.
The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.
We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?
By Rush Limbaugh
You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.
As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.
When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.
After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."
Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.
Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.
I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.
The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.
We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?
By Rush Limbaugh
Online survey
Who is the most important person?
1. Obama
2. Jesus
3. Martin luther king
This is very sad.
1. Obama
2. Jesus
3. Martin luther king
This is very sad.
Dow since Obama took office
Dow opened on Jan 20 at 8230, closed today Feb 20 at 7365.
The market shows it's approval every day. It is showing
that business is not happy with the way things are going.
The market shows it's approval every day. It is showing
that business is not happy with the way things are going.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Stimulus will lead America in the direction of Western New York
By Michael Filozof
If you want to know what President Obama's new style of government-led, Democratic Party economic and political policies will bring to the country, you need look no further than Western New York -- and what you'll see isn't pretty. Nearly every item in the Obama economic and political agenda -- from health care to taxes to unions to gun control to government schemes to spend money to "stimulate" the economy -- has already been tried here, but the region remains stagnant and moribund.
The economy of Western New York and the cities of Buffalo and Rochester are, for practical purposes, socialist. The private sector is nearly dead, government is the largest employer, and taxes and union membership are the highest in the nation. As a result, economic growth is nil, and the population continues to migrate to the Sun Belt at an alarming rate.
It would be an understatement to say that the region is a Democratic Party stronghold; "uni-party rule" is a more accurate description. Buffalo has not elected a Republican mayor since 1962. Party registration in Buffalo's Erie County favors the Democrats 150,000. Republicans have been reduced to a permanent minority here, and it's not unheard of for lifelong Democrats - former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra, for example - to switch party labels to Republican only after they could not obtain the Democratic nomination. The Democratic Party also controls the Governor's office and both houses of the State Legislature, along with 26 of the state's 29 House seats and both Senate seats.
Mere possession of a handgun, even in one's home, requires a government permit, which can take up to a year to obtain in some counties. The federal "assault weapons ban" which expired nationwide in 2004 -- but which President Obama promised to reinstate on a permanent basis -- has been codified into state law and remains in effect here.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, New York State has the highest rate of union membership in the country. Nearly 25% of the workforce here is unionized. Virtually all public sector employees here are unionized, and richly compensated as a result. In 2008, a Buffalo cop caused a stir by milking the overtime and seniority rules to earn nearly $200,000 in his last years on the job, enabling him to retire with a pension of $100,000 per year. Unionized city school district janitors can earn between $70,000 and $100,000 per year. In the private sector, bankrupt auto parts maker Delphi, a major employer in Lockport, is staggering under the weight of its union contracts, and American Axle recently closed a unionized facility in Buffalo.
The public sector dominates here. Data from the Census Bureau in 2004 indicated that there were 95,300 public sector employees in the Buffalo-Niagara Metropolitan Statistical Area out of a total labor force of 547,000; by comparison, only 66,400 were employed in manufacturing and 20,300 in "construction and mining." Only the category of "trade, transportation, and utilities" produced more private-sector jobs - 102,000 - than government.
In 2008, the three largest employers in Buffalo were all in the public sector. The State of New York employed 16,500, the Federal government 10,000, and the City of Buffalo 8,200. Of the top three private sector employers, two -- Kalieda Health with 10,000 employees Catholic Health Systems with 4,900 -- were hospitals, heavily reliant on state and federal aid. HSBC Bank, with 5,800 employees, rounded out the top three.
Health care remains a major employer in the region because the population is aging. Medicare and Medicaid provide substantial funding to the health-care industry. But Medicaid here is out of control. New York's Medicaid system the costliest in the nation, double that of California's. Medicaid here pays for just about everything. Several years ago a public outcry caused the state's Medicaid system to stop paying for Viagra for convicted sex offenders, but it continues to fund abortions.
Things are not much better in nearby Rochester. For decades Rochester was a company town, home of the once-mighty Eastman Kodak Co. But Kodak has been shedding jobs for three decades, and in 2006 the University of Rochester, a non-profit educational institution, surpassed Kodak as the city's largest employer.
The high rate of public employment requires a substantial tax burden to support it. A 2008 study by the Tax Foundation found that 8 of the top 10 counties in the nation with the highest property-tax burdens were in Western New York. Niagara County was ranked number one, Monroe County number two, and Erie County number seven. But residents here do not merely pay high property taxes; the combined state and county sales tax in Erie County is a staggering 8.75%, and the state levies an income tax that averages 5% as well. The state even demands that residents pay sales taxes on items purchased by mail or on the Internet and shipped into New York from other states. The state recently raised nearly 100 taxes and fees to meet this year's budget; even so, Gov. David Paterson is predicting a $15 billion budget deficit for next year.
The enormous sums of money flowing into government coffers gives politicians the means to dictate the terms on nearly everything. Almost nothing here is decided solely by market forces in the private sector. Political operatives spend public money at the behest of favored interest groups, and consequently nearly every idea for "economic development" involves some harebrained scheme carried out by socialist-type planning that invariably fails.
In 1978, Buffalo began construction on a light rail/subway system. The first portion of the system -- which eliminated auto traffic on Main Street -- was only 5 miles long and opened in 1984 at a cost of $500 million. The system flopped. Planned extensions of the rail line never materialized, and ridership dropped from 7.1 million on 1996 to 5.6 million in 2006. By 2008, even more public money was committed to re-opening Main Street to traffic.
In 2000, some were optimistic about private sector investment when Adelphia Communications Company announced plans for a $125 million office in downtown Buffalo. But by 2002 Adelphia, $2.3 billion in debt, went bankrupt and its principal owners, John and Timothy Rigas, were sent to prison on fraud charges.
The next plan, announced in 2004, was to commit $66 million in public money to entice hunting and fishing retailer Bass Pro Shops to build a 250,000 square foot outlet in downtown Buffalo. Advocates of the plan claimed that the store would bring 3 to 5 million people per year downtown and anchor an "economic revitalization." Nearly five years later, despite the commitment of tens of millions in taxpayer dollars, Bass Pro has not materialized.
Equally ridiculous schemes have been hatched in Rochester. Several years ago, city leaders somehow became convinced that residents of Toronto, a city of 5 million with major league sports, theater, and world-class restaurants, were just beside themselves with desire to come to Rochester, a city of 219,000 with minor-league sports and way off-Broadway entertainment. They solicited bids for companies to run a ferry operation across Lake Ontario, and guaranteed sums of public money to construct harbor facilities for the project.
The ferry was launched in June 2004 -- and went bankrupt by September. The chagrined leaders of the city then decided to use tax dollars to purchase the ferry at a bankruptcy auction for $32.5 million, and contracted with another company to operate the vessel. The project went belly-up for a second time in 2005, forcing the city to sell the vessel at a loss, and pay millions to fulfill other financial commitments related to the ferry.
More recently, a plan was announced in 2007 to commit $50 million in state funds to demolish existing structures in downtown Rochester, which would enable PAETEC Co., a telecommunications firm, to move its headquarters about 10 miles from suburban Fairport to downtown. But by 2008 PAETEC's stock dropped below $1 per share, and the company announced that it was losing millions and would cut more than 200 jobs, putting its new office building plans on hold.
Even the highly-touted "green energy" is present here: Niagara Falls has produced "green energy" for over 100 years, but it's heyday is long past. Today, hundreds of wind turbines dot the hills of rural Wyoming County, but they are not a significant source of either jobs or industry.
Despite these repeated gimmicks to stimulate economic growth, the private sector here has failed to prosper, taxes remain astronomical, and the public "votes with its feet." In 2008, Forbes magazine listed Buffalo as one of the top 10 "fastest dying cities." The previous year, Harvard economist Edward Glaeser wrote an article entitled "Can Buffalo Ever Come Back?" The subtitle was "Probably Not -- and the Government Should Stop Bribing People to Stay There."
Glaeser argued that decades of public spending -- on office towers, sports arenas, urban renewal, and the light rail system -- failed to halt Buffalo's population decline from a high of 585,000 in 1950 to under 290,000 today. The surrounding area has not fared much better; census data shows that the Buffalo-Niagara Metropolitan Statistical Area lost 51,000 people since 2000. Ditto for Rochester; the city's population fell from 328,000 in 1930 to 219,000 in 2000.
People who leave the area tend to head for the low-tax, pro-growth, right-to-work states of the Sun Belt, especially North Carolina and Florida.
But at least the people have someplace to go. If the Obama "stimulus" program replicates the same kind of heavy-handed political agenda and tax policies found in Western New York on a nationwide basis, where will the people go then?
If you want to know what President Obama's new style of government-led, Democratic Party economic and political policies will bring to the country, you need look no further than Western New York -- and what you'll see isn't pretty. Nearly every item in the Obama economic and political agenda -- from health care to taxes to unions to gun control to government schemes to spend money to "stimulate" the economy -- has already been tried here, but the region remains stagnant and moribund.
The economy of Western New York and the cities of Buffalo and Rochester are, for practical purposes, socialist. The private sector is nearly dead, government is the largest employer, and taxes and union membership are the highest in the nation. As a result, economic growth is nil, and the population continues to migrate to the Sun Belt at an alarming rate.
It would be an understatement to say that the region is a Democratic Party stronghold; "uni-party rule" is a more accurate description. Buffalo has not elected a Republican mayor since 1962. Party registration in Buffalo's Erie County favors the Democrats 150,000. Republicans have been reduced to a permanent minority here, and it's not unheard of for lifelong Democrats - former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra, for example - to switch party labels to Republican only after they could not obtain the Democratic nomination. The Democratic Party also controls the Governor's office and both houses of the State Legislature, along with 26 of the state's 29 House seats and both Senate seats.
Mere possession of a handgun, even in one's home, requires a government permit, which can take up to a year to obtain in some counties. The federal "assault weapons ban" which expired nationwide in 2004 -- but which President Obama promised to reinstate on a permanent basis -- has been codified into state law and remains in effect here.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, New York State has the highest rate of union membership in the country. Nearly 25% of the workforce here is unionized. Virtually all public sector employees here are unionized, and richly compensated as a result. In 2008, a Buffalo cop caused a stir by milking the overtime and seniority rules to earn nearly $200,000 in his last years on the job, enabling him to retire with a pension of $100,000 per year. Unionized city school district janitors can earn between $70,000 and $100,000 per year. In the private sector, bankrupt auto parts maker Delphi, a major employer in Lockport, is staggering under the weight of its union contracts, and American Axle recently closed a unionized facility in Buffalo.
The public sector dominates here. Data from the Census Bureau in 2004 indicated that there were 95,300 public sector employees in the Buffalo-Niagara Metropolitan Statistical Area out of a total labor force of 547,000; by comparison, only 66,400 were employed in manufacturing and 20,300 in "construction and mining." Only the category of "trade, transportation, and utilities" produced more private-sector jobs - 102,000 - than government.
In 2008, the three largest employers in Buffalo were all in the public sector. The State of New York employed 16,500, the Federal government 10,000, and the City of Buffalo 8,200. Of the top three private sector employers, two -- Kalieda Health with 10,000 employees Catholic Health Systems with 4,900 -- were hospitals, heavily reliant on state and federal aid. HSBC Bank, with 5,800 employees, rounded out the top three.
Health care remains a major employer in the region because the population is aging. Medicare and Medicaid provide substantial funding to the health-care industry. But Medicaid here is out of control. New York's Medicaid system the costliest in the nation, double that of California's. Medicaid here pays for just about everything. Several years ago a public outcry caused the state's Medicaid system to stop paying for Viagra for convicted sex offenders, but it continues to fund abortions.
Things are not much better in nearby Rochester. For decades Rochester was a company town, home of the once-mighty Eastman Kodak Co. But Kodak has been shedding jobs for three decades, and in 2006 the University of Rochester, a non-profit educational institution, surpassed Kodak as the city's largest employer.
The high rate of public employment requires a substantial tax burden to support it. A 2008 study by the Tax Foundation found that 8 of the top 10 counties in the nation with the highest property-tax burdens were in Western New York. Niagara County was ranked number one, Monroe County number two, and Erie County number seven. But residents here do not merely pay high property taxes; the combined state and county sales tax in Erie County is a staggering 8.75%, and the state levies an income tax that averages 5% as well. The state even demands that residents pay sales taxes on items purchased by mail or on the Internet and shipped into New York from other states. The state recently raised nearly 100 taxes and fees to meet this year's budget; even so, Gov. David Paterson is predicting a $15 billion budget deficit for next year.
The enormous sums of money flowing into government coffers gives politicians the means to dictate the terms on nearly everything. Almost nothing here is decided solely by market forces in the private sector. Political operatives spend public money at the behest of favored interest groups, and consequently nearly every idea for "economic development" involves some harebrained scheme carried out by socialist-type planning that invariably fails.
In 1978, Buffalo began construction on a light rail/subway system. The first portion of the system -- which eliminated auto traffic on Main Street -- was only 5 miles long and opened in 1984 at a cost of $500 million. The system flopped. Planned extensions of the rail line never materialized, and ridership dropped from 7.1 million on 1996 to 5.6 million in 2006. By 2008, even more public money was committed to re-opening Main Street to traffic.
In 2000, some were optimistic about private sector investment when Adelphia Communications Company announced plans for a $125 million office in downtown Buffalo. But by 2002 Adelphia, $2.3 billion in debt, went bankrupt and its principal owners, John and Timothy Rigas, were sent to prison on fraud charges.
The next plan, announced in 2004, was to commit $66 million in public money to entice hunting and fishing retailer Bass Pro Shops to build a 250,000 square foot outlet in downtown Buffalo. Advocates of the plan claimed that the store would bring 3 to 5 million people per year downtown and anchor an "economic revitalization." Nearly five years later, despite the commitment of tens of millions in taxpayer dollars, Bass Pro has not materialized.
Equally ridiculous schemes have been hatched in Rochester. Several years ago, city leaders somehow became convinced that residents of Toronto, a city of 5 million with major league sports, theater, and world-class restaurants, were just beside themselves with desire to come to Rochester, a city of 219,000 with minor-league sports and way off-Broadway entertainment. They solicited bids for companies to run a ferry operation across Lake Ontario, and guaranteed sums of public money to construct harbor facilities for the project.
The ferry was launched in June 2004 -- and went bankrupt by September. The chagrined leaders of the city then decided to use tax dollars to purchase the ferry at a bankruptcy auction for $32.5 million, and contracted with another company to operate the vessel. The project went belly-up for a second time in 2005, forcing the city to sell the vessel at a loss, and pay millions to fulfill other financial commitments related to the ferry.
More recently, a plan was announced in 2007 to commit $50 million in state funds to demolish existing structures in downtown Rochester, which would enable PAETEC Co., a telecommunications firm, to move its headquarters about 10 miles from suburban Fairport to downtown. But by 2008 PAETEC's stock dropped below $1 per share, and the company announced that it was losing millions and would cut more than 200 jobs, putting its new office building plans on hold.
Even the highly-touted "green energy" is present here: Niagara Falls has produced "green energy" for over 100 years, but it's heyday is long past. Today, hundreds of wind turbines dot the hills of rural Wyoming County, but they are not a significant source of either jobs or industry.
Despite these repeated gimmicks to stimulate economic growth, the private sector here has failed to prosper, taxes remain astronomical, and the public "votes with its feet." In 2008, Forbes magazine listed Buffalo as one of the top 10 "fastest dying cities." The previous year, Harvard economist Edward Glaeser wrote an article entitled "Can Buffalo Ever Come Back?" The subtitle was "Probably Not -- and the Government Should Stop Bribing People to Stay There."
Glaeser argued that decades of public spending -- on office towers, sports arenas, urban renewal, and the light rail system -- failed to halt Buffalo's population decline from a high of 585,000 in 1950 to under 290,000 today. The surrounding area has not fared much better; census data shows that the Buffalo-Niagara Metropolitan Statistical Area lost 51,000 people since 2000. Ditto for Rochester; the city's population fell from 328,000 in 1930 to 219,000 in 2000.
People who leave the area tend to head for the low-tax, pro-growth, right-to-work states of the Sun Belt, especially North Carolina and Florida.
But at least the people have someplace to go. If the Obama "stimulus" program replicates the same kind of heavy-handed political agenda and tax policies found in Western New York on a nationwide basis, where will the people go then?
Dobson students question Obama's plan
A Dobson High School Advanced Placement government class with strong opinions about Barack Obama watched the president's speech Wednesday on a small, grainy TV in the corner of their classroom.
Principal, student talk hoops with Obama
Obama lays out plan amid hundreds at Dobson
Some of the students attentively watched the speech, giving questioning looks and comments, shaking their heads and laughing at some of Obama's words. Other students listened, occasionally glancing up to watch, while texting on their cell phones, reading a book or finishing school work.
The gymnasium's events were shown simultaneously in rooms throughout the Mesa school, and teachers were given discretion on whether to show the speech, the students said.
The students in the class were hopeful things will work out, but questioned whether Obama's plan would actually work to dig the country out of its economic woes. They also expected a longer speech.
Senior Syna Daudfar took some notes during the speech and was among the most vocally opposed to Obama's words.
At one point, when he talked about the costs of his stimulus plan, senior Maaike Albach and Daudfar looked at each other and said, "uh-oh."
"Overall I think it's a good idea, but he's not addressing the issues of the economic crisis," said Daudfar, a John McCain supporter who added that he leans more toward being a moderate conservative. "The spending bill he just passed is just progressing the Democratic agenda rather than addressing the economic issues in the country."
Daudfar thinks Obama's plan is backward and deals with the "less important stuff" first. "Bailing out businesses" and "providing better regulatory systems for giving out money to businesses" should have been first, he said.
"If businesses can't afford to hire people, then people won't be able to work and pay off their mortgages," he said. "It's kind of like putting money into a funnel."
Albach, who is also a Republican, said Obama's plan sounds good, but she questioned how Obama can want to rely on "people's responsibility" when that is "what got us in this economic crisis in the first place."
"This puts us more into debt," said Albach, 18. "It's a horrible situation we're in."
Senior Brandon Miller wore a shirt with the words, "Hitler gave great speeches, too" above a picture of Obama.
Miller said he had been an Obama supporter "because of his speeches," but after debating the issues in this class and looking more into Obama's policies, his vote was swayed toward McCain.
He showed a video on his camera he had just taken of the president's minutelong motorcade and talked about what a "great experience" it was to watch it. Miller had also spent a couple of hours in front of the school, hanging out and watching the protesters.
"Even though I don't support him, I think it's cool he's here," said Miller, 18. "I just don't believe all the things he's telling us. His goal is just too big and broad."
Miller wanted to hear more about the costs and guidelines the stimulus bill entails.
Senior Katelyn Meyer, who also leans more toward being a Republican, said Obama's plan sounds good, "but it's easier said than done."
"I like the refinancing part, and I like the part about mortgages, but I'm afraid we're going to put the money in but won't see any effect," said Meyer, 18, who still thought it was "cool" to say that the president was at her school, even though she didn't get to see him live.
The students also questioned why Obama chose their school for his speech since he wasn't talking about education and wondered how much money the district spent on beautifying the campus while district positions and services are being cut.
District officials noted this week that the landscaping project completed over the weekend at Dobson was already in the works and was just expedited by the president's visit. Funding came from voter-approved bonds.
New sod was laid in front of the school Tuesday, and Daudfar said, "The joke at the school is they're going to take it away when he (Obama) leaves."
AP government teacher Jeff Sherrer said his students "feel very strongly about the issues, maybe more than the general population." He thought at least one of his students was outside protesting, and he had planned to take his students outside as a class project to show them what was going on, but didn't get the chance.
"These kinds of kids really get into it," Sherrer said. "During the election, we had lots of debates on the issues."
Principal, student talk hoops with Obama
Obama lays out plan amid hundreds at Dobson
Some of the students attentively watched the speech, giving questioning looks and comments, shaking their heads and laughing at some of Obama's words. Other students listened, occasionally glancing up to watch, while texting on their cell phones, reading a book or finishing school work.
The gymnasium's events were shown simultaneously in rooms throughout the Mesa school, and teachers were given discretion on whether to show the speech, the students said.
The students in the class were hopeful things will work out, but questioned whether Obama's plan would actually work to dig the country out of its economic woes. They also expected a longer speech.
Senior Syna Daudfar took some notes during the speech and was among the most vocally opposed to Obama's words.
At one point, when he talked about the costs of his stimulus plan, senior Maaike Albach and Daudfar looked at each other and said, "uh-oh."
"Overall I think it's a good idea, but he's not addressing the issues of the economic crisis," said Daudfar, a John McCain supporter who added that he leans more toward being a moderate conservative. "The spending bill he just passed is just progressing the Democratic agenda rather than addressing the economic issues in the country."
Daudfar thinks Obama's plan is backward and deals with the "less important stuff" first. "Bailing out businesses" and "providing better regulatory systems for giving out money to businesses" should have been first, he said.
"If businesses can't afford to hire people, then people won't be able to work and pay off their mortgages," he said. "It's kind of like putting money into a funnel."
Albach, who is also a Republican, said Obama's plan sounds good, but she questioned how Obama can want to rely on "people's responsibility" when that is "what got us in this economic crisis in the first place."
"This puts us more into debt," said Albach, 18. "It's a horrible situation we're in."
Senior Brandon Miller wore a shirt with the words, "Hitler gave great speeches, too" above a picture of Obama.
Miller said he had been an Obama supporter "because of his speeches," but after debating the issues in this class and looking more into Obama's policies, his vote was swayed toward McCain.
He showed a video on his camera he had just taken of the president's minutelong motorcade and talked about what a "great experience" it was to watch it. Miller had also spent a couple of hours in front of the school, hanging out and watching the protesters.
"Even though I don't support him, I think it's cool he's here," said Miller, 18. "I just don't believe all the things he's telling us. His goal is just too big and broad."
Miller wanted to hear more about the costs and guidelines the stimulus bill entails.
Senior Katelyn Meyer, who also leans more toward being a Republican, said Obama's plan sounds good, "but it's easier said than done."
"I like the refinancing part, and I like the part about mortgages, but I'm afraid we're going to put the money in but won't see any effect," said Meyer, 18, who still thought it was "cool" to say that the president was at her school, even though she didn't get to see him live.
The students also questioned why Obama chose their school for his speech since he wasn't talking about education and wondered how much money the district spent on beautifying the campus while district positions and services are being cut.
District officials noted this week that the landscaping project completed over the weekend at Dobson was already in the works and was just expedited by the president's visit. Funding came from voter-approved bonds.
New sod was laid in front of the school Tuesday, and Daudfar said, "The joke at the school is they're going to take it away when he (Obama) leaves."
AP government teacher Jeff Sherrer said his students "feel very strongly about the issues, maybe more than the general population." He thought at least one of his students was outside protesting, and he had planned to take his students outside as a class project to show them what was going on, but didn't get the chance.
"These kinds of kids really get into it," Sherrer said. "During the election, we had lots of debates on the issues."
Monday, February 16, 2009
Whats the rush?
When congress had to get the Tarp bill passed back in October, we had to get it passed right away or the economy was going to fall apart. The passed it fast, the banks kept the money and didn't do what they were suppose to do with it. the economy didn't fall apart.
Obama had to have the stimulus bill passed right away. So fast that the house and the senate had to pass it Friday of the economy possible would not ever recover. Both the house and senate passed it without reading what was in the $787 billion bill. After the rush Obama took a long weekend in Chicago and will not even sign it until Tuesday. The dems also said it would be posted online so everyone could read it for 48 hours before a vote. there just wasn't enough time the country was going to fall apart if it wasn't done Friday. Now waiting until Tuesday is fine to sign it. I don't get it. All the lies.
Obama had to have the stimulus bill passed right away. So fast that the house and the senate had to pass it Friday of the economy possible would not ever recover. Both the house and senate passed it without reading what was in the $787 billion bill. After the rush Obama took a long weekend in Chicago and will not even sign it until Tuesday. The dems also said it would be posted online so everyone could read it for 48 hours before a vote. there just wasn't enough time the country was going to fall apart if it wasn't done Friday. Now waiting until Tuesday is fine to sign it. I don't get it. All the lies.
Friday, February 13, 2009
How can they be so stupid, to vote on the biggest spending bill in history without even reading it.
It might be called a stimulus bill, but it’s far from stimulating reading. At 1,434 pages, and written in the usual incomprehensible legalese, the stimulus is going to be passed unread by members of Congress. That’s no fault of theirs, blogs Jimmie Bise at the Sundries Shack; to read the bill in time, they would have to average 640.5 words per minute for 13 hours.
“If anyone needs a potty break, they’d better take the bill with them,” Bise writes. Democrats say we need the bill fast, but pushing for a 9am vote seems a little much. “Just know as you’re at work tomorrow," he wrote yesterday, "that the Democrats will be voting to spend about $800 billion dollars without having the foggiest idea what they’ll be spending it all on.”
“If anyone needs a potty break, they’d better take the bill with them,” Bise writes. Democrats say we need the bill fast, but pushing for a 9am vote seems a little much. “Just know as you’re at work tomorrow," he wrote yesterday, "that the Democrats will be voting to spend about $800 billion dollars without having the foggiest idea what they’ll be spending it all on.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)