About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Skyway robbery? Obama's blowhard energy folly

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 6:35:15 PM

Last January, during his address to Congress, Barack Obama declared..."We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

The statement drew thunderous applause. Nancy Pelosi almost hit the ceiling, so fast did she arise from her chair. But all levity aside, let's step back for a moment and get realistic about our country's energy future.

In Denver, Mr. Obama recently signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, proclaiming..."it will lay the groundwork for new green energy economies that can create COUNTLESS, well-paying jobs!"

Countless jobs? Umm-hum.

Sure Mr. Obama-- there's nothing wrong with developing alternative energy, but keep in mind the old saying: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

So let's call Mr.Obama's statement 'onto the carpet' and check for veracity:

When we think of alternative energy sources, windmills sound so appealing… so romantic...so green. It's like power from heaven; and according to the green energy fruitcakes who insist upon its promotion, it's as if all wind-sourced power were free!

An oil well drilled in North Dakota or Montana would cost $2-4 million, and would independently produce 1000-2500 barrels of high-energy-density oil per day.

But just one windmill costs $2 million from start to being hooked onto a grid; and in comparison, each would produce a paltry amount of low-density wind energy on a breezy day.

The reality of wind power is different from the environmental romance. Windfarms are weather-contingent, unreliable, and require back-up-- an inefficient and periodic power source useful only in certain locations.

But what about the countless jobs it will create? So let us now do the math:

How many employees does it take to man a spinning gaggle of windmills, or a functioning array of  solar panels, versus just ONE of those dirty/dreadful coal or nuclear power plants?

A coal fired facility requires anywhere from 150-400 people to operate & maintain; while a nuclear plant not only produces huge amounts of regional power, it's also an economic generator for 1,500 - 2,000 jobs, and plays a critical role in its local economy.

In the Northeast, a recent study of a plan for 33 wind-turbine towers 410 feet high, with blinking lights on top, strung out over 6.5 miles of rural landscape, aided by 40 miles of service roads-- with a 5.8-mile transmission line-- would support a whopping 70 permanent jobs.

Green energy will displace-- not create-- countless jobs.  And for what, a better environmental national conscience, at a cost of abandoning our nation's existing energy infrastructure?

But undaunted by all the current evidence to the contrary, Mr. Obama (in a recent speech at Georgetown U.)  favorably cited Spain as an example of how to boost an economy by creating green jobs. But he may have exaggerated just a little.

Since the year 2000, the Spanish have gone "full blown " to wind turbines. But a new study from Rey Juan Carlos University shows that if the U.S. adopted similar green energy policies, it would destroy more than double the number of conventional energy jobs in current existence.

The Spanish study also calculated that it cost 571,138 Euros to create each job. That's more than $755,000 for each green collar job! How’s that for economies of scale?

And how about Britain? Gordon Brown's ambition to become a global leader in renewable energy may also be gone with the wind. Recently, Shell and BP pulled out of renewable energy projects, including a £3 billion project for 341 turbines in the Thames Estuary, and scrapped a proposed £2.2 billion windfarm off the Welsh coast.

And surprise, the English are returning to good ole king coal.

Mr. Brown’s target of generating 35 per cent of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020 would cost England an estimated extra £100 billion vs. coal. His plans have collapsed as funding dries up, and the price of oil and coal has fallen.

In Britain, coal is abundant and at present, very cheap-- the main reason why British power stations love it. A recently approved coal-fired station in Pembroke will be the largest in Britain, producing 2,000 megawatts, a full two-thirds of the TOTAL power produced by ALL of the country’s wind turbines.

And throughout northern Europe, wind farms have proved to be no answer to global warming.

The Germans have invested more than anyone in this form of energy, but are finding (according to newspaper "Der Spiegel") that despite installing more than 17,000 wind turbines, the nation is now emitting more CO2 than BEFORE it built them.

In Canada, it might be good idea to take a close look at recent developments regarding noise pollution from wind turbines.

A windfarm in Cherry Valley (Ontario Province) began operation a couple of months ago, and now complaints are coming in from residents ( including those who favored the project) that noise is penetrating their homes and disturbing sleep.

In the United States today, we get less than 2 percent of our electricity from wind. And President Barack blowhard Obama's energy plan calls for 10 percent of American electricity from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.

But does anyone know how President blowhard plans to build all these solar and windmill farms? Does he furnish any blueprints, companies to work with, estimated power output, etc?

Did he present any allocations of how he is going to spend the money, or did President blowhard just say we are going to nullify the conventional energy companies to make an angry public feel better?

Yes, our common enemies--coal & big oil!

It's the same old tried and true socialist propaganda. Obama presents no DETAILED plan-- only vague ideas. He just drops buzz words, and lets the media and general public "take it from there."

Lets start by telling the truth--the big inconvenient truth about green power-- it is hugely expensive: triple the cost of coal power; almost double the cost of nuclear. Advocates of green power insist that the price will soon decline. But this remains a promise that may never come to pass.

The big costs involved are not only the turbines and solar panels. There are vast land acquisitions required for siting, and for stringing wires from thousands of small-scale generators to the distribution grid spanning all the way to the cities. And throughout the next few decades, these costs are more likely to rise than to fall.

Wind and solar suffer from inherent dis-economies of scale that can never be corrected vs. carbon-based fuels, who's price depends on free market supply/demand ratios--not skewed from government subsidies.

And what about the NIMBY factor, and its effect on local real estate values? Who would invest a quarter of a million dollars to build a residence nearby an unsightly, noisy wind turbine, when they could just as easily go elsewhere?

These behemoths are over 40 stories high, and have blades which swing over an area larger than a football field. The towers require vast amounts of real estate, and cannot be concealed. Moreover, they create annoying television interference.

The drive for cleaner energy will irrevocably change the landscape. People resist windfarms for one simple reason-- they despoil the beauty of their communities. It seems perverse to ruin the landscape in the name of preserving the environment.

The big push to turn farms into wind factories-- to take agricultural land and turn it into an industrial wind turbine complex--is NOT farming; it is industrialization!

Lawmakers should resist calls to add an extensive and costly new transmission system that would carry electricity from remote areas (i.e. Texas and  the Great Plains) to places with high energy demands (Boston, Chicago and New York).

Obama's so-called "climate solutions" could irrevocably damage the planet they are intended to protect. Our biologically rich and arid desert ecosystems are remarkably fragile.

In our haste to combat global warming, we could very well hasten the demise of our beautiful avian species, and insect-devouring bats, all of whom would have to dodge fast spinning blades of 450 foot tall turbines, strung out all along major migration routes.

And once topsoil and plant life have been disrupted for the placement of solar arrays, wind farms, and transmission lines, restoration would be cost-prohibitive, if not impossible.

Mr. Obama's plan for renewable windpower amounts to dismantling our dependable existing energy system, in exchange for an unreliable,16th-century technology solution-- all for a problem that does not even exist!

The reason why we are still stuffing black lumps of carbon into furnaces is simple: it makes economic sense, and the financial markets are shouting this message louder than ever before. We must carry on burning fossil fuels for the time being, and the media must stop supporting green energy lies to a scientifically dumbed-down American public.

Does it make sense to trample sensitive ecosystems in the new rush to develop alternative energies? It would be an oxymoronic case of destroying the Earth in order to save it.

Before the Obama administration and his congressional cohorts are done, we could be reeling from one of the most extraordinary spectacles in American political history-- a wholly misguided war against our own economic self-interests as a nation.


www.kenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Railroad revival...how to create production in a downturn

Posted by thekeenobserver on Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:32:11 PM

As early as 1836, transcontinental rail travel had been a dream of many Americans, who began to realize a need to tie California to the rest of the states through the means of a coast-to-coast railroad system.

 

Finally in 1862, Congress passed the Pacific Railway Act, and authorized funding and the blueprint for the official route.

 

The visionary project had gotten off to a slow start due to the Civil War, but in 1866 the race was on. The Union Pacific began laying track from Omaha to the west, while the Central Pacific headed east from Sacramento.

 

On May 10, 1869, the striking of the golden spike at Promontory Summit in Utah symbolized that the nation was at last now joined with 3500 miles of railroad running from New York to California. 

 

It would go down in history as one of the happiest days ever in American history, on par with V-J day on August 14, 1945, and July 20, 1969 when the astronauts landed on the moon. 

 

As the golden spike was struck, telegraph signals simultaneously alerted every major U.S. city from San Francisco to New York, igniting a nationwide celebration marked by a cacophony of tolling bells and cannon fire everywhere across the country.  


Now and forever on, America would be a truly united nation. 


Americans everywhere now realized the great accomplishment and enormous benefit of  having a transcontinental railroad that was at hand. There would be no more rugged, dangerous snails-paced wagon trains. You could go from the east coast to the west coast in 3 1/2 days instead of 6-8 months.

 

As expected, the railroad sparked a huge, nationwide economic boom--except for the conestoga wagon companies.

 

New steel mills and ironworks were established. Pullman car-building companies, the Westinghouse Company, agribusiness, the lumber industry, even the hospitality industry began to boom as never before.

 

Interstate commerce flourished. Fresh local & regional foods became available nationwide. Farmers could get their grain to market instead of it rotting in barns & silos. People could travel and visit relatives and friends in faraway places. Cattle could be shipped promptly, and fresh meat was now possible in many parts of the country.

 

Great cities sprung up as a direct result of the opening of the railroad. Chicago's population surged. Kansas City & Los Angeles began to grow rapidly. Almost all major cities west of the Mississippi were established (e.g. Las Vegas) as a result of being a stop or from being at the end of a spur along the transcontinental railroad.

 

It was the interstate highway system of the late 19th century, the direct result of visionary men such as Leland Stanford, and the many other ingenious entrepreneurs, brilliant engineers, and armies of determined workers that had made the Herculean task a reality.

 

But what about now? What if History were about to repeat itself almost a century and a half later?

 

What if Congress had just passed an 800 billion stimulus package to authorize the construction of a high speed transcontinental railroad across the country, and had devoted the huge sum ENTIRELY to its establishment --the biggest national earmark ever! What then?

 

The news would have triggered a tsunami of nationwide economic enthusiasm. The Dow Jones would have risen 1,500 points. Newspapers and TV stations would be the town criers of the happy news-- a nationwide explosion of new jobs-- not since the likes of 1942 when the Second World War economy was converting from peacetime.

 

People everywhere would be talking about bullet trains, and how it would affect them. The rust belt would  be able to shake off its tarnish. The high tech corridors along the east and west coasts would be advertising for engineers. Design firms would be placing their help wanted ads on the net. Monster.com and employment sites would be flooded with new job listings and eager resumes.

 

Americans everywhere would be talking the talk of the impending boom from the high speed rail network. It would be like the good ole days where America was moving forward, and our consumer society could look ahead to more decades of prosperity. 

 

And It would have gone down as the longest train delay in history--50 years overdue.

 

Finally, Americans would now be able to avoid the jammed, snails-paced traffic gridlock of the rush hour interstate highways. You could go coast to coast in less than a day, unencumbered by airport hassles, flight delays, weather postponements, security searches, high fares, and cramped, circulation-stopping airline seating.

 

Interstate commerce would be boosted. Business travel would be revitalized. The hospitality industry--hotels and motels and restaurants --would see a revival from their recessionary blues. Downtowns of major cities would spring back to life. Airport congestion in the "exurbs" would now vanish.

 

And then there would be the new generation of jobs. Real jobs. Jobs that pay real wages, the type of compensation that would return America to a full wage economy, instead of a minimum wage struggle that many workers face now.

 

And these would be the types of jobs that would be permanent, not some make work government projects that would cease after funding had lapsed. And the employment boom would be almost limitless!

 

The heavy industries would experience their long hoped-for comeback; the steel industry would need tens of thousands of new workers. The locomotive divisions of GE & GM would be working  3 shifts-- 24 / 7. The defunct Budd Company in St Louis, former builder of heavy rail cars, could re-awaken from its moribund status.

 

Designing the new high tech railroad would create a plethora of jobs, and would spark a demand for civil, metallurgical, and electrical engineers. Building the system could perhaps require more than 1,500,000 new construction jobs. Operating the system would be a permanent job-generating machine. And maintaining the system would create the need for another 100,000 new high-paying, high-skilled positions.

 

But for whatever reasons (idiopathic political stupidity) high speed rail has not been a priority in America.

 

A half century ago, the demise of passenger trains occurred almost overnight, as airliners and cars left locomotives far in the dust. But now, it's time to embrace trains again -- but newer, faster ones that can transport passengers past gridlocked airports and highways on electrified railroads, at up to 250 mph.

 

In perhaps the closest thing to high speed rail in the U.S., Amtrak's 135 mph Acela Liner between Washington to New York to Boston has experienced 40% growth in ridership in just the last 4 years; and it's became a serious competitor to air travel along the nation's most densely populated transportation corridor.

 

Acela owes it popularity to the fact that it makes few stops, is affordable, and from "downtown to downtown", has reduced the trip time between cities that make it almost as efficient as flying.

 

But that's not to mention Acela's "fringe benefits"-- just ask Joe Biden.

 

Road rage on Interstate I-95-— where traffic gets so heavy it gets to a level of stop and go; and time wasted by airport waiting-- both are eliminated by the mighty Acela, which on straightaways hits a top speed of 150 mph.

 

Relaxing, socializing, text messaging, laptop work, watching a movie, enjoying the dining car, reading, or sightseeing out the windows (at 130-plus mph) sure beats the boredom of looking out at cloud tops, or getting the bird from some road-raged "Type A" belligerent driver.

 

Plus, for those that enjoy a relaxing libation, you can sneak your own booze onto a train. No need to worry about traffic cameras, DWI's, highway patrol harassment, or the loathsome wait at toll booths. 

 

The benefits of high speed rail travel are left only to one's imagination. Many Americans have had a love for trains ever since childhood. 

 

But now that were all grown up, we face an ironic reality. We’ve blown our chance for a nationwide high-speed transcontinental rail network for at least another decade--possibly forever.

 

We've elected a radical leftist president & congress who've voted to support a nationwide trancontinental network of government dependent leeches. They've passed and signed into law a stimulus package of borrowed money that squanders 400 billion to expanding the federal government, and supporting those who contribute not to the tax base, but who will continue to vote for these democrats in the next election, as long as they have the promise of a monthly check--collecting money for doing nothing.

 

It's Washington's treason against the long term advancement of the American economy, and foregoing the possibilities for the future prosperity for generations to come. 

 

In brief, it's a domestic political catastrophe-- one where we've taken on a strong increase of the long-term public debt for purely consumptive purposes--thereby squandering the possibility of producing something permanent that could benefit future generations.

 

From the words written by Freidrich List, famous German theorist-economist from the pre-World War I era..."No effort of the present generation brings such a decisive and favorable advantage to future generations as the improvement of transportation, since these investments increase the productive powers of the future generation extraordinarily, and in a steadily rising progression."

 


Similar to France's Alexis de Toqueville in the 1820's, Freidrich List was echoing what he had seen from his travels in the United States as a younger man in the 1890's--the amazing economic boom from the expansion of the American transcontinental railroad!

  

But nowadays we're caught in the throes of a 15-month recession--with no end in sight-- and no viable solutions on the horizon.

 

High speed rail could have been the magic bullet-- the ultimate solution to a recession-plagued, job-starved minimum wage economy--and could have re-invigorated the American economy similar to the late19th century.

 

And in times such as these, investing in a mass nationwide high speed rail network would echo the words of the brilliant Freidrich List..."That in a depression (recession) there exists a surplus of 'unused production capacities' and unemployed labor-- the productive use of which is the actual and most urgent task of economic policy." 

 

But if the great Freidrich List were alive now and saw the insane squandering of the public trust by the Democrats (and their callous disregard for the nation's future), what would he write today?


"...America presently, in failing to build a world-class high-speed train network, represents a tremendous missed opportunity, forgoing the possibilities of boosting economic activity by means of investment generation and expansion of credit, and in that way, does not favor the progress of future generations, but steals from it in advance."


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's 'ace in the hole' for our infrastructure...High speed rail corridors!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, December 19, 2008 3:26:11 PM
 

One of the few good uses of massive government spending, besides defense, is infrastructure. But defense spending raises inflation; it pumps huge money into the economy, but the goods and services it creates can't be purchased, thus causing inflation. But to Obama's credit, the amount of money he is proposing to spend on infrastructure could lend a vastly beneficial impetus to the economy, and would probably not spike inflation.

 

And CERTAIN types of infrastructure spending may indeed, generate huge job growth, producing semi- permanent results that would resoundingly benefit the nation. The Hoover Dam and Golden Gate bridge are two New Deal projects (from the 1930's) that demonstrated that some government make-work programs can produce something of permanent benefit, because both became "game-changers."

 

Obama certainly has one thing right; if we don't update the infrastructure soon, our overripe roads, sewers and bridges will be rotten in less than a decade. But the president elect instead is favoring "shovel-ready" projects that require little planning or foresight. And the problem with this is, despite the huge sums of tax-payer money for repairing and refurbishing, the country will not realize anything resembling game-changing status, like a Hoover Dam or Golden Gate bridge.

 

 And because there's no permanence to Obama's strategy, it's sort of like renting an apartment vs. buying  one's own home. The nation will see little in return for its money, other than a mild boost to the local economies who do the repairs in that particular year.

 

And while were on the topic of infrastructure spending, why is no one discussing the idea of high-speed rail corridors? The bullet trains would relieve Interstate traffic congestion, and  would provide an alternative to car and air travel. Modern, high-speed rail travel would save time, gasoline, and jet fuel, and would go along with Obama's quest to make America more enegy efficient. And indeed, high speed rail would be a huge game changer, and transform the nation's travel modes in an eco-friendly way.

 

High-speed rail travel would be as much of a lifestyle changer upon our culture as the interstate highway system. It would be analogous to how the American economy exploded in the late 19th century, after the trans-continental train network was completed in 1869. Historically, it is indeed noteworthy that nearly all towns west of St. Louis, such as Las Vegas, were originally founded because of spurs or stops on the transcontinental railroad.

 

 And just as the exits off interstate highways sparked new suburbs and nearby commercial land development, high speed rail would generate at least a ten to twenty year boom in construction, engineering, and surveying jobs, all required in building out all the rail corridors and securing the right-of-ways.

 

Think about it...could there be any opposition against NOT having to travel jammed interstate highways between major cities? There'd be no longer a need to widen I-95 along the east coast. People could leave their cars at home. The road rage and time wasted in traffic jams would be supplanted by relaxing on a train, socializing, text messaging, laptop work, watching a movie, eating a quality meal, reading, or sightseeing out the windows at 130 mph. It sure beats flying and looking at cloud tops from a window seat. And there'd be no need to worry about clogged traffic, and getting flipped off by some foaming-at-the-mouth driver on the interstate.

 

High speed rail would have made sense for the U.S. twenty, thirty, or even fifty years ago. If we had placed high speed rail right-of-ways parallel to all the interstates built in the 50's and 60's, this nation would never have had an energy crisis. But the original intention of the interstates was for national defense (i.e. rapid military transport during wartime). No one could have conceived these highways would become so vital to travelers, commuters, and interstate commerce. If that had been assumed back then, they would've made the roadways 20 inches thick with concrete, and built the bridges with rust-resistant steel alloys.

 

And the benefits of high speed rail construction would be permanent. There'd be high-paying, skilled employment creation. We'd have steel and manufacturing jobs, railroad and construction jobs, engineering and technology employment. America would see a steel industry revival.

 

Also there would be a funding option: private venture capital instead of government money. People would buy tax-free construction bonds in the rail companies, like Burlington Northern, Chessie, B&O, and Norfolk Western.This worked well 150 years ago when the government granted Union pacific and Central Pacific the cheap land for the transcontinental railroad's right of ways, and it could work again.

 

And in this pricey energy era, besides passenger lines, what's more practical than high-speed FREIGHT TRAIN corridors spanning the nation? The benefits in time and diesel fuel saved, and the reduced damage to the interstate highway system from 40-ton trucks, would be enormous- possibly eliminating the need for the federal gas tax. Picture inter-modal, 100-car high speed freight trains, piggy-backing 200 semi-trailers across the country at 90-plus MPH ...how energy and time efficient would that be?

 

And what about the social benefits of passenger high speed rail travel? Today, Americans live in virtual self-imposed social isolation chambers. We no longer write letters, and largely converse through e-mail and text messages, preferring to let our cellphones and computers do the communicating for us, instead of actual interpersonal contact. America is becoming a society of individuals who prefer to be alone.

 

Now consider the social aspects of traveling by high speed rail, compared to the current horrific state of air travel. Flying today is an exercise in claustrophobia. You are not afforded much space or comfort, because of the need for airlines to cut costs. You are, in effect, imprisoned in your seat. So if the person sitting next to you has a chronic cough, or is wearing pungent cologne, or is downloading offensive porn on their pc, you cannot help thinking that, "maybe the Greyhound bus would have been better than sitting next to this creep."

 

Now picture traveling by high speed rail. You stretch out in comfort. You go to the coffee bar and relax with a latte, while you gaze out the window at the scenery whizzing by. You can sit by yourself, and work or read. Or, because of the social possibilities of train travel, you might even meet a significant other person, or someone who changes your life in a positive way, such as a new friend, or business associate. But the point is, on the train, you have the room to spread out and multi-task to your heart's content.

 

So are ya listening out there Mr. Obama ? Aren't you tired of the conservative pundits that say you're a government-loving, free-spending socialist ? Well then show 'em...you could be an actual maverick; you could be the "next Eisenhower", and praised as the president who pioneered the American network of high speed rail corridors, and returned the nation to economic prosperity!

 

So c'mon Mr. Obama...show the nation you really ARE a transformational president. But you must lead the initiative, and see to it that your administration actually gets everything off the ground and moving forward. Call it whatever you want...the next Apollo moon shot, or the next Manhattan project. Just co-opt the Nike slogan for your administration's new motto...just do it!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Thomas Jefferson...where are you now?"

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 6:11:19 PM
 
 

Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "Were it left to me to have a government with no newspapers, or newspapers with no government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." Jefferson 's most relevant quote however was..."better watch out for that federal government... it'll make a slave out of you".

 

Boy could we ever use another Tom Jefferson today, or even back in the 60's, when liberals such as Ted Kennedy, took up their semi-permanent residency in the Senate. With the landslide 1964 victory of Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater, it signaled the start of a concomitant landslide of liberal legislation that forever changed our nation in an irreversible way.

 

 

Liberalism remains most popular among those in academia and politics, because liberals seek positions of influence. Lliberals commonly tend to be highly educated and relatively affluent. Liberals are predominantly white, and garner the support of the young. They are also the least religious political group.

;

Since they are educated and wealthy, liberals believe they're entitled to power. And ironically they seek their power to deny others liberty, holding up fairness as their excuse for legislative tyranny. They seek to “generously" re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor. They are especially fair when it comes to other peoples money; but they’re quite stingy when it comes to contributing their own. They feel morally superior, even though 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services

 

They freely pass judgment on others; yet they resent being judged themselves. "Didn't all these evil rich people make their money by taking advantage of the poor? Therefore we must tax them to the point of getting even". To them, Robin Hood had it right from the get go. This tax the rich idea in America really came to the fore in the early 60’s, at a time of economic prosperity.

 

In the late 50's and early 60's, the unemployment rate had dipped sharply, and people went to work in such significant numbers that companies found themselves short of workers. But under the bold liberal charge of Ed Kennedy, disastrous, job-killing employer-taxation laws were passed in the Senate. Business owners were now required to match their employee's social security contributions, and to pay payroll taxes to the government for every worker under hire. This forced many small business owners into downsizing, because they only could now afford to keep their key employees. Small business creation began to decline almost overnight.

 

This legislation caused the employer cost of doing business to skyrocket. It's destroyed the formation of untold millions of small businesses ever since, and has kept many an entrepreneur from expanding. It also was the dawn of the big automatic deduction payroll tax. To this day, many companies now go offshore rather than expand domestically.

 

This liberal doctrine of “fairness” keeps the unemployment rate artificially high. Free enterprise or fair enterprise- which is better for a poor person? Things such as the minimum wage, and mandatory retirement benefits have expanded the welfare state to the point where it's part of the structural economy. These welfare people figure in the unemployment rate, but most are not even seeking work.

 

Ironically, these liberal legislators probably couldn't even recognize a pick or a shovel, or ever worked a hard day in their lives. If they did, they'd realize what it is to earn money, and would respect an individual's or employer’s right to keep their earnings, rather than tax them to the limit, and spend the tax revenues to help the poor people that these liberals themselves have created.

 

Nowadays, to start a small business, one has to pay many fees, and have insurances in place before they can start out. It’s no wonder that most small businesses are either family-run, or are the result of spin-offs from some larger company that refused to act on some promising new entrepreneurial idea. How would a married person with a family start a small enterprise? Either he or she maxes out credit cards, or a great idea withers on the vine.

 

If everybody was free to make a buck with their own idea or initiative, what else would stop them from taking a shot? Everyone has their own dream of how they would get rich. But unless you know a banker, lawyer and insurance agent, you have to pay dearly and risk almost everything to go into business today.

 

Good ol' liberalism; these people constantly are trying to make the world "as it should be", rather than the way it actually is. The country probably will never learn its lesson and throw off these regulations, until the political climate undergoes an apocalyptic shift to the right; but demographics and time are decidedly against it. Ever since FDR and the New Deal, liberalism has been gathering political momentum. The two-term limit of the presidency will probably preclude any chance of ever reversing this disastrous political trend of trying to be fair to the poor.

 

It’s estimated that since the Great Society liberalism of the Johnson administration in 1964, an astonishing wealth transfer of 41 trillion dollars has gone toward welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment funds, and other government directives and entitlements. And already, the country is faced with another 35 trillion in unfunded future entitlement obligations for the next 30 years. But as recently as this month, Congress ‘generously’ added on another $800 billion onto our 9.5 trillion national debt, to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of the housing bust; and the liberal media doesn't say boo about it.

 

Of course, if there were enough conservative media people to take on the warning role of the canary in the coal mine, this monetary insanity of our fiscal policy would be held more at bay, and possibly go into reverse. But otherwise, it'll take the collapse of the dollar and a second depression before any one decides this all wasn't such a good idea in the first place.

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »