This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Economy

  • Gas/Food crunch

    I remember when I was in high school, the “green” movement was in it’s infancy. They clung to every “crisis” they could think up. There was a new ice age coming, the world was going to starve to death by the year 1990, we were all going to get black lung disease…blah, blah, blah. Well, it seems that we didn’t starve to death in 1990, so the new greens have decided that they’ll create a food crisis with this bio-fuel idea, and their new idea seems to be working well (The Washington Times);

    President Bush yesterday asked Congress to authorize $770 million to ease the global food crisis, most of which will be focused on Africa, while the administration denied that corn-for-ethanol subsidies are a major cause of the worldwide surge in food prices.

    “We’re sending a clear message to the world that America will lead the fight against hunger for years to come,” Mr. Bush said in a statement to reporters in the White House.

    But agricultural experts testified on Capitol Hill yesterday that high food prices are here to stay, as robust demand for food worldwide collides with record fuel costs to put unprecedented pressure on food prices.

    Although the prices for basic foods like corn, wheat and oil have been soaring, the prices paid to farmers are only a small part of what consumers pay at the store. As much as 75 percent of the retail price of food can be attributed to processing, packaging, transportation and distribution. These costs have also risen substantially, mainly because of high fuel prices.

    “With the average food item traveling more than 1,500 miles before reaching the final consumer, it is no wonder that food costs are increasing,” Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union, told the Joint Economic Committee. “When looking back over the last seven years, gasoline prices have increased 198 percent and diesel fuel prices have increased almost 250 percent.”

    Of course one way to solve the gas problem, and with it, the food problem, is to build more refineries and tap into our own oil resources off of our coasts (seein’s how the Chinese and Cubans are already doing it anyway) and in Alaska – but that’s too easy, I suppose.

    The other day I wrote about the Virginia governor who is actually considering raising state taxes on gas. Obama must be his mentor, according to the Wall Street Journal he intends to vote against suspending the federal tax on gas, to save the taxpayers a bit of money;

    A range of economists, including Gregory Mankiw, who was chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, and Leonard Burman, who directs the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, have criticized the proposal because it would save drivers little while encouraging gasoline consumption and depleting the federal Highway Trust Fund. Sen. Obama opposes the holiday for the same reasons.

    But the political popularity of gas-price relief illustrates the uphill climb facing Sen. Obama. After making his plea Thursday at a retirement community in Columbia City, Ind., an older voter asked him why he couldn’t support a gas-tax holiday that would be funded by a tax on oil companies, as Sen. Clinton has proposed, because it would offer some short-term relief. “A lot of us are short term,” she quipped.

    Sen. Obama said that a tax on oil companies should instead be used for long-term investments in alternative energy. He also has reminded voters of his proposed tax cut for middle-class families.

    Yep, that sacred cow for the Democrats, tax revenue. Lord knows we don’t people to get used to spending the money they earned, they might like it. While I agree that suspending the gas tax will do little, either in the long term or the short term, even, it’s still our money – pennies or dollars, any tax cut is good. And I don’t even buy gasoline or pay for the gas that heats my home – I just want the tax cuts for everyone else…that’s how much I hate taxes.

    Of course, the best way to drive down gas prices is to drive less. I haven’t seen any of that going on here in the Metro DC area. The train is still nearly empty everyday and the streets are always full of single-passenger autos. As long as people are willing to pay higher prices, the oil companies and OPEC are always willing to raise prices looking for the ceiling.

  • Virginia Guv finds solution to gas prices

    The Washington Post writes that Virginia’s Democrat Governor has found a solution to high gas prices – the same solution Democrats have for every problem;

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) said today he’s considering raising Virginia’s 17.5 cent a gallon gas tax, despite the record price of fuel at the pump.

    In an interview on WTOP radio, Kaine said the increase may be needed to generate more money to build and repair roads.

    “All issues are on the table,” Kaine said. “We are talking about a gas tax.”

    Kaine’s remarks come as he and state lawmakers are grappling over a February Virginia Supreme Court ruling that nullified last year’s landmark transportation deal, designed to raise $1 billion annually for roads and transit. Virginia is also facing a projected shortfall of several hundred million in the part of the budget used to maintain roads.

    So while gas prices climb to all time highs instead of doing something to help consumers and tax payers, the Democrats’ solution is always higher taxes – since we’ve all become so accustomed to it, I guess they think we enjoy it. Why repair the roads when no one (except the governor) will be able to drive?

    Just imagine what’ll happen when they get control of the Federal budget. They keep us from drilling our oil, building refineries to meet our energy needs and then tax the snot out of us for the little bit they let trickle down.

  • State tax on the internet

    New York retailers were positively giddy in this ABC article because New York was going to force internet retailers to charge state tax.

    At Chrono Tech Watches in White Plains, Jerry Nally is glad the clock is ticking on many Internet retailers that don’t charge New York sales tax. Nally says those so-called “e-tailers” steal his customers.

    “They’ll come in our store, look at our product, touch it, play with it, look at the warranties, then go back to the web and buy it tax free,” says Nally.

    Sounds like your problem is not with retailers, Jerry, it’s with your customers and your sales staff. Doing the happy dance over someone being forced to pay taxes is just childish. many of your customers probably paid more for shipping than they would have in sales tax – but they preferred to pay shipping. I do – I’d rather put a coupla bucks in UPS’ pockets than in Marty O’Malley’s. It’s better for the economy, too.

    New York just raised their state sales tax – did you do anything about that Mr. Nalley? It seems to me that if tax free shopping appealed to your customers, you’d be opposed to the tax hike. But I’m betting you voted for Democrats who inherently raise taxes – expecially on businesses.

    But the new rulings aren’t sitting well with the Internet giants. Amazon, the largest Internet retailer, is objecting to the decision, saying “this is the wrong time to increase taxes on New Yorkers.”

    “You will drive people away. People are not going to want to shop online anymore,” says Cantin.

    Nally is hoping online businesses will comply, however, telling CBS 2 “it’s about time!”

    I’ll tell you what it’s about time for, Mr. Nally, it’s time we stopped depending on government to to tax and regulate our competition to “even the playing field”, whether it’s electronics or cars, and do a better job of competing for our customers’ money.

  • Where’s the discussion about the minimum wage?

    Every time I read the news, I read about “Jobs Slashed, Pointing to Recession“;

    Employers buffeted by talk of recession slashed 80,000 jobs in March, the most in five years and the third straight month of losses.

    At the same time, the national unemployment rate rose from 4.8 percent to 5.1 percent, the clearest signal yet that the economy might already be shrinking.

    The new snapshot of the job market, released by the Labor Department Friday, underscored the damage that a trio of crises –in the housing, credit and financial sectors — has inflicted on companies, jobseekers and the economy as a whole.

    “The labor market has indeed turned south,” said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors. “That was the one last bastion of hope to stay out of a recession. Now the question is how deep and how long will it last?”

    I read lots of posturing and guess work, but I don’t read any of the news services mentioning the fact that jobs in this country were just fine until Congress raised the minimum wage in July, about the time the job market started getting jittery.

  • O’Malley equates paying taxes to patriotism

    The good news is that Maryland Senate actually cut a tax. The bad news is that they raised income taxes on some people to “pay” for the cut. (Washington Post link)

    The Maryland Senate voted 30 to 17 last night to repeal the state’s new tax on computer services and offset the lost revenue with a three-year surcharge on the income of millionaires as well as cuts to transportation projects and state agencies.

    With the House of Delegates expected to follow suit in coming days, the action almost guaranteed that Maryland’s “tech tax” would come off the books before it was to take effect in July.

    So to “offset” their revenue losses, Maryland has decided to put an additional 6.25% income tax increase on folks with over a million dollars of income every year. Now, I see every tax increase (with no attempt to rein in spending) as a personal affront. Someone is losing out, somewhere. It’s $62,500 that could be some other American’s wages for gardening or laundering for the person who makes a million bucks every year. That’s at least one less job in Maryland for every millionaire hit with the tax.

    But Governor O’Malley is very cavalier about it;

    O’Malley told reporters yesterday that he thinks the surcharge is fair. “We’re not going to be shy about asking our fellow citizens who make more than a million dollars a year to pay an additional three-quarters percent,” he said.

    But that’s not all he said. On radio station WMAL this morning on the Grandy and Andy Show, they played the rest of the quote since I don’t have the transcript, I’ll paraphrase; “I think there are enough millionaires in Maryland who are patriotic enough they’ll gladly pay the tax.”

    Now it’s our patriotic duty to hand over our money gladly to the irresponsible clowns in Annapolis who won’t even consider cutting their wasteful spending programs and raise taxes willy-nilly and declare victory over the rich.

    Crossposted at Red Maryland

  • Food Stamp flap

    queue_21938a.jpg

    Photo from The Independent

    Gateway Pundit writes that this photo is three years old

    The media is looking so hard for bad economic news to drive the economy south before the November elections, they’ll cleave to anything they can wave like a bloody shirt. The New York Times thinks that food stamp dependency is one of those bloody shirts;

    Driven by a painful mix of layoffs and rising food and fuel prices, the number of Americans receiving food stamps is projected to reach 28 million in the coming year, the highest level since the aid program began in the 1960s.

    The number of recipients, who must have near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits averaging $100 a month per family member, has fluctuated over the years along with economic conditions, eligibility rules, enlistment drives and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which led to a spike in the South.

    The UK’s Independent calls it the US’ Great Depression. The Colombus Dispatch follows suit with a headline that reads “Food Stamps Double Since ’01“. That’s a bunch isn’t it? Well, James Taranto and his crew at Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web offer a simple explanation of why food stamp usage would double since 2001;

    …the Farm Bill of 2002 substantially expanded the food-stamp program. As the U.S. Department of Agriculture Web site notes, that legislation made legal immigrants eligible for food stamps, increased benefits for larger households, and expanded food-stamp eligibility for people leaving the TANF (welfare) rolls.

    In other words, the government has made a conscious effort to expand the number of people on food stamps. Accordingly, the number of people on food stamps has expanded. And journalists are misconstruing government largesse as a sign of economic distress.

    So it stands to reason that food stamps would increase if the government is making a conscious effort to expand the program doesn’t it? So instead of being an indication of a failing economy, it’s an indication that the government gives too much away. It should be a call to pull back from the edge of government giveaways.

    Here’s another picture the media can use that’ll fit over the caption;

    gd7.gif

    Men check for jobs at unemployment office yesterday in New York City.

    Or;

    gd49.gif

    Disadvantaged Americans line up for food in New York City yesterday 

  • “Rocky” Clinton swings at NAFTA

    Likening herself to famous fictional character Rocky Balboa, Clinton started spinning stories again (Yahoo/AP link);

    Addressing a meeting of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO Tuesday, the former first lady and New York senator said that she, like Rocky, wasn’t a quitter.

    Recalling a famous scene on the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Clinton said that ending her presidential campaign now would be as if “Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum steps and said, ‘Well, I guess that’s about far enough.’”

    “Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people,” Clinton said.

    I’m sure this’ll get the old photo-shoppers working away – please don’t email me your creations, OK? The Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire comments;

    What Clinton didn’t say—and what every movie buff already knows—is that Rocky lost in the end. Another kicker: Rocky actor Sylvester Stallone has endorsed expected Republican nominee Sen. John McCain.

    She couldn’t help but start lying again;

    She promised the labor group that as president, she would create 3 million new jobs through investments in public infrastructure like roads and bridges.

    Clinton also told the audience that as first lady she had forcefully battled NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, even as her husband was aggressively pushing for its passage through Congress. The agreement is widely unpopular with organized labor because it helped clear the way for many blue collar jobs to be moved to Mexico and other countries with cheaper labor costs.

    “I did speak out and oppose NAFTA,” she said. “I raised a big yellow flag and said ‘I don’t think this will work.”

    Well, we all know what she truly thinks about NAFTA, it’s just campaign rhetoric since she’s already told the Canadians precisely that. The Toronto Star also dug into her autobiography to see what she really thought about NAFTA;

    In My Life, Hillary Clinton is revealed as opposing NAFTA in just one particular: Promoting its legislative passage in 1993 would expend so much political capital that there would be little left for her own health-care reform initiative.

    So, along with everything else, her opposition to NAFTA was personal.

    Trying to perpetuate the myth that she was part of her husband’s administration she told the labor goons (emphasis mine);

    “I was in many meetings starting in the ’92 campaign — I raised questions,” she said. “I did it in the White House again, in meetings with as many different audiences in the White House in the decision-making process that I could speak to. But the president made a decision. As part of an administration, I believe you support the president, and I did.“

    What was her title and when was she confirmed by Congress?

    But, I’d like to know how she plans on creating 3 million jobs. It’s the capitalists that do that not presidents.

  • Mischaracterizing McCain

    The Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, between jabs at each other have been squeezing out shots at John McCain. Today, Charles Krauthammer deals with one of their more disingenuous claims – that McCain wants to fight a war in Iraq for another 100 years;

    Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted — “Make it a hundred” — then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: “We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.” Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: “That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

    And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: “It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world.”

    There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous “presence” McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The United States (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I’ve yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait.

    I’d add something, but, as always with Mr Krauthammer, there’s nothing left to be said. In another part of the Washington Post, Clinton and Obama take turns painting McCain as a heartless Republican;

    In an economic speech on Tuesday, McCain (Ariz.) said he supports government assistance for Americans facing home foreclosure because of the turmoil in financial markets. But he declined to embrace the kind of government intervention for individuals and institutions favored by Clinton and Obama, arguing that “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”

    Obama (Ill.) and Clinton (N.Y.) have pounced on that quote in an effort to paint McCain as indifferent to the problems of ordinary Americans. Speaking in New York yesterday, Obama characterized McCain’s views as amounting to “little more than watching this crisis happen.” Clinton, appearing in Raleigh, N.C., said McCain prefers to ignore the crisis or simply blame families for their problems.

    Of course Hillary is stuck on her 3 AM phone call ad;

    “Sometimes the phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House and it’s an economic crisis,” Clinton said, alluding to an ad she ran against Obama weeks ago. “And we need a president who is ready and willing and able to answer that call.” McCain’s plan, she said, does virtually nothing to ease the credit or housing crisis. “It seems like if the phone were ringing, he would just let it ring and ring and ring,” she said.

    Yeah, except economic crises aren’t in the job description of president according to the Constitution – like defense which is in the first sentence. It will take nearly six months for the government to accomplish the easiest thing they could have done for the economy. It will be June before everyone gets their tax-rebates. By the time everyone will have gotten their checks and we’ve all gone out and bought our Wii, it, this latest of our crises, will all be over.

    Government is never the solution to economic problems – the problems can always be prevented with education and making people responsible for their decisions. Where’s the impetus to make good, reasoned decisions when all you have to do is call some knucklehead Congress person to bail you out?

    John McCain realizes this and at least he’s honest with people, not promising impossible visions of lollipops and fruit roll-ups every time the economy hits a bump. Of course, since the media only plays these messages of false hope from the Democrats, anyone offering a dose of reality is perceived as mean and nasty.