Thomas
Jeffersont
“the natural progress of things is for liberty
to yield and government to gain ground.”
Little in recent history shows
him to have been wrong. The 2012 election cemented in place higher spending, increased
regulation, and federal control over the health sector. More broadly,
from 1900 to 2012, spending by the federal government rose from less
than 7 percent of the gross domestic product to over 40 percent.
Some 225 years ago, as an aged Benjamin Franklin departed from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a woman in the street called out: "Well Doctor Franklin, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin replied back: "a republic if you can keep it".
ReplyDelete"The 2012 election cemented in place higher spending, increased regulation, and federal control over the health sector"
ReplyDeleteSorry Lou, that's a very disingenuous statement. Of the 16 trillion dollars in debt we have, THREE Republicans contributed 10 of it. I get it. Under Obama, there is absolutely no comparable metric that makes his spending look reasonable compared to anyone else's. I get it. For the sixth, bazillionth time. I get it. The problem with this sky fail approach you are using on Obama is that it attacks the man rather then the system that let him spend so much money. The election of 1980 and the near complete severing of responsibility from fiscal policy in favor of never raising taxes is just as important.
Regulations have done nothing but go down. You, personally have been on the losing end of EPA regulations while in nearly every other industry, regulations are drastically lower then where they were 40 years ago. Make your case all government is evil, but stop pretending this is a one party or one man problem.
"THREE Republicans contributed 10 of it."
DeleteI don't know why there seems to be a general tendency to attribute fiscal actions to an administration's party, without acknowledging the role of congress.
A minor point, to be sure.
Jean
Max,
DeleteThat's a pretty disingenuous statement.
Obama 6
Bush 5
Clinton 1
Bush 1
Reagan 1.5
The rest, all others.
Rounded of course.
6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--Average 68 per Day
By Penny Starr
November 9, 2012
Harsher energy regulations coming in Obama's second term
updated 11/7/2012 11:10:41 AM ET
(Reuters) - Energy companies likely will see more regulation during President Barack Obama's second term, with less access to federal lands and water even as the administration promotes energy independence.
Obama is expected to tighten rules and regulations governing energy exploration, actions that may add billions in costs for oil and gas companies.
ClearView Energy Partners analysts in Washington expect the president to "continue prosecuting energy policy through regulation and administrative action, with only the courts as a check on that agenda," according to a note sent to clients last week.
Tougher restrictions are expected for companies drilling on federal lands, as well as more rules governing water management and methane emissions. Any new rules related to hydraulic fracturing may drive up costs for active drillers including Chesapeake Energy Corp and Exxon Mobil Corp.
How is regulation going down? Hope you like all the new regulations implemented with the PPACA, Dodd/Frank, the coming EPA regs. sure to excite all.
Government isn't evil, government it is out of control, then people wonder why companies off shore. Regulations are not free and add to the cost of doing business. Some regulations are good others are worthless costing business billions and jobs.
Dodd/Frank is a joke, and that is why we have it instead of Glass?steagall, a bill that did it's job. Companies that have the money to lobby, Lou, do not follow regulations. It's that simple. A small business owner like yourself follows regulations unless you can find a way to skirt them. big companies do not. I get that people are bitter about rivers not catching on fire any more, that stupid Nixon sure was uppity.
DeleteDespite countless regulations, there is always an effort to defang them or make enforcement of them difficult. The worst violaters who cause the most damage are the ones who never have to play by the rules small companies do. I won't hold my breath waiting for fracking to be stopped, nor will I hold my breath waiting for the keystone to be stalled for good.
None the less the joke will generate thousands of new regulations costing millions of dollars yearly. No problem because the regulations will save us.
DeleteThe keystone pipeline will never be built. The Canadians will diversify and sell their oil to China. A great move on the USA'a part as we will be forced to buy from our great friends in the middle east and Venezuela. Another brilliant tactical move by the administration.
p.s. rivers catching fire is pretty old. One of the good things the EPA brought us. Now they are bored and are moving to regulate life itself.
From last weeks Wall Street Journal: A shale-oil boom will thrust the U.S. ahead of Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer by 2020, a radical shift that could profoundly transform not just the world's energy supplies but also its geopolitics, the International Energy Agency said.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDon't read well do you Mick:
ReplyDelete(Reuters) - Energy companies likely will see more regulation during President Barack Obama's second term, with less access to federal lands and water even as the administration promotes energy independence.
Obama is expected to tighten rules and regulations governing energy exploration, actions that may add billions in costs for oil and gas companies.
ClearView Energy Partners analysts in Washington expect the president to "continue prosecuting energy policy through regulation and administrative action, with only the courts as a check on that agenda," according to a note sent to clients last week.
Tougher restrictions are expected for companies drilling on federal lands, as well as more rules governing water management and methane emissions. Any new rules related to hydraulic fracturing may drive up costs for active drillers including Chesapeake Energy Corp and Exxon Mobil Corp.
Lou, take a look at this link http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
ReplyDeleteTo look only at how much the debt increased under each POTUS leaves out something that I think is very important, namely the interest cost of the debt. Technically, the debt was only 1.65 T higher when Reagan left office (still a much greater then 100% increase just for reference sake), but, what he left behind continued to grow. In that light, to say he is only responsible for the 1.65 is what I think is disingenuous. Another interesting thing I found about this chart is the yearly percentage in growth of the debt. Even with Obama's stimulus, the year on year percentage of growth in the debt was still slower then it was under Bush and it has continued to slow which contradicts the supposition that we have cemented in higher spending. BTW, most of Obama's stimulus went to tax cuts and Medicare and Medicaid.
The government control of healthcare also rings disingenuous to me. True government control would be just that, a system wherein private, for profit insurance disappears and is replaced by a single payer system. Obama's plan, which is like Romney's plan, which also emulated aspects of Nixon's plan, left in place private insurance. Undoubtedly, the number of those on medicaid will grow, but this is not a new idea. And then of course there is the mandate, which, until only recently, has been a VERY Republican ideal aimed at making people take responsibility. I dunno, we go round and round on this. I get the point that when we mandate something, Freedom is replaced by tyranny and Tinker Bell dies and her light goes out. The alternative though, is that we say on the one hand that everyone already has insurance because they can go to the emergency room while knowing full well this is the most brutally inefficient and expensive way to handle the issue of the uninsured. On the other hand, we scream that something like Robamixon care is just too expensive. Oh yeah, and that the extra cost is worth the freedom from tyranny. I know that you are nowhere near as militant on this issue as those further right, but the Republican party is NOT where you are which is to have a basic plan with higher co pays.
As for regulation, I could care less about the volumes of regulations created versus what is actually enforced. You, as a small business man, will be held to a standard that a large company will not and this is exactly what big business wants and gets. No matter how many regulations the various agencies issue, it is congress who will ultimately control the purse strings that come with enforcement. In theory, our regulations cost a googleplex to comply with. In reality, the cost that is actually enforced is way lower. As for Dodd/Frank, I think this is pretty simple. We did not recreate Glass/Steagall, that tells you all you need to know. While people wail and gnash their teeth over this, the leverage on Wall Street has not decreased at all.
What's disingenuous in the notion that the percentage of debt to GDP is a great bench mark.
ReplyDeleteWhat's important is the amount added to the debt. Is the fact that during the last administration we paid 400+ billion in interest on 10 trillion and we pay 400+ billion of 16 trillion a good comparison? No, monitary manipulation via zero percent interest and the Operation Spin 1,2 have reduced the overall rate to 3%. Someday soon, it will begin to rise again raising the average rate. 1 percentage point sounds like nothing but adds 160 billion to the bottom line required.
Reagan was responsible for the spending during his time as was Clinton etc. What's done is done and we cannot fix it. We can fix today and tomorrow however our leaders lack the political will to address the problem and continue to spend on as if there is no problem.
The government control of healthcare is when the government tells you or your employer:
1. Provide insurance of pay a tax.
2. This is what you will cover or pay a tax.
3. If you can't afford it we will take care of it for you.
The real issue is how do you pay for the 280 billion in healthcare that we cannot cover with the taxes currently in place or soon to be in place in 2014? The number of people going to the emergency room will not change and possibly expand. Illegals will continue to use the emergency room, people that can't find a doctor or the waits to long will go to the emergency room. Unfortunately this plan will not work and will morph into a complete government plan, inefficient and bloated as most government agencies are today.
I guess it comes down to this for me, I am tired of plattitudes that because Obama is POTUS, we are suddenly on some magical path we were never on before. Starting with Reagan, we embarked on a path of complete fiscal irresponsibility. Republicans, when in charge, have been the worst offenders. Yet, it's only Obama who is somehow a fiscal disaster. Admitting you have a problem is the first step, Republicans and those who vote for them remain not willing to take this step. How can we fix the problem Lou when the only time Republicans get serious is when the Democrats are in power? Smaller government my ass.
ReplyDeleteWhat you say on healthcare is true. What we want is healthcare for everyone. Whether it's through insurance or through dumping the cost on states to send the uninsured to the ER. We want healthcare, but we don't want to pay for it. That is the real issue. If we would first stop denying what we want, we could make appropriate decisions on how to fund it. For the moment, however, we are still engaged in useless philosophical gymanstics of pretending we had a market driven health care system prior to Obamacare.
We've been on this path for some time. Obama has just accelerated the time frame. GW was a disaster accumulating 5 trillion in debt in 8 years only to be surpassed by Obama closing in on 6 trillion in 4 years. As I said before we can't do anything about the past but we can do something about today. Democrats, Republicans doesn't matter anymore as they spend the same. It will take fiscal restraint from both parties. To continue down the path we are on will not end well but people will be comfortable for awhile longer.
DeleteBefore we pay for it, it has to be a realistic plan. Until we get that, it's all just smoke and mirrors as we pretend we can pay for it.
A realistic plan is indeed what we need, and we aren't getting one and partisan politics is the only reason why. The link TD posted on another page about the debt and deficit spending is largely very useful. While I would not take that author to be a Democrat, even he makes the point that the time for austerity is when things are good. What I hear Republicans proposing is that we must start slashing spending now. When you are in a financially stable position, Lou, which I believe you and I are, it's very easy to say, "Just go ahead and cut the spending, let the recession take hold, and let it do its job of unwinding excess" There are a lot of very irresponsible people that we want to see take some pain for living beyond their means while people like you and I lived responsibly. But, there is no way to isolate their pain.
DeleteA true path forward would be one that is so comprehensive and long term minded, there is no way it can come to fruition. By the end of Clinton's term, the attitude was, "We've paid enough, it's time for a break". This kind of thinking is not going to cut it. A real plan would include massive deleveraging of wall street and the busting up of what I believe are modern day trusts. We also need to slowly start to renegotiate our trade deals to equalize the difference in labor costs and benefits. We also need to begin drawing down our military, and accept we cannot afford playing empire. Here at home, we've got to make investments and be smart about it. We can't get off fossil fuels entirely, but we have got to stop coming up with plans that are 80% fossil fuels and 20% renewable.
This is just a start. If we allow moderates of both parties to return to power, much of that is possible. If we continue to vote for candidates who preach what you said way at the top, we are going to continue getting partisan hacks who will do everything based on a calculus of what serves them and their party donors. Just my .02
The time for austerity is when things are good.
DeleteThink we can handle another 4-6 trillion in debt on top of the 16 trillion???
The military, we can no longer be the policeman of the world. Time to close 900 overseas bases.
A balanced budget amendment would go a long way toward fixing the budget mess.
The pain is coming whether we like it or not. Many taking the freebies can live without them Some cannot. We need to insure they are taken care of. How to get there is the problem.
How to get the moderates back is the problem. As long as we have politicians buying elections, this is what we will get to run our government.