Monday, September 27, 2010
ObamaCare Blooper
Does everyone remember that ObamaCare was supposed to help young people under 26 get medical
coverage under their parents health care insurance? The new law brought this coverage into effect on September
26. This is a good thing, except that if your adult child doesn't live in the parent's coverage area they can't be added
to the parent's insurance.
I just got off the phone with my Washington, DC area based health insurance provider
and got the news that I can't put one of my sons back on my health insurance because he doesn't live in the Washington, DC
area. My son went off our plan under the old law last spring and like many young people can't afford health insurance
on his current income.
The US Congress and the Obama Administration spent a huge amount of time
and effort to pass ObamaCare and it turns out that they didn't properly address a fairly simple issue, parents and adult children
living in different parts of the country. This is classic government example of a failure to execute on its
commitments.
Mr. President, you have big ideas but little expertise in delivering on the execution of those
ideas. The US needs executive leadership that can deliver on its commitments.
TPM
2:24 pm
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Spin, Lies, Conspiracy and Truth
Check out my new article - Spin, Lies, Conspiracy and Truth. I hope you find
it interesting.
TPM.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
A Pledge To America
Today, the Republicans in Congress presented "A Pledge to America", which outlines
their approach to addressing major issues in the US. The document is advertised as "a new governing agenda built
on the priorities of our nation, the principles we stand for and America's founding values". I give the Republicans
some points for attempting to assemble a document that outlines a fresh approach that differentiates them from the Obama Administration's
Democratic agenda. However, the document doesn't address the biggest issues with any substantial statements. In
my view the Republicans have failed to deliver the restructuring of the US government message that is needed to revitalize
our nation.
The Republicans supposedly "offer a plan to stop out-of-control spending and reduce the size
of government". Yet the Republicans refuse to deal with the big entitlement programs and excessive defense
spending. They offer savings that are not material to the level of the problem that must be solved. Fiat
money printing will have to continue at slightly less massive levels to accomodate the Republican approach.
The
document states they "are offering a plan to reform Congress and restore trust." Some of the ideas are very
good. However, trust in the US government will not be restored until the appropriate financial restructuring of the
US government takes place. "A Pledge To America" is not a commitment to the necessary restructuring.
It is more of the same in most respects.
There is no mention in "A Pledge To America" of the deteriorating
value of the US dollar. There is no proposal for directly addressing massive US long term financial liabilities.
There is no firm commitment to restructure Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs. There is no commitment
to end the US role as the world's police force and no plan to restructure DoD to reflect the missions that are appropriate
for the current times.
I would certainly agree that the Republican agenda is better than the current Democratic
agenda but it is not close to the right package of actions that need to be taken. It is a relatively minor set of changes
in the overall scheme of things. The Republican plan is simply less bad than the awful plan the Democrats are offering.
The US requires fundamental, trans-formative restructuring of government spending and a modern approach to tax
collection. Our political system is locked into a narrow set of thought processes that are not providing the solutions
the country desperately needs.
Maybe there will be a day in the future when a single person or small group
will be able to bring the necessary message to the people and our nation will be reborn. In the mean time our two political
parties continue to lead us down the wrong path.
TPM
2:38 pm
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
"World Gone Crazy" - The Doobie Brothers
I have been a fan of the Doobie Brothers rock band since I was in college in the early
1970s. The band has a great portfolio of music beginning with their first album which was released in 1970.
I have been very fortunate to attend many Doobie Brothers concerts during the past 10 years or so. My wife and I attended
two concerts this year and hopefully will attend many more in the future. The Doobies are led by Tom Johnston and
Pat Simmons, two founding members of the band, that have been the lead singers and songwriters during most of the Doobie's
40 year history.
The Doobies are releasing their new CD, "World Gone Crazy", next Tuesday. They
played three of the eleven songs on the CD during the concerts we attended this summer. You can listen to
a preview of the CD on Yahoo-Music for free for the next week at http://new.music.yahoo.com/programs/earlyedition/.
The Doobie Brothers have maintained their excellent musicianship over the years
and are better than ever. Check out their web site at http://www.doobiebros.com.
"Listen to the Music" while you are "Rockin' Down the Highway". How appropriate
is a song and CD named "World Gone Crazy"?
TPM
8:55 pm
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Hillary Clinton for President?
Who should be the next President of the United States? Barrack Obama has clearly demonstrated that
he is too progressive/liberal in his personal philosophy to be the leader of a generally center right county. Obama is lacking
the executive skills that are necessary to lead a nation, run the White House team and Executive Branch of government
and effectively work with Congress. Obama also had the misfortune of becoming President during a financial crisis
that created an environment that was incompatible with his left of center agenda. All polls of independent voters show
that the voting public realizes that Obama is not the leader the US needs to fundamentally address its issues. Is there
any doubt that the voters are ready to tell Obama - "You are fired"? I don't think this is a debatable point
no matter how many Democratic talking heads show up on TV news shows. Obama will likely follow a similar path to Jimmy
Carter when he was not reelected in 1980.
The big question is "Who will be the next President?"
Is there a Republican candidate that could become the centrist leader the country demands that would also make the very tough
decisions the US government will need to make over the next few years. It is likely that many of the
decisions will fully satisfy very few and be hashed out through legislative compromise. Can Mitt Romney become the leader
of the Republican party and build national consensus? It is very difficult for me to see Romney elevating himself to
the level needed to win a national election.
Sarah Palin is a rock star for conservatives and Tea Party
folks. As much as I like Palin on a personal level and believe much of her general philosophy is correct, it is
hard for me to believe she is electable on a national level. I believe her current role as a candidate supporter
and cheerleader and straight shooter spokesperson on hard issues is one that she is very effective in executing.
Palin must dramatically improve the substance of her positions on issues for her to elevate herself to an electable national
leader. I don't see any Republican governors or members of Congress that have the stature to take over the leadership
of the nation in the next election cycle. I would support Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, for President if he
would take the job. His long career as a corporate executive and seasoned political leader combined with his moderate
views makes him a strong candidate for President, if he wanted the job. Bloomberg will be about 70 years old
by the time of the next election and he may not have the energy or inclination to take on a national political battle.
There is one other major political figure in the mix for the 2012 Presidential election - Hillary Clinton, our current
Secretary of State. As we all know, Hillary was edged out for the Democratic nomination in 2008 by a narrow margin.
Many people thought Hillary would win the nomination and she may have lost due to some bad campaign decisions, not because
the voters really wanted Obama over her. Hillary handled her loss extremely well. She let Obama lead the party
to victory and then took on the difficult role of Secretary of State during a very tough period for international relations.
It appears that Hillary is handling her job well. I don't always agree with the Obama administration's philosophy but
I haven't heard Hillary say or do anything that was anything but professional. Hillary will be about 65 in 2012 but
appears to be in very good physical condition and looks younger than her age. Everyone knows that Hillary desires to
be President.
While Hillary's political roots are left of center she has had almost 20 years of political experience
on the national stage, including her eight years as First Lady, her time as a Senator from New York and now two years
as Secretary of State. The one big positive for the Clintons is that they are pragmatic politicians. If the Democrats
lose big in the Congressional elections this fall, it will be a clear rejection of the Obama administration. The people
will have spoken loud and clear. This scenario will open the door for Hillary to resign her post as Secretary of State
in the Spring of 2011 and begin the process of challenging Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2012. She will know
that she must run as a moderate to regain the independent voters that will not vote for Obama again. I believe Ms. Clinton
has the ability to moderate her views to the degree necessary to
get the Democratic nomination and then be elected in
the general election.
During Bill Clinton's administration the Clintons worked with a Republican lead Congress
and they were reasonably successful in their efforts. This would be a major selling point in her campaign. She
has the critical experience and expertise that Obama has demonstrated he doesn't have. Bill Clinton would have a significant
role in Hillary's administration is a key adviser at a minimum. The situation would be unprecedented to have a former
two term President return as the top adviser to the President.
One can make the case that Hillary has worked harder
than anyone in the country to become President of the United States. I know that I don't agree with her on many issues.
But I respect her now more than anytime in the past. We need a President that can lead the nation effectively.
Barrack Obama is not that person. We need a President that has the demonstrated ability to work with the full range
of political views that are represented on Capitol Hill. I believe Hillary has shown she can work with everyone
at this stage of her life. We need a President that can make extremely difficult decisions and explain the outcome effectively
to everyone. Hillary has shown she can make very tough personal and political decisions.
I think Hillary
Clinton may be the only reasonable choice we have to become the next President of the United State in January
2013. I never thought I would support the idea of Hillary becoming President. However, the US is
in an extremely difficult situation and we need a leader that can make very tough pragmatic decisions. Ms. Clinton's
time may be coming soon.
TPM
11:07 pm
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Solutions to US Financial Problems - Step 1
All Americans are upset at the unemployment rate of US citizens and want something to be done
to put the unemployed and underemployed back to work. The primary problem is that total demand for products and
services has been significantly reduced as the US works off the excess consumption during the years prior to
the financial crisis and recession. The easiest way to increase employment and improve the financial condition of the
US is to replace the imports with domestic production. The biggest category of US imports is oil based energy products.
Therefore, the first priority of the US should be to replace oil imports with domestic energy sources to the maximum extent
possible.
The logical replacement for oil imports is US sourced natural gas. The US is one of the largest
natural gas producers in the world with massive new production coming on line from gas fields in Pennsylvania in the
Marcellus shale deposit. Huge gas supplies are waiting for development in Alaska. Natural gas prices
are relatively low with modest demand when compared with available supply.
The highest priority end user community
that should be targeted are industrial users of diesel fuel, such as off road heavy equipment, 18 wheelers, buses and
other industrial vehicles. These massive users of fuel can be easily converted to natural gas. Truck stops and
industrial fuel depots can be converted into natural gas distribution points to facilitate the operations of the new natural
gas vehicles. All new heavy vehicles should be manufactured with natural gas engines. The appropriate tax
incentives should be given to help fund an accelerated conversion and natural gas distribution program. Once
a natural gas engine manufacturing industry has been fully developed and distribution of natural gas fuel is expanded,
we can expect heavier personal autos and trucks to also be converted or produced with new natural gas engines.
This simple first step to solving the US financial and economic problems should be a priority for the country. Natural
gas is a much cleaner fuel than oil based products like gasoline or diesel fuel. It is a solid first step towards a
greener economy. We can put people to work helping to improve our nation with limited government participation.
We need to let the industries involved lead the nation to success. We need the federal government set broad objectives,
create the appropriate incentives and get out of the way. Our nation will quickly reap the benefits.
Where
is President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress? Get moving!
TPM
9:51 pm
Cloud of Suns Band
Check out the Portland, Oregon,
based experimental rock band Cloud of Suns at www.cloudofsuns.com.
TPM
1:41 pm
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Gold Complex Break Out
The price of gold in US dollar terms moved to a new all time high today.
In addition, all the major precious metals exchange traded funds and indexes have moved into new high territory
in relation to their recent trading action. The technical charts are projecting that the gold complex will move higher
in the weeks to come. One sample projection is that the target value for gold is now US$1500, up from about $1270
today.
The bottom line of the trading action in gold is that the world's investors are voting in favor of gold,
a universally accepted medium of exchange and value, instead of the US dollar. The US dollar is not "as good
as gold". The actions of the Federal Reserve and the US government since 2000 have resulted in a devaluation of
the US dollar in relation to gold of about 80 percent. It is likely the bottom has not yet been reached. Gold
is the ultimate standard of value against which all currencies and financial instruments can be measured. Gold can be
exchanged for goods and services anywhere in the world after being traded for a local currency.
The US government
continues to spend money it doesn't have. The US government continues to create new debt it can't service on a long
term basis. The Federal Reserve continues to print increasing amounts of fiat money to support US government policy
and to enrich the banking community and Wall Street.
Very few people in the financial media or general media want
to discuss the reality of what is happening. This is a very tough subject for most people. The nation's leaders
on both sides of the isle don't want to talk about their long term mismanagement of the US dollar and economy.
The US economic problems are not going away soon. There are no simple solutions. A fundamental restructuring
of the US government's spending is required or the world market will simply reduce the value of the US dollar to nothing
in terms of real money - gold.
Don't be surprised to see gold head much higher in the years ahead.
Read my article, The Case for Gold, to get more information about the past actions of the US government. The problems
we have today can be traced back to FDR.
TPM
11:09 pm
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Death from Taxes
Everyday we get more and more debate in the media concerning the ending, extending or extending with
modifications of the Bush administration tax rates that expire at the end of 2010. I find it astounding that no one
in the media is talking about one of the most problematic issues created by the estate tax rules that are currently in
effect and end on December 31, 2010 under the current law.
There are no federal estate taxes to be paid
for individuals that die in 2010. Beneficiaries will not have to share the assets of estates with the Federal government if
someone dies before midnight on December 31, 2010. Unless the law is changed before the end of the year, beginning at
12:01 am on January 31, 2011 the IRS will be entitled to collect 55 percent of the value of estates after a $1M deductible.
Can you image the children or other beneficiaries of a small business owner, family farm owner or someone
with financial assets valued at a few million dollars that has a terminal illness and may die around the end of
2010. It matters a great deal to the beneficiaries that the estate owner pass away before the year ends rather
than linger on past January 1, 2011. Does it matter if the estate owner dies a few days or even a few months early if
the beneficiaries save substantial amounts in estate taxes and have a larger financial pie to distribute? A family farm
could be saved. A small business could be kept in the family. A needy beneficiary's life could be materially improved.
The government has created an environment where they have encouraged people to die earlier than necessary. The
government has created an environment where beneficiaries are encouraged t make sure the estate owners die earlier than needed.
By not dealing with the Bush tax rates until the very end of their effective period, the Federal government
has created a defacto death panel, in the context of the Congressional debate of over the tax rules that will exist in 2011.
How many people will the government cause to die prematurely in the coming months? How many "murders"
may take place in December 2010 under the guise of letting nature take its course regarding life and death? It is logical
to keep someone alive if it will cost the beneficaries a substantial percentage of the value of the estate?
This
is another example of the unintended consequences of government actions. We need the government to resolve the Bush
tax rate issue immediately. It is likely that there are some people whose life depends on it.
TPM
9:50 am
