For those of you worrying and wondering what the New Year will bring, you have come to the right place. It is time for your favorite scribe to reveal his Top Eleven Predictions for 2011. After consulting a crystal ball, here's what you can expect in the coming months:
1. The unemployment number hits 10 percent by the end of February after thousands of out-of-work job seekers, who previously have been uncounted, now try to find work in the new year.
2. After a brief year-end rally, home sales tank as mortgage firms and banks reach settlements with state attorneys general, unleashing hundreds of thousands of foreclosures that had been suspended by legal wrangling.
3. A spate of defaults by local municipalities send bond prices tumbling as states wrestle with ballooning budget deficits caused by public employee pension costs and faltering tax receipts.
4. The Volt, GM's much ballyhooed entry into the electric market, fizzles after initial sales driven by corporate purchases from the likes of GE fuel breathless media coverage about the robust market for alternative fuel cars.
5. The economy inches ahead as some industry sectors begin slow recovery but the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) falls short of the 3.5 percent growth rate needed to boost employment to post-recession levels.
6. Inflation briefly creeps up to two percent as prices for gasoline and food drive up consumer costs, but the Federal Reserve decides not to adjust interest rates for fear of crimping business lending.
7. Telecommunications firm Verizon finally offers Apple's IPhone on its 4G network after years of teasing customers, shareholders and financial analysts about its imminent introduction.
8. Before the primaries, at least one politician emerges from the Democratic party to challenge President Obama, while the crowded Republican field produces a clear front runner before the year ends.
9. After suffering one bitter defeat after another, Nancy Pelosi decides to give up her role as minority leader for the Democrats, avoiding an embarrassing revolt by more moderate Congressmen and women chafing under her leadership.
10. Despite millions of dollars in American social and military aid, Yemen becomes the powder keg of the Mideast, exploding in violence as the country becomes a haven for the export of terrorism, particularly to the U.S.
11. After federal court challenges produced mixed results, the final legal test for Obama Care lands at the U.S. Supreme Court, as the President and Democrats stave off Republican attempts to neuter the health care overhaul.
For those of you looking for happy news predictions, these forecasts are sobering, especially in light of your scribe's past record for success. But let not your heart be troubled. Good news is just around corner in 2012. You can bank on it.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
FCC Decision: Another Government Power Grab
Most Americans likely stifled a yawn when they heard the news that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) laid down new rules regarding the Internet. Consumers won't notice any immediate changes in the way they use the web, so the ruling will be quickly forgotten.
However, people need to pay more attention because this is just another attempt by the federal government to extend its tentacles into private enterprise. Whenever the government decides to place the heavy hand of regulation on an industry, the consequences usually end up harming consumers and adding to the price of services.
In its ruling, the FCC approved new guidelines for something called "net neutrality." The rules place additional burdens on telecommunications and cable companies for broadband, while offering little in the way of consumer protection.
Of course, President Obama supported the decision. No surprise there. He campaigned on a pledge to "preserve the freedom and openness" that have allowed the Internet to flourish. It didn't hurt that one of his campaign's biggest contributors, the evil empire known as Google, championed FCC intervention on "net neutrality."
Let's set aside the arcane technical aspects of the ruling for this article. No matter your position on the issue of "net neutrality," the FCC's foray into regulation of the Internet signals the commission's intent to expand its ever increasing role into every nook of communications.
Even those like Google, who are applauding the decision today, will come to rue the day the FCC ventured into Internet regulation. Once the President leaves office and a new FCC is installed, the Evil Empire will get a taste of what its like to be on the receiving end of bureaucratic meddling. Google will be the first to scream foul.
It defies logic that the FCC would tamper with arguably one of the greatest American business success stories. Left unfettered, the Internet has grown from a tiny industry into a behemoth that circles the globe, connecting people and businesses in ways once thought unimaginable. Innovation and massive investments by private companies have been responsible for the growth.
Why then does the Internet market need government regulation? What failures exist that can only be solved by Washington bureaucrats? Unless someone can show irreparable harm, then the rationale for regulation is non existent. Furthermore, the federal courts have already determined that the FCC has no jurisdiction over the Internet.
The FCC's eleventh hour decision at the end of a lame duck Congress is simply a pay-off to Google. There is no other way to view the action. With Democrats about to lose their grip on Congress, this was one last desperate grab for power that also allowed the President to placate his supporters in the Evil Empire.
It is easy to predict what will happen as a result of the FCC's action. The decision will make cable and telecommunications firms more reluctant to invest billions in broadband until all the rules are promulgated to implement the decision. With billions in dollars already sitting on the sidelines, this is just another example of the anti-business attitude in Washington that is clouding investment.
This decision will also add another industry to the growing list of businesses controlled by the federal government (automobiles, banks, investment firms, housing, student loans, etc.) As the government extends its regulatory footprint, the costs to taxpayers keeps mounting.
For instance, the FCC has already requested a $19.4 million increase in funding for 2011. In its proposal, the commission said it wanted to increase its payroll by 75 people. In 2009, the FCC's budget was $466 million. The commission had 1,899 full time employees.
To be fair, the FCC gets 90 percent of its budget funded by fees charged those its regulates. Still, those fees are simply passed on to consumers through higher prices for services. In the end, consumers always pay for the excesses of regulation, which goes unreported in the media.
The incoming Congress should haul the FCC commissioner into a hearing room and demand justification for his decision on regulating the Internet. After politely listening to his drivel, the Congress needs to defund the FCC, an agency established by the Federal Communications Act of 1934.
It is just one of many federal agencies that have outlived their usefulness. With budget axes looking for targets in 2011, we suggest the FCC should be the first bureaucracy to fall.
However, people need to pay more attention because this is just another attempt by the federal government to extend its tentacles into private enterprise. Whenever the government decides to place the heavy hand of regulation on an industry, the consequences usually end up harming consumers and adding to the price of services.
In its ruling, the FCC approved new guidelines for something called "net neutrality." The rules place additional burdens on telecommunications and cable companies for broadband, while offering little in the way of consumer protection.
Of course, President Obama supported the decision. No surprise there. He campaigned on a pledge to "preserve the freedom and openness" that have allowed the Internet to flourish. It didn't hurt that one of his campaign's biggest contributors, the evil empire known as Google, championed FCC intervention on "net neutrality."
Let's set aside the arcane technical aspects of the ruling for this article. No matter your position on the issue of "net neutrality," the FCC's foray into regulation of the Internet signals the commission's intent to expand its ever increasing role into every nook of communications.
Even those like Google, who are applauding the decision today, will come to rue the day the FCC ventured into Internet regulation. Once the President leaves office and a new FCC is installed, the Evil Empire will get a taste of what its like to be on the receiving end of bureaucratic meddling. Google will be the first to scream foul.
It defies logic that the FCC would tamper with arguably one of the greatest American business success stories. Left unfettered, the Internet has grown from a tiny industry into a behemoth that circles the globe, connecting people and businesses in ways once thought unimaginable. Innovation and massive investments by private companies have been responsible for the growth.
Why then does the Internet market need government regulation? What failures exist that can only be solved by Washington bureaucrats? Unless someone can show irreparable harm, then the rationale for regulation is non existent. Furthermore, the federal courts have already determined that the FCC has no jurisdiction over the Internet.
The FCC's eleventh hour decision at the end of a lame duck Congress is simply a pay-off to Google. There is no other way to view the action. With Democrats about to lose their grip on Congress, this was one last desperate grab for power that also allowed the President to placate his supporters in the Evil Empire.
It is easy to predict what will happen as a result of the FCC's action. The decision will make cable and telecommunications firms more reluctant to invest billions in broadband until all the rules are promulgated to implement the decision. With billions in dollars already sitting on the sidelines, this is just another example of the anti-business attitude in Washington that is clouding investment.
This decision will also add another industry to the growing list of businesses controlled by the federal government (automobiles, banks, investment firms, housing, student loans, etc.) As the government extends its regulatory footprint, the costs to taxpayers keeps mounting.
For instance, the FCC has already requested a $19.4 million increase in funding for 2011. In its proposal, the commission said it wanted to increase its payroll by 75 people. In 2009, the FCC's budget was $466 million. The commission had 1,899 full time employees.
To be fair, the FCC gets 90 percent of its budget funded by fees charged those its regulates. Still, those fees are simply passed on to consumers through higher prices for services. In the end, consumers always pay for the excesses of regulation, which goes unreported in the media.
The incoming Congress should haul the FCC commissioner into a hearing room and demand justification for his decision on regulating the Internet. After politely listening to his drivel, the Congress needs to defund the FCC, an agency established by the Federal Communications Act of 1934.
It is just one of many federal agencies that have outlived their usefulness. With budget axes looking for targets in 2011, we suggest the FCC should be the first bureaucracy to fall.
Friday, December 10, 2010
New Language Needed To Describe Wealthy
During the current debate over extending the Bush Tax Cuts, President Obama and the Democrats have used the language of divisiveness to scorn the "wealthy" and "rich." The echo chambers in the media have followed suit, equating tax breaks for upper income earners with moral corruption.
Unfortunately, the Republicans have been equally inept in the language of debate. Too many have lapsed into Democrat-speak, also referring to our most successful citizens as "wealthy" and "rich." It would appear they are frightened of being accused of siding with robber barons.
The problem is that no one inside the Washington Beltway or in media has ever identified who the wealthy are. They are nameless and faceless to most Americans. Pressed to name a wealthy person, many would tick-off the names of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Labron James or Oprah Winfrey.
But those are the super rich, who make up less than one-hundredth of one percent of the population. By the Democrats' definition, the "wealthy" are those whose incomes exceed $250,000 per year. Most are hard-working people who should be celebrated instead of reviled for making too much money.
Who are these "wealthy?" They are entrepreneurs, paper product salespeople, furniture store owners, motel owners, college deans, lawyers, doctors, community college presidents, city administrators, chiefs of police, authors, farmers, real estate brokers, newspaper publishers and even the President of the United States.
Two-income families make up the bulk of households earning $250,000 or more. In some cases, a husband and wife both have mid-level management jobs, hardly the career choice of millionaires. But when you combine the two incomes, the earnings throw the couple into the category of the "rich." Yet most would tell you they are anything but wealthy.
The Democrats and their president like to rail about how unfair it would be if these so-called wealthy got tax breaks. However, they always fail to mention that the top 50 percent of wage earners in the country pay 96.03 percent of all taxes. In addition, 51.6 million Americans paid no taxes in 2008 and their numbers are growing.
It is time for the media, the Democrats and the President to come clean. The wealthy already pay the lion's share of taxes in the country. They are carrying the burden of millions who pay no taxes. As a country, we owe these taxpayers a debt of gratitude, not a public flogging.
The way to change this debate is for Republicans and the rest of us to insist we stop calling people "rich" and "wealthy." We should refer to these high wage earners as "the most successful," the "smartest among us," the "go-getter's," "the finest entrepreneurs," or the "talented achievers."
If we are ever going to get true tax equity in the U.S., we need to exorcise the words "wealthy" and "rich" from our vocabulary. Otherwise, the nation will never rise above petty politics to address paying for the fiscal excesses of the Obama Administration.
Unfortunately, the Republicans have been equally inept in the language of debate. Too many have lapsed into Democrat-speak, also referring to our most successful citizens as "wealthy" and "rich." It would appear they are frightened of being accused of siding with robber barons.
The problem is that no one inside the Washington Beltway or in media has ever identified who the wealthy are. They are nameless and faceless to most Americans. Pressed to name a wealthy person, many would tick-off the names of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Labron James or Oprah Winfrey.
But those are the super rich, who make up less than one-hundredth of one percent of the population. By the Democrats' definition, the "wealthy" are those whose incomes exceed $250,000 per year. Most are hard-working people who should be celebrated instead of reviled for making too much money.
Who are these "wealthy?" They are entrepreneurs, paper product salespeople, furniture store owners, motel owners, college deans, lawyers, doctors, community college presidents, city administrators, chiefs of police, authors, farmers, real estate brokers, newspaper publishers and even the President of the United States.
Two-income families make up the bulk of households earning $250,000 or more. In some cases, a husband and wife both have mid-level management jobs, hardly the career choice of millionaires. But when you combine the two incomes, the earnings throw the couple into the category of the "rich." Yet most would tell you they are anything but wealthy.
The Democrats and their president like to rail about how unfair it would be if these so-called wealthy got tax breaks. However, they always fail to mention that the top 50 percent of wage earners in the country pay 96.03 percent of all taxes. In addition, 51.6 million Americans paid no taxes in 2008 and their numbers are growing.
It is time for the media, the Democrats and the President to come clean. The wealthy already pay the lion's share of taxes in the country. They are carrying the burden of millions who pay no taxes. As a country, we owe these taxpayers a debt of gratitude, not a public flogging.
The way to change this debate is for Republicans and the rest of us to insist we stop calling people "rich" and "wealthy." We should refer to these high wage earners as "the most successful," the "smartest among us," the "go-getter's," "the finest entrepreneurs," or the "talented achievers."
If we are ever going to get true tax equity in the U.S., we need to exorcise the words "wealthy" and "rich" from our vocabulary. Otherwise, the nation will never rise above petty politics to address paying for the fiscal excesses of the Obama Administration.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Tax Extension Debate Lacks Credibility
President Obama, feigning concern for budget deficits, has repeatedly argued that the government should not extend the Bush tax cuts to the "wealthy" because it cannot afford the $700 billion price tag.
This argument has been repeated time and again in the fawning news media, without so much as a hint of balanced coverage. As a result, most Americans believe the middle class tax cuts can be achieved without busting the federal budget. However, the tax breaks for the "wealthy" will bankrupt the country.
If you doubt this, search your newspaper or watch the television coverage for any mention of what the middle class tax cuts will cost taxpayers. You won't find the number anywhere. That's because the media is aiding and abetting the Obama charade. Class envy is the stock and trade of Democrats and their surrogates in the media.
It is not like the financial impact is difficult to find. More than a month ago, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending the middle class tax cuts over the next decade will cost $3 trillion. Raise your hand if you have seen or heard this number in any of the news reports during the current debate?
Extending the tax cuts for everyone, including the so-called wealthy, would cost the government $3.7 trillion over the next ten years, according to the CBO. That figure includes the $700 billion that the president is so fond of shoveling out to the lap-dog media. No one in the media ever mentions the $700 billion is for ten years.
This is only the latest example of media bias that many in the industry so passionately claim exists only in the minds of right-wingers. (My favorite example is the corrupt San Antonio Express News.)
If there is to be an honest debate over extending tax cuts, then all the facts should be weighed, not just those that favor the president's position.
This argument has been repeated time and again in the fawning news media, without so much as a hint of balanced coverage. As a result, most Americans believe the middle class tax cuts can be achieved without busting the federal budget. However, the tax breaks for the "wealthy" will bankrupt the country.
If you doubt this, search your newspaper or watch the television coverage for any mention of what the middle class tax cuts will cost taxpayers. You won't find the number anywhere. That's because the media is aiding and abetting the Obama charade. Class envy is the stock and trade of Democrats and their surrogates in the media.
It is not like the financial impact is difficult to find. More than a month ago, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending the middle class tax cuts over the next decade will cost $3 trillion. Raise your hand if you have seen or heard this number in any of the news reports during the current debate?
Extending the tax cuts for everyone, including the so-called wealthy, would cost the government $3.7 trillion over the next ten years, according to the CBO. That figure includes the $700 billion that the president is so fond of shoveling out to the lap-dog media. No one in the media ever mentions the $700 billion is for ten years.
This is only the latest example of media bias that many in the industry so passionately claim exists only in the minds of right-wingers. (My favorite example is the corrupt San Antonio Express News.)
If there is to be an honest debate over extending tax cuts, then all the facts should be weighed, not just those that favor the president's position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)