Are You Really Interested in Creating Jobs, Mr. President?
Earlier in the year, I had the privilege of speaking to a local Tea Party group on why it is imperative that we have a national energy policy. I have spent much of my professional career in the energy field, particularly the electric utility industry. It is incredulous to me how our President cannot see or understand the severe damage he is creating by supporting and endorsing the ridiculous EPA regulations now being promulgated and the impact these regulations will have on job creation and getting things “built in America.”
To think President Obama won praise from businesses in January when he promised to bring “reason and balance” to a 21st century regulatory system is a real crock. Once again, watch what he does vs what he says because most of the time, they are diametrically opposed. Six months later after making this statement, he is preparing to issue the single most expensive environmental regulation in US history. There is simply nothing “reasonable or balanced” about the EPA’s proposal to tighten national air quality standards on ozone emissions. The EPA’s new standards are currently under review by the OMB but could end up on the President’s desk very soon. The tightening of the standards from 0.075ppm to 0-.070 ppm or even 0.060ppm would mean that 85% of the counties in the country would fall into nonattainment status.
The EPA estimates and their estimates are always way low is the cost of attainment is anywhere from $20 to $90BB annually. The estimate itself further should convince us they do not have a clue! Existing businesses or new businesses will be bound by these new regulations and will result in significantly higher costs and uncertainty of marginal facilities that would have to be retrofitted.
The EPA readily admits based on their own data that between 1990, when the Clean Air Act underwent its last major revision, and 2008, emissions of the six common pollutants including ozone were down 41! The EPA and President Obama simply have no understanding of the economic penalties that these regulations have on businesses and job creation. They have no concept of the “law of diminishing returns” that is to say, once you get down to a certain emission levels with respect to many of these regulated substances, the cost of incremental increases exponentially, far greater than the benefit to society. In other words, what is reasonable, and what is unreasonable! What is the cost vs benefits of tighten down further on these regulations?
In my talk to the Tea Party I referred to earlier, I quoted a few statements that Newt Gingrich made while campaigning in Iowa. He stated, “the EPA has rarely been innovative and has focused only on issuing regulations and litigation. What you have is a very expensive bureaucracy that across the board makes it hard to solve problems, and slows down the development of new innovations.” He goes on to say “we need to have an agency that is first of all limited, but cooperates with the 50 states. The EPA is based on bureaucrats centered in Washington issuing regulations and litigation and basically opposing things.
I would replace it with an environmental solution agency—we need an agency that would get up every morning, very much like the national institutes of health or the NSF, and try to figure out what do we need to do today to get a better environment that also gets us a better economy. The level of control that Washington bureaucrats want to extend over topics they don’t understand and communities they don’t live in is wrong. Having an attitude of getting up every morning and trying to stop the economy is just a very destructive attitude.”
If Obama was acting as he is saying, he would send the new ozone rules back to the EPA until a thorough scientific review was done as planned, to confirm the likely outcomes of the legislation. He would also ask for an accurate cost of implementation and then make an reasonable assessment on how this might affect recovery and job growth. But, he won’t!
Being a Grandparent
Being a Grandparent: I have been a grandparent for the last six years. Need I tell anyone the joys and heartaches that come with it? I do not think so. The demands, the crying, the laughs, the kisses and hugs are all a part of this wonderful journey. I did not have the benefit of my Grandparents. They passed away before we got to know one another. My dad told stories as do most families. These stories included gossip, medical remedies, tall tales and moments of courage. It is the moments of courage I remember most. My Dad and I were close but he, having raised his five kids alone, was not the typical grandparent. For me that was fine and very understandable. When I began my journey of grandparenthood I was very committed to the idea that I would take the very best of my and my dad’s life experiences and pass them on. Little did I know at the time I would be talking about the national debt. I would have talked about personal financial responsibility, i.e. saving your allowance, do not spend more than you have, do not use credit cards to get what you want unless you can pay it off the next month. Your financial profile tells a lot about who you are.
When I go on like this people say to me Janet you are forgetting a generation. What about your own kids. I say that I and most of the people of my generation spoiled our kids. We worked hard and believed it was better to make life easier for them. Unfortunately, we were wrong. We did not prepare them. They did not have the benefit of the experiences of people who lived thru the depression. I had many relatives talk about how hard it was. I sat with them and heard their stories of courage. Regrettably when I tried to repeat those stories I was silenced with the “yeh I know you walked five miles in the snow to go to school”. I did not demand they listen and learn. What can I expect of a generation that was raised in the good life. Is it their fault? There are exceptions to this and they are making their voices heard. God willing, one by one we shall all stand side by side to right this wrong.
I tell them to be concerned with the National debt. Pay attention for the sake of your children. I tell them that now because rightfully or wrongfully I am a part of a generation that has taken their future. I have to apologize to them. I have to tell them I am doing everything I can do to reverse it. I have to tell them I do not know if I will be successful.
Am I willing to cut back, stand up for what is right and quit the blame game to look for viable answers …yes. Are you? If you are, join the fight, put your boxing gloves on and fight a good fight. Win or lose, the most important lesson I can pass on to the next generation is be personally accountable for everything you say, do and how you vote.
God Bless Janet
Let The Truth Be Told
The real culprit in the current financial crisis is the current administration and the previous democratic controlled Pelosi-Reid congress. Americans need to understand (and of course with no support or help from the press) that the current debt ceiling is only a trigger on the proverbial “gun”—the gun has been the enormous spending boom of the last three years under the complete control of Obama-Pelosi-Reid. What makes matters worse is that two of the these three players and the press lack the political will to reduce spending in years to come—and are simply doing everything in their power to focus away from spending and instead muddying the water with tax revenue promotion. What a crock!
Spending is the problem and in the last three years the Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime has had an extraordinary blowout. We have not seen anything like it since WWII. Nothing even close—and no, not even during Bush’s second term. The chart below gives a graphical depiction of what we are talking about—and this should be place on every news wire day after day after day until folks can understand what the real problem is.
This chart clearly tracks federal outlays as a share of Gross Domestic Product since 1960. The early peaks represent the Johnson “Great Society” spending and then the high of 23.5% with the recession of 1982 coincident with Reagan’s defense buildup.
From this point, spending declined mostly during the 90’s when Clinton radically cut back defense spending to 3% of GDP in 2000 from Reagan’s peak of 6.2% in 1986. During George W Bush’s years spending bounced back up to roughly 20% of GDP, but no more than 20.7% as recently as 2008!
Then the Obama “blowout” in concert with his team in Congress—Pelosi-Reid! The Democrats basically blew up the national balance sheet, lifting federal spending to 25% in 2009, the highest level since 1945. Though the supposed recession ended in 2009, spending in 2010 stayed high at nearly 24%, and this year, 2011, it is heading back toward 25%.
Federal debt held by the public as a share of GDP is another interesting perspective. In 2008, it was 40.3%, then 53.5% in 2009, 62.2% in 2010 and an estimated 72% this year, and is expected to continue rising in the future—driven of course by ObamaCare. These are heights not seen since the Korean War, and many analysts think the US debt will soon hit 90% or 100% of GDP—-think Greece boys and girls!
Now, Congress, under the leadership of Pelosi-Reid was responsible for the way so much spending was wasted, resulting in little job creation and the slowest economic recovery since 1930s. In the US system however, historically, President’s are supposed to be the fiscal watchdogs. When they fail to do so, the Congress if allowed spends like they are on steroids! This is exactly what has happened.
Now, what is all ironic about this is that all of a sudden, President Obama has got religion, and is claiming to now have found “fiscal virtue.” In fact, what he is really doing is using the debt-ceiling debate as a battering ram not to control spending but to command a tax increase! Why is the press not demanding specifics from Obama on the spending side of the equation! He has provided nothing—that is fact and what little he has said about cuts in spending are negligible. The only things that I have heard is his offer for immediate domestic nondefense discretionary cuts of $2BB—a drop in the proverbial bucket!
As for Obama’s proposed entitlement cuts—nada! His vague suggestions are nibbling around the edges of programs that are growing faster than inflation—and ObamaCare—is untouchable despite its $1 trillion in additional spending over the next several years and growing faster even afterwards!
So, now the showdown over the debt limit which has to be raised to accommodate all of “his” spending. And Obama of course instead of taking responsibility for the spending and focusing on reducing it is blaming the Republicans for being irresponsible because they won’t raise taxes in return for modest future spending restraints. And people are falling for this BS and the media does not have the guts to speak the truth! What a sad state of affairs!
Call to Action: Cut, Cap, Balance Vote Tomorrow
Hello Friends and Fellow Patriots,
Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 19th, the US House of Representatives will be voting on the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. Even though President Obama has vowed to veto this bill, it will make a statement to our country that our representatives are ready to take a stand for:
- Substantial cuts in spending
- Enforceable spending caps
- Congressional passage of a Balanced Budge Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that includes a spending limitation an a super-majority vote to raise taxes before the debit ceiling can be raised.
Please contact your Representative today to ask for him to co-sponsor and vote Yes on the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011.
Here are some facts that you can use to support this stance:
- The debt held by the public has more than doubled in just the past five years. Interest paid on the national debt is expected to more than triple over the next ten years.
- Many economists believe the US faces a Greek-style debt crisis within the next five years if we do not get our fiscal house in order very soon.
- The federal government has hit the $14.292 trillion debt limit set in February 2010. Raising the debt ceiling without significant spending cuts is simply a tax increase on future generations.
- Moody’s Investors Services has said the AAA rating of US government bonds is in jeopardy unless Congress passes “a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction.”
- Standard & Poor’s has said it will downgrade US debt if the US doesn’t 1) cut spending substantially and 2) REFORM the way it budgets, to control future spending.
- The Cut Cap and Balance Act (CCB) would meet the tests set forth by Moody’s and S&P, so we never again face this kind of debt problem. In short, “CCB=AAA.”
- The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act is a long-term deficit reduction package that will ensure we get back on the path of fiscal sanity and are not downgraded from our AAA bond rating.
For your convenience, here are the US Congressmen from Palm Beach County and their contact information. To email them directly, just click on the link after their name.
Tom Rooney (R-16)
https://forms.house.gov/rooney/webforms/issue_subscribe.html
Washington Office Tel: (202) 225-5792 Fax: (202) 225-3132
Stuart Office (772) 288-4668 Fax: (772) 288-4631
Ted Deutch (D-19)
https://teddeutch.house.gov/Forms/WriteYourRep/default.aspx
Washington Office Tel: (202) 225-3001 Fax: (202) 225-5974
Boca Raton Office Tel: (561) 988-6302 or (561) 732-4000
Allen West (R-22)
https://forms.house.gov/west/webforms/contact-form.shtml
Washington Office Tel: (202) 225-3026 Fax: (202) 225-8398
West Palm Beach Office Tel: (561) 655-1943 Fax: (561) 655-8018
Alcee Hastings (D-23)
https://forms.house.gov/alceehastings/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm
Washington Office Tel: (202) 225-131 Fax: (202) 225-1171
Delray Beach City Hall Tel: (561) 243-7042 Fax: (561) 243-7327
Thank you for taking this action TODAY!
My Father’s Democrats
My father was a staunch democrat. In his day he believed the democrat party was for the working man. He believed in the unions. He believed in protecting the little guy. In his day maybe he was right. I know his values were right. I know he practiced those values in his everyday life. I know he looked for an opportunity to do his “Good Deed” for the day. It could be as simple as helping someone to fix a flat tire to bringing vegetables he grew to a neighbor.
He was a man that was proud of America. He was proud of his party. Today I know he would not only be upset with the whole process, he would be disgusted with the democrats. If he was able to see and read bill S679, Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, he would be smart enough to realize this is a path to dictatorship. This bill has passed the senate. He would know both parties that sponsored this bill are NOT constitutionally minded patriots.
I hope everyone goes to govtrack and reads this bill and knows who voted yea and who voted nay.
Please note Marco Rubio voted nay. Thank God we have some freshmen in office who want to protect the American way.
To my Dad RIP, I love you.
Palm Beach Gardens City Council Mtg 7/19 – a Call to Action
Palm Beach Gardens residents should be aware of several items on the Agenda (and one that no longer is):
Ordinance 11, 2011 – not on Agenda:
Second reading of Ordinance 11, 2011 was removed from the agenda. This was the ordinance that made the change, among other things, to the election run-off process – essentially eliminating run-off except in the case of a tie. Purportedly this would save between $10000 and $40000 or so per run-off. Changes to the charter require a referendum – and so too would this change. According to Max Lohman, City Attorney – this change will be considered for the upcoming charter review, changes to which will require citizen votes. Had it been on the agenda – it would have passed and parts of it would have not have been valid without referendum. What would that have cost the city?
Ordinance 13, 2011, Increasing the Local Communications Service Tax Rate – First Reading:
This 2012 budget related item would increase the Local Communications Service Tax from its current rate of 1.5% to the maximum allowed by state statutes to 5.22% effective January 1, 2012, “on all sales of communications services within the City. These services include telephone (including cellular), cable TV, and internet fees, both residential and commercial.” This is technically a 248% increase! But it will probably be described as ‘pennies a day’!
The effects of the proposed change on two sample residents with annual communication charges of $2,400 and $3,600 are illustrated in the table below:
| Average Annual Bill | Increase in Rate | Annual Increase | Monthly Increase |
| $2400 | 3.72% | $90 | $7.50 |
| $3600 | 3.72% | $135 | $11.25 |
The adoption of the 5.22% Local Communications Services Tax is an integral component of the fiscal year 2012 budget plan, and, if approved, will allow the City to maintain the same operating ad valorem tax rate of 5.7404 mills.
This TAX is expected to bring in $1.8 million in the next budget cycle and $2.4 million thereafter. Note that if your phone, cellular, internet and cable charges go up – so too will the city’s revenue be enhanced.
While I have not reviewed the proposed 2012 budget in detail, “The total budget for all funds of $108,580,228 is $3,140,160, or 3% more than the current year’s total of $105,440,068.”
Ordinance 14, 2011 -Amending Chapter 1, General Provisions, Section 1-2, Definitions of the City Code of Ordinances to Add Five (5) Definitions to be Compatible with the New Inspector General (IG) Ordinance. – First Reading
“The drafting committee failed to include certain crucial definitions within the IG ordinance. The City Attorney has advised that without defining the following terms it will be impossible to properly evaluate any potential findings of an Inspector General investigation. Accordingly, the City Attorney has drafted Ordinance 14,201 1 in order to adopt definitions for “abuse”, “fraud”, “misconduct”, “mismanagement”, and “waste” into the City’s Code of Ordinances. Clear and unambiguous definitions are an absolute necessity in order to preserve an objective standard for evaluating any potential wrongdoing. These definitions are being recommended to each of the other 38 municipalities in the county.”
Having attended each of the drafting committee meetings – these so called ‘crucial’ definitions were intentionally left out and the subject of several months of intense debate. I consulted with the Inspector General, Sheryl Steckler about the attempt by municipalities to insert these definitions into their city codes. She replied that it has no impact or relevance on her activities as Inspector General.
Why are we adding irrelevant definitions to our ordinance and what is it costing the taxpayer in staff time and effort if it is for nothing?
Resolution 33, 2011 Adopting a Proposed Maximum Millage Rate for Fiscal Year 2011/2012 and Setting the Date, Time, and Place for the First Budget Hearing.
I read this resolution first and was going to praise the City Council on holding the millage rate flat at 5.7404, 2.719% below the roll-back rate of 5.9008 mills. NOT. They should be holding the millage flat, cut spending and NOT implement the increase in the Communications TAX.
I have not studied the 2012 budget in detail yet – however:
“Please note the following significant items related to the use of reserves:
• The planned use of $1.1 million is less than total General Fund capital expenditures of $1.2 million, and adheres to the City’s policy of using reserves for one-time expenditures.
• The planned use of $1.1 million is predicated on the increase in the Local Communications Services Tax from 1.5% to 5.22%. This will generate approximately $1.9 million next fiscal year. Without this alternative revenue, or an equivalent tax increase, the reduction in reserves would be approximately $3 million.”
We are in bad economic times – this is the time for using reserves and NOT increasing a tax (the Communications tax) that will never go down. Hold the millage flat, do NOT approve Ordinance 13,2011 and cut spending further to minimize the hits to reserves!
Additional materials can be found:
Complete 7/19 Agenda with backup documents
Cover Letter to 2012 Proposed Budget
Krauthammer- “Call his bluff”
This guy is right far more times than he is wrong! Love reading and listening to him–he is on point!
Enjoy—Mark W
The Taxpayer Lost, 4-3
In Washington DC, an ideological battle of the century is taking place between the forces of wealth redistribution ($2 Trillion in new taxes?) and conventional economics (you don’t raise taxes with 9.2% unemployment). There is little likelihood of compromise, because each is influenced by a mindset that cannot accept the others worldview.
So too in Palm Beach County there is a deep divide between those who see no problem in raising tax rates “a little bit more”, and those that think we have crossed a line with 25% increases over the last two years. On Monday, the County Commission voted 4-3 to set the maximum millage for 2012 to 4.8751, a 2.6% increase. The actual tax rate will be set in September at this rate or lower, but they could have acted now to prevent a hike.
On one side are those that are beneficiaries of other people’s money – the myriad of residents who benefit from county programs financed by property taxes, and their champions on the county commission. Raising tax rates comes natural to them.
These would include Burt Aaronson, whose constituents in district 5 “like their services”, and are always willing to “pay a little more” in taxes to keep them coming. How much tax does a $60K condo owner pay anyway? Commissioner Aaronson wanted to restore some cuts to the financially assisted agencies (FAA) that he thought were $60,000. When it was pointed out that the amount was really $600,000, it did not seem to make any difference. Easy come, easy go.
Another champion is Jess (“don’t talk about millage!”) Santamaria. Commissioner Santamaria is very worried about the county employees being ravaged by inflation that is almost 3%. On top of that, they are being asked to contribute 3% to their pensions. “That’s like paying 6% more for everything!”. Does the commissioner think that only employees of the county are affected by inflation and pay for their retirement? Someone should mention to the Commissioner that FRS reform would not be reversed by raising the millage, nor would a rollback rate give county employees a raise.
Another is Priscilla Taylor. Commissioner Taylor has more real-world experience than most of them, having run a business and been in the legislature and on the Port Commission. Normally she brings a refreshing analysis to an issue, but in this month’s discussion on tax rates, she seemingly phoned it in – acting as if raising the rates to rollback (“pennies a day”) is an obvious choice since the cuts “do not amount to anything anyway”. After all, 50% of the respondents to her “online poll” think raising tax rates is just fine with them.
Then there are the three commissioners who voted to keep the maximum millage at 4.75 and not raise our tax rates.
Steven Abrams is usually the wise voice of reason on the board, and the closest thing we have to a fiscal conservative. He voted against the tax hikes of the last two years, and has the ability to see beyond the hoards of petitioners with their outstretched hands and consider the effect on the local economy. Commissioner Abrams can usually be relied upon to do the right thing.
Paulette Burdick is a participant in her first budget season as a commissioner and has been operating in a very responsible way. She has taken the Sheriff to task over the excesses in his budget and faced down his CFO George Forman on the point that the Sheriff must do his fair share. She has gone farther than the other commissioners in raising that issue. Although members of different parties, she and Commissioner Abrams seem to agree that now is not the time to raise tax rates.
Karen Marcus, not usually seen as a tax cutter (she voted for the increases of the last two years), this time voted against the rate hike. Representing the only district that leans right (41% Republican), she may be picking up on some of the uptick in tea party interest in local issues among the north county residents. As Chairman this year, it was her direction to staff to bring in a flat millage budget in the first place.
Which brings us to the “swing vote”, Shelley Vana.
Commissioner Vana likes to have it both ways. She wants to find “efficiencies” and think outside of the box on budget choices. She doesn’t want to see a lot of cuts (in the past she has said she totally opposes layoffs or any discussion of outsourcing), but she wishes we could find a way to spend less. Then she voted for the higher rollback tax rate, suggesting that it was “just a starting point” until we can find some additional savings before the September hearings. How perfectly reasonable and wise! We will try! We will study! Maybe we can do it!
This is what is known in some circles as “thinking with your heart”. This is the behavior of a politician, not a leader. A leader who really believed that a 3% rate hike was avoidable, would set the bar at 4.75 and set out to make it come true by forcing some of those “efficiencies” she is always talking about. Instead we get dithering and pretty words.
It should be noted that Shelley Vana is the only commissioner who is currently up for re-election in 2012*. Do the voters in district 3 know what their commissioner is doing?
There are now about 8 weeks before the next budget meeting on September 13. Get involved – let your commissioner know how you feel about another tax rate increase, and plan to attend that meeting. Those who benefit from the county programs will be there in numbers. Show the commissioners there is another view in the community.
(*Note: There will also be elections in districts 1 and 5, but the incumbents are currently precluded from running by the term limits law. Since there is a likelihood that this law, passed by 70% of the voters will be challenged in court, Karen Marcus and/or Burt Aaronson could be running also.)
A balanced budget amendment with teeth
Congressmen have been stating recently that they would not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless Congress agrees to pass a balanced budget Constitutional amendment.
Why do they need a new Constitutional amendment when there is a law that requires a balanced budget?
The US Congress passed and the President signed (on August 5, 1997) The Balance Budget Act (Public Law 105-33) requiring a balanced budget be passed by 2002. More Information. So when have we had a balanced budget? This year the Senate has refused to even discuss it.
The scofflaw Congress has had no problem ignoring the statutory mandate, so why should anyone believe they would obey a Constitutional mandate?
What is needed is a Constitutional amendment (rather than a law that can be voided by Congress) that states there shall be no remuneration for Congress, the Congressional staff, the President and the Executive Office of the President for any day in any fiscal year for which there is no balanced budget. And there shall be no retroactive remuneration later if such a balanced budget is eventually passed and signed into law. They should not be paid for any day they fail to do their job.
Watch what he does, not what he says!
Once again, after reading this article, one comes to the immediate conclusion that Obama says one thing and does exactly the opposite in his actions. Last year, I attended an industry conference attended by CEO’s and EVP’s of the electric utility industry. Chris Wallace was the keynote speaker—and he used these exact words. Do not listen to Obama’s words–watch what he does–they frequently and most of the time contradict each other. Obama says that he is doing everything to bolster domestic oil production—read this article and reach your own conclusion.
Canada Has Oil; Does U.S. Want It?
Have a great day–and stay involved,
Mark Wohlschlegel
