Government’s reponse to job losses… give me more!

The economy continues to contract and people continue to lose their jobs. It is also important to remember that companies are reporting losses and people that work on commission, though employed are suffering huge losses in income. All of this means less taxable income to all levels of government. So that would mean less revenue and deep cuts in government programs.

Well not so fast. That is unless you raise sales taxes on everything! You see government is not allowed to do with less. They just have to find another place to take it. So if you aren’t making any money, you still have to buy food. I am sure they will also raise taxes on those that have the fortune to be employed and on any company that dares have any success during the recession.

I appreciate the catch 22, they have services they have guaranteed to people and projects that they “need” to do. And we are just not giving them as much money. How dare we! But just like I have done, projects need to be put on hold, spending needs to be taken way back. So just like the rest of us 8.5% of all government spending should be dropped immediately.

The government cannot grow when the economy is shrinking, it is simple unsustainable. And the economy will adjust to compensate for the higher burden by shrinking once more. Lessons on how to turn a recession into a depression. The only way out is to shrink government spending until the economy recovers and to stimulate the economy to recover faster.

That does not mean giving money to failing companies or paying workers to do nothing or to make up new projects to fund just to keep people busy. To me stimulus means accelerating the natural recovery and failures in the current economy. The only way to do that is to take less money from the people and corporations so that they can help themselves and their corporations effect change. It is basic economics and more and more of us are working through it each day.

We will get there, I am sure; maybe not until after the new depression. It may take that much to get people to remember; government does not create, its abilities to distribute are governed by us, doing works in our best interests to move this country forward. There will be many dark days ahead but the American people, the individual, will once again have our day in the sun.

Well played, Mr. Obama

Many is the media are “confused” by the seeming contradictions in the ever expanding spending coming from Washington and the statements about the desire to “balance the budget”. Since most of them are devoid of 5th grade math skills they can’t make the connections that most of the rest of us can make…”this just does not balance out”. But I believe that it does balance out and very quickly. I believe the President is honest is his desires to get the budget deficit cut in half by the end of his first term and that this is in no way a conflict with the current spending or his budget.

The goal is not to try and pay for this or to worry about revenue at this point. The goal is to establish government dependence and control. I believe that President Obama is playing this perfectly. He is spending out of control because the public is demanding that they “do something”. True, this spending will have little impact on stimulating the economy. It will however create entire agencies and government dependence among those that will now survive based on the bailouts. Many believe that this is overplaying their hand. I think not. This is their hand. What will happen to the public economy is obvious to almost everyone and the public outcry shows this as well. But many believe that he is misjudging the economy or the American people. I believe this is exactly the intent.

As these policies and the next budget are passed (there is little chance enough Democrats will change sides to stop it) massive spending will hit many sectors of the economy. Government funding will push out private equity. Dependence will be created. More bailouts, Healthcare takeovers, locking up the energy industry will all limit the economy and limit tax revenue. But Mr. Obama has stated he wants to balance the budget and soon. Unlike many that see this in opposition to his current spending and budget, I take him at his word. Revenues will not go up. Unemployment will not go down. But this increasing crisis is exactly what is needed for the next phase of the project.

That is the “need” to tax everyone at a very high level to balance the budget. Many look at the budget as written and say that this must occur anyway. They are correct and believe that it will therefore be stopped early on. But with a complicit media, no 5th grade math, and a struggling economy, it will pass. Once you lock out private investment, once agencies are established, once your industry, your health care and your energy are a service of the Federal Government; could you (would you) “deny” yourself those services as they are transitioned back to a free market? Not enough will, a new recession and risk will be avoided by the American voters; and under a tax load of greater than 50%; the control is established.

This level of control cannot be undertaking directly. You already see the concern building based on the individual policies today. But Obama has learned from the mistakes of socialized health care that gave us the Republican Revolution in 2000. You cannot get these changes passed in a good economy and in the light of day. He is ensuring that our dependence and need are sufficient so that we have little choice.

Well played Mr. Obama.

Is Obama a muppet or the puppet master?

Those that know me well, know that, during the election, I had the opinion that Obama was a muppet. May argued he was left wing, and that may be true. Other argues that he was more center-left. Though I believed that he was likely far more left then his words, what he said and what he believed was of little consequence in this election. Besides foreign affairs the President if mostly a figurehead. He has little to do with writing or enforcing law. In this case a figurehead for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

I hoped that I was wrong or even if I was right that he would have a mandate and the quest for power would allow him to manage congress. But like the old Star Trek episode, “Patterns Of Force” where they “instituted a theoretical form of Hitler’s National Socialism upon the lawless Ekosians because he believed that it is the most efficient system of government ever devised”, the government has taken over and supplanted the figurehead.

Obama talked about “fixing roads” and “helping the states” yet the stimulus bill is full of pork and pet projects that dwarf the valuable spending. Now we have a “funding bill” that is full over 4900+ earmarked projects. So I, I believed that I was right. That he had no power and no control over the Congressional leadership and that they he was a puppet to the puppet masters.

At least I thought I was right until Tuesday and Wednesday. He spoke the other night about restoring the upper tax brackets to those under Clinton. To cut spending in non-critical programs and cut the deficit in half in 4 years. Then the news about his plan began to release on Wednesday including 650+ Billion to begin universal healthcare. The numbers simply do not add up. Then the tax increases began to to leak; including limiting home interest deductions [that should help the housing market]. A total “estimated” budget of 3.7 trillion on tax payer funded income of 2 trillion. If the economy contracts a bit more and/or the price tag goes up (duh) then we are talking about government spending on a pace that is double revenues. This does not include the “one time” spending in the bailouts. So we are looking a deficits that would require tax revenues to double or triple in the coming years.

There is no amount of taxation on “the rich” that can cover that bill. Since over 40% of wage earners already pay zero income tax, this burden will be carried by the ever decreasing population of the employed “wealthy” [which will now be defined as anyone that makes over the median income]. The GDP of the US is estimated to be 13.75 Trillion dollars in 2008. So we are talking about taxation at 30% of all GDP (higher to cover the bailouts). To put that in perspective: taxation has never been over 20% of GDP. In fact it is well understood that tax revenue and GDP are tied tightly together at about 18.5%. [I have found reputable sources that have out tax burden at about 30% already. Based on 13.75 Trillion in GDP and 2.67 Trillion in revenue..my simple math gives me 19.4%] . So we will need to get from 2.67 Trillion to well over 4 trillion [note that none of this includes growth in already expanding government programs].

Now it is possible that we will not actually pay for this. Seems that “paying for things” is simply out of vogue right now. But either we will pay for it or our children and grandchildren will pay for it with interest.

Based in these simple facts, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that the puppet is part of the game (that reminds me of a Twlight Zone episode). That he is using his popularity and oratory skills to say what we want to hear and then turn around and sell us out. So it looks like, some where right, he is a left wing liberal and intent on creating a socialist republic within the United States with an overall tax burden of 40+%. Either that, or his economists have failed 5th grade math and they are completely inept (since they don’t pay taxes maybe this is the lesser of two evils). 2010 is coming, I pray we will not be too late.

Jobs and Industries Democrats are trying to kill

This is meant to become a running list of all of the industries specifically targeted for destruction by the Democrat party. Many of these are obvious but the goal it to look at the ripple effects of each of these decisions and understand the impact on the unemployment picture and the economy as a whole.

Target: Big Oil
Impact: Rig Workers, Parts Manufacturers, Local Service, Gas Prices (which impacts inflation)

Target: Tobacco Companies
Impact: Employees, Farmers, Tax Revenue (all those pet programs “for the kids” supported by this revenue)

Target: Banks
Impact: Employees, New York Restaurants, Las Vegas (and other conference cities), Event planners, wait staff, cooks

Target: Private Jets
Impact: Manufacturer, Small Airports, Pilots, Service Technicians, Oil Companies, Steel Manufacturing, Parts Suppliers

Hope that you do not know anyone in any of these industries or reliant on these industries. The economy is connected, pick and choose winners and losers and the ripples are long and wide. The end results is always the same, lower employment; usually in the service sectors that support these businesses and towns, lower tax revenue and more government control of free enterprise. Make no mistake. This is either the end goal or they are incompetent. I believe they know full well what they are doing and government control of private business is the end game.

Obama Recession hits -20%.

Yeah, I said it. This current downturn since November (even earlier) is now on Obama. As the economy rolled quickly down the hill, Obama had the option in each debate, his stump speeches, his acceptance speech and to any microphone since to stop the bleeding. He has not. All he would need state is that any economy in turmoil cannot afford higher taxes. Especially on capital gains. What is ironic is that raising the capital gains rate will have little impact by the time it is passed anyway. Anyone with gains to take is getting out of the market and no one is getting back in. The economy is shrinking, companies are fighting to stay above water and they are laying people off.

Obama threatened to raise taxes, threatened investors with a near doubling of the capital gains rate, threatened companies with more oversight, more taxes and more unions. He backed down on none of it and now he is elected.

Many thought the market had already taken its lumps, found a new low and prepared for this before November 4th. I thought it had to and I put some back in. What many missed, including me was the senate fight for 60. Some were talking about it but it did not seem likely. But as the election approached it became possible. Then on November 5th three elections were undecided and three seats was all that was needed…and down the market went.

Since that time those elections sat undecided. One concluded this week and the Democrats are now two away. One is so close and in a Democrat controlled state, so that is likely to change hands… leaving us with one…Georgia… and down goes the market.

The fears Obama put in every business owner, every investor, and any tax payer that was really listening look even clearer now then they did before the election. The ability to implement each and every program [deficit be damned], raise taxes, limit corporations, empower unions…kill growth, drive up unemployment, capital the US economy for years to come… these are now all possible… and the markets sink.

I believe in irony and I believe if the Dems hit 60 the Dow hits 6000 (a < 50% decline from its highs).

A clear difference in philosophy

I heard an explanation of the differences between Conservatives and Liberals that I thought was interesting. The comparison was something along the lines of … Two Americans both have big dreams. The conservative wants to wrok for himself, create a company, provide for his family, grow the business and retire comfortably. The Liberal wants to make sure that others are provided for, that health care is afforable and poverty is reduced. What is so different is not these dreams but the way in which they are acheived. Unfortunately, the second man’s dreams are accomplished by taking money from and destorying the dreams of the first.

I found this interesting at first and the more I thought about the better it fit. Looking at it from the other man’s point of view. The dreams of the first man have no impact on those of the second. In fact his ability to grow the business does support providing others with employment, possible philtopic donations and the ability for employees to succeed and pursue their own dreams. Why can’t the second man create a company, pursue business partners and provide for others on his own accord? Why is it necessary to require extraction of income from others? I find it very likely that there is a buiness opportunity in helping others. In fact if local companies were taxed less and incented in their philithropic efforts this business venture would be even more likely.

Update: 401k still at risk with Democrats control

This is an update the story posted October 9th.

If I were to say “pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration.” You woudl say, “I already know about Social Security, so what?”. Well you woudl be wrong. See this is the “new” retirement alternative being contemplated by the Democrats in the house.

The Theory goes… Since the Stock Market has taken such a hit, it proves the falsity of the idea of investing your retirement in US stocks. Therefore, we should use the money from the program to design a better program.

At least three major problems with this “theory”.

First, there is not money in this system that the government has any right to. You see in the minds of a Liberal Democrat a tax incentive to invest in your own retirement (a goal set forth by the law) is money they don’t have. It is counted as money the rotten-evil-tax payers of this country dare to keep to themselves. What “tax break” you ask? The taxes you did not yet pay on income placed in the 401k and the tax break for companies that match your investments. So they want to require that you put another 5% [on top of the 6%+6% that you and your employer put in today].

This leads me to invalid point number two. The tax break is a deferment of taxes until the need to extract funds. The belief is that your tax bracket may be lower at that point then it is today but there are no guarantees of that. It is hard to call that a tax break. IN fact with democrats in congress it is very possible that retirees in the coming years will find that they are withdrwing at a higher bracket then when they started putting in the money in the 1980s and 1990s.

The third and most reveling of the falseness of their arguments is that the new funds would be “invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year”. Oh sooo many issues… “Special”… you mean like “Freddie Mac Mortgage Backed Securities special”? Or more likely “Special” meaning, “I won’t tell you know because it is in the general funds and to be paid back by your grandchildren’s grandchildren when I am long gone from Congress.” I digreess. On to the main point. Three percent per year. I think I can beat that with guaranteed CDs without giveing over the money the feds. Well… I took a deep breath and opened up my recent 401k statment. Really, I did it. I took a look at my rollover 401k. This is a high risk stock (98.7%) 401k from an old employer. One that is not confused by current contributions, matching and dollar cost averaging. In the past year it is down about 35%. Ouch… In the past three years it is up a misely 1.2%. If I look back 5 years it is averaging…6% a year. Yep 6% a year over 5 years including a once (twice) in a century downturn.

Since that is an annualized return $20,000 would have grown by $3579 more in the last five years then via the “new” government plan. To be fair they are offering a $600 credit so their plan have returned only $579 less, assuming I qualify for the full tax credit against my $20,000 investment. So if my retirement savings were anything over the $20,000 (which it better be if I plan on living past that first year of retirement) their plan is an even bigger loser. Note that this is already a slight loser in comparison with what can be deemed the worst economic environment for stocks in recent history.

So why would Democrats want to capitialize on the current fear to “stabalize” your retirement when it is a quaranteed loser? The simple answer is that in their mind the 80 billion dollars we all get to right off for 401k contributions is their money and they want it back. The other side of this it the unasked question… what happens to the current dollars if the 401k laws are revoked? Does that mean full conversion and a captial gains tax windfall? Would they dare wait until Obama raises captial gains from 15% up to 28%?
We shall wait and see but the mathematical answer is still to allow for direct privatized investments by individuals.

How to lie with statistics (politics II)

I have mentioned a few in a previous post and I now have a few more that are bugging me.

The income gap

One you have likely heard and may fall into is this…The income gap between the have and have-nots is widening. I do not deny that the gap is widening in fact if it was not the economy would likely be in serious trouble. It is just a function of simple math. Let’s take some simple examples. One, let’s say plumber, makes $40,000 a year. The second makes a clean $1,000,000. The plumber has a great year, things go really well and he increasing his income by a whopping 50% to $60,000 the following year. Now the millions did ok, his business was not growing as fast as he would like but he did out pace inflation and increased his income by 5%. This would take him up to $1,050,000. Yep there it is, the income gap is widening. In the first year the difference in income was 960,000 (1Mil – 40k) and this year it is over 990,000 (1.05Mil-60k). Everyone is making more money and the government would get more revenue… and this is BAD.

Now let’s look at more realistic numbers. If employee making 40k got a more traditional 5% increase to 42k, the millionaire would have to make less then 1/5th of 1% to keep the gap from widening. I am not sure how you can make sense of changes in this number?

So what we come to is this, the millionaires in this country would have to stop making money just to keep it fair. Suppose one of those millionaires instead was a founder of say…Google…and clears 100Million. Well then we are all toast they will outpace 100,000s of Americans combined. So to make it fair we need to take more of their money. Right? Raise their taxes to level the playing field… hold on… taxes do not change income levels. So in fact, to stop this gap from widening we have to stop them from making the money in the first place. What options do we have to stop millionaires from making more money? The most obvious one I can think of is slowing the economy and making it harder for businesses to turn a profit. I am sure their are others but this seems to be the one currently in practice.

Median incomes

Closely tied to the last is the median income argument. The next statistics you will hear about is “median income”. This is the logical counter to the simple math used in the income gap analysis above. Again, I submit that mathematics and normal economics is the cause of such statistics.Remember that the median is not an average it is the middle salary of all employed Americans. It is used to approximate the expected income of a “normal” worker and from this aspect is a better indicator then the average.

In a given year, employees join and employees exit the work force. Other employees move up the brackets. In a growing economy it is likely that more people are entering the workforce as jobs open up then those that are leaving it. With the workforce always changing, all that is necessary to shift the median downward is to have more employees enter the work force under the median then above it.

Here is a simple example. We have a small company of 5 employees. They all make 50K a year. So the median is 50K. Let’s say that 2 of those people are principles in the company and due to company growth they report 100k each on their taxes. The average moves up but the median (middle/third employee) is still 50K. This growth allows them to hire 3 new employees at 30K each. The average moves back down and the median is still 50K (30k,30k,30k,50k,50k,50k,100k,100k). But if they were to hire 3 more employees (at anything lower then 50K) the median would now move down. What does this statistic tell us about the health of our company? It is failing right? NOT MUCH of a useful metric on its own.

So, if the economy is growing, is it more likely to be hiring high-level employees and managers or staff level employees? Most corporations have more staff level employees then management level (at least they should). When they grow, the dominant trend would be to promote from within and hire junior staff. Since the overall number of Americans employed increases the median is likely to go down. Again, and this is somehow BAD?

So What really happened these past years?
My intent is simply to have you take the numbers going up and/or down with a grain of salt and think about them. Each statistic alone can mean many things. It is only when we combine multiple indicators that we can truly see the full picture. I attempt to combine more information from the IRS statistics to clarify the economic picture around the median income levels.

In 1999, There were 94.5 million tax returns that paid taxes. There were 30.5 million returns for Americans making under $25,000 which amounts to 32.3% of the returns from that year. The median income that year was $50,641 (2007 dollars). Just bank those numbers as comparisons.

By 2003, [after the beginning of the recession and the attacks on 9/11/2001], we [logically] seem to have slid back a bit. There were 89 million returns that paid taxes but a full 3 million more returns were filed than in 1999 (more returns; less tax payers). Of those returns 23 million of those were from Americans making less than 25,000. There were 3 million more returns filed but 7 million less low income tax payers. Is this proof the shrinking economy was hurting those at the bottom the most? The median income that year was down to $48,835 (2007 dollars). Or is it proof that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 eliminated more lower income people from the tax roles completely while adding 3 million new wage earners?

Slide forward to 2006. There were now 10 million returns that paid taxes. Of those 28 million were filed by Americans making less than 25,000. We were now are up another 8 million tax filers including almost 5 million of those under 25,000. I believe that this is proof that the economy is growing and more wage earners are joining. If this is the case depending on the type of jobs being created, it is very possible that an influx of lower paying wage earners would bring the median income down. Would this be good or bad? If you know please let me know. Well… the median income for 2006 was $49,568 (2007 dollars). So it moved up.

I am unconvinced that median income means much at all by itself. But in this more complete context of more tax returns being filed and more wage earners it would seem to indicate a growing economy.

Final Conclusion

For further confusion the median income in 2007 was now $50,233. So what do we now have. We have increasing tax filings, increasing median incomes, increasing revenues. I would think that this is proof of the value of cutting taxes to avoid recession. I would also think that this exemplifies “a rising tide lifts all boats”. Simple proof of conservative principals in action for the benefit of all.

But for my liberal friends, I have a statistic to help you out…it is listed within these numbers and you might have even heard it before…”Median incomes are down during the past eight years of the Bush presidency.” Yep down from $50,641 to $50,233 over the eight year period. Of course, you have to ignore the facts of the recession of 1999-2000 and the attacks of 9/11 and the fact that the major drops all occurred before the Bush tax plan was fully in place. But hell, if you are going to use a confusing statistic in the first place, no need to burden it with the truth.

Obama’s statements on taxes explained

Having the benefit of years of pouring through data and trying to correct entrenched assumptions about what that data is telling us, has been far more useful in this election than in the past. I find it fascinating to listen to the “words” and “speeches” of Oabama and the ease at which he uses statistics and statements to back up false arguments. It is not surprising that many fall for it.

Statements like ‘tax cuts for 95% of Americans” leaves out the little fact the close to 40% of Americans do not pay taxes so their “tax cut” is actually a check based on someone else’s tax payments. That didn’t uses to be called a tax cut. It used to be called welfare or socialism. But “tax cut” sounds so much better and 95% is such a high number. The Wall Street Journal went in to this as well yesterday. Un fortunately their numbers are worse then I thought, they say under Obama 44% of people will n0t pay taxes. Then others will get a refund check that pay very little taxes. We are approaching the 50% mark when all Liberals will have to do to retain full power in blame the rich Republicans for trying to tax you. 50% of the population will do almost whatever it takes to vote themselves money out of other peoples pockets. An economy built on those principles will not last. Can we make it even 2 or 4 years under this model? Will it ever be reversed? I fear the incline of the slippery slope just got higher and Obama is greasing the skids. In fact I see that the Wall Street Journal just hit on this point today. This is far more scary then any tax policy could ever be.

The other statements about “taxing the rich” or that “most small business make under $250,000″ . I had heard (maybe seen) that 2/3 of the tax returns in the top 5% are s1 corporations and small businesses. How can these two be reconciled. Let me add in this simple fact, “most small businesses fail”. So since most fail and only a few succeed, Barrack Obama is right. Most small businesses due make under 250,000. The problem is that those that succeed and make money and want to grow and hire people are the ones he wants to tax an additional 10%. Those that succeed created 80% of the jobs in the last five years. Guess what… The Wall Street Journal hit on this yesterday.

I am glad to know I have this much influence over their reporting. Or maybe it is that they too have a bit of common sense. I am sure I will have more lying through statistics soon.

So what of McCain’s idea of a "Spending Freeze"

We all hear how big the national debt is. They even have Debt Tickers that attempt to show it. The National Debt is currently at 10Trillion dollars. But what of the yearly impact on this number. From 2005-2007 the Debt rose by just under 1.1Trillion dollars. Or about 550 billion a year.

Tracking the growth of the federal budget from 2001-2007. We can see that the budgets grew from 1.9Trillion in 2001 to 2.77 Trillion in 2007. Each year it grew between 5 and 10%. During that same time Revenues were 2.1Trillion in 2001 and grew to 2.7 trillion in 2007.

Looking at the year by year numbers a single year hold in expenditures and a traditional year in GDP growth would put the budget back in balance for the short term. So in a general sense the point is valid. In fact this is exactly how we were able to turn deficits into surpluses in the Clinton years. Under the last four years of the Clinton Administration the Federal budget grew 100 billion dollars and tax receipts grew 500 billion. In some of those years the budgets did not grow at all. All it takes is someone with enough discipline to put it in place.

Since tax revenues are limited by GDP (as my previous blog explains) then the only options available are really to cut taxes, get the economy moving and limit spending. Since we are tasked with an ever increasing requirement for Entitlement Spending we will likely have to cut other items to get back in line. By “Freezing” the federal budget in total or at least in overall scope for a single year we can get ourselves back in line.

Democrats make this plan sound extreme and completely impossible. Many companies and individuals around this country have had to mange without a raise (or worse a cut in pay) at least once in their lives. Do we not think that government employees and agencies can do the same thing for a year? I think they can, in fact I think it is time we all expect from them what they have always forced upon us. I believe that until the impacts and returns of this financial crisis aer known we should hold all spending at current levels. If we could have the discipline to do this every other year and maintain a 5% growth rate we could be in a far better place in 4-8 years. But if instead we are to add another trillion in spending and raise taxes, slow the economy and lose revenues we dig even further into this hole. The impacts of that are likely to limit any possible return from the bailout and compound the problem.

The choice is so clear. If it is not made this November it will be made in the congressional elections of 2010 and again in 2012 but the climb out will take just that much longer. I would like to start now.