Posted in Politicson Jan 26, 2010
Some people confuse the terms Deficit and Debt when talking about our nation’s finances. I thought I would spend a second to describe the difference.
When we talk about the National Debt, we are talking about the amount of money that our government owes people, companies, and even foreign nations. This is comparable to a person having a home loan, several car loans, lots of credit card debt, and IOU notes written out to everyone in the neighborhood.
The National Budget Deficit is the amount of money the government spends more than the amount of money the government collects. A person having a budget deficit would likely be putting more debt onto a credit card than payments to pay it off. Every year the government works out the budget, that is, they decide how much money they are going to throw at what. When they’ve spent more money than is collected through taxes, they say, “Oh well, we’ll just take out more loans.” The National budget deficit is the amount by which our National debt increases.
When there is talk about “reducing the deficit,” they aren’t talking about reducing the national debt. They are just reducing the rate at which the government takes out new loans. “Cutting the deficit in half” is saying, “We are only going to take out half as many new loans this year.”
Posted in Politicson Aug 13, 2009
Way too often, I hear phrases like, “If we can put a man on the moon, then we should be able to accomplish some other great feat.”
For example, a quick Google search for this phrase in the last week resulted in 171 pages, which included the following:
Marvin Eisenstein leaving a comment on a NY Times blog:
If we can put a man on the moon I am sure we can solve the health care problem.
Kent Halla, in a letter to the Silver City Sun-News:
Why, if we can put a man on the moon can we not cure cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.?
An anonymous comment in a forum asks:
If we can put a man on the moon in less than a decade, could we not help repair the only planet we’ll ever know by showing the same dedication and bearing the same burden of common purpose?
But the problem is, we can’t put a man on the moon. According to a Washington Post article, “NASA doesn’t have nearly enough money to meet its goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020.”
Our government no longer has the ability to put a man on the moon. Although President Obama appointed a special Human Space Flight Plans Committee, the committee found that the governement would not commit enough resources or dedication to put man on the moon anytime in the next decade.
So we are stuck with a government who can’t do what they did 40 years ago: put a man on the moon. I don’t know why they think they can take on the governement, make cars more efficient, cure cancer, fix healthcare, etc. We pretty much have a government that is incapable of doing much of anything other than consuming tax dollars.

Flickr Stock Image
President Obama wants to spend taxpayer money (to the tune of $8,000,000,000) on Amtrak to improve and expand the American passenger rail system. I hope the money is spent well, because right now there are seious problems with traveling by train.
Suppose I wanted to travel from Denver to Salt Lake City. There is a route, the California Zephyr, that travels once a day between these two cities. I would have to leave Denver at 8am, to arrive in Salt Lake City 15 hours later at 11pm. I would also have to pay $65 dollars to do so.
In comparison, I can drive at 25 mpg and at $2.50/gallon gas from Denver to Salt Lake City, 545 miles, for $55 and only take about 8 hours to drive that.
Even better, I can find a $49 flight on Southwest that will get me to Salt Lake in only an hour and a half.
Why would I want to spend more money and more time traveling by train, when I can travel faster and cheaper by both car and plane?
Posted in Politicson Feb 3, 2009
You would think that the federal politicians who helped create the enormity of confusion called Federal Income Tax would be able to figure it out better. But that is not the case for former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Daschle was all set up to be confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services, a cabinet level position, when a volcano of reports about his late and unpaid taxes erupted. Daschle withdrew his name from consideration for HHS Secretary and expressed regret about his tax problems.
Although I’m certainly not a Daschle fan, I felt sorry for anyone caught up getting all confused about taxes. That was, until I remembered that this was one of the guys who was elected for quite a long time to solve problems like complicated taxes.
The U.S. needs a more simple tax system, one where you don’t have to choose between 3 different forms with 4 digit idenfication numbers with double digit lines each referring to pages of instructions which refer to completion of other forms which is JUST TOO MUCH!
Tom Daschle was in a prime position to solve this sort of problem, but didn’t. The fact that he got caught up with late and unpaid taxes I credit to the fact that he didn’t make the system more simple when he had the chance.
I think of it as just a little bit of irony.
Posted in Politicson Jan 26, 2009
Recently, Obama signed a request for the Environmental Protection Agency to allow California and other states to be able to pass their own, stricter laws on car emissions. This would allow California to demand that automakers create more fuel-efficient cars for sale in California.
While I support the idea of creating a cleaner environment and reducing our dependency on foreign fuel, I think this is a bad move in this economy for two reasons.
First, this would give single states too much power over the U.S. economy. Auto makers cannot simply create a version of their product lines for California–they would have to drastically revise their products for the entire country. This gives California too much power and leverage over the entire U.S. economy, which is currently very delicate.
Secondly, requiring automakers to research and develop more fuel-efficient cars would place additional burdens on a fragile auto industry. Just last fall, the U.S. auto industry asked the U.S. government for a $25 Billion bailout. Placing further restrictions upon the American automakers will only cause them more trouble, to the point where they will need even more bailout money.
I want a cleaner environment, but I don’t think it is worth the cost of bankrupting the auto-industry, possibly causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Creating tougher environmental regulations may be a good thing, but only on the federal level, and only when the economic conditions can support additional auto industry restrictions.
Obama’s request for these regulatory changes is careless and irresponsible. The number one problem in America today is the economy. But instead of working to correct the economy, Obama is trying to please too many special interests, which is instead causing further harm to the economy. It seems like Obama is trying harder to polish his democratic public image than he is to fix a failing economy.
With the Obamas visiting the White House yesterday, I had a quite bazaar bizarre dream last night.
I dreamed that First Lady Laura Bush broke into the Obama’s house and stole their gold fish. It wasn’t political hostility or anything, just that Mrs. Bush has a collection of goldfish that she has stollen from other politicians.
Recent Comments