ARTICLES and ANSWERS 2020

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

Republicans point to the back-to-back terms of President Ronald Reagan as a huge success for supply-side economics. Reagan received much applause from supply-siders because of his tax cuts for the rich, and big business, of course.

Yes, revenues did increase, but so did deficits – so much so that Reagan had to agree to tax increases in his second term The Tax Reform Act of 1986 – TRA86, PL 99-514.

Apparently Republicans are so anxious to shed a positive light on their party they seem to lose track of the facts on their path to glory. The following excerpt from a WSJ article written by Stephen Moore is a prime example of Republican tunnel vision when it comes to supply-side economics.

Wall Street Journal

“In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan chopped the highest personal income tax rate from the confiscatory 70% rate that he inherited when he entered office to 28% when he left office and the resulting economic burst caused federal tax receipts to almost precisely double: from $517 billion to $1,032 billion.”

Ronald Reagan signed The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (PL 97-34) into law on August 13, 1981. PL97-34 contained 300 tax provisions and took three years to implement. Tax laws are extremely complex and simply stating the highest personal income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%, without listing the lowest and highest tax bracket or tax base, is somewhat misleading.

Stating federal tax receipts almost doubled from $517 billion to $1,032 is not accurate. As you can determine by a review of the following chart, Stephen Moore is using the beginning tax receipt number from 1980 and the ending tax receipt number from 1990, a 10-year period. You cannot use 10-year tax data for an 8-year term of office.

What is disturbing about the Moore article is he isn’t some rookie reporter out on his first assignment. His bio states, “Mr. Moore is a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board and author of "Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Will Make America Richer (Madison Books, 2004).”

Was the use of the wrong revenue numbers simply an error, or was it an intentional ploy to make supply-side economics look good? Maybe a question to Mr. Moore should be is he a fan of supply-side economics because he believes it works, or is he a fan of supply-side economics because the tax cuts implemented by Reagan applied directly to his pocketbook?

The fact of the matter is “Reaganomics” was a dismal failure for the country. Yes, revenues did increase by $474.1 billion dollars during the Reagan 8-year term of office, but each and every year resulted in a budget deficit and by the end of his 8-year term Ronald Reagan had increased the federal debt by almost $1.7 trillion dollars – 3.5 times the amount the revenues increased.

1790 was the first year the United States faced a debt – the total was $75 million dollars, which has grown considerably to the $9 trillion federal debt currently owed. From 1790 until now, there have only been two years in our history when the U.S. did not carry a debt – 1834 and 1835.

During this 200 plus period of years, the federal debt saw a high of 108.6 percent of GDP at the end of WWII, followed by a low of 23.8 percent of GDP in 1974.

Historically, the national debt has risen in periods of war when the costs of war have generally been financed by borrowing rather than raising taxes. The entire Reagan presidency was during peacetime so there was not any war cost involved.

Yet, the debt, as a percentage of GDP ballooned from 26.1 percent of GDP when Reagan took office, to a whopping 40.6 percent of GDP when he left office.

Having been elected on the promise of “no new taxes”, George H.W. Bush (January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993) agreed to tax increases because of the continuing deficits resulting from the Reagan tax-cuts and increased spending for the military buildup for Desert Storm/Desert Shield (1990-1991). By the time George H. Bush left office in January of 1993, the national debt as a percentage of GDP had jumped to 64.1%.

Steve Moore is first and foremost a right-winger.  Add to that the fact that he is on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and it’s easy to understand why he writes what he does.  What you see is what you get.

Reagan was the best shot supply-siders had.  It was “Morning in America” then, if you believed the Reagan PR machine which was a good one.

The Reagan myth will be around for a long, long time.

Data Sources: OMB and IRS

© 2007 Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

By Richard E Walrath

My own personal opinion is that we can’t get universal health care soon enough.  Truman did his best sixty years ago to pass it, but the country wasn’t ready yet. I don’t know that it’s ready now, either.

But I think enough people are worried enough about it to get it passed because politicians are worried about what will happen to them if they don’t pass it.

The Bush veto of the SCHIP bill may turn out to be the best thing he has done.  It may stir up people enough to get health care for everyone in the United States.

Employers have begun to support national health insurance. They no longer are supporting endless subsidies for insurance companies and  the drug manufacturers.

The real question is, Why did it take them so long to reach the obvious answer.  This country is the last industrialized country is the world not to have universal health care.  

How far behind the times can you get?

By Richard E Walrath

All I’m reading about is the million Armenians the Turks killed in 1915 and whether or not this was genocide. 

There’s no question that it happened–not even too much of a dispute about how many. 

Was it a million or two million?  Is that  what the debate is about?  It was genocide if it was two million killed, but not if it was "only" one million?  Is that the question?

A million or two million people are wiped out, and the debate is whether or not this meets the standard to be called genocide.  If not, then what?  If so, so what?

The dispute seems to be whether or not to label killing a million or two million people genocide.  Are the  dead better or worse off if it was genocide?

Does it make it better or worse if it was or wasn’t genocide?   

The number doesn’t matter – the international law definition of genocide as a crime has two parts; intention and action.  It’s basically a ‘systematic pattern of coordinated acts’ against a group and the group may be national, ethnical, racial or religious.

More may be read at the following site:

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

Genocide is like Hitler and Nazi Germany. That’s not a label that Turkey wants even though the government today is totally different from the Ottoman Empire. 

This has come up routinely in the past, but it never got anywhere because there was a Republican Congress.  After the House Foreign Relations Committee votes on Wednesday, President Abdullah Gul warned the United States, in a statement, that a positive vote by the U.S. House of Representatives could work against the United States.

There are a number of states–Michigan for one–with a lot of Armenians.  Turkey is a vital ally in the Bush war in Iraq, so a House vote could make a lot of trouble for him.

By Richard E Walrath

I can’t find a report anywhere on the Republican debate that makes even an attempt to check out what Romney and Giuliani actually did about taxes and spending.

They both could not be telling the truth.  So why not find out if they’re going to bother to write about it.

Don’t any of these reporters go to Journalism School anymore? 

Get the facts. 

Get them fast.

Get them right. 

The rest of the garbage that they fill up their newspapers with, I’d just as soon they leave out.

By Richard E Walrath

The Fred Dalton Thompson express roared out of the starting gate like a herd of crippled turtles, and then faltered.

If you aren’t sure of who to vote for, and you’re a Republican, vote for Romney–he’s not sure of a lot of things.

If Huckabee didn’t have such a funny name, I think he would have a really good chance.

Who’s left?  Rudy, and I understand there’s an FBI file on him for whatever reason.

By Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson

Since 1913, almost a hundred years now, this is the first time that we have had back-to-back elected presidents of opposing parties who have served two full terms.

Being able to compare the results of the economy under such diametrically different policies is a once-in-a-life-time opportunity.  Balanced budget and surplus under Clinton – endless and mindless tax-cuts for the rich and big business under Bush, resulting in a National Debt increase of $3.2 trillion dollars.

Economic policies in effect under President Clinton were not only able to balance the U.S. Budget; they were able to put the budget in surplus.  When the U.S. is over budget, it creates a budget deficit as well as increased interest payments on the national debt. When the U.S. is under budget, we have a budget surplus as well as decreased interest payments on the national debt.

Historically, the pattern for the United States has been budget deficits and interest payments would rise in tandem, but we had another first with President Clinton. The budget surpluses created lower interest payments, which in turn succeeded in reducing the amount the national debt rose.

If you look at the statistics, your immediate reaction will be ‘hey, wait a minute – the national debt increased under President Clinton’ – which is correct, but the increases were entirely due to the interest charged on the federal debt. When a new president takes office, the interest on the national debt doesn’t stop – it continues, so the interest charges are still there.

Bill Clinton was in office for 8 years. The U.S. National Debt increased by $1.5 trillion dollars during his 8-year presidency. During this same 8-year period interest on the National Debt totaled $2.7 trillion dollars. If you eliminate the interest, the National Debt was actually reduced by $1.2 trillion dollars under President Clinton.

In contrast, George W. Bush has been in office since January 20, 2001. During the 6 years and 8 months that he has been in office, the National Debt has increased $3.2 trillion dollars.

An interesting note is the National Debt has increased by twice as much during the 6 years and 8 months that Bush has been in office, compared to the full 8 years that Clinton was in office.

Chart 1 – http://www.articlesandanswers.com/Chart1.htm

Remove interest from the equation and the National Debt was reduced by $1.2 trillion dollars under Clinton policies and increased $803 billion dollars, to date, under Bush.

Chart 2 – http://www.articlesandanswers.com/Chart2.htm

Arthur B. Laffer’s napkin theory has to do with what is known as supply side economics.  There is nothing very original about it, actually, a French economist, Jean Baptiste Say, came up with the idea well over a hundred years ago with Say’s Law which says, simply, "Supply creates its own demand."

The idea is that if you’re going to produce something, you have to go out and buy the raw materials first in order to manufacture the product.  The Bush years should have been the best possible of all times for supply-side economics. The theory was practiced to the fullest possible extent. We’re going to hear a lot about supply-side economics because it has been such a dismal failure for the last almost seven years.  What is really laughable is the Bush comment at his September 20 press conference at which he declared that he is a "supply-sider." 

“I’m a supply-sider. I believe supply-side economics, when properly instituted, enables us to achieve certain objectives. One, people find work and there’s hope in the economy. Two, that supply-side economics yields additional tax revenues. And if we’re smart about how we manage the fiscal budget, it leads to balance, and that’s what we have done…”

Keynes, in his The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, attacked the problem from the other direction–demand. Nobody was going to go out and do anything if there was no demand for it.  During slack times, such as recessions, the government could help take up the slack by providing demand for goods and services through spending.  Ideally, the government would run at a deficit during recessions and a surplus when aggregate demand was sufficient to provide full employment. According to Wikipedia, Laffer commented on Bush’s supply-side economic policies on page A18 of the February 14, 2005 Wall Street Journal as follows:

"When ‘W’ ran for president in 2000, I voted for him but not enthusiastically. I had voted for Bill Clinton in the prior two presidential elections, but with Al Gore as the Democratic candidate in 2000 the choice was easy for me even if I wasn’t all that excited about George Bush. I am now flabbergasted by the performance of Bush 43. […] George W. Bush could well turn out to be the best president in recent history. […] Because of President Clinton, President Bush’s budget deficits can easily be absorbed by the U.S. economy. […] Supply-side pro-growth economics couldn’t ask for a better champion — nor could any American."

A common misconception regarding tax cuts is that if government revenues increase after tax cuts, it must be that the tax-cuts were the reason.  The question you would have to ask is, what would revenues have been if there had been NO tax-cuts.  This, of course, is a debatable issue because it is difficult to prove.

The following chart depicts US Revenues for the period of 2000 through 2006. 2000 was the last full year that Clinton was in office and 2001 through 2006 are the first six years of the Bush presidency.

 Chart 3 – http://www.articlesandanswers.com/Revenues.mht

The combined totals are as follows:

(in trillions)

Clinton           2000                 $1.2

Bush              2001                 $1.1

Bush              2002                 $1.0

Bush              2003                 $0.9

Bush              2004                 $1.0

Bush              2005                 $1.2

Bush              2006 (E)            $1.2

All the tax cuts provided to the rich and big business by the Bush administration have failed to provide increased revenues for this country. We had revenues of $1.2 trillion the last year of the Clinton presidency and we’re still at $1.2 trillion at the end of the 6^th year of the Bush presidency.

In 2005 Corporate revenues increased considerably so it could be said the Bush economic policies are working as planned, but are they?

Corporate revenues increased due to the fact the Department of Defense contract awards doubled from $133 billion in 2000, to $269 billion in 2005 and further increased to $295 billion in 2006.

(in billions)

Clinton           2000                 $133

Bush              2001                 $144

Bush              2002                 $171

Bush              2003                 $209

Bush              2004                 $231

Bush              2005                 $269

Bush              2006 (E)            $295

The question that should be raised is why corporate revenue increases aren’t higher. If you use the $133 billion from 2000 as a base number for each subsequent year, we have exceeded that amount in contract awards by $521 billion – half a trillion dollars in contracts, should bring in far more revenues than this country is receiving.

The differences between the two presidencies are dramatic – under Clinton there were tax increases, coupled with increased benefits as well as increased revenues, budget surpluses “as far as the eye can see” and a reduction in the increase in National Debt. Under Bush there have been tax cuts, coupled with benefit cuts, decreased revenues, budget deficits and major increases in the National Debt.

Nobody, anywhere, is forecasting a surplus now. 

Bush is now talking about eliminating the budget deficit by 2013, as he continues to add billions of dollars to the National Debt.

How is it possible to turn a surplus “as far as the eye can see” into $3.2 trillion of additional debt? Just what is so good about doing that? How many additional billions of dollars is that just to pay the interest on the $3.2 Trillion?

Where did the money go?

Obviously your first response will be “don’t you know we’re fighting the Global War on Terror?” The GWOT accounts for $610 billion dollars from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2007. That leaves $200 billion in National Debt increases unaccounted.

The $610.6 billion appropriated by Congress for GWOT from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2007 includes costs for Iraq, Afghanistan, enhanced security for DOD, State Department and for Department of Veterans’ Affairs medical costs and is split as follows:

Department of Defense                 $568.0

US State Dept. & USAID                   41.0

Department of Veterans Affairs           1.6

Total                                            $610.6 

(may not add due to rounding)

The $610 billion is split by Operation as follows:

Iraq                              $450.4

OEF – Afghanistan            126.7

Enhanced Security             28.1

Unallocated                         5.5

Total                             $610.6

(may not add due to rounding)

An interesting note is the increase in allocations since 2003. Do you remember 2003 – when President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished?"  Each year since then, the allocation has increased at the following percentages:

2004            16%

2005            33%

2006            50%

2007           113%

We can easily go one step further in our comparison of the two presidencies – their employment records.

In December of 1992 total nonfarm employment, seasonally adjusted, was 109,418,000. In December of 2000 that number had increased to 132,484,000 or payroll employment increased by 23.1 million jobs during the Clinton presidency.

In sharp contrast, using the December 2000 figure of 132,484,000 and the preliminary September 2007 figure of 138,265,000, only 5.8 million jobs have been added to total nonfarm employment during the 6 years and 9 months of the Bush presidency.

Republicans will say that eight (8) million jobs have been created in the last four years and that’s a true statement. At the end of 2003 employment was 130,398,000 and at the end of September 2007 employment is 138,265,000 indicating a gain of 7.967 or eight (8) million jobs, but the Bush presidency did not begin in 2003.

If you ignore the jobs losses incurred during the first two years of his presidency you are still going to fall far short of the 23 million jobs created under Clinton. By the time Bush leaves office he will have created less than ½ the number of jobs that were created during the Clinton presidency.

H.R. 4601 and H.R. 5173 were two bills introduced in 2000 to reduce the Federal Debt Limit.  Both passed the House – H.R. 4601 on June 20, 2000 and H.R. 5173 on September 18, 2000.  The bills were introduced because we no longer needed such a high federal debt limit, due to Clinton economic policies that had resulted in budget surpluses and reduced national debt increases.

Then came the 2000 election and President George W. Bush.

H.J. Res. 43, a joint resolution increasing the statutory limit from $8.965 trillion to $9,815 trillion passed the House on May 17, 2007 and passed the Senate on September 27, 2007.

This $850 billion dollar increase in the statutory limit on the public debt is the fifth time the Federal Debt limit has been raised since 2002.

The real question now is not, does supply-side trickle-down economics work? It never did, but, what made it fail so miserably this time?

It’s time to start turning the clock and the wheel in a different direction. They’ve been turning backwards for almost seven years.

(1) National Debt – U.S. Department of the Treasury

(2) Revenues – Budget of the United States 2007 – Historical tables

(3) Department of Defense Contract Awards – Department of Defense

(4) Employment – Bureau of Labor Statistics

(5) GWOT costs – CRS

© 2007 Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson

http://www.articlesandanswers.com/Laffer.htm

By Richard E Walrath

Since 1913, almost a hundred years now, this is the first time that we have had back-to-back elected presidents of opposing parties who have served two full terms.

FDR died on April 12, 1945 after having been elected four (4) times.  He served three (3) full terms and only a few months of his fourth term.  Truman finished out FDR’s fourth term having succeeded him since he was VP.  Truman was elected in 1948 beating out Thomas Dewey who was heavily favored to win.

Dwight Eisenhower, who came after Harry Truman, did serve two full terms, but he was succeeded by JFK who died in office after serving less than one term.  LBJ finished out Kennedy’s term, and then was elected, but served only one term after that. Then came Nixon – elected for his second term, but resigned because of Watergate.

Gerald Ford finished out Nixon’s term, but was defeated by Carter who served only one term, losing to Ronald Reagan.

Reagan served two full terms, but was succeeded by Bush the First who served only one term losing to Bill Clinton who served two full terms.

Then came Bush the Second, if he does not resign, and is not impeached, convicted and removed from office, he will, in all probability, serve two full terms, making Clinton and Bush the first and only two presidents, of opposing parties, to be elected and serve two full terms.

Being able to compare the results of the economy under such diametrically different policies is a once-in-a-life-time opportunity. 

Stay tuned!

By Richard E Walrath

The Dow settled down somewhat but still finished up for the day and the week. 

I can’t make any sense of it–maybe Goldilocks can.  The money heads are always talking about the Goldilocks economy.  Maybe she has the answer. 

The Fed has cut rates twice now in fear of a recession.  The Dow jumps several hundred points.  The employment report comes out with some pretty anemic figures which proves the economy is good, strong, and vibrant, says our president.  So the Dow jumps again.

What’s the Fed going to do now?  What is Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve System going to say? 

Stay tuned.  Your job may be at stake.

By Richard E Walrath

The employment figures for September came out, and everybody just loved them. 

Why, I don’t know. 

To start with, the August numbers were adjusted or revised, as they say.  Instead of losing 4000 jobs in August, the economy actually created, 89,000, they said. 

In other words, they didn’t even get the direction right.

September barreled in, however, with an under-whelming figure of 110,000 jobs making the market talking heads overjoyed. 

Let’s see now–for the three months, July, August and September, that’s an average of very close to 100,000!   But I guess it depends on where you sit and when.  During the Clinton years, 100,000 jobs created in a month would have been viewed in a very negative way.

But there was President Bush on the TV talking about how pleased he was with such a vibrant economy.

Go figure!

By Richard E Walrath

What do most companies do for their employees?

Health insurance is a good example.  For years, employees thought and were told that health insurance was in addition to their pay.  Then they were told it was part of their pay.  The next thing employees knew they were paying for part of their health insurance while their pay increases barely budged. And these were the lucky ones. 

The rest can’t afford to pay for health insurance while the lucky ones worry about losing it.

The 47 million people who don’t have any health care insurance think universal health care is a really good thing. 

Those who used to have health insurance but couldn’t afford to keep it any longer think it’s a good thing. 

Opponents to universal health care often bring up long waiting lines.  The Republicans wore that out several years ago. 

I wait around for my doctor about an hour every time I go, but I don’t have to wait in line–they have chairs to sit in.

By Richard E Walrath

Bush is now talking about eliminating the budget deficit by 2013, as he continues to add billions of dollars to the National Debt, not to mention that his term is up, finally, in 2009, we hope.

But will you ever see an audit explaining where the $3+Trillion he added to the National Debt went?

This, from the same man who just vetoed Children’s Health Insurance whose cost was $7 billion a year because "it was on the wrong track."

I think the problem is that he is on the wrong train.

By Richard E Walrath 

Billions of dollars for the Bush National Debt and the Bush war – but no dollars for the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

This morning President Bush vetoed the State Children’s Health Insurance bill. 

It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent, the bottom line is the same – it is up to you to get this bill passed for the children of America.  If 2/3 of the members of Congress stand up to President Bush on this issue, his veto can be overturned and millions of children will be able to receive medicare care.

A simple form has been prepared to aid you in locating your members of Congress and requesting them to stand up for this issue.  It’s not a standard form, you may say whatever you want – and if you don’t know what to say, there are talking points available as an additional tool. 

http://www.democrats.org/FightForKids

Don’t let one man endanger the health and well-being of the children of our country.  Their future is in your hands.

George Bush has increased the National Debt in this country by $3.2 trillion dollars since he has been in office, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan have now been estimated, by the Department of Defense, to cost an estimated $10 billion dollars a month.

How much will SCHIP cost in comparison?  The Department of Defense appears to lose more than this program will cost U.S. taxpayers.

President Bush vetoed this bill because it’s moves health care in the wrong direction.

For Immediate Release October 3, 2007

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

"I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 976, the "Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007," because this legislation would move health care in this country in the wrong direction…"

How can providing coverage for American’s children be considered moving health care in the wrong direction?

By Patricia L Johnson

No trial, no ‘innocent until proven guilty’, no incarceration for crimes committed, just here today – DEAD tomorrow.

Military.com is reporting that during the period from June of 2003 through August of 2007, we have killed 18,832 insurgents, injured 5,196 and 119,752 have been arrested by U.S. and coalition forces.

The numbers don’t match up – there should be more wounded than dead – let’s do a comparison with our troops in Iraq.  According to the Department of Defense, as of this morning there have been 3,806 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and 28,093 wounded – or a ratio of 13.5% of the wounded are killed.

If we take use the 5,196 wounded in Iraq, and multiply it by the 13.5% we get 701 – in other words based on the same ratio there should only be 701 dead insurgents – so why are there almost 18,000 more dead?

What has this nation become?  Is the Iraq war no more than a real life video game where the players only get points for dead bodies? 

How can we possibility justify killing instead of taking these people into custody and determining whether or not they are even guilty of a crime?

Iraq isn’t a war – it’s a bloodbath.

By Richard E Walrath

Former Senator John Edwards recently announced he will accept public financing for his campaign. 

What does that mean?

Campaign contributions are private funding from individuals, groups, PAC’s, firms, unions, and so on. 

Public financing is provided by the government part of which comes from the check-off box when people file their income taxes–$3. 

I’m not sure how much is now provided a candidate under the existing campaign funding laws. But whatever the amount, that’s all a candidate can spend if he/she accepts public financing.  The FEC website provides all the answers to the campaign financing questions.

If the candidate chooses not to accept public financing, there is no limit to how much he/she can spend if it’s raised privately.

By Richard E Walrath

There are about as many, 160,000 "independent contractors" in Iraq as there are troops. 

When they start withdrawing troops, do they withdraw the same number of independent contractors?

Do they get paid out of the defense budget or one of the Bush supplementals, or were they paid out of the billions and billions of unaccounted for dollars since the Bush invasion of Iraq?

By Richard E Walrath

People just can’t get their minds off the war in Iraq. I think they’d like to.  I think they want to. They realize there are many other really pressing problems, but what to do about Iraq? 

I can see a better situation than the one we have now, but not until Bush is out of office and a Democrat, any Democrat, is President. 

Once Bush is no longer the president, I see the landscape changing a great deal.  Instead of having the rest of the world against the United States, many countries will be willing to assist in solving the problems caused by the Bush invasion of Iraq. 

First of all, support for al Qaeda will dry up.  It will become harder and harder for al Qaeda to operate in Iraq. 

Assuming that we escape having a third war added to the situation with Iran, the United Nations and the Security Council will be much more likely to work with the next president, provided it is a Democrat.

By Richard E Walrath

The purpose of the Kyl proposal, of course, is to give Bush some cover if and/or when he attacks Iran which seems more and more likely each day. 

The resolution, in final, form doesn’t says this–the wording that did has been removed.  But if and when an attack on Iran does come, guess what? 

That resolution supported by all who voted except for 22 Democrats will be cited by the Republicans as they point to all the dumb Democrats who voted for it.  Hillary, who voted for it, also voted for the resolution regarding Iraq, and has spent practically every day since trying to explain why. 

Now she had a second chance and muffed this one, too. 

Who didn’t vote for the Kyl-Lieberman proposal? Senators, Biden, Dodd, and Webb.  Remember  the Webb Amendment? That was about getting the troops out of Iraq.  What chances are there of getting the troops out of Iraq after an attack on Iran?

It can’t be very far from now.

By Patricia L Johnson

The September 26, 2007 Senate vote on the amendment (Kyl Amdt. No. 3017 as Modified) to S. Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008) certainly has created a bit of a stir.  This amendment was proposed by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on September 20, 2007 and has five co-sponsors; Sen. Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

A cursory review of independent news media would certainly give the reader the impression this amendment called for nothing less than an immediate war against Iran.  A few headlines follow:

"Stop the Kyl-Lieberman Iran War authorization (up today)"

"Support for Kyl-Lieberman Equals Support for Al Qaeda"

"Lieberman-Kyl Amendment seeks to Escalate Possibility of Military Action Against Iran"

Rather fascinating how they zoomed in on Lieberman, who is only one of five co-sponsors, but as usual independent media articles don’t get as much traction when the real facts are presented.

The amendment was agreed to by a vote of 76-22 with two Senators not voting.  It’s interesting to note both Senators that did not vote are 2008 presidential candidates. 

Looks like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) have paid attention to the game of politics – don’t vote on controversial issues, and you won’t have to explain your actions later.

The first indication I had this amendment may not be calling for War on Iran is the fact my Senator was one of the 76 that voted for it.  For an amendment to be agreed to in the Senate requires a 3/5 majority vote – or 60 votes, yet it received 76 votes.  Is it possible that 78% of the voting Senate thinks war is the solution?

The answer to that question is ‘no’ – this amendment is NOT calling for war on Iran. 

What it is basically doing is making a statement regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.  The amendment is stating it is in the best interest of the United States to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force.

The amendment further states the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps should be designated a foreign terrorist organization and it should be the policy of the U.S. to ‘combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq‘ … using ‘diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military instruments’.

Whether or not the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is operating in Iraq with the knowledge of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not the issue – they are operating inside the borders of Iraq and there is evidence indicating they are responsible for the deaths of at least five U.S. troops.

Just like this country cannot ignore the danger that the outbreak of cholera poses to our troops in Iraq, we also cannot ignore the danger outside forces pose towards our troops.   

Our world is becoming smaller and smaller and just as many of us read the foreign press, foreigners read our publications.  The situation in the middle east is volatile enough.  Above all else, independent news media should not attempt to aggravate the situation by adding fuel to the fire with exaggerated reports.

By Richard E Walrath

As a general rule, economic numbers are inflation adjusted when you see them.  If you are given "raw" numbers and don’t know what the inflation rate is, you don’t know what the increase or decrease is.

If your salary was $10,000 last year, and it’s $10,000 this year, right away you would know you’re not as well off.  But would you know how much worse off you are?

Without an increase in productivity, there is no increase in wages.  There isn’t even an argument about it because there is no way to pay for an increase.  As to how to divide productivity gains, there would be nothing produced at all without labor–not to mention nobody to buy the goods and services produced.  Millions of jobs in the last six years, alone, have been exported overseas.  The minimum wage stayed the same for nearly ten years. 

People in low  paying jobs don’t set their wages.  Those in the highest paid jobs have a lot to say about how much they’re going to be paid. Union membership is now down to 10% or less from a high of 35% thirty years ago.  

Somebody is always coming up with the idea of using robots to replace employees who expect to be paid, want benefits such as health insurance and pensions, and are likely to join unions. 

Henry Ford invented the automobile in 1903 and had the answer to this idea over one hundred years ago.

Who’s going to buy all the automobiles if all we have is robots making them?

By Richard E Walrath

How long ago was it that United Nations inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and the United States had over 100,000 troops stationed in Kuwait all alive and well?

How much would it have cost to keep those troops in Kuwait and the United Nations inspectors in Iraq?

My guess is that we would be about one trillion dollars ahead by this time, not to mention the dead and wounded American soldiers and who knows how many tens of thousands of Iraqi innocent citizens.

Only about 1% of the people in the United States have or know anybody in the war in Iraq. 

That’s not enough to make that much of an impression on the other 99% who are not involved.  This is the first war in history where people were told to go shop rather than sacrifice.

A new article by Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson

"The next time you read or hear those glowing numbers about the economy, just ask yourself these three questions — "

Click the following link to read full article:

http://www.articlesandanswers.com/GDP.html

Richard E Walrath is a freelance writer, former budget analyst and co-owner of the Articles and Answers News and Information sites. You may read more by this author at http://articles2007.spaces.live.com or http://www.articlesandanswers.com/WordPress/ http://articlesandanswers.com

By Richard E Walrath  

Wouldn’t it have been terrible when Rudy was addressing the NRA if he had forgotten the name of his third wife when she called to remind him to take out the garbage when he got home?

That’s too long for a bumper sticker.  Maybe I should send it to MoveOn so that they can make an ad out of it–it would do better than their last one.

General Petraeus–General Betray Us is a throw-a-way line, not something that you solicit money for to run an ad. 

The ad that MoveOn should have run is a picture of Bush hiding behind General Petraeus using a general to front for the failed Bush policy in Iraq. 

What this country needs is action on the failed Bush policy in Iraq, not a debate on an ad by MoveOn which has maybe 3 million members  who could be out on the streets opposing the war where they could really make their presence felt.

By Richard E Walrath

Multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have adversely affected  Army and Marine Corps units – ground forces are burning out and there is both an increase in mental health issues and a decrease in retention rates due to multiple tours of duty.

U.S. Army units have historically had a ratio of 1:2 – one year in theatre, two years out, but circumstances have caused a reduction and Army units are now deployed for 15 months with 12 months at home.  In comparison, British units deployed in Iraq have a 4:1 ratio – six months in Iraq and two years at home.

The Webb-Hagel Dwell Time Amendment, to the National defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, was unable to get the 60 votes needed in order to bring it to the floor, thanks to John the flip-flopper Warner, who earlier voted for it when it was introduced in July, but then voted against it. 

The media did their part by referring to it as giving 15 months "at home" after serving in Iraq.  At home?  No, I don’t think so.  Not in Iraq, but certainly not at home, unless every place seems like home when you’re not in Iraq. 

But I got the impression that this was deliberate–to make people think returning soldiers were going to be able to spend the next 15 months on leave at home.  A soldier gets 30 days a year paid leave.  He can go wherever he wants to, including home.  But the government is not going to be paying soldiers to spend 15 months at home.

Whether the media was deliberately trying to mislead and confuse people, I don’t know.  Then, there’s also the definite possibility that the TV heads and news reporters are just plain ignorant.  It happens all the time.

According to the Webb website

the Amendment states that if a unit or a member of a regular component of the Armed Forces deploys to Iraq or Afghanistan, when their deployment ends they will have at least the same time at home before they are redeployed. No unit or member of a Reserve component, including the National Guard, could be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within three years of their previous deployment.

That sounds very obscure – what’s ‘home’?  Are they going to get paid?  So they’re out of work for 15 months and then they go back into the Army?  What do they do if their enlistment is up during, before or after the 15 months at home – go back and get their discharge?

Obviously if they’re regular Army I don’t think they’re going to send them "home".  What do they do if they get sick?  Are they covered for health insurance?  Do they go to Walter Reed? 

Those are all the questions that should have been answered by the media before the vote.

By Patricia L Johnson

Senator Ken Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget, requested the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, to estimate the potential costs associated with maintaining a long-term military force in Iraq.

The costs were projected using two scenarios – under combat operations and under noncombat operations.  The September 20, 2007 full report may be read at the following link http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8641/09-20-ConradLTpresenceinIraq.pdf

Combat Operations – a force of approximately 55,000 military units and associated personnel would remain in Iraq for various periods of time and then return to permanent bases in the US or overseas.  The assumption would be the troops would operate at the same pace and conduct the same type of missions as currently being performed in Iraq.

• This would result in a one-time cost of $4 to $8 billion dollars and annual costs of approximately $25 billion.

Noncombat Operations – a long-term force of approximately 55,000 would be indefinitely stationed at established bases in Iraq – similar to the forces we have in Korea and Germany.  The assumption would be the troops stationed in Iraq would rarely see combat.

• Up front costs $8 billion (mainly for construction) with annual costs of $10 billion or less.

Is there anyone out there that thinks this isn’t going to happen?  That we aren’t going to have a long term presence in Iraq?  The fact the largest US Embassy in the world is being built in Iraq would lead even the most uninformed American to understand that we never had any intentions of getting out of Iraq.

We’re had troops in Korea since the war was over back in the 1950’s.  That’s five decades ago and bordering on six – how many decades are we going to have troops in Iraq?

You know how to add – start calculating – if we go with the noncombat scenario that’s $8 billion to start, plus $10 billion a year (remember these are only estimates – actual costs will be probably be double or triple) but let’s assume $8 billion a year to start and $10 billion a year for 57 years – the length of time we’ve been in Korea. 

Does this country have $578 billion to spare? 

If we use the figures for combat operations it’s even more disgusting.  We’ll give them a break and use $6 billion for start up costs, and let’s say the non-combat operations end after 5 years and we go to a noncombat mode.  That’s $6 billion for start up, plus $125 billion for the first five years, and $10 billion for the next 47 years for a total of $601 billion dollars, IF the fighting is over in 5 years.

Does a country that is cutting back on most social programs have $601 billion to spare? 

This is your tax dollars – what are you planning on doing about it?

As far as I’m concerned this administration got us into the mess in Iraq, so if a long-term presence is needed, the costs should come right out of the back pockets of Bush, Cheney, and the Bush-Cheney cabinet.  They’re the ones that brainwashed the world into believing the WMD theory, so they’re the ones that should pay.

How many wars do you think would be started if this administration was held personally, financially responsible for any screw ups?  Think maybe they would give some real consideration to the art of negotiation, or do you think they would continue to jump in full speed ahead with eyes open, but unable to see past the end of their noses?

Just because they have tunnel vision does that mean you have to? 

By Richard E Walrath

Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) should talk to each other more often.  Reid came out with his statement about how he was glad Bush was offering up somebody the Senate could confirm. Leahy said, Not so fast–we still have the matter of what Gonzales knows about those nine fired U. S. Attorneys.

By Richard E Walrath

Greenspan may be early in his new book which throws water on the Bush handling of the economy.  But where is the story of how the Bush economy went from a forecast of a surplus "as far as the eye can see" to what will be $4 Trillion added to the National Debt by the end of the Bush terms in office?

Nobody is talking about that.  Greenspan was on 60 Minutes, and he doesn’t come off too well, either.  He says he had no idea how bad things in the subprime housing market were.  He just sort of slides by the Bush tax-cuts, but he maintains to the end that he is a Republican. 

What I’m talking about is not just a handful of words such as, oh, there was 911 and a recession, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They don’t even come close to covering $4 Trillion. 

Where has all the money gone? 

Don’t forget, all this happened when we had such a "wonderful" economy.

The Democrats should be talking about bringing in the Auditors!

It looks to me like Greenspan’s afraid he’s going to get blamed for the coming recession. 

Bernanke hasn’t been there long enough to take a whole lot of blame. 

By Richard E Walrath

Although the $2 billion only represented 4% of its deposit base, thousands of customers withdrawing their savings from UK’s fifth-biggest mortgage lender, Northern Rock, looked like a scene from the Jimmy Stewart movie, "It’s a Wonderful Life".

If depositors knew how little currency banks kept on hand, they’d be worried all the time.  Their money has been loaned out to make more money–that’s what banks do.  As one old man said,  "They’d better not loan out any of mine" and went to get his.

When he found out he could withdraw all he had in his account, he said– "Well, if I can get it, then I don’t want it."

People who are poor know all about not having money. They live their whole lives that way. 

When people who are rich find themselves about to lose a whole lot of money, they panic. They are not happy with the United States for exporting their subprime loans over there.

Let’s see what Bernanke has to offer this coming week.

By Richard E Walrath

If the Democrats can’t pick up a bunch of seats in the senate next year, they never will.  They have states like New Hampshire, Virginia and, I think, Minnesota where they should have winners.  I can’t think of any incumbent Democrats in the senate who are in trouble.

Looks like the problem will be the presidential race and California’s 55 electoral votes.  Under the present system, Democrats would get all 55.  They’ll get less if the system is changed–one less for every district that votes Republican. 

No question about the Republicans wanting to change the way votes are tallied.  They want to share–one of the Democrats votes in the Democrat pile, one of the Democrats votes in the Republican pile.  That’s a big change from putting all the Democrats votes in the Republican pile.

By Richard E Walrath

Bad news for Amurka.  Higher oil prices just in time for the winter heating season.  Adjusted for inflation, oil is still cheap.  A barrel of oil that cost $38 in 1980 would now bring $96 – $101 or more today.  But it’s still on its way up.  China is going to be using more, not less.  I think we’ll see $100 oil before the next year is out.

Adjusted for inflation doesn’t mean much to most people.  They understand that inflation means they pay more, but that’s about all they know. 

By Richard E Walrath

Last night on the news, I switch around a lot, but I think it was MSNBC’s "Tucker" 6:00 p.m. EDT, which is anchored by Tucker Carlson.  He’s dropped the bow tie, wears lots of make-up, parts his hair now, and is as much of a dud as ever.

The crawl was running a line about the on-going discussion regarding immigrants.  The crawl read–

"Do you think that English should be a second language in this country?"

The crawl stayed there, and repeated itself several times and then, finally changed to–

"Do you think that Spanish should be a second language in this country?"

Maybe they got it right the first time.

Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath 

The Associated Press article  U.N.: U.S. workers are world’s most productive [1] was recently published by MSNBC and contains the following comments:

"The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries,"

"The productivity figure is found by dividing the country’s gross domestic product by the number of people employed. The U.N. report is based on 2006 figures…"

AP is stating the productivity figure is found by dividing the country’s gross domestic product [GDP] by the number of people employed.  If you calculate the average U.S. worker productivity rate based on the explanation provided by the Associated Press the numbers don’t jibe.  They don’t even come close. 

Using GDP for 2006 in billions of dollars $13,194.7 [13 trillion] and dividing it by the number of people employed in 2006 – 151,428,000 (81,255,000 men and 70,173,000 women) will not provide anyone with $63,885 in productivity.

$13,194,700,000,000.00 / 151,428,000 = $87,135.14

If you work backwards and take the 2006 GDP figure [13 trillion] and divide by the $63,885 in productivity, it should provide you with the number of people employed – it doesn’t.

$13,194,700,000,000.00 / $63,885.00 = 206,538,311

206.5 million "employed" in the U.S. is no more than wishful thinking.  There are two major problems with the Associated Press productivity article as far as we’re concerned.  One is the $64,000 (rounded) figure for worker productivity.  The other is the number of workers–200 million (rounded)–implied to produce the stated GDP of $13.1 trillion.

All the endless formulas and equations presumably showing how productivity is computed are questionable, to say the least, when they end up showing $64,000 per worker.

The ILO report is an extremely complex document and when the AP writes an article with a statement indicating a formula for determining a specific number, readers should be provided with more than a one sentence definition.  We’re not familiar with the ILO report so we don’t know if the problem is we’re using the wrong figure for GDP, the wrong year for GDP, or the wrong number of employed workers – obviously AP knows what to use otherwise they wouldn’t be writing an article providing a definition. 

So how about it, AP – what is the full story on the ILO productivity calculation?

The United Nations [2] International Labour Organization (ILO) [3] released their report entitled "Key Indicators in the Labour Market – Fifth Edition" on September 3, 2007.  KILM is a major undertaking by the ILO that is published every other year.  The KILM contains a core set of 20 market indicators with KILM 18 focusing on productivity.

The AP article headlines the fact this report indicates U.S. workers are the most productive in the world.  Based on the explanation of rankings indicated in KILM 18, U.S. workers might be better off being last.

"The difference in rankings can be explained by the fact that annual working hours per person employed are considerably higher in the United States than in the majority of European economies; therefore, each US worker is able to produce more, leading to higher labour productivity when measured based on per person employed."

[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/

[2] http://www.un.org/

[3] http://www.ilo.org/

© 2007 Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath are co-owners of Articles and Answers and often join forces to write articles on subjects of interest to both.  For further reading please visit the following site:   http://articles2007.spaces.live.com

By Patricia L Johnson

Recession definitions (and fears) are running amuck. 

Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © 2007 Microsoft Corporation.

1. decline in economic activity: a period, shorter than a depression, during which there is a decline in economic trade and prosperity

Econterms

"Definition: A recession is defined to be a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth.

Thus: a recession is a national or world event, by definition. And statistical aberrations or one-time events can almost never create a recession; e.g. if there were to be movement of economic activity (measured or real) around Jan 1, 2000, it could create the appearance of only one quarter of negative growth. For a recession to occur the real economy must decline."

New York Times

"A recession is typically defined as an extended period in which the economy shrinks, leading to a rise in unemployment and a drop in consumer spending and business investment."

Is there a recession in our immediate future? 

We probably won’t know for sure until the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the  National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) issues a statement. NBER is considered the official agency for the measurement of business cycles in the U.S. and they make the determination on when a contraction (recession) officially begins and ends.  "Contractions (recessions) start at the peak of a business cycle and end at the trough."  The NBER definition for recession (contraction) is:

“a period of significant decline in total output, income, employment, and trade, usually lasting from six months to a year, and marked by widespread contractions in many sectors of the economy.”

NBER further states:

"The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP.  Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."

Although the press often defines a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in GDP, the two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP is not used by NBER due to the fact that not all recessions identified by them have consisted of two quarters – most have, but not all.

Just like you have good days and bad days, our economy has good days and bad days as part of the normal business cycle.  Unfortunately, the 249 point drop the DJIA took on September 7, 2007 is a rather dramatic showing, but the financial markets are unusually skittish right now over the effects of the subprime mortgage failures and tighter credit policies, so we’re probably going to have many market ups and downs over the next year. 

The employment report released Friday indicating a loss of 4,000 jobs in August and downward revisions for both June and July sent the DJIA spiraling, but as bad as the employment numbers are, they still only represent a period of three months, or one quarter.

Following are statements made by the NBER on the most recent peaks and troughs in our economy. 

The November 2001 trough was announced July 17, 2003.
The March 2001 peak was announced November 26, 2001.
The March 1991 trough was announced December 22, 1992.
The July 1990 peak was announced April 25, 1991.
The November 1982 trough was announced July 8, 1983.
The July 1981 peak was announced January 6, 1982.
The July 1980 trough was announced July 8, 1981.
The January 1980 peak was announced June 3, 1980.

An AP article indicates Steve Forbes urged the Federal Reserve to lower their fed funds rate from 5.25 to 4.25, while Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank president Charles Plosser stated a cut may not be necessary.  When the FOMC meets there certainly won’t be any shortage of opinions on whether or not the rate should be decreased.

Should the Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC vote for a federal funds rate decrease when it meets on September 18, 2007, it will be the first decrease in the fed funds rate since June 25, 2003 when the rate was cut 1/4 point from 1.25 to 1.00.

Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Ben Bernanke, is a former member of the Business Cycle Dating Committee of NBER so chances are, whatever decision is made by the FOMC will be the right choice.

© 2007 Patricia L Johnson

By Richard E Walrath

Hind-sight is a wonderful thing.  It looks like the Fed has fallen behind the curve.  Look for a rate cut very soon–maybe even before they meet on September 18. 

The jobs report is bad enough to give them cover for a cut. It looks like a recession is on the way.  Dow down 250 points on Friday.

The sixth anniversary of 911 comes on a Tuesday this year, same as the original event.  That may affect when Bernanke
makes the rate cut. 

What he doesn’t want to do is cut Monday and see the market go down another 250 points.  My guess is that he doesn’t announce the cut on Monday.

By Patricia L Johnson

We’ve all heard the disappointing news by now – instead of adding jobs in the month of August, the preliminary numbers are in and total Nonfarm payroll employment dropped by 4,000, from 138,041,000 to 138,037,000.

That, in itself, is pretty serious, but when you add the fact that June and July employment numbers have been revised to 69,000 and 68,000, respectively – the three months, June, July and August average an addition of only 44,000 jobs per month. 

Makes you wonder where it’s all going, especially since 46,000 more manufacturing jobs were lost in August.  Over the past year manufacturing has lost a total of 215,000 jobs.

The number of persons ‘Not in the Labor Force" for August is almost 1.4 million – which includes 392,000 "discouraged" workers.  A discouraged worker is a person who did not bother to look for work because they felt no jobs were available for them.  These 1.4 million people are ‘marginally attached’ to the labor force, which basically means they’re unemployed, but not counted as unemployed.

If you don’t count the unemployed as "unemployed" does that make them any less "unemployed"?

By Richard E Walrath

It’s beginning to look like Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) is going to make as much trouble for the Republicans as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has for the Democrats. 

I don’t think Larry Craig is going anywhere and the Larry Craig story is just not going to go away.  His job pays a nice salary and all he has to do is show up for work.  That story is going to be around for some time to haunt the Republicans.  The Republicans may wish they hadn’t been so quick to dump him.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) is concerned because it hurts the "family values" position of the party.

Disorderly conduct was the charge.  On a scale of 1 to 10, that’s barely a one, and he’s already paid the fine.  The Senate Ethics Committee would have a terribly hard job evicting Larry Craig on that charge.  If he decides to stay, there’s not much they can do about it.

By Richard E Walrath

The Center for Retirement Research (CRR) recently concluded, based on results from the National Retirement Risk Index (NRRI) “nearly 45 percent of Americans will be ‘at risk’ of being unable to maintain their standard of living in retirement.”  

Somebody comes up with this same article, slightly different title, every few weeks or so.  But they all say the same things–about half of the people will have "enough" for their retirement, and about half won’t. 

Is that a crisis? 

Not for those who will have enough for their retirement.

In a way, it reminds me of the man who applied for a job as usher for a theatre.

He was asked, “What would you do in case of a fire”?

“Don’t worry about me,” he said.  “I’ll get out all right.”

The other half of this story is that you keep hearing about the coming shortage of labor in the future in this country.

If half of the people aren’t going to have "enough" to retire on, guess what?  They are going to have to work. 

The real question is where are they all going to find jobs?

By Richard E Walrath

January 5, 2008 is the new date for the Wyoming Republican party conventions – just 10 days prior to the new proposed date for Michigan’s primary – January 15, 2008.

State law requires New Hampshire to hold their primary at least one week before any other primary and Iowa state law requires Iowa to be the first in the nation to have any type of voting so the states will be lining up behind Iowa, but in what order is yet to be determined.

The WSJ calls this leapfrogging, but it seems to me it’s more like backing up.

A national primary would be the obvious solution, but I think the party officials like to think they can maintain better control by not having a national primary. 

The way it is, not very many people vote in the primaries.  People in large numbers do strange things.  Every now and then, there is a surprise in who gets the Democratic nomination, but I can’t think of any surprises for the Republicans.

There’s something ironic here, or maybe it’s poetic justice.  Bush got into office with an election that dragged on into December 2000. 

It’s beginning to look like the 2008 election will be backed up into December 2007.

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

Do robberies increase just before a recession?  Can you predict a recession by tracking the number of robberies?  Is there a correlation between the unemployment rate and the number of robberies? 

We don’t know the answers to the above questions, but we know 2006 was a good year for bank robbers and a bad year for banks.

FBI records indicate total violations came in at 7,272 or 19.92 incidents per day.  Looks like the numbers have increased ever so slightly from the days of Bonnie and Clyde.

The total violations against Commercial Banks, Mutual Savings Banks, Savings and Loan Associations, Credit Unions and Armored Carrier Companies consist of the following:

6,985 – Robberies – theft of property or money through physical force or fear.  

   209 – Burglaries – no use of force – generally no victim is present.

     78 – Larcenies – taking anything of value without consent of owner.

Of the $72.6 million in loot (cash, checks and other property) stolen in 2006 only $11.2 million has been recovered by law enforcement officials. 

More bank robberies are committed between 9 and 11 a.m. on Tuesday morning (1,901) than at any other time, with the Branch Office’s of Financial Institutions hit more often than any other facilities (6,767).  The location of the Financial Institution is generally in the Commercial District (5,046) of a Metropolitan City (3,703).

Most of our bank robbers seem to be more interested in getting money than causing harm as only 329 acts of violence were committed during the 7,272 incidents, with a total of 129 injuries.

Did anyone ever conduct interviews of apprehended robbers to ask them why they were holding up banks?

Willie Sutton, when asked this question, said, "Because that’s where the money is."

By Richard E Walrath

I want to get gas–that’s why I go to the gas station. 

All I want to do is walk in, hand the clerk my card, and go out and fill up.  When I’m done, I want to go back in and sign for the gas.  Then go back to my car and drive away.  If I can’t do that, I don’t buy gas there, anymore.

Since I can’t do that at my regular station,  I changed gas stations.  I’m now going to the one across the street from the XYZ station. 

The idiots at XYZ insist that you use your credit card at the pump.  You can’t just hand it to the cashier at the register and go pump your gas.  Speedway, on the other hand, wants you to come in–you just might buy something while you’re there.

I wonder why businesses do that?  It makes no sense at all.  In the winter, who wants to fumble around for a credit card and go through punching in the numbers and waiting for the card to go through?

Too bad for XYZ.  I used my XYZ card to buy gas at Speedway, and they still gave me the discount–more than XYZ is giving. 

Now I have a Speedway card good at any and all Speedway stations.  Best time to buy gas is at breakfast time–sandwiches just $1.67.  A steal!

I thought that if XYZ was at all interested they might contact me when they find a charge on my XYZ credit card for Speedway gas. 

If not, fine and dandy.  XYZ doesn’t offer breakfast sandwiches, anyway.

p.s.  Don’t forget – Monday is the best day for a fill-up.  Stations start raising their prices after Monday and hit their high on Friday, just in time for the busiest day of the week when a lot of people get paid and buy their gas.

By Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson

"The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.77 in 2006 was not statistically different from the 2005 ratio…"

That is a direct quote from the recent "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006"  released by the U.S. Census Bureau in August of 2007. [1]

In this day and age, why would any person be willing to earn .23 cents less on a dollar just because they are a female?  Are you satisfied earning .77 cents for every dollar the guy in the next chair is making?

Do you sit there and file your nails all day long, or do you put as much effort into your job as anyone else?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an “unlawful employment practice” to discriminate “against any individual with respect to compensation..." [2]

Are you doing the same job and being paid less than your male counterpart?  If so, you have the right to file a claim with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC), but remember there is a 180-300 day statute of limitations on filing a claim, depending upon the state.

Lilly Ledbetter found out about the statute of limitations the hard way by losing her discrimination case against Goodyear Tire and Rubber.  After winding its way through the lower courts, Ledbetter’s case went to the U.S. Supreme Court for a ruling, where the following question was posed:

Whether and under what circumstances a plaintiff may bring an action under Title  VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging illegal pay discrimination when the disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period.

The Supreme Court came back with a 5-4 ruling against Ledbetter in case 05-1074 LEDBETTER v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., INC. and the following excerpt reminds us why time limitations are so important. [3]

"Ledbetter should have filed an EEOC charge within 180 days after each allegedly discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated to her. She did not do so,"

Some people just like to keep their jobs, especially since there’s a probation period in many of them and they are reluctant to make waves for fear of being being fired.  Your first step should always be to discuss your complaint with your employer – there may be a legitimate reason for the rate disparity. 

Whether you are an hourly employee or a salaried employee, you have the same rights when it comes to wage discrimination in the workplace, but the EEOC isn’t going to come seek you out, you must contact them to pursue your claim.

The 180-300 day limit allowed to file a claim is a very short period of time, especially if you are a new employee on the job, but how long does it take to make a phone call to the EEOC for an opinion? 

Maybe there should not be inequality in the workplace, but it’s there all right, and, as you can see from the statistics, it’s not going to go away any time soon.  A lower rate of pay for doing the exact same job is discrimination – know your rights and fight for them.

As more women inch their way up into the executive ranks and are able to hire more women, the inequality will gradually diminish.

If Hillary makes it to the top, it might help women’s pay a lot.  If she doesn’t, it’s up to you – fight for your rights Ladies!

[1] U.S. Census Bureau [2] Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [3] U.S. Supreme Court

By Richard E Walrath

Keith Olbermann, MSNBC Countdown, did a reenactment on his newscast last night about Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) using the MN police report as the basis. 

I think the Republicans have got it all together now.  They can say, "Vote for Us in ’08 now that we’ve cleaned both the House and the Senate".  They may need to shorten that up a little.

It seems like it would be awfully hard for the Republicans to use smut on any of the Dems with the dozens of cases they now have against them.  It’s almost like they’re trying to get everything out this year–still four more months to go.

Romney is probably the best they’ve got, but I don’t think he can beat Hillary.  He’s flip-flopped so many times times it’s hard to keep track.  You can be sure Democratic campaigns keep track.

If they go after Hillary it won’t be another Swift-boat Kerry operation.  Clinton is going to have all the money in the world on hand and ready to use–more than enough to help the public remember every day of the Bush years and just who it was that helped make his presidency the worst in the history of this country.

By Richard E Walrath

Prices are too high–if they were about half as much on everything or I had twice as much money, that would be just about right.  I’m sure most people feel the same way.

By Richard E Walrath

United States now ranks 42nd in life expectancy–I hope they move up pretty soon.  I don’t have that many years left to wait.

45 million without health insurance, and the myth that the United States health care is the best in the world. 

Part of the reason this country’s health system is not the best is not providing health care to 45 million people.  We’re hearing almost every day now about another disease that has entered the country.

When there are as many as 45 million without health insurance and/or health care, epidemics are much more likely to occur.

If the United States had the best health care system in the world, there would not be 45 million people without health care and/or health insurance.

Private insurance companies are going all out trying to sign up the uninsured.  The policies are close to worthless–$10 a week to insure your whole family–but wait until you try filing a claim.

By Richard E Walrath

As far as I can see, there’s been a big hub-bub about increasing liquidity to relieve the pressure on creditors. 

The ones who are really in dire straits and need the help are the debtors–the ones who are going to lose their homes in the next year, in some cases these people should never have been home owners in the first place.

The creditors are big enough and rich enough to take care of themselves.  If they over-extended themselves by investing in subprime mortgages, bailing them out will just en courage them to do more of the same the next time.  

In the meantime, the economy is ready to go into the tank, and the loss of a million homes dumped onto the already anemic housing market should do the trick.  I don’t see any likelihood that help is on the way for these million homeowners. 

A proposal from Bush for another tax-cut for the rich and Big Bidness is much more likely.

By Richard E Walrath

David Cay Johnston’s August 21, 2007 New York Times article 2005 Incomes, on Average, Still Below 2000 Peak talks about "average" incomes which in 2005 were below 2000 peak.

Average?  That’s not the half of it!  As the story goes, Bill Gates can walk into a room, and the "average" income skyrockets.  But that doesn’t make anybody in the room so much as even a dime richer.

Jump over to page 8, and you can finally find the statement that "nearly half of Americans reported incomes of less than $30,000, and two-thirds make less than $50,000."

The median household income, which is not mentioned in this article, remains stuck around $44,000 and includes income of those living in same household.

Where did all those infamous Bush tax-cuts go? Incredibly, 28% of the investment tax-cut savings went to just 11,433 of the 134 million taxpayers!  This is the group who made $10 million or more, saving them almost $1.9 million each, says Johnston.

Feeding the horse more oats, doesn’t do the sparrows much good.  Trickle down economics just doesn’t work, according to Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens  for Tax Justice, as quoted by Johnston. 

By Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson

New Residential Sales for month of June 2007 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 834,000 [22.3 percent below the June 2006 estimate of 1,073.00] while preliminary estimates of Existing Home Sales for June 2007 indicated sales of 5.75 million, [11.4 percent below the June 2006 seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.49 million]  July figures will be released in a few days.

Job creation and new homes generally have a positive correlation, as do marriages in the same year.  What we have seen during the Bush years is a relatively low number of jobs created.  NBC’s Deputy Political Director, Mark Murray indicates 23 million jobs were created under the Clinton administration while only a net of 5.6 million jobs have been created during the Bush years.

"During the eight years of the Clinton Administration — which, by the way, raised taxes — about 23 million jobs were created, which comes out to about 240,000 jobs per month. By comparison, only a net of 5.6 million jobs have been created during the Bush years, which comes out to about 71,000 per month. Even taking away the job losses caused by a recession and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush years come up short: In the 47 consecutive months of job growth since the fall of 2003, the per-month average has been about 177,000 jobs."

That, along with the over-building of homes, has created the mess we’re in now.  The houses aren’t going to go away no matter how much money they pump into the economy.

By Richard E. Walrath

Yes, that is right–two in the state of MO. The only state out of 50 that has not one but two Federal Reserve Banks.

Back in 1913, Missouri was considered to be a really up and coming state. It was in the heart of the country with agricultural and business industries, large cities, growing population, and the wide Mississippi all in its favor.

As near as I can tell, they couldn’t decide which city to pick–Kansas City or St. Louis. So they did the only logical thing–they picked both.

But, that’s not what happened. The Federal Reserve Act left the actual districting to the Reserve Bank Organization Committee, consisting of the Secretary of the Treasury, William McAdoo, Secretary of Agriculture, David F. Houston, and Comptroller of the Currency, John Skelton Williams.

The three left on a trip that took them to 18 cities for interviews resulting in 5,000 pages of testimony on preferred location of district cities and boundaries.

In the meanwhile, 7,471 ballots were sent out by the Treasury Department to national chartered banks in an effort to determine their preferences. The ballots allowed for first, second and third choice.

When the dust settled, the testimony reviewed and the ballots counted, Missouri ended up with two Federal Reserve Banks.  Kansas City, MO in District 10 and St. Louis, MO in District 8.

Source:  Federal Reserve

By Patricia L Johnson

Click on the following link to read a primer on the Federal Reserve [Banking] System of the United States of America.

http://www.ArticlesandAnswers.com/The%20Big%20Pig.htm

By Patricia L Johnson

2,245,189 is the number of prisoners in Federal, State or local jails on June 30, 2006 – an estimate of 497 inmates for every 100,000 U.S. residents.

How many do you think would be willing to serve their time in our military rather than in a jail cell?  My guess would be at least 50%, which would  coincide with the approximate number of offenders that are incarcerated for a non-violent offense [according to 2003 estimates of sentenced state inmates]

Once again, our military has met their recruiting goal for the month of July 2007 with a combination of change in age and education restrictions and monetary incentives:

Our total recruitment goals, if consistent with July, are approximately 21,000/month or an estimated total of 250,000 per year.  Our prison population increased 2.8% from mid-2005 through June 2006, so if you use that same percentage as an increase from June 2006 through June 2007, we would have an additional 62,865 inmates or a total of 2,308,054 persons incarcerated.

If just 10% of that prison population would opt to join the military rather than sit behind bars that would give us 231,000 ‘new recruits’ – or roughly 92% of our yearly requirements.

Would one out of every 10 inmates choose to join the military over a life behind bars?  My guess is they would jump at the opportunity.

The average annual cost in fiscal year 2006 for incarcerating a prisoner in a federal prison is $24,440.

What happens when we sweeten the pot?  What if the 10% of prisoners that opted to join the military were offered a $50,000 bonus upon return to the U.S. after serving two years in the military?  The cost to U.S. taxpayers would be nominal because we would no longer be paying incarceration costs and that money could go towards the bonus payment.

Our pot of ‘volunteer’ soldiers is rapidly drying up and unless there are some major changes put into place in the near future, this country will have to give serious consideration to reinstating the draft, since the new war advisor to President Bush is already looking at the possibility.  There are enough people in this country against the number of casualties we are incurring in the Middle East – the outrage will be deafening if there is a draft.

I think my plan provides a reasonable solution – what do you think?

Two US Army (USA) Military Police (MP) escort a detainee, dressed in his new orange jumpsuit to a cell at Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay Navy Base, Cuba. Camp X-Ray is the holding facility for detainees held at the US Navy (USN) Base during Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.

By Patricia L Johnson

Rocky and Crisco – they’re the two little guys that rule the roost – if you don’t believe me come over some time when they want a dog biscuit.  Or wait – you don’t even have to come over, you can hear Rocky barking from miles away.

One dog, Rocky, was brought home by our son Chris – he’s a Dobie and has been in control of the house, trees, and every blade of grass in the yard for the past 8 years.  Crisco, was brought home by my husband Mike -Crisco’s a mixture of Spot the Dog, and sugar and spice and everything nice – he is a wonderful 7- year old that never barks and it doesn’t get any better than that.  If he really wants something he lets Rocky do his bidding.  There’s nothing more impressive than a 125# big-mouth Dobie wanting something.

We have a 12 x 12 pen for the dogs, but I have a problem with it.  I don’t like the dogs to be ‘ penned up’ – They should  be able to roam around the yard and chase squirrels, rabbits, birds, each other, fireflies and butterflies or just lie out on the deck catching rays of sunshine.

When Crisco came we put in an electric fence which worked really well until Crisco lost his collar.  Somehow shelling out another $125 dollars so a little doggie could get an electric shock when he was naughty didn’t strike me as the right thing to do so we got rid of both collars and taught them to stay in the yard.  Not nearly as difficult as teaching them to wipe their feet on the rug after they come in from the rain or snow.

So it all works – they have their freedom and except for an occasional infraction of the rules, they pretty much stay inside the invisible lines.

Whenever I read about our Guantanamo Bay, Cuba prisoners, I inevitably compare their loss of freedom to that of the dogs being caged in their pen and my heart just absolutely breaks for these people.  I cannot imagine anything worse than being kept in prison for imaginary crimes.

What this country did to these people is absolutely criminal – to take away their freedoms and lock them in a prison thousands of miles from their home and family is almost unbelievable, except we did it, over and over and over again.

Since 2002 we have released 420 detainees, while 355 continue to be held.  On August 9, 2007 we transferred six more detainees – five were transferred to Afghanistan and one was transferred to Bahrain.  80 of the 355 now held, have also been determined to be eligible for transfer or release.

These people – have been held without access to legal representation for sometimes years and years on end.  Because they are considered by this government as "enemy combatants" instead of prisoners of war, they are not normally afforded the opportunities to speak to organizations checking into the health and well-being of ‘prisoners of war’.

They are simply held in pens, undoubtedly with much to say, but no one to listen to their barking.  The shame these people suffer is on the hands of every American in this country.

"The books that the world calls immoral are books that show the world its own shame." ~ Oscar Wilde

By Patricia L Johnson       

Are you registered to vote?  The first step in the voting process is registration for new voters, and reporting name or address changes for existing voters.  If you’ve moved or changed your name, notify your county Board of Elections.

If you are a U.S. citizen and have an address within the United States you may print out an online registration form to fill out and mail, with three exceptions:

North Dakota does not have voter registration.

Wyoming law doesn’t permit registration by mail.

New Hampshire has their own absentee voter mail-in registration form.

The online form requires the following information to be completed:

• Name
• Home Address
• Mailing Address ( the home address and mailing address are usually the same although some people use post office boxes for their mail)
• Date of Birth
• Telephone Number
• ID Number (generally your drivers license number or social security number – see specific instructions for item 6 for your state).
• Choice of party – Some states require you to list your party preference (Democrat, Republican, or Independent)
• Race of Ethnic Group – some states require this information for the Federal Voting Rights Act – see instructions under item 8 for specifics for your state.
• Signature

The form requests you to read the instructions for your state and instructions for each state, plus the District of Columbia are listed – ALL are different, so please be sure to read the requirements for your specific state.  We’ll use Florida as an example:

Florida
Updated: 09-12-06
Registration Deadline — 29 days before the election.

6. ID Number. If you have one, you must provide your Florida driver’s license number or Florida identification card number. If you do not have a Florida driver’s license or identification card, you must provide the last four digits of your social security number.

7. Choice of Party. You must register with a party if you want to take part in that party’s primary election, caucus, or convention.

8. Race or Ethnic Group. You are requested to fill in this box. See the list of choices under the Application Instructions for Box 8 (on page 2).

9. Signature. To register in Florida you must:

• be a citizen of the United States
• be a legal resident of both the State of Florida and of the county in which you seek to be registered
• be 18 years old (you may preregister if you are 17)
• not now be adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting in Florida or any other State
• not have been convicted of a felony without your civil rights having been restored pursuant to law
• not claim the right to vote in another county or state
• swear or affirm the following:
“I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida, that I am qualified to register as an elector under the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida, and that I am a citizen of the United States and a legal resident of Florida”

Mailing address:
State of Florida
Department of State
Division of Elections
The R.A. Gray Building
500 South Bronough St, Rm 316
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Once your application is completed and signed you simply mail it to the address indicated for YOUR state, or hand deliver.  If your application is accepted (you’ve filled in all required information and signed),  a voter registration card will be sent to you by return mail.

Most states require registration 30 days prior to an election, so please mail your application in as soon as possible so you are not shut-out.

The online registration form is in PDF format.  Download the following PDF reader if you do not have one installed.  Adobe Reader

By Patricia L Johnson

Just finished reading an article on the Ohio 2004 election where the writers use the following words to describe the loss of unused ballots; stolen, criminal, fraudulent, absurd and pathetic.

The article babbles on about ballot destruction – yet contains the following sentence: 

Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, has publicly stated she sees "no evidence" of intentional destruction in the disappearance in more than 60% of the state’s counties of the ballots from the 2004 presidential election.

Let me clean my glasses and read that sentence again "Democratic Secretary of State" sees ‘no evidence of intentional destruction’.

That’s enough for me to read.  If there is anyone anywhere that is going to find fault with the 2004 election it would be a Democrat, the fact that she is Secretary of State provides her with the materials necessary to publicly comment on whether the destruction of the ballots was intentional or just another mistake by untrained poll workers.

The average Jane/Joe will look at the article and immediately make the assumption that the missing ‘unused’ ballots  creating the stir, are not really unused ballots.  They will undoubtedly think these ballots had votes for John Kerry and were intentionally destroyed so an accurate recount could not occur.  [Shhhh….don’t tell anyone, but these are the same people that want paper ballots back for the 2008 election].

The missing key in the article is any mention of the fact that, more than likely, it is a proven fact that the ballots were in fact ‘unused’.

I’m a former election judge so I’ll give you a little history on how it is done in my state. 

Let’s begin with the basics – No matter how small there are at least two election judges in a precinct, one from each major political party.  If you have a small precinct you could conceivably just have two judges.

Larger precincts have more judges.  The precinct I worked  had 10 or 12 judges, five or six from each party,   Each election judge has exactly the same amount of power as the next judge, with the exception of ballot box judges.  In other words whether you have been an election judge for 30 years or for 30 minutes, you have as much power as the next guy/gal. 

Rule number one – there is nothing more sacred than a ballot and every ballot will be counted.  If your precinct gets 10,000 ballots no one leaves the precinct after the election until each and every one of the 10,000 ballots is counted.

Your ballots are counted as follows:

Voted ballots

Destroyed ballots (sometimes a voter needs a second ballot due to making any number of errors)

Unused ballots

Absentee ballots  [A voter has the option of coming into a precinct and casting their vote in person on election day, which is why absentee ballots are not counted in advance].

The count must add to the number of ballots issued to your precinct.

Once the final count is complete – each and every precinct judge signs off on the count and this page, with signatures, becomes an integral part of the election results.

All election materials are then placed in containers, and each and every election judge initials the seal placed on the containers.

The only thing pathetic about the 2004 election and future elections will be the failure of the American voting public to pay attention to what is going on around them.  The 2004 election wasn’t lost in Ohio due to failure to locate ‘unused ballots’, it was lost due to rewriting the precinct boundaries, which is a trick the Republican party will continue to do in every state in the union as long as voters are busy reading trash about stolen elections.  The 2004 election wasn’t stolen – it was handed to the Republicans on a silver platter by YOU.

Election 2008 – 001 is the first in a series of articles regarding the 2008 election, electronic voting machines, and election procedures.