Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, September 25, 2013


You can either have a drink...

...or a snack.

You can't have both.

Those were a father's words to his young daughter once upon a time in a magical land called Sesame Place.

That father was yours truly! This father only wishes that such real word economics were taught to our best and brightest at Ivy League Universities and that such real world restraint was practiced by our nation's politicians!

Kim was little. I'm thinking it was the summer between her first and second grade elementary schooling. We had taken her to Sesame Place for the weekend, and by the end of our last day our trip budget was right up against the wall. If memory serves we had something like $6 and change left. That works out to $2 and change per person. 

Credit cards? (Haven't I ever heard of them?!) Yep. Mary and I have credit cards now and  we had credit cards then. But we had a budget! And we meant to stick to it! And we did...!!!

Kim understood. the simple concept as a 6 year old in 1993. Why can't President Obama, Speaker Boehner, House Minority Leader Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, Senate Minority Leader McConnell and all the rest of the clowns in Washington and in various state capitals and city halls throughout the nation understand this simple concept?


6 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/09/25/postal-service-wants-to-hike-stamps-to-49-cents/2868401/

The Postal Service posted a $15.9 billion net loss last fiscal year and expects to record a loss of $6 billion in the current fiscal year, due largely to pre-funding payments for retiree health benefits.

* TWO QUESTIONS: 1) WITHOUT PRE-FUNDING HOW WOULD RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS BE FUNDED? 2) PUTTING ASIDE THE PRE-FUNDING PAYMENTS, WHAT WOULD THE LOSSES TOTAL - JUST OPERATING LOSSES?

* AND NOW... LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE STORY...

First-class postage stamps could rise to 49 cents starting in 2014 under a Wednesday proposal by the cash-strapped U.S. Postal Service.

* UH-HUH...

The increase would raise about $2 billion in additional revenue a year.

* WHICH WOULD STILL LEAVE RED INK AT WHAT... AT LEAST $4 BILLION NEXT YEAR? (ASSUMING THIS YEAR'S ESTIMATED $6 BILLION IN RED INK TRANSLATES TO AT LEAST THE SAME $6 BILLION NEXT YEAR.)

Under the plan, first-class mail postage would rise 3 cents, or 6.5%. Pricing for other mail, including postcards and packages, would also rise on Jan. 26.

"Of the options currently available to the Postal Service to align costs and revenue, increasing postage prices is a last resort that reflects extreme financial challenges," Board of Governors Chairman Mickey Barnett said.

* AND WOULD A 6.5% PRICE INCREASE THEORETICALLY LEAD TO A PROFIT FOR NEXT YEAR... OR FURTHER RED INK REGARDLESS? (SEE THE ABOVE MATH CHALLENGE.)

The rate hike will require approval from the Postal Regulatory Commission because under federal law, rates cannot be raised over the rate of inflation, currently about 2%.

(*SNORT*)

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement that the rate hike was only a near-term solution. "Today's rate increase is a desperate cry for help from an insolvent Postal Service. Revenue and volume are down dramatically and our mail delivery service, hamstrung by congressional mandates and onerous labor contracts, has been unable to sufficiently reduce costs." "This rate hike and the ones sure to follow will only push more and more private sector customers to stop using the mail altogether,'' Issa said. "The rate increase poses a direct threat to the 8 million private-sector jobs that are part of the mailing industry as businesses shift from paper-based to electronic communication and mailers are priced out of business."

* SO IN OTHER WORDS... THE PROPOSED PRICE INCREASE ISN'T EVEN A NEAR-TERM SOLUTION! (IT'LL ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS WORSE!)

Mary Berner, president of the Association of Magazine Media industry trade group, said higher postage rates are a stop-gap solution that would clip member's profits and accelerate the Postal Service's losses. "No private company would increase prices when sales are already plummeting,'' Berner said. "(This) will cause significant declines in mail volume and further job losses across the industry without addressing the USPS' core issues. The consequences of this decision will be felt by the entire mailing industry, the Postal Service, and consumers."

* AGAIN... IN OTHER WORDS THE PROPOSED PRICE INCREASE ISN'T EVEN A NEAR-TERM SOLUTION! (IT'LL ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS WORSE! FOR EVERYONE!)

Recently, the Postal Service proposed other cost-saving measures, including ending door-to-door delivery for millions of consumers.

* FOLKS... CONGRESS SHOULD SIMPLY LET THE POST OFFICE TRY AND SOLVE ITS OWN PROBLEMS WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE OR ELSE...

(*PAUSE*)

* THERE IS NO "OR ELSE."

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER...

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/09/24/obama-at-united-nations-the-world-is-safer-or-it-isnt/

President Obama [yesterday] morning laid out a foreign policy road map for the remainder of his presidency. However, his audience at the United Nations General Assembly might be excused for finding it confusing.

In Obama’s speech, assertions were followed by contradictions, and top priorities were undermined by caveats.

Under leadership such as this, the global standing of the United States has steadily declined over the past four years and remains on a trajectory that shows no sign of slowing down.

President Obama began by illustrating the weakness in his own foreign and defense policy — that it is based on the misconception that “the world is safer than it was five years ago,” as he put it.

The President boasted that the United States has shifted its defense posture away from “permanent war,” drawn home troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, worked toward the closing of Guantanamo, reduced the number of drone strikes, and tightened intelligence gathering.

* AFGHANISTAN...??? HE DARES BRING UP AFGHANISTAN...??? 73% OF U.S. CASUALTIES IN AFGHANISTAN HAVE OCCURRED UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH. NOT SURE HOW MONETARY EXPENDITURES SHAKE OUT. AND THE OUTCOME OF OBAMA'S SURGE... OBAMA'S WAR...? WELL... LET ME THROW THE QUESTION OUT: DOES ANYONE BELIEVE HISTORY WILL SHOW AFGHANISTAN TO BE A U.S. VICTORY... A U.S. SUCCESS?

* IRAQ...??? ONLY TIME WILL TELL IF BUSH'S SURGE WAS TRULY A GAME WINNER... BUT IF NOT, THE FAULT RESIDES WITH BUSH. ON THE OTHER HAND... IF IRAQ DOESN'T FALL APART UNTIL AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE... OBAMA WILL CLAIM BUSH'S VICTORY AS HIS OWN.

(*SHRUG*)

* NOTICE OBAMA DOESN'T MENTION LIBYA... NOR YEMEN... NOR SUDAN... (NOTHING ABOUT PIRACY RETURNING TO THE HIGH SEAS DURING THE AGE OF OBAMA!)

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Yet, as Obama acknowledged in his next breath, the world is actually not safer.

The past few days have seen horrendous acts of religious violence. The standoff between terrorists and military in Nairobi’s Westgate shopping center is still ongoing, with a death count of at least 72 and likely many more.

In Pakistan, churches were targeted by suicide bombers, which killed 81 Christian worshippers.

Al-Qaeda has not disappeared but splintered into networks such as the Somalia-based al-Shabaab, and the Middle East continues to be gripped by deep convulsions.

* ALL HAIL PAX OBAMA!

On Syria, the President, whose policy has been passive and weak, castigated the international community for its lack of response to the use of chemical weapons, an issue that has just recently popped up on the front burner at the White House itself.

* BUT... BUT... BUT... I THOUGHT OBAMA BELIEVED THAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY KNOWS BEST?

President Obama then defended working with Russia to diffuse the chemical weapons issue, basically allowing Syria’s ally Russia to grab leadership in the Middle East from the United States. “There is no great game to be won,” Obama said. “This is not a zero sum endeavor. We’re no longer in a cold war.” This is clearly not true from the Russian or Syrian perspective.

* IN ENGLISH: PUTIN'S COMPETENT; OBAMA'S INCOMPETENT.

(*SHRUG*)

Obama then proceeded to lay out three core principles of the United States in the Middle East, not bad ones if you can believe them: Willingness to use all elements of power, including the military, to defend U.S. interests in the region, which also means energy supplies; Working with allies to defeat terrorist networks; and Refusing to tolerate weapons of mass destruction, be they chemical or nuclear weapons.

* ER... DON'T WE HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...??? DON'T OUR ALLIES - BRITAIN... FRANCE... ISRAEL...?

(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)

And he added two top priorities for the remainder of his presidential term: Dealing with Iran’s nuclear weapons while at the same time allowing Iran the right to a peaceful “nuclear program”; and Resolving the Palestinian–Israeli conflict. (Both of these priorities are unlikely to be within Obama’s grasp, having defied several previous Presidents.)

* SCREW THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT; LET THE PLAYERS SORT IT OUT.

William R. Barker said...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101062461

Thanks to the Fed, the interest rate paid on our national debt is at an historic low of 2.4%, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

* WHICH IS "GOOD" ONLY IF YOU HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF DEBT AND/OR PLAN ON TAKING ON A LARGE AMOUNT OF DEBT.

* HEY... DOESN'T OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULDER A LARGE AMOUNT OF DEBT... OR RATHER... DON'T WE THE TAXPAYERS SHOULDER THAT DEBT WHICH SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS HAVE GENERATED?

[W]hat [would] the interest cost of our debt would be if interest rates returned to a more normal level?

(What's a normal level? How about the average interest rate the Treasury paid on U.S. debt over the last 20 years?)

That rate is 5.7%, not extravagantly high at all by historic standards.

* NOPE. INDEED, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE RATE WOULD BE IF WE "AVERAGED" IT FOR THE LAST CENTURY... THE LAST 100 YEARS. (AND THEN LET'S ALSO DO THE LAST 75 YEARS... AND LAST 50 YEARS... AND LAST 40 YEARS... AND LAST 30 YEARS.)

So here's where it gets scary: U.S. debt held by the public today is about $12 trillion.

* JUST THE PUBLIC DEBT. THE NATIONAL DEBT IS APPROACHING $17 BILLION. UNFUNDED FUTURE LIABILITIES...? IT DEPENDS UPON HOW MANY YEARS OUT YA WANNA GO.

* IN ANY CASE... BOTTOM LINE...

[T]he United States is still incurring an annual budget deficit by spending more than we take in in taxes and revenue.

* YEP...

The CBO estimates that by 2020 total debt held by the public will be $16.6 trillion as a result of the rising accumulated debt.

Do the math: If we were to pay an average interest rate on our debt of 5.7%, rather than the 2.4% we pay today, in 2020 our debt service cost will be about $930 billion. Now compare that to the amount the Internal Revenue Service collects from us in personal income taxes.

In 2012, that amount was $1.1 trillion, meaning that if interest rates went back to a more normal level of, say, 5.7%, 85% of all personal income taxes collected would go to servicing the debt.

* DO... YOU... UNDERSTAND... WHAT... YOU'RE... READING...?!?!

Some economists will also suggest that interest rates may go much higher than 5.7% largely as a result of the massive QE exercise of printing money at an unprecedented rate. We just don't know what the effect of all this will be but many economists warn that it can only result in inflation down the road.

* ON TOP OF THE INFLATION WE'VE ALREADY EXPERIENCED. FOLKS... GO BACK 10 YEARS... CHECK AVERAGE GAS PRICES... AVERAGE BEEF PRICES... AVERAGE COLLEGE TUITIONS AND INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND... AND... AND...

(*SHRUG*)

As of today, interest rates are rising, and if this is a turning point, it is a major one.

Rates in the U.S. peaked in 1980 (remember the 14% Treasury bonds?) so if we are at the point of reversing a 33-year downward trend, who wants to predict how this will affect the economy?

One thing is clear: Based on CBO projections, if interest rates just rise to their 20-year average, we will have an untenable, unacceptable interest rate bill whose beneficiaries are China, Japan, and others who own our bonds.

* WELL... THOUGTS... COMMENTS...?

And if Americans find out that the lion's share of their income tax payments are going to service the debt, prepare for a new American revolution.

* BUY GUNS! BUY AMMO! LEARN HOW TO SHOOT AND CARE FOR YOUR WEAPONS AND AMMO! LEARN HOW TO PRODUCE YOUR OWN AMMO AND MAKE YOUR GUNS "BETTER" THAN STOCK!

William R. Barker said...

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/corker-warns-obama-administration-against-any-action-to-implement-un-arms-trade-treaty-without-senate-advice-and-consent

Dear President Obama,

It is my understanding that Secretary of State John Kerry will sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on behalf of the United States.

* KERRY CAN SIGN ALL THE "TREATIES" HE WANTS TO; THEY HAVE NO FORCE IN LAW TILL THEY'RE RATIFIED BY THE U.S. SENATE IN ACCORD WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

The ATT raises significant legislative and constitutional questions. Any act to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, before the Congress provides its advice and consent would be inconsistent with the United States Constitution, law, and practice.

* FORGET "INCONSISTENT." IT WOULD BE A CLEAR VIOLATION OF OBAMA'S OATH OF OFFICE AND AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

As you know, Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires the United States Senate to provide its advice and consent before a treaty becomes binding under United States law. The Senate has not yet provided its advice and consent, and may not provide such consent. As a result, the Executive Branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.

Moreover, even after the Senate provides its advice and consent, certain treaties require changes to United States law in the form of legislation passed by both the House and Senate. The ATT is such a treaty. Various provisions of the ATT, including but not limited to those related to the regulation of imports and trade in conventional arms, require such implementing legislation and relate to matters exclusively reserved to Congress under our Constitution.

Because of the concerns discussed above, as well as the fundamental issues the ATT raises with respect to the individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, as the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is my view that you may not take any executive action to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, unless and until: (1) the United States Senate has provided its constitutionally required advice and consent to its ratification; and (2) the Congress has passed any and all required legislation to bring this treaty into effect under United States domestic law.

Sincerely,

Senator Bob Corker
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

* WHAT SCARES AND APPALLS ME IS THAT THIS LETTER ISN'T SIGNED BY ALL 100 SENATORS.

William R. Barker said...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-state-and-local-income-sales-motor-fuel-motor-vehicle-and

Revenues from state and local individual income taxes, general sales and gross receipt taxes, motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle taxes and taxes on alcoholic beverages each hit all-time highs in the second quarter of this year, according to data released today by the Census Bureau.

* WHICH MEANS EITHER A BOOMING ECONOMY... (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)... OR EVER-RISING TAXATION.

* IT'S NUMBER TWO, FOLKS!

That means that in no quarter of any year since the Census Bureau first started tracking state and local tax revenues in 1962 have Americans paid more in each of these categories of state and local taxes than they did in the quarter that ran from April through June of 2013.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Americans paid a record of $114.032 billion in state and local individual income taxes in the second quarter of this year, according to the Census Bureau.

* AND WHAT VALUE DID THEY RECEIVE FROM THIS $114 BILLION PLUS...???

Americans paid a record of $11.254 billion in state and local motor fuels taxes in the second quarter of 2013.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Although state and local individual income taxes, general sales and gross receipt taxes, motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle taxes and taxes on alcoholic beverages hit all-time records in the second quarter of this year; state and local corporate income taxes...did not hit records in the second quarter.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

* AGAIN, FOLKS... TAX REVENUES GO UP FOR ONE OF THREE REASONS: 1) ECONOMIC BOOMS; 2) A CHANGE IN THE TAX CODE ALLOWING ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES THAT TAKE PLACE BEFORE YEAR-END TO BE TAXED AT A LOWER RATE; 3) HIGHER - INESCAPABLE - TAXES.

* WE'RE TALKING NUMBER THREE.

State and local corporate income tax revenues were $20.163 billion in the second quarter. That was up $2.546 billion — or 14.5% - from $17.617 billion in state and local income taxes that corporations paid in the second quarter of 2012, but it was down $814 million — or 3.9% - $20.977 billion that corporations paid in state and local income taxes in the second quarter of 2007.

* POINTING TO AN ANEMIC "RECOVERY" THAT HASN'T YET RECOVERED FROM PRE-2007 NORMS.

If the second quarter is an indicator, Americans are on now track to pay record state and local property taxes in the fourth quarter of this year.