We have some great animation film talent in Pixar and Disney movies. So what’s that got to do with Obama, the price of gas and health care you ask? It’s a constructive lesson and reminder…. you need to view “the big picture” to understand the plot.
For example, could you grasp the full impact of Nemo, Cars, Shrek etal by viewing merely a single cel (short for a single celluid frame of film) of the animation? Could you grasp the enormity of the ethics complaint assault on Palin by only learning about one or two of them?
But of course not. And much is the same with Obama’s cinemascope production to destroy the US economy… all using single cel trailers and razzle dazzling us with fuzzy math. And until those cells are edited together, the plot of this morbid “cartoon” does not become clear.
The O’faithful show you a single cel of his spending… ala the Stimulus/ARRA, the TARP bailout decisions, cap and trade, or health care, etc. By throwing out a number we are becoming far too comfortable hearing – a few trillion here and a few trillion there – Joe and Josephine Q. Public, as well as the partisan Congress members, merely shrug it off, assuming we’ll figure out a way to pay China back.
The problem is, until you start viewing all Obama and Congress’ spending in full wide screen version, you don’t feel the impact of the extremely flawed fuzzy math used to advance these programs in the media.
Case in point… let’s start with health care. Today the ever stellar Jake Tapper gives us the summary of the cost of health care to our individual pocketbooks. It’s easy to boggle the minds of the voter when you package “free” benefits and unprecedented spending in one national bill, then promise all those rich people and small businesses making over $350K (at least today…) will be paying for it. “Not I, said the Little Red Hen”. That couldn’t possibly affect me.
But first, take some time and absorb some personal realities about the tax rates Mr. Tapper lays out. I want you to close your eyes, and picture the this… taxpayers in the top 50% of tax brackets pay 94% of the nation’s tax bill. The top 1% earners pay 33.7 percent alone, and the top 5% pay 53.8%.
When you remove these “evil rich types” from the equation, there is a hefty amount of entrepreneurial small business types – who hire most of the US workers – that shoulder the current US tax bill for that 6% poverty group to which Obama caters.
Do you have that picture firmly in mind? That we’re not talking about the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts only here? Okay…
The current buzz is that Obama’s “only” trying to take the tax rates up for group of Americans that support Congressional spending to 39%. After health care, that’s bogus, bupkis and a serious political whopper.
A study by the non-partisan Tax Foundation finds that the 5.4% surtax on top wage-earners proposed by House Democrats to help fund health care reform would push top tax rates over 50% in 39 states.
“That means government would be taking more than half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers,” said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge. “The lowest top tax rate would be about 47% –and that’s in the nine states that don’t tax wages.”
~~~The hardest-hit states in terms of the highest tax bracket would be Oregon (57.5%), Hawaii (57.2%), New Jersey (57.1%), New York (56.9%), California (56.8%), Rhode Island (56.2%), Vermont (55.8%), Maryland (55.6%), Minnesota (54.4%) and Idaho (54.3%).
In case you’ve forgotten what I said above, I’ll repeat it again. Small business owners employ the largest % of the American worker… not evil big business and corporations. And it is these employers who fall into these tax categories.
Now, let’s add another cel to the fantasy animation movie Obama is producing and directing… unemployment realities. Of those “hardest hit” states above, four of them are between 7.2 and 12.4 unemployment as of May 2009, and OR, CA and RI all between 11.5 to 12.4%. None of these are improving and, in fact, progressively worsening month to mone with little end in sight.
Needless to say, I’m quite curious as to how they intend to draw blood from the same turnip field they are eradicating by starving the crops for water.
Which then brings me to the Sarah Palin v John Kerry/MoveOn.org battles over Sarah’s op-ed in WaPo that Mike’s A posted in it’s entirety here a few days back. Aside from the irony that Palin’s perspective is printed in MSM’s WaPo, and Kerry finds himself tilting at enviro wind mills on Huffpo and via his own diary atDaily KOs, Kerry’s rhetoric is perpetuating the Obama “single cel” fuzzy math version of a fantasy animation film.
Note Kerry’s main beefs… that Palin doesn’t care about the health of the planet and doesn’t want “… to tackle global climate change which imperils everything from our economy to our national security”… and then refers to the PERI report from the self-described progressive think tank, Center for American Progress to dispute Palin’s claim about cap and trade being a prescription for job loss and economic disaster.
“Palin’s column ignored the entire problem and didn’t even get right the things it did cover,” he says. “For example, she said, ‘Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.’ ”
“This is wrong,” Kerry scolds. “The pieces of energy reform legislation are job-creation machines. A joint report by PERI Center for American Progress Report calculated that $150 billion in clean-energy investments would create upwards of 1.7 million jobs.
So how does Kerry and PERI come up with 1.7 jobs, and why doesn’t he mention that it’s $150 billion *annually*? They optimistically predict 2.5 million job creation (temporary and a few permanent), and contrast that with the same spending that would only create 800,000 jobs in fossil fuels.
As we see in Table 8, an annual $150 billion clean-energy investment level would generate a total of about 2.5 million jobs. By contrast, spending the same $150 billion within the fossil-fuel industry would produce about 800,000 jobs. This is a difference of roughly 1.7 million jobs. In Appendix 2, we break out these economy-wide estimates for net employment expansion through clean-energy investments on a state-by-state basis.
Of course what they forget to mention is that fossil fuel jobs are created at the cost of the oil and gas companies… not the taxpayers. So we could save that $150 ANNUAL billion (times ten or however many years) from the national debt. oops
Yet without clarifying, Obama and Kerry as his minion depend on a dumbed down, uncurious public to accept his word and the PERI report as God’s truth handed down on stone tablets. If that’s not enough, he then employs the Alinsky tact of putting them on watchdog alert against their fellow citizens.
“I’ll be back throughout the fall with specific things you can do to help, but for now — keep your eyes and ears open. When you see something in your local paper that’s wrong, let them know you notice. When your friends or family members say something that’s wrong, let them know the truth,” implores the Massachusetts Democrat who has made global warming a key issue as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Tell you what, Mr. Kerry… you set your prozac wolf hounds on the rest of the population, and those of us who question authority and have a healthy distrust of government and elected officials will keep biting at your ankles with some facts to combat your rhetoric and threats.
And now… a few ditties from Kerry’s “gospel”… i.e. the PERI report analyzing cap and trade. Because I have to say, I wanted to see just where those 1.7 mil jobs were coming from. So first, let me give you one of the pretty pictures and graphs to peruse. You can find the originals in the PERI report linked above.
The first below is PERI’s breakdown in how much of the $150 billion annually (for four? ten?? years) as it relates to job area creation. Note retrofitting taking up the bulk of the $150 bil annual cost. Pg 19 of the PDF report. Suggest you open the PDF and follow along… pics are small…
You do see where the bulk of the “job creation” lies? With mandated “building retrofitting”. This cap and trade is less legislation than it is regulatory changes and Congressional appropriation to implement those changes. And a huge part is brand new “green” building codes. Why how can that hurt, you say? Because all existing buildings must undergo “retrofitting” to meet current codes.
• The bill would implement new standards based on the International Energy Conservation Code for commercial buildings and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers standards for residential buildings, with the two standards based on “each model code or standard released after the date of enactment of the Act.”3 The bill also requires the federal government to provide financial support for commercial and residential retrofits in order to achieve compliance with the standards.
~~~Building retrofits
An average-sized single-family home in the United States would require an investment of as little as $2,500 in energy-efficiency retrofits to produce a cost savings in the range of 30 percent per year.7 This would involve caulking to plug air leaks in the house and adding insulation to attics and basement ceilings. For an additional $2,500, further energy savings are available through replacing windows with air leaks and installing energy effi cient appliances.[Mata Musing: love to know where *they* shop for windows…]
Despite these potential savings, most homeowners have not retrofitted their homes because they are unaware of the costs savings available to them or they cannot afford the upfront expenses and time commitment involved. But these barriers to retrofit investments will come down through the specific government spending programs that finance retrofits, the building codes that establish higher efficiency standards in buildings, and the more general regulatory environment that raises the costs of burning conventional fossil fuels. As the market becomes more extensive and efficient, this will further encourage new investment in retrofits. In particular, banks, utility companies and various types of nonprofit groups will increasingly organize themselves to supply the upfront financing for these projects. [Mata Musing: In a credit crunch market with declining values? see more on this later…] In addition, construction crews will begin to organize their services to take advantage of the expanding opportunities.
The potential market for building retrofits is huge. There are roughly 110 million occupied housing units in the United States, including 80 million single-family detached homes, as well as smaller numbers of attached units, apartments, and trailers. As a rough approximation, assuming an average investment in retrofits would be around $4,000 per unit, implies an overall potential market of $400 billion. We would then add the corresponding market for non-residential structures. The U.S. Green Building Council surveyed the existing stock of these structures in 2008, including all educational buildings, hospitals, retail outlets, and office buildings of various sorts. They estimated the costs of retrofitting all of these buildings at $358 billion.8
It was, of course, this new regulatory “green” code that fueled the half-true rumors begat with a CNS article that said these mandates *may* require upgrades prior to the ability to sell. Media Matters further muddied the half truth when they labeled a FoxNation article (not to be confused with FOX News) saying this could require homes to be upgraded prior to sale as “distorting”.
Housingwire also chimes in presenting it as akin to harmless “labeling”.
A section in HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which narrowly passed a US House of Representatives vote Friday, falls short of mandating an energy audit on homes, according to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Section 204 of the cap-and-trade bill establishes a building energy performance labeling program for homes and commercial property. The section would provide potential buyers and investors in those properties a label explaining that property’s energy efficiency.
Much like a nutrition label on the back of a candy bar, the performance labeling program is a consumer right-to-know provision in the cap-and-trade bill, but it is not required, according to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Section 202 of the bill develops the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program. If the owner of the building — residential or commercial — seeks financial assistance from REEP, the property must pass the energy audit.
Energy savings for residential properties are determined by the Home Energy Ratings System (HERS) Index, and the final score is selected by an objective third party, according to the bill.
After the audit is conducted, state and local REEP programs may grant funds to owners for retrofit improvements on energy efficiency.
But is it distortion, and how does this affect a future sale of an older home? As the bill states, the regulations create a new code and standard, and “… leaving it up to the states to figure out exactly how to do that.”
Have any of you ever tried to sell a home with outdated wiring and unpermitted improvements to buyers that were obtaining lender financing? The fact is, by creating a new “code” that homes will be required to meet, the government gets to step back and allow either the lender or state regulations to be the bad guy, and force the upgrades prior to transfer of vested ownership. Lenders will be the most likely culprit to assume this as a demand prior to funding. They will want to make sure that any home they pile cash into will not incur additional upgrade costs in the event of foreclosure and default.
And while we’re on that track of “sorta mandated” homeowner upgrades, exactly what will the expense of new appliances and weather proofing add to your homes value in a market where home values are anticipated to decline until 2011? [… told you I’d get to this…]
To sort that out, let’s look at the latest stats from the Cost vs Value annual report for 2008. And the ugly truth is, whether it’s a complete kitchen remodel or new windows, you only recoup a national average of 76%-77% of your cost outlay. Meaning that not only does it make your home NOT worth more to a lender or appraiser, but that you’ve just lost an extra 23-24% of the money you just spent to meet the new government codes.
Well ain’t that a pile of manure?
So let’s look at Kerry’s claim of jobs via the PERI report straight up… the single largest “investment/job creation” is manifested by forcing homeowners to spend money for mandated retrofits that will [in all probability] be required by any lender to bring a home up to current code.
And to pay for, or subsidize, those retrofits, they’re blood-sucking *every* taxpayer – homeowner of new homes, or even renters with no homes – to finance everyone’s mandated upgrade.
I swear I am living in a parallel universe.
Now… burning question… what happens to all those “retro fit” jobs when the 80 million homes are retrofitted?
These are not permanent jobs created. They are temporary jobs. Which brings me to the second of the pretty pictures and graphs in the PERI report. The job descriptions of those 1.7 million supposedly created jobs…. Pg 31 of the PERI report.
The “top three” investment categories that are supposed to translate into “job creation” are the retrofitting, building mass transit, and smart grid creation (which doesn’t include the anticipated lawsuit costs that enviros will be filing to prevent solar and wind grids crossing “protected” lands….)
Now look thru those, and how “permanent” are the other categories after retrofitting. Once the rails are laid, the civil engineers are done designing, the train/bus parts built and ordered, what do we have left but a shadow staff to maintain the (mostly rail) transit? After the smart grids are built, how many employees does it take to man those facilities? The same with wind and solar farms?
In short, we’re talking about spending beaucoup cash on infrastructure that in no way justifies it for permanent job creation… not to mention the larger expense of “clean energy” that puts a huge divot in our earning capacity.
But wait! There’s MORE! All these jobs are supposed to be “created” in an economic repression/depression/downturn… what ever you want to call it. And those jobs are supposed to be created by the very people that Obama is robbing more than 50% of their earnings.
And what are they supposed to use to “create” these jobs? Oh right… more taxpayer money. How silly of me. But why bother if they’re raped for half their earnings?
Since this conundrum of less entrepreneurs and new business creation doesn’t make much sense, PERI decides to spin that one too. They, in fact, say that the high unemployment and desperate economy is more fruitful for the job creation while, speaking off the other tongue’s fork, rely heavily on “self-reinforcing investment momentum”…. which I guess comes from someone who has enough left after creaming more than 50% off the top of their earnings.
Starting on pg 21 of the PERI report, they discuss their methodology used for estimating unemployment and GDP growth. And their first sentence is a disclaimer:
The consequences of public policies on U.S. economic growth and employment growth necessarily happen over time. That’s why we cannot know with certainty what the effects of policy will be. That’s also why we rely on economic models and various forecasting techniques to generate estimates of what future outcomes are likely to be.
If I remember rightly, wasn’t this the group who seriously “misread” the economic indicators right out of the gate? Isn’t this also the group who seems to have major discrepancies with CBO estimates? Pardon me if I’m not too impressed with the rosy “models” of the progressive mindset.
But the progressive think take continue the specifics of their model deductions and projections in the current economic decline on page 28. This is when they launch into the argument, “hey, the worse the economy is, the better chance this has to work” schpiel. Which may, in itself, explain Obama’s headstrong determination to destroy the US economy as fast as possible.
Induced job creation It is more diffic ult to estimate the size of the induced employment effects—or what is commonly termed the “consumption multiplier” within standard macroeconomic models—than to estimate direct and indirect effects. There are still aspects of the induced effects we can estimate with a high degree of confidence.
In particular, we have a good sense of what is termed the “consumption function,” or what percentage of the additional money people receive from being newly employed will be spent. But it is more difficult to project accurately what the overall employment effects will always be of that extra spending. [Mata Musing: you mean like the employment you *don’t* create because living expenses are higher for energy, inflating all end-user products? Or the deflated dollar that means higher costs overal? You mean that “induced effect” of non-employment??]
~~~First, the magnitude of the induced effect will depend on existing conditions in the economy. If unemployment is high, then this will mean that there are a large number of people able and willing to take jobs if new job opportunities open up. But if unemployment is low, then there will be less room for employment to expand—even if newly employed people have more money to spend.
Similarly, if there is slack in the economy’s physical resources, then the capacity to expand employment will be greater—and the induced effects larger. If the economy is operating at a high level of activity, there is not likely to be a large employment gain beyond what resulted from the initial direct and indirect effects.
Given the rapid deterioration of economic conditions over the past 18 months—including rapidly rising rates of unemployment—the U.S. economy is not likely to bump up against this kind of capacity constraint in the near future. Thus we would expect the induced effects to be significant in the current climate. More generally, the U.S. economy has not come close to approximating a full employment economy since the late 1990s, and even then, the tight labor market conditions were sustained only briefly, until the dot.com stock market bubble burst. Consequently, it is unlikely that the induced effects of a direct and indirect employment expansion will be diminished by excessively tight labor markets in the future.
What a bunch of hockey pucks… “not come close”. Here’s BLS unemploment stats back to the 40s. You can plainly see where it was between 5.4 to 6.9% in the mid 90s, when the dot.com bubble came in to play… then burst followed by 911. The unemployment went up to a high of 6.0 before coming back down. “Not close” is a real stretch…
But back to this spin that if the economy is humming along, and unemployment is low, the “self-reinforcing investment” incentive is unlikely. Every bit of that belies market demand. If people demand electric cars, the private market provides electric cars. That just happens to be a very small percentile who only drive blocks at a time, and don’t haul critters, boats and toys for recreation.
What the “progressive” think tank relies upon is the Alinsky model of thought… the more desperate the population for jobs, and the less people that have a profitable business (thanks to highway robbery of taxes), the better chance Obama’s plan has of working.
Okay… can’t argue that.
Obama’s economic plan is to tank it in order to force “change”.
This is the overview. We now know that Obama must sink the US economy to avail a government rescue of the economy. Cap and trade would do some serious damage on it’s own. But is it capable of tanking the economy single handed?
This is where “the full animated film” comes into play. Add the high tax rates for feel-good health care, add in the national debt from bailout after bailout…. the porkulus… the omnibus spending. Ignore the jobs cuts when you reduce military spending and shrink the national defense inventory. Borrow so much from foreign nations that the dollar is not worth toilet paper.
Welcome to the “cartoon” that is Obama’s economic plan. All cels together translate to the rock and hard place we need to be – desperate – for Obama’s “remaking” of America to be complete.
And like lemmings… we’re been led over the cliff because math is simply a lost art, and we are unable to recognize a single cel frame instead of envisioning the entire feature film.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.