It's As If....

Terence Jeffrey

In a September 2012 article, CNS News editor TerenceJeffrey reported voter turnout in recent presidential elections has exceeded the number of full time workers in the U.S.  That is to say, non-working voters ”outnumbered” workers.  He then described several other conditions that apparently affect presidential elections, such as the fact that more women are working than ever before, and food stamp benefits are much higher than in 1968.  Toward the end of his article, he attacked the number of employed Americans who work but do not pay taxes due to tax credits.  He concluded his article with the punch line, “The problem is that government has divided America into two camps: those who work and pay, and those who take and take.”

In Jeffrey’s theoretical second camp, those who “take and take”, he implicated non workers, part time workers, workers who qualify for food stamps, women, and workers who qualify for tax credits.  These descriptions encompass every single one of us, including Jeffrey himself.

Although Jeffrey’s factual data cannot be disputed, his implications and conclusions are despicable.  In order to make these destructive conclusions, he had to leave out huge amounts of contrary data: 

He did NOT tell us that in 16 presidential elections since 1952, 13 were decided by non-full time workers, while only 3 elections were controlled by full time workers.  The problem he describes is actually the historic norm.

He did NOT tell us that the opposite is true in EVERY off year election due to low voter turnout.   Full time workers theoretically control the outcome of ALL off-year elections.

He did NOT report that overall employment per capita has been higher in the last 30 years than ever before in U.S. history, with the exception of the war effort during WWII.

He also did NOT report that the recent increase of part time time workers is due to the lack of job openings after 2008, not due to people who are unwilling to work.

He also did NOT report that welfare benefits expanded significantly during the 1970’s and are remaining fairly consistent with the 40 year average relative to GDP.  There are more people on food stamps today, but each recipient is getting a smaller share.

He did NOT report that government expenditures have been shrinking over the course of the Obama presidency, down by 3.3% of GDP since Bush’s 2009 budget. 

And lastly, he did NOT report that Reagan tax reforms required poverty level workers to pay taxes while the wealthy enjoyed major tax cuts.  Reagan cut top tax rates to the lowest levels in 50 years, which continues to cause growing deficits.

It’s as if Jeffrey hen-pecked his data to create an extremely right-biased article.  Funny thing, since CNS News claims to eliminate bias.  Conservatives repeatedly accuse liberals of lying, while creating loads of misinformation like the above.  Jeffrey’s friends in the media have taken his article and run with it: Hannity, Limbaugh, and other AM radio hosts use this misinformation to rant about how we live in a taker’s welfare state, how the takers control elections, and how we had better prepare for the worst by stocking up on guns and ammo.  It’s as if conservatives are hoping for a war.  If there is “class warfare” in this country, it's as if it is being propagated by conservatives.

The bottom line is this:  The percentage of “providers” has risen in the last few decades, reaching its highest level in 1998 and coming down only a few percentage points in recent years due to economic change and job competition.  The percentage of “takers” is rising only among the elderly.  Overall spending on “entitlements” is up in recent years due to the increasing population of retired citizens, but Jeffrey doesn't mention this.  He tries to attribute the problem to American laziness, as if that were true.  

The wealthiest Americans are paying lower tax percentages than in the years from 1932 to 1986, yet they are complaining that poverty level wage earners are not paying enough.  It's as if the wealthy are the most "entitled".  To correct Jeffrey’s closing line, Conservatives have divided America into two camps: those who work and pay, and those who allegedly take and take.  As if the latter actually existed.

Tony F.   2013

A Physics Lesson about Life

Darkness cannot be created.  Darkness only describes the absence of light.  Without light, darkness prevails.  On the other hand, extreme light will slice through everything in its path.  Only the right amount of light can pierce the darkness and illuminate you.

Cold cannot be created.   Cold only describes the absence of heat.  Without heat, cold prevails.  Absolute zero is the total absence of heat.  On the other hand, extreme heat will burn and destroy.  Only the right amount of heat can melt through the cold and warm you.

Hunger cannot be created.  Hunger only describes the absence of nutrition.  Without nutrition, hunger prevails.  A total lack of nutrition creates starvation.  On the other hand, extreme nutrition creates obesity.  Only the right amount of nutrition can sustain you.

Apathy cannot be created.  Apathy only describes the absence of care.  Without care, apathy prevails.  On the other hand, extreme care causes jealousy, possessiveness, and smothering.  In the 1990 film “Misery”, Kathy Bates’ character cared about the novelist so intensely; she was willing to injure him to keep him in her care.  Only the right amount of care can comfort you. 

Anarchy cannot be created.  Anarchy describes the absence of governance.  Without governance, anarchy prevails.  With anarchy, justice is destroyed, except for the strongest and most equipped.  All others become their victims.  On the other hand, extreme governance creates tyranny and loss of freedom.  In this way, freedom and justice are opposing values.  Only the right amount of governance can provide both freedom and justice. 

Peace is misunderstood.  Peace cannot be created.  Peace only describes the absence of chaos.  Without chaos, peace prevails.  On the other hand, the desolation of outer space is extremely peaceful and we cannot survive there.  Solitary confinement is terribly peaceful and it is a hellish form of isolation.  Relative peace is good, but only when escaping chaos, and having the freedom to return to chaos.  Only the right amount of peace can calm you.  The right amount of chaos can excite and stimulate you. 

Truth is misunderstood.  Truth cannot be created.  Truth describes the absence of falsehood.  Without falsehood, truth prevails.  Truth is not subject to interpretation or modification, it simply exists.  On the other hand, absolute truth is not kind.  If someone you love is not looking their best, it is not a good idea to tell them the whole truth.  Unchecked truth is damaging.  In this way, some lies are supportive.  We often need to hear a well fashioned and well-intended lie from someone we love.  We trust a person who lies when we need it, and tells the truth when we can learn from it.  Jesus told many cryptic parables because he knew the bold truth was too harsh to handle.  It takes a very mature person to handle the naked truth.  We all wear clothing because we really don't want to know the naked truth about each other.  Only the right amount of truth can be productive.

The planet Earth is not too cold or too hot.  If it were, all life would perish.  Our planet travels at the perfect speed around the sun to keep it in equilibrium with the gravitational pull between masses.  All of life exists in this perfect balance - the fine point of equilibrium between nothing and everything, between scarcity and excess.  When we think of this fact in the universal sense, all of life exists at a tiny point at the center of vast extremes.  Balance creates life.  Extremism destroys.  Balance takes effort, strength, knowledge, understanding, and temperament.  Extremism is relatively effortless because it thrives on ignorance, weakness, and anger.

Find that very small place.  Find your balance.  Find goodness.

“Enter through the narrow gate.  For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life; and only a few find it. - Matthew 7:13”

Tony F.  2013

Shaken Up About "Fracking"

In a 1970 report, the USGS identified an apparent correlation between Colorado earthquakes and the deep injection of wastewater 12,000 feet deep into the earth’s crust at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, beginning in 1962.  According to the report, very few seismic events were reported in Colorado in the 100 years prior to 1962, but over 1,500 tremors, light earthquakes, and significant earthquakes occurred in the decade following the deep wastewater injection.  Most of these were not strong enough to be noticed by the public, but dozens of events caused varying degrees of damage and were relayed in the news.  There are numerous correlations of this kind throughout the U.S. over the last 50 years, most notably in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Ohio, Texas, and Colorado, evidently related to deep wastewater injection.

Although the coincidence of earthquakes associated with deep wastewater injection appears inarguable, there is a misnomer when the press relates deep injection to “fracking”.  The two are not the same.  Deep wastewater injection is usually done at a depth of more than 10,000 ft., and it involves the permanent injection of fluids where they are able to cause an increase in seismic activity.  Conversely, hydraulic fracturing typically occurs at the depth of 3,000 to 6,000 ft., and involves the temporary injection of fluids.  A majority of these fluids are subsequently removed, leaving sand in the cracks.  According to most theories, this has the effect of reducing and absorbing seismic energy rather than causing it to radiate.

These key differences are rarely made clear by the media.  Although a measurable amount of wastewater from the energy sector is disposed through deep wastewater injection, it is not done during the “fracking” process.  Strangely, many of the news stories involving seismic risk tend to blur the line between "fracking" and injection, despite the fact that all reports about seismic risk are tied only to deep wastewater injection.  The two activities are easily confused, and the media is not making an effort to alleviate confusion as they jump on the bandwagon to hype up negative news about gas exploration.

One significant purpose for deep wastewater injection is the sequestration of carbon in the “clean burning” coal process.  Carbon is rinsed from coal and trapped in large quantities of water.  The water is then injected into deep wells to prevent CO2 from entering the atmosphere.  This process, which ultimately increases seismic activity, is just another black mark against the coal industry.  Without the “clean burning” process, and deep wastewater injection, coal is 7 times more carbon emitting than natural gas.  As major power companies plan for the inevitable requirement to reduce carbon in the power generation process, most are converting coal plants to natural gas.  The fuel source is less expensive, and the process is far less involved than the "clean burning" of coal.

I’ve written several posts in support of hydraulic fracturing and retrieval of methane.  One flaw in the gas network is the frequency of gas leaks, which release powerful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  The industry and lawmakers are working together to tighten regulations on leakage for this reason.  Although the process is not perfect, it is still far cleaner than coal and other fossil fuels.  The capturing of methane is identified by the EPA as our best short term solution to reducing greenhouse gases.  As more power plants and vehicle fleets continue convert to natural gas, our methods of capture and distribution also improve to create a cleaner natural gas network.  In my recent post, “No Alternative”, I made the case that alternative energy is also deeply flawed, so we must embrace the lesser of evils in our quest to reduce greenhouse gases.

That said, the potential for increased seismic activity due to deep wastewater injection may be an issue worth getting shaken up about.  So, please inform your friends and write your politicians about your opposition to deep wastewater injection, but be careful not to confuse it with hydraulic fracturing.  They are not the same.

Tony F.  2013

The Richest Men in America

During the turn of the century, 1870-1930, the wealthiest and most resourceful men in American history made their mark.  This was the time of Great Gatsby.  It was the pinnacle of the industrial revolution when great inventions were made and the world was changed forever.  The wealthiest men in American history were worth, in today’s dollars, anywhere from $34 billion to $340 billion each.  The last member of this elite group was Henry Ford, owner of the Ford Motor Company, who died in 1944 with an estimated net worth of about $160 billion in today’s dollars.

After Ford’s death, no American had a net worth greater than $8 billion in today’s dollars – less than one twentieth of the wealth of Henry Ford.  This trend continued until 1987 when Sam Walton broke into this elite class with an estimated adjusted net worth of $45 billion.  Then a remarkable set of events occurred.  In the same manner as the industrial revolution, the top earners in America experienced runaway wealth once again.  In the last 25 years, the accumulated total wealth in the Forbes 400 has now reached proportions not seen since the Jazz Age.  Since 1982, the total net worth of the Forbes 400 has risen by 1200 percent.  Average household income has risen by 263 percent over the same period.  Based on this trend, the turn of the century moguls who once owned the title of top 30 wealthiest Americans of all time, will be completely replaced by men who are growing richer today.

During the turn of the 20^th century, America was tainted by extreme separation of the rich from the poor.  The working class struggled to have their basic needs met.  The wealthy leveraged cheap labor for extreme personal gain.   In the period after WW2, however, America’s middle class gained strength through unionization, taxation, and social programs, thus narrowing the gap between rich and poor to a more sustainable level.  By nearly every historical account, including the reminiscence of our own parents, this period from 1944 to 1987 was the greatest period in American history.  From this observation, it appears the country is not doing as well today as we could be.  The rising wealth of the rich and a resulting weakening of the middle and lower classes is likely to be adding a strain to our economy.

Mark Zuckerberg

Not surprisingly, today’s billionaires do not look like the super-rich of yesteryear.   The richest men in American history are not wearing top hats, suits, and fur coats.  Today’s billionaire is much more humble.  Sam Walton took great pride in driving his old Chevy pickup each day.  Bill Gates, who is worth over 70 billion today, is seldom seen in more than a simple button up shirt.  Warren Buffett often argues that he should be taxed more heavily.  Mark Zuckerberg, worth about $20 billion, wears a hoodie at all times.  It’s difficult to loath this kind of humbleness, but it doesn’t change the fact that these men are growing wealth at a pace only seen once before in history.  If any of these men flaunted their wealth as Gatsby did, we most certainly would have a different attitude.

Let’s not forget, however, that the turn of the 20^th century was a historic period in terms of shaping our entire world.  The development of railroads, steel, oil, automobiles, and electricity helped create the modern age of the next 100 years.  The men who dedicated their lives to these changes became the richest men in America.  It seems that we are now in the midst of another revolutionary age which is far less visible.  Not surprisingly, a large majority of the billionaires on the Forbes 400 today are involved in computer technology.  We have yet to fully realize how computers are affecting our future, but we can be certain the changes are larger and more permanent than we realize.  With the use of computers and technology, corporations are providing more products with less labor, and making record profits.  Conversely, the wages of the average worker remain stagnant, except for a few who are leveraging technology in their favor.  Technological advances are not creating more jobs, instead they are reducing the labor needed to produce the same results.  In his book “Average is Over”, Tyler Cowen makes a very convincing argument that anyone who is not savvy with computers and technology will be underemployed and poor in the near future. 

I wrote about this historic shift in my post “Digital Economy”, January 2013.  The equation is simple; if you are working with a computer, you stand a chance of making a living.  If you are building robots, you stand a chance of living well.  If you are making computers or robots work even better, you may grow very wealthy.  But, if you describe yourself as being hands-on, in the trenches, and not comfortable with technology; you may need to be very concerned about how your future is being shaped by richest men in America.

Tony F.   2013

No Alternative

In the most recent election, three Colorado communities elected for moratoriums against hydraulic fracturing within their city limits.  On one hand, it seems fair to limit gas exploration in the immediate vicinity of thousands of residents.  In another regard, energy that is found nearest the consumer is the most efficient and least invasive.  If you've seen my post of October 5^th, and also in August of 2011, you would know that I disagree with limitations in natural gas exploration.  Natural gas is relatively clean burning, abundant, and renewable.  So, in light of this recent vote, I want everyone to ponder a few big questions:

   

Imagine a world in the future where we all suddenly agree that global warming is a real and present danger - a world where we all decide to rise up and make a sweeping change.   A world where we all decide to stop carbon emissions worldwide, and actively engage in carbon prevention and sequestration.  We need to ask ourselves a very practical question:  Without burning carbon fuels, where will we get all of our energy? 

Would we greatly increase the use of wind power?  Not likely.  Wind power endangers rare birds as they are struck down by the fast moving turbines.  It impairs our views of open space and casts artificial shade on otherwise sunny spaces.  Wind energy takes a great deal of energy to build, transport, and maintain.  The generators require large quantities of rare earth metals.  Engineers have not yet solved the problems of lateral stress on the generators, which causes them to break down often.  Most importantly, we cannot store the inconsistent energy as it is produced.

Would we support the use of solar power?  Not likely.  It involves the use of highly toxic heavy metals and extreme amounts of energy to produce.  Solar energy is expensive to develop, not very efficient, and encapsulates years of electrical energy to manufacture.  Due to its experimental nature, solar energy has suffered some of the largest failures in recent years, despite massive Federal funding.  Solyndra and Abound together cost us around 400 Million in Federal losses.  

Would we support the use of hydro energy?  Not likely.  It requires tremendous amounts of resources and emissions to construct a dam.  Reservoirs flood highly valuable riverside habitat, interrupts the migration of fish and wildlife, heats surface water, increases evaporation, and disrupts river flows.  Most importantly, it steals water resources from other communities and entire states down stream.    

Electric cars have invisible exhaust.

Electric cars?  Not an answer at all.  Proponents of electric cars ignore the source of the electricity, which comes from coal burning and natural gas burning power plants.  Unless a new carbon free energy source is created, electric cars are simply a carbon emitter in disguise.

How about nuclear power?  No way.  It is extremely expensive to build, dangerous to operate, impossible to clean up, and potentially catastrophic to human life.

Ok, should we promote bio-fuels?  Not a good idea.  They increase our water needs and fertilizer use.  They may increase food costs, and are still burned, resulting in carbon emissions.  Bio fuels are also less efficient in terms of fuel mileage.  Increased cultivation increases dust pollution, air pollution, and water contamination. 

Then how about hydrogen fuel?  With a little research, we discover that the most efficient way to generate hydrogen is with the use of fossil fuels, methane, and high volumes of electrical energy.  Not much to gain there.  Hydrogen is little more than converted and stored carbon energy.

In fairness, I made a cynical attempt to view every energy source in it's most negative light, and I don't agree with every sentiment above.  I am repeating information relayed mostly by liberal sources.  The same liberals who disagree with "fracking" also disagree with alternatives for the above reasons.  This illustrates the fact that there is no perfect solution to our energy future.  As we transition away from carbon energy, the best we can do is choose the lesser of the evils.  I argue that natural gas is the lesser of evils.  It is shutting down the coal market, and that is a step in the right direction.

If we continue to make local fuel exploration difficult and expensive, we are ultimately forcing another flawed alternative.  The best answer to alternative power is every answer.  Hydrogen fuel is carbon free when it is generated and stored from wind energy.  Electric vehicles are carbon free when they are charged with solar energy.  Solar panels are carbon free if they are built from hydro energy.  Hydro dams are carbon free if they are built with hydrogen powered equipment.  Carbon free is a process, not just a plug in car.  The alternative energy future must be a network, all flaws accepted.  Until we realize that, we really have no alternative.

Tony F.
2013

One Thing Liberals and Conservatives Agree On (For Different Reasons)

What do Annie Leonard (liberal) and Dave Ramsey (conservative) have in common?  Let’s take a look:

Annie Leonard, the author of “The Story of Stuff” and web based film maker, talks endlessly about how much stuff we manufacture, buy, use, throw away, and buy again.  The Story of Stuff is a tragedy, telling of our dependency and obsession with stuff.  Stuff that continues to feed a gigantic cycle of consumption, deplete resources, fill trash dumps, burn fuel, and contribute to global warming.  She increases awareness of our carbon footprint, and how it grows with each thing we buy and throw away.  Stuff is the problem.  Buy less stuff.  To her followers, Annie sends a sensible message to a country that is overtly focused on material goods, and not focused enough on the health of the planet.  To her conservative critics, however, she is an anti-establishment leftist liberal. 

Dave Ramsey, the author of “The Total Money Makeover” and financial radio talk show host, advises his followers on how to achieve Financial Peace.  He teaches that we Americans tend to act far too often out of want instead of need.  We see things and we buy them, often with a credit card, or with the last few dollars we could have had in the bank.  Dave helps folks work their way from debt to prosperity by being prudent about the things they buy.  He re-frames our attitude toward the things we think we need, and helps us identify what we really need.  He teaches the value of money, the wisdom of savings, and the blessings of frugality.  Things are the problem.  Don’t buy unnecessary things.  Save your money, invest it, and make it work for you.  Dave is a common sense, tough-love, conservative.   To his followers, his advice is as good as gold.  To his liberal critics, however, he is a Bible thumping money miser. 

Clearly, liberals and conservatives share a similar view toward wasteful, costly, extravagant, unnecessary stuff and things - for very different reasons.  With the development of cable television, the internet, Facebook, and Twitter, we obtain this information faster now than ever before in history, and regardless of our political view, we are getting the same message.  It is this new awareness of how we buy things and waste stuff that may be shaping our current economy.  After the economic bubble burst in 2009, average credit card debt declined by nearly 20%, mostly due to default.  Four years later, credit card debt continues to stay flat or even decline slightly, despite slow growth in the Gross Domestic Product.  Overall employment per capita was at its highest during the 10 years prior to the recession, and now employment also continues to lay flat.  As I suggested in my post “The Great Exuberance” August 2011, it is becoming more apparent that the robust economy in the decade prior to 2009 was the result of excessive consumption – a level of consumption that may no longer be prudent for any of us.

Dollar average is based on homes with credit card debt, which is also in decline.

In fairness, it is important to identify the subtle differences between the liberal and conservative views on consumption.  Annie takes a world view, or at least a nationwide view, implying that nobody should have excessive stuff, not even the wealthy or the resourceful.  Consequently, her message implies that anyone with lots of stuff should be ashamed of it.  Of course, taking stuff from the wealthy is not the center of Annie’s message.  Her goal is more a matter of individual awareness.  Dave, on the other hand, talks about things solely as they compare to the size of your wallet.  No matter how much you make, you must spend less than your income.  So, if you have lots of things and you bought them on credit, you should be ashamed of that.  If you have lots of things and you've paid all of your bills, made charitable donations, and still have money left over, there’s nothing to be ashamed of.  For the average American, however, the size of our wallet isn't much of a variable.   It also doesn't matter if we are liberal or conservative, or if we like Annie’s message or Dave’s message.  Having less stuff and things is apparently a win-win for everyone - but not so great on the overall economy.

Tony F.

2013

Things I Wish Conservatives Would Ask

As a compassionate society, what should we do with the people who are less able than us?  Like those with low I.Q’s, physical problems, poor social skills, disfigurements, and learning disabilities - the kind of people that most companies will not hire or keep - what should we do with them?  Do we really believe they should be able to make a living on their own?  Who will hire them?

As lovers of human life, how can we spend less time condemning young women who are thinking about abortion, and help them embrace the blessings of parenthood?  How will she work and raise her baby at the same time?  Should we assist her with her child?  Can she make enough money to send her child to college?  Who will hire her?  Do we really believe calling her “sinner” will help her love God and feel blessed with her child?  Is this what Jesus would have done?

As a nurturing society, how can we help the children of failed parents?  What should we do for kids whose families don’t support them or guide them?  Who will guide them if we don’t?  Is our condemnation helpful? Is being poor and useless a motivation in itself?  Do we really believe people are okay with living at the bottom?  Do we really believe people choose not to do better?  What can we do with people who give up hope?  How can we teach them differently?  Is it truly their fault? Can they be changed?  Who is teaching them to fish?

Do we really believe slashing entitlements is the best thing we can do for the elderly?  What should we do for the old folks if entitlements are gone?  Do we really believe they will make a living if they suffer enough?  Where will they live?  Who will hire them?

What should we do with people who are unable to work?  Like people with real illnesses and disabilities - what should we do with them?  How will they live?  Should we care?

How is it that America is enjoying a higher standard of living with all this Socialism going on?  Do we really believe social programs are the cause of national debt, joblessness, and social decline?

Did the Bible ever say, “Let suffer the poor, the elderly, the sinners, the sick, the meek, and the dumb.”?  Did the Bible say “Ignore the least of men and they will improve”?  

Did the Bible ever say, “Protect the wealthy, and all will prosper”?  

In the end, what should we believe?

Tony F.  2013

Who are the Deadbeats?

In his bid for the presidency, Mitt Romney said 47% of Americans consider themselves to be entitled to government benefits.  In a recent letter to voters, an Indiana Republican congressman reported that nearly 70% of the Federal budget was spent on entitlements.  Tea Party Republicans constantly push the idea that all of our budget problems are driven by entitlements.  Amazingly, all of these statements may be true, but only if we grossly expand the definition of “entitlements”.

Most voters agree entitlements include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  These social programs are funded through specific payroll taxes, most are operating on a surplus, and none contribute to the Federal deficit.  In fact, a portion of our federal debt is borrowed from these surplus accounts.  A majority of social programs go to the elderly, while about a third goes to the disabled and working poor.  All together, 91% of social programs go to people who are retired, cannot work, or are unable to earn enough to live.  This accounts for no more than 25% of the U.S. population – far from the 47% suggested by Romney, and the 50 + percent suggested by the Tea Party.

In order for conservative claims to ring true, we must expand the definition of entitlements as described by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

“By "entitlements," CBPP is including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, children's health insurance, food stamps, school lunch programs, welfare, unemployment insurance, the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit.”

When we add unemployment insurance, entitlement population increases by another 4% totaling about 30%.  Entitlement population really spikes when we add Tax Credits, which captures all working families at all levels, and earns most of us the title of "deadbeat".  Then conservative claims ring true, kicking up the entitlement population to over 50%, and increasing Federal budget “expenses” to about 68% by defining Tax Credits as “expenses” and adding trillions to the entitlement figure.

Who, exactly is "them"?

By using big numbers and re-defining entitlements, conservatives create the illusion of a deadbeat society that simply does not exist.  They hint that a large group of Americans choose not to work because liberals have made it too easy.  To quote Mitt Romney, "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."  Who are those people?  Let’s look for answers by understanding our population (2012 data):

29.65% of Americans earn middle class wages or better.

17.25% are children under 16 yrs.

4.52% are full time parents.  Less than half of U.S. children have a full time parent.

4.34% are full time students of working age.  Some may work part time.

5.06% are unclassified.  Some have retired early. Others may have varying disabilities. Not on Federal entitlement rolls.

8% are working at or below the poverty line (under $10.00 per hr.).

3.62% are actively seeking work, but still unemployed.

10.66% are retired elderly.

4.80% are severely disabled.  Another 17.5% have varying degrees of disabilities.

4.18% are incarcerated, hospitalized, or institutionalized

As you can see, mostly everyone in America is working, studying, or retired.  Exceptions include full time parents, severely disabled, and institutionalized.  The only able-bodied people who choose not to work are stay at home parents, retired, and perhaps a few of the unemployed or marginally disabled.  The largest of all these is the healthy retired, an able bodied, non working sector that has grown dramatically over the last 100 years.  The second largest is stay at home parents, a sector that has shrunk over the last 50 years as more mothers have joined the work force.  So, who on this list are the deadbeats?

Let’s consider people who need their entitlements the least, such as middle and high earning families who get tax credits.  Eliminating these credits would reduce the number of deadbeat households by nearly half, reduce entitlement expenses by at least 15%, and bring the Federal budget into surplus!  Problem solved!  Of course, this idea would be wildly unpopular with voters, and it would take a bigger bite out of the middle class.  As the Tea Party warns us against entitlement addiction, it turns out we are among the addicts.  Amazingly, our entitlement addiction in the form of Tax Credits adds most directly to the deficit.  So, the most comfortable sectors in America will continue to take entitlements (as defined by conservatives) while we continue to seek an imaginary group of deadbeats to blame it on.

Tony F.

2013

No Negotiation

Last year at this time, President Obama spent several sessions with John Boehner in an attempt to negotiate a raise in the debt ceiling, a raise in taxes, and a measured cut in Federal spending.  Obama referred to this as the “balanced approach”.  The result was a stalemate in which both parties agreed to budget sequestration and automatic cancellation of the Bush-era tax cuts.  The hope for both parties was that they would gain the majority of power in November 2012 and make the necessary corrections afterward.

Throughout the months following this temporary resolution, Republicans repeatedly chastised the President for what they termed “failure to lead”.  Leadership is defined by the U.S. Army as, “Influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation, while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization.”  Did the President fail to lead?  This is my assessment:

Influencing people.  Grade A.  Obama is highly influential, and this is the trait that scares Republicans.  He is popular, and knows how to play to the public. 

Providing purpose.  Grade C.  The trouble here is that our government is divided specifically to argue about its purpose.

Providing direction.  Grade A.  The offer of a balanced approach to the budget was a clear and sensible direction.

Providing motivation.  Grade C.  The only motivation in today’s politics is to act in accordance to one’s constituency.

Accomplishing the mission.  Grade C.  The mission of reducing the annual deficit has been clear, but only slightly improved.

Improving the organization.  Grade D.  The deficit and the economy improved slightly, but dysfunction in congress is at a peak.

With a grade average of C+, it is arguable that Obama was barely passing as a leader when he won the 2012 election, which leaves room for improvement.  So, how much improvement did we get?

A year after the last budget crisis, not much.  Instead of coming to the table, Obama simply said “I am not going to negotiate”, consequently maintaining a stand-off.  The hope is that the other party will flinch and the prevailing party will secure a huge political victory.  I am convinced that is not going to happen.  This is not leadership.

Something has to give, and it has to come from the President.  An influential leader would not let another day pass without bringing the opponent to the table.  A purposeful leader would set his terms for negotiation and confidently wait for a reply.  A directional leader would set clear goals for the negotiation and invite the opponent to meet his challenge.  A motivational leader would offer a win-win, the very thing needed to move our country forward and save face.  This would accomplish the mission.  This would improve the organization.  This is leadership.

The Republican party has demonstrated that they are fractured and poorly lead. The Tea Party continues to push for breakdowns of Obama Care while moderates such as John McCain clearly admit it cannot be done.  Boehner gave up the ship last year when he admitted he could not align the party.  Leadership is needed in this country, and it is not likely to come from the right.  The President is the best man for the job.  In fact, this is his job.  Negotiate, Mr. President, negotiate.

Tony F.

2013  

Seven Fractured Myths about "fracking"

Since its inception in December of 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has waged war on careless practices in industry and energy to make our nation a cleaner place.  But, despite the EPA’s effort to clean up the way America does business, it seems that they have left hydraulic fracturing alone.  Why? 

Myth #1 – the EPA is allowing the process to go on untouched.  Incorrect.  The EPA has established very strict rules to mitigate the potential for environmental impact of gas exploration.  It is because of these strict rules that fracturing is allowed to continue.

Myth #2 - Hydraulic fracturing forces toxic chemicals into the ground, and contaminates our water.  After extensive study, the EPA has been unable to connect any water contamination to the fracturing process unless there was an error in the process.  How do they know?  Because the alleged contamination found in wells bares no similarity to the ingredients used in fracturing fluids, and the impurities in well water are found to be naturally occurring.

Myth #3 – Hydraulic fracturing forces methane up through the ground where it enters wells and bubbles to the surface.   Evidence indicates these gassy wells had existed all along.  The EPA has found no evidence of methane leakage due to fracturing, unless the process was done incorrectly. Seventeen years ago I lived on a property with well water from the Fox Hills aquifer, approximately 900 feet deep.  This water contained salt, sediment, sulfur, and it bubbled with methane.  All of these ingredients occurred naturally. 

Myth #4 – There is no way to prevent the migration of frac fluids into the natural water system.  Actually there is.  Our water sources lie in the upper crust of the earth, 100 to 1000 feet below the surface.  Oil and gas resources are found 3,000 to 8,000 feet below the surface, so there is at least 2000 ft. of stone separating the two.  Throughout the drilling process, a high pressure casing is installed in the entire length of the shaft.  Due to this extensive casing, the EPA has pronounced the process safe when done properly.  There have been a few cases of water contamination due to surface spillage or improper disposal of frac fluids.  The EPA continues to regulate and penalize these matters.

Myth #5 – Fracturing fluid is full of dangerous and toxic chemicals.  In the aftermath of the recent floods in Colorado, allegations of spilled fracturing fluids were left essentially untouched by the EPA and the media because fracturing fluid is not very dangerous.  It is composed of 90% clean water, 9.5% sand, and less than half a percent of additives which the USDepartment of Energy characterizes as those found in a typical household.  Additionally, energy companies continue to reduce the level of toxic ingredients.  Governor John Hickenlooper recently claimed to have drunk from a glass of frac fluid which was passed among a group of Halliburton executives.

Myth #6 – The ingredients in fracturing fluid are a well-kept industry secret.  Not at all.  Contrary to this accusation, the ingredients in these fluids are not kept secret.  You can find the details at www.fracfocus.org.

Myth #7 – Hydraulic fracturing depletes water resources.  It takes several hundred thousand gallons to fracture a single well, but this quantity is not very large compared to the water we use every year.  The average American home uses 350,000 gallons of potable water per year.  The average acre of irrigated farmland uses 500,000 gallons per year.  When put into perspective, the implementation of hundreds of new wells each year collectively equals the annual water usage of a single neighborhood or a single farm.  Energy companies are also working hard to reuse and recycle their extracted water.  With new filtering processes, the industry has successfully reused 15 to 20 percent of fracturing water, and this amount continues to rise.

With the prompting of HBO producer Josh Fox, “anti-fracking” activism has reached fever pitch, contradicting the opinions of both the EPA and the Obama administration.  Unfortunately for Mr. Fox, his allegations continue to be proven wrong.  If we are to believe that the EPA is turning a blind eye to hydraulic fracturing, we must first believe that they have been controlled by the energy sector, or are somehow subdued by the Obama administration.  These two accusations are extremely hard to believe, especially in tandem.  There is no doubt that hydraulic fracturing is potentially dangerous if left unregulated, but the EPA and the state are actively involved, and the energy sector is cooperating.  As it stands, the EPA continues to observe and study the matter.

Tony F.

2013

The 70 Year Average

In the years from 1942 to 2012, the U. S. has enjoyed a 70-year heyday.  After our build up for WWII, we became the undisputed leader of the world in all military, economic, and influential fronts.  It seems fair to assume that we have been doing things fairly well over the last 70 years, and any idea to the contrary would be nothing short of experimental.  So, instead of engaging in endless debate about what is healthy for our economy, why don’t we compare our current numbers to the 70 year average?  

The big congressional debate is, once again, the debt ceiling.  The National Debt is currently 103% of GDP, which is quite high compared to the 70 year average (70 YA) of only 62%, but not higher than after the war.  Debt reduction is needed, but how?  Conservatives say we need to cut costs, which is correct.   Federal expenses are currently 22.8% of GDP, which is nearly 2% over the 70 YA.  On the other hand, Liberals say we should increase taxes, which is also correct.  Current Federal tax incomes are only 15.8% of GDP, nearly 2% below the 70 YA.  The top tax rate of 35% is nearly half the 70 YA.  So, the reason our debt has grown at record rates is because congress is not raising taxes, or cutting costs, and both are sorely needed.

One thing that becomes apparent when we consider the 70 YA of taxes and expenses is that, contrary to conservative opinion, the size of government has not grown out of control.  It is only 2% of GDP larger than the 70 YA, and well within the highs and lows of the last 70 years.  It is the combination of expense overruns and low taxation that creates our swelling deficits.  We often hear about the need for a balanced budget, which is also an overstatement.  Spending has outpaced income for all of the last 70 years, with just a few exceptions, Clinton's administration being the last.  The average annual deficit has averaged about 3.3% of GDP, just slightly below the 70 YA rate of inflation at 3.9%.

What about unemployment?  This figure is still quite high, and unemployment is a huge problem in America, right?  To the contrary, this appears to be false, because overall employment per capita (workforce) is at a comfortable 49.2%, a full 3.78% above the 70 YA.  That is to say, more Americans are at work today than most of the 70 YA, and more than any time prior to 1988.  Unemployment is a measure of change in employment.  In this case, we are comparing to the absolute highest overall decade of employment in U. S. history (1996-2006).  So, contrary to Tea Party rhetoric, America is not living off the government, and we do not need to be starved in order to go to work.  We are not under employed.  We just happen to be below maximum employment.

So, if more of us are working, why don’t we feel more successful?  We should, because our average household income of $68,000 is far better than the 70 YA of only $52,800 (adjusted to 2012 dollars).  Perhaps that is why Barack Obama had the gall to say, “The middle class is doing fine.”  On average, we make about 28% more than our parents did.    

So, let’s review:  We make more money than our parents did, and more of us have jobs than our parent’s generation.  We are taxed less than our parents, and the government spends slightly more on programs than it did for our parents.  Maybe it is time for us to think hard about the real debt problem - modern greed.  Tell your congressman to raise taxes, and find sensible ways to cut the budget without taking benefits from the poor.  This is the “balanced approach” Obama spoke of last year.  The trouble with congress at this moment is that it doesn't want to do the right thing.  They certainly don't want everyone to know the President was right all along.

(Special thanks to my son, Marcel Fiore, for creating the dashboard gauges.)

Tony F.

2013

The Most Ridiculous Bill Yet

Last week the Senate approved an immigration reform bill that was announced with upbeat fanfare by the media.  Liberal anchors called it a great compromise on the path to citizenship, and conservative anchors called it a much needed border security measure.  Everyone was pleased, except people like me.  I could only describe this bill with one word – ridiculous.

Immigration reform has been promised by Democrats for many years, in the form initially referred to as the Dream Act.  The whole idea is that we should allow the best immigrants – those who work hard, study, graduate school, produce, and assimilate themselves into society - the right to American citizenship.  It makes America stronger, healthier, and more productive.  I wrote about this idea in February.  For the longest time, conservatives would not engage this conversation.  They said a path to citizenship would only encourage more illegals to come running across the border, referring to them in the manner of sub-human pests.  It wasn’t till the election of 2012 that conservatives realized that they were being beaten by and needed to earn more of the Hispanic vote.  Republicans would not dream of immigration reform until they realized they needed do something to earn the favor of minority voters.  So the conversation was begun.

The result is a cobbled mess of legislation that doesn’t reform immigration at all.  Instead, it has turned into a military spending bill.  With the effort of Republicans, so-called immigration reform has been placed on hold until we spend $38 to $58 Billion on increased border security.  Reform kicks in after the money is spent and someone magically announces that the job of border security is complete, although the point of completeness is not defined.  Furthermore, the bill does not define where the billions are supposed to come from.  Didn’t we just fight our way through budget sequestration to save approximately $50 Billion, supposedly shrinking government and staving off certain bankruptcy?  Wasn’t reduction in government spending the absolute most important agenda on the right side of the aisle?  Wait, aren’t those the same guys who decided to spend billions of new funds on border security?  As it turns out, there is another agenda that is stronger than winning minority votes, and it is winning the favor of defense contractors.  Clearly this bill has taken a turn toward big business while ignoring the Hispanic vote that Republicans so badly need.  It’s ridiculous.

For conservatives there is still a bright side.  We don’t need to spend that money at all.  In fact, when the next debt ceiling debate comes to a head, conservatives can use it as leverage to completely kill the Immigration Reform Bill and save us Billions again!  So, for those voters who have absolutely no long term memory, it will appear that the conservatives did just the right thing at the right time by killing expenditures that were brought up by conservatives in the first place.  It’s just brilliant.  In fact, the House has already promised to disassemble the entire bill and throw it out piece by piece.  Do you suspect that they intend to come up with something better?  I certainly don’t.  They most likely will come up with something even more ridiculous. 

So let’s all give a hearty hip, hip, hooray for the bill that does absolutely nothing to improve immigration or the path to citizenship, while first requiring that it cost tens of billions, if the money is ever appropriated, which it most likely will not be.  I guess the most baffling question for me is how the media, who is usually so deliciously inquisitive about these things, bought into this joke of a package.  Do they get a piece of the billions too? Ridiculous.

Tony F.   2013