February 16, 2011

What are American Jobs Worth?

by Steve Dana

The most important issue for Americans is getting our unemployed workers back to work.  Our consumer driven economy needs our people working to fuel the recovery.

What specific actions do we need government to enact that would cause a business to invest or to hire new workers?  At what level of government do we need these actions?

My first thought was Energy Policy in our country and I see the potential for jobs with pay and benefits that can support families, but I see over-regulation and legal challenges that prevent those jobs from ever coming to market.  The energy segment is really important to the national economy not just because of the jobs, but also because of the products they produce for our homes and our cars.

It is of national importance to get these industries back on track producing competitively priced energy for American consumers.  Failing to address the issues preventing energy companies from doing what they do will not provide those jobs and will increase the cost of energy to all of us.

So what do we need the government to do that will make it possible for private sector “for profit” companies to get to work?  I’m asking because I don’t know. 

I have ideas, but I am not an authority so I need help.

I do know it is really easy to file a lawsuit to prevent a company from drilling or mining because of environmental concerns.  The cost to file the suit is minimal and the risk to the filer is minimal.  Even lawsuits without merit can be filed as a harassment strategy.

It is really frustrating to work through the regulatory process and when you have a permit in hand find you are stopped in your tracks because of a lawsuit challenging some aspect of the permit.

I use national energy policy as an example of how government over-regulation or being overly sympathetic to litigation prevents the formation of jobs and forces higher consumer prices for energy products available to American consumers.

Here are two reasons for the Federal government to act proactively to reduce regulations and change statutes that allow frivolous or trivial lawsuits that can create the jobs and produce the energy our country needs.

Am I off base on this?  If I am not, then can we do it legislatively or does it require control of the executive branch?  If we capture an executive position, how do we implement changes that will clear the way for jobs and cheaper energy?

I can think of The Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act as two legislative initiatives that increase cost to consumers and lose jobs for American workers.  I am certain that there are dozens of federal and state laws that do as well.

We need to recommend specific changes to state and federal laws that will address these concerns so that voters can see why or how they lost their jobs or how their neighbor lost her job.  People need to see the relationship between a statute and industries impacted.  Let’s give voters a chance to choose between jobs and spotted owls.

February 15, 2011

Get my copy “Understanding the Federal Budget for Dummies!”

by Steve Dana

I have to be honest; I have never spent a minute analyzing the Federal Budget.  Like most of our elected officials, I have been willing to leave the heavy lifting to “someone else” and trust that things would work out.  I guess I have been okay with passing it first then finding out what was in it later. 

It’s difficult enough struggling with dedicated funds, enterprise funds and inter-fund transfers of local budgets.  How on earth could any elected official understand the ramifications of voting “Yes” or “No” on the Federal Budget?

Is there a book at Barnes & Noble called “Understanding the Federal Budget for Dummies”?

Doesn’t that indicate that we have made the process too complex when our elected officials don’t even know what they are approving?

So how do we simplify the legislative process so that our elected officials at least understand what they are voting on when their leadership asks them to do so?  And that might be the real issue; voting a particular way because you are “asked” to do so or suffer the consequences.  

Or, do our legislators have too many committee assignments requiring that members of congress be “up to speed” on more numerous topics or more sophisticated topics than they can understand?  Is the work more intellectually challenging than they can handle? 

How do we reduce this down to a point where most of us could understand what is going on?  Is it reasonable for us to want bills coming out of our state legislatures and the congress that the rest of us can understand?  I think that would be a good first step.

Then maybe make sure that bills with budget implications be adequately labeled so everyone knows when they approve it that there is a financial component.

The thought of understanding what’s going on here boggles my mind.

February 14, 2011

Raise the Debt Ceiling? I don’t think so!

by Steve Dana

The President unveiled his 2012 budget this morning and it was an eyebrow raiser for folks on both sides of the aisle; certainly for us on the right.  I’m not sure if the numbers are accurate, but the “deficit” part of the budget was said to be $1.65 Trillion.

How can it be that we talk about deficit reduction, form a deficit reduction advisory commission, speak to the excessive deficit in the State of the Union address then produce this budget? 

I agree that the Deficit Reduction Commission suggested some painful options, but I suspect there isn’t much low hanging fruit.  That bi-partisan panel offered both parties an entrée to the options we have in dealing with these tough choices.  The President passed on his opportunity to demonstrate responsible leadership.  Now we have to try a different strategy.

There is an important date approaching next month where the Congress has to authorize raising the debt ceiling.  In order for the President to put our country deeper in debt, the Congress has to agree to it.  Could failing to do this be likened to pulling an Emergency Brake?

I am not in favor of raising the debt ceiling.  I don’t care what the ramifications might be; this is not a good idea.  This should be our line in the sand.

I’ve heard some suggestions regarding what will happen if there is no approval.  I would only suggest that the President and his Cabinet meet with their smartest people to start adjusting their budgets accordingly.  There will need to be some prioritization of spending to maintain essential services while ramping down and mothballing less essential services.

This may be the only tough language they understand. 

In my own family, I’ve been told I was guilty of enabling bad behavior.  I won’t deny it’s possible.  I know how painful it has been for all the parties involved to change our ways.  But, my enabling was as unacceptable as the bad behavior.

I understand that my family situation is not really interchangeable with our Federal Government, but we all understand how difficult it is to take on difficult challenges knowing that the outcome might be very painful for everyone concerned.  But if we truly care about our family members, we do it anyway.

I am in favor of using the bi-partisan Deficit Reduction Commission’s report as the guideline for tackling this problem recognizing that the only meaningful solutions will mean altering retirement plans for millions of Americans; myself included.  What choice do we have?

Let’s all bite down hard on that leather strap and get on with the procedure!

Maybe if our elected officials can muster the courage to tackle this issue they might also look at the IRS, DSHS, DOE and the EPA!

February 13, 2011

Bombs in the Hands of Street Gangs

by Steve Dana

So what have we learned from the shake-up in Egypt?

I think the most stunning lesson we learned was the power of social networking.  If what we now think happened in Egypt is true, it will be revolutionary, literally revolutionary around the world.  Wherever there is internet capability there will be the power to organize for a desired purpose; even take down a government.

We have known for a long time the younger generation had tapped into an instantaneous method of sharing information on a world-wide basis.  We weren’t concerned about whether it would improve the human condition or not.  It was a fun way for kids to stay in touch with one another.

On the surface it has been a little annoying to some of us older folks.  We see our young people with a device in their hands seemingly 24-7.  What in the world are they doing so much of their time?

Now we know that some of them weren’t just talking about girl friends and boy friends.  The implications of this “network” thing are huge when you see the creative ways the technology is being applied.  That creativity may spark debate about a need to regulate.

I suspect that governments around the world have been a little nervous about the possible outcomes in their own countries.  The ones that now move toward clamping down on internet accessibility and restrict social networking are the ones we should watch because they know they have something to fear.

Where the outcome in Egypt worked out so far on the positive side, the potential could just as easily benefit a disruptive movement in any country for any purpose.

I am not sure how the government will be able to offset the power of social networking to link individuals with ideas from communicating them to others when the desired outcome is harm to our country as we know it today. 

This tool is like a nuclear bomb in the hands of a street gang.