Monday, February 21, 2011

Support Governor Walker!


Thoughts on the Hassle in Wisconsin

I retired from a career as a public school teacher and thus may some say I am biased. I am perhaps more knowledgeable because of the time spent on duty, not biased.

Being a teacher brings with it more responsibilities than meets first perusal. You have to be there in lieu of guardianship and you are legally responsible for those students. You have temporary custody of them. Being a teacher is a complex job, much of which has nothing to do with the actual curriculum you are charged to teach.

Are teachers paid enough? May I ask if prices are too high? Is it the same question?

Frankly, I am embarrassed by the actions of many teachers in Wisconsin. They even want to be paid for demonstrating. Some are apparently collecting phony doctors notes excusing them to get a sick day when they were not sick. These doctors should lose their license and teachers who claim the phony sick leave should be fired. What are these 'teachers' teaching the students? That it is ok to commit fraud for a cause? That it is ok to demand that you join a union if you want to work? You have to join my gang or you can't work here.

The unions are fighting the end of this forced servitude. The unions will lose money when people have a choice on whether to join a union or not. How much are union dues? How much was lost in the new contract? What is the difference? Maybe the teachers can exercise their right to free choice on what organizations will collect dues from their paychecks and save money that way. It's all about freedom from being forced to give money to an organization. The unions are afraid to lose this money: they might lose their jobs. These teachers who are demonstrating are attempting to force union membership on everyone else. They already conceded that they would pay more of their own pensions and benefits.

I call for law and order. The teachers should go back to work or face immediate termination. The cowardly legislators who fled their responsibilities should return and face the budgetary problems. The governor does not want to lay off teachers but the union would prefer layoffs to this new agreement that cuts off mandatory union membership. I never liked mandatory union membership, having worked under it in California. All it generated was a few puffed up individuals going to conferences on money I was forced to contribute. And of course, the union I was forced to join made very public political choices that were against my own political beliefs. The teachers of Wisconsin would be better off without this expensive yoke around their necks. The unions cost too much money.

Part of my hassle about unions, is the lack of responsibility for any consideration of the long term results of any demands they make. If they can get some craven public servant to agree to outrageous demands that are unsustainable, they believe they are successful. Success in the short term that decimates long term practicality is not success: it is irresponsible. If the current union bosses set up huge pensions and cheap benefits for themselves with minimal personal donations, Bell California comes to mind.  Clawbacks!

The public servant who agrees to an unsustainable pension plan should be sued for stupidity. I see these people gain public office, run up the public debt, agree to DOA pension plans, and let the unions run the government like their own cash cow. I do believe the situation in Wisconsin is a microcosm of the problems in our nation today.

I was looking over a federal grant application and noted that the 'affiliated unions' for the proposed project must be listed and guaranteed. All this in Arizona, a right to work state. Why must the Feds guarantee union control of all jobs using federal money? Who set that up? The federal money is derived from federal taxes paid from Arizona, so why does the federal government have the right to tell us how to spend the funding?

It's probably obvious by now that I do not support the anti-government demonstrators. They are anti-government and pro-union and I do not want a union takeover of any state government. Take a look at the states: union demands, pension problems, debt and insolvency. Does that sound like the automakers? Does that sound like we need to support Governor Walker of Wisconsin? Yes it does.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Creating Wealth and Paying Off Gambling Debts

I don't know what all the Dodd/Frank regulation is, but I do know that investors have been gulled into thinking the subprime slippery interest rate mortgages were well documented legitimate loans made by a morally responsible lender. Something needs to be done, like a reorganization of the regulatory apparatus first as the new rules are implemented. Possibly the regulatory problems are related to the structure and hierarchy of the departments, which has apparently fallen victim to incompetency or bribery or indifference to what actions would produce positive results for the economy. What was the true mission of the regulators?

Tax reform should be accomplished in conjunction with this new regulation. Tax those 'investments' that throw the money back and forth way up above that never hit the ground in the form of jobs. Derivatives, mortgage securities, credit default swaps and the like should be taxed at an extremely high rate due to the damage done to the economy and the rise in unemployment. Regulation of them should demand transparency and extensive documentation every time they are sold or insured, like a performance audit of every component.

Reform of the institutionalized government agencies is necessary to implement Rep. Paul Ryan's suggestion that the government must be downsized. Downsizing will not take place without reform of the structure of the bureaucracy. It is interesting that President Obama and Rep. Paul Ryan made the same suggestion, coming at it from other directions. This is an opportunity for bipartisanship.

A down-sizing of the debt load needs to be a focus, by whatever means necessary.

Due to the world situation, cutbacks to the military seem unwise. A reduction in spending can occur as the two wars wind down, but our military is vital to our continued existence and should not be downsized. Full numbers military plus more high tech R&D. Tech is not a replacement for sheer numbers. Expensive, yes. Our military should cut out waste and frivolity.

The space program should be funded for the R&D and jobs and the possibility of lucrative mining ventures on the moon and asteroids. Public and private investment in interplanetary research is integral to world security and international cooperation in this research is needed now. Military outposts in space are crucial.

Long range planning must confront the possible futures of a closed world with a population explosion and increasingly scarce resources and the painful need for sustainability planning in a finite space. Not that infinite space exists, but there is more next door, complete with exploitable resources and presumably no competition other than among ourselves. I hope the USA stakes claim to the best ore deposits but it won't happen if we don't fund more exploration, manned and unmanned. Stuck here or out there exploring, these are the choices.

Create more wealth with more material resources. Colonize the local habitats, then aim for the stars. Any other vision turns us to dust.





                                           TUCSON EQUINOX 2010

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

How Americans can Honor Representative Gabrielle Giffords

Representative Giffords supports and believes in the space program of the United States of America. Her husband is an astronaut on leave to be with his wife.

We as Americans should pledge our support for the exploration of outer space. Republicans and Democrats working together can help push through an expansion of the current space program that would also create jobs and encourage private investment in developing mining and other business opportunities off planet.

Our economy needs rare earth minerals, titanium and other riches to be found. We already landed on an asteroid and the moon and Mars and bits of our work are probably on the surface of Venus. We have had success. Cooperate with the other technological leaders to create new enterprises. Space Exploration is now our Manifest Destiny.

To honor Gabrielle Giffords, Americans can support her dreams of space exploration and her love of this country. Let us all work together to create a new world of hope and jobs in space exploration. Let us help give Gabrielle Giffords something she knows is important: an expanded space program.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

RTA Boondoggle

So now the RTA, Rio Nuevo, TCC, and Tucson are all broke! And the only way RTA can see to get out of the hole is to borrow against the tax money they control. This is not a new story: the taxpayer funded activities around here are all wallowing in debt with little to show for it. Let's cut these bums out of control and force accountability for the use of that money.


If RTA has mismanaged and overspent, then halt the spending and put the projects on hold to join the Rio Nuevo projects in limbo. Borrowing huge sums so the same people can get their hands on the money to spend it capriciously on more inflated projects seems like an exercise in futility. The idea that projects need to be merely begun, and not funded in entirety, is a foolish way to do business. If there is any actual money left, let it be spent on public safety projects for local use. No more cross town freeways for outsiders to use: let's spend what is left on local projects hiring local people.

No more borrowing. The dollar value is cut by 40% usury charges, which creates a huge debt for this community to complete boom inspired projects. Whatever the promises were, what money that can be spent will be received as it comes in. Create an RTA fund and when that fund is large enough to proceed with completion of a project, then begin again.

The money is not there. Accept the fact and scale back operations until times get better. Fund ongoing street repairs and small projects out of the incoming revenue. Debt only delays the realization that the money is not there, it just sets taxpayers up for a deal where the money is blown now but the debt must be paid for years and years, during which time there will be no money for anything else. Now, if we can wait out the recession without debt, then times will be better much faster. It sounds like the RTA is planning on using up Pima County's credit rating to borrow huge sums. Pima County Supervisors might be interested in this angle.

I'm sorry about the jobs we are talking about here. Putting projects on hold deals with fiscal reality but real people work those jobs. The incremental funding jobs in RTA would keep some jobs, retirements could be encouraged, and attrition will account for some. I do believe that the unemployed need retraining programs tied to unemployment benefits and perhaps the unions would be interested in funding some of this.

Dorothy Prater Niemi





Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Modern Streetcar Stimulus?



In Tucson, Mayor Walkup is once again in a hurry to get another grant that must be supported by borrowed money. We should all stampede to the fore to protect this 'opportunity' to indebt the taxpayer through encumbering the RTA revenue stream and the Tucson general fund, thereby increasing the debt service and interest charges. If the RTA borrows $88 million, then over $100 million must be paid back, thereby diluting the material buying power of the tax dollar they are spending. No telling what kind of deal the city would make on new 'Certificates of Participation' or 'grant anticipation notes', which would further indebt the general fund.


So the bottom line is that they want to borrow money to build a system that will not be self-sufficient in operating costs. Mr. LaHood has evidently sabotaged the stimulus by paying grant money into projects that will not be self sufficient or profitable when they are completed. In the case of the city of Tucson, which is reportedly $54 million in deficit for 2011 and is paying about 30+% of total income as debt service, more debt cannot be tolerated. SunTran must also be subsidized and this new streetcar project would just add another increase to the deficit. The city of Tucson does not need more revenue streams tied up and diluted nor does the city need more debt service drain on the inadequate general fund. What next? Laying off police and fire to subsidize this streetcar? The city already wants to raid $14.5 million from the street repair fund to build another bridge over the Santa Cruz for the streetcar. Our streets need maintenance. Spending $178 million on a project that is of questionable economic benefit seems out of place in this economic climate. The city cannot afford more debt.

RTA money is obtained county wide, yet this streetcar project will not improve the economy countywide. Economic benefit will be limited to a few landowners and businesspeople along the route, which will cost more than $50 million per mile, with the RTA funding covering half the cost. This is not a judicious use of RTA funds. I remember a long list of funded projects, of which this modern streetcar was not one detailed, but existed only as part of a list of possible projects. $88 million is a bite out of RTA projects elsewhere and even more money would be lost to interest payments on $88 million in debt.

Possibly another grant could fund local projects, rather than using our tax money to fund jobs in Oregon. We need local stimulus money to stay local, not force us into borrowing in order to get the money in order to buy streetcars made elsewhere. We need jobs here and less debt.

I have an alternative proposal. Put buses or vans on this proposed streetcar route. Bulldoze a road through the Santa Cruz to mimic the use of the proposed bridge and send the buses over it. Connect it all up now with increased transit and just see the economic activity along the proposed route. If this deal is truly about moving people along this route, let's do it now and try it out. Revamp the bus pullouts or make new ones and get busy moving those people. We need a bus stop right by that new UA classroom complex! Stop talking about this proposed route and get it on! Modifications to little used routes could pick up the cost. Put those expensive teamsters to work on this people moving project.

Monday, December 06, 2010

HELP THE UNEMPLOYED!!!!!

Unemployment in perpetuity?





Unemployment at 10% is caused by:

• population increase

• money concentrated in 'financials' instead of production

• dumping of foreign consumer goods on US market

• 2% of population has 25% of the wealth

• borrowing has lessened since subprime boom

• taxes favor financial losses

• foreclosures and devaluation of housing to pre boom levels

• credit card use is down due to increased standards

• cities and states are debt ridden to the maximum

• the federal government is debt ridden and in deficit spending

• insurance costs are out of control

• medical costs are out of control

• local taxes are up

Certain industries related to construction have been hit harder during the recession. Jobs overall are scarce, with work to be found in medical services and internet related businesses, among others.

The long term unemployed need to find new professions. I remember when the mines closed down and left many workers stranded. The government offered job training classes to these displaced workers, giving them a chance to get off the dole and back into the workforce. A friend laid off at the mine south of Tucson took this opportunity to become a skilled diesel mechanic. Why can't workers now be offered an opportunity to change professions?

A long term unemployed person signing up for this program would continue unemployment benefits. Success would continue benefits until the program was complete. Non attendance would cut off benefits.

Enrollment in programs should be limited to certain growing professions. For example, a program in construction management would not be eligible for funding due to a glut of workers in that profession. A program in website construction would be eligible because work in that area is growing.

A further caveat would require that the school providing the training would not be paid unless the student successfully completes the class, with a final payment due upon completion of the program. This would prevent the schools from getting the money upfront, which lessens their responsibility to the student. If the student fails, the school is not paid!

I think that the long term unemployed would leap at the chance at a retrain themselves and give themselves a chance in this new tight job market. The nation cannot afford to have 10% of our workers on the public dole and a simple program to reeducate these workers would give hope to distressed workers.

My program suggestion has several important aspects:

• Workers have a chance to reeducate and get off unemployment

• Schools have an infusion of students and money into their programs

• More money is circulating

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Tax Policy as an implement of change

Tax Policy as an implement of change


A short term tax source would be the taxing of the original mortgage lenders on all foreclosures and the taxing of the foreclosing party, as the empty homes are a blight to neighborhoods and make problems for local law enforcement. Local economies should tax vacant houses at a higher rate, due to the extra costs. All tax hikes go on the foreclosing parties, not the people being ousted. The idea here is to discourage bad loans at the inception, and collect taxes on the problems loans all down the line.

Another idea would be to discourage non producing investments like mortgage backed securities and ETFs, that tie up money and produce nothing except commissions and dividends. Tax the profits from these kinds of investment at a high rate and tax the losses also, as a drain on the system. No more tax credits for losses from non producing investments, real or fabricated. The government is rewarding these non good or service producing investments with tax breaks. The government even covered their losses with tax funded bailouts, instead of refunding to the original investors, who took a loss. There were other ways to prop up the pension funds.

Long term tax policy as a remedy for economic problems could include stabilizing population growth as a remedy for high unemployment. Lately the numbers of jobs available has not kept up with population growth, resulting in high unemployment rates and many unemployed young people.

Perhaps the tax policy should state 'one dependent per one adult' instead of huge tax breaks for people who have many children. Having more children actually costs the system, the schools, welfare, busing, meals, and other subsidies. Limiting the dependent credit to one per one would tend to discourage large families. The same would go for school tax credits and tuition subsidies. Manifest Destiny is certainly over and more population growth plus high unemployment will damage the prosperity of the citizenry.

As for the economic model that demands ever increasing growth for success is surely in for a disavowal as populations become more dense and physical supplies are strained or tenuous. Tax policy could slow down this 'population infill' before we have people living in doorways. Too many people are broke and unemployed while the amount of money the mega wealthy controls has ballooned.

Current tax policy uses the IRS as an arm of welfare, giving 'returns' to people who did not earn them like a once a year Santa. I suppose that gratis payments to low income people is easier to do this way than it would be if the legislative process were used to authorize these payments. It also attracts less political publicity. Payments to these people should be limited to one per one.

So now the IRS is to be used as an arm of insurance companies to force people to buy private health insurance? If the IRS is checking on this, then it must be a tax that you will be punished if you do not pay, just like income tax. A tax imposed on us by private companies is not sound policy. I am hearing stories of people who have to buy high deductable insurance because it is cheaper and then still don't get health care because they can't afford it. Anything to keep the IRS off your ass, right?

More on tax policy later.