Global Trade is Good for America, Bernie, Donald and Hillary-wake up and tell the truth.

With all the talk about global trade by both sides of the aisle, many articles have come out with actual facts.  Amazing, facts!

Economist.  4/2/16. “Trade, at what price?” Plenty of data that supports global trade as good for America. The issue is the benefits are concentrated in those with more education and willing to move for a new job.  The less fortunate will suffer dramatically if tariffs are imposed, their cost of living will rise 10-20% since they purchase more this material than those with more money. TAA has not made up the difference in wages for those that lose their jobs.  manufacturing has been shedding jobs long before NAFTA, etal, due to global competition requiring more productivity.

National Review, 4/11/16. “The Truth about Trade.”  Lots more data agreeing with the above article. What to do?

  1. US workers should receive the same tax benefit for training unrelated to their current job.
  2. SSDI requirements should be tightened so able-bodied adults are looking for and accepting work.
  3. Occupational reform should be a priority, especially at the state level.
  4. Federal job training programs should be consolidated-issue vouchers or block grants for states to experiment.
  5. Tax free savings accounts like Canada should be explored.
  6. Health care portability, and tax deductible at the individual level should be put in place.
  7. Reduce barriers to opening new businesses, regulations and costs.

Trade is good.  Losing high labor, low value added work is how we have gotten richer for 200 years, stop stoking the fears of those who are affected!

A Fix for Social Security is still not in sight

The Investors’ Business Daily had an enlightening article on Wednesday with the above title. Summary.

The excess funds that came into the SSA during the baby boomers prime earning years were spent, and the government issued an IOU to the “Trust Fund”. Since 2010 more money has gone out to retirees than came in, the “Trust Fund” will go bankrupt now in 2029, and reduction of five years from just a few years ago.

Solutions. 1. Reduce benefits for retiring early. 2. Continue raising retirement age over time. 3. Reduce no benefits for current retirees. 4. Possibly tax benefits for the wealthy. 5. Have courage in Congress to address the issue.

Oh well, number five kills the deal.  Political courage is lacking on both sides of the aisle.  GW Bush tried to talk about this and was excoriated as trying to screw the elderly.  The NUMBERS DON’T CRUNCH PEOPLE! WAKE UP!

Social Security availability, affect on participants

The American Enterprise Institute published comments on raising eligibility ages for social security.  The GAO recently put out comments that raising the age for full participation would hurt lower income earners more than higher income earners.  AEI disagrees with the conclusion.

Social Security is a giant Ponzi scheme, funded not from a “trust fund” but from current taxes.

The rich are living longer than the poor — what does that tell us about retirement security?

The GAO report, titled “Retirement Security: Shorter Life Expectancy Reduces Projected Lifetime Benefits for Lower Earners,” focuses on how the fact that high earners live longer than low earners partially undoes Social Security’s progressivity. The GAO was responding to a request from Sen. Bernie Sanders in which Sanders, in GAO’s words, “asked us to examine disparities in life expectancy and the implications for our nation’s policies with respect to retirement security.” There’s a lot of detail in the GAO’s report, some of it extraneous and some of which is misleading. But I don’t think GAO really answers the questions Sen. Sanders was asking.

GAO finds, for instance, that differential mortality between rich and poor means that a low-income male collecting Social Security benefits at age 65 will receive 10% lower lifetime benefits than were he to have the population-wide average life expectancy. A high-income male, by contrast, receives 12% higher lifetime Social Security due to his above-average life expectancy. In other words, the lifetime collection of Social Security benefits is less progressive than benefit payments in the first year of retirement, because the rich live and collect benefits longer. This has been known since at least the 1970s, but the fact that the longevity gap between rich and poor has been growing makes it a relevant topic for current research.

That’s an interesting and relevant point regarding Social Security’s lifetime progressivity. But what does it have to do with retirement security? Retirement security is generally measured as a retiree’s ability to maintain his pre-retirement standard of living, the shorthand for which is the replacement rate, meaning retirement income as a percentage of pre-retirement earnings. Differential mortality doesn’t really change that, at least from Social Security’s perspective. The replacement rates that low, middle and high-earning households receive from Social Security don’t change as a result of the fact that high-earning households live longer than low-earning ones do. Yes, the program becomes a bit less progressive on a lifetime basis. But note, it’s a bit less progressive, not regressive. Even with differential mortality, low earners receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes while for high earners it’s the opposite.

 But differential mortality does tell us something interesting about retirement security that the GAO doesn’t spend much time on. Most studies on the adequacy of households’ retirement saving will express the balances of savings accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s as an “annuity” at retirement age. An annuity is a financial product that allows you to convert a lump sum of money at retirement age into a monthly retirement income that last for life. The annuity formula used in retirement income adequacy studies is usually based on the average life expectancy of the retiree population. Converting lump sums to annuities is unrealistic – very few people actually purchase annuities – but it’s a convenient method for analyzing retirement incomes.

But it’s problematic when few people actually purchase annuities and when the rich live much longer than the poor. Let’s say that a rich man and a poor man both retire with 401(k)s. In practice, both will gradually draw down their account balances. If, as the GAO notes, the rich man lives 12% longer than average, that means his annual withdrawals must be 12% lower or he’ll run out of money late in life. Likewise, if the poor man’s life expectancy is 10% shorter than the average, he can increase his 401(k) withdrawals by 10% and still not run out of money.

By itself this doesn’t overturn our thinking on retirement saving. Low-earners tend not to have a lot of assets, so adjusting up their 401(k) withdrawals by 10% isn’t going to make them rich. High-earners do rely heavily on 401(k)s and other retirement accounts but, again, they’re high earners. But the simple fact that some retirees’ assets won’t have to last nearly as long as we thought, while others will have to last longer, strikes me as worth mentioning if writing a study on differential mortality and retirement security.

The GAO makes some policy news regarding Social Security reform. They state,

“Our analysis indicates that one frequently suggested change to address Social Security’s financial challenges, raising the retirement age, would further reduce projected lifetime benefits for lower-income groups proportionally more than for higher-income groups.”

I’m going to say flat out that this claim is wrong and GAO should know it’s wrong.

Some people get very confused about how raising the Social Security retirement age affects progressivity, because they don’t realize that raising the Social Security retirement age is nothing other than an across-the-board benefit cut. If the retirement age goes up by a year, then everyone – rich and poor, long-lived and short-lived – receives about 7% less in retirement benefits. They receive 7% less in each year they retire and they receive 7% less over their lifetimes. GAO’s analysts surely understand this.

So how do they get to the conclusion that raising the Social Security retirement age would disproportionately hurt low-earning, shorter-lived retirees? By packaging an increase in Social Security’s “normal retirement age” – currently age 66, which is the retirement age policy that’s actually “frequently suggested,” in GAO’s terms – with another policy that’s much less frequently suggested and which doesn’t contribute to fixing Social Security’s solvency problem: raising theearly retirement age of 62, which is the age at which people can first claim retirement benefits. Unlike raising the normal retirement age, raising the early retirement age is regressive because those who die between 62 and the new early retirement age, say 64 or 65, would not receive benefits. Because of differential mortality, those individuals would be disproportionately poor.

The GAO is handing a talking point to people who oppose raising the Social Security retirement age, but it’s a misleading one. GAO’s results depend on adding a second provision, raising the early retirement age, to the reform package. There are plenty of Social Security reform proposals that raise the normal retirement age but don’t touch the early retirement age. The GAO is unfairly maligning those plans as harming the poor.

I personally favor raising the early retirement age as a way to encourage longer work lives, coupled with other provisions that would make Social Security as a whole substantially more progressive. The GAO acknowledges – in the footnotes – that this is possible. But there’s no reason they shouldn’t have noted, prominently, that the increase in thenormal retirement age is what’s doing the legwork in terms of fixing Social Security’s solvency while it’s the increase in the early retirement age that causes the regressive results.
Finally, for no reason I can figure out, GAO includes an appendix which is nothing other than a chart showing that the share of total earnings subject to taxation had declined since the 1980s. (Compared to Social Security’s full history since 1935, however, the taxable earnings share today is right about average.) The share of earnings subject to taxation has nothing to do with differential mortality, but is a favorite talking point of progressives who want to fix Social Security by lifting or eliminating the so-called “tax max.” That’s fine, but it doesn’t belong in this kind of report.
One of the upsides (for me, at least) of working at a think tank is that people who read my work for the hard analysis get my slanted opinions as a free bonus. But that’s not how it should work for a government agency producing work for the public.

Disagree with me and I will put you in jail!

The article referenced below is amazing.  Climate change (changed from global warming since warming hasn’t happened for twenty years), it has been decided, is a “proven fact.” Or so say a number of state AG’s.  All democrats. Thus, if you as a scientist decide to present data that contradicts the group think, we will try and charge you with a crime.

A large majority of scientists agree warming is occurring, and man is the primary cause.  Some scientists disagree, shouldn’t we listen to both sides of the question?

16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

The Investors Business Daily had a recent editorial titled, “Dark Side of the Climate Scare” that quoted many of the leaders of the movement saying the real reason they are fomenting such lather is to enact wealth transfer from rich to less rich countries, and from the wealthy individuals to less wealthy, because of a lack of fairness.  If it is a real threat, then all countries need to participate, not just wealthy countries.

 

On Blaming

Louis L’Amour, prodigious novelist, said, “Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune or the quirks of fate. Everyone has it within his power to say, “This I am today; That I will be tomorrow.”

To add a few things to blame, President Bush, Corporations, Unions, Lousy teachers, Globalization, No safe spaces, whatever. We are created, well to create.  Creation is something new out of what is in front of us. We will rot in place pointing fingers at others, we must try to pull ourselves, our loved ones and especially those less fortunate than further towards happiness.

Washington DC Opportunity Scholarship program under threat, again

The WSJ reported that the program initiated in Washington, DC, to give kids an opportunity to escape failing public schools was only authorized for this year, versus the expected five years.  The program has been around since 2003 and has been taken advantage of by thousands of kids. It has been opposed by President Obama, the local teachers’ union and the “representative” E.N. Holmes from the inception. The program spends HALF of what the public schools get per student, accepts all, and has much better results.  When will we realize that outcomes are more important than inputs.  When will we realize that leadership is more important than seniority. From the article a mother tells the journalist, “Sheila Jackson tells me she feels insulted by the black Democrats who claim to look our for her and her family interests–You want my vote but you don’t care about my children”

WSJ; February 16, “Fighting Congress for a Capital Education”

2014 Hottest Year since 1880? It depends!

These two articles, both siting data, disagree about the results, or causes. It would seem that before we spend billions of dollars, put thousands out of work, we should come to some sort of agreement  that data will support two sides of an argument.  We humans like to be right, scientists stake reputations and their future on what they say and an opposing view is always put in the “denier” category, as though other scientists haven’t looked at the data.  The same data actually in many cases!  Politicians have different motives, power and money.   The two most powerful levers to pollute a decision.

So, read these two articles.  Make up your own mind but group think causes most wars, most human suffering, wrongheaded policies, and huge costs to fix once the data is overwhelming to those who forced a solution for whatever reason.

Reason, we are blessed to have it as humans. Too bad we allow our self-centered selves to overwhelm it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/2014-hottest-year-on-record_n_6479896.html

2014 Was The Hottest Year Since At Least 1880, Government Finds

01/16/2015 11:06 am ET | Updated Jan 16, 2015

James GerkenGreen Editor, The Huffington Post

ASSOCIATED PRESS

2014 was the hottest year in 135 years of record-keeping, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA announced on Friday. The year’s average combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 58.24 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NOAA. This is 1.24 F above the 20th-century average. Global average land temperatures were 1.80 F above average, while ocean surface temperatures were 1.03 F above average, the agency said. Land temperatures alone were only the fourth-warmest on record, but ocean temperatures were the warmest, which helped to make 2014 the warmest year overall. NOAA and NASA record temperature observations independently, but both agencies confirmed 2014 to be a record-breaking year. NASA reported 2014’s average temperature to be 58.42 F, which the agency reported was 1.22 F above a 1951-1980 average. Previously, 2010 and 2005 held the record, but the 2014 temperature edged out both years by 0.07 F. The 10 warmest years on record have all been after 1998, and 2014 marked the 38th straight year with global average temperatures above the 20th-century average. Six months in 2014 also set monthly global heat records: May, June, August, September, October and December of last year were all the warmest such months on record. “Viewed in context, the record 2014 temperatures underscore the undeniable fact that we are witnessing, before our eyes, the effects of human-caused climate change,” climate scientist Michael Mann told The Huffington Post. “It is exceptionally unlikely that we would be seeing a record year, during a record-warm decade, during a multidecadal period of warmth that appears to be unrivaled over at least the past millennium, if it were not for the rising levels of planet-warming gases produced by fossil fuel burning.” For the U.S. alone, as opposed to the planet overall, 2014 was only the 34th warmest year on record. But temperatures in the U.S. that year still exceeded the country’s 20th-century average, for the 18th consecutive year. Seventeen major U.S. metropolitan areas, representing 9 percent of the country’s population, were on track to have their warmest years on record, as of a December 2014 analysis from Climate Central. Ten of these 17 are located in California, one of five states that were projected to have one of their top five warmest years in 2014. “Perhaps more important than the global temperature story are the impacts of record regional heat,” Jonathan Overpeck, co-director of the University of Arizona’s Institute of the Environment, told HuffPost. “In places like California, the Southwest U.S. more generally, Australia and parts of Brazil, record heat is exacerbating drought and leading to more stress on our water supplies and forests.” “With continued global warming, we’re going to see more and more of these unprecedented regional conditions, and with them will come more and more costs to humans and the things they value,” he added. “2014 shows that humans are indeed cooking their planet as they continue to combust fossil fuels.” 1985 was the last year that any urban area in the U.S. saw a record-cold year. February 1985 was the last time the planet saw a colder-than-average month. “If you are younger than 29 years old, you haven’t lived in a month that was cooler than the 20th-century average,” said Marshall Shepherd, a professor at the University of Georgia and former president of the American Meteorological Society. “You will hear some skeptics say that the satellite-based temperature records don’t support these findings, but we also used ground-based instruments like thermometers and rain gauges to validate these measurements.” The new global record is also notable because 2014 was not an El Niño year. Theweather phenomenon is marked by warmer-than-average surface ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific and leads to above average near-surface air temperatures and other impacts across the globe. El Niño has been observed during previous record-warm years like 1998, 2005 and 2010. “A record or near-record warm year, especially absent a strong El Niño, is mostly a reminder that the long-term trend for Earth’s temperature is up, up, up,” Princeton University geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer told HuffPost. Along with rising temperatures, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations surpassed 400 parts per million in May 2013, for the first time in at least 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations rise and fall slightly in an annual cycle, but remained above 400 parts per million for several months in 2014 and have already surpassed 400 again in January 2015. The last time carbon dioxide levels were this high, temperatures were up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, and sea levels were dozens of feet higher. The 400 parts per million milestone is somewhat symbolic, but it serves as a reminder that the massive consumption of fossil fuels continues to remake the chemistry of our atmosphere and trap more and more heat from the sun. “The record temperatures should put to rest the absurd notion of a “pause” (what I refer to as the “Faux Pause”) in global warming,” Mann added.

http://www.investors.com/2014-not-the-hottest-year-on-record/

1/16/2015 6:27 PM EST

Climate Change: The news is ablaze with a report that 2014 was the “hottest year.” But there’s no reason to be excited. The story the global warming alarmists are trying to tell isn’t the only one out there. ‘For the third time in a decade,” shouted the AP, “the globe sizzled to the hottest year on record, federal scientists announced Friday.” The Washington Post reported that “the year 2014 was the hottest ever measured, based on records going back to the year 1880.” Bloomberg News challenged readers to “deny this” and directed them to “animation below” that documents “2014: The Hottest Year.” Hysteria also reigned at the BBC in Britain, the New Era in Africa, Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald and all points in between. In one sense, the breathless stories are correct: 2014 was the hottest year on record — by no more than four-hundredths of a degree. But that’s based on surface thermometer records, which are not reliable. Better measurement is done by satellites, and they indicate 2014 was the third-warmest in the 36 years that satellites have been used to document temperatures. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says the satellite data show that temperature changes since 2001 are “statistically insignificant.” As expected, though, some scientists — a few of whom are considered “distinguished” — take the hottest-ever report as confirmation that man is dangerously warming his planet due to fossil-fuel use. But a few have kept their heads. Roger Pielke, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, told the Post that “there remain significant uncertainties in the accuracy of the land portion of the surface temperature data, where we have found a significant warm bias.” Judith Curry, professor at Georgia Tech’s school of earth and atmospheric sciences, said that “with 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year,” the implication is “that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.” “This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations,” she added. There’s simply nothing to see here. But that’s the way it’s always been with the global-warming swindle.

 

Venezula

There are too many articles that highlight what happens when government moves to fascist actions, national socialism.  But Venezula certainly is the poster child.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/12/hugo_ch%C3%A1vezs_venezuela

Investors Business Daily, “Socialist Venezuela Feels the Bern”.

The voting and poll data shows the younger you are the more you think socialism is a good thing, whether at the extreme like Venezuela and Cuba or more soft like Denmark.  Do some reading, please, and ask, do you trust the government to do better with your money, than you do?  Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

 

U.S. declines again as a “Free Economy”

The Heritage Foundation publishes a yearly Index of Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking, that measures exactly that, how free a country’s is, how easy it is to participate, start a business, etc.  Our country fell again, we are now 13th. Why? Government interference, higher taxes, more control by the nomenklatura, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura, etc.

If we want to affect the incomes of the middle class, our economy  should be more free, not less.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/31/americas-economic-freedom-has-rapidly-declined-under-obama/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=saturday&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRovs6jAZKXonjHpfsX57ewtXqWwlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ASMtjNa%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm

Deportation

This political season has seen immigration rise again in its’ importance. Some say there are 11 million “illegals” in our country, half of those are visa ‘overstayers’ per the data. Deportations are currently legal, and always have been. Per the WSJ, “Restarting Deportation Is Needed to Deter Illegals” 2 million people have been apprehended but not detained or deported. 1 million have removal orders issued but not carried out. Cities have declared themselves as sanctuary cities, not cooperating with ICE. “E Verify”, the program to verify a persons’ citizenship is voluntary but proven to be a significant barrier for undocumented people, the only jobs they can get are in the cash economy. Some conservatives like the cheap labor, most progressives want more votes, the rest of us are ticked off that neither side will enforce the law.

Undocumented workers lower wages for the entry level jobs here in the U.S. This is another factor in the income inequality we see rising. Many of us however do not want to pay more for food, waiters, lawn care, etc. as those prices will rise as wages will have to rise when we clean up the mess.

What’s “best” for country has lots of meanings.  My meaning is clean it up, I will pay more if needed.