Economy: March 2008 Archives

No, I haven't gotten that check, but I did get the direct deposit of my whopping $10 federal tax refund!! (I had to pay the state.) Why, thank you Uncle Sam for rewarding my hard work so... shall I buy a roll of laundry quarters, or a gyro plate at Firehouse?

This is the time of year I start lusting for Steve Forbes again: Flat tax!! FLAT TAX!!! And as far as the black hole where my tax money goes... cut those useless wasteful programs!! Reduce spending!! Chop, chop, chop...

Why is it that if gas prices dropped by 25 percent, we would be dancing in the streets ... but when housing prices drop 25 percent, we prepare for the next Great Depression?

And a corollary: Why is that when gas prices rise by 25, 50, even 100 percent, we denounce big oil for price gouging ... but when housing prices similarly soar, we gladly sell our homes at "market value"?

What's worse than having to endure government flakery? Having to pay for it.

Like millions of Americans, I got a happy note in the mail from the IRS the other day. Who knew that could happen? it was the notice telling me that I was going to get a bribe, er rebate check in the mail shortly (though not in time enough to pay my tax bill next month). After the relief of not reading an audit notice, I started to get a little annoyed.Doesn't everyone whose head is not in the sand know there's a rebate? What exactly what was the point of this mailed note other than pure flakery? What's worse, this lRS letter campaign cost $42 million to mail.

The tax rebate was already a tremendously obvious PR stunt to momentarily make us forget that the Iraq war lumbers into its fifth year, gas prices are rising, the housing market is crumbling and so is the individual wealth of millions of working people, the nation's wealth is disproportionately going to the ultra rich, who are getting richer by laying off hardworking employees, and all our social safety nets have been rendered virtually worthless by decades of republicrats who have put the U.S. on the track toward third-world status. And the country has to finance this $169 billion economic package, of which these $600 bribes are part, making the final cost much, much larger. And this added, unnecessary cost of trying to spin the American people makes it offensive.

This is not to say I won't cash my check and spend it on some crap I don't need, and which was probably made in China or Mexico or Indonesia. I just wish that someone in DC would suddenly wake up and and say "hey, this is a bad idea. Let's stop the madness."

"I also ask you to work with me on another environmental first. I propose that California be the first in the world to develop a low carbon fuel standard that leads us away from fossil fuels."

That is, of course, the same governor who takes a private jet, almost daily, to and from Sacramento, burning more fossil fuels that a slew of normal commuters over the course of their lifetimes. So how does Arnold justify imposing tougher green burdens on the rest of us when he does so little to reduce his own massive carbon footprint? This is how he answered that question yesterday:

To me it's very important that I serve the people of California, but also at the same time that I serve my family. And so in order to do both I fly two or three times a week up here to Sacramento and fly back again so I can be at night with my family, can do the homework with the kids, can spend time with my wife and everything, which is extremely important. I promised that to them and I promised to the people of California I would take care of the job. And that's what I do. That's why I fly up to Sacramento and all over the state.

In other words, I've got my own good, personal reasons for releasing enough greenhouse gases to choke Al Gore.

Which, no doubt, is true. But here's the thing -- we all have our reasons.

I have good reasons for driving a big family car (a minivan) -- namely three kids (and a fourth on the way) whose state-mandated car seats wouldn't fit in a Prius. I've also got good reasons for a 90-mile round-trip commute -- namely, it's what I need to do to be able to afford a home where we can feel comfortable raising our children.

That's the point. Other than, oh, the occasional millionaire with a garage full of Hummers (not to single out anyone in particular, mind you), we all have good reasons for doing what we need to do to get around this crazy state. And Arnold's plan for higher fuel-efficiency standards on cars will impose a real hardship on middle-class families struggling to get by and get around. (Private jets, of course, are exempt from the higher fuel-efficiency standards.)

While I'm willing to make some sacrifices if the health of our planet depends on it, there's something infuriating about a governor calling on ordinary people who live on tight budgets to make such sacrifices when he's unwilling to make any himself. Like telecommuting, or saving some of that jet-fuel dough and buying his family a house in Sac'to. (And please don't tell me this "carbon offset" nonsense counts.)

Surely if Arnold thinks that saving the earth requires us to make some tough choices, he can lead by example.

How is it that we are debating NAFTA and the shipping of jobs overseas while at the same time letting Airbus win a $41 billion contract for tanker planes for our Air Force? This contract is likely grow to over $100 billion Euros over the next decade. This represents money that could be spent here, and workers who could be employed here. The fig leaf of Northrop having offices in the states and some assembly taking place here is just that—a fig leaf.

Instead of worrying about tech support in India and people sewing shirts in South Asia for pennies and hour—jobs not really injuring our citizens—why are we not demanding the return of aerospace industry to our shores? This is not simply about jobs, though this is certainly an important part, but about our ability to engage the world.

We know that we have problems when the oil spigot dries up. What about when the world disapproves of some American foreign policy initiative? Could our military be held hostage to French foreign policy objectives or by a vote of the European Union? If we outsource our military equipment, the answer becomes Yes.

Should we need spare parts, we can imagine ourselves, like Cuba, isolated and starved of the ability to keep our planes in the air. Yes, this is economic but it is also a matter of national security.

As we enter a recession with growing deficits and unemployment, as the world becomes less and less influenced by our wants and needs, this contract is madness itself—economically, for jobs, for the deficit, the balance of trade and for our security and freedom of movement in the world.