Project White House

Trade Deficit data 1991-2006 shows a rapid collapse of US competitveness

Jim Nintzel — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:43:48 +0000

Trade Deficit data from Wikipedia:

Trade deficits have often been associated with a loss of international competitiveness, or unsustainable ‘booms’ in domestic demand. Similarly, trade surpluses have been associated with policies that inefficiently bias a country’s economic activity towards external demand, resulting in lower living standards.

…..Large imbalances may sometimes be a sign of underlying economic problems or rigidities. An example would be a situation where exchange rates have been fixed or pegged for political reasons at levels impeding a correction of a trade imbalance.

The above chart shows that the most recent two US Presidents each presided over roughly equal amounts of collapse for US international competitiveness. So blame for this problem rests equally on the Democratic Party and on the Republican Party.

Democratic President Clinton watched the trade deficit spike upwards from a level of $50 Billion in 1992 when he first became President, growing to a $375 Billion deficit when Clinton left the office in 2000.

But then a Republican President Bush watched the trade deficit rise from $375 Billion in 2001 when he first became President, to $717 Billion in 2005 and $764 Billion in 2006.

A severe structural trade imbalance exists today between China and the USA.

For the year 2007, the US will have a trade deficit close to $250 Billion with China, compared to $232 Billion in 2006. This is by far the largest trade imbalance by any two countries, anywhere in the world.

Our US politicians should not hide behind the banner of free-trade as the best-and-only solution to every issue in economics. A myopic free-trade mentality is what has caused the current massive trade imbalance between the US and China.

Chinese workers today are able to live comfortably on average incomes of $1 per hour, out of which they pay for food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare, while retaining a substantial fraction (perhaps 25%) of their income as savings. By contrast, unit labor costs for employers in the USA average close to $20 per hour (including some hidden fringe benefits such as social security fees, medical and dental insurance, paid vacation and holidays, pollution control, etc.)

Under conditions such as these, it is natural that “productive jobs” and factories in the USA are rapidly disappearing, and being replaced by jobs and Working Capital in China. A structural problem exists which simply cannot be mitigated by blindly advocating “free trade”.

The cost of health care alone is so high in the US that even if an employee could be reduced to no take home pay at all (i.e. if he received only pre-paid medical insurance), the US employer would still lose money if he is competing with a product made in China.

Tune Into Lovolution Village TV

Jim Nintzel — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 04:51:15 +0000

Tune into Lovolution Village TV

Access Tucson Cable Channel:

Tuesdays: 4:30-5:00 pm Ch. 74/99

Fridays: 10:30-11:00 pmCh. 72/120

Hi Folks,

This campaign is getting interesting with all the different points of view. I have a few things to say about nuclear power and environmentalism.

Sean “CF” Murphy: What the Huckabee?

Jim Nintzel — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:57:48 +0000

Dear Mike,

I’m sorry this comes so late in the day but I slept in. Don’t worry; it’s nothing serious, just a case of the post-holiday blahs. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your victory in Iowa. You now sit atop the teeming pile of Republican presidential candidates and I hope you’re enjoying the view, but I must warn you, Arizona approaches, and Arizona, as I’m sure you already know, is Sean “CF” Murphy territory. If you think it’ll be a cakewalk rolling over me like you did over that Mitch Rommel guy, you’ve got another thing coming.

Mr. Huckabee, you say that you’re a man of faith and you fear God more than anything else. Well, I’m even more afraid of him than you are and I can’t wait to let the American public see it for themselves. We both know that this great country was built on prayer; our founding fathers prayed their way across the Atlantic, prayed to a victory over the British, prayed the Declaration of Independence onto the page, and prayed on the Indians. My only suggestion to you is to pray for more votes, you’re gonna need ‘em.

Forebodingly,

Sean “CF” Murphy

Republican candidate for President of the United States

“Standing Firm for America”

P.S. Tell Norris to watch his ass.

Frank McEnulty: Why Environmentalists are to Blame for Global Warming

Jim Nintzel — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:51:38 +0000

Why Environmentalists are to Blame for Global Warming

By listening to Al Gore, other environmentalists and the media you start to get the impression that the United States is almost solely responsible for Global Warming through it’s production of greenhouse gases. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We do, as a nation produce more greenhouse gas on a per capita basis than any other country, but that very fact can be directly attributed to the workings of those same environmentalists who for years have blocked every attempt to generate nuclear power – the only efficient way to generate power on a large enough scale to meet the needs of the world that does not create greenhouse gases. Let me be clear, “Environmentalists” are the main reason we, as a country, produce so much greenhouse gas on a per capita basis. Because of their 30-year stance (and the lack of political will to go against that stance) against the development of nuclear power in this country we produce almost double the greenhouse gases that we would be producing with a strong nuclear generating capacity. Approximately 50% of the greenhouse gases produced in the United States are the result of the production of electricity and it is probably just as high or higher in other parts of the world. Nuclear power generates no greenhouse gases and global warming may not even be occurring at this time if the nuclear power industry had been allowed to develop in the United States and around the world as it has in places such as France and Lithuania. Just think of the billions of tons of Greenhouse gases that would not have been produced if we, as a nation, would have continued to build nuclear power plants instead of the oil, coal and gas powered plants we and the world rely on now for our power. But the environmentalists wouldn’t let us and our politicians, ever afraid of losing votes, went blindly along. Nuclear power is much stronger in Europe with about forty-two percent of their energy produced by nuclear fission. Nuclear generation provides about 17% of world electricity, avoiding the emission of up to 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. France produces 76% and Lithuania produces 85.6% of its energy by nuclear fission. In the United States, a lot of people and almost all environmentalists are antinuclear because of 3 Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. However, many experts say that it is a safe, clean, and reliable source of energy as proven by it’s long history in France. Nuclear Fission produces no greenhouse gases, but does produce highly toxic radioactive wastes (which can be safely dealt with).

As President, I would immediately call for the United States to embark on a strong nuclear power building program. We have the land upon which to build the power plants (here in California we could throw a half dozen plants in Eastern San Bernardino County alone and no one would ever see them), we have technology that is extremely safe and we have an extremely safe depository for the waste in the Yucca Mountain facility that would be opened very soon if the politicians would quit being politicians and become statesmen and do what is right for the United States and the World. If we converted almost all of our electrical power generation from oil, coal and natural gas to nuclear we would go a very long way towards lowering our greenhouse gas footprint and show the rest of the world that we will do what must be done to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas production.

One of the biggest problems facing this country has been it’s absolute lack of a comprehensive energy policy. One of the main purposes of a Government should be to plan for the future. Our Government and politicians refuse to do so because all they care about is the next election. The “future” will be the next guy’s problem after we are out of office is what they seem to be thinking. We need a comprehensive energy policy in this country that makes good, long-term sense. Not one crafted by environmentalists, the media, big oil and other special interests that is designed solely to garner votes in the next election or contributions to their cause.

Raise the US President’s salary to $4.3 million per year

Jim Nintzel — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:38:52 +0000

Salary for the President of the USA should be raised to $4.3 million per year.From 1789 to 1909, the Presidential salary was increasing by 0.93% compounded annually, after adjusting for inflation. Extrapolating that trend to the present time indicates that the salary for a US President should now be 2.50 times the level of the 1909 inflation-adjusted Presidential salary — i.e. $4,300,000 per year, when expressed in 2007 dollars. It seems irrational that US Presidential candidates are now expected to spend $100 million on a campaign to get a 4-year job that pays less than $25 million per year. The US should not treat its highest office as a “loss leader”, like some advertising campaign dreamed up to brainwash the American public.Actually, the US needs to SIMULTANEOUSLY raise the US Presidential salary and lower the personal cost of Presidential campaigns if the goal is to attract problem-solving individuals to serve as the US President. But I am addressing the cost of political campaigns in a different press release.As President, I will request that Congress should raise the salary of the US President to $4.3 million per year, to keep up with the times.

Reference data for this Presidential salary adjustment request comes from the Wikipedia article titled “President_of_the_United_States”.

Salary

The First U.S. Congress voted to pay George Washington a salary of $25,000 a year, about $566,000 in 2007 terms. Washington, already a wealthy man, refused to accept his salary; however, he asked for his living expenses to be covered. Theodore Roosevelt spent his entire $50,000 salary on entertaining guests at the White House.^[7] John F. Kennedy donated his salary to charities.^[8]

Date established Salary Salary in 2007dollars

September 24, 1789 $25,000 $566,000

March 3, 1873 $50,000 $865,000

March 4, 1909 $75,000 $1,714,000

January 19, 1949 $100,000 $875,000

January 20, 1969 $200,000 $1,135,000

January 20, 2001 $400,000 $471,000

Traditionally, the president is the highest-paid public employee. President Bush currently earns $400,000 per year, along with a $50,000 expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment.^[12] The president’s salary and total expense account serve as an unofficial cap for all other federal officials’ salaries, such as that of the Chief Justice. The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and came into force in 2001; prior to the change, the president earned $200,000, plus expense accounts. This was needed because other officials who received annual cost-of-living increases had salaries approaching that of the president, and in order to raise their salaries further, his needed to be raised as well. Monetary compensation for the president is minuscule in comparison to the CEOs of most Fortune 500 companies and comparable to that of certain kinds of professionals, such as attorneys and physicians in some parts of the United States. Overall the vast majority of U.S. presidents were very affluent upon entering office and thus were not dependent on the salary.

Date established	Salary	Salary in 2007dollars
September 24, 1789	$25,000	$566,000
March 3, 1873	$50,000	$865,000
March 4, 1909	$75,000	$1,714,000
January 19, 1949	$100,000	$875,000
January 20, 1969	$200,000	$1,135,000
January 20, 2001	$400,000	$471,000

Doctress Neutopia: Cut a Hole in the Flag

Jim Nintzel — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:36:12 +0000

Richard Grayson: Breaking News

Jim Nintzel — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:35:12 +0000

Richard Grayson withdrew from the race for the Presidency yesterday, changing the 2008 Arizona Democratic presidential preference primary campaign back into a 23-way race and sending other candidates scrambling to fill the space he left on the political map. The announcement in Apache Junction followed days of turmoil and division in the campaign of the handsome writer.

Political professionals in both parties struggled to figure out who was helped and who was hurt by Mr. Grayson’s withdrawal. Some argued that his presence in the race would have simply divided the vote, and thus his leaving would inevitably help the other morons running; there were polls this week that seemed to back that up. Others, however, argued that Mr. Grayson’s withdrawal helped no one because they believed Mr. Grayson’s strength, at its core, was nonexistent.

What was clear was that Mr. Grayson’s abrupt announcement reconfigured the rules of a game that the forty-eight candidates on the Arizona ballot were just beginning to learn. His reluctant candidacy, which surged in the polls last month before fading from boredom, had raised a host of strange and new scenarios.

Chief among them was an election in which no one candidate would garner more than 5% of the vote in the February 5 primary. Mr. Grayson cited that possibility yesterday as the main reason for his withdrawal although he also had said he had withdrawn after hearing that other candidates were scheming to smear his daughter with a computer-altered photograph on Facebook and to disrupt her wedding.

“The fact that I don’t have a daughter and she has no plans to get married apparently didn’t stop these political dirty tricksters,” Mr. Grayson charged. “They’re worse than Nixon.”

Mr. Grayson offered no evidence, only quoting friends and an anonymous comment on an obscure blog.“I can’t prove any of it today,” he said on the CBS News program “60 Minutes.” “But it was a risk I did not have to take,” he added, “and a risk I would not take where my daughter is concerned.”

A spokesman for the Arizona Democratic party dismissed Mr. Grayson’s assertions as “all loony” and questioned the spelling of the word “withdrawal” in the cartoon panel above.

Charles Skelley: Reduce Unfunded Medicare Liabilities with Performance Bonus Pay for Congress

Jim Nintzel — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:34:12 +0000

About 80% of the Unfunded Liabilities of the US Federal Government are in the Medicare Program ($74 Trillion of Unfunded Medicare Liabilities in 2007, which translates into raising taxes by $200K per person — for every man, woman, and child in the US). So Medicare is where to start for restoring fiscal responsibility within the Federal Government.

The US is already spending a higher percentage of its GNP on healthcare than the other industrialized countries. So it would be poor policy to raise US Medicare taxes above the present levels, to pay for runaway Medicare costs in the future.

Several options are available for reducing Medicare costs — such as lowering the cost of prescription drugs in the US, and lowering the cost of Medical malpractice settlements.

As President, I will instruct Congress to reduce the amount of Federal Unfunded Liabilities for the Medicare programs by 30% in the first year of my administration.

Then in the last 3 years of my Presidential Administration, I will ask Congress to take a very careful look at benefit vs cost for every part of Medicare. A few of items which were cut in the first year might be restored in the next 3 years. But overall, I will have Congress reach 50% reduction of Unfunded Medicare Liabilities in the 2nd year of my Administration, 60% reduction in the 3rd year; and 70% reduction in the 4th year of my Administration.

To assure that the Unfunded Medicare Liabilities can be reduced, I will recommend that the Federal Government should offer Performance Bonus pay to all members of the House and Senate. My strategy is to use a carrot-and-stick affair. The Federal politicians’ Income from the Federal Government should be DOUBLED in each year when they hit my rationally-targeted levels for reducing the government’s Unfunded Medicare Liabilities. But their income from the Federal Government should be CUT IN HALF in each year when Congress fails to hit these targets for restoring fiscal responsibility within the Federal Government.

Charles Skelley: Reduce Unfunded Medicare Liabilities with Perfornce Bonus Pay for Congress

Jim Nintzel — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:34:12 +0000

Several options are available for reducing Medicare costs — such as lowering the cost of prescription drugs in the US, and lowering the cost of Medical malpractice settlements.

As President, I will instruct Congress to reduce the amount of Federal Unfunded Liabilities for the Medicare programs by 30% in the first year of my administration.

Frank McEnulty: Where I Stand on the Issues, Part II

Jim Nintzel — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:31:45 +0000

Frank McEnulty stands behind his beliefs and challenges all other candidates for the Presidency to state where they stand so that the voting public can clearly see what those candidates believe in.

- I believe we pay enough in taxes and need to better manage our money and simplify the tax system.
- I believe people should take responsibility for their own actions and their own lives.
- I believe that while we have enough laws on immigration and only need to properly enforce them to solve most of our problems, that a comprehensive plan, based on strong enforcement of current laws, is required to deal with the situation we have allowed ourselves to get into at this time.

- I believe the United States should not try to be the world’s savior, but has the moral obligation to “help” where and when it can do so at the request of the local people.
- I believe in God, family and country and that they belong together.

- I believe that the President of the United States should be just that; not a Democrat nor a Republican, but President.
- I believe that our military should never be used for political purposes nor political gain nor to advance an agenda.
- I believe that all people are created equal and that all people should be able to be equal in all things.

- I believe in a strong separation between the branches of the Federal Government and in strong state’s rights.

- I believe that judges should be judges and leave the passing and changing of laws to the politicians we have elected to do those jobs.

- I believe that political correctness is a real threat to open and honest dialogue.

- I believe “Anything is Possible in America” and if we all work together for the common good it will continue to be that way.

As I continue down my campaign path I will expand further on the above and other beliefs. I am encouraged every day by the people I hear from that tell me I am on the right track and I strongly believe that if everyone continues to help me get the word out we can and will make a difference in the next election.

A lot of the political talking-heads claim that the final Presidential candidates may be people that aren’t even on the national consciousness just yet. With continued effort and with your help there’s a good chance they will be talking about my campaign in the next year on the major news outlets.