By Unknown

The New Element (Gv)

Recent hurricanes and gasoline issues are proof of the existence of a new chemical element. Research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant  neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction (that would normally take less than a second) anytime from four days to four years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of two to six years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration.

This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE THIS TO ALL THE SCIENTISTS YOU KNOW!

By Richard E Walrath

There's a lot of talk about regulation, but I don't see a lot of evidence of it.  More of it in the food industry, especially imports, would please me.  People who buy toys think there should be more regulation, too.

Republicans want  to deregulate and Democrats want to regulate.  Airlines used to be regulated, now they're not.  But that was Jimmy Carter's doing. 

Are they, are we, better or worse off?

Deregulation led to Enron, at one time the largest corporation in America.  We know what happened to it.

At one time, of course, there was, basically, only one telephone company--AT&T.  There were others, but altogether they had a very small share of the total. 

Power lines and telephone lines are very expensive to install, and you want only one company in each area.  In return for having a monopoly, the utilities are supposed to hold down rates and were regulated by the government. 

That was then. 

The next idea was that utilities could offer better service and prices if there were more competition.  It's cheaper now to have a phone than it used to be.  But that's because we have entirely new systems. 

It's the same old electricity, however, coming in on the same old power  lines, and the price keeps going up, up, and away.  

Electricity, which is extremely energy intensive, isn't going to get cheaper until it's produced in a different way--using an energy source other than coal.

By Richard E Walrath

Liquid CO2 has been discovered on Mars and on the closest thing on earth to Mars - Antarctica.

Where was it first?  Or, where did they discover it first?  I don't know the answer to either question, but they're using information from one to find and verify information on the other.

Mars is much colder, but finding Liquid CO2 on both is significant.  

Eventually, we'll get to the questions of, Who am I and How did I get here?  But in the meantime, air is every where.  Air contains CO2. 

The process for making Liquid CO2 is a combination of reduced temperature of carbon dioxide and pressure.  Reduced temperature is another way of saying how COLD it is on Mars or on Antarctica.  CO2 is heavier than air and sinks down.  AS it sinks to the bottom, sufficient dowward pressure is exerted to form Liquid CO2. 

No, it doesn't fly--it sinks.  CO2 sinks to the bottom of wells, pools, holes in the ground.

In fact, they call the places that CO2 sinks, "sinks" because CO2 sinks there.

CO2 = Carbon dioxide
H2O =  Water

About water-- H2O
For each molecule of oxygen, there are two molecules of hydrogen.  So you know oxygen is heavier than hydrogen.

About carbon-dioxide--CO2
For each molecule of carbon, there are two molecules of oxygen, so you know that carbon is heavier than oxygen.

Therefore, ipso facto, you know that carbon dioxide is heavier than water--that's why it sinks.

By Richard E Walrath

The war started in Afghanistan, so Bush and Cheney went to Iraq.  Afghanistan is the place where all the troops should have gone in the first place. That war could have been over long ago.

What was it Rummy said about Iraq? 

The targets are much better in Iraq?  Maybe so, but the United States had no reason to go there. 

Who was it that said, He who tries to do two things at once, does neither?

This wasn't like walking and chewing gum at the same time. 

The war in Iraq has turned out to be a disaster of monumental proportions, so the thing to do is start another war with Iran. 

That makes three wars. 

Do three wars = World War III?

By Richard E Walrath

"Why Osama Is the Best Choice for the Democrats in 2008"

By  George W. Bush

There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that the above op-ed piece was submitted by gw (guess who) to the New York Times.

By Patricia L Johnson

Sometimes I read articles and am totally flabbergasted at the utter stupidity of suggestions made.

In the latest edition of Hightower Lowdown, edited by Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer, the author(s) is suggesting a general work strike by the people of the United States for at least one day as "affirmation that the people are the only "larger force" that can stop the BushCheney coup and make America whole again."

While I can wholeheartedly agree with the need for American people to do something as a group to demonstrate anger at what this government and our country has become in the past seven years under the leadership of the Bush Administration, I cannot even begin to think of the consequences the people would have to face if everyone walked off their jobs for one particular date.

Every year 23% of the 1.1 million Americans that suffer a heart attack die within one hour of the beginning of their symptoms - that's easy math, it comes out to 230,000 people in one year.  If you divide that figure by the number of days in a year, we're looking at 630 people that are probably going to die in any given day from a heart attack no matter what action is taken, but what about the other 77%?  That's 770,000 and comes out to 2,109 persons per day that normally will survive providing immediate medical care is provided.

What if no care is available? 

My one son is a paramedic - what happens if a member of your family has a heart attack and you call the ambulance, but no one shows up because he took the day off to protest the Bush/Cheney regime?

Is your family member going to be one of the survivors and if he/she isn't where should the blame fall?  On my son for not going to work that day?  On the local government agency that hired him?  On the school where he received his training?  On me, his parent, for not teaching him proper job ethics?  Or, should the blame fall on the people that suggested staying home from work makes for a great political demonstration?

My other son works for the township and is also a first responder for non-medical emergencies.  If you're flooded, he's going to be on hand to help evacuate you, if a tornado comes through he's going to be there to assist you, and the list goes on and on.  Here again, if you're the family suffering the flood, or you're the family whose house came crashing down around them and you're not getting any assistance from your local government agencies, who are you going to blame?  The list can go on and on, auto accidents, school injuries, work injuries, etc, etc.

Suggesting the American people protest the actions of this government by a mass strike is simply frosting on the Bush cake as far as I'm concerned.

Our country is in the situation it's in because our elected officials have not performed their jobs to the best of their ability- a strike will only lower the standards and ethics of our great American workforce to the incredibly low  levels set by the highest elected officials in this country.

By Richard E Walrath

Does anybody remember the "Triangle of Terrorism" and the "Axis of Evil?" 

The first term, Triangle of Terrorism was dr0pped because nobody could figure out how to make a triangle out of the three countires, assuming that you remember what the three countries were--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. 

Just try it.

The next nugget of propaganda was "Axis of Evil"  to talk about the same three countries--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. 

As it turns out, North Korea--the country that had the nuclear bomb--has agreed to stop further testing and has agreed to United Nations inspections. 

What was their price?  Food! 

The people in North Korea are and were starving.

You might think that would register on the war-mongering Bomb Iran advocates, but you would be wrong. 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going well, so the thing to do is start a third war with Iran.

By Patricia L Johnson

Someone sent me a link to a web site and I'm going to use a few sentences from it as an example of how easily people are swayed.

When you look at a web site and the owner claims to be a "Ph.D. economist", you automatically assume the person has some knowledge of the subject at hand, but do they?

You don't have to read too far down on the web site to find the following sentence:

"First, be careful, the deficit is annual additions to national debt."

The statement is somewhat misleading - the deficit is not "annual additions" to the national debt.

Our government is just like any other entity, it maintains books for recording accounting activity called the national income and product accounts.  The difference between our government current receipts and disbursements in these accounts has been called a surplus if results end in a positive number and a deficit if results end in a negative number. 

Both surpluses and/or deficits are additions to the national debt.  Surpluses decrease the amount of the national debt, while deficits increase the national debt.

This site then contains a few charts and other mutterings and goes on to state the basis for his charts.

...The annual deficit is how much the debt increases each year. On any day we can ask how much the annual deficit was over the preceeding year and find it by subtracting the national debt a year ago from what it is now...

...That's how the graphs above were made..."

Based on the formula we took the national debt as of October 18, 2007 and subtracted the national debt as of October 18, 2006 for a total of $513 billion plus some change, which according to the formula should be the deficit for the preceding year.

$9,053,431,790,817.60  10/18/2007

$8,540,051,729,781.32  10/18/2006

$   513,380,061,036.28 - Difference

The U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2007 was $163 billion based on receipts of $2,568 billion and outlays of $2,731 billion.

If a web site is using graphs as a visual aid to the point they are making and the graphs are based on an erroneous formula, how much credence can you give to the information on the web site?

I'm not going to include the link to this web site because I don't believe in promoting information that's not correct.

There is only one purpose of this post and that is to act as a reminder to all of us that you cannot believe everything you read, no matter how knowledgeable the person is that's writing the material.  The Internet has made it possible for all of us to be inundated with material on any subject under the sun.  The fact that a person is educated in a particular field does not necessarily make them an expert.

Most of us don't have time to even read the news, much less research what's written, but that's basically what you have to do in today's world of misinformation and bias.

By Richard E Walrath

Everybody in Iraq knows who the enemy is--everybody except United  States soldiers.  The enemy changes every day. 

My guess is that there is a disaster in the making in Iraq unless you consider what is there now a disaster.  Who does Al Qaeda fight in Iraq if the United States pulls out and concentrates on Afghanistan?

The thing is the United States was getting more oil from Iraq before Bush invaded it than the United States is getting now. 

Iraq, as far as anything the United States can do to make it better, is a lost cause.  The United States can make it worse, but I don't think Iraq is going to get any better by our being there. 

Now the question becomes, if the United States withdraws its troops from Iraq, will Al Qaeda follow them to Afghanistan?  If they do, the United States will have them right where they want them. 

But, then, that will bring up another question--why did the United States go to Iraq to fight Al Qaeda when Al Qaeda was the reason for going to Afghanistan in the first place?

The SCHIP bill didn't get enough votes 10/18/2007 to override the Bush veto.  But it's costing as much to fund the war in Iraq for a month as it would to insure ten million children for more than a year. 

Thanks to the Bush tax-cuts for the rich and big business, there's no money to fund the war in Iraq--guess he must figure that you have to cut somewhere.

There is a lot more support for the war in Afghanistan, not only in the United States but in the rest of the world.  That doesn't solve the problem created by the Bush invasion of Iraq. 

I think we're on our way out of there and on the way to Afghanistan big time.  That would go over with the right-wingers much better than just pulling out of Iraq. 

Declare victory and leave.

Counting the independent contractors, there are about 300,000 they can start shipping to Afghanistan.  There's still a chance that other countries would provide some help there. 

They may not continue to do so unless the United States puts some troops in there.  Iraq is a bungled Bush boondoggle.  It's never going to get any better as long as the United States is there.

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

Republicans point to the back-to-back terms of President Ronald Reagan as a huge success for supply-side economics. Reagan received much applause from supply-siders because of his tax cuts for the rich, and big business, of course.

Yes, revenues did increase, but so did deficits – so much so that Reagan had to agree to tax increases in his second term The Tax Reform Act of 1986 – TRA86, PL 99-514.

Apparently Republicans are so anxious to shed a positive light on their party they seem to lose track of the facts on their path to glory. The following excerpt from a WSJ article written by Stephen Moore is a prime example of Republican tunnel vision when it comes to supply-side economics.

Wall Street Journal

“In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan chopped the highest personal income tax rate from the confiscatory 70% rate that he inherited when he entered office to 28% when he left office and the resulting economic burst caused federal tax receipts to almost precisely double: from $517 billion to $1,032 billion.”

Ronald Reagan signed The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (PL 97-34) into law on August 13, 1981. PL97-34 contained 300 tax provisions and took three years to implement. Tax laws are extremely complex and simply stating the highest personal income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%, without listing the lowest and highest tax bracket or tax base, is somewhat misleading.

Stating federal tax receipts almost doubled from $517 billion to $1,032 is not accurate. As you can determine by a review of the following chart, Stephen Moore is using the beginning tax receipt number from 1980 and the ending tax receipt number from 1990, a 10-year period. You cannot use 10-year tax data for an 8-year term of office.

What is disturbing about the Moore article is he isn’t some rookie reporter out on his first assignment. His bio states, “Mr. Moore is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board and author of "Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Will Make America Richer (Madison Books, 2004).”

Was the use of the wrong revenue numbers simply an error, or was it an intentional ploy to make supply-side economics look good? Maybe a question to Mr. Moore should be is he a fan of supply-side economics because he believes it works, or is he a fan of supply-side economics because the tax cuts implemented by Reagan applied directly to his pocketbook?

The fact of the matter is “Reaganomics” was a dismal failure for the country. Yes, revenues did increase by $474.1 billion dollars during the Reagan 8-year term of office, but each and every year resulted in a budget deficit and by the end of his 8-year term Ronald Reagan had increased the federal debt by almost $1.7 trillion dollars – 3.5 times the amount the revenues increased.

1790 was the first year the United States faced a debt – the total was $75 million dollars, which has grown considerably to the $9 trillion federal debt currently owed. From 1790 until now, there have only been two years in our history when the U.S. did not carry a debt - 1834 and 1835.

During this 200 plus period of years, the federal debt saw a high of 108.6 percent of GDP at the end of WWII, followed by a low of 23.8 percent of GDP in 1974.

Historically, the national debt has risen in periods of war when the costs of war have generally been financed by borrowing rather than raising taxes. The entire Reagan presidency was during peacetime so there was not any war cost involved.

Yet, the debt, as a percentage of GDP ballooned from 26.1 percent of GDP when Reagan took office, to a whopping 40.6 percent of GDP when he left office.

Having been elected on the promise of “no new taxes”, George H.W. Bush (January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993) agreed to tax increases because of the continuing deficits resulting from the Reagan tax-cuts and increased spending for the military buildup for Desert Storm/Desert Shield (1990-1991). By the time George H. Bush left office in January of 1993, the national debt as a percentage of GDP had jumped to 64.1%.

Steve Moore is first and foremost a right-winger.  Add to that the fact that he is on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and it's easy to understand why he writes what he does.  What you see is what you get.

Reagan was the best shot supply-siders had.  It was “Morning in America” then, if you believed the Reagan PR machine which was a good one.

The Reagan myth will be around for a long, long time.

Data Sources: OMB and IRS

© 2007 Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

By Richard E Walrath

My own personal opinion is that we can't get universal health care soon enough.  Truman did his best sixty years ago to pass it, but the country wasn't ready yet. I don't know that it's ready now, either.

But I think enough people are worried enough about it to get it passed because politicians are worried about what will happen to them if they don't pass it.

The Bush veto of the SCHIP bill may turn out to be the best thing he has done.  It may stir up people enough to get health care for everyone in the United States.

Employers have begun to support national health insurance. They no longer are supporting endless subsidies for insurance companies and  the drug manufacturers.

The real question is, Why did it take them so long to reach the obvious answer.  This country is the last industrialized country is the world not to have universal health care.  

How far behind the times can you get?

FDA Statement

"Today, Medtronic announced it was voluntarily suspending distribution of its Sprint Fidelis defibrillation leads because a small number of fractures have been detected. As a result of Medtronic's action, no more Sprint Fidelis leads will be sold or manufactured and any remaining product should be pulled from inventory and returned to the company. Patients who are implanted with this lead are encouraged to contact their physicians for further information."

Click on following link to read full FDA report http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01724.html

By Richard E Walrath

All I'm reading about is the million Armenians the Turks killed in 1915 and whether or not this was genocide. 

There's no question that it happened--not even too much of a dispute about how many. 

Was it a million or two million?  Is that  what the debate is about?  It was genocide if it was two million killed, but not if it was "only" one million?  Is that the question?

A million or two million people are wiped out, and the debate is whether or not this meets the standard to be called genocide.  If not, then what?  If so, so what?

The dispute seems to be whether or not to label killing a million or two million people genocide.  Are the  dead better or worse off if it was genocide?

Does it make it better or worse if it was or wasn't genocide?   

The number doesn't matter - the international law definition of genocide as a crime has two parts; intention and action.  It's basically a 'systematic pattern of coordinated acts' against a group and the group may be national, ethnical, racial or religious.

More may be read at the following site:

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

Genocide is like Hitler and Nazi Germany. That's not a label that Turkey wants even though the government today is totally different from the Ottoman Empire. 

This has come up routinely in the past, but it never got anywhere because there was a Republican Congress.  After the House Foreign Relations Committee votes on Wednesday, President Abdullah Gul warned the United States, in a statement, that a positive vote by the U.S. House of Representatives could work against the United States.

There are a number of states--Michigan for one--with a lot of Armenians.  Turkey is a vital ally in the Bush war in Iraq, so a House vote could make a lot of trouble for him.

By Patricia L Johnson

Intelligence reports indicated senior al-Qaeda leaders were meeting in the Lake Thar Thar region of Iraq on Thursday so we sent in the big guns...

When it was over and done with we killed "an estimated 19 terrorists and 15 civilians, wounding six and detaining one suspect."

I'm not sure if we're estimating the fact they are terrorists, estimating the fact they're dead, or estimating the number of dead,  but as usual our less than intelligent 'intelligence' leaves more than a little bit to be desired because the 15 dead civilians were six women and nine children.  The wounded consisted of two 'suspects', one women and three children.

Maj. Brad Leighton, the spokesman for MNF-1, stated "We regret that civilians are hurt or killed..." 

12 children were either killed or wounded yesterday at our hands, and the best we can come up with is "we regret".

The U.N. Mission in Iraq reported 88 civilians have been killed in U.S. air strikes during the period from April to June.

Looks like we don't particularly care how much collateral damage as long as we hit the target.  We may not care, but I'm willing to bet the Iraqi's are going to be looking closely at the latest incident.

Pretty difficult to win the hearts and minds of the people when you're killing off the children.

By Richard E Walrath

I can't find a report anywhere on the Republican debate that makes even an attempt to check out what Romney and Giuliani actually did about taxes and spending.

They both could not be telling the truth.  So why not find out if they're going to bother to write about it.

Don't any of these reporters go to Journalism School anymore? 

Get the facts. 

Get them fast.

Get them right. 

The rest of the garbage that they fill up their newspapers with, I'd just as soon they leave out.

By Richard E Walrath

The Fred Dalton Thompson express roared out of the starting gate like a herd of crippled turtles, and then faltered.

If you aren't sure of who to vote for, and you're a Republican, vote for Romney--he's not sure of a lot of things.

If Huckabee didn't have such a funny name, I think he would have a really good chance.

Who's left?  Rudy, and I understand there's an FBI file on him for whatever reason.

By Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson

Since 1913, almost a hundred years now, this is the first time that we have had back-to-back elected presidents of opposing parties who have served two full terms.

Being able to compare the results of the economy under such diametrically different policies is a once-in-a-life-time opportunity.  Balanced budget and surplus under Clinton - endless and mindless tax-cuts for the rich and big business under Bush, resulting in a National Debt increase of $3.2 trillion dollars.

Economic policies in effect under President Clinton were not only able to balance the U.S. Budget; they were able to put the budget in surplus.  When the U.S. is over budget, it creates a budget deficit as well as increased interest payments on the national debt. When the U.S. is under budget, we have a budget surplus as well as decreased interest payments on the national debt.

Historically, the pattern for the United States has been budget deficits and interest payments would rise in tandem, but we had another first with President Clinton. The budget surpluses created lower interest payments, which in turn succeeded in reducing the amount the national debt rose.

If you look at the statistics, your immediate reaction will be ‘hey, wait a minute – the national debt increased under President Clinton’ – which is correct, but the increases were entirely due to the interest charged on the federal debt. When a new president takes office, the interest on the national debt doesn't stop - it continues, so the interest charges are still there.

Bill Clinton was in office for 8 years. The U.S. National Debt increased by $1.5 trillion dollars during his 8-year presidency. During this same 8-year period interest on the National Debt totaled $2.7 trillion dollars. If you eliminate the interest, the National Debt was actually reduced by $1.2 trillion dollars under President Clinton.

In contrast, George W. Bush has been in office since January 20, 2001. During the 6 years and 8 months that he has been in office, the National Debt has increased $3.2 trillion dollars.

An interesting note is the National Debt has increased by twice as much during the 6 years and 8 months that Bush has been in office, compared to the full 8 years that Clinton was in office.

Chart 1 - http://www.articlesandanswers.com/Chart1.htm

Remove interest from the equation and the National Debt was reduced by $1.2 trillion dollars under Clinton policies and increased $803 billion dollars, to date, under Bush.

Chart 2 - http://www.articlesandanswers.com/Chart2.htm

Arthur B. Laffer's napkin theory has to do with what is known as supply side economics.  There is nothing very original about it, actually, a French economist, Jean Baptiste Say, came up with the idea well over a hundred years ago with Say's Law which says, simply, "Supply creates its own demand."

The idea is that if you're going to produce something, you have to go out and buy the raw materials first in order to manufacture the product.  The Bush years should have been the best possible of all times for supply-side economics. The theory was practiced to the fullest possible extent. We’re going to hear a lot about supply-side economics because it has been such a dismal failure for the last almost seven years.  What is really laughable is the Bush comment at his September 20 press conference at which he declared that he is a "supply-sider." 

“I'm a supply-sider. I believe supply-side economics, when properly instituted, enables us to achieve certain objectives. One, people find work and there's hope in the economy. Two, that supply-side economics yields additional tax revenues. And if we're smart about how we manage the fiscal budget, it leads to balance, and that's what we have done…”

Keynes, in his The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, attacked the problem from the other direction--demand. Nobody was going to go out and do anything if there was no demand for it.  During slack times, such as recessions, the government could help take up the slack by providing demand for goods and services through spending.  Ideally, the government would run at a deficit during recessions and a surplus when aggregate demand was sufficient to provide full employment. According to Wikipedia, Laffer commented on Bush’s supply-side economic policies on page A18 of the February 14, 2005 Wall Street Journal as follows:

"When 'W' ran for president in 2000, I voted for him but not enthusiastically. I had voted for Bill Clinton in the prior two presidential elections, but with Al Gore as the Democratic candidate in 2000 the choice was easy for me even if I wasn't all that excited about George Bush. I am now flabbergasted by the performance of Bush 43. [...] George W. Bush could well turn out to be the best president in recent history. [...] Because of President Clinton, President Bush's budget deficits can easily be absorbed by the U.S. economy. [...] Supply-side pro-growth economics couldn't ask for a better champion -- nor could any American."

A common misconception regarding tax cuts is that if government revenues increase after tax cuts, it must be that the tax-cuts were the reason.  The question you would have to ask is, what would revenues have been if there had been NO tax-cuts.  This, of course, is a debatable issue because it is difficult to prove.

The following chart depicts US Revenues for the period of 2000 through 2006. 2000 was the last full year that Clinton was in office and 2001 through 2006 are the first six years of the Bush presidency.

 Chart 3 - http://www.articlesandanswers.com/Revenues.mht

The combined totals are as follows:

(in trillions)

Clinton           2000                 $1.2

Bush              2001                 $1.1

Bush              2002                 $1.0

Bush              2003                 $0.9

Bush              2004                 $1.0

Bush              2005                 $1.2

Bush              2006 (E)            $1.2

All the tax cuts provided to the rich and big business by the Bush administration have failed to provide increased revenues for this country. We had revenues of $1.2 trillion the last year of the Clinton presidency and we’re still at $1.2 trillion at the end of the 6^th year of the Bush presidency.

In 2005 Corporate revenues increased considerably so it could be said the Bush economic policies are working as planned, but are they?

Corporate revenues increased due to the fact the Department of Defense contract awards doubled from $133 billion in 2000, to $269 billion in 2005 and further increased to $295 billion in 2006.

(in billions)

Clinton           2000                 $133

Bush              2001                 $144

Bush              2002                 $171

Bush              2003                 $209

Bush              2004                 $231

Bush              2005                 $269

Bush              2006 (E)            $295

The question that should be raised is why corporate revenue increases aren’t higher. If you use the $133 billion from 2000 as a base number for each subsequent year, we have exceeded that amount in contract awards by $521 billion - half a trillion dollars in contracts, should bring in far more revenues than this country is receiving.

The differences between the two presidencies are dramatic – under Clinton there were tax increases, coupled with increased benefits as well as increased revenues, budget surpluses “as far as the eye can see” and a reduction in the increase in National Debt. Under Bush there have been tax cuts, coupled with benefit cuts, decreased revenues, budget deficits and major increases in the National Debt.

Nobody, anywhere, is forecasting a surplus now. 

Bush is now talking about eliminating the budget deficit by 2013, as he continues to add billions of dollars to the National Debt.

How is it possible to turn a surplus “as far as the eye can see” into $3.2 trillion of additional debt? Just what is so good about doing that? How many additional billions of dollars is that just to pay the interest on the $3.2 Trillion?

Where did the money go?

Obviously your first response will be “don’t you know we’re fighting the Global War on Terror?” The GWOT accounts for $610 billion dollars from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2007. That leaves $200 billion in National Debt increases unaccounted.

The $610.6 billion appropriated by Congress for GWOT from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2007 includes costs for Iraq, Afghanistan, enhanced security for DOD, State Department and for Department of Veterans' Affairs medical costs and is split as follows:

Department of Defense                 $568.0

US State Dept. & USAID                   41.0

Department of Veterans Affairs           1.6

Total                                            $610.6 

(may not add due to rounding)

The $610 billion is split by Operation as follows:

Iraq                              $450.4

OEF - Afghanistan            126.7

Enhanced Security             28.1

Unallocated                         5.5

Total                             $610.6

(may not add due to rounding)

An interesting note is the increase in allocations since 2003. Do you remember 2003 - when President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished?"  Each year since then, the allocation has increased at the following percentages:

2004            16%

2005            33%

2006            50%

2007           113%

We can easily go one step further in our comparison of the two presidencies – their employment records.

In December of 1992 total nonfarm employment, seasonally adjusted, was 109,418,000. In December of 2000 that number had increased to 132,484,000 or payroll employment increased by 23.1 million jobs during the Clinton presidency.

In sharp contrast, using the December 2000 figure of 132,484,000 and the preliminary September 2007 figure of 138,265,000, only 5.8 million jobs have been added to total nonfarm employment during the 6 years and 9 months of the Bush presidency.

Republicans will say that eight (8) million jobs have been created in the last four years and that’s a true statement. At the end of 2003 employment was 130,398,000 and at the end of September 2007 employment is 138,265,000 indicating a gain of 7.967 or eight (8) million jobs, but the Bush presidency did not begin in 2003.

If you ignore the jobs losses incurred during the first two years of his presidency you are still going to fall far short of the 23 million jobs created under Clinton. By the time Bush leaves office he will have created less than ½ the number of jobs that were created during the Clinton presidency.

H.R. 4601 and H.R. 5173 were two bills introduced in 2000 to reduce the Federal Debt Limit.  Both passed the House - H.R. 4601 on June 20, 2000 and H.R. 5173 on September 18, 2000.  The bills were introduced because we no longer needed such a high federal debt limit, due to Clinton economic policies that had resulted in budget surpluses and reduced national debt increases.

Then came the 2000 election and President George W. Bush.

H.J. Res. 43, a joint resolution increasing the statutory limit from $8.965 trillion to $9,815 trillion passed the House on May 17, 2007 and passed the Senate on September 27, 2007.

This $850 billion dollar increase in the statutory limit on the public debt is the fifth time the Federal Debt limit has been raised since 2002.

The real question now is not, does supply-side trickle-down economics work? It never did, but, what made it fail so miserably this time?

It’s time to start turning the clock and the wheel in a different direction. They’ve been turning backwards for almost seven years.

(1) National Debt – U.S. Department of the Treasury

(2) Revenues – Budget of the United States 2007 – Historical tables

(3) Department of Defense Contract Awards – Department of Defense

(4) Employment – Bureau of Labor Statistics

(5) GWOT costs - CRS

© 2007 Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson

http://www.articlesandanswers.com/Laffer.htm

By Richard E Walrath

Since 1913, almost a hundred years now, this is the first time that we have had back-to-back elected presidents of opposing parties who have served two full terms.

FDR died on April 12, 1945 after having been elected four (4) times.  He served three (3) full terms and only a few months of his fourth term.  Truman finished out FDR's fourth term having succeeded him since he was VP.  Truman was elected in 1948 beating out Thomas Dewey who was heavily favored to win.

Dwight Eisenhower, who came after Harry Truman, did serve two full terms, but he was succeeded by JFK who died in office after serving less than one term.  LBJ finished out Kennedy's term, and then was elected, but served only one term after that. Then came Nixon - elected for his second term, but resigned because of Watergate.

Gerald Ford finished out Nixon's term, but was defeated by Carter who served only one term, losing to Ronald Reagan.

Reagan served two full terms, but was succeeded by Bush the First who served only one term losing to Bill Clinton who served two full terms.

Then came Bush the Second, if he does not resign, and is not impeached, convicted and removed from office, he will, in all probability, serve two full terms, making Clinton and Bush the first and only two presidents, of opposing parties, to be elected and serve two full terms.

Being able to compare the results of the economy under such diametrically different policies is a once-in-a-life-time opportunity. 

Stay tuned!

By Richard E Walrath

The Dow settled down somewhat but still finished up for the day and the week. 

I can't make any sense of it--maybe Goldilocks can.  The money heads are always talking about the Goldilocks economy.  Maybe she has the answer. 

The Fed has cut rates twice now in fear of a recession.  The Dow jumps several hundred points.  The employment report comes out with some pretty anemic figures which proves the economy is good, strong, and vibrant, says our president.  So the Dow jumps again.

What's the Fed going to do now?  What is Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve System going to say? 

Stay tuned.  Your job may be at stake.

By Richard E Walrath

The employment figures for September came out, and everybody just loved them. 

Why, I don't know. 

To start with, the August numbers were adjusted or revised, as they say.  Instead of losing 4000 jobs in August, the economy actually created, 89,000, they said. 

In other words, they didn't even get the direction right.

September barreled in, however, with an under-whelming figure of 110,000 jobs making the market talking heads overjoyed. 

Let's see now--for the three months, July, August and September, that's an average of very close to 100,000!   But I guess it depends on where you sit and when.  During the Clinton years, 100,000 jobs created in a month would have been viewed in a very negative way.

But there was President Bush on the TV talking about how pleased he was with such a vibrant economy.

Go figure!