20 Haziran 2012 Çarşamba

President Obama's Unsustainable Fiscal Path

To contact us Click HERE

Now that we've looked at the last decade's worth of data for both Greece and Spain, two nations whose deteriorating debt situations could well blow apart the European Union, we thought we'd turn our attention across the Atlantic Ocean and look at what has happened to both government spending and tax collections per capita with respect to GDP per capita in the United States in the years from 2000 through 2011. Our results are presented in the chart below:

United States Government Spending and Tax Revenue per Capita vs GDP per Capita, 2000-2011

There's a lot going on in the chart, so let's start at the beginning. In the year 2000, the U.S. government ran a budget surplus, as the nation benefitted from outsize tax collections resulting from the peaking of the Dot Com stock market bubble, which reached its maximum inflation in August of that year.

That situation reversed after the bubble burst in the following month and entered its deflation phase as the U.S. economy entered into recession. The deflation phase of the Dot Com Bubble would last until June 2003.

Without the stock market bubble to sustain them, the U.S. government's tax collections fell during this period of time, even as the U.S. government's spending increased at a steady rate. The result of this situation was to swing the government from running annual budget surpluses to running annual budget deficits instead, as the federal government's revenues from its taxes on investor capital gains plummeted.

With the end of the Dot Com Bubble's deflation phase in 2003, the U.S. economy began to grow again and the U.S. government's tax collections began to rise. This increase in tax collections occurred despite the implementation of large tax cuts in 2003.

Under those tax cuts, the U.S. government effectively taxes its economy at a tax rate of 28.1%, which we've shown with the tax revenue trendline shown in the chart for the years of 2003 through 2008. In addition, the federal government would appear to provide the nation's economy the equivalent of a $4,661 per capita tax credit.

In 2008, the U.S. economy entered into a deep recession that bottomed in 2009, which we can observe in the chart with the decline in the nation's GDP per Capita coinciding with that year. During the time since, which corresponds with President Obama's entire presidency, we see that the federal government's spending has skyrocketed while its tax collections have fallen far below where they were for the same level of GDP per Capita in the years from 2003 through 2008, opening up a wide gap between the two.

That's significant because both observed changes are directly due to policies implemented by President Obama during his term in office. In addition to significantly boosting the federal government's spending, the President has also implemented tax cuts that have contributed to the widening of the gap between the federal government's spending per capita and tax collections per capita - putting the nation onto an unsustainable fiscal path.

But you don't have to take our word for it. Here is what President Obama's re-election campaign has to say of their achievement in reducing the federal government's tax collections (or at least, what they said on their web site as recently as 2 June 2012):

President Obama has cut taxes for middle-class families and small businesses. One of the first things he did in office was cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. He has also signed 18 tax cuts for small businesses and extended the payroll tax cut for all American workers and their families, putting an extra $1,000 in the typical middle-class family’s pocket.

Since the income tax rates established in the U.S. in 2003 are still in effect, we can assume that the federal government is still capable of collecting the same 28.1% of GDP in taxes, less $4,661 per capita, that it did in each year from 2003 through 2008. However, the federal government is taking in approximately $1,339 per capita less now than it did under the nation's effective rate of taxation of its GDP that applied before President Obama's time in office, as the federal government has boosted its effective "tax credit" to the U.S. economy of $6,000 per capita.

Put more simply, the only reason the federal government is not collecting an amount of taxes equal to what it would have for the same GDP per Capita in the years from 2003 to 2008 are the tax policies specifically implemented by the Obama administration.

We find then that President Obama's claim of putting an extra $1,000 in the typical middle-class family's pocket is both a bit understated and also ignores the true cost of the impact of his policies upon the nation's fiscal situation. By shifting the burden of taxation away from where the most income is to be found in the United States in favor of forcing a much smaller number of GDP generators to bear an increasingly disproportionate share of the tax burden in the U.S., President Obama has seriously degraded the fiscal health of the United States government during his time in office, far beyond the impact of just his spending increases alone.

Walking It Off

To contact us Click HERE

Did you just eat something you really shouldn't have? Especially if you're trying to lose some weight?

Well, there's a pretty straightforward way to avoid taking the calorie hit to your waistline - you can boost your activity level to burn off the extra food you just took in. But how much do you need to boost it? And how?

Sure, you can go for a run, swim, bike, do aerobics, or some other fitness oriented activity, but what if you can't? Not because you literally can't, but rather, because you're somewhere where you can't dress for those activities - like work, school or just out and about during the middle of your day with hours to go before you might get home.

So you're limited. You need an activity that won't get you all sweaty, but that will help you burn more calories today than you would have had to if you hadn't decided to treat yourself to that treat. Something that you won't look too out of place doing wearing what you're wearing.

If you haven't figured it out long before now, we're talking about walking. And now, since that's really the only healthy and not out-of-place option for your situation, we need to talk about how much extra walking you're going to have to do to wash out that treat you chose to eat.


How Many Calories Were In That Treat?
Input Data Values
Calories


How Long Will It Take You To Walk Those Calories Off?
Calculated Results Values
Approximate Time

Fortunately for you, we have an app for that! Just enter the amount of extra calories you consumed, and we'll give you a good ballpark estimate of how much extra walking you're going to have to do to keep them from being a permanent addition to your waistline!

Our tool is based on back of the envelope math done by fitness expert Craig Harper, who translated the amount of time and calories consumed by various treats into the amount of time it would take a 160 pound person to walk them off at a speed of three miles per hour.

As it happens, 160 pounds is the average self-reported weight for a woman in the United States, at least as reported by Gallup, which makes this a pretty useful weight to use as a rule-of-thumb benchmark. If you weigh more than that amount, it will take you a little less time to walk off the extra calories you ate, and it will take longer if you weigh less, but the total amount of time you need to spend walking should be be pretty close.

But really, perhaps the best way to use this tool is as a guide for deciding whether you should eat those extra calories in the first place!

Image Source: National Institute of Health

Really? Unexpected? Again?!

To contact us Click HERE

Back in August 2010, we became concerned that the professional U.S. news media really were being caught with their pants down far too often when reporting economic news, which they were perpetually describing as "unexpected".

So, we decided to help them out. We shared how we've become able to project the future for the number of seasonally-adjusted new jobless claims each week with such a high degree of accuracy. After all, using those methods, we've been able to transform this particular economic statistic into the most easy to forecast of all economic data.

So, imagine our surprise when we decided to pay attention to their reporting of the most recent new unemployment insurance claims from Thursday, 14 June 2012 when, well, let's let Bloomberg tell the story....

Claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly climbed by 6,000 to 386,000 in the week ended June 9 from a revised 380,000 the prior week that was more than first estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. Economists projected claims would fall to 375,000, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey.

Really? Unexpected? Again?! Who exactly are these economists that keep getting surveyed who it seems really couldn't forecast their way out of a wet paper bag?

Let's try something - let's take our statistics-based analytical method and find out just how far back in time we could have put ourselves in the right ballpark for predicting last week's numbers!

For our methods, we need at least six weeks worth of data to establish whether a trend exists, and ideally ten weeks to get a decent statistical picture of it (obviously, the more data the better - these values represent the minimum values we need to put the picture together). Since we confirmed in an update on 3 May 2012 that a new trend in the number of seasonally-adjusted new jobless claims had indeed taken effect, pegging its beginning to the week ending 18 February 2012.

Ten weeks later puts us at the data report for the week ending 5 May 2012. Here is the chart with the projections that we could have generated at that time, using the BLS' revised data through 28 April 2012:

Residual Distribution for Seasonally-Adjusted Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims, 26 March 2011 - 28 April 2012

Now, let's fill in all the data that has been recorded since....

Residual Distribution for Seasonally-Adjusted Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims, 26 March 2011 - 28 April 2012, with available data through 9 June 2012

Based upon just ten weeks worth of data, we could easily have projected the range where each subsequent data point would be some 95% of the time for each week up to at least a month and a half later.

Of course, since we have more data now, why not use it? Here's what the chart looks like today based on the data reported through the week ending 9 June 2012:

Residual Distribution for Seasonally-Adjusted Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims, 26 March 2011 - 9 June 2012

And now you know what "expected" really looks like. In fact, we'll give you 68.2% odds of the data for the week ending 16 June 2012 coming in between 375,378 and 393,652, and 95% odds that it will fall between 366,240 and 402,789. At least while the current trend holds (it may not for much longer, which we'll touch on tomorrow!)

The Economic Effects of Today's Falling Gasoline Prices

To contact us Click HERE

Good Morning, White House Staffer Snapshot, 16 June 2012 Good morning, White House Staffer!

We appreciate your daily visits, as you continue your ongoing efforts to closely monitor the U.S. gasoline price situation. We have, after all, tailored our top-of-the-page "Good Morning, White House Staffer" feature specifically to assist you in your daily task.

But we're afraid that we'll soon be taking down our feature, as the average retail price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline in the United States has fallen below $3.55 per gallon. Given the potential for volatility in that average price, we'll keep it going until it firmly drops below $3.50 per gallon, as this will help ensure that we don't discontinue our feature too early, should there be any unexpected supply disruptions in the next several weeks that might boost it back over the $3.55 per gallon mark.

That's good news for you, in the short term sense, as we expect that U.S. employers will react positively to falling fuel and transportation prices, which if our previous observations hold, will mean that the pace of weekly layoffs in the United States will change for the better within 2-3 weeks of the national average gasoline price dropping below $3.50 per gallon, which we would measure by the number of seasonally-adjusted new unemployment insurance benefit claims filed each week.

As we remarked on 31 May 2012:

If we're lucky in the short term, we'll see if the rate of layoffs that prompt new unemployment insurance claim filings shifts to a new, more positive trajectory if gasoline prices fall back below the $3.50 per gallon mark in the weeks ahead.

But then, we'll be unlucky in the longer term because that will mean that the world demand for oil will have dropped enough to make that possible, as much of the world appears headed for recession. That of course will have consequences for the U.S. economy.

In the meantime though, we continue to expect the U.S. economy will rebound a bit in the third and fourth quarters of 2012, after passing through the equivalent of a microrecession during the current second quarter. The story for 2013 will be very different, we're afraid....

That said, our previous advice to you to keep your résumé up to date still holds. We would also suggest that this summer will perhaps present the best opportunity you will have to sell your metropolitan Washington D.C. home before that real estate market changes.

And now you can't say that you weren't warned when it mattered most - when you still had time to do something about your situation!

Previously on Political Calculations

  • New Jobless Claims: Thunderdome Edition!
  • Visualizing the Actual Price of Gasoline Across the U.S.
  • Gasoline Prices and the Unemployment Rate
  • How High Gas Prices Affect the Number of Layoffs
  • Questions from Our Inbox: Why Are Gasoline Prices Rising So Much?
  • Scheduling the Next U.S. Recession
  • How Much Might Producing More (or Less) Oil Change Its Price?
  • Surprising Impotence
  • Who's Behind the Drop in Gas Prices?
  • Changing the Outlook for Oil Prices
  • Holy Gas Prices Batman! It's the New Batmobile!...
  • Using Gas Prices to Forecast the Unemployment Trend
  • Correlating the Price of Gas and the Unemployment Rate
  • Why Are Americans Driving Less?
  • How Much Does Your Commute Cost You?
  • Should You Move Closer to Work to Save Commuting Costs?
  • How to Save Money on Gas, Without Driving Less
  • How Much Are Higher Gas Prices Really Hurting You?
  • Should You Trade in Your Gas Guzzler?
  • Is It Worth the Drive?
  • Do Hybrids Really Save Money?
  • How Much Do You Pay in Gas Taxes?

The Scope of the Plastic Shopping Bag Problem

To contact us Click HERE

How big of a problem do plastic shopping bags pose to the environment?

Since the elected supervisors of Los Angeles' City Council recently voted to ban plastic shopping bags at the city's retailers, largely in response to "clean-water" advocates, who argue that the bags "pollute the ocean and the city's waterways", we thought we'd get a sense of just how big that problem really is.

Our chart below presents the answer, which refers to data that those who support bans on plastic shopping bags frequently cite in advancing their agenda:

Plastic Shopping Bags: The Scope of the Environmental Problem...

The values shown in the chart above were originally reported in 2004. There are a number of points to note about the results for the first-ever worldwide cleanup of the coastal areas of the United States and 100 other countries:

  1. The use of plastic shopping bags really began taking off worldwide in the 1980s.
  2. By 2003, "environmental groups" estimate that anywhere from 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic shopping bags were being used annually.
  3. Despite never having been done before, meaning that about as many bags as could be found would be found during the Ocean Conservancy's one-day long campaign to clean up the world's coastal areas in September 2003, just 354,000 bags were collected. Most, but not all, were made of plastic.

More fascinating to us however, we've discovered that so-called "green" advocates are incredibly fond of recycling the Ocean Conservancy's 354,000 bag cleanup figure from September 2003, citing it as being a valid figure that applies year, after year, after year. We're nearly at the decade anniversary and apparently, only 354,000 bags ever get cleaned up from the world's coastal areas each year!

Either that means the problem is not getting any worse despite a great deal of economic and population growth worldwide in the intervening years, which would have greatly increased the world's consumption of plastic shopping bags, or that these environmental activists just don't care enough about the environment to bother with picking up more than 354,000 mostly plastic bags from the world's coastal areas in any given year.

The alternative possibility is that a large number of environmental activists recycle the data because updating it would take actual effort on their part. Plus, there's the little matter of how foolish they might look if they ever fail to collect at least as many as their apparent annual quota of 354,000 bags!

If only these people cared more about the environment!...

Data Reference

Lowy, Joan. Plastic left holding the bag as environmental plague. Scripps Howard News Service. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 20 July 2004.

Previously on Political Calculations

  • Paper, Plastic or Cloth: Which Bag Is Best for the Environment?

19 Haziran 2012 Salı

ObamaCare Exchanges Crush Small States

To contact us Click HERE
Who Knew?  Well no one knew what was in this monstrosity, not even Nancy Pelosi as she said 'we have pass this thing to find out what's in it'. For a sitting member of the government to say such a thing can only mean she is insane, but then this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone that has paid attention.

Some States Too Small to Succeed with Health Exchanges

Source: Jason Millman, "Some States Too Small to Succeed with Health Exchanges," Politico, June 10, 2012.


A lot of states will find out later this year if they're going to have to depend on the Department of Health and Human Services to start up their health insurance exchange. That's partly because setting up exchanges is technically complex and partly because many states have moved slowly, if they've moved at all, because of the political and legal uncertainties surrounding President Barack Obama's health law, says Politico.

A small group of states are facing an entirely unique issue: exchanges simply are not financially feasible because the states are too small.

•States affected by this problem include Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island and Vermont, as well as Washington, D.C.
•The decision facing them is whether they will continue to attempt to create state-run exchanges (despite the financial pitfalls) or if they will run partnership exchanges with the federal government.
•Three of the states and the District have all approved exchange legislation indicating their intention to have a state-based exchange.
•Others remain mired in uncertainty as to which option they will select.

Delaware's situation is illustrative of the problem: because so few people live in the state, there would not be enough enrollees in a state program in order to recoup administrative costs.

•In Delaware, no more than 50,000 to 60,000 people, mostly in the individual market, would be enrolled in the exchange by 2019.
•The state projected only 35,000 covered lives for the 2014 launch, according to a consultant's report.
•Crystal English, Delaware's health insurance exchange project director, explains that having so few enrollees to share administrative costs would likely result in higher premiums, which admittedly is not the goal of the exchanges.
•In response to this issue, Delaware will run a partnership exchange with the federal government in which responsibilities and expenses are split between the two levels of government.

This difficulty for smaller states was recently confirmed by a top Health and Human Services official, who acknowledged that it doesn't make sense for some of the small states to build an exchange entirely on their own.





EPA's MACT Rule on Murcery : Ideology Nightmare

To contact us Click HERE
As I have stated in the past, the EPA is by far the most dangerous and powerful agency in the country, and worse, it is headed by an unelected individual. If for no other reason to vote out the Democrats this November, it will be the right thing to do to stop the destruction of our energy system and our way of life.

EPA does not have our best interest at heart - look what has happened with ObamaCare. They are driven by ideology, not common sense, to change America "fundamentally", Obama's very words.

All Pain and No Gain

Source: Marlo Lewis, William Yeatman and David Bier, "All Pain and No Gain," Competitive Enterprise Institute, June 8, 2012.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Utility MACT Rule establishes the first-ever maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The principal goal of targeting HAPs is the reduction of mercury, which can settle into water supplies and ostensibly cause birth defects when consumed by pregnant women, say Marlo Lewis, William Yeatman and David Bier of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The EPA has justified this regulation on the grounds that, despite enormous compliance costs in the energy sector, the public health benefits will be even larger. This is far from the truth.

•The EPA's December 2000 determination that triggered the rule assumed that 7 percent of pregnant women in the United States have blood mercury concentrations exceeding the agency's reference dose.
•In reality, only 0.4 percent (one in every 250 pregnant women) had blood mercury levels exceeding the reference dose.
•Furthermore, the EPA's reference dose is overly cautious: the EPA's reference dose is 1/15th the lowest exposure level associated with mild, subclinical effects in epidemiological studies.
•Finally, the EPA produces no evidence of mercury exposure at these levels having any effect on unborn children.
•EPA estimates that each year 240,000 pregnant women in subsistence fishing households eat enough self-caught fish to endanger their children's cognitive or neurological health, yet the agency has yet to identify a single woman who fits this description.

Nevertheless, the EPA boasts $80 billion in annual net benefits. However, this projection relies upon supposed side-benefits of reductions in fine particulate matter in the air (not mercury). The regulation would seek to reduce this particulate matter below previously regulated levels and far below levels commonly recognized as safe. The dubiousness of the justification for this rule is especially important because of the harms it will certainly have for consumers.

•Many potential investors are now wary of new coal-fired power plants for fear that they will be found not to be in compliance with the new rules.
•Not only will the rule prevent the creation of new electricity-generating facilities, but also will result in the retirement of 10,000 megawatts of electricity production.
•The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission projects that 81,000 megawatts -- almost eight times the EPA's estimate -- are likely to retire.