::::::::
If, economically, Americans have too much burden and not enough income, then the answer ought to be "less burden and more income." That's exactly the slogan that should be adopted by any economic recovery plan.
Belatedly, John McCain finally hit on the right idea when he suggested buying and flattening the adjustable rate mortgages that are threatening to reset and to cause foreclosures to the victims of predatory lending. I believe I heard Barack Obama criticize this move, because if ARMs are purchased based on the original price of the house, well -- the value is lower now, and the government would face that loss. Senator Obama is quibbling while Rome burns. I believe that it is feasible to have the government purchase the houses at the midpoint between the old and new prices; this would "split the difference" with the mortgage holder (which may or may not be the original lender).
I believe there should be a moratorium on ARM resets, and a moratorium on post-reset foreclosures. Both moratoriums could require that the house in question be owner-occupied; therefore, the help is for families rather than speculators. Then, the government should use the "buy and flatten" approach, above, to refinance the affected homeowners into affordable, fixed-rate mortgages. No more quibbling; my article here is moving along to additional economic topics.
Are jobs an issue? Not with me. Is the Middle East more important than the MidWest? Not with me. Is energy independence an issue? Not with me. Do I worry about carbon emissions and global warming? No. Why is it that I float above these problems, seemingly unconcerned? --It is because when I was an independent candidate for U.S. President, I suggested work, effort, and something to do in the 1980s. (In 1980, I advocated solar energy, and in 1984, I added hydrogen as my suggestion for how we should power vehicles.) If a society has a lack of jobs, that suggests that it has not found "something to do."
It is amazingly short sighted and boneheaded of some politicians to oppose sharp cutbacks of carbon emissions, because certain other countries are not mutually signed up in a world-wide treaty to cut emissions. Meanwhile, under my plan from the 1980s, there are no emissions. If we had begun back then to take the right path, we would by now be energy independent; unconcerned about the Middle East; and, unconcerned about emissions. And, should we really delay our work any further because certain other countries are not likewise committed? No! Other countries might follow our leadership. They too have the headache of worrying about the Middle East, and they too understand that fossil fuels are not renewable (hence, a finite supply will at some point run out).
In other words, if anyone would whine about jobs, the Middle East, energy independence, or carbon emissions / global warming, well then I have one thing to say: Quit your whining and go build a solar-hydrogen economy.
It seems that back in the 1980s, I had the patience to be more polite. Instead of "quit your whining," I "advocated a solar-hydrogen economy." But, America, you've been dissing my advice for 24 years. Therefore, I am making this a short article with concise economic solutions.
Politicians are broken records with two notes in their vocabulary: taxes and spending. They think that somehow, the answers for the economy are to be found in rejiggering the government's taxes and spending. Politicians grew up in a time when the Federal Reserve handles monetary policy, so they figure that in Washington, all they have to worry about is fiscal policy: taxes and spending. So, they are silent about monetary policy, and for different reasons (corruption and ignorance), they are silent about trade policy. All they remember from school is that a tariff is a bad thing, and they've never given it a second thought since they learned that. This paragraph is my quick synopsis of "politician brain damage."
As a result of politician brain damage, we hear Barack Obama decry "tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas." But we do not hear him decry "tariff breaks for communists, dictators, tyrants and thugs." He might admit that a trade deficit is bad, but he doesn't connect it with the leading cause of trade deficits: tariff breaks for communists, dictators, tyrants, and thugs.
If it is important to fight trade deficits (and it is vitally important), then the correct answer is to raise tariffs. We should fight the good fight all the way up to the point of balanced trade: a zero trade deficit. In the good fight, tariffs are our friends. They are the best tool to regulate the pace of imports. We should reach for a tyranny tariff, a currency manipulation tariff, a labor exploitation tariff, an environmental pollution tariff, and a tariff for regimes with substandard consumer protections.
If an unfortunate nation such as China has all five of these problems, then they can have five (additive, cumulative) tariffs! I do not have sympathy for communists, dictators, tyrants, and thugs. They too can quit their whining and democratize their political systems, float their currencies, and protect their labor, environment, and consumers. In the alternative, they give us convenient grounds for the tariffs which will reduce our trade deficits.
In line with what I said about politician brain damage, note that the tariff maneuver is not a fiscal solution. Taxes and spending are not required.
Here is another boost-the-economy idea, and again taxes and spending are not required: Raise the minimum wage. There you go. I've listed two easy fixes for the economy, with no new taxes and no new spending.
Another idea for the economy is to "get real" about government statistics. "Headline" inflation is actual inflation minus hidden inflation. Headline inflation is so fakey that only a network TV anchorman or talking head would believe it, or pass it along. Perhaps that's why they call it headline inflation: it exists only for teleprompters. If the federal government adjusted its numbers to "get real," here is what we'd have: The federal poverty line would be 150% of what it is now. The minimum wage would be 150% of what it is now. Social security benefits would be 150% of what they are now. And inflation would be 300% of what is now reported as headline inflation.
(Note to Americans: The bogus inflation statistics have served for many years to cheat senior citizens out of cost-of-living adjustments to their social security benefits.)
My advice? The federal government should get real. If we value the thought of arriving at actual solutions to the genuine problems of our economy, well -- how can we solve a problem while the federal government distorts the problem, and so makes it difficult to clearly and accurately see the problem? The federal government should get on the same page with reality, instead of whining when reality hammers federal plans that were made with reference to their own toxic statistics.
