Firefighters and the State Budget

Over the last few days, we've seen some truly heroic bravery on the part of our California Firefighters fighting the Station Fire. We are all thankful for their efforts, especially those of us close to the fire whose houses were, in many cases, on the brink of destruction but saved by the brave firefighters.

So we all agree, we need to support our firefighters just like our troops, because in many ways firefighters are our troops, fighting wars every year against a very powerful foe. And supporting our firefighters includes monetary support so that they can buy the latest firefighting equipment and be provided with air support.

What this brings me to is a complaint about the Republicans we have in the State Assembly and Senate. In drafting the budget for this year, California Republicans somehow managed to force the Democrats to approve a budget of the sort that they would approve of. How could a minority force this on the majority? Because, under California Law, any budget needs the approval of 2/3 of the legislature. While the Democrats were in the majority, they still needed 2/3 of the vote, meaning at least a few Republicans. And the Republicans, in an amazing show of party unity, decided to veto any budget that included ANY new taxes. In other words, they wanted to close our record, highest in the nation 24 billion dollar deficit, without adding any new taxes. So the Democrats would have to find 24 billion dollars in cuts that the Republicans would agree to. That's right--not only did we have to cut a huge amount out of the state's expenditures, but it all had to be something the Republicans would agree to. This topsy-turvy world, in which the minority holds almost more power than the majority, was bound to force cuts in quite important things. Like fires. State workers--that includes firefighters-- have been forced to take a 5 % pay cut, AND there is now less money to spend for these brave people. California should change the law so that 50% of the state legislature needs to approve a budget for it to pass. That way, we would have more money to spend on services we truly appreciate and need--services like firefighters.

Am I missing something?

"Hi everybody, I know I am revisiting this topic so soon, that even I am left speechless. But the Democrats have countered my counter about the "Real" Economic Story. But what they left out was the main point (the Republican answer to the question) of every argument that I made and took the vulnerable part (the question) and argued against it. I don't know why I need to write a counter to his counter about my counter, because I explained everything in my previous statement. The Democrats just took the beginning of all of my arguements and made them sound bad, when the very answer came right after the section they attacked. This is just another way to prove how Democrats will try to indoctrinate the average American citizen by having you hear or read what they want you to hear or read. So, now I will ask again for the Democrats to reread what I wrote in whole. I ask you to read what I wrote as well and read their counter to my counter and how it pulls out the question and argues against it, instead of pulling out the Republican answer that I gave and responding to that.

The Young Republicans of La Canada Flintridge"

I'm now being told by this and the Republican President that I misunderstood his points, and didn't address his counters.

"Here is my counter, the $10 trillion is a number that accumulates after adding together all the promisies the government made whenever Democrats were in office such as Social Security during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency and Medicare during Lyndon Johnson's presidency."

And I countered that. If that wasn't what he wanted me to address, what was?

I find that it's the same sort of thing all the way down the line. His points may have more nuance in them than he shows. But I am not psychic, so I only address the points that are put out there. And I think I addressed all of his points. Read both, and see for yourself.

The Real Economic Story, Revisited

Yesterday, I made a post entitled "The Real Economic Story" in which I laid out why I believe Obama's policies are helping this country. Today, the La Canada Young Republicans have posted a counter to what I put forth, alleging that "most of it [my post] is just a lie". They put forth a number of counters to things I brought up, and I wish to explain more fully the things they have called into question.

The first thing their post addresses is the (approximately) 10 trillion dollar debt figure I mentioned, and the 482 billion dollar deficit for 2009 fiscal year. They claim that the 10 trillion "is a number that accumulates after adding together all the promisies the government made whenever Democrats were in office such as Social Security during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency and Medicare during Lyndon Johnson's presidency." First of all, the debt does not turn off when Republicans are in office. Second, the share of that debt that is made up by Obama is slight compared to Bush. Third, whenever we have budget surpluses, we lower this debt. The Republicans never had a surplus in the 8 years of the Bush Presidency. You may be asking, what is the difference between the debt and the deficit? The federal deficit/surplus is the amount of money being spent by the federal government for things like Social Security and the Iraq War, subtracted from the amount being made through taxes and other means. In other words, Revenue minus Expenses. When the amount of expenses is higher than the amount of revenue, we have a deficit. When we have more revenue than expenses, it is a surplus. All of the deficits and surpluses taken together are the national debt. During the Bush Years, the Debt went from 5.7 trillion in September of 2000 (the closest I could find, use it as a benchmark). In September 2004, the debt rose above 7 trillion. In October 2005, it rose above 8 trillion. In October 2008, it rose above 10 trillion. Taking these figures, you find that during Bush's presidency, the debt increased by approximately 4 billion dollars. Obama's presidency has raised the debt about 1 trillion dollars.

They also make the point that the Iraq War was necessary. Because we all know how dangerous all those WMD's we found in Iraq were. If you still think the Iraq War was necessary, I'm not going to waste breath arguing. I leave it up to you if it was really worth it to send over 4000 young men and women to their deaths for a lie?

I had said that investors preferred things like the Dow Jones to the GDP, because the GDP is so infrequent. The Republicans say "This is wrong because those investors do use the GDP, for goodness sake it is the economic chart for this country." This is just a misunderstanding. The GDP is calculated over a year's time, so investors don't sit around for a year to see where the economy is. They use the Dow, which is a representation of the economic strength of this country.

The Leading Indicator to which I refer is this one: The Conference Board Leading Economic Index™.

"Now, that "fact" about jobs, that more are being made the lost is a complete lie". And he's right, that is a lie. Thing is, I didn't say that. I said that right now, we are losing fewer jobs each month. SOON, we might see more being made than lost.

I think my favorite part is this sentence: " From September 2008 to February 2009 unemployment has risen from 6.2% to 8.1%." I remind you that the president from September 2008 to January 20, 2009, was George Bush. Thank you Mr. Bush for giving us these fabulous numbers.

The last part of their post is their own hypothetical situation to counter mine. I say the economy will continue improving, they say it won't. The best way to test this? Wait and see.

The Real Economic Story

EDITED: Deficit and Debt were being used incorrectly. I have changed this.

You may hear from some of your more Conservative friends (I sure do) that Obama's actions, such as the 787 billion dollar stimulus are hurting/are going to hurt the US economy, that unemployment is still bad and the economy isn't improving, that his policies are proving wrong liberal beliefs about economic policy and that the best alternative is their fiscal conservatism. Ignoring the blatant hypocrisy of the people who brought you 482 billion dollars in debt for the 2009 fiscal year, to a 10 trillion dollar debt, never produced a surplus, and gave us the Iraq War, there is another problem with this argument. It's just not true.

Most economic indicators are, in fact, up. The Dow Jones has improved from its low of 6547.05 on March 9 of this year to its present height of around 9500. Many companies have shed their toxic assets and are now ready for a new start (with more oversight and safer business practices), the leading economic indicator (a sort of forecast of things likely to come) improved, hourly earnings are up, and a host of other indicators are also trending positive.

"But," your conservative friend will be saying after you string this off. "But unemployment is still way up! That proves Obama's plan isn't working!" And to this, I say, not at all true.

There are three types of economic indicators--leading, current, and lagging. Imagine the economy as a roller coaster car on a track. The current indicator is often something like the Dow Jones (I like to use it because it's familiar to most people). That's the cart-- wherever the Dow is roughly corresponds to the economy at large (measured in GDP). The reason GDP isn't used is because it is too infrequent to be of much use. So as I said, the Dow is your car, showing you where the economy is. Now imagine two poles sticking out of the car, one in front, one in back. These are the leading and lagging indicators. The leading indicator is the pole in front. If one did not know where the roller coaster was headed, but saw whether the pole was going up or down, one would know where the cart was headed. Because the pole is far enough out, it is possible for the economy to still be going down while the leading indicator is going up. This means that the economy is in a shape like this one \/. The Dow in on the right side, still going down. But the leading indicator has already hit the upslope and is ascending while the Dow is descending.

Unemployment is the other kind of indicator, a lagging one. This is the pole sticking out of the back of our cart. It is possible for this pole to still be going down while the cart is going up. In other words, even during a recovery, if the lagging indicator lags far enough, it can be a year behind the current indicator. Unemployment was always a lagging indicator, and in recent recessions this trend has become more pronounced. Unemployment has stayed down for months after the recession ends. This is what we are seeing now. The economy went downwards, the leading indicator pulled up, the current indicator pulled up, and now we are waiting for the lagging to pull up. In fact, recently it has been, slowing the rate of job loss and thus trending upwards. Fairly soon, we may see a positive result, meaning more jobs are being created than lost. Once this happens, most people will finally see that Obama's plans have been working. Democrats will be cheered for pulling the economy back from the cliff, should widen margins in both house and senate, and Obama will coast to re-election in 2012.

Now, there is one last point our Conservative friend can make. That is that Obama's plans may lead to short term gains, but will mess up our economy to the point of ruin. Eventually, his ideas will backfire and America's economy will be destroyed.

There isn't any argument that you can make that will be convincing. The best evidence to support your position will be simple. Watch as Obama's policies continue to build back America's economy, better and stronger than it was before.

September 11 Commemoration Event

On September 11, the Young Republicans Club has organised a commemoration ceremony to honor the lives that were lost on that terrible day almost 8 years ago. They will never be forgotten.

All are invited to attend. The Democratic Club was unable to help with the preparations this year, but if anyone could come and help set up chairs and such, it would look good for our club. If you can't do that, please at least come out to listen to speeches by some local political figures.

Ted Kennedy has Died

The Liberal Lion of the Senate, one of the most respected members of that body, died last night at the age of 77. His ability to pass legislation and get things done while working with Republicans made him one of the best legislators and figures in the Senate. He will be missed.

Now, there are interesting political implications. Kennedy's life goal was to achieve Universal Health Care, and he died right before we have an opportunity to pass it. Failure to unify on one bill and message effectively is inexcusable and not only cheats Americans out of their right to Health Care, but also dishonors his memory. There really is no reason that we should fail in this goal.

Kennedy's death also leaves his Senate seat empty. Because of his illness, he had not been at the Capital since April, and thus had not been a Democratic vote to break filibusters. With his death, his seat is technically at risk, but this being Massachusetts we're talking about, the only question is how long until his replacement arrives.

What does everyone else think?

La Canada Young Democrats

This blog will be used as a way to communicate with members of the club. I will also be providing political commentary on the issues of the moment. A forum with the Young Republicans is under consideration, until then post your opinions in the comments section. We hope to see you all at our first meeting (time to be determined).