Only WE can fix the economy stupid!!

I am so freaking frustrated with reading/listening to how Consumer Confidence is low, which is why consumer spending is down. Confidence is low? What does this mean? Oh, I don't want to spend any money because the economy is in the toilet. Did it ever dawn on you that you NOT spending money is the problem? Sure savings are higher now, the banks are flush with cash, paying tiny returns and hoarding cash, your cash. They aren't making loans because the economy is bad. Poor folk don't save, they spend all they have. It's everyone else who has extra cash laying around who aren't spending.
I had a conversation with a retiree who told me he wasn't going to make any large purchases because the economy is 'bad'. I said to him, are you nuts? You have a fixed income, prices are rock bottom, the 'bad' economy does not affect you at all, yet you won't spend? What kind of idiots are you people? The economy will not recover as it should unless we start spending again. When we spend, stores have to stock up, meaning manufacturers and suppliers have to hire more people, meaning more people employed to buy more stuff. We need to take back control over our own lives and economy. The government cannot resolve every problem. We need to stop whining how bad things are and do something about it.
As an example, the car industry was in a shambles, now after investment they are back making a profit again. People are buying cars again. This is a small segment, we can do more, do better. So open up your checkbooks and start buying, do your part !!

Sunsetting the Tax Breaks for the wealthy is NOT a tax increase

Today a talking head made an interesting analogy that all of us can understand. Thing of the temporary tax cuts for the wealthy by the Bush administration as a coupon you get in the mail. It has an expiration date on it. If you try to use that coupon after that date, are you being ripped off by paying the actual price? Of course not. The coupon, as with the tax cuts were a temporary measure, passed by a Republican Congress under Budget Reconciliation. Efforts since then to make them permanent have failed throughout the years. We are talking about the top 2% of the wage earners in this country. If allowed to continue, the cost to the deficit will soon reach 4.4 Trillion dollars. This is from ONE temporary tax break which will sunset January 2011. Temporary tax break. Like the Cash for Clunkers, temporary. Like the tax breaks for purchasing a home or hybrid car, temporary. The Republicans have not complained about those being tax increases have they? How is a temporary tax break expiring a tax increase, or is it that the playing field is being put back in place as it once was. 23 million jobs were created during the Clinton years with the old tax rate. 3 Million jobs have been created since the tax breaks went into effect. The Heritage Foundation claims that keeping the tax breaks will create no new jobs, but will prevent jobs from being lost. They know there is no way to quantify the amount of jobs lost due to allowing the law to expire because the economy is in a shambles as it is. So they throw out bogus numbers.

The reality is this. If, after all my expenses and tax breaks and write offs, I as a business man have a $1 million tax liability, what would I do to limit that liability? Maybe hire 3 or 4 workers and take advantage of those tax breaks? What makes more sense to me? Hiring 4 workers and saving money, or give it all to the government?

I know what I would do.

Our energy future is not going to happen unless...

Frankly I am sick and tired of all the talk about energy independence. Just now I saw yet another ad for some group wanting you to support energy independence without as usual specifics. This is what drives me nuts. Great idea to achieve it, yet no one seems to have a real plan to do it in a realistic, well thought out program. It is very clear to me that the only way real change will come is if the government actually mandates it.

In years past, when whaling destroyed the ability to use whale oil to light homes, gas and and that new fangled oil from the ground provided the obvious next step. At the time, we had viable options that were a natural progression. Today we are dealing with a finite amount of fossil fuels, sucking the earth dry at a dramatic rate without any real transition option available. China is booming and disrupting the status quo as far as consumption is concerned. The end date for fossil fuels is looming faster everyday. The problem is that there are other 'options' available.

I want to focus on one area that we are all familiar with, gasoline. I choose this because it is the most complicated to resolve. As of today there are at least three options for the future available. Electric power is the first. Battery technology is a growing research industry and new technologies are available today. The problem with full electric powered cars is their limited range. The 2011 Chevy Volt has a range of 40 miles. Now Chevrolet claims that most people commute less than 40 miles, this may be true. The reality is that in the real world people don't want to wait for a charge to jump in and go. There is a gas generator that will kick in and allow you to go up to 300 miles. Again though, gasoline is still used. True, the alleged fuel economy is higher, but it is nothing more than an advanced hybrid. You can plug in your Volt to 110v and in 10 hours you are charged, or you can install a 240 circuit and charge in 4. At $.12 per kw/hr you can expect to pay $45.00 a month for the electricity to travel 40 miles a day. The Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle such as the Honda FCX Clarity runs on hydrogen supplied by a solar powered home refueling station. The equivalent mpg to gasoline is 60 mpg, the range on a single hydrogen fill is 240 miles. Hydrogen as we all know is the most abundant element on planet earth. The third option is a combination hybrid/increased CAFE standards, meaning we are still using OIL.

Since all types use battery packs, the research funding for better battery technologies makes sense. The issue for me is which technology will win out with regards to what type of vehicle should they be put in. We have competing technologies which is expensive and unnecessary. This is where the government should step in and take a leadership role by defining one standard for use by all manufacturers.

The premise.

Auto manufacturers will spend billions because their systems must be competitive, the weaker ones will fall by the wayside without help. Some will stick with hybrid, some electric and some fuel cells (FCV). The government will lose trillions on gas taxes in the process. Oil companies will be resistant, but if they thought ahead, they could be a key factor in making my idea work.

The idea.

The Federal government must take a stand and do the right thing, regardless of the politics. It is clear than any reliance on fossil fuels must be reduced as practicable as possible. The only realistic solution is the FCV. No fossil fuels used to drive. Honda has developed a solar based home fueling station. Whether totally electric or FCV, both use batteries and electric motors. The difference is that the electric car plugs into your home or office, no fuel cell. Commuter cars would benefit from all electric and they can be today's version of the sub compact. Midsize and larger would be FCV's. For this to work the government will set a single standard. The government will contract each FCV manufacturer to submit for approval their power pack designs for midsize and larger vehicles and for light duty trucks. There will be open competition between the designs. The winning design will be the only approved power pack to be used in all domestic and foreign imported or captive import vehicles. All the car manufacturers will have to do is incorporate the power pack into their own vehicle design. One power pack will power every single vehicle in the US. The power pack can be built under license from the winner with no royalties paid. What makes this good for the consumer is that they can take their vehicle into any dealership in the US to resolve power pack issues that may arise. Having a standard power pack simplifies maintenance and service issues. The costs are substantially less because the development costs will be for one, rather than competing designs. In fact it may be preferable to have a separate consortium responsible for the design and manufacturing of the power pack. Manufacturers can use whatever battery and motor design they choose. Only the power supply is standard.

Truck will be only of the diesel power design, no gasoline trucks. The diesel design would be to use JP4/5 aviation jet fuel, or aviation jet to comply with Federal truck standards. The idea being again, standardization.

This leaves farm tractors and lawn mowers, vintage cars, weed eaters etc. to run on gasoline.

There must be a hard and fast deadline for 100% of all new vehicles sold in the US as either electric or FCV's. Truck deadlines could be done in 2 years. I would say, 10 years for 100%. No sense in wasting anymore time on this.

How the government will recoup the taxes lost is their problem.

How can the oil companies benefit? One they will no longer have to drill for oil for US consumption. Two, they have the infrastructure to manufacture and deliver hydrogen to filling stations. No tax breaks for big oil to retrofit either. They will benefit from the investment plus the outrageous profits they will generate from the new lack of demand in the US.

The bottom line is this. We will continue spinning our wheels as long as people TALK about doing something. It's time to actually do it.

We can, we will !!