Government – Page 6

Kaysville City Elections Early Voting Results

September 14, 2009 by rickety Leave a Comment

Kaysville City elections early voting results 14 September 2009

Early Voting Early Results

The results of the early voting shows that Steve Hiatt, with 61 votes, has taken an early lead over Mayor Neka Roundy who has garnered 51 votes.

In the City Council race Gil Miller’s 58 votes lead, followed by Brian Cook sporting 42 votes. Jared Taylor (38 votes) and John Jensen (37 votes) are very close behind. Here is a full screenshot of the results.

Early Posting

Who would have thought that early votes could be posted on the city website before the day of the election? Other voters may be swayed by seeing who has an early lead. Maybe that’s why they are called early votes — because you get to see them early.

Updates

15 Sep 2009 — A check at 9:30am this morning (election day) showed that the early voting tallies had been removed.
16 Sep 2009 — Unofficial results: Steve Hiatt (1,570) and Neka F. Roundy (910) move on to the General Election. Gil A. Miller (1,427), Brian D. Cook (1,035), Jared R. Taylor (889), and Richard Lenz (801) also qualified for the General Election.

It is interesting to note that of the six winners, the top five followed the same order as the early voting results. Remarkable.

Defense Spending by Country

June 20, 2009 by rickety 16 Comments

The fifteen countries with the largest annual military budgets. See table below for actual dollar amounts.

This information is outdated. See this post for the latest in military spending.

Defense Spending In The Billions

The chart above shows the fifteen nations with the greatest annual military spending. The United States, with a budget of $535.9 billion annually, spends more on defense than the next fourteen nations combined. One wonders if all that spending by the United States is really necessary, considering that the U.S. military budget is more than four times that of the next largest spender, China, at $121.9 billion. If America’s NATO allies are included just from the chart above (which is not all of NATO), that adds another $207.2 billion in defense spending. Those countries are the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, and Spain.

Defense Spending By GDP

When spending is considered by percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the United States at 4.1% falls to eighth place. Saudi Arabia (10.0%), Russia (9.9%), and Israel (7.3%) take over first, second, and third place respectively.

Table Of Annual Defense Spending By Country

Click ONCE on column headers to sort.

Rank	Country	$Billion	%GDP
1	United States	535.9	4.1
2	China	121.9	4.3
3	Russia	70.0	9.9
4	United Kingdom	55.4	2.4
5	France	54.0	2.6
6	Japan	41.1	0.8
7	Germany	37.8	1.5
8	Italy	30.6	1.8
9	Saudi Arabia	29.5	10.0
10	South Korea	24.6	2.7
11	India	22.4	2.5
12	Australia	17.2	2.4
13	Brazil	16.2	2.6
14	Canada	15.0	1.1
15	Spain	14.4	1.2
16	Turkey	11.6	5.3
17	Israel	11.0	7.3
18	Netherlands	9.9	1.6
19	United Arab Emirates	9.5	3.1
20	Indonesia	8.4	3.0
21	Taiwan	7.7	2.2
22	Greece	7.3	4.3
23	Iran	7.2	2.5
24	Myanmar (Burma)	6.9	2.1
25	Singapore	6.3	4.9
26	Poland	6.2	1.7
27	Ukraine	6.0	1.4
28	Sweden	5.8	1.5
29	Colombia	5.4	3.4
30	Norway	5.0	1.9

Sources

The Economist, “…and Wars”. Pocket World in Figures 2009 Edition. Profile Books. Dollar amounts are for 2006, except Indonesia which is for 2005.
The CIA World Factbook, listing spending on defense programs for the most recent year available as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP); the GDP is calculated on an exchange rate basis, i.e., not in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP).

Rickety signature

A Balanced Budget Amendment Will Cut Federal Deficit Spending

June 7, 2009 by rickety 2 Comments

Before discussing a Federal Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment let us first look at Utah’s constitution that has a section on public debt.

Utah Constitutional Balanced Budget

In Article 14, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution the state is allowed “To meet casual deficits or failures in revenue, and for necessary expenditures for public purposes” by “contract[ing] debts, not exceeding in the aggregate at any one time, an amount equal to one and one-half per centum of the value of the taxable property of the State.” The one and one-half percent can be exceeded only for the public defense as provided by the following:

Article XIV, Section 2. [Debts for public defense.]
The State may contract debts to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or to defend the State in war, but the money arising from the contracting of such debts shall be applied solely to the purpose for which it was obtained.

Article 14 has working well for Utah (see the full text of Article 14). The state budgets conservatively because of the constitutional mandate to balance its budget every year. In times of lower state revenues very little money has to be diverted for debt servicing, hence reductions in services can be minimized. A requirement for a balanced budget has also resulted in the creation of a rainy day fund to mitigate the difficulties of revenue shortfalls.

Federal Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment

Many people baulk at a Federal balanced budget amendment because they feel that it would hobble the government in times of emergency, such as war or an economic depression. But just as the state of Utah makes provision for emergencies in its constitution so too would the federal government. For example, Representative Jason Chaffetz’s (R-Utah) co-sponsorship of a balanced budget amendment has these provisions in a section-by-section summary:

Section 1. Requires that total spending for any fiscal year not exceed total receipts.
Section 2. Requires a 3/5 vote for any increases in the debt limit.
Section 3. Requires that the President’s proposed budget to Congress be balanced each year.
Section 4. Requires that any legislation to increase revenue must be passed by a true majority of each chamber and not just a majority of those present and voting.
Section 5. Provides an exception to the balanced budget provisions in times of military conflicts that pose imminent and serious military threats to national security, as declared by Congress.
Section 6. Requires Congress to enforce this amendment through appropriate legislation.
Section 7. Stipulates that total outlays do not include repayment of debt and total receipts do not include those derived from borrowing.
Section 8. Provides the effective date of the amendment.

Representative Chaffetz has this to say about the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment:

Washington obviously lacks the discipline to live within its means. We cannot be all things to all people. We are $10+ trillion in debt and the number is growing every day. This is unacceptable and unsustainable…. We cannot continue to run this country by putting more debt on a credit card. The State Constitution in Utah requires a balanced budget. This works well for Utah and will work well for our country.

As can been seen in Section 5, provision is made for exceptions in time of war. The debt limit can be raised by a 3/5 vote which should adequately cover emergencies. See the full text of the balanced budget amendment proposal with 166 co-sponsors.

Over the years there have been several attempts by Congress to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. The closest was in 1995 when a Balanced Budget Amendment passed the House of Representatives and was one vote shy in the Senate.

The States and a Balanced Budget Amendment

Article V of the Constitution states in part:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; …

Between 1975 and 1980, 30 different state legislatures submitted 34 petitions to Congress concerning a Balanced Budget Amendment. Those states were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Since 1980, Alaska and Missouri have petitioned Congress for a convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment. If two more additional states were to petition, then the required two-thirds majority of states would be reached (34 out of 50 states) and Congress would be required to call a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Article XIV of the Utah Constitution

PUBLIC DEBT

Article XIV, Section 1. [Fixing the limit of the state indebtedness — Exceptions.]
To meet casual deficits or failures in revenue, and for necessary expenditures for public purposes, including the erection of public buildings, and for the payment of all Territorial indebtedness assumed by the State, the State may contract debts, not exceeding in the aggregate at any one time, an amount equal to one and one-half per centum of the value of the taxable property of the State, as shown by the last assessment for State purposes, previous to the incurring of such indebtedness. But the State shall never contract any indebtedness, except as provided in Article XIV, Section 2, in excess of such amount, and all monies arising from loans herein authorized, shall be applied solely to the purposes for which they were obtained.

Article XIV, Section 2. [Debts for public defense.]
The State may contract debts to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or to defend the State in war, but the money arising from the contracting of such debts shall be applied solely to the purpose for which it was obtained.

Article XIV, Section 3. [Certain debt of counties, cities, towns, school districts, and other political subdivisions not to exceed taxes — Exception — Debt may be incurred only for specified purposes.]
(1) No debt issued by a county, city, town, school district, or other political subdivision of the State and directly payable from and secured by ad valorem property taxes levied by the issuer of the debt may be created in excess of the taxes for the current year unless the proposition to create the debt has been submitted to a vote of qualified voters at the time and in the manner provided by statute, and a majority of those voting thereon has voted in favor of incurring the debt.
(2) No part of the indebtedness allowed in this section may be incurred for other than strictly county, city, town, school district, or other political subdivision purposes respectively.

Article XIV, Section 4. [Limit of indebtedness of counties, cities, towns, and school districts — Larger indebtedness may be allowed.]
(1) (a) If authorized to create indebtedness as provided in Section 3 of this Article, no county may become indebted to an amount, including existing indebtedness, exceeding two per centum of the value of taxable property in the county.
(b) No city, town, school district, or other municipal corporation, may become indebted to an amount, including existing indebtedness, exceeding four per centum of the value of the taxable property therein.
(2) For purposes of Subsection (1), the value of taxable property shall be ascertained by the last assessment for State and County purposes previous to the incurring of the indebtedness, except that in incorporated cities the assessment shall be taken from the last assessment for city purposes.
(3) A city of the first or second class, if authorized as provided in Section 3 of this Article, may be allowed to incur a larger indebtedness, not to exceed four per centum, and any other city or town, not to exceed eight per centum additional, for supplying such city or town with water, artificial lights or sewers, if the works for supplying the water, light, and sewers are owned and controlled by the municipality.

Article XIV, Section 5. [Borrowed money to be applied to authorized use.]
All moneys borrowed by, or on behalf of the State or any legal subdivision thereof, shall be used solely for the purpose specified in the law authorizing the loan.

Article XIV, Section 6. [State not to assume county, city, town or school district debts — Exception.]
The State shall not assume the debt, or any part thereof, of any county, city, town or school district except as provided in Article X, Section 5.

Article XIV, Section 7. [Existing indebtedness not impaired.]
Nothing in this article shall be so construed as to impair or add to the obligation of any debt heretofore contracted, in accordance with the laws of Utah Territory, by any county, city, town or school district, or to prevent the contracting of any debt, or the issuing of bonds therefor, in accordance with said laws, upon any proposition for that purpose, which, according to said laws, may have been submitted to a vote of the qualified electors of any county, city, town or school district before the day on which this Constitution takes effect.

Utah Legislators Learn About Falcon Hill

February 22, 2009 by rickety 2 Comments

Falcon Hill October Groundbreaking. Photo credit: James Arrowood.

I work at Hill Air Force Base so I was interested to read about a presentation made to the Utah Legislature recently concerning Falcon Hill. This involves the construction of the largest Enhanced Use Lease project in the history of the Department of the Air Force. It officially began October 10, 2008 with a ground breaking ceremony held at the Hill Aerospace Museum.

I follow the blog of Becky Edwards, the incoming representative for Utah House District 20. She uses her site as a way to be communicative and accessible to her constituents. A recent post stated:

There was a great presentation to the legislators from Davis, Weber, and Cache counties from Falcon Hill, the National Aerospace Research Park at Hill Air Force Base. This is an exciting project with a tremendous economic growth potential for northern Davis County. In a nutshell it is an office park and high-technology research site, which will include hotel, restaurant and retail space. This project is estimated to eventually bring around 15,000 jobs to Davis County. An example of the type of job creation is the new Combat Search and Rescue (CSARX) program that will mean 1,250 military jobs with 6,250 additional supporting jobs for the mission, with a timeframe of 2013. The average salary of the supporting jobs for this project is $100K, an income 75% above the current state average. This really is an exciting one of a kind public-private collaborative effort that will benefit our area for years to come.

Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park is one of the first Enhanced Use Lease projects to reach the development phase.
Rickety signature

Senator Buttars says Homosexuality is a Perversion

February 18, 2009 by rickety 21 Comments

Senator Buttars

Today Senator Chris Buttars was in the news. Referring to homosexuality, he is reported to have said, among other things:

I believe the whole thing is immoral. What is the morals of a gay person? You can’t answer that, because anything goes. So now you’re moving toward a society that has no morals. [Homosexuality is] a perversion. They don’t want equality. They want superiority.

Predictably many were shocked and expressed their contempt. For example, there was this from homosexual rights activist Jacob Whipple:

It’s extremely offensive and inappropriate, especially for an elected official. It should not be tolerated.

And from Senator Scott McCoy, the only (thankfully) openly homosexual member of the Senate:

An apology is not going to do it at this point. I’m not sure I’d find an apology sincere anyway.

[Read more…]

Paul on Politics: Market versus Government Economy

February 7, 2009 by paul w 48 Comments

Government distorts the market

My guest writer today on the Rickety blog is my uncle Paul. Your comments are welcome.

A Productive Economy

Money for services and service jobs arises out of a productive economy — not vice versa. Moreover, service jobs are useful to the economy only if the service furnishes increased value to the products we make to sell in our markets and foreign markets. That truism leads to the distinction between government and private services.

More Government Than We Need

We need to purchase some government service. The difficulty is we purchase more government services than we need because of political power rather than market demand. Our private economy is self-regulating when the producers and their labor must compete in a free market. Government service jobs do not. If a company cannot manufacture a competitive product it will not survive economically. Government service jobs are creatures of political power, therefore are regulated by political force. The role of government in this instance is to keep the market honest.

Contrary to popular assertions by politicians, free market forces did not cause the monetary breakdown we are experiencing. Introducing government into the market always distorts market value by addling costs. It was distortion of the market through congressional action that set the scene for failure. If left to its own devices, the market would drive out inefficient money houses. Moreover, government bailouts created larger monopolies on the premise that money entities are “…really are too big to (let) fail.” Government further degrades the market by choosing who receives the bailout monies. Monopolies are anti market and detrimental to free trade. For example:

Out of necessity to build lending capital, a normal market will pay higher interest to attract capital and replenish their funds. Because banking is a percentage game, banks live on revenue from a percentage of the money it lends. The bailout does just the opposite by propping up inefficient markets in an attempt to shore up prices and continue bloated valuation. Self-serving politicians rationalize their poor decisions by declaring the entities are “too big to fail.”

Keep Government Out of the Market

Keeping government out of the market allows housing and other goods to seek their value furnishing prices that are cheaper for average citizens. Investors collect more interest from the increased sales that fills government tax coffers and furnishes investment capital facilitating new business. Furthermore, by its action, government loses money from the treasury exacerbating the predicament because taxes collected from artificially imposed low interest rates to savers maintains unsustainable prices and moves the day of reckoning farther into the future. It is worth repeating that purchases of expanded services arise out of healthy income from production and not vice versa. We cannot exist as a great nation on a service economy. The production of goods makes the national worth greater by adding value through work thereby creating greater money reserves that fund new economic activity.

Work

Note that the operative word is work. The notion that a nation or anyone else can create wealth by spending money we don’t have is baseless and will result in a catastrophic occurrence of the economy. If deficit spending were the antidote we all ought to go out and get many more credit cards. There is no easy way or quick fixes. We must allow a resettling of the economy to sustainable levels that reflect worth before we can recover. And we must go back to work. Bear in mind the words of politicians who admit they don’t have a clue about what they are doing or what the results may be. They, out of ignorance, say all they know to do is borrow big and spend! Spend!

Make Work Jobs

Credit: Steve Wampler

Because government by definition does not produce new products for sale in foreign markets and our own, government diminishes wealth through taxation that could have been used by entrepreneurs for new investment in production. Moreover, government collecting taxes to employ people in “make work jobs” simply takes money from the investment pool and transfers funds to the non-productive parts of our service economy.

An argument may legitimately be made that a service such as building a new highway to facilitate movement of commerce is a vehicle-service that adds value to the local product. In general, commerce that idly sits in traffic costs us money and wastes our resources. However, if concocting an artificially imposed “good” — as perceived by a few with political power — wastes capacity, then we are purchasing too much service not regulated by market forces. In this case we are purchasing services by political fiat and are inefficient and wasteful. Jon Entine has said:

Political pressure to be “socially responsible” distorts the market decisions of government-related enterprises, leading to risky investments. (Reason Online Feb. 2009 The Next Catastrophe)

Deflation and Conventional Wisdom

Conventional wisdom declares deflation to be wrong for the country. In my view, that depends upon which social class it involves; money classes such as investors, bankers, “rich people” — you get the idea; or poor and middle class people. Deflation is deleterious for the money people who imprudently made bad investments but it is good for the poor and middle class. Here is why:

Deflation forces lower costs to manufacture goods in the U.S. allowing more jobs to be created. Housing costs are less, allowing more people to become homeowners. Deflation makes our products cheaper to make and more home produced products can be sold in our markets and world markets. Deflation makes foreign products more expensive to import into our markets. Market forces will cause manufacturers to come home provided we remove tax incentives that encourage manufacturing off shore.

Never too big to let fail

Destruction of Our Collective Mettle

Failure makes one stronger. Trying over and over until one succeeds both educates and hardens the striver. Forcing us to work out our own enigma causes us to devise fresh ideas and new inventions for survival that makes real jobs that last into the future. Waiting for someone else or the government to do it for you keeps you weak and dependent — and disappointed. Most of the stimulus package works against the poor and middle class. Here is why: stimulus promoters pronounce, “Financial institutions are too big to let fail,” and created larger monopolies, the package props up the real estate market warping the true worth of property, the package prevents deflation (normal market correction), supports public employee unions that inflate prices for public service through political pressure, and promotes further public employee union organizing, faux stimulus diminishes capital formation through artificially low interest rates.

Waiting for Government

Currently, commerce is stagnant while everyone puts off the inevitable. They wait to see if the government will continue false valuation of an unsustainable economic plight. Meanwhile producers are taking advantage by culling excess labor and non-performing assets conjunctive to restructuring their tax position. Here is an example from the Tacoma News Tribune:

Much of the quarterly loss comes as Weyerhaeuser wrote down the value of its mills, land and products to reflect their current value.

Full Employment Economy Creates Wealth

Many argue about which set of events propelled us out of the 30’s depression. Most agree World War II ended the great depression. Others religiously propound the gospel of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. I am old enough to remember WW ll and posit the reason for recovery came from work. During WW II everyone worked that were physically able and those who weren’t worked at something to contribute to the war effort. We saved and bought war bonds. Even children bought Victory stamps to be pasted one by one into books of stamps. Thousands were employed in the armed forces. Women came into the factories to work. In pursuit of the war effort we built manufacturing capacity by making products for war. That heightened capacity served us well in our economy after the war. It was an all hands work economy that created wealth for the future that was the envy of the world. All the while we intended to pay off the debt and we did.

Wealth Is Not Finite

There is no circa sixties easy way out. Wealth is not finite. Economies grow by adding work to the product. No government can grow an economy by taking the work of others and through political extortion give it to those that don’t earn it. Can you say we plan to pay off the enormous debt being incurred by the so-called stimulus plan?

Photo Credits

Capitol Hill: Wally Gobetz
Money Grab: Steve Wampler

The Super Bowl Ad NBC Rejected

January 31, 2009 by rickety 3 Comments

By now most of you will have heard about the ad that NBC disallowed from the Super Bowl. I rather like it and I am thrilled to be able to show the ad here at Rickety. There will be a few less viewers than the Super Bowl but you get to see it ahead of time. Also, as an added bonus, the ad will not be interrupted by any football and you won’t have to stay home from church to watch it. Produced by CatholicVote.org and as of today the ad had generated 6,475 comments on their website and 3,344 on YouTube. Here is the ad on YouTube.

Update

20 Feb 2009 Perhaps the title of this post should now read: The Ad That CNN Rejected. The ad was submitted to CNN to be broadcast following President Obama’s first State of the Union Address — scheduled for next Tuesday. The response from CNN? A representative from CNN wrote:

Thank you for your patience. We have decided to pass on this creative. CNN doesn’t accept advocacy ads that portray personal decisions in a manner that suggests a position in favor of the advocacy message, without having permission of the persons involved.

There’s not much we can do about it except to write to CNN President Jonathan Klein.
Rickety signature

Reagan and Obama: Contrasting Views of Government

January 26, 2009 by rickety 16 Comments

Peruse these contrasting quotes from President Obama’s inaugural speech and President Reagan’s first inaugural address. Notice how with Obama the government is not the problem whereas with Reagan the blame is placed on government and the elites. Obama spells out three entitlements the government should give the people whereas Reagan advocates self-rule and confidence in the people. Obama and Reagan both mention important points: Obama wants the light of day on government and Reagan stresses that no one group should be singled out to pay a higher price.

…not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
President Barack Obama

Courtesy Ronald Reagan Library

…government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.
President Ronald Reagan

Budget Shortfall Smaller in Utah

December 6, 2008 by rickety 4 Comments

Governor Huntsman delivers the State of the State

This morning the Deseret News was reporting that Utah’s budget shortfall was smaller than in many states. Indeed, the governor’s spokeswoman, Lisa Roskelley, said:

It’s important to understand that Utah, though in a difficult economic situation, certainly is in a better place than many other states throughout the country.

And the governor himself had this to say:

The environment is a tough one. Forty-five of 50 states are facing serious budget shortfalls.

For the 2009 fiscal year there are twelve states that have no budget shortfall. They are Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. However, some of these states face a projected 2010 budget shortfall. I only list thirty-eight states with deficits so perhaps Governor Huntsman is also including projections for 2010 in his quote above. Also the reference to Arizona’s almost “25 percent budget gap” appears to be for 2010.

[Read more…]