I’ve largely stayed out of the federal election this year. A big reason for that is I don’t think any of the candidates seriously care about the US National Debt or will do anything to increase government transparency. But I do think it is worth looking at this infographic from The Money Project showin just how large the US National Debt is (click the image to see it on The Money Project website):
Looking at this inforgraphic I find it amazing that people are not worried that all of the world’s physical currency, gold, and silver could not even pay off the US National Debt. Even if the full value of the S&P 500 companies were taken to pay off the national debt, it would not be enough. That is why it almost laughable when I hear people say that increasing corporate taxes is a solution to reducing the deficit and paying off the debt. There is simply too much debt.
Earlier today I posted about the 2015 Wastebook published by Senator Jeff Flake’s staff. I listed a few sci-fi type of wastes in that post (mostly because of the Star Wars premier). In this post I want to highlight one of the items in the list that is specific to wasted money in South Dakota.
# 95 Abandoned Train Stations
Number 95 on the Wastebook list looks at wasted Department of Transportation (DOT) tax dollars used in South Dakota and Virginia. Here is the part specific to South Dakota:
The Department of Transportation is on the wrong track, spending nearly $1 million to renovate unused train stations while thousands of the nation’s bridges are in desperate need of repair.
One out of every four of the 5,875 bridges in South Dakota is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Yet, the state spent $500,000 of federal transportation funds to refurbish a train depot decommissioned in 1958 to be a museum of sorts.
The Chicago and North Western railroad built the Fort Pierre depot in 1906, but for the past 50 years it has been serving as a farm building on a ranch 176 miles away. The structure had to be transported back on a moving truck.
Those involved with the project “have resisted saying” the depot is going to be a museum because the federal Transportation Enhancement grant paying for the project “wouldn’t pay for building or refurbishing a museum. But it would pay for refurbishing a transportation artifact.” While they may be trying to cover their tracks, this project clearly violates the program’s intent
The money is paying to refurbish “an artifact that will hold other artifacts – virtually all, in one way or another, having to do with the railroad that brought everything to the middle of South Dakota once the depot opened in 1906,” explains Gary Grittner of Fort Pierre’s Bring It Home Committee.
While I commend Grittner and Fort Pierre’s Bring It Home Committee for bringing back a piece of history, I cannot condone such a blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars. The depot has been restored for about a million dollars, half of which was used by a DOT grant that was meant for actual infrastructure use. It is apparent from the quotes in the story that those involved knew the money was being misspent, so they couldn’t even call the museum a museum.
In my mind the situation is made worse by the recent passage of the federal transportation bill. The current transportation bill continues the trend of using deficit spending. Basically that means the taxpayers have to borrow money and pay interest so pork projects like this can misuse taxpayer dollars. This is not a fiscally conservative way to handle the taxpayers dollars.
The 2015 version of the Wastebook is here. Previously I briefly looked at the 2013 and 2014 volumes of the Wastebook. Both of those volumes were compiled by Senator Tom Coburn’s staff, who is now retired. This year the staff for Senator Jeff Flake has compiled a list of one hundred and one wasteful projects paid for using taxpayer dollars. Some of these projects used large amounts of money, some used small. But all of them appear to be a massive waste of taxpayer dollars, and more importantly add to the ever-increasing federal debt.
Since this week is the premier of the new Star Wars movie (have you seen the cool libertarian Star Wars video) I thought I would pick a few cases out with a sci-fi theme. I always love some good sci-fi, but wasting taxpayer dollars never makes for a happy ending
# 8 Sheep in microgravity
From the Wastebook:
NASA isn’t planning to launch sheep into space, but the agency has rounded up a herd of sheep as part of a study to “mimic the impact of space travel on bones to better understand bone health and healing.”The three year project, which is costing taxpayers $1.2 million, is being conducted at Colorado State University (the school’s mascot coincidentally is a sheep).
The sheep aren’t floating around inside an anti-gravity chamber or on the International Space Station. Instead, the back leg of each sheep was put in a brace that kept it from bearing weight, simulating the effects of microgravity.
During Phase 1 of the study, 23 sheep were put in the microgravity brace for eight weeks and monitored by orthopedic surgeons to “provide pain relief when necessary.”
“Because the bone was isolated from any gravitational forces, the research team was able to discern that the sheep’s bone density decreased—as did the load required to fracture the bone. The weakened bone could break more easily,” the researchers reported.
Actually I’m surprised the animal rights activist groups haven’t brought more attention to this research. What I find most odd about this $1.2 million project is that more extensive human-subject studies have already been done. Somehow I don’t think studying how sheep bones will react in low-gravity is a good use of taxpayers dollars. I don’t see the need for sheep ranches on the moon of Endor anytime soon.
# 15 Cloud City on Venus
From the Wastebook:
The science fiction space adventure that took place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away seems to be the inspiration to create a “cloud city” above Venus similar to the one in The Empire Strikes Back where Han Solo was frozen in a block of carbonite.
NASA’s High Altitude Venus Operational Concept (HAVOC) would begin by sending a robot into the atmosphere of Venus to “check things out” with the goal of establishing “a permanent human presence there in a floating cloud city.”
While $279,000 was spent designing the HAVOC blueprints,“NASA has no current plans to fund the concept.”But the Langley-based team “continues its work with the hope the space agency could make the plan come to fruition.”
As a sci-fi fan the Cloud City sounds awesome. From a taxpayer standpoint I am quite annoyed. $279,000 to create a blueprint for something that will never be built is hardly a good reason to increase the federal debt. I find that to be even more true since most future space exploration appears to be spearheaded by private organizations, and not NASA.
#19 Jazz playing Robots
From the Wastebook:
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is spending $2 million to hire a team of musicians and researchers to develop musical machines including robots capable of performing a trumpet solo and jamming with human musicians.
Known as the Music Improvising Collaborative Agent (MUSICA), the system—it is hoped—will be “capable of musically improvising with a human player.”
“I think DARPA’s interested in a program that will interact with humans,” speculates Thomas. “Right now, a computer waits for us to tell it what to do. The idea [with MUSICA] is that the computer can communicate with us the same way we communicate with it. It might be able to anticipate needs or ask us for clarification on a goal, then help us plan that goal for the future.” The aim of the program is to “make computers more of an equal collaborator,” Thomas said.296 The long term goal is to create artificial intelligence by teaching computers how to be “more human” in thought and expression by jamming to jazz.
Now I get how such research could lead to new breakthroughs in creating true artificial intelligence. But I would ask this: should government be involved in this project? Especially since it will be unlikely to provide any results. If there truly was a good chance the group would yield results there are many private sector sources that would be more than happy to fund the project. Well, I guess if projects like this cause the debt to go too high, there will always be robots around to liven up a depressed economy through jazz.
# 46 Robot Lobby Greeter
This from the Wastebook:
A robot served as a lobby greeter at the University of Central Florida (UCF) this year as part of an Office of Naval Research (ONR) experiment examining how humans interact with robots.
This Department of Defense (DOD) grant to UCF “supports ONR’s Human Surrogate Interaction program, a three-year investigation into how humans interact with virtual (avatars), physical (animatronics), and other types of surrogates,” according to a DOD Information Paper. “The grant, Exploration of Human Surrogates for Live-Virtual Training, is a three year effort that began in March 2014. Total funding planned for the grant is $2,312,188. Defense University Research Instrumentation Program (DURIP) grant provided $178,437 in additional funding to purchase equipment that was combined with previous equipment purchased through 2012 ONR DURIP.”
So now we want to spend over $2 million to see how people will interact with robots? Is this really a good use of taxpayers dollars? I also wonder if the DOD ever looked at the plethora of research already available on the topic. Computer/Telco equipment manufactures and software vendors have been researching the topic for years in order to launch products. The idea of interfacing directly with a non-human is not a new idea. But apparently the DOD wants to increase the federal debt by over $2 million to find out more on the topic.
I’ll just stop here. There is actually a lot of waste listed in this years book. But unlike the government I can’t spend other peoples money to complete projects; so I will end this post and focus on writing other projects that actually have a return on investment!
It is Thanksgiving week! Due to traveling and a short week at the office I will not be publishing any posts. But I wanted to take a moment to thank all of the readers of this blog for their continued support. Also, I would like to thank everyone who is involved in making the economic marketplace a truly amazing wonder to behold. Technically that includes everyone, so I would like to thank everyone being a part of the free market (or at least what remains of the free market… but that is a subject for another post).
In 1958 Leonard Read wrote a masterful essay named “I, Pencil“. I first read this essay about fifteen years ago and have always thought it a masterful way to explain how free markets can work and adapt without central planning. This essay pointed out the thousands, if not millions, of people who must interact and work together (even unknowingly) to bring a product to market.
Earlier this week I brought attention to the South Dakota Gaming Commission holding a hearing about the fate of fantasy sports in SD. The core of the issue is whether fantasy sports wagering is a game of skill or if it is a game of chance. Personally I know enough people who participate in fantasy sports to understand it is a game of skill (one that takes a LOT of time). There was a potential that the South Dakota Gaming Commission meeting yesterday could clear up some of the confusion. That didn’t happen.
The SD Gaming Commission has yet to post minutes from the meeting, but the Argus Leader posted the Associated Press account of the meeting. A lobbyist for the industry, Griffin Finan, went before the Commission to make the case that fantasy sports betting is not a game of simple chance. The AP report notes that the industry will likely seek legislative protection for the industry:
Finan said more than 25,000 South Dakota residents are estimated to participate in daily fantasy sports contests each year. The industry may pursue legislation in South Dakota that would clarify that fantasy sports is exempt from state gambling law and impose consumer protection measures on operators, he said.
That will definitely be legislation I will be track during the 2016 session!
It was actually a statement in the article from Governor Daugaard’s spokesman that sheds light on where opposition to such legislation will come from:
A spokeswoman for Gov. Dennis Daugaard said in a statement that the governor would “consider any legislation, but is very concerned about allowing gaming in South Dakota that is unregulated and that competes with gaming that generates state revenue.”
There are two problems I see with the above statement. First the belief that such enterprises in South Dakota are completely unregulated. The very word unregulated has no meaning in the currently over-regulated United States. There are a number of federal and state regulations that the fantasy sports wagering industry must comply with, especially in the realm of consumer protection. If there is fraudulent behavior with one of the players in the industry (such as insider trading) current consumer protection laws can be used.
Second, and more important, is the governor’s office being concerned about competing with the fantasy sports industry. That is the main obstacle I foresee for any legislation coming in 2016. The State of South Dakota makes a lot of money off gambling. In order to keep getting that money it is likely big government politicians will push to keep the states monopoly over gambling secure. Technically there are already games of change that are exempt from the current state gambling ban in South Dakota. But are the big government bureaucrats in Pierre willing to give up even a little more gambling money in order to allow people to spend their own money how they wish? That will likely be a big part of the upcoming battle.
The remarks from the Gaming Commission and the AG’s office in the AP report are pretty wishy-washy. They really aren’t taking a stand at this time. It will likely take legislation providing guidance for those groups to understand that people should be allowed to spend their money however they see fit.
On Friday, November 13, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley sent out a statement on fantasy sports wagering. This is a topic that has gained a lot of national attention recently. The quickly growing fantasy sports industry has gone from being seasonal to becoming a form of skilled entertainment that players can enjoy and make daily wagers. This has left many bureaucrats to call for swift overreaching regulations or outright banning of the fantasy sports wagering industry.
Before looking at Jackley’s press release it is worth noting a few recent events that have occurred in the realm of fantasy sports wagering:
Now back to SD AG Jackley. His press release includes his summary of South Dakota laws that are relevant to the discussion. First he pointed to Article III, § 25 of the SD State Constitution. This portion of the state constitution prohibits games of change in South Dakota, and provides a few exceptions that the legislature can make legal in Deadwood (and on the reservations due to the gaming compacts).
Even though the state constitution has outlawed games of chance (with a few exceptions) that doesn’t mean fantasy sports wagering is outlawed. Jackley notes that
The South Dakota Legislature has enacted a general criminal prohibition against gaming where anything of value is wagered. See SDCL Ch. 22-25. It has traditionally been the position of the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office that pursuant to South Dakota law, games of skill are exempted from the state law prohibition. In 2000, the Legislature enacted laws that specifically prohibit using the internet to accept or pay wagers at any location within the State. See SDCL Ch. 22-25A.
So the big question is whether fantasy sports wagering is a game of chance or a game of skill. Those who participate in fantasy sports wagering say it is a game of skill, and one that takes a lot of time and research to properly play. Simply calling fantasy sports wagering a game of change fails to acknowledge the pure challenge that people participating in the wagering experience.
The South Dakota Gaming Commission will have a meeting on November 18 in Deadwood. The agenda includes the following item:
Review of Daily Fantasy Sports Betting in Light of SDCL Chapter 22-25A
Since SDCL Ch. 22-25A deals with the prohibition of Internet gambling I would assume the AG and Gaming Commission are looking for ways to show fantasy sports wagering is not legal in South Dakota. Hopefully that won’t be the case. As I said above fantasy sports is not a game of pure chance. There is a lot of skill and research involved for those that participate in fantasy sports. Hopefully the Gaming Commission will understand a wrong decision could instantly make hundreds of law abiding South Dakota citizens into criminals facing possible felony charges.
Last week I provided recaps of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the South Dakota Legislature and the SD Department of Agriculture. In this post I will focus on some of the actions I’ve noticed taken by SD’s congressional delegation in DC. Most of the action seems to come from Rep Noem and Sen Thune. Sen Rounds has been pretty quiet on the subject.
In the speech Noem was definitly supporting TPP because of the additional trade it would bring SD, and the US as a whole. Noem did mention that she couldn’t support TPP unless agricultural trade barriers are eliminated. At the time I thought of those as empty words from Noem, and still believe it to be true…
“Currently, nearly half of South Dakota’s exports are bound for the 11 other countries that would be involved in the TPP, and a further elimination of trade barriers would only expand our opportunities,” Noem said.
This continued the small push Noem had made for TPP.
Then in June of this year Noem’s office had a series of press releases promoting trade promotion authority (TPA). TPA would allow the administration to push through trade agreements and force congress to vote aye or nay; and it would not allow congress to amend any trade agreements.
It is false to say that TPP negotiations have been secretive.
Earlier drafts are not made public in this way, because revealing draft proposals before a deal is struck emboldens our opposition, undermines our negotiating positions, and exposes negotiators to public scrutiny over provisions that might not even be in a final deal. We need to keep the upper hand to get the best deal for America.
Many of us believe negotiators SHOULD be exposed to public scrutiny. If transparency means anything it must be used at all times in government affairs. Corporations have been allowed to take place in TPP negotiations. Yet the consumers in the US that would be impacted by TPP have had no view of what goes on. From a public standpoint that process IS secretive.
“With Trade Promotion Authority in place, the American people would be guaranteed a seat at the negotiating table,” said Noem, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over such issues.
Noem definitely was trying to sell TPA. Of course she left out that when TPA is being used that all negotiations had already been done…
After the Senate passed TPA she sent a press release on June 24 urging President Obama to sign the bill. Here was part of that press release (which was mostly a rewrite of the previous one):
TPA allows Congress to help set the rules for trade negotiations and lays out congressional objectives of what a good trade deal looks like for America. This helps ensure greater transparency throughout the negotiating process by empowering Congress to conduct vigorous oversight and hold the administration accountable.
Noem forgets to mention that TPP negotiations had almost completed at this time. Even if TPA would set rules for negotiations, which many find a dubious claim, it is hard to imaging that the negotiations would suddenly change at the end due to one piece of legislation passed in the final round.
Finally I recently noticed Rep Noem was speaking to students in Gregory. Here is what the Daily Republic reported about Noem in regards to TPP:
Another student asked about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a proposed trade agreement between the U.S. and about 11 Asian countries.
When U.S. exports arrive in Japan, Noem said a tariff is immediately applied that raises the price by 38 1/2 percent. She said that practice makes U.S. goods unaffordable for citizens in Japan who want food raised and grown in the U.S.
“If we can get this trade agreement done and it’s done correctly, it will allow us to sell a lot more food and be good for our families here,” Noem said. “There will be more jobs, there will be higher-paying jobs and there will be more people who are able to help our economy be stronger.”
This comes after TPP had been finalized earlier in the month. It is quite clear that Noem is still supportive of TPP and believes it will be good for SD.
US Senator John Thune
The first activity of Thune supporting TPP actually came in support of TPA earlier this spring. In March Thune went on the Senate floor to push for the passage of TPA. Here is the press release and here is the clip of that speech:
In part Thune had this to say:
The first of these agreements, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, is being negotiated with a number of Asia-Pacific nations including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam.
Currently, American goods face heavy tariffs in many of these countries, at times as high as 85 percent.
Tariffs of that size put American goods at an incredible disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors.
Tariffs provide a powerful disincentive for citizens in other nations to purchase American products.
Removing this disincentive would increase foreign demand for U.S. products, which would mean more business for U.S. farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers, and more jobs and opportunities for American workers.
Thune has done better than many at giving reasons to support TPP. Unfortunately TPP is not a free trade agreement. And TPP does not eliminate most tariffs; rather TPP reduces many of the largest tariffs that hurt trade for SD agriculture.
The other press releases from this spring were basically just ones to urge Democrats to support giving President Obama TPA. Kind of ironic the President needed the help of Republicans to pass TPA.
Here is what I reported about Thunes presentation in relation to TPP:
Thune believes both TPP and TTIP are important to open up trade in the ag industry and that neither would pass without TPA. He noted that going back to the 1930’s that only one trade agreement had been passed without some sort of expedited authority like TPA. While talking about TPA Thune noted that he was not doing this to support Obama. Thune said Obama is only going to be around for another 18 months, and that TPA will be there for 6 years. So, Thune wanted to make sure that whoever replaces Obama will also be able to handle trade agreements. He went on to say that in order to be at the table for trade agreements that TPA is necessary. I disagree, but that again is a post for a different day.
Thune hoped TPP could be done soon (I am very late in doing this post, TPP is now finalized and waiting for a vote). He had some concerns about TPP, such as tariffs on dairy in Canada. I wish Thune had gone into that talking point deeper. He really didn’t say what he thought would happen with that.
Really Thune spent very little time talking about TPP, and instead kept focus on TPA. He did have some high level talking points about how trade agreements have a positive impact on exports and that it helped national security. But overall he really didn’t get into any specifics about TPP.
Since TPP has been finalized Thune does seem to be backing away slightly. Here is what was reported by SDPB radio:
United States Senator John Thune says he generally supports trade deals, but some parts of the latest international agreement raise his concern.
Thune says he’s heard pieces of the deal since Monday’s agreement, and he’s concerned about some of the elements.
…“TPP has the potential to grow American exports when you consider that the combined nations in that agreement account for about 40 percent of the entire global economy, but we’ve got to make sure that the agreement lives up to the high standards that we set in the Trade Promotion Authority bill which we enacted earlier this year.”
Thune says he plans to carefully review the details of TPP before he decides whether to support the agreement.
Now he has concerns? Of course now Thune has actually had a chance to find out some of what is included in TPP. It is NOT a free trade agreement. And the “high standards” set in TPA were irrelevant, TPP negotiations were close to being completed by the time TPA passed. I don’t expect to hear much about TPP from Thune’s office in the next year. It is an election year for him, and Obama is likely to refrain from submitting TPP for a vote until after the election.
Free and fair trade agreements across the world open up new markets to South Dakota products. Our farmers and ranchers would particularly benefit from agreements such as TPP and TTIP. But in order to negotiate the best deal for our country, we must allow the administration to pursue trade agreements through parameters set by the Congress, and within the Trade Promotion Authority, to enable our current and future presidents to negotiate the best deal possible. That is exactly what the Senate TPA bill would do. This method has a proven record of boosting economic activity and bringing higher-paying American jobs. I look forward to debating TPA legislation when it comes to the full Senate in the coming weeks.
This was released just before TPA was being debated in the Senate. He didn’t really go into TPP much. Nothing I’ve noticed out of the Rounds office makes me believe the topic is really on his radar. Perhaps he is just letting Noem and Thune take the lead on this issue.
Senator Coburn’s office released its 2014 Wastebook. Last year I looked at a few highlight (lowlights) from the 2013 Wastebook. This book includes one hundred outrageous wastes of taxpayer dollars. In a day when even some big-government type politicians are starting to worry about the national debt and deficit (not so low as touted) it is worth finding programs such as this to trim. There are over $25 billion worth of government waste in this years edition. That is slightly down from the $30 billion in last years edition; but it worth noting that many of the programs from last years edition are still going…
Often when talking about government waste I will hear something similar to “well, these government agencies are doing good and are very thrifty with the taxpayers dollars”. Even supposing most government agencies are doing good work for the public (which I doubt with most agencies), it still doesn’t mean these agencies are being thrifty with the taxpayer dollars. Here are some examples from the 2014 Wastebook highlighting how various government agencies are misdirecting taxpayer dollars in a way that is clearly out of alignment with what their mission is.
#15 – US Coast Guard protects the parties of the rich
Faced with budget cuts, the U.S. Coast Guard reduced drug and migrant interdictions while continuing to provide free patrols in the waters along “some of the country’s most exclusive real estate” to stop uninvited guests from crashing private parties.
While taxpayers appreciate the crucial role the Coast Guard serves protecting our nation’s waterways and rescuing nearly 5,000 people a year,255 most are probably unaware its crewmen also serve as bouncers to keep the general public and other uninvited guests out of private events on and along yachts, beaches, and estates.
The Wastebook goes on to tell examples of the Coast Guard being used as basically private security for the rich, all put on the bill of the taxpayers. It is estimated that such protection for rich boaters has cost US Taxpayers over $100,000. Of course since the Coast Guard doesn’t document all of this security work it is hard to tell for sure. And don’t be mistaken, the security work being done is not against terrorists or anyone that wishes to cause harm. Rather the coast guard is making sure that rich boaters are not disturbed by common folk. That doesn’t sound like a good use of Coast Guard resources to me.
#39 – SBA backs Polynesian Resort loan guarantees for Disney
One of the biggest companies in the world, the Walt Disney Company ranked 61st in the Fortune 100 rankings for 2014 – and may not seem like an obvious candidate to benefit from small business assistance.538 It operates nine of the world’s ten most popular amusement parks, which together bring in more than $2 billion in annual profit.539
The Small Business Administration provided a total of $1.4 million in surety bond guarantees to two firms hired by Disney, meaning if they fail to perform the taxpayer will step into make sure Disney is made whole.
I believe most taxpayers would be hard pressed to believe Disney would qualify as a small business. Since the SBA supposedly is there to help small businesses it seems odd they would put $1.5 billion dollars of taxpayer dollars on the line in order to help one of the largest corporations in the world. Of course I personally believe the SBA should be done away with. Recent research shows that the SBA may actually be reducing economic growth within the US. But that is a different debate. Whether the outcomes of the SBA are good or bad, it is hard to discern why the SBA would be so blatantly providing a corporate-welfare type safety-net to one of the world largest corporations.
#75 – Federal dollars spent to promote tax increases in Austin
An extensive, and expensive, rail project for the City of Austin, Texas, is getting some fiscal assistance from Washington. Project Connect, the program management group spearheading transit for the Central Corridor Advisory Group in central Texas, has spent $157,000 on an ad campaign to prop up public support to approve floating a billion dollar bond to help pay for the rail line.9
The catch? Approximately 80% of the ad campaign is being financed with federal grant money, essentially using taxpayer money to encourage taxpayers to pay more taxes. Critics have voiced concerns over the media campaign’s funding sources and questioned want to know how it can be considered appropriate when “Taxpayers are paying money to the federal government, which is then turning around and lobbying Austinites to support more taxpayer spending.” The advertisements ended just before being subjected to provisions on election laws regarding ballot measures
Talk about taxpayer dollars being used against them. In this case federal dollars were used to create a media campaign to raise local taxes for a special interest group. I actually spoke with a friend of mine that lives in Austin. He said the fliers he received during this campaign from Project Connect were outright misleading. Sadly it is typical for political propaganda fliers to be misleading (I’m sure plenty of people received many misleading fliers during the 2014 election); what is troubling though is that taxpayer dollars were used to for a special interest group so they could use the peoples own money to lobby against them.
#88 – The Navy’s green initiative utilizes massive amounts of paper to propagandize itself
Yet for all its efforts to showcase itself as the “Great Green Fleet,”1011 the Navy still mails out 9,500 hard copies of the magazine every quarter, including 535 to each member of Congress, at a cost of an additional $72,000 a year over the $260,000 it takes the staff of four contractors and federal employees to develop the content
This publication, Currents, is little more than a magazine used to promote the Green efforts by the US Navy. Going green is good. What the Navy is doing actually counteracts many of the good green steps they’ve already taken, especially since all issues of Currents are available digital. If the Navy were truly serious about going green they would get rid of this wasteful propaganda program.
It is worth reading the whole 2014 Wastebook to see where taxpayer dollars are going. I believe these few examples I highlighted show some areas that government agencies have used taxpayer dollars in direct conflict to their actual mission. Until such wasteful spending is reduced it is hard to believe that any “revenue enhancements” are ever needed at the federal level.
Over at the Austrian Insider there is a great new Infographic showing the difference between Keynesian Economic and Austrian Economics. As someone studying Austrian Economics I find it helpful to have any means available to compare the two schools of economic theories. Keynesian economists are of course who Democrat and Republican politicians are talking about when they quote economists to get their way. It is hard to find politicians that support Austrian Economics, mostly because it doesn’t reinforce their wish to spend public money any way they wish.
At the end of this infographic there is a great quote from Lord Keynes that has always been my favorite economics quote:
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist
Below is the infographic. This infographic was created by someone who follows Austrian Economics, but I do think the author did a great job of representing both schools of thought properly.
Now I can’t really do a post on Keynesian vs Austrian Economics without also posting these two great rap videos from EconStories. Both videos do a fair job of showing differences between Lord Keynes and FA Hayek.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has become a top issue for me this year. Therefore I took note when Representative Kristi Noem was promoting an article in which she talks about supporting TPP. She is supporting TPP because it could open new trade opportunities for SD. I would contend the risks associated with TPP far outweigh the perceived value that will come from the expanded trade opportunities from TPP.
I first blogged about the topic in March after the SD Legislature passed a resolution promoting TPP. At that time I derided the SD legislature for promoting a treaty that is shrouded in secrecy and would inhibit free speech in the US if passed. Then in April I brought attention to the Obama Administration and a Congressional delegation (including Noem) going to Asia in order to push for the completion of TPP. And finally, in June I attended the SD Ag Summit, where USDA Under Secretary Michael Scuse promoted TPP. So far the little media attention I’ve seen given to TPP appears to be little more than passing on the talking points of politicians such as Noem. Hopefully that will change.
TPP is a complex issue that whole books could be written about. My earlier posts linked above includes some basic info about TPP. But here are a few bullet points explaining briefly why I believe TPP is NOT good for the US, or SD:
TPP has 29 chapters, very few of which are what most would consider trade related.
By passing TPP in the US, Congress would basically be allowing US regulations to change based upon what is agreed to in the treaty. Many of these changes would be contradictory to current US laws and regulations.
The TPP chapter focused on intellectual property (IP) would negatively impact US citizens freedom of speech, right to privacy , and due process.
Copyright terms in the US would be changed for the worse. An already broken copyright system will become even more restrictive and would provide new fines and jail sentences for minor copyright infringements.
TPP is being done completely in secret. The only things actually known about TPP have been discovered via leaks.
When voting on TPP it would have to be signed in a “sign it to see what’s in it” fashion. Did that work out so well for ACA?
In the article Noem promotes, she is said to be promoting TPP because it could open new trade opportunities for South Dakota. Here is an excerpt from the article:
“Of note, China is the largest purchaser of U.S. soybeans, representing about 50 percent of total U.S. soybean exports, and Japan is the largest importer of feed grains and U.S. corn,” Noem said. “They both — along with South Korea — also play key roles in keeping the regional peace, and alongside it economic stability, in an area that is also home to an unpredictable North Korea.”
Noem said that further negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union could lead to even greater trade opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers.
I agree with Noem. From the research I’ve done on the topic I understand that China, Japan, and South Korea are important trade partners for the US This is especially true for SD agricultural products. But that will continue to be true regardless of whether TPP passes or not. Trade opportunities will continue to exist and expand in the Asian markets. If TPP were simply about trade, then a simple trade agreements could be created. TPP is NOT a simple trade agreement. Just as I did in April, I find it quite troubling that SD’s lone Representative in the House of Representative would be so focused on one special interest (agriculture) that she would support something like TPP. TPP would essentially rewrite US laws and regulations in ways are still not understood. That doesn’t sound like a very conservative stance for a politician to take in an election year (or any year).
I’ll continue to monitor TPP. So far Noem really hasn’t released any statements with any true substance about TPP. That isn’t surprising. Members of Congress are not included in the secretive TPP negotiations. Basically Noem is promoting the idea of expanding agricultural markets without actually looking at all aspects of TPP. Hopefully when it comes time to vote on TPP Noem will remember her job, and not vote for something she hasn’t ready or studied up on…