Front Page     Archives   Great links  

Marie Lozito


November 5, 2011

Marie Lozito is a Registered Nurse, Licensed Massage Therapist, wife, mother, grandmother and life-long conservative. She wrote a text on medical massage and taught at New York College of Health Professions. 

Interested in, and observing politics since 1960, she ran for elected office in 2010. 

 

Assorted facts and thoughts


Personally I believe that mankind and mankind's activity has very little effect on earth's climate. I think we should try to be good stewards of the earth but that blaming climate change/global warming on our activities is, at the minimum, an extreme exaggeration of our effect on earth. A new study by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) has concluded that the real reason for climate change is the sun, not man. This is hardly the first study to conclude so, nor is it the first time the media has ignored such a finding.

Some new statistics on the cost of the federal red tape from the Heritage Foundation: “Following a record year of rulemaking, the Obama Administration is continuing to unleash more costly red tape. In the first six months of the 2011 fiscal year, 15 major regulations were issued, with annual costs exceeding $5.8 billion and one-time implementation costs approaching $6.5 billion. No major rulemaking actions were taken to reduce regulatory burdens during this period. 

Overall, the Obama Administration imposed 75 new major regulations from January 2009 to mid-FY 2011, with annual costs of $38 billion. There were only six major deregulatory actions during that time, with reported savings of just $1.5 billion. This flood of red tape will undoubtedly persist, as hundreds of new regulations stemming from the vast Dodd–Frank financial regulation law, Obamacare, and the EPA’s global warming crusade advance through the regulatory pipeline—all of which further weakens an anemic economy and job creation, while undermining Americans’ fundamental freedoms.

One of the reasons the economy is not picking up is the unanswered questions about the costs to employers that will be caused by Obamacare. Thomas Sowell puts it very well when he writes,

“The vast uncertainties created by ObamaCare create a special problem. If employers knew that ObamaCare would add $1,000 to their costs of hiring an employee, then they could simply reduce the salaries they offer by $1,000 and start hiring. But, since it will take years to create all the regulations required to carry out ObamaCare, employers today don't know whether the ObamaCare costs that will hit them down the road will be $500 per employee or $5,000 per employee. Many businesses work their existing employees overtime or hire temporary workers, rather than get stuck with unknown and unknowable costs for expanding their permanent work force.”

It doesn't look like the “super-committee” in Congress will even accomplish their assignment of cutting an additional $1.5 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 years. Personally, I think of that number as a cruel joke. The deficit increased by $1.7 trillion in fiscal year 2010 alone!

On Halloween our official deficit surpassed our annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $15.003 trillion. The GDP represents the total dollar value of all goods and services produced in the USA. In general, banks will not lend you any money if your debt to income ratio is over 36%. (A few banks will consider up to a 41%.) America's DTI is now OVER 100%!

The other month Bill Gross, who runs the world's largest mutual funds, warned that the United States is "in worse financial shape than Greece." The United States has unfunded liabilities of $120 trillion making the "official" national debt of over $14 trillion look minuscule. Everyone who watches the news knows how well Greece is doing!

"The president and his supporters call for tax increases as a means to cover the deficit, but higher tax revenues cannot eliminate the deficit. Controlling for inflation, federal tax revenue today is 23 times greater than it was in 1960, but congressional spending is 42 times greater. During the last half-century, except for five years, the nation has faced a federal budget deficit. It's just simple math. If tax revenues soar, but congressional spending soars more, budget deficits cannot be avoided. People ask what can be done to save our nation from decline. To ask that, represents a misunderstanding of history and possibly a bit of arrogance. After all, how different are Americans from the Romans, Spaniards, French and the English? These were once mighty nations standing at the top of civilization. At the height of these nation's prosperity, no one would have predicted that they'd become third-rate nations, especially England. ... One chief causal factor for the decline of these former great nations is what has been described as 'bread and circuses,' where government spends money for the shallow and immediate wants of the population, and civic virtue all but disappears. For the past half-century, our nation has been doing precisely what brought down other great nations. We might have now reached the point of no return. If so, do we deserve it?" 
- economist Walter E. William


“The Founding Fathers conceived a brilliant document to restrain the federal government and allow maximum freedom for the people to make their own way. It leaves people the power to make their own decisions and to deal with the consequences. Almost before the ink dried, Congress tried to circumvent the Constitution. James Madison, the fourth U.S. president and the 'Father of the Constitution,' warned against using the document -- especially the 'general welfare' clause -- to dispense money, no matter how well-intended or deserved: 'With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.' ... As governments take more away from their producing citizens and give it to their nonproducers, growth stagnates and opportunities dry up.” 
--columnist Larry Elder

Human nature being what it is, unless a person has some perceived benefit from his actions, he is not likely to continue those actions. Frequently the motivating “benefit” is to acquire personal property. (Money, or income, is also a person's property). The more you take from the citizens who produce and contribute to the society (aka the “givers”), the less incentive they have to do either. The more you give to the non-producers (aka the “takers”), the more likely they are to continue taking. Charity is good and has a place but it is not a proper function of government.

 

Contact Marie Lozito with your comments.

 

Top of this page

Front Page     Archives   Great links  


Contact: ken.s+sunacom.com (replace "+" with "@")