Let's see. First we have the commuter rail project. Costs $300 million to set up, plus $12 million a year running costs, Only serves Nashua. They want all the taxpayers in NH to pay for it. Nice work if you can get it Nashua.
Then somebody wanted to pass a new state law on indecent exposure. We have been doing just fine with existing law going back to the colonial period. Why do w need to change anything. Far as I am concerned, if guys or girls want to walk around stark naked, fine by me. I will enjoy the view. I don't see any need for a law.
Then someone else wanted to pass a new law about bestiality. I know the Old Testament is again it, but I hadn't heard of any cases in NH in the last fifty years. Again, we have law on the books, going back to colonial times, that has been perfectly adequate.
Why is our gallant legislature wasting time with this sort of stuff?
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Friday, March 4, 2016
Kelley Ayotte event in northern NH
Kelly Ayotte is our incumbent US Senator, running for re-election. She traveled up to northern NH to give a town hall event today. It was held in the classic NH location, a VFW hall, this one in Haverill. Turnout was good, parking lot was full, so was the VFW hall. It was a close knit affair, Kelly knew half the people present and greeted them all.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Learning to trash The Donald
Just watched Mitt Romney laying into The Donald on TV. Wow. Zap. Mitt came on just as strong as Marco Rubio, maybe stronger.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Learning to love The Donald
The Donald is gonna win the Republican nomination, unless something really weird happens, like an assassination, or all the other Republicans consolidate behind either Cruz or Rubio. Or lightening strikes the convention. Not likely.
I have some problems with The Donald as president, but I have more problems with Hilliary. So I'll vote for The Donald, and work to get him elected. I sincerely hope that The Donald can beat Hilliary in November, but I have my doubts. Hilliary's negatives are very high, but The Donald's are higher.
I have some problems with The Donald as president, but I have more problems with Hilliary. So I'll vote for The Donald, and work to get him elected. I sincerely hope that The Donald can beat Hilliary in November, but I have my doubts. Hilliary's negatives are very high, but The Donald's are higher.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Everyone whines about the US deficit
But nobody running for president talks about how to reduce it. It's very simple, Uncle spends more than he takes in with taxes. So Uncle borrows whatever to make up the difference. So far, Uncle has borrowed a total of one year's output of the entire US GNP, call it $17 trillion.
The only way to reduce the deficit is to hike taxes (highly unpopular with everyone) or cut spending (highly unpopular with those on the federal teat). Nobody wants to talk about either alternative except The Bern, who wants some good old fashioned soak-the-rich taxes. Trouble with soak-the-rich taxes, is we will all be rich in a few years from inflation. So soak-the-rich today means soak everybody tomorrow.
Since the people on the federal teat are less than everybody, it's more politically possible to cut spending than to hike taxes. Although it still ain't easy.
If we are gonna cut spending, it makes sense to start with the biggest money suckers, namely Medicare, Social Security, and perhaps Medicaid. The US spends 19% of GNP on health care, twice as much as any other country in the world. Some investigation ought to reveal how decent first world countries like Canada, Britain, France, Germany and a bunch of others get by spending half what we do. Naturally the doctors, the drug companies, the insurance companies, and the hospitals will scream bloody murder when Uncle does a little cost cutting, but let 'em. They don't have that many votes.
Social Security (the third rail of American politics, touch it and die) is harder. Cutting retiree's social security benefits would create a nationwide firestorm against those stupid enough to try it. But Social Security pays out a lot in "Survivors Benefits" and "Disability Benefits" which could be tightened up somewhat. Even a small cut in a big program would save serious money.
And nobody running for president is talking about any of this. Wimps.
The only way to reduce the deficit is to hike taxes (highly unpopular with everyone) or cut spending (highly unpopular with those on the federal teat). Nobody wants to talk about either alternative except The Bern, who wants some good old fashioned soak-the-rich taxes. Trouble with soak-the-rich taxes, is we will all be rich in a few years from inflation. So soak-the-rich today means soak everybody tomorrow.
Since the people on the federal teat are less than everybody, it's more politically possible to cut spending than to hike taxes. Although it still ain't easy.
If we are gonna cut spending, it makes sense to start with the biggest money suckers, namely Medicare, Social Security, and perhaps Medicaid. The US spends 19% of GNP on health care, twice as much as any other country in the world. Some investigation ought to reveal how decent first world countries like Canada, Britain, France, Germany and a bunch of others get by spending half what we do. Naturally the doctors, the drug companies, the insurance companies, and the hospitals will scream bloody murder when Uncle does a little cost cutting, but let 'em. They don't have that many votes.
Social Security (the third rail of American politics, touch it and die) is harder. Cutting retiree's social security benefits would create a nationwide firestorm against those stupid enough to try it. But Social Security pays out a lot in "Survivors Benefits" and "Disability Benefits" which could be tightened up somewhat. Even a small cut in a big program would save serious money.
And nobody running for president is talking about any of this. Wimps.
We got so much crude oil they are stashing it in railcars
US oil production is up, sales are down and the oil is piling up every where. The surplus is so bad that owners are renting empty rail tank cars to just hold the stuff until prices rise or customers come forward. That's a long way from "peak oil". The Wall St Journal says US oil inventories have not been this high since the 1930's.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Uncle wants to revive Mortgage Backed Securities.
Mortgage backed securities used to be a $ trillion dollar a year market, up until 2007 that is. Since 2007 nobody will touch them. The Journal shows a bar graph of sales over the years and zero sales in any year after 2007.
Many people think that mortgage backed securities caused Great Depression 2.0 In the go-go real estate bubble back in the aughts, banks and mortgage lenders needed more money to do mortgages with. Someone had the bright idea of creating a security, essentially a company IOU, which was "backed" by mortgages held by the bank. These IOU's were sold to gullible investors, by promises of high yield, and the proceeds used to write more mortgages. Trouble was, the "backing" didn't mean anything, the IOU holders did not get the right to repossess the properties when the borrowers stopped paying. And when the borrowers stopped paying, the investors stopped getting paid too. Investors wised up in 2007 and no more mortgage backed securities have been sold.
So banks can do mortgages using their own money, of which they never have enough, or by getting FHA or Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac or VA to put up the money. But, these government agencies, still suffering huge losses from 2007, all have pretty stiff rules about what kind of mortgage they will accept. Unless the borrower has a real clean credit record, no deal, no mortgage.
Now we have Monique Rollins, deputy assistant secretary in Obama's Treasury Dept saying "We do believe that a reformed asset class could responsibly broaden access for qualified buyers who are not being served today." Translation: Let's do mortgage backed securities to give the banks money to do any kind of mortgage they like." Which is what caused Great Depression 2.0. Not good. But the Obama administration is in favor.
Of course, Monique has not explained what she would do to get investors to touch the new model mortgage backed securities.
I wonder what a Trump administration would do?
Many people think that mortgage backed securities caused Great Depression 2.0 In the go-go real estate bubble back in the aughts, banks and mortgage lenders needed more money to do mortgages with. Someone had the bright idea of creating a security, essentially a company IOU, which was "backed" by mortgages held by the bank. These IOU's were sold to gullible investors, by promises of high yield, and the proceeds used to write more mortgages. Trouble was, the "backing" didn't mean anything, the IOU holders did not get the right to repossess the properties when the borrowers stopped paying. And when the borrowers stopped paying, the investors stopped getting paid too. Investors wised up in 2007 and no more mortgage backed securities have been sold.
So banks can do mortgages using their own money, of which they never have enough, or by getting FHA or Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac or VA to put up the money. But, these government agencies, still suffering huge losses from 2007, all have pretty stiff rules about what kind of mortgage they will accept. Unless the borrower has a real clean credit record, no deal, no mortgage.
Now we have Monique Rollins, deputy assistant secretary in Obama's Treasury Dept saying "We do believe that a reformed asset class could responsibly broaden access for qualified buyers who are not being served today." Translation: Let's do mortgage backed securities to give the banks money to do any kind of mortgage they like." Which is what caused Great Depression 2.0. Not good. But the Obama administration is in favor.
Of course, Monique has not explained what she would do to get investors to touch the new model mortgage backed securities.
I wonder what a Trump administration would do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)