Estimates are that the Waxman-Markey bill will raise electricity prices by an astounding 90 percent. It will raise gasoline prices by 74 percent. It will raise the average American family's energy bill by $1,500 each year.
And, far from creating jobs, experts predict that the global warming bill will destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average each year, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs.
All in all, the bill is expected to reduce our gross domestic production (GDP) by $9.6 trillion. And for what?

On election day, Californians will vote on Prop 1A, a $9.5 billion bond for high-speed rail.  This bond measure would be a down payment on the estimated $40 billion dollars needed to provide high-speed rail service between Los Angeles and San Francisco.  If all goes according to plan, the rail line should be finished by 2030, a mere 21 years from now.

If California truly needs a 700-mile high-speed rail line, it would be better off to let a private corporation have the honor.  If the state would cede the necessary right-of-way it already holds, offer lucrative financing and tax incentives, and remove regulatory obstacles to such a project, it would undoubtedly be completed in less than half the time, cost far less, and be more viable as a business entity in the long run. 

Impossible?  Actually, it has already been done, and under much more difficult circumstances:

First Transcontinental Railroad (1862-1869)

A railway link between the east and west coast rail lines, authorized by Abraham Lincoln.  Government and private bonds were issued to pay for the development, and every cent of taxpayer money was paid back, with interest.  Every inch of the way was either carved from solid rock at a rate of 1 foot per day, or dug by hand where possible.

Project scope:  1,776 miles
Cost: $16,000 per flatland mile, $48,000 per "mountainous" mile.
Time to complete:  7 years

High-speed rail is favorite topic among Left Coast Latte Lappers but there doesn't seem to be a statewide mandate for the service, probably because it would bypass most of the people who would pay for it.  With a 20-year plan and no drumbeat of public support, Prop 1A will likely become another money pit for California taxpayers, but this doesn't have to be the case.  Governments are capable of achieving great things under the right circumstances, and rarely has any government effort paid off as timely or as handsomely as the Apollo program.

Space Race (1962-1969)

In a speech at Rice University in 1962, President Kennedy announced a plan to land men on the moon "by the end of the decade."  It was, and arguably remains, the greatest scientific feat ever accomplished by mankind.

Project scope:  Launch 3 men 250,000 miles into space, leave one in orbit and land two of them on the moon for several days, re-launch them into a lunar orbit where they would dock with an already orbiting command module, then return them and a few rock samples safely to Earth before their oxygen ran out, with everything based on math and theory. Essentially, NASA had to take the program from the fiction of Jules Verne to the reality of Neil Armstrong before the U.S.S.R. could do it, even though the Russians were perceived to be years ahead of us at the time.

Estimated time to complete: Before 1970Estimated cost: $16-19 billion
Actual completion:  6 months ahead of schedule
Actual Cost:  Under budget at $16 billion (about $89 billion in 2007 dollars)

If the Apollo program stands as a crowning achievement in government efficiency, the Federal Highway Act of 1956 was a miserable failure by strict comparison.  Without the competitive, almost entrepreneurial atmosphere experienced during the space race, construction of our nation's highway system was fraught with divisive politics, cost overruns, and significant delays.  Cities that were to be bypassed by the interstate freeways and landowners fighting eminent domain regulations tied up construction in some places for years.  This example is likely the nearest relative of Prop 1A, although the addition of Runway 5 at the Atlanta airport and Boston's Big Dig certainly come to mind.

Interstate Highway System (1956-1992)

A complete upgrade of the national highway system, the IHS stands as one of the greatest public works projects ever completed, and one of the most costly.    It was, and remains, completely taxpayer funded.

Project scope:  46,837 miles of modern 4-lane freeways
Estimated cost:  $25 billion
Estimated time to completion:  12 years 

Actual Time to complete:  36 years (3x the original estimate)
Total cost to taxpayers:  $114 billion (4.5x the original estimate)
Cost per mile in 2006 dollars:  $9.07 million

"If" the state of California stays within their $40 billion budget estimate, it will cost more than $57 million taxpayer dollars per mile, plus the interest on the bonds, to build an elevated, dual line rail system on nearly flat ground that California already holds right-of-way on.  But "if" is the operative word. 

Government is lousy at estimating the cost of things because there is no accountability.  Low-balling the numbers up front limits opposition to proposals and when costs spiral out of control, the bill is paid with other people's money and nobody gets fired.

All of the examples listed above were far greater in scope and complexity when compared with Prop 1A, yet the California legislature insists on pushing a 21-year, $40 billion proposal on already overtaxed, over-regulated voters using bogus guesstimates that future politicians will have to justify.

It would seem that we could do better than this.  Much better.

With annual appropriations and a national election just around the corner, it is time once again for Congress to spread the wealth around.  Citizens Against Government Waste does yeoman's work digging up the details on earmarks and other pork-related projects sponsored by Representatives and Senators who don't seem to understand that Americans would like for Congress to live within the same budget constraints they do. Of course, not "all" of these projects are unnecessary or wasteful, but genuine concerns should certainly be brought to the floor and voted on based upon their merit, not tucked away in a different appropriations bill.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today released its preliminary analysis of the Fiscal Year 2009 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act.  There were 118 projects in this year's DHS appropriations bill, totaling $286 million, both down less than 1 percent from 124 projects costing $294 million in last year's bill.  The amount of taxpayers' money wasted on Homeland Security pork has continued its decline over the past two years from its peak in fiscal year 2007 at $2.4 billion.  Nonetheless, every dollar spent on earmarks adversely affects the internal security of the nation.  Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) led the way with $49.3 million in pork, followed closely by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) with $43.3 million.
       
        Earmarks added by the House and Senate to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act included:
       
       
        *       $39.7 million by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), for the Advanced Training Center, which trains border agents, despite the fact that the Bush Administration has not requested funding to expand the center.
               
        *       $27 million by Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee member Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) for the Southeast Region Research Initiative in Tennessee.  To date, this organization has not published any reports on its website.
               
        *       $23 Million for the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and the National Center for Biomedical Research and Training, Louisiana State University, by seven senators.
               
        *       $24.9 million for 51 projects for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Predisaster Mitigation by 56 House members, spread among 26 states, including towns such as Rainbow City, Alabama (population 8,428), and Taylorsville, Kentucky (population 1,208).
               
        *       $22.1 million for 33 projects for FEMA State and Local Programs by 35 members, spread among 19 states, including towns such as Poynette, Wisconsin (population 2,520), and Bellerose, New York (population 1,120).

Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government. 

Way back on May 9, On The Issues commented on a story regarding politics and the digital divide (Incentives for a connected America, Transforming Government section), or how to get high-speed Internet to rural areas where dial-up remains the only alternative for millions of Americans.

We pointed out some of the Presidential candidates' approaches to the problem and listed a few alternate, free-market solutions that seemed to make sense.   In typical bureaucratic fashion, a bill was passed and sent to the President's desk during the recent financial crisis that pays for more studies of the issue rather than dealing with it outright.

Congress Passes Broadband Data Improvement Act

Amidst the battles over the $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, both houses of Congress passed legislation that would improve the collection of data on broadband availability in the United States, as well as new funding for groups that support increasing high-speed Internet access.

On September 27, the Senate passed the "Broadband Data Improvement Act," introduced last year by Senate Commerce Committee chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI). The House of Representatives passed companion legislation on Monday, and sent the bill to President Bush's desk for signature into law.

Inouye hailed the bill's passage as a stepping-stone to providing broadband access to the nation.

"The federal government has a responsibility to ensure the continued rollout of broadband access, as well as the successful deployment of the next generation of broadband technology," Inouye said.  "But as I have said before, we cannot manage what we do not measure.  This bill will give us the baseline statistics we need in order to eventually achieve the successful deployment of broadband access and services to all Americans."

It is not the government's "responsibility" to control the free market.  When will the bureaucracy learn that the best way to ensure the successful deployment of anything is to incentivize the activity up front, or get out of the way entirely?  The Congressional Budget Office sets the cost to "measure" the problem at $202 million over five years, a convenient way to kick the can down the road and not resolve anything.  The information it gathers is available now, it's the solution that is lacking.

This bill is a disincentive to broadband proliferation.  It rewards companies with millions of taxpayer dollars for reporting the problem and nothing for resolving it, and is typical of bureaucracy in the world that fails.

President Bush campaigned for more than a year to restructure Social Security, but few in Congress were willing to touch the "third rail" of American politics.  Whatever "political capital" the President estimated he had after the 2004 election, he spent in full without convincing Congress or the public at large reforms were necessary.

The sheer number of people retiring in the next few decades, 78 million or so, will make the current $700 billion bailout of Wall Street look like piggy bank theft.  Social Security will force even more drastic changes than President Bush proposed back then, yet it isn't on congressional radar right now for the foreseeable future.  But someone is paying attention:  retirement homes and senior centers.

Imagine if government had this kind of foresight.  Imagine if the government responded to taxpaying citizens when we speak our minds on issues like Drill Now, immigration, or bailouts:

ENFIELD, Conn. (AP) - Susan Lather envisions a day when paninis and mock cocktails will take their place next to fruit cups and club sandwiches on the lunch menu at the Enfield Senior Center.

Changing food preferences are among many adjustments that senior center directors nationwide, including Lather, expect to make in the next decade as they balance the wishes of their elderly stalwarts with those of baby boomer newcomers.

Some even have taken "senior" out of their names, christening the facilities "community centers." It's a nod to boomers who acknowledge they are aging but bristle at the term "senior" and the stereotypes of fragility or dependency.

The first of the 78 million boomers started receiving Social Security retirement benefits this year, and the Census Bureau estimates almost 8,000 of them are turning 60 every day.
"The boomers are going to have the same impact in senior centers that they had as babies when they were born, in schools, in the work force and in society in general," said Jay Morgan, manager of the Office on Aging in St. Petersburg, Fla.

"You really can't underestimate that impact," he said.

Morgan moderates a National Council on Aging online discussion group for senior center directors and said they voice common concerns about serving boomers.

Some examples: offering programs to fit the schedules of boomers working well into their 60s and making them diverse and intellectually appealing, and ensuring that longtime older visitors aren't alienated by the changes.

None expect it to be easy. Even those who've planned in advance say baby boomers will be unlike any generation that has ever passed through senior centers.

In Enfield, traditional activities - bingo and cribbage, blood pressure clinics, bereavement support - are now joined by high-energy Zumba exercise classes, Nintendo Wii video game tournaments and investment clubs.

Lather said she may even launch a motorcycle club for the many "young" seniors arriving at the northern Connecticut center on two wheels.

If ever there were a time to “fix” our government that time would be now.  Now, rather than later.  According to an article by Laurence J. Kotlikoff at Forbes.com, Is the U.S. Going Broke?, our current exposure incurred when we took over Freddie and Fannie is about $5 Trillion, in a market that has yet to find the bottom.  And that’s not the worst of it. 

According to Kotlikoff, “The real liability facing our government is $70 Trillion.”  Change can no longer be a campaign slogan.  It must be real, or we’re in big trouble. 

The real liability facing our government is $70 trillion. This represents the present value difference between all the government's projected future spending obligations and all its projected future tax receipts. This fiscal gap takes into account Uncle Sam's need to service official debt--outstanding U.S. government bonds. But it also recognizes all our government's unofficial debts, including its obligation to the soon-to-be-retired baby boomers to pay their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Given current policies, each of the 78 million boomers can expect, on average, to receive $50,000, in today's dollars, from these programs in each and every year of retirement. Multiply 78 million boomers by a $50,000 annual payment and you get close to $4 trillion per year. This helps you see why our nation's true indebtedness is so extraordinarily high.

There are other obligations, too, that aren't calculated into the national debt, or even in the $70 trillion, but for which the government remains at risk. House prices haven't stopped falling. They are down 20% from their peak two years ago. But they remain 70% above their value in early 2000. That was the year prices started going crazy. If the price pendulum swings back to 2000, we'll see the mortgage default rate, currently at a record 9%, soar. We'll also see more Americans file for personal bankruptcies and default on their credit cards. This will put many more financial institutions under water. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has $45 billion on hand to cover bank failures, such as that of Indymac earlier this year, which cost the FDIC $9 billion. Large-scale bank failures could leave the FDIC short hundreds of billions of dollars. The total of insured deposits in this country is $4.5 trillion.

Our problems are officially beyond (D) vs. (R).  The lack of responsibility, maturity, and indecisiveness, undoubtedly coupled with the desire to attain and/or maintain power, is jeopardizing our future.  If 435 members of Congress, 100 Senators, and a President cannot take an honest look at our unfunded liabilities and realize that the game they’ve played for 50 years is officially and irrevocably over, we are in trouble.

We need fiscal responsibility.  We need to fundamentally change our government’s business plan and mission statement so that it becomes more entrepreneurial and less bureaucratic.  We need to rewrite the congressional rulebook so that our governing body is rewarded for acting in our best interests, rather than theirs.  We need our government to become a self-healing, lean machine that uses metrics to measure the success or failure of solutions implemented, and acts to reduce failure.  We need leadership, not slogans.

A hot local topic in Modesto California concerns a proposal from California-based General Petroleum, a fuel distributor currently based in southern California, that would bring the company’s corporate offices to Modesto.  The sticking point?  The company wants a substantial reduction in the local sales tax, and will not relocate to the town without it.  Complicating the matter is a recently passed law which, pending Governor Schwarzenegger’s signature will make it illegal for a city to offer such tax cuts to attract businesses as of October. 

An editorial in the Modesto Bee has taken a stance against the proposal, noting that “The Modesto City Council should not rush into a deal that could hurt Stanislaus County’s revenue and that state law would soon forbid anyway.” 

What's in it for Modesto? Potentially up to $600,000 a year in sales tax revenue that it isn't now getting. That would be the amount gained in a banner sales year for the company.
Further, General Petroleum says it would lease an office downtown and employ five to eight people there, according to the city's business development manager. That office would be considered the Northern California headquarters -- a grandiose title for a small office. …

What's in it for General Petroleum? A substantial reduction in the sales tax it would pay. Examples calculated by city staff showed the company could receive rebates of anywhere from $475,000 to nearly $2.5 million a year from Modesto, again depending on the total sales in Northern California.

The focus should not be on the rebate, but instead on the gain in employment and potential income.  The city currently gets nothing, but stands to gain a bundle.  Not only that, but other businesses may take notice and head for Modesto as well, creating many more jobs, which the community desperately needs.  That potential boon for the city has been called unfair by opponents of this deal.

Cries of “fairness,” if such a word can apply to taxation, are ridiculous.  If one business is allowed such a deal, shouldn’t all existing businesses get the same deal, they ask.  Yes!  What about Stanislaus County, which stands to lose a bit of “revenue” in the deal?  Should Modesto be allowed to “steal” away their “paying customer?”  Offer the same deal and they might stay, or even create more jobs?  When businesses keep more of their money, they do wonderful things with it.  It is an American tradition, but keep in mind that California is outlawing it…

Simply put, it is inane for California to take away one of the final tools cities have to attract businesses, especially in a state which is losing jobs and citizens faster than ever, plans big tax increases to meet a growing budget deficit, and has yet to pass a budget  for the current fiscal year.  Why shouldn’t Modesto jump at such an offer?  Should the five to eight people the company says it will hire be told “we’re sorry, it is unfair for us to create these jobs for you, so you can stay on unemployment a little while longer” ??

Providing incentives to attract businesses to a community, whether that means a company with five employees or five thousand, must be a tool in the arsenal of governments small and large!  Cutting taxes and creating jobs has been proven time and time again to increase “revenues” collected by governments and provide a higher quality of life for those in the community.The story calls for serious discussion, but only presents the negatives. 

Of course, if local citizens figure out that cutting taxes will mean more jobs, a better quality of life, and a vibrant, growing economy, perhaps they’ll demand that all taxes be lowered.  We can’t have that, now can we?

** During the writing of this story, the Modesto City Council voted 6-1 to accept the offer, recognizing the advantage of using a competitive tax policy to attract jobs to their community.  A response to that decision, a critical viewpoint by columnist Jeff Jardine, appears here.

Despite negative public opinion regarding earmarks and unadulterated pork-barrel projects in Congress, the trend continues.  Citizens Against Government Waste has released the 2008 Pig Book Summary detailing spending authorizations attached to what little real legislation that has actually made it though this do-nothing session:

In fiscal year 2008, Congress stuffed 11,610 projects (the second highest total ever) into the 12 appropriations bills worth $17.2 billion.  The 11,610 projects represent a 337 percent increase over the 2,658 projects in fiscal year 2007.  The $17.2 billion is a 30 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 total of $13.2 billion.  Only the Defense and Homeland Security bills included earmarks in fiscal year 2007, so comparisons of other bills are made between fiscal years 2008 and 2006.  Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $271 billion.

Common sense says that eliminating some or all of this spending would be, well, common sense, but neither party seems willing to tackle the issue head on.  Some of the more egregious examples:

$15,115,446 for 17 projects by Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), including:  $3,723,750 for a Natural Products Lab; $2,780,400 for the Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center; $1,075,419 for the Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center; $849,015 for genomics for southern crop stress and disease research; $511,395 for biotechnology research; and $229,383 for rural systems research.

$11,808,756 for 12 projects by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), including:  $3,829,008 for the Lost River Watershed Project; $3,226,257 for the GIS Center of Excellence; $1,529,220 for the Appalachian Fruit Lab; $521,325 for aquaculture product and marketing development; and $112,209 for feed efficiency research.

$4,840,875 for wood utilization research in 10 states requested by nine representatives and 16 senators.  Among the research areas is “refinement of processing technology for laminated veneer lumber for furniture, flooring, and other specialty industries.”  As if no one has ever done that before.  This research has cost taxpayers $90.8 million since 1985.

$1,769,526 for five projects by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), including:  $1,117,125 for mormon crickets; $365,424 for the Nevada arid rangelands initiative; and $36,741 for weed management.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's order to layoff more than 10,000 state workers and slash the pay of thousands more ran into stiff headwinds today from employee unions and the state office that cuts paychecks.California's largest state employees union filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court to block the part of the executive order forcing layoffs for 10,300 seasonal, contract and part-time workers.

 

At the same, employee unions filed unfair labor practice allegations against a provision temporarily cutting the pay of up to 200,000 state employees to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour. Those workers would be reimbursed when a budget is approved.Schwarzenegger's order is designed to save the state hundreds of millions of dollars a month during a stalemate that has left California without a budget one month into its fiscal year.Employees reacted angrily to the order, with thousands of temps and part-timers told not to report to work today."He had no reason to lay off, as a group, some of our lowest-paid workers," said Mark Swabey, 53, a full-time worker with the state Department of Transportation who is subject to the wage rollback but was most concerned about employees who would lose their jobs. "They're not making much anyway, and now they're making nothing."

Democratic lawmakers presented a plan late Tuesday night to impose $9.7 billion in new taxes on the wealthy and corporations to avoid the cuts to government services in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget plan. ... A dependent-care credit currently available to all Californians also would be eliminated for families with an income of more than $150,000.

 

"Californians want this budget mess fixed," said Assembly Budget Committee Chairman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz). "This, in essence, fixes California's budget problem. Any other alternative keeps deficits going into the future and balances the budget on the backs of school kids, health clinics and transit riders."

 

Income taxes on families earning more than $321,000 would go up by 7.5%. Joint filers earning more than $642,000 would see an 18% hike. ... The proposal also includes an amnesty intended to entice tax cheats to pay up, the suspension of various tax breaks for corporations and the restoration of a franchise tax on businesses.

They [the Left in Sacramento] argue that it [tax hike] would allow the state to avoid thousands of teacher layoffs, big cutbacks in the Medi-Cal health insurance program for the poor and reductions in home assistance for the elderly and disabled. ... Assembly Budget Committee Vice Chairman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) said Republicans are "categorically opposed" to the broad-based tax hikes and predicted they would be defeated in floor votes. ... The plan was nonetheless approved Tuesday on a party-line vote by a joint budget panel. ... Although the panel waited until late Tuesday night to address tax issues, for weeks it had been going through every line item in the governor's budget and voting along party lines to reject most of the cuts.

The desire to nationalize industry has been in the news lately.  Rising prices have representatives openly discussing the possibility of taking over entire industries to protect farmers and consumers.   No, we're not talking about Maxine Waters' comments about the government taking over the oil industry because of the specter of ever-rising fuel prices. 

In  a Reuters.com story, " Brazil threatens to nationalize fertilizer mines ," we see another looming supply issue that could adversely affect the price of food prompting a government to act.  This is another story that brings up the issue of nationalization ( a short-term solution), rather than promoting free market forces and capitalism to supply the goods the world needs to grow.

CUIABA, Brazil, May 20 (Reuters) - Brazil may nationalize privately held mineral deposits used to make fertilizer to bring down farm production costs, Agriculture Minister Reinhold Stephanes said.

The threat from Latin America's farming powerhouse, which is heavily dependent on fertilizer imports, is the latest in a regional trend to bring natural resources under greater state control as world oil and food prices push new highs.

Fertilizer prices have doubled over the past year.

The price of fertilizer is increasing because of the price of oil.  Fertilizer is a heavy material, and transporting it around the world was an expensive proposition when fuel prices were low and stable.  Bunker fuel surcharges for container ships have risen sharply over the last few years, as have those for ground transportation, so it is easy to see how a nation like Brazil (that relies heavily on oceanic transportation) would want to exert greater control on its own natural resources.  But is nationalizing Brazil's minerals, or our oil industry, the right thing to do?

A long-term solution (new discoveries or improved efficiency) would provide for stabilization.  Stories like this are the information that tomorrow's entrepreneur will use as impetus to begin exploration, and governments should encourage the truism that the fear of "change" is overcome by desperately cunning individuals who stand to profit by filling a need.

Before Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, it was inconceivable that we could produce enough cotton to clothe all of America, let alone the rest of the world.  Perceived shortages stimulate discovery and innovation (if government stays out of the way), and we are almost always better off for the effort. 

Just as we cannot feed or clothe the world with yesterday's technology, we cannot provide for the needs of tomorrow wearing the shackles of yesterday's political mindset.  Nationalizing land or industry is a step backwards that dampens productivity and snuffs out innovation.  Doesn't it seem odd to limit access to resources and prohibit exploration, while simultaneously complaining about the resulting high prices and lack of availability?

We should encourage the explorers and producers with incentives and access if we want to see a brighter future, and a less expensive tomorrow.  What do you think? 

From the Kennedy speech that announced our intent to put a man on the moon, to Neil Armstrong leaving the first human footprint on its surface, less than ten years had passed. From scratch, America took a project from the drawing board to the Evening News in less than a decade and the world stood in awe.

In a May 19^thAmerica.gov story by staff writer Cheryl Pellerin, NASA announces that it is on track to repeat that feat "by 2020."  In the language of a government agency, wrapped in red tape and hopelessly lost in bureaucracy:

^"We're in the midst of preliminary design and that will culminate in a [November 21] preliminary design review," said Orion Project Manager Mark Geyer, at NASA's Johnson Space Center. "That's a critical milestone, when we and our customers get together and say that we have the right vehicle and we're ready to move forward. So it's essential that we get it right."

A preliminary design, followed by a review, of a system that is largely cannibalized space shuttle thruster technology and redesigned Apollo equipment. And if that review undergoes any revisions, then delays, cost overruns, contract extensions, and ballooning budgets are surely to follow. It is important to remember that this process started several years ago and is still 12 years from its estimated fruition, with nothing to show for the dollars spent except for concepts and studies. Americans believe overwhelmingly that "we must rely on innovation and new technology if we are going to compete successfully with India and China," yet nothing NASA has proposed is innovative or new.

If NASA were a national airline like United or Delta, they would be offering fewer cities to their customers, at ten times the ticket price, with non-existent customer service, more lost luggage, on DC-10 airplanes. We would never fly on that airline, so why do we accept it in a government agency that is responsible for one of the most important goals our nation has?

Compare NASA to the public sector. In order for a business to stay profitable and relevant, it has to repeat what it did this year, but do so faster, and for less money, in the years that follow. It has to provide more features and better service to a demanding market or be swallowed by its competitors. The men and women at NASA are certainly some of the brightest in the world, but the system that governs them would not have put Neil Armstrong on the moon in 20 years.

An X-prize put civilians in space when few thought it could be done. If we establish an X-prize for landing on the moon and returning safely, it is highly likely that it will be done long before NASA puts the Constellation in the sky, and for far less money.

While current economic forecasts are gloomy, America has seen her share of ups and downs and will surely weather this latest trend. To read about the worst of it, pick up a copy of the May 12th edition of Newsweek for Fareed Zakaria's piece entitled The Rise of the Rest, where he asserts that "The world has shifted from anti-Americanism to post-Americanism." Despite that dreary line, it is still a good, sobering look at the times in which we live, and not without its positives:

"More broadly, this is America's great - and potentially insurmountable - strength. It remains the most open, flexible society in the world, able to absorb other people, cultures, ideas, goods, and services. The country thrives on the hunger and energy of poor immigrants. Faced with the new technologies of foreign companies or growing markets overseas, it adapts and adjusts. When you compare this dynamism with the closed and hierarchical nations that were once superpowers, you sense that the United States is different and may not fall into the trap of becoming rich, and fat, and lazy."

"American society can adapt to this new world. But can the American government? Washington has gotten used to a world in which all roads led to its doorstep. America has rarely had to worry about benchmarking to the rest of the world - it was always so far ahead. But the natives have gotten good at capitalism and the gap is narrowing."

But are we, truly, living in the age of post-Americanism? Hardly. We're simply playing the game by a different set of (self imposed) rules, and we are at a competitive disadvantage. As our economy falters around us, our government has done little, if anything, to react to the changing times. The price of fuel (which will affect the price of everything else) is rising quickly, yet Congress has not stepped up to address the underlying concerns that drive prices higher. We've bailed out a few banks, tossed a few bucks to people that paid taxes last year, lowered interest rates, and that's about it.

We can do better. We can move faster. And we should demand it of our representatives, before our troubles grow even more unwieldy.

To see the world that works in action, and an innovative governing solution that would be pro-growth, we only have to look as far as Kuala Lumpur for guidance. In a Bernama.com business article entitled "Two sets of incentives for Halal Business Fraternity", the Halal Industry Development Corporation shows that they want to attract business to their shores: article,
The Halal Industry Development Corporation (HDC) has introduced two sets of incentives for businesses which qualify for Halal Malaysia status to make the halal industry more attractive to investors.

Halal park operators and logistics operators will be given pioneer status with tax exemption of 100 percent of statutory income for 10 years and five years respectively. Besides pioneer status, both operators will be given investment tax allowance of 100 percent of qualifying capital expenditure for five years. The tax allowance of 100 percent will be given to the halal industry players as well but for 10 years.

That is logical, and likely to produce results. While some would say that we "couldn't afford" to give tax breaks like that, or that it is unfair to give the "greedy corporations" those kinds of tax breaks, it is common sense that 100% of nothing is, and always will be, nothing. In fact, it is far worse than nothing.

If a vacant lot or building sits in a community, it may generate property tax revenue but that's it. A thriving business in its place would not only improve the value of the land (and thus the taxes collected from it), but the workforce staffing that plant would buy houses, consume goods and services, and increase the value of the entire community. While there would be little tax revenue from the business (cries of ‘fairness' can already be heard echoing through the empty warehouses around America), the community would benefit tremendously.
We can continue to tax ourselves into hilarity, or we can do as Kuala Lumpur (and many other nations) are doing or have done: Unlock our potential by removing the shackles of government, encourage investment and development in our communities, and put the sign back in the window that says America is (once again) open for business.

We are the most resilient nation on Earth, and we will begin to arise from our current slump the exact moment we decide to do something about it.

The old adage tells us that to understand our adversaries, we must first understand ourselves, but a new Northwestern University, Illinois study may turn that saying on its ear.  In an Economist.com story entitled Inside a deal, it pays to get inside your opponents' heads rather than in their hearts, we are show that it may be advantageous to take the perspective of our opponents to reach a better outcome:

“The main tip is to gain bargaining power by understanding the person on the other side of the table. But what exactly does a negotiator need to know about his antagonist? In a series of experiments a team of researchers have come up with some intriguing answers in a report just published in Psychological Science . … Analysis showed that when the buyer in particular had a perspective-taking ability it could predict a successful outcome.”

If this study holds true across a wide variety of situations, perhaps the techniques discovered may one day be used to help solidify the natural tri-partisan coalition that existed before the current trend of polar-politics?  Anything is possible...

Sign in to post your comments below.

In the late 20^th century, a popular anecdotal story described the farm boy who came to the city and marveled at the wonders he had once only read about.  Today, that story has transformed into a tale of the youngster who visits relatives in the big city and is more impressed with the speed at which he or she can download music than with the brick and mortar monuments to an aging society.

Do you remember dial-up?  The Model-T of Internet connections is still around, but in many areas of the country, it has been (thankfully) replaced by broadband.  The world is now a much smaller place for those who enjoy high-speed Internet services offered via telephone, cable, and wireless providers, and our lives will never be the same.

That is, unless you happen to live in “the digital divide.”  Places in America where populations are small, homes are few and far between, and it is technologically difficult or financially prohibitive to offer anything more than a dial-up connection are far more abundant than necessary and has become a viable political issue these days.  In a story entitled “Candidates’ Plans for Broadband Could Provide a Boost,” we find a marvelous opportunity for politicians and individuals to put rhetoric on hold and use incentives to bring the rest of America into the digital age.  

Broadband Internet has become a hot topic for debate among the U.S. presidential candidates. Many believe that broadband is one of the key components needed to maintain competitive advantage over other nations.

The obstacle seems to be in which technology the government should place its support, and the debate on who should receive the handout from government rages on as well.  The left wants to subsidize consumers (Internet welfare) while the right wants to subsidize businesses (corporate welfare).  In both cases, the sides agree that incentives should be offered, and could be brought together by changing the word “subsidize” to “incentivize” in this quote:

The presidential candidates have yet to outline very specific ways in which they will work to improve broadband penetration. One potential way is to subsidize cable development into these areas in order to extend the reach of their services. Another way may be to subsidize consumers directly to purchase more expensive forms of satellite Internet and be connected.

It is unlikely that either of those options are viable for the entire country.  The nice lady in the DirecTV ad tells us “all you need is a clear view of the Southern sky” and the broadband dream can be yours.  Unfortunately, satellite has not always been as fast or reliable as Internet delivered via cable, and probably isn’t the solution for everyone.  DSL solutions require customers to be within 18,500 line feet of a central office, bringing the cost of upgrading rural infrastructure in line with that of cable when being extended into areas where it may be 18,500 feet between homes.  Obviously, one solution isn’t going to solve every problem.

That’s where incentives come in.  Incentives aren’t political, and they don’t come with limitations or red tape.  There is neither government subsidy for a particular strategy, nor support for one technology over another.  The incentive would be offered to companies that provide a broadband solution to areas that do not currently enjoy broadband access, in exchange for a monetary prize and/or tax incentive for getting the job done.  That would foster a competitive environment that would bring to bear the innovative spirit this nation is so well known for.  Incentives are the common sense solution to this, and many other problems we face. Do you agree?

Earmarks in the federal budget -- the infamous "pork" -- have been a target of criticism for many Americans across the political spectrum.  The lack of transparency with this discretionary spending has been fueling unethical behavior by many Congressional members for years.

Now Google Earth, the online interactive world map, has implemented a new feature to help track this spending:

The Sunlight Foundation on Tuesday released a downloadable Google Earth layer that plots what it says are some 1,500 earmarks attached to a proposed U.S. House of Representatives defense spending bill. The Washington-based group describes its mission as promoting political transparency through use of Internet technologies.

Once activated, each project shows up on the layer in the form of a yellow push pin.

Read More

Business Week has an interesting piece on a new set on internet entrepreneurs-- those seeking to expand to space:

Internet Pioneers' Next Frontier
by Rachael King

"Vint Cerf, one of the founding fathers of the Internet, began working a decade ago on protocols for deep space communications, known as the Interplanetary Internet. Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO of Amazon.com (AMZN), has started Blue Origin, which is working to develop a vehicle to transport a small number of astronauts into suborbital space.

Elon Musk, former CEO of PayPal (EBAY) and Zip2, has invested more than $100 million of his own money to start Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, a company that's building a family of launch vehicles. Jim Benson, who founded CompuSearch and invented modern full-text computer indexing and search, is creating a vehicle for space tourism at Benson Space that seeks to minimize the violent impact that spacecraft encounter on re-entry into the earth's atmosphere.

...

While Virgin Galactic is already taking reservations and deposits for $200,000 flights it hopes will start in 2009, and the Russian Space Agency has flown some civilians, tourism still amounted to less than 1% of the total space market in 2005. Still, the Space Foundation estimates that space tourism could produce $600 million to $700 million in revenue per year by 2014. "In the landscape of a $200 billion industry, it's not much. But it's a good start," says Elliott Pulham, CEO of the Space Foundation. "

We could measure NASA's progress in recent years versus the progress of private space entrepreneurs and possibly be surprised.  As Newt has said, should we offer a $20 billion prize to the first private firm that can send a rover to Mars- on the condition that we abolish NASA if this is done before its Mars program is complete- that we would save on the magnitude of $100 billion. 

Interestingly, a column a few days ago on CNET ask the question, "Do we need NASA?":

“[I]f private industry can reliably transport people and cargo to space, is it still necessary to funnel $17.6 billion a year to NASA? Or could that money be better spent on, say, tax breaks to encourage the development of a world-class private space industry?”

John Schwartz writes in the New York Times last week:

"The group whose $10 million prize spurred privately financed rocketeers to send a small piloted craft to the cusp of space in 2004 has issued a new challenge: an unmanned moon shot.

With the audacious new contest comes a much bigger prize: up to $25 million, paid for by Google, the ubiquitous Internet company.

The Google Lunar X Prize was announced yesterday in Los Angeles at the Wired magazine's NextFest. The contest calls for entrants to land a rover on the moon that will be able to travel at least 550 yards and send high-resolution video, still images and other data back home."

Google has certainly tapped into the entrepreneurial, "can-do" spirit of America.  As Newt has suggested on several occasions, the best way to get back into space is not through increasing the NASA budget, but through the creation of prizes to be given, for example, to the first team that sends a probe to Mars and back.  As he said in his June 8th speech at American Enterprise Institute:

"I would like to see us put up a $20 billion prize for the first team that gets to Mars and back.

The morning they get there and back, we quit the NASA Mars program.  Now if you took the amount of money that NASA plans to spend over the next twenty years to get to Mars, my guess is that that $20 billion prize will save you a minimum of $120 billion, because somebody will be there and back about 40 percent of the way into the NASA program."

Is this something radically new?  By no means.  A $25,000 prize was offered to the first person to fly across the Atlantic.  Charles Lindbergh collected it in 1927.

MSNBC recently profiled a man who can work from seemingly anywhere:

"Victor Cousins has a pretty good gig working for the human resources department at Sun Microsystems, but he doesn’t have an office, just a locker.

Don’t feel sorry for him. He’s not one of those types who measure his career success by the size of his office. In fact, he's proud to be office-less, and he’s the quintessential telecommuter. He works anywhere he wants – his home in Oakland, the local coffee shop, and at any Sun location throughout the country. When his mother had knee surgery in May he was able to spend time with her, working out of a Sun office in St. Louis."

The article continues, noting that already more than 12 million people telecommute 8 or more hours a day.  That number is expected to increase substantially in the next 10 years.  An interesting comparison would be to see how many members of the federal bureaucracy telecommute, or are even able to telecommute.  Given the many failings of the government to modernize, as demostrated in "Fed Ex vs. Federal Bureaucracy," the private sector is rapidly changing while the entrenched bureaucracies stay the same.  Only a transformation of government is capable of bringing the government into the 21st century.