The Ghosts Haunting America’s Factories and Offices
The ghosts who were haunting the room are fakers at transparency, seem to love uncertainty, and definitely relish those environmental barriers. Even when they weren’t in power, the ghosts’ green sympathizers “successfully” gummed up most attempts at new domestic energy development during the previous decade in Florida and the rest of the nation. Sadly, at least until recently, they have convinced all too many of the relatively disengaged that we can be the only major power in human history not to take advantage of the abundant natural resources we have and suffer no consequences for it.
As to Bush’s points about transparency and reducing uncertainty, the Wall Street Journal had this to say about the Beltway ghosts I am referring to in the wake of last week’s disappointing jobs report:
With so much policy uncertainty out of Washington … no one can be sure what they will pay for energy (rising oil prices, cap and trade) or new regulation (antitrust), how high their taxes will rise, and how much each new employee will cost (health care). In this kind of world, employers will wait as long as possible to add new workers.
Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid were the ghosts whose presence I felt. That trio, assisted by their party, became the architects of what I have been calling the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy since the summer of 2008. That is when they first introduced heavy doses of the very economic uncertainty both Bush and the Journal described. Their irresponsible rhetoric, their punitive policy promises, already profligate spending, and the prospect that they would likely win control of the presidency along with a tighter grip on Congress sent the economy on a downward path that only accelerated after they achieved the control they desired. While the economy is in the early stages of recovering, their legislative agenda, takeover mentality, and regulatory aggression still prevent most prudent employers from hiring.
Pelosi, Obama, and Reid did not control Congress or the presidency when Jeb Bush governed Florida, giving him the flexibility to do what he felt had to be done. But they have been in power during the past year. Look at the economic havoc they have wrought. Has there ever been a time since World War II when businesses have faced more uncertainty and seen less transparency out of Washington? I don’t think so. Give them just a little more time in control and you’ll see Washington giving independent, unfettered thinkers like Kasich and other current and future governors who share his passion for business and job development fits.
I’m told that John Kasich hasn’t yet embraced the idea of asserting states’ Tenth Amendment rights as certain current governors have. You might as well get with the program now, John, because those ghosts will be with you from your first day on the job, and you’ll have to keep them at bay for the state you love to truly turn around.
Thanks Mr. Blumer, this is exactly why the recovery may stal…No Confidence in US Leadership. I see my Industrial customers being very cautious and slow in hiring, even in replacing critical employees!
We need to replace a lot of our Public servants in & out of DC.
On a some what tangential topic, if we don’t rebuild our industrial base, we will eventually collapse. The marxists in this nation deliberately destroyed our industrial base through litigation, regulation, taxation and unionization; therefore we lost many jobs to overseas operations and cheap labor in developing nations. We lost what made us the great economic power house just prior to and after WWII.
And we lost that income stream which supported our dollar. Now as a consumer and service driven economy we only pass dollars around within our own economy. We sell less and less overseas which means at some point our dollars will dry up or beome Zimbabwe-like hyperinflated.
“…they have convinced all too many of the relatively disengaged that we can be the only major power in human history not to take advantage of the abundant natural resources we have and suffer no consequences for it.” Amazingly this is so true. We have let so many jobs and sent so much money overseas because we have acquiesed to the demands of environmentalists and lawyers. We have abundant natural resouces yet they go untouched and now our gas is back over $3/gal. It defies common sense and logic-except for the upside down logic of the marxist.
Stupid is as stupid does and the American public have only themselves to blame.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong but didn’t Jeb Bush lobby against offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
gverdi27, While governor, Jeb Bush did not just lobby against offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, he sought to have a permanent ban on drilling within 150 miles off Florida’s coast. He was worried about “oil spills”. He has since, now that he is out of office and has no executive authority, changed his mind because “drilling technology has advanced”.
Thanks Jeb, when you had the authority and opportunity you acted like a leftist.
This statement,
“We demanded that personal income … had to grow faster than government spending.”
It is not only stupid,but impossible.
Such thinking wrecks an economy because of inflation. Growth would be based on the whim of
congress,and that is a poor choice. Why is congress allowed to do what street thugs cannot?
When you can steal by vote,even hacking and securities fraud look like hard work.
Big companies love the EPA etc… because the rules (that they invented,and lobbied for)
are a effective road block for smaller new competitors.
America died in the riots of the late sixties,what had killed it was the post WWII growth
that people demanded to continue ever onward,ever upward.The flight out out the cities
had happened before, but now with the interstate highway system cities could be bypassed.
The death of railroads are not just because of trucks & interstate, but the density of cities
(people and business) that fed the rail system was changing.Private transportation was
dead,we had become a nation on public system, everyone traveled on roads…public roads.
We had become a bit more free,and thus flee the cities and their problems of crowding,
crime and, excessive (in our view) regulation. Cities had become warehouses of those who
could not flee, it was but a simple task to make a voting bloc of them.
We are a nation of runaways, we escape not to freedom,but to “flee-dom”.I noticed that
when someone moves from the city, they always bring their “city ideas” with them,asking
a town hall to enact such laws that would move their new small town on the path toward the
city they once left.
It is time to stop,turn around and return to cities.We know the math,
eventually there will be no place to run to anymore,the problems can be fixed,it just takes
the will to do so,otherwise we will get the more of the same that we have seen.
Not every city will crumble like Detroit,but slide they will further down.Now is the time,
for if we wait things not only remain the same but may become worse.
If we want to “reclaim” our factories and offices, then to the city we must go.
Your point is excellent with regard to uncertainty. My business partner and I have been in a position of watching and waiting on several fronts over the last 24 months till we see “what they”re going to do.” Uncertainty is much like moisture is to a guy who constructs building foundations. Enduring uncertainty is a challenge in any time, but the degree to which we are presently experiencing it is off the charts. And thus, nothing is happening.
Business will take us out of this mess but not until it is clear in which way the government will incentivize or disincentive behaviors.
In 20 years we will all be working for the government or Chinese and Indian companies
#3 and #4, thank you for that catch.
Although the linked article is archived, there’s enough of a preview to prove your point:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-40463157.html
Unless he changed his mind later, that is a serious blemish on an otherwise good economic record. I wish someone in the audience, myself included, would have known/remembered this so they could have called BS on it when he said what he said.
5. You misunderstand. The objective was to require that government spending grow no faster than personal income. That means, if personal income only rises 3%, government can’t hike spending by more than 3%.