High Gasoline Prices and the 2012 Recession, Part II

October 28, 2012August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 2 Comments

Artificial Demand ::

“Real demand is not artificial. We should resist as much as possible the notion of providing things that are not actually demanded by anyone.” ~ American Consensus

– By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

The price of any product or service is normally determined by two variables, supply and demand. In economics, prices rise as demand increases, as supply decreases, or a combination of the two. It’s only when supply keeps pace with demand that the price of gasoline stabilizes or declines.

Since we know that the world’s population is increasing, not decreasing, more gasoline production is constantly required, not less. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Thus, the only way to reduce gasoline prices, in the face of rising global demand, is through greater production. Yet, U.S. oil production has been on the rise since 2009, while demand has declined. So, why is gasoline stuck above $3.25 a gallon?

Was there suddenly a great demand for solar panels, biofuels, windmills and electric cars in 2009? The answer is no. Do cars and trucks run on solar panels and wind turbines? The answer is no. Yet, the 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion in deficit financing to subsidize politically preferred green energy projects, which had little or no demand at the time. In fact, there is little demand for such products today. What the world demanded in 2009 is the same thing it demands today, more gasoline. So why is the federal government involved in providing things that are not actually demanded by anyone?

According to the Energy Information Administration, global oil consumption declined slightly in 2008, 2009 and 2010, while global supply has kept pace with demand (see chart above). In 2010, global supply actually exceeded demand, but as of 2011, the latest statistics available, world demand set a new record of 87,421,000 barrels per day, up from 83,412,000 in 2010. Yet global supply has kept pace with demand. So why have U.S. gasoline prices climbed by more than 90% since January 2009? The answer doesn’t involve oil supply and demand, it has to do with the decline of the U.S. dollar.

The purchasing power of the consumer dollar has declined by 24.3% since 2001 (see chart below). The dollar actually strengthened for a brief 5-month period, from September 2008 to January 2009, but then resumed its decline, having fallen by 8.9% since January 2011. What happened to the price of gasoline during the five-month’s that the dollar strengthened? It declined dramatically, from $3.72 a gallon to $1.64 (see Part I). And what happened to the price of gasoline after January 2011? It shot past the $3.25 per gallon breaking point, where it remains today.

What caused the dollar to decline? The U.S. monetary base, the total amount of a currency that is either circulated in the hands of the public or in the commercial bank deposits held in the central bank’s reserves, has increased by 324.2% since 2001. The money base grew from $616.7 billion in 2001, to $2.6 trillion as of September 2012. You can see in the chart below, that $256 billion of this increase occurred between January 2001 and September 2008. But from September 2008 to January 2009 the monetary base increased by $858 billion. However, this initial increase actually strengthened the dollar, and was, evidentially, the precise temporary stimulus needed at the time. The only problem with this brilliant strategy was that it wasn’t temporary.

Instead of winding down at the end of January 2009, what had been a well timed temporary stimulus was unfortunately doubled. Since then, the monetary base has been jacked up by another $886 billion. Instead of a temporary stimulus, what we wound up with was a permanent doubling-down of the original amount. Is this what the economy needed? What was the result? This time instead of strengthening, the purchasing power of the dollar plummeted.

Thus, by the time Barack Obama was inaugurated, the economy had already received the temporary stimulus it required. How do we know? The proof is the decline in the price of gasoline, to near its historic inflation adjusted norm of $1.73 a gallon (see Part I). But ever since then, the price of gas has risen from $1.88 to $3.65. That’s the proof. What we have witnessed during the Obama Administration has been reckless and unnecessary deficit-financed spending, which not only added six-months to the Great Recession, but has lead to a prolonged period of stagnation.

The Federal Reserve should have started reducing the monetary base in February 2009, but was unable to, due to the Barack Obama’s unprecedented $832 billion stimulus plan. In addition, as a result of Mr. Obama’s $1 trillion-plus annual budget deficits for the past four consecutive years, instead of being able to control the money base, the Fed has been forced into the unlimited printing of dollars, vis-à-vis QE3.

Based on the current trajectory, what we can expect with another four years of Barack Obama is a continued decline in the purchasing power of the dollar, and higher gasoline prices, in spite of improved U.S. supply and falling demand. The problem with high gasoline prices is they lead to recessions, while lower prices foster economic expansion. The target price for gasoline is the 1992 inflation adjusted price, $1.86 a gallon. The current price is $3.65.

In the midst of the Great Recession, the average price of gasoline only exceeded the breaking point ($3.25 a gallon) for a total of 31 weeks. In contrast, the current price has remained above the breaking point for a total of 86 consecutive weeks, from February 28, 2011 to present. What does that tell you? It leads me to believe that the U.S. is currently in recession. The cause: Inflation due to excessive money printing, necessitated as the result of an $832 billion stimulus, and unprecedented trillion dollar budget deficits due to Barack Obama’s inability to govern. Is there a witness?

One month ago, the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI), the same organization which successfully predicted the last recession, and which over the last 15 years has gotten all of its recession calls right while issuing no false alarms, declared that the U.S. is in recession. In an article entitled, The 2012 Recession: Are We There Yet?, ECRI stated, “Back in December, we went on to specify the time frame for it [the recession] to begin: if not by the first quarter of the year, then by mid-2012. But we also said at the time that the recession would not be evident before the end of the year. In other words, nine months ago we knew that, sitting here today, most people probably would not realize that we are in recession – and we do believe we are in recession.”

The policies of Barack Obama didn’t deliver us from the Great Recession, they prolonged it. The $832 billion stimulus plan merely created an artificial demand for U.S. dollars, and is directly responsible for re-inflating the same imbalances that existed prior to the recession. How can we tell whether or not we’re better off than we were four years ago? Well, here’s what’s different today. We are more than $16 trillion in debt, 25 million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed, instead of reducing the money base the Federal Reserve is printing more money to purchase mortgage-backed debt on an unlimited basis, our tax and regulatory structure is mired in uncertainty, we are suffering from a foreign policy meltdown, and the price of gasoline has remained over $3.25 for a record 86 consecutive weeks.

The Obama Administration has done everything in its power to hide the truth from us, but we’re just not going to take it anymore. Americans can take a lot, but one thing we won’t tolerate is government officials who try to deceive us. The federal government can easily manipulate unemployment statistics, since the numbers are basically made-up anyway, but it cannot so easily engineer the price of gasoline. To do so would entail releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is in place to mitigate national emergencies, not sway elections.

Four years of Barack Obama’s policies solved nothing. We are currently teetering somewhere between back where we started from, to worse off than we have ever been. And with a looming fiscal cliff, another four years of Obama will only make things worse. America can’t take another four years of trifling rhetoric, high gasoline prices, or another government-prolonged recession. It’s time to wash our hands of the Obama Administration, and time to turn toward mature, experienced, and responsible leadership. You know what time it is!

“A lie hides the truth. A story tries to find it.” ~ Paula Fox

Reference:

Weekly U.S. All Grades Conventional Retail Gasoline Prices | U.S. Energy Information Administration

The 2012 Recession: Are We There Yet? | Economic Cycle Research Institute

The Malaise of 2012 | Part IV

High Gasoline Prices and the 2012 Recession, Part I

October 28, 2012August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

Truth is not easily hidden.

– By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

Conventional retail gasoline averaged $3.65 a gallon in the most recent week ended October 22, 2012, yet when Barack Obama was sworn into office the price averaged $1.88. When questioned about the 94.2% increase which occurred on his watch, Mr. Obama remarked that the reason gasoline prices were so low when he entered office was because the U.S.was “in the middle of an economic depression.” However, the question wasn’t why prices were so low when he entered office, but rather why they ballooned by 94.2% on his watch. We’re still awaiting his answer.

In the second presidential debate, Barack Obama stated that, “oil imports are at the lowest levels in 16 years.” But as I pointed out in Debate 2 | Obama’s Oil & Gas Rhetoric, the gasoline I need to fill my tank only cost an average of $1.23 a gallon in 1996, the equivalent of $1.81 today. And later in the same debate, Obama proclaimed that, “oil imports are down to the lowest levels in 20 years.” Well, which is it Mr. President? I pointed out in the same post, that the 1992 price of regular unleaded averaged $1.13 per gallon, the equivalent of $1.86 today. Is the price of gasoline $1.81 to $1.86 today? No. So then what was Obama’s point?

Are we supposed to believe that it took an economic depression to bring gasoline prices down to $1.88 in the week ended January 19, 2009, when that would actually have been higher than the average inflation adjusted price of $1.73 at that time? I don’t know what that tells you, but it tells me that gas prices were in a bubble before the Great Recession, a bubble which finally burst during month 8 of the 19-month downturn. High gasoline prices were actually one of the factors leading to the Great Recession, the subsequent decline merely brought prices in-line with the historic norm.

If this is true, then hasn’t the price of gasoline been in the midst of another bubble since 2011 (see chart below)? And if a bubble currently exists, does that mean the U.S. is either in or near recession? To know the answers, we must venture back in time and analyze what actually took place prior to the Great Recession. The following analysis focuses on all grades of conventional retail gasoline.

Gasoline Prices and the 2001 Recession

Gasoline prices generally rise during the first six months of the year, and fall during the remainder. The 2001 recession began in March and ended in November, as indicated by the first shaded area in the chart above. Going back to January 1, 2001, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we find that conventional grades were selling for an average of $1.42 per gallon. Once the recession commenced prices peaked at $1.70 in May, before the normal seasonal decline. But due to the recession, followed by a post-911 reduction in demand, prices continued to fall reaching a low of $1.08 by the week ending December 18, 2001. This represented a decline from the peak of roughly 36%, over 32 weeks.

Based on the 1992 price per gallon of $1.13, the 2001 equivalent price should have been $1.43 (as represented by the solid blue line). Due to the recession, gasoline prices temporarily declined below the inflation adjusted level, but would eventually regain equilibrium, reaching $1.46 towards the end of 2002. All in all, gasoline prices remained at or near equilibrium between 2001 and 2003. It was in 2004 when prices began to spin hopelessly out of control. The reason for the subsequent price hike was initially blamed on a significant number of refineries being offline, and later by rising crude oil prices.

Prior to the Great Recession, a record high of $3.25 per gallon was set in the week ended May 21, 2007. The chart above contains a green dashed-horizontal line at the breaking point, the pre-Great Recession record of $3.25 a gallon. The solid blue line represents the annual inflation adjusted price of 1992 gasoline. Although gas prices may currently be on the decline, until they dip below $3.25 a recession threat remains. At the same time, any price above $1.86 is not optimal. So where are we today?

Gasoline Prices and the Great Recession

The Great Recession commenced in December of 2007. At the time, gasoline was averaging $3.03 per gallon, but within the first eight months the price would set a new record of $4.10 per gallon in the weeks ending July 7 and July 14, 2008 (see chart above). But then something phenomenal happened. From the peak, prices declined to $3.17, or to below the $3.25 breaking point within just 14 weeks. And prices continued to fall all the way to a low of $1.64 by the week ending December 29, 2008, within another 11 weeks. So from peak to trough, gasoline prices declined by 60% in just 25 weeks, a notable difference from the 36% decline over 32 weeks at the end of the 2001 recession.

After the 2001 recession prices remained relatively stable for two years, but that wasn’t the case with the Great Recession. This time, when prices hit bottom the recession wasn’t over. It probably should have been over at that point, and perhaps it would, had it not been for artificial demand, induced by an unprecedented amount of deficit-financed government intervention. By the time the Great Recession ended, the price of conventional gasoline had risen from a bottom of $1.64 to $2.64. So from an early Great Recession surge to $4.10, prices finally flushed out at $2.64.

To summarize, during the Great Recession, gasoline prices rose by 35% before declining by 36%. By comparison, during the 2001 recession, prices rose by 20% before declining by 36%. That seems fairly harmless on its own, but what’s missing is the fact that gasoline prices doubled, from $1.50 to $3.08, during the previous recovery, between January 2004 and December 2007. That’s the key. There’s the bubble. So what was the cause?

According to information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there was a notable rise in U.S. petroleum demand, and a corresponding decline in U.S. supply from 2004 to 2007, as indicated by the shaded area in the chart below. In fact, the phenomenon of rising demand and declining supply actually commenced in 1986.

A quick study of the chart leads to two questions. Is the U.S. currently producing more oil than it did in 1985? The answer is no. Is the U.S. consuming more petroleum than it did in 1985? The answer is yes. Yet in 2009 there was a noticeable decline in demand and a corresponding uptick in supply, the combination of which contributed to lower prices at the pump. And, it appears that U.S. oil supply is continuing to trend upward, while demand has leveled off. So since demand is stable and supply is increasing, gasoline prices should be dropping like a rock, but instead we have witnessed a 94.2% price increase since January 20, 2009.

So was Obama right to blame the 94.2% price hike, on what he refers to as the extraordinarily low prices he inherited as a result of an economic depression? No, because by inauguration day the price of gasoline had settled right about where it should have, on an inflation adjusted basis. Recall that in 1992 the price of regular unleaded gasoline was $1.13 per gallon, which would have been equivalent to $1.73 in 2009; and the national average was $1.64 on December 29, 2008, and $1.88 on January 19, 2009. Thus, at that time, the price of gasoline was barely above its inflation adjusted value (see the first chart).

Going back to the original question, the reason prices have risen on Obama’s watch has nothing to do with supply and demand. The root cause is unprecedented government intervention vis-à-vis his $832 billion stimulus plan (see Part II). The stimulus program merely re-inflated a price bubble that existed prior to the recession, the first caused by lack of supply, and the second by devaluation of the dollar. It was this artificial deficit-financed demand that caused gasoline prices to rise from the $1.88 he inherited to $2.64 by the end of the recession, so that by June of 2009, gasoline was only 19% below its pre-recession record of $3.25.

Gasoline would remain below $3.00 from June 2009, until the week ending December 27, 2010. It was during this period that the economy showed its most promising signs of recovery. But ever since then, the price of gasoline has never fallen below $3.00. Instead, in the week ended February 28, 2011 the price once again accelerated past the $3.25 breaking point, where it has remained for the last 86 consecutive weeks.

With regard to 2010 being the end of the Obama recovery, the proof is that Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) contracted by -3.1% in the year 2009, as gasoline prices surged from $1.64 to $2.62. Then in 2010, GDP grew by 2.4% as prices stabilized and remained below $3.00. But economic growth again slowed to a rate of 1.8% in 2011, as prices climbed above $3.25. GDP further slowed to a growth rate of just 1.3% through the second-quarter 2012, as gas prices remained above $3.25.

Note: The third-quarter 2012 advance estimate that GDP grew by 2.0% is just that, an estimate. In fact, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, “the third-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency. The “second” estimate for the third quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on November 29, 2012.”

Continued: High Gasoline Prices and the 2012 Recession, Part II

Reference:

Weekly U.S. All Grades Conventional Retail Gasoline Prices | U.S. Energy Information Administration

The 2012 Recession: Are We There Yet? | Economic Cycle Research Institute

The Malaise of 2012 | Part IV

Photo Via: Midwest Energy News

Debate 2 | Obama’s Oil & Gas Rhetoric

October 18, 2012August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

Forget Fact Checking: Where’s the Logic?

– By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

In a real town hall meeting, the person asking a question gets to follow up. What we saw Tuesday night wasn’t a town hall meeting at all. The readers appeared to be simply mouthing someone else’s prearranged questions. There wasn’t any passion. But what if the public was allowed to retort? Following are my thoughts on the lecture Barack Obama provided in response to the second question, a rather simple one which he has yet to answer.

QUESTION: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?

OBAMA: The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years.

Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment. But what I’ve also said is we can’t just produce traditional source of energy. We’ve also got to look to the future. That’s why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. That means that in the middle of the next decade, any car you buy, you’re going to end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas. That’s why we doubled clean — clean energy production like wind and solar and biofuels.

So by the middle of the next decade, or around the year 2025, if I’m in the new car buying market at the time, I’ll be able to go twice as far on a gallon of gas. But, since a gallon of gas today costs more than twice what it did four years ago, we’re already at net zero. Mr. President, I was talking about today, right now, not 13 years from now or sometime after I’m dead and gone. And what exactly do coal, wind and solar have to do with the price of gasoline? Retail gasoline prices are sitting at a national average of $3.77 a gallon, just $0.33 off the all time high of $4.10 set in July 2008 (see chart above).

And all these things have contributed to us lowering our oil imports to the lowest levels in 16 years. Now, I want to build on that. And that means, yes, we still continue to open up new areas for drilling. We continue to make it a priority for us to go after natural gas. We’ve got potentially 600,000 jobs and 100 years worth of energy right beneath our feet with natural gas.

Oil imports may be at the lowest levels in 16 years, but the gasoline I need to fill up my tank only cost an average of $1.23 a gallon in 1996, which would be equivalent to around $1.81 today, yet I’m paying around $4.00. Is the reason gasoline cost so much today perhaps the result of fewer imports? And as far as natural gas goes, can I fill up my tank with that tomorrow morning?

And we can do it in an environmentally sound way. But we’ve also got to continue to figure out how we have efficiency energy, because ultimately that’s how we’re going to reduce demand and that’s what’s going to keep gas prices lower.

We can drill for oil in an environmentally sound way? What does that mean? And what do you mean by ultimately reducing demand? How far away is that, longer than four years? Although it’s true that less demand can result in lower prices, it only works if supply remains constant or increases. But if both supply and demand are cut at the same time, then consumers won’t realize any price change at all. And if demand declines too rapidly, then many suppliers may be forced out of business. And then what will we do?

[The price P of a product is determined by a balance between production at each price (supply S) and the desires of those with purchasing power at each price (demand D). The diagram shows a positive shift in demand from D1 to D2, resulting in an increase in price (P) and quantity sold (Q) of the product.]

Now, Governor Romney will say he’s got an all-of-the-above plan, but basically his plan is to let the oil companies write the energy policies. So he’s got the oil and gas part, but he doesn’t have the clean energy part. And if we are only thinking about tomorrow or the next day and not thinking about 10 years from now, we’re not going to control our own economic future. Because China, Germany, they’re making these investments. And I’m not going to cede those jobs of the future to those countries. I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States.

Mr. President, I don’t need you to tell me what Governor Romney’s plan is, he can do that himself. The question was: Do you agree with Secretary Chu that it’s not the job of the Energy Department to help lower gas prices? So it seems your answer is that I need to be thinking about 10 years from now, and forget about how I’m going to get to and from work today, tomorrow, next week, or even four years from now. I see. And you’re willing to cede the jobs of the present in hopes that jobs of the future will be based on your present day policies, which for all we know might be considered archaic a month from now.

That’s going to help Jeremy get a job. It’s also going to make sure that you’re not paying as much for gas.

What’s going to help Jeremy get a job, a policy geared to kick in by the middle of the next decade? In the meantime I guess poor Jeremy will have to get by on two or three McJobs, and hope he makes enough to cover the cost of getting to and from work. So is that it? Are you finished?

CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me just see if I can move you to the gist of this question, which is, are we looking at the new normal? I can tell you that tomorrow morning, a lot of people in Hempstead will wake up and fill up and they will find that the price of gas is over $4 a gallon. Is it within the purview of the government to bring those prices down, or are we looking at the new normal?

OBAMA: Candy, there’s no doubt that world demand’s gone up, but our production is going up, and we’re using oil more efficiently. And very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We’ve opened up public lands. We’re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration and my — the previous president was an oil man.

Wait, so world oil demand and our production are going up? But you just said that our ultimate goal is to reduce demand in order to keep gas prices lower. So if the supply and demand of oil is going up, and you’re drilling more than the last administration, then how is this achieving your goal? And actually very little of what you just said is true. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration production of finished motor gasoline is trending downward, not up (see chart above). Maybe this is why gasoline prices are hovering near historic highs? After all, we’re not talking about jet fuel and diesel, are we?

And natural gas isn’t just appearing magically. We’re encouraging it and working with the industry.

Can I fill up my car with natural gas tomorrow morning? Because if I could, that would truly be magical.

And when I hear Governor Romney say he’s a big coal guy, I mean, keep in mind, when — Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, “This plant kills,” and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal.

Maybe Romney’s a big champion of jobs, unlike you Mr. President. At least he’s got a plan to create 12 million jobs in four years to eliminate the current jobs deficit. Where’s yours?

So what I’ve tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology, to make sure that even as we’re producing more coal, we’re producing it cleaner and smarter. Same thing with oil, same thing with natural gas.

Yeah, consistently wrong. The question wasn’t about coal, clean coal or natural gas, you we’re specifically asked to comment on the Energy Departments role in keeping gasoline prices affordable.

And the proof is our oil imports are down to the lowest levels in 20 years. Oil production is up, natural gas production is up, and, most importantly, we’re also starting to build cars that are more efficient.

So now you’re saying that oil imports are down to the lowest levels in 20 years. A minute ago you said 16 years. Let’s see, so that would be 1992, right? In 1992 the price of regular unleaded gasoline averaged $1.13 per gallon, which would be equivalent to $1.86 today. So if oil production is up, oil imports are down, and they’re building more efficient cars, then why am I still paying close to $4.00 a gallon at the pump?

And that’s creating jobs. That means those cars can be exported, ’cause that’s the demand around the world, and it also means that it’ll save money in your pocketbook.

So by producing more efficient cars, America will someday be able to export them to Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Greece, Spain and such, and this will create jobs and save money in my pocketbook. Well, that’s interesting, albeit illogical.

First of all, switching over from the production of less efficient to more efficient cars doesn’t add any net jobs, because as new jobs are created, old ones are destroyed. It’s at best a zero sum game, and perhaps even worse looking at the latest green energy failure. The electric-car battery producer, A123 Systems, Inc. filed for bankruptcy just hours ahead of your wishful thought. How many is that? Looks like around 16 so far, see

Obama’s List Of Failed Green Energy Jobs & Companies.

Secondly, as far as saving money in my pocketbook, what’s a pocketbook? It seems that you’re either talking about something way off in the distant future, or the archaic past, but the question pertains to right now, today, within my lifetime.

OBAMA: That’s the strategy you need, an all-of-the-above strategy, and that’s what we’re going to do in the next four years.

No Mr. President, that’s not the strategy I need. What I need is for gasoline prices to drop by at least half of where they are today. So do you agree with Secretary Chu that it’s not the job of the Energy Department to help lower gasoline prices or not? Will gasoline prices be half what they are today if you get reelected, or twice as high? Oh never mind, I’m leaning heavily towards the other guy anyway. I can make sense out of Romney’s policies, but as for yours, the record speaks for itself.

References:

Presidential Debate Full Transcript | ABC News

U.S. Energy Information Administration

A123 Bankruptcy Gives Romney New Example of Green-Energy ‘Loser’

Obama’s List Of Failed Green Energy Jobs & Companies!!!

U.S. Jobs Deficit Improves by 1,000 in September

Newt Gingrich on Amnesty | In his own words

November 23, 2011 / L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

Updated: During the CNN GOP National Security Debate on 11/22/2011, Newt Gingrich recommended a comprehensive approach to address illegal immigration. Just for the record, what Mr. Gingrich really said about Amnesty follows:

Mr. Gingrich said that any such plan must (A) start with securing the border, then (B) establishing a guest worker program, and finally (C) setting up a board to review the status of each person here illegally. Such a board would distinguish between those who recently came here, and those who are more established. He said that those who recently came here, who don’t have family ties, or are otherwise not established, should be sent home. While those who are established, who have been here for 25 years or more, who have children and grandchildren in America, who belong to churches, who have obeyed the laws, and who have paid their taxes, should be allowed to stay legally, but not automatically granted citizenship. For the latter, he recommended using something similar to the Red Card Solution, which would be used as a form of identification, to grant legality, but not as a path towards citizenship.

The Krieble Foundation’s Red Card Solution is a proposal which would allow companies to recruit workers from Mexico. The Red Card would permit workers to enter America, and would allow employers and immigration authorities to track them. It would aid in enforcement of immigration laws, with less intrusion by the government. According to the Krieble Foundation:

“It’s a simple solution. Private employment agencies would be allowed to open offices in foreign countries, and authorized to issue temporary non-citizen worker permits. The permits would be “smart cards” with a microchip that includes a photograph, fingerprint or other biometric identification data, and information needed so that border agents, police, and employers could swipe the card and know who the holder is, where he works, where he lives, who issued the permit, when it expires, and any other required information. Employment agencies would be licensed by the government and would be required to run criminal background checks before issuing non-citizen worker permits, much like gun shops do today. Employers would simply post jobs with employment agencies like they do today. Best of all, the program would be funded by user fees, not taxpayers.”

Gingrich also recommended that H1 Visas be granted with every graduate degree in math, science and engineering, to encourage foreign students to stay in America.

For the most part, I concur.

Health Insurance Co-Ops vs. Government-Run Health Insurance

September 12, 2009August 18, 2017 / L. M. Walker / Leave a comment

* More Honest Debate *

By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

What is a Cooperative (Co-Op)? *

A Cooperative is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit. A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it.

There are many types of Co-Ops in the United States. I will attempt to address some of the most common cooperatives. If you belong to a credit union, you are already a member of a Co-Op. My electric and natural gas utility company is an EMC, another word for Co-Op. In the insurance industry, Co-Ops are called Mutual Companies, or Mutual Legal Reserves.

Credit Unions are owned by their members. When you join, you must establish a share account and maintain a minimum balance. Your share account is your capital investment in the company. You are paid ‘dividends’ on your savings and checking accounts. Dividends are your share of the Credit Union’s profits. A Credit Union offers benefits for its members such as preference on home and automobile loans.

An Electric Membership Corporation (EMC) is a service cooperative owned by those who receive its services. There are nearly 1,000 electric cooperatives in the United States. When the EMC makes a profit, those profits are shared with customers through credits to their electric bills, or lower rates.

Health Insurance Co-Ops

Health Care Services Corporation (HCSC) is the largest customer owned health insurer in the United States.

HCSC operates the Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, employing 17,000 people and serving more than 12.4 million members – 38% in national employer plans, 32% in large local employer plans, 10% in small employer plans, 10% in individual plans and 10% in government plans.

HCSC is the fourth largest health insurance company in the United States and the largest customer-owned health insurer. In 2008, the company’s gross revenue totaled $39.9 billion (considering all subsidiaries which are not included in the chart below in accordance with GAAP).
HCSC is the most financially secure health insurer in the United States, with a rating of AA- (Very Strong) from Standard and Poor’s, Aa3 (Excellent) from Moody’s and A+ (Superior) from A.M. Best Co.
HCSC retains full or joint ownership of a number of subsidiary companies, including Fort Dearborn Life Insurance Co., Dental Network of America, MEDecision, Availity, Prime Therapeutics and RealMed.

If the HCSC model is the type of Health Insurance Co-Op being discussed in Congress, then I am a fan. Yes. Here is an idea that would have strong bi-partisan support. We can agree on Health Insurance Co-Ops. In my opinion Co-Ops are in line with the purest sense of Capitalism. On the other hand, if Congress is talking about some kind of partially Government owned, or Government controlled entity, then I am not in favor.

In fact, I would like to join HCSC, or a similar Co-Op, but unfortunately it only operates in 4 states, and none of the health insurers in my state are co-ops. Fostering increased competition by allowing insurers to operate in all states would be an improvement.

The Plan

So if America wants to convert its health insurance industry to Co-Ops, the question is how? Obviously, it would be unfair, and foolish, to force the existing insurers out of business, so how do you get them to convert?

I am a proponent of Binary Economics. Under Binary Economics, the only role of Government in private enterprise is to offer interest-free loans through its central bank. Existing publicly traded insurers will need to buy back all of their stock in order to make the conversion to mutual companies. Interest free loans from the Government will facilitate this conversion. The loans will be paid back over the long-term out of the profits of the insurers. Once the loans have been paid, the insured will be able to participate in a larger share of company profits. Profits will be shared with policy holders either in the form of dividends, or lower insurance rates.

Interest free loans are not hand-outs, or bailouts. The money gets paid back. Granting interest free loans would be a much better use of taxpayers money than the current foolishness being promoted by certain ‘linear’ thinkers (right and left). The World is not flat. In fact, most good ideas come from outside of the box.

Reforms I can believe in:

Conversion of the Health Insurance Industry to Co-Ops
Tort Reform
Fostering Interstate Commerce for increased competition
No denial for preexisting conditions
Tax Incentives for those paying higher premiums due to preexisting conditions
Tax incentives for purchasing health insurance
Portability of policies

Reforms I don’t believe in:

Making health insurance mandatory
Taxing employers who don’t offer insurance
Expanding Government-Run health care
Excessive Government Regulation
Triggers

click images to enlarge

Sources:

http://www.hcsc.com/about-hcsc/overview.html

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutualcompany.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-op

http://www.waltonemc.com/mycoop/

https://blackandcenter.blog/2009/09/02/government-run-vs-private-health-insurance/

Government-Run vs. Private Health Insurance

September 2, 2009August 11, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

The table above was revised on 08/30/09.

click image to enlarge

Government-Run vs. Private Health Insurance

More Honest Debate

First of all, 60% of private sector health insurance providers are non-profits who must by law disclose their records to the public. You can find their tax returns online including information about programs, and compensation.

Most of the remaining companies are publicly traded and by law must file 10K and 10Q reports with the SEC. Their financial information and compensation information is also available online on various websites.

Information on government-run health insurance programs (i.e. The Public Option) may also be found online. The Social Security Administration issues an annual Trust Fund report. (Note: Both public trustee positions are still vacant.)

In comparing the three types, it is clear that something is wrong with the federal government. I have to disclose that I did not include the funds that Medicare obtains from general government revenues, above, because this money comes directly from income taxes.

Medicare Part A is funded primarily by payroll taxes assessed on an individual’s total wages. Medicare B and D is funded primarily by premiums charged to Social Security recipients (which I might add is kind of redundant).

To be brief: For-profits are by necessity in the black. On the other hand, government-run insurance is in the tank. In fact, Medicare is projected to exhaust it’s assets by 2017 according to the 2009 Annual Trustees Report.

So I ask this question. Who is better qualified to manage health insurance: ‘government workers’ in Washington, DC or the Private Sector? I think you know the answer.

Solution: With proper regulation and oversight, turn over Medicare, and Social Security to the Private Sector. Bigger government is not the solution, it’s the problem.

[Update: Expanded table and updated sources on 08/30/09]

Sources:

Getting Honest About Social Security – Part 3

August 25, 2009August 11, 2017 / L. M. Walker / 3 Comments

We begin with the Congressional Budget Office’s Estimate of the President’s Budget (above). Why wait until tomorrow? It’s on the CBO’s website at http://cbo.gov/?

You will recall from Part 2, that entitlement spending (aka mandatory spending) is comprised of the following:

Entitlement Spending, at $1.595 trillion in FY 2008, is over half of the U.S. Federal Budget. The largest entitlement spending programs based on FY 2006 were Social Security and Medicare, as follows:

Social Security – $544 billion
Medicare – $325 billion
Medicaid – $186 billion
All other mandatory programs – $357 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the blind and disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement / Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military

In FY 2009 and 2010 alone, entitlement spending is projected to exceed government revenue by some $290 billion. So the United States is facing a budget deficit, in just two years, before spending one dime on our defense, education, veterans pensions, and other vital programs. And this wasn’t supposed to happen for another 31 years?

Is anyone still seriously considering dumping another $1 trillion dollars into this government-run ponzi scheme?

Obama said he wanted an ‘honest debate’ on his health care proposal. Well, here’s the problem. We can’t afford to waste another dollar on some misguided government program, no matter how noble. Social Security is little more than a government-run Ponzi Scheme. Medicare is only 1/2 funded by premiums. Isn’t Medicare an example of government-run health care?

What kind of health insurance company would only collect 1/2 of what it spends on claims year-after-year, after year? I’ll tell you. A government-run health insurance company. Like that commercial says Mr. president, “You Need A Plan!”

Solutions abound, but what Obama is proposing isn’t one of them.

To even begin an ‘honest’ discussion on Social Security, Medicare, Government Option Health Care, or any other ‘reform’ proposed by ‘government workers’, you first need to get honest with the public, and then your proposals had better include the following:

Reductions in government spending
Reductions in government programs
Privatization of government entitlement programs
Budget balancing initiatives
Incentives for private investment
Incentives for private business growth
Incentives for private job creation
and, Policies that promote individual liberty

Getting Honest About Social Security – Part 2

August 23, 2009October 14, 2018 / L. M. Walker / Leave a comment

What are Entitlements?

Entitlement Spending, at $1.412 trillion in FY 2006, is over half of the U.S. Federal Budget. The largest entitlement spending programs are Social Security and Medicare, as follows:

Social Security – $544 billion
Medicare – $325 billion
Medicaid – $186 billion
All other mandatory programs – $357 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the blind and disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement / Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military

How Is Social Security Funded?

Social Security is funded through payroll taxes. Through 2017, Social Security collects more in tax revenues than it pays out in benefits because there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary. However, as Baby Boomers start to retire and draw down these benefits, there will be fewer workers to support them. By 2040, the revenues to pay for Social Security will be less than the expenditures.

How Is Medicare Funded?

Unlike Social Security, Medicare payroll taxes and premiums cover only 57% of current benefits. The remaining 43% is financed from general revenues (i.e. including any surplus remaining from Social Security). Because of rising health care costs, general revenues will have to pay for 62% of Medicare costs by 2030.

Medicare has two sections:

The Medicare Part A Hospital Insurance program, which collects enough payroll taxes to pay current benefits.
Medicare Part B, the Supplementary Medical Insurance program, and Part D, the new drug benefit, which is only covered by premium payments and general tax revenues.

How Will the FY 2008 Budget on Entitlement Spending Affect the U.S. Economy?

Through 2012, entitlement spending is budgeted at about 10.5% of GDP, with payroll tax revenue at about 6.5% of GDP, so that these unfunded obligations add to the general budget deficit. For example, in FY 2006 Social Security brought in $608 billion in “off-budget,” extra funds from payroll taxes. However, other entitlement programs had expenses that far outweighed this “extra” revenue, creating a mini-deficit of $574 billion within the entitlement spending budget alone. The amount increases to $784 billion by 2012.

Long-term Impacts

Long-term, however, the impact of doing nothing about these burgeoning unfunded mandates will be huge. The first Baby-Boomer turns 62 this year, and becomes eligible to retire on Social Security benefits. By 2025, those aged 65+ will comprise 20% of the population.

As Boomers leave the work-force and apply for benefits, three things happen:

The percentage of the labor under 55 stops growing, providing less payroll taxes to fund Social Security.
GDP growth declines to less than 2% due to fewer workers.
By 2040, Social Security alone brings in less than it spends.

Getting Honest

Obama has stated that any further debate on his health care reform proposals needs to be “honest debate”. He implies that critics have been dishonest, which means we’re just lying.

In looking at the facts above, one need only ask the following question:

Are the budgetary problems facing ‘government workers’ in Washington, DC caused by the private sector, or by the government?

Obama wants to overthrow the private health insurance industry and fold it into a government run entitlement. Yet, the federal government has proven itself incapable of managing its current programs. How is adding more of the burden to the government going to resolve the baby boomer issue?

With all due respect, as a wise man once stated, “government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.”

What we need to be discussing is a way to turn over the government’s primary entitlements: Social Security and Medicare to the private sector, not the other way around. If not, the next thing ‘government workers’ will be proposing is how they can fold State, and private pension money into the black hole of the Social Security Ponzi Fund.

Obama’s solution: Solve a problem by compounding it. “We have to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt.”

American’s are simply saying, “No”.

Getting Honest About Social Security – Part 1

August 23, 2009October 14, 2018 / L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

Reality

The maximum social security benefit for 2009 for a person retiring at full retirement age (66) is $2,323. This is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21.

Analysis based on maximum benefits:

The total paid into the system by, or on behalf of, the recipient by the age of 66 is $266,377 ($235,042 of this since 1980).

The total paid in by the age of 66 with 3% compound annual interest is $394,785.

By the age of 74, the recipient will receive a full return of the amount paid in on their behalf without interest.

By the age of 77, the recipient will receive a full return of the amount paid in on their behalf with interest compounded at 3% annually.

Assuming the funds continue to receive a return of 3% through the annuity phase, the funds would last up to the age of 80.

So by the age of 74 the total paid in by the recipient plus amounts matched by employers are exhausted. If the government were able to achieve a meager 3% rate of return, the total savings at the time of retirement would be exhausted by the age of 77. Assuming a 3% return on investment during the annuity phase, the funds should last through the age of 80.

However, in reality, the average monthly benefit for social security recipients is only $1,061 per month or $12,732 per year in 2009. There are currently some 51.8 million recipients receiving some $55.0 billion in benefits each month.

Dishonesty

The only problem and it is a major problem, in fact it is a problem many times worse than the alleged health care crisis, is the fact that the government has stolen the Social Security Trust Fund. There is no trust fund. There are ‘no’ dollars in savings for the government to invest and receive even a meager 3% return. Every dollar paid into the fund this month will be spent this month, and then some.

Worse than that, the Federal Government has run up a National Debt of $11 trillion, and intends to increase this debt by another $9 trillion over the next 10 years. With the peak of baby boomers hitting retirement age in 2019, a $20 trillion National Debt, longer life expectancy, and a smaller workforce, how are politicians going to be able to keep this “ponzi” scheme going?

Honesty

It is clear to me that Washington, DC cannot be trusted with taxpayer’s money. We need to get the Federal Government the heck out of the retirement business. And don’t even talk to me about letting the government take over health care. I’m not hearing it.

We need to work on solutions that will allow American citizens to save for their own retirement, and to be able to pay for their own health care. At the same time, we have to figure out how to untangle ourselves from this massive ponzi scheme which politicians have gotten us into.

As far as I’m concerned, any solution that involves spending another dollar of taxpayer’s money better include a detailed cost benefit analysis. Any solution to the problems of our time that doesn’t involve drastic cuts in spending by the federal government is not a solution.

To even begin an honest discussion on social security, Medicare, health care or any other political issue being discussed these days, ‘government workers’ had better get honest with the public, and their proposals had better include the following: