The United States has taken a lot of flack for not joining the Kyoto Treaty and the Bush Administration has taken a lot of heat from Democrats for not passing the treaty. While I believe more needs to be done to preserve the environment, I was convinced in 1998 by arguments from the Democrats, not Republicans that Kyoto was bad for America. So, let us set the record straight on this issue.
It is true that President Bush has never submitted the Kyoto Treaty to the Senate for ratification, however, the question really should be, why didn't Bill Clinton do it since the treaty was signed late in 1998 and was able to be submitted to the Senate for ratification while he was still a sitting President and while Al Gore was still the sitting Vice President and President of the Senate? That's a good question, with a relatively simple answer. EVERYONE was against it. Even though Al Gore did symbolically sign the treaty, before it was signed, but after it was finalized, the U.S. Senate did in fact vote on the treaty. Although it was not a ratification vote, the vote was 95-0 (see the results of the vote here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm
.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205), which is as unanimous as the Senate ever gets on something. The resolution they voted on was S.Res. 98 which stated that the "United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". This is stunning. Even though the Senate passed a resolution NOT to sign the treaty by a vote of 95-0 because it was a flawed treaty, the Vice President signed it anyway. Well, I guess the people of this country have been lied to in regards to Kyoto. The lie is that Republicans and President Bush don't support a good treaty when in fact, the only supporter of the treaty was Vice President Al Gore. The Senate unanimously voted against it and President Clinton didn't even see fit to present it to the Senate for ratification. There's the truth. EVERYONE WAS AGAINST IT! Now, what is so bad about the treaty?
When asked directly about the treaty, President Bush said he would not submit the treaty for ratification as long as it exempted China from reducing their emissions. Really? China is exempt? Why is that? Well, because a majority of developing nations were exempted from implementing the protocols, but were required to do nothing more than report their total emissions. Okay, so still, what's the big deal? The United States is still the biggest carbon dioxide emitter in the world, right? Well, as of 2004, the United States was listed as the largest emitter, yes, but there is more to that story. In fact, the largest ten emitters as reported to the U.N. in 2004 were 1. United States 2. China 3. Russia 4. India 5. Japan 6. Germany 7. Canada 8. United Kingdom 9. South Korea 10. Italy. Hmm... looks like a good list and I bet all these countries are required to reduce emissions under Kyoto, right? Well, we already know that China is exempt, so who else is exempt. Supposedly developing countries are supposed to be exempt, so why is it that Germany is also exempt from the accord. In addition, India, as a developing nation, is exempt from the accord. Wait, that means that 2 of the top 5 emitters are exempt from reducing their emissions including India and China which as of 2006 means that the top emitter is exempt from reducing emissions. Oh yeah, in 2006, China took over from the United States as the top emitter according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. So, are any of these other top 10 emitters exempt? Well, I mentioned Germany earlier, but they get a bye because of the EU's special exception in working together as a group. This way, all EU nations including Germany and Italy in the list above get to redistribute their emissions to meet their targets. Sounds interesting. In addition, South Korea is also exempt. This means that three of the top ten producers are completely exempt and Russia, who was required to ratify the treaty only did so after being given certain guarantees by the EU that probably violate the spirit if not the letter of the treaty. So... according to the 2004 emissions report, the world produced 27,245,758 total emissions. The top 10 countries in the 2004 list produced 18,136,545 total emissions. This is almost 67 percent of the total emissions worldwide. That means that the top 10 producers should be responsible for the majority of the reduction. However, 3 of those countries are exempt outright which means that 6,818,775 emissions in 2004 are exempt from reducing, placing additional burden on the other 7 countries. But wait, three of those top 10 are EU countries that can "redistribute" their emissions around the EU to make their targets so it is questionable how much they would actually contribute to reduction? In addition, how much did the EU really give to Russia in order to get them to sign. Do they even have to reduce anything? Probably they are supposed to, but with some crazy EU scheme in buying and selling credits, Russia can probably get away with reducing very little. Therefore, that leaves the United States, Japan and Canada as the only countries in the top 10 who can be relied upon in reducing emissions to meet Kyoto goals. Hmm... That means that 3 countries out of the 39 required to lower emissions are responsible for the majority of the required reductions since most of the top 10 countries have outs for getting around those reductions. Therefore, countries that produce 29 percent of reductions are responsible for reducing 67 percent of the Kyoto requirements. Even if the other countries did meet their required reductions, that would mean that China and India and South Korea are still exempted, so that would mean the 7 countries who produce 42 percent of the emissions are required to be responsible for 67 percent of the reductions. As long as China, India and South Korea are exempt and as long as Russia and some EU countries can use formulas and credits to get around actual reductions, then I agree with the unanimous Senate that we should not have signed and certainly shouldn't join this treaty because it is a sham and not a treaty that should ever have been agreed to. We need to start over and do it right.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
How bad/good is the U.S. economy today?
It has been recently and widely reported that the U.S. economy is doing very poorly under Bush. In fact, I recall hearing the words tanking used. While I have no problem with blaming things on the sitting President since I tend to subscribe to the concept of "the buck stops here" whether a President actually had anything to do with it or not, since my personal experience hadn't suggested a particularly bad economy, I thought I'd check out just what our economy is doing, since not everyone is affected the same way. So... here goes.
You hear a lot about how the low dollar, rising oil prices and falling housing prices indicate we must be headed for a recession. Although those are three common indicators of economic stability, they are only three indicators. All economic indicators are available from various government and non government sites online. Let's look at them.
The Gross domestic Product (this is an important one since it determines whether a country is in a recession, depression or a boom) for the United States has grown every year since 1991. During that time, even though GDP went up in 2001, there was a single recession (a recession is defined as any two or more successive declines in the nation's GDP) in 2001 beginning in March of that year and ending in November, so a relatively short lived recession at that. This recession was compounded by Sept. 11, 2001 but contrary to predictions, remarkably turned around and didn't survive the year, in fact, 2001 actually saw an annual increase in the GDP. This indicates the relative health of the U.S. economy that it was even able to absorb the downturn caused by 9/11.
Interest rates are another key indicator of the strength of the economy, lower ones generally mean we are concerned about stimulating the economy and higher ones generally mean we are concerned about inflation. So, if the interest rates go lower, we are trying to stimulate a slow economy but that doesn't mean we are in for a recession. In addition, higher interest rates usually mean that we are concerned about inflation which usually happens because the economy is rising too fast and therefore, prices begin to rise so much that it slows the economy down because nobody can afford anything. So, you make interest rates go lower to stimulate the economy and then when it gets going, you make them go up to prevent inflation. So, statistics indicate that from at least 1995-2003 they were generally on a downward trend, with a few exceptions. Then, in 2003-2006 they were on a severe upward trend. Now, late in 2007 they have begun to inch downward again. This indicates that beginning in 2003, the economy was really beginning to get moving and that only recently has the federal reserve thought there was any stimulation necessary. That stimulation is a direct result of falling housing prices mentioned above. This doesn't indicate a falling economy but quite the opposite, however, there are other indicators to look at.
Inflation rates go up when the interest rates are low and the economy is rising. With that in mind, the inflation rates are currently relatively stable, fluctuating between 1.97 and 2.78 percent with an average rate in 2007 so far of 2.79 which is a good thing. In 2006, rates were as high as 4.32 percent and in 2005 they were as high as 4.69 percent and in 2004 they were as high as 3.52 percent. This tends to indicate an economy that is increasing, not contracting. In 2002, following 9/11 and the most recent recession, the rate fluctuated between 1.07 and 2.38 but the average rate for the year was 1.71 percent. This continues to be a positive trend in regards to inflation.
Unemployment rates have fluctuated a lot under Bush. In 2001, before 9/11, they had fallen to 3.9 percent in December 2002. Anything under 5 is considered to be excellent when it comes to the unemployment rate. After the 2001 recession and following 9/11, unemployment rates soared to as high as 6.3 percent as of June of 2003. Since then, the rates have steadily fallen until in June of 2007 the rate was 4.5 percent. September's number recently came out and was 4.7 percent. Again, this looks like a positive indicator to me.
Overall national income doesn't indicate much to me but economists swear it is a good indicator, so I looked up the statistics, and national income has increased every year since at least 1995. (My statistics didn't go back farther than that, but I'm sure you could find it if you wanted) Again, this seems like a good thing to me.
Personal income, or the amount one personally receives is an indicator of what the national income is going to look like apparently. This indicator has also increased every year since 1995. Hmm...
CPI (Consumer Price Index) is an indicator we are all familiar with and we want it to go up or be stable, not down. At least that's what I've always heard. At any rate, this indicator has slowing increased in the last 7 years. So slowly that it could be called stable. Perhaps this indicates a bit of slowness in the economy, but certainly nothing to cry foul over.
The Stock Market has been a wonderful fluctuating yo yo for some during the last 7 years. It really fell after the Tech. bubble burst in the late 90s and then again after 9/11. Although it has had some bumpy times, it is up, for the most part, this past week's downturn not withstanding. It is actually impressive how it was able to absorb both the tech bubble burst and 9/11 and still stay up over the long haul.
Consumer Confidence is another indicator that tells how people think the economy is doing. This really doesn't indicate much other than whether or not people feel they have any money to spend. Whether that is true can be compounded by a significant number of factors including how much personal debt someone has or whether they feel they can give to their favorite charity this year. Nonetheless, this is down, which really isn't surprising with the negative news on gas prices and housing prices but that doesn't really indicate what the economy is really doing, just how people who really have no idea other than what is in their bank account think about what the economy is really doing.
The dollar is down, no doubt about it, but come on, it hasn't tanked as I've heard it described in some media reports. It is down against almost every currency in the world that matters, true and we need to come up with a way to work on that, but much of that is due to China deciding they were going to dump a lot of their dollars in favor of the Euro. At least that's been my perception. China would probably have done that regardless of who was President.
Now, home prices are going down, that's absolutely true. However, they saw an unprecedented upturn in the 5-6 years before that so is the prices being down a sign of an economic slowdown or is it simply what Wall Street analysts like to call an inevitable correction to a smoking hot upturn. I tend to think it is the latter.
So, what is the overall health of the economy as of this writing? I think it looks pretty good and is actually on an upswing, with prices remaining somewhat stable and inflation as well. However, with people being concerned over their housing prices going down and gas prices going up, I think there is some cause for the downturn in consumer confidence, but does that really have any bearing on the actual health of the economy? Therefore, in my opinion, if you want to blame Bush for the economy, feel free to do so when it comes to housing prices, the strength of the dollar and gas prices since all of these fall into the "buck stops here" category for sitting Presidents, however, it appears to me that otherwise there is no cause for concern since it appears the economy is actually doing pretty well, contrary to media reports. You ask, if the economy is doing so good, why is the media making it sound so bad? Excellent question. If you find a good answer to that, post it here so all of us can be enlightened. I have my opinion, but it's just opinion so I'll leave only the facts above and keep my opinion to myself.
You hear a lot about how the low dollar, rising oil prices and falling housing prices indicate we must be headed for a recession. Although those are three common indicators of economic stability, they are only three indicators. All economic indicators are available from various government and non government sites online. Let's look at them.
The Gross domestic Product (this is an important one since it determines whether a country is in a recession, depression or a boom) for the United States has grown every year since 1991. During that time, even though GDP went up in 2001, there was a single recession (a recession is defined as any two or more successive declines in the nation's GDP) in 2001 beginning in March of that year and ending in November, so a relatively short lived recession at that. This recession was compounded by Sept. 11, 2001 but contrary to predictions, remarkably turned around and didn't survive the year, in fact, 2001 actually saw an annual increase in the GDP. This indicates the relative health of the U.S. economy that it was even able to absorb the downturn caused by 9/11.
Interest rates are another key indicator of the strength of the economy, lower ones generally mean we are concerned about stimulating the economy and higher ones generally mean we are concerned about inflation. So, if the interest rates go lower, we are trying to stimulate a slow economy but that doesn't mean we are in for a recession. In addition, higher interest rates usually mean that we are concerned about inflation which usually happens because the economy is rising too fast and therefore, prices begin to rise so much that it slows the economy down because nobody can afford anything. So, you make interest rates go lower to stimulate the economy and then when it gets going, you make them go up to prevent inflation. So, statistics indicate that from at least 1995-2003 they were generally on a downward trend, with a few exceptions. Then, in 2003-2006 they were on a severe upward trend. Now, late in 2007 they have begun to inch downward again. This indicates that beginning in 2003, the economy was really beginning to get moving and that only recently has the federal reserve thought there was any stimulation necessary. That stimulation is a direct result of falling housing prices mentioned above. This doesn't indicate a falling economy but quite the opposite, however, there are other indicators to look at.
Inflation rates go up when the interest rates are low and the economy is rising. With that in mind, the inflation rates are currently relatively stable, fluctuating between 1.97 and 2.78 percent with an average rate in 2007 so far of 2.79 which is a good thing. In 2006, rates were as high as 4.32 percent and in 2005 they were as high as 4.69 percent and in 2004 they were as high as 3.52 percent. This tends to indicate an economy that is increasing, not contracting. In 2002, following 9/11 and the most recent recession, the rate fluctuated between 1.07 and 2.38 but the average rate for the year was 1.71 percent. This continues to be a positive trend in regards to inflation.
Unemployment rates have fluctuated a lot under Bush. In 2001, before 9/11, they had fallen to 3.9 percent in December 2002. Anything under 5 is considered to be excellent when it comes to the unemployment rate. After the 2001 recession and following 9/11, unemployment rates soared to as high as 6.3 percent as of June of 2003. Since then, the rates have steadily fallen until in June of 2007 the rate was 4.5 percent. September's number recently came out and was 4.7 percent. Again, this looks like a positive indicator to me.
Overall national income doesn't indicate much to me but economists swear it is a good indicator, so I looked up the statistics, and national income has increased every year since at least 1995. (My statistics didn't go back farther than that, but I'm sure you could find it if you wanted) Again, this seems like a good thing to me.
Personal income, or the amount one personally receives is an indicator of what the national income is going to look like apparently. This indicator has also increased every year since 1995. Hmm...
CPI (Consumer Price Index) is an indicator we are all familiar with and we want it to go up or be stable, not down. At least that's what I've always heard. At any rate, this indicator has slowing increased in the last 7 years. So slowly that it could be called stable. Perhaps this indicates a bit of slowness in the economy, but certainly nothing to cry foul over.
The Stock Market has been a wonderful fluctuating yo yo for some during the last 7 years. It really fell after the Tech. bubble burst in the late 90s and then again after 9/11. Although it has had some bumpy times, it is up, for the most part, this past week's downturn not withstanding. It is actually impressive how it was able to absorb both the tech bubble burst and 9/11 and still stay up over the long haul.
Consumer Confidence is another indicator that tells how people think the economy is doing. This really doesn't indicate much other than whether or not people feel they have any money to spend. Whether that is true can be compounded by a significant number of factors including how much personal debt someone has or whether they feel they can give to their favorite charity this year. Nonetheless, this is down, which really isn't surprising with the negative news on gas prices and housing prices but that doesn't really indicate what the economy is really doing, just how people who really have no idea other than what is in their bank account think about what the economy is really doing.
The dollar is down, no doubt about it, but come on, it hasn't tanked as I've heard it described in some media reports. It is down against almost every currency in the world that matters, true and we need to come up with a way to work on that, but much of that is due to China deciding they were going to dump a lot of their dollars in favor of the Euro. At least that's been my perception. China would probably have done that regardless of who was President.
Now, home prices are going down, that's absolutely true. However, they saw an unprecedented upturn in the 5-6 years before that so is the prices being down a sign of an economic slowdown or is it simply what Wall Street analysts like to call an inevitable correction to a smoking hot upturn. I tend to think it is the latter.
So, what is the overall health of the economy as of this writing? I think it looks pretty good and is actually on an upswing, with prices remaining somewhat stable and inflation as well. However, with people being concerned over their housing prices going down and gas prices going up, I think there is some cause for the downturn in consumer confidence, but does that really have any bearing on the actual health of the economy? Therefore, in my opinion, if you want to blame Bush for the economy, feel free to do so when it comes to housing prices, the strength of the dollar and gas prices since all of these fall into the "buck stops here" category for sitting Presidents, however, it appears to me that otherwise there is no cause for concern since it appears the economy is actually doing pretty well, contrary to media reports. You ask, if the economy is doing so good, why is the media making it sound so bad? Excellent question. If you find a good answer to that, post it here so all of us can be enlightened. I have my opinion, but it's just opinion so I'll leave only the facts above and keep my opinion to myself.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Is Birth Control for pre-teens a good idea?
I read in this morning's USA Today that a middle school in Maine has decided to allow the distribution of free birth control to children in the school. This includes the pill and patch as well as condoms. So, is this a good idea? I suppose many would argue that they are protecting the health of children and preventing unwanted pregnancies. I get that, but is that really enough justification to do this? In addition, this school district asks parents to sign a form allowing their children to be treated in the school clinic. If a parent signs this form, then a child receives free care in the school clinic at the hands of a nurse practitioner or physician. Sounds great right? Well, what it translates to is that the parent's have just signed away their parental rights by signing such a form because once they've signed the form, any and all care received at the clinic is considered confidential between the student and the care giver and excluding the parents entirely. Even if they wanted to know what treatment their child had received in the clinic, they wouldn't be able to find out because of said confidentiality. So that really changes things.
I've always felt that a giving out condoms to high school girls and boys was no big deal because it would probably prevent pregnancies. Is that even a good idea? I don't know. But at least I know that most high schoolers are old enough to actually be considering these issues. It disturbs me however, that we are now expanding this policy to middle schoolers. One school does it and many more are sure to follow. In addition, we aren't just giving out condoms but giving out all sorts of birth control options. Some of these options might even have unknown long-term health affects, especially for children of that age. Regardless, it is a crime to have sex with a child of middle school age in Maine and in most states, so why would the state choose to equip young children with the ability to break the law? Interesting thinking on their part. The most disturbing part to me though is the lack of control a parent has in this. A parent should be privy to any and all medical care and decisions relating to their children until said child is 18 years or older, in my opinion. Of course, if the state can prove some form of abuse in the home, then the parents judgment might be clouded in regards to good medical decisions and therefore the state might be able to take action, but otherwise, a parent should have authority over their child. Anything less is an unnecessary and undesired state intrusion on parental authority. Of course, many parents now have abdicated their authority de facto, and maybe they should sign the form and turn over their authority to the state, although the state doesn't take responsibility either, they just do what the kid wants. That's not parenting. Regardless, educating a child about the dangers and pleasures of sex is the job of the parent, whether they choose to exercise it or not. If you choose to exercise it (which all parents should) then make sure you do NOT sign any kinds of governmental forms regarding the care of your child without first knowing what the consequences of your signature are. A parent can and should care for their child and make sure they make good choices as well as discipline them for bad behavior. Inability to do either of those means you probably shouldn't be a parent. However, some kids will still make bad choices, especially in regards to sex. This means, as a parent, you have to support your children, help them to make better choices or to make a good choice for them depending on the circumstances. In Maine, a parent can't do this anymore apparently. Now it is the job of a school nurse and not the parent to guide your child through one of the most difficult times in their lives. That is simply unacceptable to me and should be to any concerned parent. So I ask, where are the concerned parents in this school district?
I've always felt that a giving out condoms to high school girls and boys was no big deal because it would probably prevent pregnancies. Is that even a good idea? I don't know. But at least I know that most high schoolers are old enough to actually be considering these issues. It disturbs me however, that we are now expanding this policy to middle schoolers. One school does it and many more are sure to follow. In addition, we aren't just giving out condoms but giving out all sorts of birth control options. Some of these options might even have unknown long-term health affects, especially for children of that age. Regardless, it is a crime to have sex with a child of middle school age in Maine and in most states, so why would the state choose to equip young children with the ability to break the law? Interesting thinking on their part. The most disturbing part to me though is the lack of control a parent has in this. A parent should be privy to any and all medical care and decisions relating to their children until said child is 18 years or older, in my opinion. Of course, if the state can prove some form of abuse in the home, then the parents judgment might be clouded in regards to good medical decisions and therefore the state might be able to take action, but otherwise, a parent should have authority over their child. Anything less is an unnecessary and undesired state intrusion on parental authority. Of course, many parents now have abdicated their authority de facto, and maybe they should sign the form and turn over their authority to the state, although the state doesn't take responsibility either, they just do what the kid wants. That's not parenting. Regardless, educating a child about the dangers and pleasures of sex is the job of the parent, whether they choose to exercise it or not. If you choose to exercise it (which all parents should) then make sure you do NOT sign any kinds of governmental forms regarding the care of your child without first knowing what the consequences of your signature are. A parent can and should care for their child and make sure they make good choices as well as discipline them for bad behavior. Inability to do either of those means you probably shouldn't be a parent. However, some kids will still make bad choices, especially in regards to sex. This means, as a parent, you have to support your children, help them to make better choices or to make a good choice for them depending on the circumstances. In Maine, a parent can't do this anymore apparently. Now it is the job of a school nurse and not the parent to guide your child through one of the most difficult times in their lives. That is simply unacceptable to me and should be to any concerned parent. So I ask, where are the concerned parents in this school district?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)