Back in January we told you about the impact that the downturn in the economy has had on the city's building inspectors. Actually, the inspectors were probably not complaining as they were being paid to not work (read it here).
Apparently city pay for nothing has spread to the Human Resources Department. KOAT-TV is promoting a Wednesday story by Target 7's Melissa Vega on "City Workers Getting Paid for Doing Nothing." It's pretty obvious that with the economic downturn and the utter failure of Obamanamics, departments that thrive during a healthy economy would see a drastic reduction in work.
Unfortunately, our Eyes tell us that pay for nothing has spread to the specialized units of the Albuquerque Police Department. It seems that a number of these units have begun a practice of having early briefings, going home for a few hours, and then returning to work the remainder of their shift. In some cases, they'll even clock over-time when their jobs take them into the wee hours of the morning.
We can almost understand why HR personnel and building inspectors are left with nothing to do. When there's no work to do, there's no work to do. That doesn't mean that we should pay for workers to do nothing. In fact, the practice is a colossal waste of taxpayer money.
However, there is no excuse for officers in these specialized units to be riding and hiding especially during challenging economic times. Shifts for APD's specialized units need to coincide with the times when they are expected to be needed. Briefings should take place immediately before the rush hours and should we all be lucky enough that they're left with nothing to do - they should make themselves available to take calls for service. After all, these are sworn officers being paid to do a job we shouldn't be paying them not to work.
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Jul 13, 2009
Feb 16, 2009
No to Stimulus
Last week's Eye Poll took up the issue of the over $800 BILLION spending... "stimulus" package. Eye readers are just as skeptical of the concept of spending borrowed money in an effort to stimulate an economy plagued with bad debt. 53% of readers do not support the "stimulus" package, 10% supported some of it, 1% had no opinion, 14% supported most of it, and 22% supported the package (view it here).
There's a fundamental problem with the Obama-Pelosi-Reed "stimulus" package in that unlike the private sector, governments do not create wealth because every government job necessarily takes resources away from private companies and individuals. FDR's New Deal is a prime example of the failure of government spending as a vehicle for economic recovery.
Most historians credit World War II with raising the United States and the world out of the depth of the Great Depression. Keynesians point to the massive government spending inherent to that conflict as validation of their belief in government spending as a vehicle for economic stimulus.
It's true that all of the parties involved in World War II spent massive amounts of money on the war. However, the war was also a time of rationing and privation where non-war related production was at an absolute minimum. The warring nations of WWII did not create wealth they quite literally destroyed it.
At the end of that brutal conflict, most of the industrialized world was left in shambles - their infrastructure in destroyed, their economies non-existent. The lone exception was the United States. A war weary world turned to the one country left standing to provided needed goods that they were no longer able to produce themselves.
It wasn't the war that brought the world out of the Great Depression - rather it was the end of the war and a return to wealth creation by individuals and private companies that brought about economic prosperity.
Obama's Neo-New Deal will have the same effect as FDR's - temporary jobs, massive debt, and a legacy of unsustainable government programs. The blind adherence to Keynsian principles will most likely deepen the current recession perhaps even pushing the world into depression.
There's a fundamental problem with the Obama-Pelosi-Reed "stimulus" package in that unlike the private sector, governments do not create wealth because every government job necessarily takes resources away from private companies and individuals. FDR's New Deal is a prime example of the failure of government spending as a vehicle for economic recovery.
Most historians credit World War II with raising the United States and the world out of the depth of the Great Depression. Keynesians point to the massive government spending inherent to that conflict as validation of their belief in government spending as a vehicle for economic stimulus.
It's true that all of the parties involved in World War II spent massive amounts of money on the war. However, the war was also a time of rationing and privation where non-war related production was at an absolute minimum. The warring nations of WWII did not create wealth they quite literally destroyed it.
At the end of that brutal conflict, most of the industrialized world was left in shambles - their infrastructure in destroyed, their economies non-existent. The lone exception was the United States. A war weary world turned to the one country left standing to provided needed goods that they were no longer able to produce themselves.
It wasn't the war that brought the world out of the Great Depression - rather it was the end of the war and a return to wealth creation by individuals and private companies that brought about economic prosperity.
Obama's Neo-New Deal will have the same effect as FDR's - temporary jobs, massive debt, and a legacy of unsustainable government programs. The blind adherence to Keynsian principles will most likely deepen the current recession perhaps even pushing the world into depression.
Jan 12, 2009
Livin' the Dream
First the housing bubble burst then Wall Street melted down - the result was a HUGE decline in new home construction in Albuquerque.
At first glance, it doesn't seem to be a problem other than underscoring the country's economic decline. However, the city depends on income from things like impact fees and even building permits to pay for its ever growing bureaucracy.
Our Eyes tell us that the planning department is starting to feel the pinch as their force of tax collectors, uh... building inspectors are not busy red tagging contractors, but wiling away their time at home. You see, when permits aren't pulled there's nothing to inspect.
Unlike their private sector counter-parts, the inspectors are employees of the city (who probably got double paid last week) which means that it doesn't matter whether or not there's work to do they still get paid. Meanwhile, private contractors are busy trying to scare up some business just to put food on the table.
The inspectors are a perfect example of the difference between public and private sectors. Private companies must adapt to market conditions to stay alive. They'll reassign, retrain, and even let go of workers when there's no work to do. Otherwise, a private company cannot stay in business.
On the other hand, government simply digs into our pockets to pay for workers who have no work to do unless or until developers start building again. Meanwhile, city inspectors are livin' the dream - being paid despite the absence of any real work.
[N]ew home construction is way off in Albuquerque. The Bureau of Business and Economic Research expects home building permits will be down 60 percent this year compared with last year.The drop was hardly surprising considering the fact that new housing starts in Albuquerque had already been declining due to onerous impact fees and ever increasing regulations regarding everything from toilets to insulation.
At first glance, it doesn't seem to be a problem other than underscoring the country's economic decline. However, the city depends on income from things like impact fees and even building permits to pay for its ever growing bureaucracy.
Our Eyes tell us that the planning department is starting to feel the pinch as their force of tax collectors, uh... building inspectors are not busy red tagging contractors, but wiling away their time at home. You see, when permits aren't pulled there's nothing to inspect.
Unlike their private sector counter-parts, the inspectors are employees of the city (who probably got double paid last week) which means that it doesn't matter whether or not there's work to do they still get paid. Meanwhile, private contractors are busy trying to scare up some business just to put food on the table.
The inspectors are a perfect example of the difference between public and private sectors. Private companies must adapt to market conditions to stay alive. They'll reassign, retrain, and even let go of workers when there's no work to do. Otherwise, a private company cannot stay in business.
On the other hand, government simply digs into our pockets to pay for workers who have no work to do unless or until developers start building again. Meanwhile, city inspectors are livin' the dream - being paid despite the absence of any real work.
Oct 9, 2008
Principle
From time to time our vocation gets in the way of our avocation. In fact, we haven't even had the opportunity to watch this week's Presidential Debate. Don't worry, we have it tucked away on TIVO and will be reviewing both candidates performances for ourself.
Apparently, John McCain brought up the idea of adjusting principle amounts for "toxic" loans purchased by the government under the bailout bill. We've been challenged by our readers over the issue and rightly so. Most of the comments went something like this one:
This is the type of "maverick" crap that drives us crazy. McCain is consistently inconsistent and a good portion of the time he betrays his own party in the process. Democrats and Independents have always loved him for it - while conservatives are busy pulling the knife(s) from their backs.
This isn't the first time that we've been on the sharp end of one of McCain's knifes and we're quite sure that it won't be the last. However, McCain's failings don't make Obama fit to be President. Wealth redistribution through government spending and regulation are at the core of Obama's philosophy (or at least at the core of whoever it is that's pulling his strings).
Our principles on the other hand, will not change. Biden was wrong when proposed resetting principle values. McCain was wrong when he proposed doing the same.
For now it's more important that we save the country and ourselves from a man who would make the biggest corporation in the world, larger, more wasteful, and more intrusive - while taking our money, our liberty, and endangering our lives. Without doubt that man is Barack Hussein Obama - an anathema to liberty and prosperity.
Apparently, John McCain brought up the idea of adjusting principle amounts for "toxic" loans purchased by the government under the bailout bill. We've been challenged by our readers over the issue and rightly so. Most of the comments went something like this one:
Eye are you planning on ever addressing the fact that McCain directly proposed adjusting mortgage principals to match current market values during the second debate? Do you actually care about this issue or are you just casting about for things to attack Obama/Biden on?It's a fair criticism... sort of. The fact is we don't care which candidate or party supports readjusting the principle value of a loan whether that loan is "toxic" or not. Wealth redistribution is wealth redistribution regardless of the party proposing it and regardless of the reasoning behind the move. It's immoral and it's wrong.
It must make you feel pretty dumb when you go out on a limb to write an attack piece in support of your candidate and then your candidate comes out in favor of and even more extreme version of what you attacked his opponents for, doesn't it?
(Sidebar)If the government purchases a "toxic" loan at full value and then lowers the principle, tax payers are giving the mortgage holder not only the difference in principle but the difference in the interest that would have been collected over the life of the loan. To the taxpayer it's an immediate loss followed by a long-term earnings loss - all with the stroke of a politician's pen.
You'll note that we haven't been blaming either party for the current mortgage debacle. The fact is they both had a hand in Fannie and Freddy's irresponsible trade in "affordable housing" loans - loans that were made to people who could never repay them.
Whether it was President Bush and his "culture of ownership" or Jimmy Carter's affirmative action for loans - government policies directly harmed the financial markets and all of those who were given those "toxic" mortgages.
(End Sidebar)
This is the type of "maverick" crap that drives us crazy. McCain is consistently inconsistent and a good portion of the time he betrays his own party in the process. Democrats and Independents have always loved him for it - while conservatives are busy pulling the knife(s) from their backs.
This isn't the first time that we've been on the sharp end of one of McCain's knifes and we're quite sure that it won't be the last. However, McCain's failings don't make Obama fit to be President. Wealth redistribution through government spending and regulation are at the core of Obama's philosophy (or at least at the core of whoever it is that's pulling his strings).
We're going to have to drag Senator McCain over the finish line, and then deal with what he does in the Oval Office. We have to save the country from Obama, and then save it (and the Republican Party) from whoever McCain puts in his cabinet. We're going to have to do it one step at a time. Do not throw in the towel.If you want "maverick" - McCain is your choice. If you want limited government, restrained spending, and personal freedom - McCain is your only choice despite his propensity to betray each of those principles from time to time.
Our principles on the other hand, will not change. Biden was wrong when proposed resetting principle values. McCain was wrong when he proposed doing the same.
For now it's more important that we save the country and ourselves from a man who would make the biggest corporation in the world, larger, more wasteful, and more intrusive - while taking our money, our liberty, and endangering our lives. Without doubt that man is Barack Hussein Obama - an anathema to liberty and prosperity.
Oct 6, 2008
Eye Poll: No Bailout
Eye readers were overwhelmingly opposed to bailing out Wall Street. Last week's unscientific poll had 69% of Eye readers saying no way to a bailout, 22% absolutely supported the move, 8% didn't know, and another 1% didn't care (see the results here).
Congress passed the plan that our readers so overwhelmingly rejected on Friday of last week. The pork infested bailout was supposed to be good news to the markets, but so far today we've seen the Dow off over 600 points. Pundits and politicians will have us believe that the market hasn't seen the taxpayer moolah and won't for a couple of months yet therefore the bailout isn't reflected in today's selloff.
Perhaps Wall Street has figured out that all the bailout does is transfer bad debt from financial institutions to government institutions. Instead of having financial institutions collapse we're placing a long-term burden on taxpayers at a time when the Baby Boom Bomb is getting ready to explode. Of course, what is $700 BILLION compared to the TRILLIONS of dollars the social security debacle will cost all of us.
Last week's post on the APD Citywide briefing (read it here) incited a number of passionate responses. It got us thinking about the chief's job performance and whether or not you approve. So that's this week's Eye Poll. Don't forget to vote!
Congress passed the plan that our readers so overwhelmingly rejected on Friday of last week. The pork infested bailout was supposed to be good news to the markets, but so far today we've seen the Dow off over 600 points. Pundits and politicians will have us believe that the market hasn't seen the taxpayer moolah and won't for a couple of months yet therefore the bailout isn't reflected in today's selloff.
Perhaps Wall Street has figured out that all the bailout does is transfer bad debt from financial institutions to government institutions. Instead of having financial institutions collapse we're placing a long-term burden on taxpayers at a time when the Baby Boom Bomb is getting ready to explode. Of course, what is $700 BILLION compared to the TRILLIONS of dollars the social security debacle will cost all of us.
Last week's post on the APD Citywide briefing (read it here) incited a number of passionate responses. It got us thinking about the chief's job performance and whether or not you approve. So that's this week's Eye Poll. Don't forget to vote!
Oct 5, 2008
Obamination: Theft As A Policy
The policies of wealth redistribution and market control are and have been the foundation of Democratic economic thought since FDR and The Great Depression. Progressive taxation is one of the vehicles for transferring money from producers to non-producers.
One of our readers pointed out a comment by Senator Biden in last week's Vice Presidential debate that called for extending the authority of government to not only buy up toxic assets but to reset the value of the principle owed. This isn't the first time we've recently heard Democratic leaders talking about changing principle values. It's predictable really and just an extension of the core philosophy of Progressive thought.
The reasoning behind the move is to adjust principle values for properties that were bought at higher market values to current market conditions in order to protect those who are "upside down" in their homes. In other words, these property owners are in a situation where they owe more than the property is worth.
Say for example, you and your neighbor engage in a voluntary transaction where you loan your lawn mower and your weed whacker to them. The neighbor agrees not only to repay (return) your lawn mower and weed whacker but to refill their gas tanks and provide you with an additional gallon of gas.
The lawn mower and weed whacker are the principle, the gas is the interest. Along comes Barrack Hussein O'Biden who decide that the extra gas is really asking for too much. In addition, your neighbor who can't afford to maintain their lawn really needs your weed whacker to help them. So the O'Biden boys change the terms of your agreement forgiving them the additional gallon of gas and allowing your neighbor to keep your weed whacker.
What do you think will happen the next time your neighbor shows up on your doorstep to borrow something? That's right... you're not gonna' give him the time of day fearing the O'Biden boys will show up and make you pay for it.
Government intervention in a private transaction never benefits either party. The lender loses money and stops lending. The borrower ultimately ends up unable to borrow what they need. The only "winner" is the politician who convinces the borrower that they're getting something for free and that their benefactor is the intervening politician.
In addition, Obama and Biden are hawking a "progressive" tax scheme that they claim only raises taxes on those rich people who make over $250,000 a year. Like the O'Biden idea of allowing the government to reset principle amounts, this Robin Hood tax policy is appealing until you take a look at who actually pays.
Who are these evil "rich people" that should be required to pay more of their earnings? As you drive around town take a look at all of those local businesses that line the major streets. They're hardware stores, lock smiths, beauty salons, pet groomeries, and restaurants. These are your friends and neighbors that have invested their money, time, sweat, and tears in a business that they believe in. These are the people that make Albuquerque unique - not the big boxes, department stores, and chain restaurants that can be found in any city anywhere in the country. And these are the very people that O'Biden propose to increase taxes on.
When faced with increased taxes small businesses look at the increase as an increase in the cost of doing business. Their only choices are to absorb the increased cost of doing business, increase prices to their customers, or go out of business. So you see, the middle class - those who Obama and crew claim to be protecting - really face higher prices or the loss of goods or services.
If that sounds familiar that's because it's no different that the lender who makes a contract with a borrower to lend a specific amount of money for a set amount of profit who has both the profit and the amount to be repaid arbitrarily set by some politician.
You'll hear The Anointed One and his chief acolyte Biden talking about fairness. What is fair about forcing someone whose hard work earns them an amount of wealth that is in excess of some arbitrary line? What is fair about changing the terms of a freely and legally negotiated contract?
What Obama proposes is no different than the local hoodlum stealing your wallet at knifepoint. Make no mistake, if Obama becomes President he will work to take from those who have earned in order to give to those who haven't. The middle class will pay for that redistribution through higher prices for goods and services, and shortages caused by small businesses that are unable to absorb Obama's small business hold-up.
Democratic leaders have long advocated this type of theft as a policy - stealing from one group to give to another in exchange for political power. In this way (as in many others) Obama isn't change - he's the logical result of class warfare politics, the stock and trade of the Democratic Party since the '30's.
We don't believe that your everyday Democrat truly believes that it's right to steal. We believe that they're good people who want to see everyone succeed. The problem is success cannot be given, it has to be earned. And while there's little doubt that Republicans lost their way... It is certain that an Obama Presidency would be a gigantic leap toward more government, more taxes, and less liberty.
One of our readers pointed out a comment by Senator Biden in last week's Vice Presidential debate that called for extending the authority of government to not only buy up toxic assets but to reset the value of the principle owed. This isn't the first time we've recently heard Democratic leaders talking about changing principle values. It's predictable really and just an extension of the core philosophy of Progressive thought.
The reasoning behind the move is to adjust principle values for properties that were bought at higher market values to current market conditions in order to protect those who are "upside down" in their homes. In other words, these property owners are in a situation where they owe more than the property is worth.
(Sidebar)It's the type of policy that warms the cockles of most Progressive's hearts. But it's also the type of dangerous policy that - despite the $700 BILLION Bailout and Pork-fest passed by Congress - would ultimately make money harder for home buyers to get.
Over the past few weeks the concept of a free market has taken somewhat of a beating. The fact is that we are the market. Our freedom to negotiate the exchange of goods or services is a foundational part of our individual liberty. When we lose the freedom of exchange we lose the freedom to be rewarded for our achievements.
(End Sidebar)
Say for example, you and your neighbor engage in a voluntary transaction where you loan your lawn mower and your weed whacker to them. The neighbor agrees not only to repay (return) your lawn mower and weed whacker but to refill their gas tanks and provide you with an additional gallon of gas.
The lawn mower and weed whacker are the principle, the gas is the interest. Along comes Barrack Hussein O'Biden who decide that the extra gas is really asking for too much. In addition, your neighbor who can't afford to maintain their lawn really needs your weed whacker to help them. So the O'Biden boys change the terms of your agreement forgiving them the additional gallon of gas and allowing your neighbor to keep your weed whacker.
What do you think will happen the next time your neighbor shows up on your doorstep to borrow something? That's right... you're not gonna' give him the time of day fearing the O'Biden boys will show up and make you pay for it.
Government intervention in a private transaction never benefits either party. The lender loses money and stops lending. The borrower ultimately ends up unable to borrow what they need. The only "winner" is the politician who convinces the borrower that they're getting something for free and that their benefactor is the intervening politician.
In addition, Obama and Biden are hawking a "progressive" tax scheme that they claim only raises taxes on those rich people who make over $250,000 a year. Like the O'Biden idea of allowing the government to reset principle amounts, this Robin Hood tax policy is appealing until you take a look at who actually pays.
Who are these evil "rich people" that should be required to pay more of their earnings? As you drive around town take a look at all of those local businesses that line the major streets. They're hardware stores, lock smiths, beauty salons, pet groomeries, and restaurants. These are your friends and neighbors that have invested their money, time, sweat, and tears in a business that they believe in. These are the people that make Albuquerque unique - not the big boxes, department stores, and chain restaurants that can be found in any city anywhere in the country. And these are the very people that O'Biden propose to increase taxes on.
When faced with increased taxes small businesses look at the increase as an increase in the cost of doing business. Their only choices are to absorb the increased cost of doing business, increase prices to their customers, or go out of business. So you see, the middle class - those who Obama and crew claim to be protecting - really face higher prices or the loss of goods or services.
If that sounds familiar that's because it's no different that the lender who makes a contract with a borrower to lend a specific amount of money for a set amount of profit who has both the profit and the amount to be repaid arbitrarily set by some politician.
You'll hear The Anointed One and his chief acolyte Biden talking about fairness. What is fair about forcing someone whose hard work earns them an amount of wealth that is in excess of some arbitrary line? What is fair about changing the terms of a freely and legally negotiated contract?
What Obama proposes is no different than the local hoodlum stealing your wallet at knifepoint. Make no mistake, if Obama becomes President he will work to take from those who have earned in order to give to those who haven't. The middle class will pay for that redistribution through higher prices for goods and services, and shortages caused by small businesses that are unable to absorb Obama's small business hold-up.
Democratic leaders have long advocated this type of theft as a policy - stealing from one group to give to another in exchange for political power. In this way (as in many others) Obama isn't change - he's the logical result of class warfare politics, the stock and trade of the Democratic Party since the '30's.
We don't believe that your everyday Democrat truly believes that it's right to steal. We believe that they're good people who want to see everyone succeed. The problem is success cannot be given, it has to be earned. And while there's little doubt that Republicans lost their way... It is certain that an Obama Presidency would be a gigantic leap toward more government, more taxes, and less liberty.
Feb 5, 2008
It's the Economy Stupid... Or is it?
Being an election year, candidates are all clamoring for a reason... a reason for you to vote for them, and a reason for you to fear voting for anyone else. The Democrat's equivalent to the Big Head James Carville once said "it's the economy stupid." The problem is it wasn't then and from a historical perspective it isn't now.
If you haven't already voted in the Democratic primary today, take a look at the piece below put together by Drew Carey and Reason.tv. In it, Carrey takes a look at the economic realities of being in the middle class and how that compares to the rhetoric of TV pundits and politicians. You may want to consider what your chosen candidate is saying and whether or not it has anything to do with reality.
By the way - the same goes for Republicans even though you won't be voting in a primary until June.
Is it really the economy or are we letting fear make us stupid?
If you haven't already voted in the Democratic primary today, take a look at the piece below put together by Drew Carey and Reason.tv. In it, Carrey takes a look at the economic realities of being in the middle class and how that compares to the rhetoric of TV pundits and politicians. You may want to consider what your chosen candidate is saying and whether or not it has anything to do with reality.
By the way - the same goes for Republicans even though you won't be voting in a primary until June.
Is it really the economy or are we letting fear make us stupid?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)