Posts Tagged ‘ Economy ’

City and State governments are cutting back in these hard economic times.  The bureaucratically minded are in a terrible bind for a new department to start up to stimulate the economy.  Everyone knows by now that nothing stimulates economies like government expansion and increased spending from taxpayer dollars!  The timing for a new Honolulu County department couldn’t be better with the crumbling fantasy of elevated steel on steel rail.

Honolulu desperately needs the DSW or Department of Silly Walks (following England’s Ministry of Silly Walks).  Our visionary Honolulu Mayor could lead the way… We Will Silly Walk!

John Carroll

John Carroll

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Media Contacts:

Barbara Hester – PR Coordinator  (808) 384-5907

Gayle Gardner – Campaign Chairman (808) 595-7127

Alice Paet-Ah Sing - Campaign Director (808) 542-2902

John Carroll – Candidate (808) 526-9111 (808) 545-3800 fax

Gubernatorial Candidate, John Carroll, Former State Senator and Former Chair of the Republican Party of Hawai‘i, announced today that he and Honolulu attorney Christopher Dias have filed a precedent setting law suit.  The suit requests for injunctive relief from the United States Government, relief from the provisions of the Jones Act, which created shipping restrictions that adversely apply to only one State in the Union; the island State of Hawai`i.  Carroll stated that the restrictions are excessively expensive for Hawai`i’s people and are in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Carroll stated that he had originally intended to instruct his Attorney General to file a class action on behalf of the people of the State of Hawai`i when he took office as Governor.  He now states he sees no reason to delay.  Carroll believes in getting things done.  Carroll explained,  “One of the purposes of enacting the Jones Act was to ensure that the United States of America would be well equipped with a maritime fleet that could compete in a worldwide economy.  Unfortunately, it created unconstitutional restrictions on commerce between the State of Hawai`i and worldwide shippers as well as on interstate commerce.”

Since Hawai`i is separated from the continental United States by 2,300 miles of ocean and, of course, has no highways, railroads or pipelines from the continental United States, Hawai`i is dependent on ocean shipping for at least 90 percent of every commodity used and consumed in the state.

The Impact of the Jones Act on the People of Hawai‘i

The Jones Act requires that for a ship to operate in interstate commerce, (between states), it must be built in America, owned by Americans, 75 percent manned by an American crew, and maintained and flagged in the United States.  The net effect of the enforcement of the Jones Act on the State of Hawai‘i’s population has been wide-ranging.

Examples:  The expense of agricultural production became prohibitive, not only because of the inbound shipping cost of fertilizers, herbicides, and farm implements but also due to the outbound shipping costs for our locally grown fruits, livestock and ornamental plants.  Hawai‘i cattle ranchers are faced with an intolerable situation.  They often have to transport their cattle, from Kawaihae to Vancouver B.C. on a Canadian owned Corral Lines to remain profitable.  The cattle must then be trucked (often for 500 miles)  into the U.S. to be fattened and sold.  To go direct, some are flown on Boeing 747 aircraft.

There has emerged a monopolistic control of shipping in and out of the State of Hawai‘i, eliminating the cost reduction benefits of competition.  As will be shown at trial, the cost of everything from automobiles to paper towels is significantly higher because of the enforcement of the Jones Act provisions.

By comparison, the tiny islands of Singapore and Hong Kong, which do not have similar trade restrictions and with less than 1/20th the land mass of Hawai’i, enjoy a Gross Domestic Product in excess of two billion (2,000,000,000.00) U.S. dollars per year. That is 40 times greater than Hawai`i’s GDP of fifty million (50,000,000.00) U.S. dollars per year when government spending and tourism are excluded. This is an absurdity for Hawai‘i’s economic viability.

The Fundamental Purposes of the Commerce Clause

The fundamental purposes of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution are, among others, “…to assure the unrestricted flow of commerce throughout the several states,” 282 NE2d 336,  “…to assure to the commercial enterprises in every state substantial equality to access to a free national market,” 517 P2d 691.  Further, the “…power granted is a positive power to legislate concerning transactions which, reaching across state boundaries, affect the people of more states than one, and to govern affairs which the individual states,with their limited territorial jurisdictions, are not fully capable of governing.” 322 US 533.  Clearly, the Jones Act and its provisions are in direct violation of the spirit of the Commerce Clause.

Why does industry and commerce based on importing and exporting in Hong Kong and Singapore flourish while Hawaii spirals downwards?

Why do we pay so much more in Hawaii for everything shipped in when our central location should be a tremendous contribution to boom our economy?

Former State Senator, John Carroll, will address how a key protectionist law has not only restricted economic growth, but has deteriorated local productivity. Q & A to follow. $5 per guest for drinks and pupus.

Date:
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Time:
6:00pm - 8:00pm
Location:
Schoolland’s home
Street:
94-1072 Alelo St.
City/Town:
Waipahu, HI
Phone:
8086760825
Email:

By Kenli and Ken Schoolland

The Polish American Foundation for Economic Research and Education (PAFERE) hosted us for presentations at 17 schools, universities, and public events in 5 cities around Poland over Spring Break. Interviews were provided to radio, television, and newspaper journalists and meetings were held with The Łódź Political Club, The Nowogrodzka 44 Discussion Club, and the PAFERE Conference on “Ethical Sources of the Present Crisis: What Will Be the Future of Capitalism?”

PHOTO 1- Virgis, Kenli & Ken

Audiences were most interested in hearing about causes and cures for the global monetary crisis. They have a healthy skepticism of the panicked clamor to give trillion dollar bailouts to cronies in the financial sector. In fact, many Poles felt that the “recession” was being over-hyped. How else could American politicians get away with bailout pledges that amounted to more than double the total expense of World War II?


Students, well-versed in the politics of corruption in Eastern Europe, were bitterly amused to learn of the revolving door in Washington D.C. where personnel and payoffs so deftly coursed through the halls of government and allied corporate boardrooms. PAFERE was founded in a staunchly Catholic Poland to combat immoral political behavior that blatantly violates the Seventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.”


Ken did much of the talking and Kenli did most of the thinking. She provided the technical support for power point presentations and coached timing and relevance. Virgis Daukas, Kenli’s “uncle” and founder of the Lithuanian Free Market Institute, provided counsel, transportation, and laughs. [See photo 1 L-R: Virgis, Kenli, Ken]

Other topics included Free Market Ethics, Trade and Labor Protectionism, and the new, third Polish edition of The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey. People came from all over the country seeking autographs for copies published nine years ago in Lublin and Kraków. Ironically, this educational tool of Small Business Hawaii has made a greater impact in Poland than in Hawaii.

The perennial question on the tour was, “When will the recession end?” We answered with a straight face, “August 23 at 8:47 AM.” But this is not a joking matter for Poles. After all, they experienced the worst of inhuman horrors for half a century, when their neighbors east and west sacrificed personal liberties to political tyrants who promised to rescue them from the 1930’s Depression.

Kenli returned to her studies at the University of Buckingham in the British isles where she is a leader in the Economist Club. Ken returned to the islands where he learned that Jonathan Gullible has been renamed Jamal Attaib for the new Arabic edition in Jordan. This is the 43rd language edition. [Photo: Book cover of Jamal Attaib.]

Crisis of Credit Visualized

by admin | March 28, 2009 | In Economy 1 Comment


The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Note the root of the problem at 1:25.

Republican Governors in several states give reasons for rejecting parts of the $787 billion stimulus while others give reasons for accepting the full package in this Reuters article by Alan Elsner.

.

Part I covered the history and purpose of the Jones Act.

Part II covered proponents arguments and analysis.

For the full study with all figures and tables, log on to Jones Act study 2009.

By Daniel Brackins

Job Protectionism and Unemployment

As has been noted the U.S. shipping industry attempts to increases the wages of its employers with the use of the Jones Act. This is primarily accomplished through unions. A binding minimum wage can be introduced either by law or through collective bargaining.

The point of intersection of the supply and demand curves is the equilibrium point where supply equals demand. This point changes with shifts in the demand for labor (increase in demand for labor will increase price of labor).  If labor markets were free to operate with no outside influence, then supply would equal demand, and all those who desired employment would be employed.

We see that if the wage rate is higher than the equilibrium wage rate, the supply of labor will exceed the demand. By creating an artificial price floor for labor that is above the equilibrium wage rate, the supply of labor will exceed the demand (at that wage rate) and not all people who seek employment will be able to find a job. Note that if the wage is set below the equilibrium wage, it will have no effect on the equilibrium point for the labor market (a nonbinding constraint). The higher the minimum wage above the equilibrium wage, the greater is the impact. The magnitude of the impact is also determined by the number of people who are currently being paid the minimum wage, and therefore directly affected by the change. Bargaining power obtained through the representation of large numbers of workers can result in wage rates that are well above the equilibrium rate. Often studies allude to cases where there appears to be little or no negative effects resulting from a minimum wage increase. These conclusions may occur due to the magnitude, timing, and number of employees impacted by the increase.

There is an inability for unions to create wage equality through artificial wage inflation. In the unions’ attempt to equalize wages they have essentially done the opposite. An artificial increase in wages above the real market value assumes an infinite amount of monetary supply (Gallaway & Vetter, n.d.). With this failed logic it would be acceptable to pay a floor sweeper $50 per hour or perhaps $500 per hour. Yet the money supply is not unlimited; therefore, any shift will create a side effect. As a result any money given to one person must be taken from another. In the case of wage inequality it is wages that would have been given to another had the wages been

In the industry represented in the diagram there are a total of 5,000 jobs possible before saturation occurs.The market rate has established $10 per hour for this job and would allow for maximization and full employment. However, if an artificial rate were established at $50 per hour, as a result, only 1,000 workers could be utilized. This would prevent 4,000 workers from entering the industry.

Decline of U.S. Shipping

In comparison to other nations without cabotage restrictions there has been a decline in the U.S. shipping fleet, losing out to the competition of these other nations (Competition, 2006).  This is occurring despite the protectionist policies of the United States.  A comparison of vessels operating can be seen in figures 3 and 4.

It must be noted that the protectionist policies of the U.S. has reduced the number of U.S. flagged ships in operation.  On the other hand countries that exercise free trade policies, without cabotage laws, such as Panama, Singapore, and Hong Kong have a flourishing merchant fleet.  Open competition has created incentives for companies to operate in these nations.  Even U.S. shipping companies are aware of this benefit.  Despite having to pay a 36% penalty fee under Jones Act laws, Matson has some of its ships repaired in Shanghai, China.  Matson spokeman Jeff Hull stated, “[despite the fee] it’s still considerably cheaper” (Little, 2001).

References

1800JonesAct. (2008). The Jones Act U.S.C. Title 46 (Recodified 2006). Retrieved November 21, 2008 from http://www.1800jonesact.com/maritime_statutes/default.asp

Competition in the Noncontiguous Domestic Maritime Trades (2006).  U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration.

Little, R. (2001). U.S. merchant fleets sails toward oblivion.  The Baltimore Sun.  Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.mcall.com/topic/balte.bz.
sealift06aug06,0,7707946.story?page=1

Longshormen, Making $100K Per Year, Won’t Reduce Demands (2002). Rense.com. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://www.rense.com/general30/long.htm

Maritime Flags of Convenience Visualized (2007). gCaptain. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/tag/data/

McClintock, M. (2004). Merchant Marine Act of 1920. eNotes.com. Retrieved October 2, 2008 from http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/merchant-marine-act

Official USDA Alaska and Hawaii Thrifty Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home (2008).  United States Department of Agriculture.

Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels (2008).  United States Department of Agriculture.

The Economic Effects of Significant U.S. Import Restrains Fifth Update 2007 Investigation No. 332-325 (2007).  United States International Trade Commission.

The Hidden Costs of U.S. Shipping Laws (1996).  Public Interest Institute.

The Price of Paradise! (n.d.). Alternative-Hawaii. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.alternative-hawaii.com/overpop.htm

The World Factbook (2008).  Central Intelligence Agency.  Retrieved October 2, 2008 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford in this cnn.com piece entitled “Don’t Mortgage Our Children’s Future” dispells the Obama myth that the only option to a trillion dollar stimulus is to do nothing.

By Guy Monohan

The latest effort by Congress and our new administration to resolve our economic malaise is a good example of applying macroeconomic management to an economy that thrives when microeconomic management is practiced.

We as Americans have been conditioned by academia and media to believe that only experts with national and international credentials have all the answers.

So instead of making decisions at the local and individual business level where challenges and opportunities are intimately understood, we instead put our faith in “smart” people, who will never be able to properly manage the enormous and daunting complexity of what once was, in many respects, a free economy.

A complexity that politicians claim would require next to a trillion dollars to manage. The number alone should prove my point. The inevitability that Washington will prevail, proves their agenda. They do not want a free economy.

Guy Monohan is a Honolulu resident.

.

Part I addressed the history and purpose of the Jones Act in this series.

By Daniel Brackins

Proponent Argument

In addition to national defense, proponents argue that the Jones Act provides additional benefits to the United States.  Among these include job protection due to unfair competition by from other nations.

Job Protection

Phillip Grill (1996) says that job protected by the Jones Act is 124,000 (as cited in The Hidden Costs, 1996).  Grill further says that these jobs must be protected in order to prevent the loss of jobs to foreign competitors, who charge less than fair wages for similar work done by U.S. workers.  This is a claim to unfair competition.  Indeed the wages of a merchant marine are incredibly high compared to their counterparts.  A U.S. longshoreman or marine clerk can earn upwards of $100,000 to $137,000 per year (Longshoremen, 2002).  Indeed this is a much greater salary found in such places as China.  This increased cost of wages will be further analyzed.

National Defense

In the wars of this century, commercial shipping has been critically important. The relevant question is not whether future threats might require that fleets of commercial-type ships be available. The question is whether present programs provide such a capability effectively and efficiently.  If the U.S. flagged fleet is fully employed during peacetime serving commercially important domestic and international trades, it is neither an entirely reliable nor a low-cost military reserve. This was verified during the Gulf War (Ferguson, n.d.).

Some security justification for transporting war material in peacetime exclusively on U.S. flagged ships is valid. The fact that a large fraction of military preference cargo consists of household goods and private automobiles dilutes any such basis for incurring the high costs of cargo preferences. Further, cargo preference does not buy much reserve military capability; the cargo preference largely supports bulk carriers and container ships that are of limited military use (Ferguson, n.d.).

The higher than competitive prices that are permitted under the antitrust exemption for conference ratemaking may be important, given present regulatory constraints, in sustaining the U.S. flag fleet. However, more than 80 percent of traffic in American international liner commerce is carried by foreign companies. Therefore, whatever military gain is achieved through conference price fixing accrues predominantly to foreign governments (Ferguson, n.d.).

The defense-related rationale for present policies presupposes that, despite the enormous capacity available on the open market, only U.S.-flag service could be relied on in an emergency. In contrast, the Military SealiftCommand made extensive use of foreign ships and crews in the Gulf War, and representatives of the Department of Defense have recently declared that there is no need to rely on the U.S.-flag commercial fleet in any foreseeable wars (Ferguson, n.d.).

Analysis

Operating Cost Differentials

Vessel costs are primarily comprised of capital and operating costs. Capital costs refer to vessel construction costs.  Operating costs include wages paid to crews, direct fuel charges, insurance, maintenance and repair, and other administrative expenses. Of these, labor and maintenance costs are typically higher in absolute terms for U.S. vessels than for foreign-flagged vessels (table 1). U.S. crew costs generally account for most of the differences in operating costs between U.S. and foreign flagged vessels. For example, manning costs account for 77 percent of the operating cost differential for a typical oil tanker and 81 percent of the cost differential for a typical containership (The Economic Effects, 2007).

Table 1.

Expense Category

U.S. Flagged

Foreign Flagged

Crew

12,705

2,940

Fuel

4,410

3,045

Maint. & Repair

2,310

1,470

Insurance

13,335

13,335

Other

1,500

1,400

TOTAL

$34,260

$22,190

Source:  The Economic Effects, 2007

The above table indicates a large crew expense for U.S. flagged ships.  In addition to the higher salaries demanded, American ships must hire more crew members than foreign ships, often 23 or more, compared with as few as 11 on other vessels (Little, 2001).  Even ship owners willing to pay American salaries say they were forced from the fleet because of all the other expenses that the U.S. flag requires. “Foreign crews eat less, they travel economy class, they seem to use less [provisions], there’s less overtime, no workers complaints,” said Vass, who re-flagged the LNG Aquarius. “I can’t think of anything that didn’t cost more. Like the beef. They would only eat prime American beef - not choice, like your wife feeds you, but prime, U.S. beef. We had to fly it out to Japan.”I’m not saying the Americans aren’t good. They are. But the foreign crew doesn’t mind eating Australian beef” (Little, 2001). In the past 25 years 1,600 vessels have left the U.S. fleet (Little, 2001).

In Hawaii many cattle ranchers have decided to use airplanes to ship their cattle.  They find it cheaper and more efficient than shipping them on U.S. flagged ships.  These cattle fly on 747s in livestock containers at 30 cents a pound (Little, 2001).  They have no other choice since foreign flagged vessels are not allowed to ship cargo from one U.S. port to another.

If foreign vessels were allowed to participate in U.S. cabotage, some industry analysts maintain that, in addition to complying with environmental laws, foreign vessels operating in U.S. domestic waters would be required to comply with other U.S. regulations, including federal and state tax, immigration, and labor laws.  According to industry representatives, foreign vessel compliance with these laws likely would increase the costs of such vessels operating in Jones Act trade, thereby substantially decreasing the cost differential between U.S. and foreign flagged carriers.  However, only some of these laws would apply to foreign vessels if they were allowed to participate in Jones Act trade (The Economic Effects, 2007).

Job Protectionism and Unemployment

As has been noted the U.S. shipping industry attempts to increases the wages of its employers with the use of the Jones Act.  This is primarily accomplished through unions.

1800JonesAct. (2008). The Jones Act U.S.C. Title 46 (Recodified 2006). Retrieved November 21, 2008 from http://www.1800jonesact.com/maritime_statutes/default.asp

Competition in the Noncontiguous Domestic Maritime Trades (2006).  U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration.

Little, R. (2001). U.S. merchant fleets sails toward oblivion.  The Baltimore Sun.  Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.mcall.com/topic/balte.bz. sealift06aug06,0,7707946.story?page=1

Longshormen, Making $100K Per Year, Won’t Reduce Demands (2002). Rense.com. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://www.rense.com/general30/long.htm

Maritime Flags of Convenience Visualized (2007). gCaptain. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/tag/data/

McClintock, M. (2004). Merchant Marine Act of 1920. eNotes.com. Retrieved October 2, 2008 from http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/merchant-marine-act

Official USDA Alaska and Hawaii Thrifty Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home (2008).  United States Department of Agriculture.

Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels (2008).  United States Department of Agriculture.

The Economic Effects of Significant U.S. Import Restrains Fifth Update 2007 Investigation No. 332-325 (2007).  United States International Trade Commission.

The Hidden Costs of U.S. Shipping Laws (1996).  Public Interest Institute.

The Price of Paradise! (n.d.). Alternative-Hawaii. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.alternative-hawaii.com/overpop.htm

The World Factbook (2008).  Central Intelligence Agency.  Retrieved October 2, 2008 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Editor’s note:  Hawaii Liberty Chronicles contributor, Daniel Brackins, has released his research on the Jones Act’s economic impact on Hawaii written on assignment for his 6000 level Economics course at Hawaii Pacific University.  It will be released in parts with this first portion covering the history and purpose of the Jones Act.  Pictures added at editors discretion.

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the Jones Act, is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.  It is a cabotage law which also contains provisions regarding seamen’s rights.  These cabotage provisions restrict the carriage of goods or passengers between U.S. ports to U.S. manufactured flagged vessels.  In addition, it maintains that 75% of the crew members must be U.S. citizens.  Also repair work of U.S. flagged vessels’ hulls and superstructures is limited to 10% of foreign built steel weight (1800JonesAct, 2008).  These restrictions are largely American protectionist policies.  These policies have a significant impact on the economy of the United States.  Since Hawaii is an island which relies on trade and commerce for subsistence, the Jones Act has severe negative implications for the economy of Hawaii.

No reliable analyses of the economic benefits of U.S. maritime polices have been published.  Nor has there been a reliable study as to the benefits of a repeal of the Jones Act.  As a result, judgment of these policies must be made by their rationale and their specific impact on certain economic sectors. Unfortunately there is even less information available for the economic impacts on the State of Hawaii.  This paper will focus on the implications for the economy of Hawaii.  It will demonstrate that costs for moving cargo between U.S. ports is far higher than if such restrictions did not apply, and that this cost is passed on to the consumer.  It will also show that the U.S. shipbuilding industry has also suffered as a result of the Jones Act, and this it has prevented U.S. flagged ships from competing in international shipping.  In addition a focus will be on the final implications for Hawaii’s consumers who bear the burden of this failed economic policy.  Ultimately it will be shown what steps can be taken to reverse the negative impacts of the Jones Act and make Hawaii a prosperous state.  Conclusions will be drawn from the general impact of the cabotage law on the United States and its effects on Hawaii.

The Hawaiian Merchant leaves San Francisco Bay on Aug. 31, 1958, with 20 24-foot containers on its deck. The Matson ship inaugurated container shipping in the Pacific. Photo: Matson Navigation Co.

The Hawaiian Merchant leaves San Francisco Bay on Aug. 31, 1958, with 20 24-foot containers on its deck. The Matson ship inaugurated container shipping in the Pacific. Photo: Matson Navigation Co.

History and Purpose of the Jones Act

The intent and purpose of the Jones Act has been codified in the preamble of the Act itself:

  • It is necessary for the national defense and for the proper growth of its foreign and domestic commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine of the best equipped and most suitable types of vessels sufficient to carry the greater portion of its commerce and serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency, ultimately to be owned and operated privately by citizens of the United States; and it is declared to be the policy of the United States to do whatever may be necessary to develop and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine…(1800JonesAct, 2008)

The history of the Jones Act must be evaluated in its historical context.  At the turn of the century the United States was completing a process of development after overcoming the turmoil of the Civil War.  It was at this time that strong and viable merchant fleet became a political priority.  The British, known for a strong merchant fleet, were looked upon as a model because of their ascension to a position of dominant world power.  This was attributed to having a strong naval fleet.  Sir Walter Raleigh stated, “Whosoever commands the sea commands trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself” (McClintock, 2004).

Destroyers present include: USS Farquhar (DD-304), at left; USS Reno (DD-303), center; USS William Jones (DD-308), right center; and USS Hull (DD-330). Photographed by the Shura Studio, Honolulu. Courtesy of Charles Sass, 1979. U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

Another development was the need for American military forces to have a dependable sea lift capability in time of defense.  This was realized during World War I.  The infant U.S. Navy did not possess the capability of performing this function, and thus relied on the civilian sector for the transport of military cargo to overseas destinations.

The volume of cargo and international trade for the U.S. merchant fleet had drastically decreased due to the economic decline and global turmoil caused by World War I.  Further complicating the ability of the U.S. merchant fleet to compete in international commerce were higher construction and operation costs. For example, in 1926 the comparative monthly crew costs for ships of equal size were: $3,270 for the United States; $1,308 for Great Britain; and $777 for Japan.  Historically, the United States curbed the impact of such issues through cabotage laws, which are government measures used to protect or foster a domestic shipping industry by reserving all or a portion of international sea commerce to ships which fly the national flag (McClintock, 2004).

Cabotage laws were first introduced with the Shipping Act of 1916. The Shipping Act stated that only citizens of the United States, or companies in which a controlling interest was held by a citizen of the United States, could own a U.S. vessel. Additionally, the secretary of transportation had strict control over the transfer and chartering of U.S. vessels to foreign companies, and it provided for the regulation of rate agreements to avoid rate wars.  Subsequently, Congress passed the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, which was arguably the nation’s most influential cabotage law (McClintock, 2004).

1800JonesAct. (2008). The Jones Act U.S.C. Title 46 (Recodified 2006). Retrieved November 21, 2008 from http://www.1800jonesact.com/maritime_statutes/default.asp

McClintock, M. (2004). Merchant Marine Act of 1920. eNotes.com. Retrieved October 2, 2008 from http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/merchant-marine-act

NEWS RELEASE
THE GRASSROOT INSTITUTE OF HAWAII

2009 Hawaii Pork Report
Grassroot Institute and CAGW Expose Waste in Hawaii Government

Jan. 28, 2009 — Hawaii taxpayers recently paid almost $3,000 for a state employee to travel to Los Angeles for the Grammy Music Awards, according to a new report from The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (GRIH) and premiere taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). In the midst of a significant state budget shortfall, the 2009 Hawaii Pork Report reveals that bureaucrats continue to spend taxpayer dollars in questionable ways. The exposé, which is the first of its kind in the state, reveals egregious waste, abuse and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars—and gives concrete examples of overspending to policymakers looking to trim fat from state and local budgets.

Some examples of frivolous spending that are sure to raise the ire of hard-working citizens include:

·       $2,829.91 for a state employee to travel to California for the Grammy Awards;

·       $875,000 to reconstruct a hiking trail that is now barred from public access at a cost of an additional $50,000 a year;

·       $130,000 to an artist for ceramic tiles adorning water coolers at the Hawaii Convention Center; and

·       $2,400,000 for substitute custodians in public schools.

Pearl Hahn, GRIH policy analyst and lead author of the report, remarked, “The only thing more shocking than the sheer amount of waste is the degree to which government officials will go to hide that waste. This report gives dozens of examples of abuse of taxpayer dollars—but there are hundreds, if not thousands, more examples waiting to be found.”

“The 2009 Hawaii Pork Report is the first step in bringing fiscal sanity to the Aloha State,” said David Williams, Vice-President for Policy at CAGW in Washington, D.C. “With an economic downturn it’s important for government to get rid of unnecessary and ridiculous programs and evaluate those essential programs making government more efficient. Before taxpayers are asked for one more dime of their hard earned money, state and local governments need to rebuild the trust they’ve lost,” he said. “Establishing a website with state and local government expenditures and creating a state Grace Commission to go through every nook and cranny in the budget would help fix that broken trust.”

The 2009 Hawaii Pork Report can be found at the GRIH website: www.grassrootinstitute.org. The mission of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is to promote individual liberty, free market economic principles and limited, more accountable government.

Finer Points Must Be Addressed for Hawaii’s Future Freedom

By Daniel Brackins and Dan Douglass

On Monday Governor Lingle issued her State of the State address. Politically she came across well and sensible. To her credit she connected with the public much more-so than last April when her address to the Hawaii Economic Association sparked our initial Economic Reality Check for Governor Lingle. Some things we agree with and others we don’t. Finer points must be addressed.

In her speech there were a few surprises. She called for energy independence (not a surprise) and food self-sufficiency (surprise). This is an admirable goal since the premium cost of food is an unnecessary burden for Hawaii’s people. Yet she failed to mention that Hawaii’s high cost of food is caused by two primary factors: the shipping monopoly (resulting from no Hawaii exemption from the Jones Act) and food tax. Food is an item that the consumer has no choice but to buy. Food is a necessity for life, and yet the state taxes this. The Governor must concert efforts, based on the understanding that under our current economic conditions many could use the additional 4% in their pockets.

Urging various state departments to buy local produce seems a well start, but skirts the basic problem of how the once booming agricultural industry has been incrementally destroyed in our state by the shipping monopoly. The consequence of state departments paying premium costs for local goods will increase the cost of the various departments (unless the departments are downsized) that ultimately all the taxpayers of Hawaii pay for.

The basic flaw is common in the bureaucratic mindset from county to federal. It is the false assumption that consumption/consumerism is the answer; this mantra of economic stimulus through liquidity. But where does the flow come from? It’s taken from the productive sector that generates voluntarily growing stimulus (through the free exchange of goods and services) that must be left alone as much as possible. To punish the productive sector by urging consumption on the state departmental level is utter nonsense that in effect continues to “kick the can down the road” for the longer term.

Lingle also called for a reduction in government services and pay cuts for government employees (surprise). We agree that this is a necessary step. There is a huge amount of overlap and duplication of government services. We recommend that the governor create a special task force (at no taxpayer cost) to eliminate overlap, improve efficiency, and reduce waste. We feel that this alone would eliminate the state’s projected $1.8 billion deficit.

Ultimately lasting wealth will come from entrepreneurial determination. This is something creative that almost always dies once government’s sticky fingers or iron fists get in on the action. Thus it takes courageous leadership to outsource, streamline and sunset governing agencies out of the productive sector’s way as much as possible.

Thus we stand firmly opposed to the Governor’s proposal to delay, curtail, or eliminate tax credits, exemptions or deductions. Tax cuts will allow the additional money in the consumers’ and investors’ pockets to help stimulate the economy through additional purchasing power. Moreover every proposal for tax reform should be evaluated apart from the typically exaggerated claims. How to think about any given tax reform? Here are four rules:

  • 1) If a bill reduces taxes through lower rates or increased deductions, it should be supported;
  • 2) If a bill increases taxes through raising rates or repealing deductions, it should be opposed;
  • 3) If a bill includes tax increases as well as tax reductions, it’s intellectually incoherent and therefore probably a trick;
  • 4) If a bill promises to reduce taxes and increase revenue, it should be rejected out of hand.

While we agree that a deferral of the transit tax on Oahu should be an option, it does not go far enough. The transit tax should be eliminated for similar reason stated above. Transit tax collections have already dropped by 16% since last year, a total of $2.6 million. This is in opposition to what the planners had anticipated when they claimed revenue would continue to rise each year. This makes funding the rail system without raising taxes unrealistic. We believe that the whole rail project itself should be scrapped. In the current state of economic crisis on all bureaucratic levels, Hawaii productive taxpayer base (the real golden goose) cannot finance the Honolulu Rail Cartel’s monstrosity.

Once again we must reiterate that she reconsider her own five-point economic plan. Our own plan to stimulate Hawaii’s economy would include the following:

  • Offer large tax incentives to business- this would include eliminating the corporate income tax or, at the very least, largely reducing it. This would include all industries, leaving none out. Incentives for small business development must also be explored.
  • Lowering the tax burden- a reduction of taxes across the board including the GE tax. Taxes magnify the cost of doing business in Hawaii.
  • Personalization of services- by eliminating wasteful state run services, such as the Department of Human Services (as an example), and outsourcing to non-profits, government spending can be largely reduced. This will also help with the previous point of tax reduction.
  • State exemption from the Jones Act- this would effectively terminate the shipping monopoly and lower the cost of goods substantially.
  • Free trade zones- by allowing tax free, tariff free, and duty free goods to be exchanged in Hawaii, the state could become a trading hub in the center of the Pacific connecting many areas of the world.
  • Marketing to outside business- with large incentives for business, the state should market on the mainland and in other countries in order to bring business to Hawaii.

Both Hawaii Republican and Democratic Party politicians must shun the temptation of enriching friends, families and allies at the expense of the families and businesses on the brink of moving to economically freer states or nations. Our Hawaii’s future freedom demands these bold measures from all our leadership that generates incentive for success and eliminates corruption.

Governor Linda Lingle’s 2009 State of the State Address

Senate President Hanabusa, Speaker Say, Lt. Governor and Mrs. Aiona, former Governor Ariyoshi, former Governor Waihe‘e and Mrs. Waihe‘e, members of the Legislature, cabinet members, Chief Justice Moon, Chair Apoliona, Mayor Tavares, Mayor Kenoi, military leaders, members of the Consular Corps, distinguished guests, and to the people of Hawai‘i…good morning and aloha!

It is a great privilege and a humbling experience to come before you each year to share my thoughts about where our state stands, and where we are headed.

The annual State of the State Address is a time-honored tradition in states all across our great nation.

It is a time to take stock of where we are as a state, to recognize a few successes, and to lay out a clear roadmap for our future.

In this sense, it is a fairly typical speech.

But this has not been a typical year. We are facing a time like no other in our state’s history.

And 2009 will be one of the most challenging years in our nation’s history as we confront one of the severest economic crises we have ever faced.

The daunting task we face in the months ahead is making some very difficult decisions in order to address our immediate fiscal problems.

These are not decisions that any of us want to make, but they are decisions that must be made.

They are the same kinds of decisions being made across our state by individuals, families, businesses and organizations as they too confront a near-term future with substantially fewer financial resources, and a high degree of uncertainty.

I’m an optimist by nature…and as Winston Churchill said, “An optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

So, I come before you today with a clear understanding of the enormity of what we face in the near term, but still enthusiastic about planning for our future together and optimistic about Hawai‘i in the 21st century.

Together we will meet both our near-term and long-term obligations by making those decisions necessary to navigate through the turbulence of the current fiscal crisis and achieve our preferred future.

That future includes energy independence, increased food self-sufficiency, and a 21st-century infrastructure that supports existing and emerging industries.

Our future also includes a well-cared for environment that increases recreational opportunities across the state.

We cannot afford to merely hunker down and muddle through the next year or two.

This is a time for us to work together to address the immediate reality, while searching for those opportunities that will enable us to emerge from this situation stronger than ever.

This dual effort will take patience and courage because there will be those who want to ignore reality and continue spending at current levels.

And others who only want to deal with our immediate revenue shortfall while deferring any talk of the future.

Either approach would leave us far short of meeting our duty to the people of Hawai‘i – a duty both to live within our means and position ourselves for a brighter future.

As we face this historic challenge, it is easy to forget how much success we have enjoyed in recent years.

I want to review the solid progress we have made in several areas, including home ownership and helping those most in need.

Since May of 2006 we have built nine new emergency shelters and transitional housing projects that provide safe and clean places to live for many who previously could only find a night’s rest in our parks, beaches, doorways or in their cars.

Nearly 2,800 people, including hundreds of children, have received not only safe shelter, but social services and an outpouring of community support to help them transition from homelessness to self-sufficiency.

It took many people to achieve so much in just two-and-a-half short years. I want to thank our entire community for embracing and helping those who had lost all hope.

In an attempt to address a completely different kind of housing need, we’re all aware of the success the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has had.

They’ve awarded more land to their beneficiaries than at any time in the history of the trust, and we all enjoy seeing families who have waited for decades finally receiving their homesteads.

But there’s a much larger DHHL story that will be fully revealed in the years ahead.

It is the story of a native Hawaiian agency that has chosen to meet its fiduciary duty to its beneficiaries by leading in a way that benefits the larger community of Hawai‘i.

Whether it’s their pivotal role in the $110 million Kroc Center, development of the future DeBartolo regional mall, kick-starting the infrastructure UH West O‘ahu needed in order to move forward, or being the first state department to move its entire O‘ahu operation to the Second City of Kapolei, DHHL has chosen to lead.

We now look to them as an important and integral part of our economic recovery, and as an example of how to develop desirable communities.

They are even blazing their own trail in our state’s efforts to achieve energy independence and provide a clean energy future for the generations that will follow.

Few could have envisioned six years ago the heights to which DHHL and the Hawaiian Homes Commission would soar.

I believe their well-recognized success has been achieved partly because of how they contributed to the broader community.

DHHL is not just about building homes, it is about building great communities.

And they have succeeded because they have demanded more of themselves and their beneficiaries.

The bottom line is that they have chosen to lead, not follow…and what a joy it has been to watch their transformation and ongoing journey.

I want to personally thank the DHHL staff and those who have served on the Hawaiian Homes Commission for showing us all what great things can be achieved when you recognize we are all part of one ‘ohana.

An important part of that ‘ohana is Hawai‘i’s keiki, especially those who are most vulnerable.

Two remarkable trends have occurred in Hawai‘i’s child welfare system since 2005.

The first is a 50 percent decline in the number of children in state care, to just 1,500 children, which is the lowest number since 1993.

At the same time, Hawai‘i’s child re-abuse rate also dropped by half to just 3.1 percent, which is one of the lowest re-abuse rates in the United States.

These positive trends were the result of a fundamental shift in the state’s approach to child welfare.

The Department of Human Services previously removed children from the custody of their biological parents at a rate four times higher than the national average, with no improvement in safety outcomes.

Today, DHS, and its community partners, uses a comprehensive assessment system to carefully weigh the risk factors in a child’s family environment, and ensure that they receive much-needed social services.

Director Lillian Koller has received national recognition for these and other achievements.

In November of last year, Governing Magazine honored her as a “Public Official of the Year” for widespread improvements at the Department of Human Services, including the overhaul of the child welfare system.

This was the first time a public official from Hawai‘i has won this prestigious national award.

I know Lillian believes that this success would not have been possible without our many outstanding social service agency partners as well as her own committed staff. Mahalo to all of you.

No matter how noteworthy these and other achievements may be, recent reductions in revenue forecasts mean that they and other worthy programs will take a back seat to our more immediate need to balance the budget.

Today’s struggling economy has created a deep hole in our budget that we need to dig out of this session.

The Council on Revenues has never in its history lowered its projections by so much in such a short period of time.

Over the past eight months, the Council has reduced its general fund revenue projection by $1.4 billion.

This downward projection reflects an unprecedented decline in tourism, construction, business activity, and consumer demand brought about by national and international events beyond our control.

These events – including sub-prime lending, frozen credit markets and volatile oil and other commodity prices – will impact us for at least the next couple of years.

Climbing our way out of this hole won’t be easy.

It won’t be quick.

It won’t be without pain; but it will be done.

The pain that will be felt by individuals and organizations both in and out of government will cause some to search for a specific reason or person to blame.

When a recently retired couple watches the value of its 401K drop dramatically…or a family struggles to make the mortgage payment now that their work hours have been cut back…or a social service agency faces the need to lay off employees because the government reduces the purchase of a service contract they were counting on…it is natural to want to understand why this is happening, and to hold someone accountable.

But we must refrain from playing the blame game because we know this downturn was not caused by any of us.

And we know we had been making good decisions in recent years to create a brighter future for Hawai‘i’s people by lowering taxes, increasing science and math education, moving toward energy independence, and preserving more of our natural and cultural resources.

We also know that we are all in this together, and it is only by sticking together that we will be able to deal effectively with the immediate fiscal crisis and strengthen our economy in the long run.

We will need a mixture of courage, compassion, and collaboration to cope with the unprecedented budget gap we face.

Collaboration doesn’t mean we will see all issues the same way, it means that for the sake of Hawai‘i’s future, we must acknowledge our predicament and find an acceptable way to move ourselves forward.

In order to do this, we must start by accepting the fact that in this new economic and fiscal environment, there is simply no possible way to continue operating and spending the way we have.

Although I am extremely optimistic about Hawai‘i’s long-term prospects, I am not going to sugarcoat the immediate challenge we face.

In order to maintain the public’s confidence and trust, we must be open and honest about the nature and magnitude of what we are facing.

The reality is that we will have to make some unpopular choices that will reduce some services and cause others to be delivered in a different way.

Not because we want to, but because we can’t afford business as usual.

A number of projects will likely be delayed, curtailed, or possibly eliminated.

Not because we want to, but because we can’t afford business as usual.

We will have to ask government employees, like those who work in the private sector, to accept some reduction in wages and benefits.

Not because we want to, but because we can’t afford business as usual.

Some who currently enjoy special tax credits, exemptions and deductions will see them reduced or eliminated.

Not because we want to, but because we can’t afford business as usual.

This is a time of shared sacrifice when everyone must be willing to give up something.

This is a time when we must rely on each other, because no one is coming to rescue us.

We must also keep in mind that the economy will likely continue to soften in the near-term, perhaps causing the Council on Revenues to further reduce projections at its March meeting and then again in May after the budget is adopted.

We are not alone in facing this new reality and near-term uncertainty.

Families and businesses across the country and throughout our state have had to come to terms with this same situation.

But we should also recognize that the difficulty we face is temporary.

Our nation will regain its economic footing, and so will Hawai‘i.

How fast we recover here at home will depend to some degree on the decisions we make during this session.

Our solutions need to be decisive enough to address our immediate situation, but just as important, must prepare the way for our future.

Short-term solutions that merely defer the hard choices to those who will follow us are just as bad as no solutions at all.

We can’t meet our responsibility by kicking the can down the road.

We must make meaningful choices now that address the reality we face today while laying the foundation for a better future.

That better future is one that transitions us from an economy over-reliant on land development to one that is innovation-driven and relies on the capacity of our people.

A key area where we must bring innovation to bear is ending our over-reliance on imported foreign oil.

Oil pollutes the environment, it sucks billions of dollars out of our economy, and leaves us dependent on the goodwill of foreign countries and companies for our very survival.

We remain today the most oil-dependent state in America, but we have made great strides over the past few years.

Today windmills hum atop Kaheawa Ridge on Maui delivering clean, plentiful power and displacing the need to import 220,000 barrels of foreign oil each year.

On Lana‘i, a 10-acre solar farm now provides 30 percent of the island’s peak power needs.

A geothermal project on the Big Island that currently provides power for 30,000 homes is in discussions to increase its output by 50 percent.

And on O‘ahu, engineers are already figuring out where we will be plugging in the electric cars coming to dealer showrooms in the near future.

Last year we entered into a unique partnership with the federal Department of Energy called the Hawai‘i Clean Energy Initiative or HCEI.

It established the goal of a 70 percent clean energy economy by 2030.

HCEI experts from government, national labs, our military, utilities, universities and the private sector have recommended specific actions to achieve the 70 percent clean energy goal through indigenous renewable resources and energy conservation.

My administration and legislators will introduce several bills based on these HCEI recommendations.

These changes will significantly increase energy efficiency in our commercial buildings and residences, give consumers more control over their energy costs, transition us to alternative fuel vehicles, such as electric cars, and ban new fossil fuel power plants in Hawai‘i.

When adopted, these proposals will form the basis for Hawai‘i’s transformation to one of the world’s first economies based primarily on clean energy.

Implementing these policy changes will require a large measure of collaboration as we will need public funding, assistance from county governments, conservation by citizens, and investment by the business community.

To successfully transition to a clean energy economy, we will need the involvement of our entire community, alignment of our efforts, and a continual focus on our objectives.

I expect there will be a fair amount of spirited debate about the specific energy choices we should make, but if we recognize that we cannot go back to where we were, then I believe the choices are clear.

We can either work together toward a clean energy future or continue to operate in a business-as-usual fashion that will leave Hawai‘i vulnerable to the vagaries of world oil prices and the whims of foreign countries and companies.

As the world’s most isolated set of islands and our nation’s most oil-dependent state, a clean energy future is no longer simply a desire of environmentalists, it is an absolute necessity for our long-term economic survival.

This energy transformation is something we owe to future generations, and something they have a right to expect.

They have a right to expect energy security.

They have the right to expect stable and lower energy costs, and a cleaner environment.

They have the right to expect higher-paying, green-collar jobs that come with a thriving new energy sector.

And they have the right to expect us to stop sending up to $7 billion a year out of Hawai‘i to buy foreign oil, instead of keeping most of it here at home, to circulate in our economy.

Over the past 12 months, remarkable progress has been made toward achieving a secure energy future for our state, and we are being hailed as a national model because of our effort.

We must remain steadfast in our pursuit of energy independence and security, regardless of fluctuating oil prices.

Another area in which we must decrease our over-reliance on outside sources of supply is the food we eat.

We import 85 percent of everything we consume.

We need to take action now to increase Hawai‘i’s food self-sufficiency and strengthen and preserve agriculture for future generations as required by our State Constitution.

We must increase our efforts to protect the best agricultural lands from development.

And, we must strengthen our commitment to provide affordable water for agriculture.

Increasing our food self-sufficiency will contribute to the state’s economic recovery by keeping more of our money here at home.

If we replace just 10 percent of the food we currently import, it would create more than $300 million in economic activity, generate $6 million in taxes, and create 2,300 new jobs.

I will be asking state agencies such as schools, prisons and hospitals to take the lead by purchasing locally grown fruits, vegetables, poultry, eggs and meat.

Under new rules, Hawai‘i farmers will receive a 15 percent price preference when placing their bids for state purchases.

If we each make an effort to buy more locally produced food we will be contributing to our economic recovery, helping Hawai‘i farmers lower their unit costs, and protecting our open spaces.

Agriculture keeps Hawai‘i green, it recharges our aquifers and promotes a healthy lifestyle and good nutrition for families.

It also diversifies our economy and supports small businesses and rural communities.

Another requirement for a strong and innovative economy is an advanced communications infrastructure that will serve as the backbone for connecting us to the global economy.

This 21st century infrastructure is essential to creating the kind of high-paying jobs we are striving for in the coming years.

The communications infrastructure we have in place today barely meets our current needs.

We need to be planning for tomorrow’s needs.

We shouldn’t be limited in our thinking to believe that what we have in place today is acceptable.

We need to dream about tomorrow, and begin now to lay the groundwork for getting there.

We need a communications infrastructure that will allow us to achieve competitive advancements in the areas of: education, health care diagnosis and treatment, public safety, research and innovation, civic participation, creative media, e-government, and the foundation for overall economic development.

We have been working with the Legislature’s Broadband Task Force to craft a bill that recognizes the convergence of technologies that are used to provide voice, data and video services through wireline, wireless, cable and satellite communication.

The bill consolidates regulation and advocacy of communication services under one agency, a new Hawai‘i Communications Commission, in order to make attainable the latest communications services at the earliest possible time.

The Commission will not increase the size of government.

It will be funded from existing fees, and will focus on achieving specific goals, including: creating broadband access on a competitive basis at reduced prices…streamlining the permitting process…and providing access to businesses and residents by 2012 at prices and speeds that will make us a world leader and a place that will attract investment, while empowering our residents with enhanced communications capability.

This exciting, high-tech proposal couldn’t have moved forward without the hard work over the last two years of the Broadband Task Force, and I applaud the Legislature for the foresight shown in establishing it.

Although I have been discussing ideas that will position us well for the future, I think you would agree that the problem that bothers residents the most today is the everyday annoyance of sitting in traffic.

Sitting in a seemingly endless line of cars, burning expensive fuel, missing an appointment or your child’s soccer game, is not the way any of us want to spend our time.

The status quo has become intolerable, so we have joined with legislators in proposing a six-year, multi-island, Highways Modernization Plan to address known traffic problems with proven solutions.

This plan is intended to save lives…save time…and save money.

The program combines road building, highway and bridge safety improvements, anti-congestion traffic management, and a pavement maintenance program, in addition to safety legislation and increased public outreach and education.

The bulk of the near-term projects will be started using existing funds and anticipated federal fiscal stimulus funding.

The longer-term projects will be paid for by increases in highway-related taxes and fees that would be triggered at a future date if steady job growth indicates that our economy is growing again.

In other words, we will have a plan in place that is ready to go to construction when our economic situation improves. This innovative recommendation to tie future increases to measurable economic results in order to address a long-festering problem is the kind of creative approach being used by departments and agencies throughout government.

I have challenged every one of our departments to find new and creative ways to improve our quality of life in these tough economic and fiscal times.

The Department of Land and Natural Resources has risen to this challenge, and developed a comprehensive proposal to renew our state parks, small boat harbors and trails as well as the very way we care for these precious places – a true “Recreational Renaissance” that will benefit all residents and visitors.

The heart of the plan is $240 million in capital improvements over five years for both land- and ocean-based recreation.

The Department will fund this innovative plan by dedicating rents from some existing commercial properties to pay debt service, and developing now-vacant industrial and commercial lands that will fulfill the high demand for light industrial spaces in areas suitable for those uses.

Additional funding to support maintenance and operations will be generated from leases and concessions in parks and harbors combined with a small entry fee paid by visitors at a limited number of high-destination parks.

The plan’s final piece is the development of new land and ocean recreational opportunities through a public-private partnership to develop the long-proposed Ke‘ehi Lagoon Triangle adjacent to Lagoon Drive in Honolulu.

This centerpiece initiative will include 119 acres of light industrial space as a long-term source of revenue, coupled with new marina slips, canoe club storage and practice areas, boat ramps, storage and dry docks, beach parks and picnic areas.

I want to thank the staff at DLNR, DBEDT and Budget and Finance who developed this creative and comprehensive proposal which creates brand new, non-tax revenues and a better way of managing and caring for our recreational, natural and cultural resources.

It’s sure not business as usual at DLNR!

Working together, we can set the stage for this long-overdue “Recreational Renaissance” that will provide residents and visitors across our state with new and better recreational areas that are well-maintained, secure and enriching.

I am especially enthused about working with the Legislature on this and other proposals as a colleague rather than an adversary.

I will do more than reach across the aisle; I will walk across the aisle, and my door will always be wide open to you.

Our collaboration will demonstrate to the people of Hawai‘i that when history called on us to do so, we rose to the occasion.

I firmly believe that only by working together can we produce the kind of significant results that will enable us to exit this temporary downturn, and to position our economy for a stronger and more sustainable future.

Before concluding I want to take a moment to speak about the case pending before the United States Supreme Court involving the issue of ceded lands.

The issue involved in this case is not whether ceded lands should or should not be sold.

Rather the issue involves the fundamental question of whether the State of Hawai‘i has clear title to the land transferred to us by the federal government at the time of statehood.

The roots of this case date back to a decision made by former Governor Waihe‘e in the 1980s to sell certain ceded lands on Maui and Hawai‘i for the construction of affordable housing.

It was a decision he believed was in the best interest of all the people of Hawai‘i.

It is a decision that former Governor Cayetano defended in court because he believed it was in the best interest of all the people of Hawai‘i to do so.

And it is a decision that we are appealing to the United States Supreme Court because I believe it is in the best interest of all the people of Hawai‘i.

Acting in the best interest of all the people is the same standard I applied when supporting the Akaka Bill, fighting to protect federal programs benefiting native Hawaiians, or expediting Hawaiian Homestead leases.

And I will continue to advocate for these issues in the coming years just as passionately as I have in years past.

I call upon all who cherish what is the essence of Hawai‘i to come together with a willingness to understand and respect the nature of this case and its importance to the future of our state.

Our current fiscal crisis and the ceded lands issue arise during the same year that we commemorate our 50th anniversary as a state.

It is a time when we can reflect on just how unique we are among the 50 states.

But it is more importantly a time to remind ourselves that regardless of the short-term decisions we must make in this moment of economic difficulty, we should remain firmly anchored on the sure footing of Hawai‘i’s rich culture, diverse heritage and sometimes complicated history.

Governors of Japanese, Hawaiian, and Filipino descent have delivered State of the State addresses at this very podium.

Hawai‘i elected the first Asian American to the United States Senate.

And, less than a week ago, Hawai‘i’s heart swelled with pride as one of its own, Barack Obama, became the first African American to take the presidential oath of office when he was sworn in as our nation’s 44th president.

We have so much to be proud of in our history, and so much to look forward to in the coming years.

We are indeed the most unique among all the 50 states, and we are certainly capable of meeting this current challenge.

In my heart, I know that if we work together to make these difficult budget decisions, the people of Hawai‘i will understand that these weren’t the decisions we wanted to make but that we had to make.

The people of Hawai‘i are counting on us to lead our state through this unprecedented time – and that is exactly what we are going to do.

When the curtain comes down on our time on this stage, I want our collective legacy to win reviews as a story of pulling together for the good of all rather than being written off as a cast of characters who was each acting in their own one-man show.

If we deal decisively with the current crisis while keeping our eyes open to the opportunities that these kinds of challenging times create, then the people of Hawai‘i will conclude that we have lived up to our obligation.

Now, let’s get to work.

By Ken Schoolland

As the recession deepens in Hawaii and across the nation, academics and journalists have joined in panic chorus to warn of the dreaded economic monster: DEFLATION! What’s this? Falling prices. Is it bad? An army of lobbyists will try to persuade the Legislature and Congress that it is very bad. They will press lawmakers to prevent deflation with price controls, subsidies, and regulation.

Under the title “The Growing Threat of Deflation,” Chris Isadore explained the alarm on CNNMoney.com saying, “The biggest problem with deflation is that when businesses need to continually cut prices to spur sales, they eventually respond by cutting production. That results in growing job losses, and could, in the worst case scenario, even cause a depression.” (12-18-08)

I don’t buy it.

Increasing Wealth
Suppose retail prices are cut in half. Do we stop buying? No. We buy more because we are wealthier. Our income can buy twice as many products. And producers have an incentive to hire more people and to buy more materials to make more products. It is easy for producers to do so because their money also buys twice as much!

But if people see prices fall, moans journalist Robert Krulwich on ABC , they will stop buying because they will wait for prices to keep falling further. Really? Then what was going on when a consumer stampede killed a Wal-Mart store clerk on Long Island during the Black Friday discount sales last fall? Was that crowd at the door waiting passively for prices to fall still further?

No. People respond to lower prices. People buy more when prices fall. Economists who say otherwise are defying what they teach as “The Law of Demand” and “the wealth effect.” A good example of prices falling over the long run is in the computer industry. Prices have always been going down, but people still buy more computers and related stuff. Why? Most people buy computers when the trade for paper dollars seems worth it to them—all the time!

The Politics of Prices
Why all this hand-wringing about falling prices? To understand the alarm, one must first understand the politics of prices in Washington, D.C. People are affected differently by broad changes in prices and they have different levels of political influence. Some are winners and some are losers. If the quantity of money increases faster than increases in the quantity of products, we experience rising prices. This general rise in prices is inflation. During inflation, people with fixed incomes are losers because their income buys fewer products. They are less wealthy.

The same holds for savers and pensioners who earn a fixed income from interest. Savers and pensioners are the ultimate creditors who use banks as middlemen to loan their money on to debtors. Years later, debtors pay off their loans with “cheap” money, money that can’t buy as much because of rising prices. So savers and pensioners may get repaid in money that can’t buy as many products as before the loan. Thus creditors are big losers from inflation and debtors are big winners. Who is the biggest debtor in every country of the world? The government.

Winners & Losers
People with low incomes usually spend their dollars on daily living. Higher income people who don’t spend their dollars on daily living don’t care to hold or save a lot of paper that is losing value. Those with a lot of extra dollars trade for things that increase in value, i.e. gold and precious metals, real estate and raw materials, museum collectibles, etc. The more demand, the more those prices rise.

Who is the biggest holder of gold, real estate, and museums in every country of the world? The government. Who collects more taxes as incomes rise to higher brackets and as property values rise? The government. And who prints the dollars and spends them first? The government.

If Joe the Plumber prints a few hundred dollars, the officials arrest him for “counterfeiting.” The counterfeiter has taken products from society while simultaneously devaluing everyone’s currency. When the government prints a few hundred billion dollars, these officials are applauded for “stimulating the economy with monetary policy.” Whether accomplished by counterfeiters or monetary officials, the effect is much the same: a redistribution of wealth from the losers of inflation to the winners of inflation. In this manner, monetary policy has robbed 95 percent of the purchasing power of the dollar over the past 75 years.1

Consumer Price Index, 1800-2005

“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” –John Maynard Keynes

Property and Debt
My house in Waipahu nearly doubled in value over three years. It increased in value by more than I earned as income in the same period of time. The house was the same, except for wear and tear. Good for me. So where did the extra value come from? It didn’t fall out of the sky and I didn’t do anything to earn it.

No, much of this “value” came from the losses of everyone holding dollars. Thank you very much inflation. I was a big winner and I don’t deserve any tears if the price of my house should fall again later. Deflation does the opposite of inflation by reversing the winners and losers. During deflation people with fixed incomes, savings, and pensions all become wealthier as their dollars buy more products. They are winners from falling prices.

Losers from deflation are the debtors who must pay off debts with more valuable dollars. Other losers are the holders of precious metals and real estate that decline in value during deflation. The losers include many influential people, but the biggest loser in all categories is the government—it holds more debt, gold, and land than anyone else. In addition, the government faces falling tax revenues and a loss of newly printed money to spend. And politicians don’t want that.

Japan’s Lost Decade
We are told that deflation is the great horror facing our nation because debtors will find it increasingly difficult to pay off their debts. We are told this condition plagued Japan in the 1990’s and led to a “lost decade” of near zero growth. I don’t buy it.

Deflation isn’t the cause of defaults and economic collapse. Default and collapse are the consequence of extraordinary inflation and a reckless credit expansion bubble. There’s no reason to have more sympathy for debtors during deflation than the debtors have for their creditors during inflation. Both sides are responsible for the risks, not just the creditors. An inflationary bubble was created in Japan, leading to soaring real estate, stock, and credit markets. Land prices in Tokyo were so inflated that the value of the Emperor’s Palace grounds was estimated at greater than the value of all the land in California.2 That inflationary bubble had to crash, and it did. There was no stopping it—but they tried.

Inflation preceded the crisis in Japan and the winners from inflation were not going to give up their gains by permitting lower prices to restore normalcy. Instead, massive monetary infusions and price manipulations continued to interfere with, and delay, necessary economic adjustments. The economic crisis in Japan was the creature of inflation. This is the same in the U.S. today following decades of inflation and the subsequent bubble in real estate, stocks, and credit markets. Deflation is an inevitable restoration of real economic value.

“Government is the only agency which can take a useful commodity like paper, slap some ink on it, and make it totally worthless.”– Ludwig von Mises

All Bubbles Pop
Is growth impossible during deflation? Not at all. Modest deflation was normal from 1865 to 1911, one of America’s great periods of growth. The quantity of products increased faster than the quantity of money. So what? People built this into their planning.

Deflation rewarded those who saved money and invested wisely. It rewarded fixed-income workers with increasingly valuable dollars. And it penalized those who borrowed recklessly. All of this was good for growth.

Then the Federal Reserve Board was created just in time to print money and expand credit for World War I and to generate the real estate, stock market, and credit bubbles of the Roaring 20’s. RCA stock soared from a couple dollars a share to over $600 a share.3

This bubble had to collapse, and it did with the Great Depression and America’s “lost decade” of the 1930’s. It is more than coincidence that the Great Depression followed the creation of the Federal Reserve Board.

Was the Great Depression cured by more government spending? Not at all. Federal spending increased by 49 percent under President Herbert Hoover in the three years from 1929 to 1932, the greatest peacetime increase in U.S. history. President Franklin D. Roosevelt increased federal spending by another 49 percent in the five years from 1933 to 1938, and the economy was still deep in depression with nearly 18 percent unemployment.

What Spending Matters: How Much or On What?
How did Hoover and Roosevelt spend that money to prevent deflation? Both of them spent millions trying to make food scarce in order to raise prices. While consumers across the nation were suffering widespread unemployment, historian Eugene Barker recounts that FDR “made contracts with farmers to plant less land than usual in wheat, cotton, corn, rice, tobacco, and a number of other crops…farmers who entered into the contract ‘plowed under’ millions of acres of growing cotton…”

“In order to reduce the supply of hogs and cattle, so that the price of bacon, hams, and beef might go up,” says Barker, “the government bought and destroyed several million pigs and beeves.” 4

Roosevelt’s advisors said this was good for the economy. Well, all this spending was good for farmers, bureaucrats, and generous politicians. But it was not good for the economy. It was disastrous for most folk because it meant there would be less food and clothing amidst higher prices and higher direct and indirect taxes. More important than how much money is spent locally or nationally, is how wisely money is spent. And massive government spending typically redirects wealth from productive investment to unproductive malinvestment.

Virtue and Vice
Inflation now seems inevitable to anyone who grew up after World War II. Few people alive today can remember a time when prices were actually stable or going down. The result is that inflationary monetary policy always punishes savers and rewards debtors with perverse incentives.

Thus, Americans have become addicted to spending and debt. Americans don’t save enough for their own retirement, for their own education, for their own health care, for their own unemployment or other emergencies. Instead, Americans have become dependent on politicians and the government to provide for their retirement, education, health care, unemployment and other emergencies.

And where does government get the money to do all of this? They print dollars and they borrow dollars from those who do save a lot, i.e. the Asians of rapidly emerging markets abroad. Is it time for the government to reverse these incentives—to reward savers and punish debtors with deflation? No.

It is time for the government to get out of the business of manipulating the value of “legal tender” as a way of increasing its power and manipulating people. Officials with fine hats are neither smart enough nor virtuous enough to rule us in this manner. We have been the toys, the broken and abused toys, of politicians and elitist monetary officials long enough.

The government monopoly on currency through legal tender laws should end. Americans should be free to choose alternative currencies to work for and to save.5 Governments are not good at running monopolies. When there is competitive choice, people will look for quality alternatives, and the government will finally have a motive to stop ruining the dollar by inflation.

Footnotes:
1. Rockwell, Lewellyn H., “The Blessings of Deflation,” Ludwig von Mises Institute, 5-30-03.
2. Emmott, Bill, The Sun Also Sets, Page 118.
3. de Aenlle, Conrad, “Is Frenzy for Internet Stocks a Bubble Waiting to Burst?“, International Herald Tribune, 9-25-99.
4. Barker, Eugene, The Building of Our Nation, Row, Peterson & Co., Evanston, Illinois, 1948, p. 776.
5. Paul, Ron, “Ron Paul on Legal Tender Laws,” RonPaul.com, Sept. 28, 2008.

… and deferring the transit tax for a year or more to provide relief to Hawaii tax payers. Everything is on the table for debate and discussion.

~ Colleen Hanabusa, from Senate President speech (01/21/09)

By Gary North

Today is inauguration day. George W. Bush will officially depart as soon as Barack H. Obama is sworn in.

The Audacity of Hope is the title of Obama’s campaign book. As with Bill Clinton’s A Man from Hope video, the accent is on the positive.

To campaign on hope is a tried-and-true tradition. Like second marriages, this is hope triumphing over experience. Also like second marriages, the honeymoons are shorter.

The general public is always optimistic when a President is inaugurated. Most voters want to believe that things will get better. If things have been going well, they expect this to continue.

The greatest optimism usually occurs at a first-term President’s inauguration. People were optimistic about Clinton in 1993, Reagan in 1981, Kennedy in 1961, and Eisenhower in 1953. The one exception was Nixon in 1969. The election had been very close, the Vietnam war was a quagmire, and Nixon was widely distrusted as “tricky Dick.” The pessimists had every reason to be pessimistic in 1969, as things turned out. But you would not have guessed this in 1972. He won in a landslide, despite the recession and the huge back-to-back Federal deficits in 1970 and 1971, his unilateral annulment of the international gold standard, his unilateral imposition of price and wage controls, the shortages that resulted, the continuing quagmire in Vietnam, and the rumors about the Watergate break-in. The quadrupling of the price of oil in 1971 was also bad news.

There was brief optimism over Gerald Ford, despite escalating inflation and despite Nelson Rockefeller as the appointed Vice President. But optimism gave way to pessimism in what became the worst post-war recession. He was sent packing in 1976.

Reality usually intrudes. Eisenhower experienced two recessions, 1953 and 1957, years of his inauguration. Kennedy got trapped in Vietnam. Then he was assassinated, undermining faith on the “can-do liberalism” of the pre-Kennedy era. Johnson’s disaster in Vietnam undermined liberalism even more. Nixon gave us serious inflation, a scandal and a resignation, and no resolution of the Vietnam War. Ford was a fluke. He never recovered from his pardon of Nixon. Carter experienced the worst peacetime inflation in American history and then a recession. To that was added the Iran crisis: the hostages and the failed rescue attempt. Reagan escaped, just as Eisenhower had escaped. He was the Teflon President. Clinton also escaped. He was the charm President. He could talk his way out of anything, just as Reagan could. Reagan’s 1984 campaign promised “morning in America.” It looked plausible until September 11, 2001.

DEFICITS AND FIAT MONEY

Half a century ago, the master humorist and serious political scientist C. Northcote Parkinson coined Parkinson’s law: “Work expands so as to fill the time allotted for its completion.” He suggested other laws, but that one became his most famous law.

He made a very important point when he discussed government committees in charge of spending. He said that a committee will wrangle over a few thousand dollars but hardly discuss a bill to spend several million. (The numbers were lower in the 1950’s.) Why is this? Parkinson offered an answer. Members of a committee have experience with several thousand dollars. They know how much can be wasted. They also know how little it will accomplish. But they have no personal experience with millions. They don’t argue over a huge number because it is merely a number. They don’t connect emotionally with it.

Half a century later, the committees spend a hundred billion dollars without worrying about it. There was that one fine moment in September 2008, when the House of Representatives voted down the Administration’s $700 billion bailout of the banks. Three days later, the House passed it.

From then until now, neither political party has blinked about bailouts. The Federal Reserve System has added $1.6 trillion to the monetary base since April 1, 2008. The Federal government has agreed to absorb bad debts in the range of $8.5 trillion, after last week’s deal with Bank of America, the nation’s largest bank (this week).

Serious resistance to Federal spending is over. There will be debates over which groups get their hands into the bag of loot, but the bag will surely grow.

The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee do not officially ask, let alone answer, the following questions:

1. Who will invest in this debt at today’s interest rates?
2. Will these investors be private Americans?
3. Will Asian central banks buy this debt? (Have they already begun to sell it?)
4. Will the Federal Reserve System buy this debt with newly created money?
5. How high will interest rates go? How soon?
6. How will this debt be repaid? (Joke!)
7. How will the government be able to roll over this debt from now until Doomsday? (When is Doomsday?)
8. What effect will investment in Federal debt have on the cost of capital in the private sector?
9. If the private sector cannot attract capital at low rates, what effect will this have on future production?
10. When will these trillion-dollar annual deficits end?

Because such questions are considered fiscally naïve, the committees do not hold hearings on any of them.

Why are these questions considered fiscally naïve? Because they involve two things that Congress rarely considers: (1) economic cause and effect; (2) the long run.

PANDORA’S BOX CONTAINED HOPE

We usually forget this. The Greeks understood that hope springs eternal. But the evils in the box are permanent.

We still like to celebrate Pandora’s optimism on January 20, every four years. It is part of the American political tradition. But then the other escaped evils reassert themselves.

Optimism regarding Obama’s Administration, as with every new administration, rests on a presupposition: politics trumps economics. This is another way of saying that legalized coercion trumps voluntarism.

Faith in the means of this triumph is lodged in three institutions: the national government, the Federal Reserve System, and foreign central banks. No matter how bad things get economically, voters believe in these three institutions, if they actually have heard of central banking, which few have and fewer remember.

Today, the national government is running at least a $1.2 trillion annual deficit. To this will be added whatever the proposed stimulus law will cost. Estimates run in the range of $400 billion a year for two years. Obama has said that annual deficits in the trillion-dollar range will go on for years. He has not been specific, rather like his date for a pullout from Afghanistan.

The public does not care. Optimism is still widespread. Like a spouse in a second or third marriage, who does not yet know of her partner’s snoring, the voters expect smooth sailing through treacherous financial waters.

The Bush Administration established the precedents: a $700 billion bailout (plus $150 billion in Congressional pork), the various bank bailouts, and the nationalization of the mortgage market. Whatever President Obama proposes will be an extension of existing policies. There will be no successful opposition. There will be no turning back.

THE POINT OF NO RETURN

Critics like to say that we have gone beyond the point of no return. There is no agreement on when this point was reached or what it was.

My view is that it was the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. I have written a book on this, Conspiracy in Philadelphia. Even for me, this book is considered controversial. You can download it for free.

The case can be made that the war of 1861–65 was the point of no return. But I think it was the election of 1904, the most forgotten Presidential election of the twentieth century. Only a handful of historians and political junkies can tell you who lost. A slightly greater number can tell you who won: Teddy Roosevelt. Can you name his opponent?

I thought not.

It was a New York politician, Alton B. Parker. He was a pro-gold standard politician. I have written about this election before. When he lost, William Jennings Bryan was overjoyed. He said that the Cleveland wing of the party was finished. He was right. Bryan got one more shot at the Presidency in 1908. He lost for the third time. Four years later, Woodrow Wilson won. In that election, three Progressives – statists – ran against each other: Roosevelt, Wilson, and President Taft. That year also saw a Constitutional Amendment establishing the direct election of Senators. Another amendment was said to be passed – technically, it wasn’t: the income tax. In 1913, late in December, the Senate passed the Federal Reserve Act.

No turning back. No turning back.

The Medicare Act of 1965 made it impossible to avoid a national default. The numbers are horrendous. Occasionally, a subcommittee of Congress invites an economist to come and testify on this. The testimony gets no publicity. The committee chairman thanks the economist, who then returns to obscurity.

This fiscal year, the combined unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare will be in the range of $75 trillion. No one in government notices, other than Ron Paul and a few similarly minded House members. No one cares. Such numbers are considered naïve. They are only numbers. Numbers above $1 billion do not register mentally. Parkinson told us this during Eisenhower’s Administration. Nothing has changed.

CONCLUSION

I do not know how long the political honeymoon will last. I do know this: the magnitude of the Federal deficits and the magnitude of Federal Reserve monetary base inflation will not bring anything like smooth sailing through the financial storm.

We have already seen the monetary base translated into expansion of M1. Offsetting this has been an increase in excess reserves deposited by banks at the Federal Reserve. Last fall, the FED began paying interest on reserves. That change in policy had been scheduled for 2011. It was moved up because of the crisis. Now the FED pays nothing. Excess reserves now receive nothing. Banks must pay interest on all deposits. Where will they get an even greater rate of return? They are losing money on every dollar held at the FED. The shrinking money multiplier will reverse when banks pull money out of the FED and start buying T-bonds or whatever else will safely pay a positive rate of interest.

The political game will go on. The economic causes will continue: national debt and monetary inflation. Historically, this has led to price inflation. Deflationists tell us, “This time it’s different.” We shall see. We shall see before the next Congressional elections.

Gary North is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.

By Gary North

And so you get what I call the natural progression, the three I’s: the innovators, the imitators, and the
idiots.  — Warren Buffett

That was Mr. Buffett’s assessment of the housing bubble and the institutions that financed it.  He made this statement last October on the Charlie Rose show on PBS.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26982338/page/4

He made this statement on October 1.  A year before, the Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked at 14,164.  That was the highest it ever closed.

On November 4, 2007, Charles Prince resigned as CEO of Citigroup, which was the largest U.S. bank at the time.

On November 5, I told my GaryNorth.com subscribers to get out of stocks and short the S&P 500.  I knew it was over.  Done.  The bubble was about to burst.

Citigroup shares were $30 when Prince departed.  They are under $4 today.

The largest bank is now Bank of America.  Yesterday, the press ran a story that BofA needs more billions of Treasury money, to add to the $25 billion already received.  It seems that the Merrill Lynch deal did not work out as planned.

On July 30, 2008, I wrote an article, “Pathetic Merrill Lynch.”

Merrill Lynch is the great emblem of the old Wall
Street. It made its name and its fortune in the days
when government regulation prohibited price competition
by brokers. Merrill Lynch’s model was doomed the day
the Charles Schwab showed up. The discount brokerage
houses have undermined the main source of income for
the stodgy old brokerage firms that relied on
government intervention to prevent competition.

Now these firms try to make up for vastly reduced
brokerage income by selling advice and putting together
specialized deals. The classic example of this approach
to moneymaking is Bear Stearns. It went bust in three
days. It got in on the new leveraged markets, and it
got its investors into these markets, and then went
belly up. It got bought for a song by J.P. Morgan.

Merrill Lynch now says that it has to raise $8.5
billion in new capital. The sweetheart that came in to
rescue Merrill Lynch is the sovereign wealth fund of
Singapore. This is a Singapore government operation.
What is basically a socialist operation has to bail out
the symbol of American capital. This is where Wall
Street has led us. This is what Alan Greenspan’s bubble
economy has produced.

The sovereign wealth fund of Singapore lost billions in the Bank of America deal two months later.  At first, BofA offered $50 billion in stock.  The CEOs of the two firms did not ask their respective shareholders.  It was a weekend sweetheart deal to save Merrill.  Lehman Brothers went bankrupt that weekend.  Merrill was failing fast.

By the time the Merrill deal was consummated two months later, the BofA stock was worth $20 billion.

How smart are the bureaucrats who run the export surplus governments’ sovereign wealth funds?  Not very.

So far this month, the Treasury has supplied $10 billion to the BofA to buy Merrill.  This was in addition to an earlier injection of $15 billion to save the bank.

http://GaryNorth.com/snip/768.htm

Now, the BofA is back for more.

The news did not affect Wall Street.  The Dow rose a whopping 12 points for the day.

Two weeks after Buffett made his comment on the idiots, BofA shares were at $40.  Today, they are around $8.

As I mentioned, Citigroup’s shares are under $4.  The only reason they are this high is that the Treasury absorbed $306 billion of bad assets last November.  This was the nation’s largest bank in 2007, with only BofA giving it a run for its money.

BofA is still giving it a run for its money.  But it’s a run for our money.

It is the end of an era.  Confidence in the stock market will takes years to return.  Nobody is going to believe in the now dead New Era.  This time it wasn’t different.  These two banks were symbols of the power of American capitalism.  They are now busted shells, whose CEOs must go to the Treasury, hats in hand.  “Hey, buddy, can you spare $300 billion?”

They are wards of the state.

The banking cartel had an impressive run under the protective wings of the Federal Reserve System.  But the days of wine and roses are over.

THE END

In December, Portfolio.com published a fascinating essay by Michael Lewis, “The End.”  Two decades ago, Lewis became an overnight sensation with his book, “Liar’s Poker.”  It was a study of the hottest of hot shot investment bankers.  The term, “liar’s poker,” got into common usage.

His article features one of the cleverest pieces of art work I have ever seen.  It is a morphed image of the famous bronze bull on Wall Street, located just outside the New York Stock Exchange.  The bull is on its side, dead.

Lewis begins with a description of his three years at Salomon Brothers, beginning in 1985.

I’d never taken an accounting course, never run a
business, never even had savings of my own to manage. I
stumbled into a job at Salomon Brothers in 1985 and
stumbled out much richer three years later, and even
though I wrote a book about the experience, the whole
thing still strikes me as preposterous — which is one
of the reasons the money was so easy to walk away from.
I figured the situation was unsustainable. Sooner
rather than later, someone was going to identify me,
along with a lot of people more or less like me, as a
fraud. Sooner rather than later, there would come a
Great Reckoning when Wall Street would wake up and
hundreds if not thousands of young people like me, who
had no business making huge bets with other people’s
money, would be expelled from finance.

That day has now arrived.  It began in August of 2007, a few weeks after the Dow closed at 14,000, and fell back the next day.  The first tremors hit the world’s capital markets.  The U.S. stock market shrugged it off.  Two months later, the Dow hit its all-time high.  Optimism was universal.  The great bull market, which in fact was lower in terms of purchasing power than it had been in March 2000, was on a roll.

It in fact was on a roll over.

Lewis continues.

I thought I was writing a period piece about the 1980s
in America. Not for a moment did I suspect that the
financial 1980s would last two full decades longer or
that the difference in degree between Wall Street and
ordinary life would swell into a difference in kind. I
expected readers of the future to be outraged that back
in 1986, the C.E.O. of Salomon Brothers, John
Gutfreund, was paid $3.1 million; I expected them to
gape in horror when I reported that one of our traders,
Howie Rubin, had moved to Merrill Lynch, where he lost
$250 million; I assumed they’d be shocked to learn that
a Wall Street C.E.O. had only the vaguest idea of the
risks his traders were running. What I didn’t expect
was that any future reader would look on my experience
and say, “How quaint.”

Lewis said he had no great agenda in writing the book.  The best he hoped for  is that it would serve as a warning for college students.  They should do something better with their lives than come to Wall Street.  What he found was the opposite.  He began getting letters from college students, asking him how they, too, could get in on a good thing.  “They’d read my book as a how-to manual.”

The system kept rolling along.  He gave up hope that it would finally break down.  Pay rose, scandals had no effect, and the beat went on.

Then it came to a screeching halt.  On October 31, 2007 — Halloween or Reformation Day, depending on your taste — an unknown analyst with Oppenheimer issued a report warning that Citigroup was in danger of going belly-up.  It had to cut its dividend.  For some reason, Meredith Whitney was believed.  Financial shares fell like a stone all day.  The industry lost $369 billion in market value in one day.

On November 4, Prince departed.  Citi cut its dividend in January.

This woman wasn’t saying that Wall Street bankers were
corrupt. She was saying they were stupid. These people
whose job it was to allocate capital apparently didn’t
even know how to manage their own.

That was the heart of the matter.  These people, for all their IQs, for all their contacts, for all their inside
information, were stupid.

They were, in Buffett’s graphic term, idiots.

For a year, Lewis says, she has warned that it isn’t over, that the write-downs are not enough.  Events keep bearing her out.

Lewis called her last March.  He wanted to know if there were people on Wall Street who had seen it coming.  There had been: the man who had taken her under his wing when she arrived on Wall Street as a recent history major.  His name was Steven Eisman.

THREE WHO WENT SHORT

Lewis’ article is really about Eisman and his two partners.  These three Jewish guys — two who grew up in New York City — spotted the emptiness of the entire system, and they got very, very rich shorting it.

They did not just short the S&P 500, as I advised my readers.  They figured out how the mortgage market had been sliced and diced.  They shorted subprime loans.  Even better, they shorted the bonds issued against the collateral of the subprime loans.

Eisman had contempt for the supposed geniuses, who did not understand the contracts their lawyers created and they signed.

In 1991, Eisman had been hired by Oppenheimer.  He was a lawyer, but he hated being a lawyer.  His story is a classic in entrepreneurship.  He was there at the right time.

He was hired as a junior equity analyst, a helpmate who
didn’t actually offer his opinions. That changed in
December 1991, less than a year into his new job, when
a subprime mortgage lender called Ames Financial went
public and no one at Oppenheimer particularly cared to
express an opinion about it. One of Oppenheimer’s
investment bankers stomped around the research
department looking for anyone who knew anything about
the mortgage business. Recalls Eisman: “I’m a junior
analyst and just trying to figure out which end is up,
but I told him that as a lawyer I’d worked on a deal
for the Money Store.” He was promptly appointed the
lead analyst for Ames Financial. “What I didn’t tell
him was that my job had been to proofread the
­documents and that I hadn’t understood a word of the
[!@#$%] things.”

Oppenheimer handed the task of analyzing the Money Store and its mortgages.  That was how he became the guru of subprime mortgages.

He and his two partners were convinced of one thing: that Wall Street was not interested in clients.  The clients were the victims.

Danny Moses was one of the three.  He knew the system.  When he would negotiate a deal for the hedge fund with a large Wall Street trading firm, he always asked this question: “How are you going to [@!#$%^] me?”  The trader insisted that this would not happen.  No deal, said Moses. We both know what can happen.  If
you want the deal, tell me how you’re going to be able to do it.  The guy would tell him, and Moses would do the deal.  He knew how much risk to accept.

You and I don’t.  The retirement fund managers didn’t.

The three figured out in 2004 that there were major problems looming for the housing market, especially in the “sand” states: California, Florida, Nevada, and Arizona.  The median home price had risen from the traditional 3 to 1 to 10 to 1 in Los Angeles.

Eisman realized in 2006 that the credit ratings agencies were ignoring this mess.  The brokerage houses and investment banks would take low-rated BBB mortgages, slice and dice them, and the ratings agencies would rate the top end AAA.  Now get this.

He called Standard & Poor’s and asked what would happen
to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at
S&P couldn’t say; its model for home prices had no
ability to accept a negative number. “They were just
assuming home prices would keep going up,” Eisman says.

These were the best and the brightest.  These were the masters of the universe.

These were idiots.

The team went to Orlando in late 2006 to attend a trade show on subprime mortgages.  They had expected a small, specialized group.  There were 6,000 people there, Eisman says.  It turned out that the show in Las Vegas was larger.

Note: in late 2005, I reported on a report by Las Vegas banker Doug French on the looming disaster in Las Vegas real estate.  I warned of a similar disaster looming in California.  No one paid any attention.  You can read it here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north416.html

If I knew, why didn’t the geniuses of American finance know?

Which brings us back to Merrill Lynch.

“We have a simple thesis,” Eisman explained. “There is
going to be a calamity, and whenever there is a
calamity, Merrill is there.” When it came time to
bankrupt Orange County with bad advice, Merrill was
there. When the internet went bust, Merrill was there.
Way back in the 1980s, when the first bond trader was
let off his leash and lost hundreds of millions of
dollars, Merrill was there to take the hit. That was
Eisman’s logic — the logic of Wall Street’s pecking
order. Goldman Sachs was the big kid who ran the games
in this neighborhood. Merrill Lynch was the little fat
kid assigned the least pleasant roles, just happy to be
a part of things. The game, as Eisman saw it, was Crack
the Whip. He assumed Merrill Lynch had taken its
assigned place at the end of the chain.

http://GaryNorth.com/snip/769.htm

And so, this week, the Bank of America, America’s largest bank (this week), has learned to its dismay that . . . Merrill is there.  The Bank of America wants billions more from the Treasury.

I can hardly blame them.

CONCLUSION

We are witnessing the nationalization of what remains of American financial capitalism.  The government is the owner now.  The government promised the voters that nothing bad would happen.  This guaranteed that something very bad would happen.  Now it has happened.

On January 15, on the day of the announcement by Bank of America, a CNBC commentator admitted that this was a tipping point for him, after 22 years.  The government is now running the show.  It’s not the free market any more.  He asked two of the other commentators –one of them was the cute lady with the bags
under her eyes, who was in the elementary school 22 years ago — whether it might have been better to let the bad firms go belly- up, so that the good ones could rebuild.  You have to see it to believe it.  See it.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/4487.cfm

If they are beginning to figure it out on CNBC — though in a moment of weakness — then word will get out.  The Federal Reserve System and the Treasury are running the show.

In short, we are now in part 2 of stage 3.

Part 3 will be even worse.

The editor of this clip saved the best for last (7:19).

Read the complete article in The Filipino Chronicle.

By Danny De Gracia

John F. Kennedy once observed that when written in Chinese, the word “crisis” is composed of two characters, one meaning danger, the other meaning opportunity.  As Filipinos begin the new year, crisis, danger, and opportunity abound.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the world is experiencing “the most dangerous shock” that financial markets have seen since the 1930s, and is on the verge of a global recession which, many believe, is inescapable despite frantic measures by governments and banking institutions alike to avert it. In the Philippines , the National Statistics Office reported last month that 2.5 million are now unemployed, an increase of 6.8 percent.  In the United States , the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated in December that 91,000 jobs were lost in retail trade; 85,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing; 82,000 in construction; 76,000 in leisure and hospitality; 150,000 in accommodation and food services; and 101,000 in professional and business services. Filipinos were hit especially hard as the same report indicated that the number of Asian Americans without work has increased to 343,000.  In addition to a weakening economy, Filipinos are still faced with challenges in the areas of under representation in government, stagnation in upward social mobility, preserving a cultural identity in America , as well as security and safety concerns as the global War on Terror enters its eighth year.  Many Filipinos can’t help but wonder: are the best days ahead, or behind us?

The Economy

Abroad, numerous countries are implementing or considering the implementation of massive tax cuts to save their economies. In the Philippines, while only four years earlier national leaders were looking to increase taxes to procure higher revenues, today there are plans to cut the corporate income tax from 35% to 30% to help the private sector retain more employees, encourage investment, and in the words of Ralph Recto, Secretary of Socioeconomic Planning, make the Philippines “more competitive in the long term”.  In the People’s Republic of China – one of the last remaining bastions of communism after the Cold War ended nearly two decades ago – a tax cut amounting to $17.5 billion U.S. dollars (120 billion yuan) is likewise being considered for corporations.  Here at home, a growing number of individuals believe that our national and local leaders should follow the rest of the world and reduce taxes to help ameliorate our economic crisis.

“The macroeconomic model known as the Laffer Curve teaches us that there is an optimal point of taxation, beyond which people and businesses produce less, revenues fall, and economies cool,” said Sarah Hunt, host of the new local television talk show Better Government. “I believe that the [state legislature] should pay specific attention to this notion, seeing that we have some of the highest taxes in the country. We even place a tax on food and medicine! I think it resides in the interest of the people of Hawaii to pay more attention to what goes on at the State legislature and start holding their elected officials accountable. Somewhere down the line, legislators started reflecting their own self interests and not of that for which they represent.”

Jamie Story, president of the Grassroot Institute, an Oahu based public policy think tank, believes that low taxes is an important part of a healthy economy. “Members of the Filipino Caucus and all state legislators in general should work to repeal taxes and place a freeze on new spending in the 2009 legislative session,” Story commented: “ Taxpayers, small business owners, and families all need tax relief now more than ever.  Economic stimulis or bailout packages don’t remedy the poor economic situation, in fact they exacerbate it by increasing government debt and taxes, which take money from taxpayers when they need it most and cause the money we do have to lose value.”

Grassroot Institute, which conducted a simulation last year to determine the effects of the increase in Hawaii ’s General Excise Tax, or GET, released a policy brief in October 2008 in which it was projected that some 6,054 local jobs could be lost as a result in 2009.  By 2010, the same study suggests that there could be a decrease in private investment by $159 million, a decrease in personal income by $360 million, and a decrease in disposable income by $765 million all as a result of the 0.5% GET increase.

“Employers are forced to lay off workers because of decreased business and increased taxes, and families have fewer resources to spend on necessities like food and clothing,” Story noted. “Instead, members of the Filipino Caucus should take the lead by proposing tax relief along with cuts in wasteful spending – that will allow struggling families to keep more of their hard earned dollars in these difficult economic times.”

The national debt has doubled since ABC produced this great cartoon.

TOUR GUIDE: To your left, folks, is the Washington Monument, to your right, the White House. And over there, just beyond the Capitol, is the National Debt!

TOURISTS: Oooo! Wow!

There’s something huge
Red, white, and blue
That’s grazing in D.C.
It’s gobbling up the taxes
That are paid by you and me
It doesn’t seem to notice
We really can’t afford
The billions that it’s costing us
To pay its room and board

It doesn’t roam
But seems content
To dwell on Capitol Hill
As long as trucks keep pulling up
With tons of green-back bills
We’ve got to feed the big guy
We really can’t forget
It has an awesome appetite
Tyrannosaurus Debt

TOUR GUIDE: The debt was born in 1790 when our new government took over 75 million the colonies spent in the Revolutionary War.

We’ve got to feed the monster
So it doesn’t get upset
It’s got an awesome appetite
Tyrannosaurus Debt

TOUR GUIDE: Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury (he’s on the 10, you know), wanted a federal debt to provide a reason to establish taxes to support our new nation.

The debt was young, they kept it small
They didn’t know back then
In 1812 another war would make it grow again
By ‘66 the Civil War had cost the nation millions
The government in Washington now had a debt of billions

TOUR GUIDE: The Civil War ran up a debt of almost three billion dollars that still wasn’t paid off by World War One.

We’re spending money we don’t have
Or so it would appear
The deficit is that amount we overspend each year
Though congressmen and senators
Make vows to cut its size
Despite their honest efforts
The debt just seems to rise

TOUR GUIDE: Now the debt’s over 4 trillion dollars and still growing…

A balanced budget would be great
To spend within our means
To stop the monster in its tracks
Before we bust our seams
It feeds on just the interest
Its appetite is whet
It never, ever stops to rest
Tyrannosaurus Debt

TOUR GUIDE: And this is the U.S. Treasury. It sells Treasury Bonds, bills, and notes, and savings bonds to finance the debt. The U.S. government promises to pay the owner interest plus the value of each bond at a future date.

We’ve got to try to tame the debt
And bring it down to size
To let it grow unchecked like this
Is certainly unwise
The debt’s a monster problem
That we really can’t ignore
I guess we should be grateful
That it’s not a carnivore
We’ve got to keep on servicing
Our trillion dollar pet
It’s got a monster appetite
Tyrannosaurus Debt

A fiscal misadventure
With trillion dollar dentures
Tyrannosaurus Debt

TOUR GUIDE: Feeding time is ALL the time.

A “job” could be to dig a hole one day, and fill it back up the next, or perhaps the equivalent at a desk. This does no one any good. But the value in that paycheck ultimately has to come from taxing someone productive. Some think this round-robin type of economic model is supposed to get us somewhere.

~ Ron Paul

SNL- Get Out of Debt Now!

by admin | January 12, 2009 | In Economy No Comments

By Tom McAuliffe

HONOLULU, HAWAII — The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (GRIH) has released a new study from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University.

The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii estimates that the Akaka bill could cost the state up to $690 million per year in lost revenue.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 (S.310 and H.R.505) in the 110th Congress, also known as the Akaka Bill after sponsor Senator Daniel Akaka, proposes to create a sovereign Native Hawaiian Governing Entity (NHGE) within the state of Hawaii. This is the first study on the economic impacts of the proposed bill, which is expected to be re-introduced in the new session of Congress.

The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii is a straightforward look at how passage of the bill would hurt Hawaii business while pitting neighbor against neighbor,” said Grassroot Institute President Jamie Story. “Regardless of one’s feelings about the Akaka Bill and its benefits or shortcomings, it is vital to examine the economic impact of the bill on Hawaii’s people. This study demonstrates the irreversible economic damage the Akaka Bill would do to Hawaii, and we hope Washington DC officials will take this into consideration.”

Among the study’s findings:

• The bill could exempt Native Hawaiians living or shopping on land ceded from the state from paying state income and sales taxes.

• There may be a transfer of state-owned lands to persons designated as native Hawaiians to the detriment of non-Native Hawaiian taxpayers and, correspondingly, to the state economy. The resulting tax increases would have large, negative impacts on the state’s economy leading to a possible reduction of 20,793 private sector jobs, a loss of $417.2 million in investment and a loss of $1,461 in real per-capita disposable personal income annually.

“We’ve looked at the bill, as introduced in the last session of Congress, from many different angles and have provided an objective in-depth analysis of what the economic impacts might be on Hawaii and its citizens,” said Dr. David Tuerck, Executive Director of the Beacon Hill Institute and co-author of the study. “In The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii we’ve identified the most likely effects of the Akaka Bill on the Hawaiian economy. By almost any plausible interpretation of the bill, those effects are uniformly negative,” adds Paul Bachman, Director of Research at Beacon Hill.

The new The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii study is available free of charge at the Grassroot Institute web site. Please visit: http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/studies for more information.

Tom McAuliffe is the communications director for the GRIH. The mission of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is to promote individual liberty, free market economic principles and limited, more accountable government.

The Beacon Hill Institute engages in rigorous economic research producing readable analyses of current public policy issues for voters, taxpayers, opinion leaders and policy makers. Please also visit: http://www.beaconhill.org for more information on that organization.

“Li Zhao’s The Foolish Things, Idea Exchange” invites you to our next monthly intellectual salon.  This month economists Daniel Brackins and Ken Schoolland will address The Causes and Effects of the Current “Economic Crisis.” $5 donation to cover heavy pupus.

Date:
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Time:
6:00pm - 8:00pm
Location:
The Schoolland’s
Street:
94-1097 Alelo St.
City/Town:
Waipahu, HI

RSVP by January 10, 2009


Phone:
8086760825
Email:

By George L. Berish

Perhaps Hawaii Transit Tax to Plummet [12/30] will force economic rationality on Hawaii’s office holders whose only response to all problems is “more debt”. In good times to leverage good intentions: In bad times to “fix” the economy.

It may also cause voters to back out of the trees — the choices itemized in Honolulu Rail Enters Defining Year [1/3/09] – so they can see the forest – Hawaii can’t afford Rail.

Why? For starters, during the Administration’s “vibrant” economy, Hawaii added a couple billions to general obligation debt, and from 2000 to June 2007 it added $5 Billion to the Government Retirement System’s underfunding (certainly several Billions higher today).

And bond raters have already “taken notice” by recommending “investors … bet against debt issued by … Hawai’i” [Business Briefs12/11/08], so a bond rating cut looms.

Just add up the Mayor’s facts:  Rail’s cost is $5.2 Billion;  A federal bureaucrat “hopes” Hawaii will get $1.2 Billion from the federal government (that just spent multiple Trillions it doesn’t have?);  Rail’s ticket sales will pay less than half of its operating costs;  Rails useful life is about 15 years, so repaying the $4 Billion net cost in that time at 4% will cost about $30 million per month – more with a bond rating cut;  But the transit tax that only produced $16 Million per month in “vibrant” 2007 and  has since plummeted to $13 Million.

So before the trees (details) distract us from the real question: Mayor Hannemann, who pays, and how, for $14 - $17 Million per month debt repayment shortfall, and the more millions of ticket sale shortfall?

owner manuals