What will it cost to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and more importantly, will it work?

Surely most folks won't mind paying a fortune for a clean-up plan for the Chesapeake Bay that doesn't begin to solve the problem. In 2011, we've all got lots of money to waste, don't we? At least EPA & DNREC seem to think so.

Most people have now heard that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL is the law of the land in six States and DC. Many new laws, policies, regulations and initiatives are being developed and are all memorialized in the State Watershed Implementation Plans or WIPS.

The Sage Policy Group has evaluated the WIP in Maryland and has issued a very informative report. The highlights:

1. It will cost $11 billion between 2012 and 2017 for Maryland alone (conservatively).
2. The cost does not include broader impacts to the State economy, including the loss of 65,000 jobs in Maryland and the associated $2.8 billion in lost wages.
3. The target score for the Bay is 70 (with 100 being a pre-colonization Bay condition). In 2010 the score was 31, better than the 2008 score of 28 (the worst Bay score in the early 1980s and was 23).
4. New development will be responsible for 70.6% of the costs, New emissions rules will account for 26.7% of the cost and changes to agricultural rules and policies will account for 2.5% of the cost.

It is clear that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL will bring significant costs and may not come close to achieving the goals of cleaning up the Bay. It is imperative that we set the goals and then let the free market system address the issue in order to reduce costs.

We can clean up the Bay and we can do it a lot cheaper than what is being proposed.

Posted by LandmarkJCM - http://jcmenvironmental.blogspot.com/2011/04/sage-report-what-will-it-cost-to-clean.html

Sussex County Solar Farm Will Cost us A Fortune

Our county elected officials may want to cut the celebration short on the new solar farm at the Sussex County Emergency Operations Center in Georgetown. The solar panels will save the county $345,000 in electricity over the twenty-five year expected life of the panels. However, it will cost us, the tax payers and electricity rate payers, $2.3 million!

For full article, click HERE

Government Cash Handouts Now Top Tax Revenues

U.S. households are now getting more in cash handouts from the government than they are paying in taxes for the first time since the Great Depression.

Households received $2.3 trillion in some kind of government support in 2010. That includes expanded unemployment benefits, as well as payments for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and stimulus spending, among other things.

But that’s more than the $2.2 trillion households paid in taxes, an amount that has slumped largely due to the recession, according to an analysis by the Fiscal Times.

Also, an estimated 59% of the 308.7 million Americans in this country get at least one federal benefit, according to the Census Bureau, based on 2009 data. An estimated 46.5 million get Social Security; 42.6 million get Medicare; 42.4 million get Medicaid; 36.1 million get food stamps; 12.4 million get housing subsidies; and 3.2 million get Veterans' benefits.

And the handouts from the government have been growing. Government cash handouts account for a whopping 79% of household growth since 2007, even as household tax payments--for things like the income and payroll tax, among other taxes--have fallen by $312 billion.

That is a tough feeding trough to take away from voters.

One of the recurring themes FOX Business has been covering is “how the world has been turned upside down – well, the business world at least,” notes FOX Director of Business News, Ray Hennessey. “In a free market, profit is generated by hard work and enterprise," Hennessey notes, adding: “Because of the labor of the worker, companies generally have the ability to prosper and make more money, both for their employees and their owners," which in turn creates tax revenues.

Seems like common sense, right? That’s because it is. But not in our country today. Somehow the DNA of our country is changing. Wealth creation is coming from DC, not from America’s entrepreneurs.

In short, Americans have the government, not private enterprise, to thank for their wealth growth.

Obviously, there are big implications to this.

For instance, Hennessey asks, if indeed more households have the government to thank for their wealth, does that mean those households are more inclined to re-elect politicians who are pushing for more government handouts?

Does the workforce erode because it is easier to collect a check than answer to an alarm clock each morning?

Is our competitiveness as a nation hurt because profit is generated not by American capitalism but by European-style socialism? Can we, as taxpayers, afford to carry the burden of government-sponsored wealth creation?

All this comes at a time when a growing number of Wall Street houses, including JPMorgan Chase (JPM: 44.68, +0.12, +0.27%) and Barclays Capital (BCS: 19.71, +0.33, +1.70%), Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) are cutting their U.S. GDP growth forecasts by as much as a percentage point or more.

It also comes as President Barack Obama is already in re-election mode, as he bets his massive spending will woo independents. It also comes as Standard & Poor’s has joined the International Monetary Fund and Pimco, which runs the world’s biggest bond fund, in downgrading their outlook on US debt.

The negative outlook comes as the government has added the equivalent of Germany and Russia combined in spending from the time Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi gaveled in as House Speaker in January 2007. The government, like never before, has put the thumb on the scale as it picks winners and losers.

Yes, the dollar rallied and Treasuries bounced higher after the news that S&P had issued a negative outlook on the U.S. debt picture. Some argued that happened because eventual austerity would slow growth, which is deflationary and in turn good for bonds.

But that ignores the flight away from rocky overseas markets toward the Treasury's safe haven status, which drives yields down. Potential sovereign debt defaults are a huge problem in the Eurozone, particularly in Greece, where yields rocketed above 13% earlier this week.

The bullish view about U.S. bond prices also ignores the fact that the Federal Reserve has been buying Treasury bonds and notes, $600 billion so far this year, more than half of the Treasury Dept.'s issuance. That keeps a lid on bond yields. When bond prices rise, the government doesn't have to lure investors with higher yields. When bond prices fall, the government offers higher yields to reel investors in.

The bullish view about U.S. bond prices also ignores the negative trend in the dollar, which has been weakening.

And it ignores the bond market’s brutal reaction to spending under President Bill Clinton, where yields spiked several percentage points higher beginning in 1994, rising from around 5% before topping out above 8%, before then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin forced austerity, leading to welfare reform.

Republicans now want to shrink the U.S. government, but Democrats want to stymie their efforts. This, after the President touted $38 billion in spending cuts as the largest in our nation’s history, just four months or so after touting the massive spending increase pushed through in the lame duck Congressional session.

And after the White House shelved the Bowles-Simpson debt commission report, a panel which the President asked for, endorsed and then ignored, hoping such hard decisions might be delayed until after the election.

President Obama had asked for the debt commission to "address the long-term quandary of a government that continually and extravagantly spends more than it takes in," only to initially set aside the commission's recommendations.

And earlier this year the White House first introduced a budget that would have added $6.7 trillion more in deficit spending over the next 10 years, yanking the national debt higher to more than 75% of gross domestic product, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That, until GOP Rep. Paul Ryan offered his $4.4 trillion in spending cuts over ten years, causing the President to offer $4 trillion in cuts over 12 years.

The Fiscal Times reports that “the only other time government income support exceeded taxes paid was from 1931 to 1936.” The Times notes that “government transfers of income to households started to overtake personal taxes at the start of 2008, and the gap has been widening.”

The difference between what households received and what they paid in taxes is about $125 billion, equal to a little more than “three times the amount Republicans and Democrats agreed to cut from government spending through Sept. 30,” the Fiscal Times said. Typically, the gap between government transfers and taxes runs the other way, the Times reports.

“In normal times the household sector gives about eight percentage points more of its income in taxes than it receives in direct transfers,” the Times quotes J.P. Morgan economist Michael Feroli as saying, adding that a return to normalcy, or this eight-percentage-point spread, is equal to about $1.2 trillion in income.

So the question is: What government policies will bring the U.S. labor market back to robust health, enough to drive economic growth, consumer spending -- and higher tax revenues?

When will the U.S. government pull back from its intervention into the U.S. economy, so the economy can try to stand on its own?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/04/20/government-cash-handouts-exceed-tax-revenues/#ixzz1KGUOuyOn

$6 Gas? Could Happen if Dollar Keeps Getting Weaker

A dollar plumbing three-year lows is hitting Americans squarely in the gas tank, and one economist thinks it could drive prices as high as $6 a gallon or more by summertime under the right conditions.

With the greenback coming under increased pressure from Federal Reserve policies and investor appetite for more risk, there seems little direction but up for commodity prices, in particular energy and metals.

Weakness in the US currency feeds upward pressure on commodities, which are priced in dollars and thus come at a discount on the foreign markets.

One result has been a surge higher in gasoline prices to nearly $4 a gallon before the summer driving season even starts, a trend that economists say will be aggravated as demand increases and the summer storm season threatens to disrupt oil supplies.

"All we have to have is a couple badly placed hurricanes which could constrain some of the refinery output capacity in some key locations," says Richard Hastings, strategist at Global Hunter Securities in Charlotte, N.C. "If you get weakness in the dollar concurrent with the strong driving season concurrent with the impact of one or two hurricanes in the wrong place, prices could go up in a quasi-exponential manner."

Using a model that combines "subtle rates of change" with movements in the dollar index [.DXY 74.14 0.14 (+0.2%) ] and commodity prices, Hastings figures the low dollar is responsible for about one-third, or $1.31, of the total gas-at-the-pump cost. Regular unleaded Wednesday was $3.84 a gallon nationwide, according to AAA.

While there's far from unanimity about the dollar's future course, the proportionate contribution that currency weakness makes to oil prices is clear.

The dollar as measured against a basket of foreign currencies has dropped 6 percent this year, while regular unleaded gasoline is up about 28 percent.

Gas prices also have been boosted from turmoil in the Middle East which in turn has triggered a wave of speculation that traders estimate has added about $15 or so to the cost of a barrel of crude [CLCV1 112.29 --- UNCH (0) ], which is now teetering above the $110 mark.

Hastings sees gasoline having "no problem" getting to $6.50 a gallon over the summer after increased demand and storm disruptions come into play.

Others, though, say gasoline prices haven't needed any help so far from other events—the moves by the Fed to keep interest rates in negative real terms are enough to boost energy by themselves.

Michael Pento, senior economist at Euro Pacific Capital in New York, says there is an almost perfect negative correlation between the falling dollar and oil prices—minus-0.9 to be exact.

"When you have negative correlations that strong, it's not hard to understand that the reason why we're having this price spike in commodities is primarily because of the weaker currency and not because of shortages of oil or international tensions or global growth," Pento says.

The assertion from Hastings that the weak dollar is responsible for one-third of the total cost for a gallon of gas "sounds very low," Pento says, adding that a barrel of oil should be closer to the $65 to $70 range if priced properly.

"That's exactly where it would be if we weren't crumbling our currency," he says.

Should events follow their current course, sharply higher gas prices will burden consumers further as they also cope with the rise in food costs this year.

Hastings projects the dollar index to test 72 at some point—another 3 percent drop—while Peter Cardillo, chief economist at Avalon Partners in New York, sees the dollar dropping to the 73.50 level.

"The global economy is quite strong, and the weak dollar is basically fueling even higher energy prices. That's not transitory," Cardillo says. "Gas prices in the Northeast are over $4 a gallon. How could anyone say that's not a burden?"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42683030

RAHN: Job and liberty destroyers

Which two have done more to improve your life - Thomas Edison and Steve Jobs, or Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi? Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others. We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers. Others are parasites who suck the blood and energy away from the productive. Such people are most often found in government.

Perhaps the most vivid description of what happens to a society where the parasites become so numerous and powerful that they destroy their productive hosts is Ayn Rand’s classic novel “Atlas Shrugged.” The just-released movie version is an entertaining, tension-filled struggle between the productive and the parasites who ally themselves with the envious and evil. Go see it.

When wages are rising faster than inflation (i.e., real wages), and the number of adults as a percentage of the population at work is rising, times are good; but when real wages fall, misery results. For the past several months, real wages have been falling, and despite the small improvement in the unemployment rate, the adult population/worker ratio continues to fall. Declines in prosperity most often are a result of bad policies rather than natural forces, with the rare exception of an event like the Japanese earthquake and tsunami.

Bad policies come about from the actions of specific people - individuals in Congress and government agencies - not the Congress or the administration as a whole. Washington is filled with people who are more destructive than constructive. It is useful to name some of the most destructive people in the hope that they will either reform or leave.

One of Washington’s most aggressive destroyers of jobs has been Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is a former head of the House Financial Services Committee and principal author of the now-notorious Dodd-Frank Act. He was one of main protectors and enablers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as they went on their ruinous, subprime mortgage buying binge. Peter Wallison, former general counsel of the U.S. Treasury and member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, has produced a lengthy report showing how the actions of Fannie and Freddie were the most important causes of the financial crisis. If Mr. Frank and his Senate counterpart, disgraced former Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, had acted responsibly, millions of Americans might not have lost their jobs and homes over the past few years.

Interior Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar, a former senator, has done more to destroy and curtail American oil, gas and coal production than any other single human. Soon after taking office, he prohibited oil and gas production in huge areas of the American West. He has held up the permitting of both offshore and onshore oil production well beyond what was necessary to ensure safety. He has ignored sound science and the rule of law. His actions, even according to Democrat senators and others, have cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was caught in a half-trillion-dollar lie last month, when, before a House Committee, she was finally forced to admit that the administration had been double-counting Medicare savings as critics had been claiming. If Ms. Sebelius and others in the administration had told the truth, Obamacare would never have passed. The costs associated with this piece of legislation, not even considering the costs of all of the legal challenges, will result in millions of job losses and a loss of personal and economic freedom - unless the Supreme Court upholds the legal challenges. President Obama claimed last week in his budget speech that hundreds of billions of dollars can be saved in the Medicare program by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. If that is true, why has he tolerated Ms. Sebelius’ mismanagement?

Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, has done much to drive foreign investment and jobs out of America. He has done this by leading a headline-grabbing, but economically illiterate, crusade against legal tax avoiders, tax evaders and low-tax jurisdictions. His destructive “solution” has been to put costly and punitive restrictions on domestic and foreign financial institutions. These restrictions have caused some foreign financial institutions to cease investing in the United States and to refuse opening accounts for Americans. It has been explained to Mr. Levin that his previous and newly proposed legislation is driving upwards of $1 trillion of foreign investment out of the country, which will cause Treasury to lose, in the real world, many times the tax revenue Mr. Levin and his gang of know-nothings claim. But Mr. Levin carries on, leaving America with far less foreign investment and the jobs it would create - all in a selfish attempt to curry favor with the witless media.

Finally, we have the job-destroyer-in-chief, Mr. Obama. Even though the empirical evidence shows that both job creation and liberty increase with reductions in the size of government and tax rates, the president has done just the opposite. Last week, without offering an alternative budget plan of his own, the president had the unmitigated gall to attack House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who has a serious plan to deal with the budget crisis. However, Mr. Obama did call for a big tax increase on those who create jobs. If that happens, prepare for double-digit unemployment.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/18/job-and-liberty-destroyers/?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4dadf175b0ab455f%2C0

Is Delaware a taker or a maker?

Hot in the news recently is the claim that the U.S. has become a nation of takers, not makers. The claim is based primarily on the fact that today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government than in manufacturing. Has Delaware also become a taker rather than a maker? The answer is mixed.

YES

First, Delaware has gone from 1.4 manufacturing jobs per government job in 1970 to 0.4 manufacturing jobs today. The ratio for all goods production jobs (manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, mining, construction, utilities) relative to government employment has dropped from 2.0 to 0.9 over the same time period.

Second, Delaware's economy has become far more dependent upon Federal transfer payments. Transfer payments have soared from 6.5% to 18.8% of Delaware personal income over 40 years. The major acceleration has been in Medicare and Medicaid transfers. Government transfer payments for healthcare have gone from 28% to 91% of Delaware health industry earnings.

Retirement (Social Security) and disability transfers have risen from 3.7% to 6.7% of Delaware personal income and the pace is increasing.

Federal government grants and other payments to state and local government in Delaware have increased from 2.6% to 4.7% of Delaware personal income. Defense department payroll and contracts equal 3.3% of the state's personal income.

Third, the average compensation of government employees in Delaware over the 40 years has risen from 83% of the average compensation throughout the state to 109%. State and local government has gone from 91% to 103%. And this is despite the fact that over the past decade or more there has been essentially no increase in state and local government productivity in Delaware. Nor has productivity changed significantly in the government revenue dependent Delaware hospitals.

NO

First, due to extraordinary gains in manufacturing productivity, employment growth in Delaware and the U.S. over the last 40 years has been concentrated in services. To claim that this is a step backward is to assert that information services and neurosurgeons do not add value. Over the past decade or so productivity (output per worker) in information services in Delaware has risen 115% and productivity in the state's large finance and insurance industry is up 41%.

Second, government's (Federal, military, state, local) share of total Delaware employment has fallen over 40 years from 18% to 14%, although state and local government's share has remained steady.

Third, state and local government taxes and Federal taxes have fallen as a percent of Delaware personal income over the four decades.

What is the bottom line? Increased dependent on the flow of funds out of Washington, D.C. at a time when national government debt is soaring is risky. To avoid increased dependency on the solvency and largess of the Federal government, Delaware needs to focus upon growing industries with high rates of productivity and productivity growth...regardless of whether those industries are in the production of goods or the provision of services. And to have public schools that graduate workers with the skills necessary to be enhance productivity.

Dr. John E. Stapleford, Director

Center for Economic Policy and Analysis

johnstapleford@caesarrodney.org

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=44scqeeab&v=0019vIjpnfVUZ88p-0rq8T7GQ11gscN7xUJTHRl3i7EGwRaX6qXdxS5IDcpoVITEgHmBvWZj73dsytk1zeTSQc_nNhyRnhH0V3I3mLTA-z921CRkgXSGiZvNA%3D%3D

World Bank president: 'One shock away from crisis'

Robert Zoellick cited rising food prices as the main threat to poor nations who risk "losing a generation".

He was speaking in Washington at the end of the spring meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Meanwhile, G20 finance chiefs, who also met in Washington, pledged financial support to help new governments in the Middle East and North Africa.

Mr Zoellick said such support was vital.

"The crisis in the Middle East and North Africa underscores how we need to put the conclusions from our latest world development report into practice. The report highlighted the importance of citizen security, justice and jobs," he said.

He also called for the World Bank to act quickly to support reforms in the region.

"Waiting for the situation to stabilise will mean lost opportunities. In revolutionary moments the status quo is not a winning hand."

At the Washington meetings, turmoil in the Middle East, volatile oil prices and high unemployment were also discussed.

IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn raised particular concerns about high levels of unemployment among young people.

"It's probably too much to say that it's a jobless recovery, but it's certainly a recovery with not enough jobs," he said.

"Especially because of youth unemployment... there is now a risk that this will be turned into a life sentence, and that there is a possibility of a lost generation," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13108166