Motive for H.R. 1003

In spite of the current government shutdown, let's continue to look at H.R. 1003 to try to understand what makes Congress tick. What is the motive for Congressman Michael Conaway [R-TX11] to put forth sponsorship for this bill? Let's take a look at his him home state of Texas. The number of farms in Texas has decreased from 420,000 in 1940 to 244,700 in 2012. Over the past 70 years, agriculture in Texas has become more specialized, more expensive, and more business oriented than times of the past. Farms and ranches are bigger, and the stakes are higher that they hit their target crop outputs every year. H.R. 1003 would insert more regulation into the process of creating laws that govern agriculture. Theoretically, it would make it more difficult to pass legislation (through a series of mandatory analyses by the Office of the Chief Economist), which could cause lasting negative economic impacts to the agriculture industry. Does our government need this additional layer of red tape to keep its Agriculture legislation in check? This is an example of a piece of legislation that attempts to reduce government restrictions by increasing government involvement in the process. Funny how government works.

My next posts will start looking at the legislative process from a higher level as I attempt to characterize how the sum of our Congressional action leads to government spending and hopefully benefits to United States citizens. The website GovTrack.us will be key to this effort as I plan to use their database of legislation to objectively hold individual Congressman accountable for their actions.

H.R. 1003 - The Facts

OK, back to H.R. 1003. Let's start with the facts:

Sponsor: Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX11]
Cosponsors: Garrett, Scott [R-NJ5], Jordan, Jim [R-OH4], McHenry, Patrick [R-NC10], Scott, David [D-GA13], Vargas, Juan [D-CA51], and Ribble, Reid [R-WI8]

Affects: Title 7 U.S.C. §19(a) "Consideration of costs and benefits and antitrust laws"

In a nutshell: Mandates a cost-benefit analysis (with specific details included) be performed before promulgating future commodity exchange regulation.

Specific Changes:
Adds -->
(1) IN GENERAL- ...through the Office of the Chief Economist, shall assess the costs and benefits, both qualitative and quantitative, of the intended regulation and propose or adopt a regulation only on a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs of the intended regulation (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify). It must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements."

(2) CONSIDERATIONS- In making a reasoned determination of the costs and the benefits, the Commission shall evaluate--
...
(C) considerations of the impact on market liquidity in the futures and swaps markets;
(F) available alternatives to direct regulation;
(G) the degree and nature of the risks posed by various activities within the scope of its jurisdiction;
(H) whether, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, the regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society, including market participants, individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and other entities (including small communities and governmental entities), taking into account, to the extent practicable, the cumulative costs of regulations;
(I) whether the regulation is inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative of other Federal regulations;
(J) whether, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, and other benefits, distributive impacts, and equity);

Cynicism to Optimism - Objectively Reporting Our Nation's Congressional Delegation

Three years later, I'm back in the blogging business. This time posts will be short, to the point, and optimistic of our country's future...as difficult as that may be to do in recent days. First challenge. Starting out small, we will report on current delegation running through Congress to analyze its impacts on our lives. First up, H.R. 1003: To improve consideration by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders. Short and sweet. No news to report today, but we will be tracking this House Resolution for the next couple weeks. And we will look at ways to objectively quantify its impacts on society. More to follow... Hope to see some readers here soon. Signing off for now... -Z

Jobless rates rose in every state in '09 - Charlotte Business Journal:

Jobless rates rose in every state in ‘09 - Charlotte Business Journal:

Insourcing Govt Jobs

Interoperability key for meeting federal mandates

Insourcing: definitely happening in govt...but is it only a result of the Obama admin and big government?

U.S. no longer a space-faring nation - TheHill.com

U.S. no longer a space-faring nation - TheHill.com

Ugh....what is our nation coming to? One without hopes and dreams? One without science and technology? One without outer space? What happened to "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind??"

Privatizing Social Security

Now that the Republican candidate for this year's elections has almost been solidified, I'm going to concentrate a little more on issues that I want to see enacted than the candidates themselves. One very important issues for me, as a member of the Generation X, is the status of our nation's Social Security system. This issue should be very pressing for our generation because fifty years down the road, we'll be most affected by it. To address this issue, I'm going to quote a speech that I wrote back in high school. It's interesting that the views expressed in it (as well as most of the data sets) are just as valid today as they were five years ago. Recently, President Bush has passed many of the revisions that go into personal accounts in his new budget. With enough popular support, the left-controlled Congress will not be able to stop such an obviously smart move for our nation from occurring. Either way, this speech will show you that the current system MUST change to maintain financial security of our nation's youth.

Do you think that in fifty years, when you are old, tired, and ready for retirement, that you will receive your Social Security? Well, according to a survey conducted by Third Millennium Survey, most young people think it's more likely they're going to see a UFO than ever get their Social Security. So, do you believe in UFO’s? Because the current Social Security system is in trouble and reforms must be made, I firmly support the proposition of privatizing Social Security. Now, I will hope to gain your support as I talk to you about why the current Social Security system is in trouble, what privatizing Social Security does, and how this new system can help you!

First, I will describe to you the flaws in our current system. Today’s Social Security system operates on a “pay-as-you-go” basis. The money which the government collects from you in Social Security tax is not held for you in a special account. It is immediately given out to somebody else to pay their retirement benefits. This system worked brilliantly 55 years ago when, according to the 2004 Report of the Social Security Trustees (47), “there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security.” At that time, the workers were contributing a surplus of money to easily meet the needs of the retirees. Today, longer life spans and lower birth rates have changed this figure dramatically. Now, the 2004 Report of the Social Security Trustees (47) says that “there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary, and by the time our youngest workers turn 65, there will be only 2 workers supporting each beneficiary.” These statistics uncover a major flaw in the system. When fewer workers are contributing to the funds of more retirees, the retirees cannot receive the same amount of benefits. The government has promised current workers time and again not only that their benefits will stay constant, but also that their benefits will increase as wages increase in our nation. In fact, according to the government document Strengthening Social Security for the 21^st Century (2), “today’s 20-year old is promised benefits that are 40% higher, in real terms, than are paid to seniors who retire this year.” With less money flowing into the system, how can these promises be met? The only answer will be for government to take out countless loans from other countries and increase the already substantial deficit. Is this the correct answer for the future of Socials Security? Shouldn’t we do something to change this outdated system and save the benefits that have helped Americans retire for over 70 years?

Fortunately, our current President has finally stepped into the ring to tackle this problem that has faced our country for years. He has developed a plan called “Personal Retirement Accounts” which will in essence privatize Social Security, putting the funds back into the hands of the contributor. This new idea will allow workers to reroute some of their money from their Social Security Tax into untaxed personal accounts in the form of mutual funds in the stock market. Contributors would pick from a select list of conservative funds to grow a retirement account just for them. The compounding interest of the account would create an adequate retirement fund for the investor. President Bush estimates that if the program is enacted, young workers like you and me will eventually put up to four percent of their income into such an account guaranteeing a safe future for any program participant.

Admittedly, there are problems with this system. My opposition will point out that the funds that contributors keep their money in can increase and decrease with the stock market. Although this statement is a very true risk associated with personal accounts, it is fortunately a very minor one. Long term investments such as would be provided by personal accounts have always been characterized by investors as extremely safe. According to stockmarketinvestinginfo.com, “It is generally accepted, that the average long term return from investing in stocks is 10-12%.” In fact, calculated each decade, the stock market has only seen one loss in the last century; the 1930’s, decade of the Great Depression. Even during that decade, the stock market decreased only 0.03%, a very nominal amount. These statistics deem any fears of losing money in the stock market completely unreasonable. In addition, my opposition may try to persuade older Americans that privatizing Social Security will cause them to gain less Social Security benefits. This statement is an outright lie as President Bush has said in speeches all across the country, quote “If you're relying upon Social Security today, nothing will change.” He has assured the elderly that they will get their Social Security check.

Privatizing Social Security is no doubt a step in the right direction for the safety of retirees in our nation. It will in one swoop allow citizens to control the money that they will use for retirement, help the government decrease the deficit by lowering the government’s debt towards citizens, and provide a safe, reliable form of Social Security for all American citizens. It will replace the outdated Social Security system of the past and guarantee retirement accounts for people, young and old, across the United States. Do I think that in fifty years, when I am old, tired, and ready for retirement, that I will receive my Social Security? With the new system of privatized Social Security accounts enacted, yes, I do!