“We will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable,” Mr. Obama said in remarks broadcast on television from Hawaii, where he is on vacation.

OK, I know, the President of the United States is never really on vacation, but it is funny nonetheless.

The boundless creativity of politicians and bureaucrats to develop new and more complex regulation is bounded only by the bureaucracy’s inability to implement them.

Considering the 2008 Federal Register is 80,700 pages, and that it grows every year, it’s safe to say that there appears to be no upper limit to scope of the problem.

Incredibly, the Federal government actually believes that people should, or could, read the Federal Register. It even answers the question, “Why should I read the Federal Register?”. The only real reason should be to cure insomnia.

Metrics on reading the Federal Register

Let’s presume you had to read the Federal Register, taking the following assumptions:

• The document, as of its final 2008 version, is 80,700 pages.
• You sleep eight hours a day.
• You have a full-time job, five days a week, eight hours a day.
• You commute to/from work for an average of one hour each day.
• You spend two hours a day for personal and domestic matters – bathing, eating, housekeeping, etc..
• You spend four hours on each weekend day to address random matters (paying bills, playing WoW, etc.).
• While reading, you take a 15-minute break every two hours.

Considering that, you have about 39 hours per week to read. If you can read two pages per minute (a good clip that assumes comprehension rates don’t matter), it would take you nearly 121 days (17 weeks) to read all 80,700 pages of the Federal Register.

Keep in mind that such a clip requires reading on average 5 1/2 hours per day. In reality, the average American spends just 21 minutes a day reading. At that rate, the average American would take nearly 2,000 days (about five and one-half years) to read the 2008 Federal Register.

To make matters worse, the Federal Register continues to grow, at a pace of about 1.5% per year (Federal Register Pages Published Annually, PDF). That means an extra month of reading each year for Joe Sixpack if he wants to read all the applicable laws in 2013 after spending more than five years reading the 2008 Federal Register.

In closing: To understand the laws of America, start reading now, and don’t plan on stopping for over five and one-half years. Then, expect to spend a month of reading each year just to catch up.

Of course, this doesn’t include the state or local laws where you live… but that’s a whole other matter.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that the government’s fiscal stimulus program has helped create or save almost 650,000 jobs…

The new jobs figure — 640,329 specifically — represents direct stimulus spending through Sept. 30 on projects or activities…

[T]he reports cover only $160 billion of the $339 billion in stimulus spending that has occurred through Sept. 30.

I’m not an economist or a mathematician or a politician, but I can do basic math:

$160 billion divided by 640,329 equals $249,871.55 per job created or saved.

As a comparison: the median full-time salary for a U.S. worker was $27,756 in 2005 (source).

Why does it cost $250,000 to create or save a job in a market where the average worker makes under $30,000? Can someone explain to me how spending a quarter of a million dollars to save one job is a smart way to spend money?

Seriously, can someone explain?!?!

The White House will unveil reforms to the nation’s international tax code on Monday intended to close loopholes for overseas tax havens and end incentives for creating jobs overseas.

…

The administration expects these initiatives to raise at least $210 billion over the next 10 years “to cut taxes for American families, increase incentives for businesses to create jobs in America and reduce the deficit.”

What does $210 billion in new taxes mean to Americans? Let’s review.

• The median U.S. household income is about $50,000 per year.
• Let’s assume that the typical cost (insurance, office space, pens, etc.) of an employee to an employer is double an employee’s salary. (It varies quite a bit by industry, but this is a fair back-of-the-envelope number.)
• The “cost” of one $50,000 per year job over ten years is therefore roughly $1 million.
• $210 billion in new taxes over ten years can result in up to 210,000 less jobs being created, if you assume how that money could otherwise be spent providing a job to 210,000 people for ten years.
• To compare, only 16 American companies have more than 210,000 employees.

The flip side:

• The population of the United States is about 304 million.
• $210 billion in new taxes over ten years equals about $690 per person over ten years, or $69 per year, or 19 cents per day.

Feel free to thank the White House for eliminating the potential of 210,000 well-paying jobs over ten years so you can enjoy an extra $69 per year – about enough to buy one cup of coffee per week.

Depressing, isn’t it?

This contrasts with an article I recall reading a few days ago which talks about how Obama’s approval ratings are not sky-high when compared to past presidents at the 100-day mark.

First, what is President Obama’s approval rating? The folks at Gallup poll this stuff constantly, and have an article that tells us:

As President Barack Obama concludes his first 100 days on the job, Gallup Poll Daily tracking for the week of April 20-26 finds 65% of Americans approving of how he is doing and only 29% disapproving. Obama’s average weekly job ratings have varied only slightly thus far, ranging from 61% to 67%.

We’ll take 65% approval and 29% disapproval as our President Obama benchmarks.

For historical comparison, we have the American Presidency Project, which provides a chart of Presidential job approval ratings at or near the 100-day mark. Note the chart below, which I have taken the liberty to highlight.

See those green boxes? Those are presidents who showed a higher approval rating and lower disapproval rating after 100 days than President Obama. The yellow box highlights President George W. Bush’s approval/disapproval ratings after 100 days – an approval rating three percentage points lower than President Obama, and an identical disapproval rating.

What can we surmise from this?

• Taken in historical context, the public approves of President Obama at a level typical of most presidents.
• Taken in historical context, the public disapproves of President Obama at a level typical of most recent presidents – that is, those since the Reagan/Bush years.
• Feelings about our President are much more polarized in recent years, with lower approval and higher disapproval numbers than past presidents.

And now, the best conclusion: Only three presidents had a lower approval rating 100 days into their first term of office than they had on their first day in office.

1. Jimmy Carter (started with 66%, fell to 63%)
2. William J. Clinton (started with 58%, fell to 55%)
3. Barack Obama (started with 68%, fell to 65%)

Which presidents saw the greatest increase in approval rating between their first day and their 100th day?

1. Ronald Reagan (51% to 68%)
2. John Kennedy (72% to 83%)

I will tell you this: it is not reassuring to know that, at least in this one area, that President Obama is trending more like Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton than John Kennedy.

It is also not reassuring to know that CNN and the Gallup folks are drinking the Obama Kool-Aid… but I don’t expect much different from them.

Now that it’s over, what does it mean for us, those Americans who feel that there is a great need to right the ship? If I was to speak for the group, this is what I’d say. My statements are followed by some historic quotes on the topics of freedom and liberty.

Nearly 50 years ago, an American President said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

In that spirit, we, the vast majority of Americans, have taken responsibility for the needs of ourselves and our families. We have extended a helping hand to those who need help. We have lived our lives extolling the principals of good citizenship. We have expected nothing from our country save the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unburdened by an overreaching, overextended government.

We have done our share. Despite that, our country is failing us.

Today, we watch as many of our elected officials – those who should be representing us – fail in their oath to uphold the laws of our country. We watch as they take more and more of our money, through direct and indirect taxes and fees, and redistribute it in irresponsible ways. Where we struggled today to save for tomorrow, they irresponsibly spent their way into irresponsible levels of debt. Where we have sacrificed today’s pleasures for the safety and security of tomorrow’s children, they have fed their own political agendas and overinflated egos, and placed huge burdens on the shoulders of our country’s future generations.

Over the years, we, the responsible citizens, the true Americans, have stood quietly in hope that our government will see us – not another country – as the example of how to build a strong society. We have been ignored by career politicians who follow unproven scientific, economic, and social policies with religious fervor, blind to their own failures. We follow the rule of law as our government ignores it, and rewrites it, as if the Constitution was subject to ad hoc whims of interpretation.

In the past, we stood quietly. We will stand quietly no more.

We the people will show that we are united in our common beliefs. We the people believe in liberty. We the people believe in personal responsibility. We the people believe in the social and economic freedom of all mankind. We the people believe in the need to defend those who share our beliefs, to protect those who are oppressed, and to aid those who lack the freedom and liberty we take for granted.

There is only one way to return our country to the principles it was founded on and the principles we believe in: to return to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. To achieve this, we must convince our elected representatives that an overreaching state is not the solution. We have history on our side in this; time and time again, the principles of free minds and free markets have been the way towards liberty and prosperity. We must be persistent and persuasive in our arguments in order for our representatives to once again represent who we are.

Those representatives that can not be convinced must be voted out of office. For this, some among us must sacrifice our careers and take time away from our families in order to replace those in office who ignore us. Further to that, those that choose to represent us need our support, financially, socially, and at the ballot box.

Our battle to take back America, our country, will be fought using the most powerful weapons in the modern world: the pen, the spoken word, and the facts. The fight will not be easy, but we have the voice of the people on our side.  We will be victorious, for simple reason: we are Americans, this is our country, and we will take it back.

“Every revolution was first a thought in one man’s mind.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson, American Poet

“Believe you can and you’re halfway there.” – Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

“Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.” – Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father of the United States

“The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.” – Hugo Black, American Jurist

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” – Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.” – Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States

“Six months from now, if the verdict on this effort is that we’ve wasted the money, we built things that were unnecessary or we’ve done things that are legal but make no sense, then, folks, don’t look for any help from the federal government for a long while,” he said.

This was followed up by President Obama’s equally compelling statement during the same conference:

“If we see money being misspent, we’re going to put a stop to it.”

Mr. President and Mr. Vice-President, if you are honest about what is deemed wasteful and unnecessary and senseless, there is little doubt that significant portions of the $787 billion you reallocated will prove to be just that. This inconvenient truth (ahem) will hopefully stimulate you (ahem) to stop trying to have the federal government be everything to everyone.

However, after this is the case, will you also promise to stop taking so much of our earned income (via taxes) after you stop the federal government from trying to “help” us? After all, you probably wouldn’t need it any more.

One could only hope for such change (ahem).

The December unemployment rate was only 2.3% for government workers and 3.8% in education and health. Unemployment rates in manufacturing and construction, by contrast, were 8.3% and 15.2% respectively. Yet 39% of the $550 billion in the bill would go to state and local governments. Another 17.3% would go to health and education — sectors where relatively secure government jobs are also prevalent.

If the intent of the plan is to alleviate unemployment, why spend over half of the money on sectors where unemployment is lowest?

… [O]nly a fifth of the original $550 billion is left for notoriously slow infrastructure projects, such as rebuilding highways and the electricity grid.

What a disaster. Government picking winners and losers with our money (after all, it’s taxpayer money they spend reallocate) is a recipe for disaster. This time, they want the recipe in order of some $800 billion, with no real guarantee that it’ll help anyone aside from those who were picked to receive the stimulus handouts.

Or, they can give every man, woman, and child in this country $2,000 to spend. Even if only 1% of that money was spent each week, that would increase commerce by $8 billion each week, without creating additional bureaucracy. Even further, if 10% of that commerce generated tax revenue (a fair estimate considering sales and income tax rates), it would increase tax revenues by $800 million each week.

Or, government can do nothing, and wait for the markets to sort things out.

So, choose your poison.

1. Government doles out $800 billion to various programs, agencies, and projects that it deems are economically politically worthwhile, thereby increasing the numbers of folks who become dependent on government intervention.
2. Government gives each citizen a $2,000 one-time tax rebate, which in turn has the conservative potential to increase commerce by $8 billion a week and generate $41.6 billion in new tax revenue. Oh, by the way, $41.6 billion is about 5.2% of $800 billion – which means the tax revenue gained could offset the interest payments on the initial outlay, making it revenue-neutral. Unfortunately, that doesn’t do much to pay off the principal, but that’s OK, we’ve been doing it for years with Social Security, why stop now?
3. Government can do nothing, creating no long-term government debt and allowing individual effort, success, and failure dictate the winners and losers.

I vote for #3. What say you?

In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve never met Mr. Sundwall, nor do I pretend to know him personally. I do know him as the Chairman for the Libertarian Party of New York, and I do support him for the following reasons.

• He’s an IT guy. Many readers of my blog are IT people, and as we all know, IT people are typically smart, pragmatic, and results-driven. No doubt Sundwall shares those characteristics.
• He’s a small-government guy. Sundwall recognizes the danger in deficit spending (which simply puts the burden of payment to our children), and no doubt would be strongly against the $800-billion (so-called) bailout.
• He recognizes the limitations of government. Sundwall believes in protecting personal liberties. Though supportive of the rule of law, he also sees the extension of law beyond its Constitutionally-defined limits as dangerous, and sees an over-reaching government as a great danger to a free, prosperous society.
• He’s a free-trade, free-market guy. It has been widely studied, and shown, that free trade and free  markets make societies more open, prosperous, and safe. (Strong trade partners don’t war with each other.) Sundwall is a believer in free trade and free international markets, and believes that labor should be as free to interact with international markets just as products are.

I don’t agree with everything Sundwall says – I’m a bit more conservative on some foreign policy initiatives, perhaps not as liberal in some other concerns – but taken as a whole, Sundwall is one of the best candidates we have for Congress that will support free minds and free markets, and recognize government’s limited role.

Unfortunately, I am not a resident of New York’s 20th Congressional District, so I can’t vote for him, but I can help raise awareness of him to those who can.

To find out more about Eric Sundwall and to support his candidacy, go to sundwall4congress.org.

Good luck, Eric!

Our Mission: To promote housing and a strong national housing finance system by ensuring the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Just in case they take it down, here’s a screenshot, taken just a moment ago:

Still not convinced of their mission? From their Supervision & Regulations page:

The Federal Housing Enterprises Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 gives OFHEO a broad range of supervisory tools that the agency may employ not only to address Enterprise problems in a remedial fashion but also to take actions to prevent such problems from developing. The agency’s use of those authorities helps mitigate systemic risk by reducing the risk of failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The organization was created in 1992 as part of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992. The annual budget in 2008 was $66 million, according to allgov.com. In 2003, it was just under $30 million. That’s at least $216 million to keep this woefully ineffective agency running over the past six years.

With so many people screaming for the firing of corporate CEOs (and others) for their alleged roles in the mortgage crisis, shouldn’t we also fire the entire staff of the agency that was responsible for overseeing the government agency which is arguably at the center of the problem?

Alas, this isn’t the solution decided by our elected officials… Instead, they take this agency and another (the Federal Housing Finance Board) and combine them to form a new agency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

How is it that a failed oversight and regulation agency gets rewarded by a merger into a yet larger oversight and regulation agency with more “legal and regulatory authority”?

Einstein quipped that an insane mind is one that does the same thing and expects different results. I’ll let you draw the conclusions.