Last night the House voted to seriously scale back the estate tax (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072800337_2.html). A qualified good. They also voted to raise the minimum wage by a couple bucks, gradually, over a few years. Unqualified bad. I look at the former issue as a principled one. I look at the latter through an economic and, subsequently, a social lense.
Taxing, at death, wealth that someone has built up over a lifetime, be it $10,000 or $10,000,000, is wrong. Some of that wealth has already been taxed, so it amounts to double-taxation. My wife and I live a middle class life, so it's not as if I have a big, direct interest in this. It’s just a matter of principle. People are taxed their entire lives and to tax what they earn, save up and leave to their heirs is just unfair.
The minimum wage is a job killer. It is not explicitly so, hence it's harder to make a direct connection. Will an employee at, say, a fast food restaurant lose their job the day after the hike goes into effect? Most likely not. But small businessmen and managers will take it into account when making future hiring plans. It is Economics 101: raise the costs in one area of a business and either other costs are cut or the higher expenses are passed onto consumers. If the latter is chosen, it will not be for long because it's almost a certainty that not all one's competitors will follow suit. What they will probably do is either hold off on giving raises and/or squeeze more out of the employees they have rather than hire more. Voila! One less job created. One less job, one might note, for younger people who are trying to get their foot in the door and acquire some work experience. Is it any wonder teen unemployment is as high as it is?
This compromise appears to be an example of the perfect not getting in the way of the good. I can respect that. I suppose, however, I’m a perfectionist. I couldn't have voted for it for two reasons. In addition to the aforementioned argument against the minimum wage, it has a ratchet effect. It will never come down. It would be too politically poisonous to come out in favor of abolishing it outright. Congress has done well to do nothing to it in almost 10 years, thereby having the effect of it decrease in real value. Also, I can't imagine myself as a bureaucrat who knows where the line should be drawn between who gets to pass their wealth on tax free, who has to pay 15% and who has to fork over 30%. That is discriminatory to me.
What GOP leaders did by packaging the two issues was, I must admit, a deft bit of legislative maneuvering. Raising the minimum wage is reminiscent of passing a prescription drug bill. They can say they voted to raise it thereby blunting it as an issue in the fall elections, where a similar raise is on several state ballots. Fortunately, this move will probably come at a lesser cost than the drug bill. Even though I myself wouldn't have voted for it, I admire the move.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Friday, July 28, 2006
...and now to the nba (07/27/2006)
i was just reading buck harvey's column in the san antonio express news about the spurs offseason moves (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/bharvey/
stories/MYSA072706.1C.COL.BKNharvey.spurs.32a5c57.html) and couldn't help but think.
i have tried to keep my enthusiasm in check with regard to the mavs' offseason moves as compared with those of the spurs. that 2nd round playoff series could have, after all, gone either way with a different bounce of the ball. but it seems like avery is starting to get more of the team he wants. i liked marquis daniels and always wondered exactly what it was about him that didn't mesh with avery (i was told by sefko it was a "lack of fire"), but they did get an arguably better backup for dirk in croshere. and they probably benefited, if only from a chemistry standpoint, in getting anthony johnson as opposed to mike james. i'm still a little (pleasantly) surprised they were able to keep mbenga. add in the reacquisition of buckner and the draft and progress of ager, and one could say they've upgraded their roster. i'm curious to see the experts' offseason grades.
the spurs, on the other hand...i can't believe pryzbilla chose the blazers. i stepped back and reminded myself that they still have the rest of their starting five, plus finley, in place from last year. but add their overall age to the center situation and i just got a weird vibe so far this offseason.
i say all this with the knowledge that the spurs will have more future draft picks than they had this year and they are setting themselves up to be able to sign some free agents in a couple of years. given duncan's age, is it fair to say, with all due respect to parker and ginobili, that they will be making a final push in that time span (a couple years from now) to win once or twice more around duncan?
stories/MYSA072706.1C.COL.BKNharvey.spurs.32a5c57.html) and couldn't help but think.
i have tried to keep my enthusiasm in check with regard to the mavs' offseason moves as compared with those of the spurs. that 2nd round playoff series could have, after all, gone either way with a different bounce of the ball. but it seems like avery is starting to get more of the team he wants. i liked marquis daniels and always wondered exactly what it was about him that didn't mesh with avery (i was told by sefko it was a "lack of fire"), but they did get an arguably better backup for dirk in croshere. and they probably benefited, if only from a chemistry standpoint, in getting anthony johnson as opposed to mike james. i'm still a little (pleasantly) surprised they were able to keep mbenga. add in the reacquisition of buckner and the draft and progress of ager, and one could say they've upgraded their roster. i'm curious to see the experts' offseason grades.
the spurs, on the other hand...i can't believe pryzbilla chose the blazers. i stepped back and reminded myself that they still have the rest of their starting five, plus finley, in place from last year. but add their overall age to the center situation and i just got a weird vibe so far this offseason.
i say all this with the knowledge that the spurs will have more future draft picks than they had this year and they are setting themselves up to be able to sign some free agents in a couple of years. given duncan's age, is it fair to say, with all due respect to parker and ginobili, that they will be making a final push in that time span (a couple years from now) to win once or twice more around duncan?
my nomination to realclearpolitics for 'political video of the day' (07/26/2006)
i know this probably won't make it, because it doesn't measure up in humor to past videos, and probably because i don't have the actual clip (although one should be available a time or two per week), but i would like to nominate the trio i call 'the 3 stooges of c-span after hours'. do you know to whom i refer? congressmen tim ryan of ohio and kendrick meek of florida, and congresswomen debbie wasserman shultz, also of florida, democrats all. these bozos, with few exceptions, take special order speeches and colloquys to new heights, keeping the house open past midnight sometimes just to hear themselves talk. poor mr. meek often looks like he's going to fall over from exhaustion.
given the time in which they like to take the floor, i don't get to see them all the time. but when i do, i have come to adopt it as a guilty pleasure. last night was one such night. they were talking past 10:30 cst, and the only reason i saw them was due to the fact that i had just returned home from class. last night was one of those nights when they broke out there big rubber stamp, the stamp they claim the house uses for all president bush wants. hello! he's a republican and they control the house! mr. ryan was in peak form last night, proclaiming all they would do in the "first 100 hours" should they wrest control of the house from republicans in november. the minimum wage stuck out, perhaps because i have researched the topic in my studies. he was quick to point out what a positive, immediate, "direct" effect it would have on millions. in the process, he exemplified the short-run vision that infects the democratic party (republicans are occasionally guilty of this, also). sure, a few million would receive an immediate raise, but his static way of thinking blinds him from seeing that many more will not be hired because of the added expense of taking on in- or lesser-experienced help. they DON'T...GET IT!
i have a difficult time taking people like this too seriously. mr. meek is the only one who comes close to having 'real world' experience, having been a highway patrolman. mr. ryan and ms. wasserman schultz have law and political science degrees. i love politics, and thought about looking into that for a masters, but figured it wasn't practical in the 'REAL WORLD'. and mr. ryan is a lawyer...nuff said.
so if you can find a particularly juicy piece of video of them displaying their talents, i nominate it. if not, i can always have them to myself
given the time in which they like to take the floor, i don't get to see them all the time. but when i do, i have come to adopt it as a guilty pleasure. last night was one such night. they were talking past 10:30 cst, and the only reason i saw them was due to the fact that i had just returned home from class. last night was one of those nights when they broke out there big rubber stamp, the stamp they claim the house uses for all president bush wants. hello! he's a republican and they control the house! mr. ryan was in peak form last night, proclaiming all they would do in the "first 100 hours" should they wrest control of the house from republicans in november. the minimum wage stuck out, perhaps because i have researched the topic in my studies. he was quick to point out what a positive, immediate, "direct" effect it would have on millions. in the process, he exemplified the short-run vision that infects the democratic party (republicans are occasionally guilty of this, also). sure, a few million would receive an immediate raise, but his static way of thinking blinds him from seeing that many more will not be hired because of the added expense of taking on in- or lesser-experienced help. they DON'T...GET IT!
i have a difficult time taking people like this too seriously. mr. meek is the only one who comes close to having 'real world' experience, having been a highway patrolman. mr. ryan and ms. wasserman schultz have law and political science degrees. i love politics, and thought about looking into that for a masters, but figured it wasn't practical in the 'REAL WORLD'. and mr. ryan is a lawyer...nuff said.
so if you can find a particularly juicy piece of video of them displaying their talents, i nominate it. if not, i can always have them to myself
well said (07/25/2006)
"Let's not speak any more about proportionality. It's another liberal code word for accepting defeat."
-Jed Babbin
-Jed Babbin
"disproportionality" is for p***ies, (07/25/2006)
and deserved for those who bring a knife to a gunfight.
"The dire consequences of proportionality are so clear that it makes you wonder if it is a fig leaf for anti-Israel sentiment in general. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness. For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemy's back yard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to re-establish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/
2006/07/a_proportionate_response_is_ma.html
==
propaganda exists as long as there are suckers to lap it up.
"Of course Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah's rocket attacks. But how can this utterly disproportionate, seemingly indiscriminate carnage be anything but counterproductive?"
"The dire consequences of proportionality are so clear that it makes you wonder if it is a fig leaf for anti-Israel sentiment in general. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness. For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemy's back yard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to re-establish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/
2006/07/a_proportionate_response_is_ma.html
==
propaganda exists as long as there are suckers to lap it up.
"Of course Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah's rocket attacks. But how can this utterly disproportionate, seemingly indiscriminate carnage be anything but counterproductive?"
"you go, fidel! you rule!" (07/21/2006)
"The communist leader, wearing his usual olive green military fatigues, slowly descended the airplane Thursday to cries of "Fidel! Fidel!" from well-wishers behind police cordons at the airport in the central city of Cordoba." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/
ap_on_re_la_am_ca/south_america_trade_1)
you know what this reminds me of? natural born killers, with fidel playing the part of mickey and mallory. you could substitute any one of saddam, kim or the like instead, although i suppose most people who cheer them do so for fear of their lives if they don't.
ap_on_re_la_am_ca/south_america_trade_1)
you know what this reminds me of? natural born killers, with fidel playing the part of mickey and mallory. you could substitute any one of saddam, kim or the like instead, although i suppose most people who cheer them do so for fear of their lives if they don't.
you know, the fdi (07/20/2006)
i am as much into what is going on in lebanon right now as the next person, but there was a story in the journal yesterday that merits some attention. exports from the u.s. have increased 10% over the past year. the strongest growth came in the form of capital goods. yes, goods that come from manufacturers. you know, the same ones we hear are that have had such a hard time the last few years, the main reason the u.s. has such a large "trade deficit", as they like to call it (or, as i like to call it, the foreign direct investment surplus).
this is just further proof that the current account of the u.s. looks the way it does not because of a manufacturing decline. or even, for that matter, "over-consumption". even when one thinks about the auto industry...the u.s. auto industry is not in decline; u.s. autoMAKERS are. go tell the domestic toyota, honda, nissan, hyundai, etc. manufacturing plants and employees that the u.s. no longer has an auto industry. we still do, it's just under different management, and it's WORKING! such manufacturing plants push the current account in the direction it leans, but in the way of foreign (japan's toyota) direct investment (manufacturing). fdi is the flip side of a "trade deficit". is "eliminating the trade deficit", like too many clowns in d.c. think should be a goal, worth putting all those people who make those toyotas (i'm partial to toyota, since i've driven 4 in my life, two of which we currently own) out of work? that would sure tip things closer to balance.
this is just further proof that the current account of the u.s. looks the way it does not because of a manufacturing decline. or even, for that matter, "over-consumption". even when one thinks about the auto industry...the u.s. auto industry is not in decline; u.s. autoMAKERS are. go tell the domestic toyota, honda, nissan, hyundai, etc. manufacturing plants and employees that the u.s. no longer has an auto industry. we still do, it's just under different management, and it's WORKING! such manufacturing plants push the current account in the direction it leans, but in the way of foreign (japan's toyota) direct investment (manufacturing). fdi is the flip side of a "trade deficit". is "eliminating the trade deficit", like too many clowns in d.c. think should be a goal, worth putting all those people who make those toyotas (i'm partial to toyota, since i've driven 4 in my life, two of which we currently own) out of work? that would sure tip things closer to balance.
To paraphrase Dick Armey, "The market is smart; government is dumb." (07/20/2006)
"Those families who wake up every morning to face another day with a deadly disease or a disability will not forget this decision by the president to stand in the way of sound science and medical research."
-Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
Amazing. It’s amazing to me the things that politicos can find it in themselves to say. And that's just one example. Actually, they say some of the things they say because some people are gullible enough (that’s the topic of another post) to believe it without doing a fact check. Stem-cell research, as the President explicitly pointed out yesterday, is not banned. He did not outlaw it yesterday with his first veto. The only thing he did was refuse to allow expanded federal support. (Sidenote: Thank goodness he finally denied federal funding for something!) The federal government has no more business supporting this type of research, where a human embryo is created specifically to be the subject of research, research that requires the destruction of said embryo, anymore than it should be in the business of providing funds for abortions. And please, I don’t want to hear any business about how abortion is a constitutional right (albeit via “emanations and penumbras”); so is owning a gun, but no one is demanding Uncle Sam buy him/her a gun. The more promising the research, the more funding, PRIVATE funding, it will attract. The market takes care of these things. Taxpayers only stand to lose when Congress jumps in to fund something they deem worthy of more than the private sector is providing.
-Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
Amazing. It’s amazing to me the things that politicos can find it in themselves to say. And that's just one example. Actually, they say some of the things they say because some people are gullible enough (that’s the topic of another post) to believe it without doing a fact check. Stem-cell research, as the President explicitly pointed out yesterday, is not banned. He did not outlaw it yesterday with his first veto. The only thing he did was refuse to allow expanded federal support. (Sidenote: Thank goodness he finally denied federal funding for something!) The federal government has no more business supporting this type of research, where a human embryo is created specifically to be the subject of research, research that requires the destruction of said embryo, anymore than it should be in the business of providing funds for abortions. And please, I don’t want to hear any business about how abortion is a constitutional right (albeit via “emanations and penumbras”); so is owning a gun, but no one is demanding Uncle Sam buy him/her a gun. The more promising the research, the more funding, PRIVATE funding, it will attract. The market takes care of these things. Taxpayers only stand to lose when Congress jumps in to fund something they deem worthy of more than the private sector is providing.
ahh, federalism: it's a beautiful thing! (07/18/2006)
"State lawmakers are offering more than 500 bills this year targeting state-mandated services, illegal aliens and the employers who hire them, responding to a growing chorus of public opinion nationwide calling for stricter enforcement of immigration laws.
"With federal immigration reform stalled on Capitol Hill, several states are proposing their own laws. More than 500 bills have been introduced this year covering a variety of topics, including employment, access to public benefits and voting rights, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060717-114643-5345r.htm
"With federal immigration reform stalled on Capitol Hill, several states are proposing their own laws. More than 500 bills have been introduced this year covering a variety of topics, including employment, access to public benefits and voting rights, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060717-114643-5345r.htm
nicolas cage borders on an exception (07/18/2006)
mrs. me and i watched the weather man this weekend. i read that movie was a downer. she put it on our netflix q. i actually liked it, and didn't really think it...at least it didn't end up as a downer. the guy definitely had issues, but he tried. i thought he was delusional in thinking he could get his wife back. it looked like a wonder she ever married him. i like how he handled each of his kids' respective problems, especially the girl. i thought it ended up on a happy enough note to pretty much cancel out the downer stuff.
i still don't think much of the acting profession, but i'm starting to dig and appreciate the choices in roles/movies nicolas cage makes e.g. bringing out the dead, matchstick men, lord of war, etc. (nevermind the gone in 60 seconds, snake eyes, national treasure types, which they all make) while he usually plays an ordinary guy, those guys rarely have 9-5 (why is the phrase not "8-5"? was there a time when a lunch hour was not given?), wife and kids, house and pets-type ordinary, normal lives. while there might be a better actor (not that being able to pretend to be others better than another is something to be particularly proud of), few make more interesting movies.
the best i can say about him is this. when i pick out a nicolas cage movie, it feels more like when i am picking out a movie because of who directed it; not who acted in it.
i still don't think much of the acting profession, but i'm starting to dig and appreciate the choices in roles/movies nicolas cage makes e.g. bringing out the dead, matchstick men, lord of war, etc. (nevermind the gone in 60 seconds, snake eyes, national treasure types, which they all make) while he usually plays an ordinary guy, those guys rarely have 9-5 (why is the phrase not "8-5"? was there a time when a lunch hour was not given?), wife and kids, house and pets-type ordinary, normal lives. while there might be a better actor (not that being able to pretend to be others better than another is something to be particularly proud of), few make more interesting movies.
the best i can say about him is this. when i pick out a nicolas cage movie, it feels more like when i am picking out a movie because of who directed it; not who acted in it.
thumbs up (07/14/2006)
ho-hum. i feel like something is missing on fridays now. even though i don't watch nearly as many movies as i used to and i've found that our politics don't match, i miss roger ebert's movie reviews. in my opinion, there are few better at doing what they do than roger is at reviewing movies. i was a fan of siskel & ebert going back to the "sneak preview" days. i dug the movie aspect of it, but then started to dig the debate aspect of it. then, right around the time siskel passed (unfortunately), i started reading their reviews online and felt i learned a lot about movies, or at least what to look for.
i've been reading roger's reviews, answer man, etc. every friday since about 1998. it seems like his website, with due respect to jim emerson, has been frozen in time for the last couple weeks. here's one person who hopes it thaws soon.
get well, roger.
i've been reading roger's reviews, answer man, etc. every friday since about 1998. it seems like his website, with due respect to jim emerson, has been frozen in time for the last couple weeks. here's one person who hopes it thaws soon.
get well, roger.
"don't wanna talk about politics!" (07/14/2006)
i must admit, when i first saw "hopes for a 'better' president", i felt a big 'groan' coming on. plus, i was a little dissappointed to see it was attributed to the vocalist of one of my very favorite musical acts, korn. but, alas, it was one in another long line of slanted headlines. actually, it kinda took my breath away because jonathan davis did just about the opposite of many who try to come off as experts when he said "But what do we really know? Maybe he (Bush) is doing the right thing, you don't know." it's hard to pin him down based on what he said (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1536179/20060712/korn.jhtml). you think he's a liberal when he says "global warming and abortion issues", but then he sounds conservative/libertarian when he says "my gun rights" (my emphasis added). then you go back and reread and look at how he prefaced that passage. he used the words "human life". when talking about abortion, don't most liberals lean on the words "choice" and "privacy"? then, he sounds positively like a realist, albeit again slightly conservative/libertarian, when he acknowledges the role oil plays in our lives.
you'd need him to answer some questions more definitively to find out where specifically he stands on certain issues, but overall, it was somewhat refreshing.
you'd need him to answer some questions more definitively to find out where specifically he stands on certain issues, but overall, it was somewhat refreshing.
look ahead (07/13/2006)
apparently, at least according to some media, reparations are gaining momentum (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2171984&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312). in case you don't know, reparations are the ridiculous notion that either the u.s. (government), businesses with an ancestry reaching back beyond the civil war (how many of those are there?) or some combination of both should pay money to those who can prove that their ancestors were slaves.
i'm quite certain that i am in the majority, a big majority (i don't know if he's part of this majority, but dave chappelle did a funny skit on his show about what would result), when i say that this is a ridiculous idea. consequently, i hesitate to make a suggestion on how it should be done should that day, heaven forbid, ever come when reparations actually happen. but i had a good idea this morning. all welfare and charity of any type that has gone to such descendants should be deducted from the final total.
i'm quite certain that i am in the majority, a big majority (i don't know if he's part of this majority, but dave chappelle did a funny skit on his show about what would result), when i say that this is a ridiculous idea. consequently, i hesitate to make a suggestion on how it should be done should that day, heaven forbid, ever come when reparations actually happen. but i had a good idea this morning. all welfare and charity of any type that has gone to such descendants should be deducted from the final total.
mommies (07/13/2006)
i would like to give props and show my appreciation to my wife and all other good mommies out there. last night, being just the latest example, our youngest (1 year 9 months) cried out in the middle of the night. we think she's starting to dream. she's been doing this for at least a few weeks. usually, i'm wired to sleep right through it. but, i am willing, if mommy wakes me up, to wake up and help. so i did last night. but, when i went in and tried to pat her back, she pushed away my hand and kept whining. so i left and my wife went in.
although sometimes daddy is good enough, that's the exception to the rule. there's that special bond between mommy and child. they feel more comforted by mommy, although when mommy's not around, daddy will suffice, heh. i want to say how fortunate i feel, and my girls should feel, to have a mommy that is dedicated to servicing that bond. i appreciate her because, on such mornings, i see how tired she is, she looks, when she gets out of bed.
although sometimes daddy is good enough, that's the exception to the rule. there's that special bond between mommy and child. they feel more comforted by mommy, although when mommy's not around, daddy will suffice, heh. i want to say how fortunate i feel, and my girls should feel, to have a mommy that is dedicated to servicing that bond. i appreciate her because, on such mornings, i see how tired she is, she looks, when she gets out of bed.
it's the DYNAMIC economy, stupid! (07/12/2006)
i've been reading the news the last couple of days about the smaller-than-expected federal budget deficit. first of all, it is much larger than it needs to be due to the excessive (non-military, non-homeland security) spending and government growth that has occurred under w, but that's another story. while i agree with bruce bartlett's assertion back in march that the increased revenue seen over the past year or so is due to the cyclical nature of the economy, it's hard to agree with him that it is the sole or biggest reason. hasn't federal revenue growth almost always followed tax reductions? this time reminds me of when clinton signed a gop cut in the capital gains in the late 90s. a surplus resulted.
the wall street journal editorial page broke out the "soak the rich" phrase again this morning, as sarcastically as they did a few months ago. i'm wondering when the democrats and liberals are going to get it. the wealthy appear to pay more when taxes are decreased, the marginal and investment types. aren't they supposed to be happy when the rich pay more? isn't that one area where they agree with adam smith? either they truly believe that our economy is a static one, where simply raising or cutting taxes will increase or decrease revenues by a commensurate amount, or...is it possible that they actually prefer to bring more revenue to the treasury, from the wealthy, in a manner that looks as if the rich are being penalized for success? do they actually envy the wealthy, or feel so much guilt for sharing that company (corzine, dayton, kerry, etc.), that they would risk less federal revenue?
obviously, this is prime time not only to push to make all of w's tax cuts permanent, but to go a step or two further and push for the national sales tax or (my personal preference) a flat tax.
the wall street journal editorial page broke out the "soak the rich" phrase again this morning, as sarcastically as they did a few months ago. i'm wondering when the democrats and liberals are going to get it. the wealthy appear to pay more when taxes are decreased, the marginal and investment types. aren't they supposed to be happy when the rich pay more? isn't that one area where they agree with adam smith? either they truly believe that our economy is a static one, where simply raising or cutting taxes will increase or decrease revenues by a commensurate amount, or...is it possible that they actually prefer to bring more revenue to the treasury, from the wealthy, in a manner that looks as if the rich are being penalized for success? do they actually envy the wealthy, or feel so much guilt for sharing that company (corzine, dayton, kerry, etc.), that they would risk less federal revenue?
obviously, this is prime time not only to push to make all of w's tax cuts permanent, but to go a step or two further and push for the national sales tax or (my personal preference) a flat tax.
said perfectly by the editorial page of the las vegas review-journal today (07/12/2006)
"But make no mistake -- this vast tide of government income does highlight that the only reason there's still a deficit is because Congress is spending money hand over fist -- and because the president keeps signing off on their Christmas lists."
this is why i will probably go back to voting libertarian this year.
this is why i will probably go back to voting libertarian this year.
and so it begins (07/12/2006)
now that it has been almost a month and the dust has settled since my beloved mavericks blew a 2 3/4 games-to-none lead in the nba finals, i get can get back to some important stuff. man, those playoffs took me out of it, and it out of me. damn!
actually, i can finally get to publicly expressing my opinion on the goings-on in the u.s. and the world. (see my profile for more)
i will start with a gem co-written for the chicago sun-times by our former senate majority leader tom daschle entitled "Immigration reform won't give average American job security" (http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref10.html).
the crux of it is how congress is basically wasting time trying to come up with immigration reform when it should first find "ways to strengthen and protect America's middle-class jobs". interesting. congress should cease efforts aimed at least partially at securing the border, one of the main functions, one would think, of the federal government, until it interferes in the private sector, past actions of which have already put a drag on economic activity (taxes, regulations, etc.). i'm not sure i agree with that. i think i agree with mr. chapman of the rival tribune when he said the best job security is job insecurity. shouldn't at least a little job insecurity, knowing that you are not entitled to your job, make you that much better of a worker? wouldn't that tend to give you a leg up when job cuts come around, or worse, when looking for another job? too much "job security" and the u.s. will start to look like europe. it seems that over there "job security" has an inverse relationship to job creation.
if you want the complete picture on what contributes to unemployment amongst "school drop-outs, unskilled laborers, and young African-American males", you must include the minimum wage in the conversation. fortunately, there are enough senators and congressmen who know that the minimum wage hurts the ones, the aforementioned, that it is meant to help by pricing them out of the market, and therefore have defeated efforts to raise it. on the bright side, however, the minimum wage surely has helped to bring about the innovations in self-service in places such as gas stations and grocery stores.
it seems that mr. daschle speaks for those who are unaware of a concept known as creative destruction. most, though not all, jobs sent overseas are low-paying, more lowly skilled jobs. when companies do that, one thing they are freed up to do is expand and create more high-paying jobs. while india, china and the like are labor abundant, the u.s. is capital and land abundant. highly skilled workers are needed to work that capital. that's why, if nothing else, mom and dad always said "get a college education".
ah, "an honest accounting of the nation's true unemployment rate" would also include the household survey, which takes into account the self-employed, the entrepreneur's who make america go. while the business survey recently said a "lower-than-expected" 120K jobs were recently created, the household survey said more than 350K were created! this is, unfortunately, one of the best kept secrets from the american people.
this piece, particularly the part about all the tax cuts and credits, reminds me of that ridiculous piece on the the daily kos the other day with regard to "libertarian dems". the solution to the vast majority of problems/issues these days is not more and more government, or in the case of this article, a more and more convoluted income tax code. we ought to just strip away 99% of business regulations (i suppose there are a couple good ones out there) and streamline the tax code, be it via a flat tax or a national sales tax. that right there is the purest way to encourage people to save and invest more.
leave them alone and see what happens.
actually, i can finally get to publicly expressing my opinion on the goings-on in the u.s. and the world. (see my profile for more)
i will start with a gem co-written for the chicago sun-times by our former senate majority leader tom daschle entitled "Immigration reform won't give average American job security" (http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref10.html).
the crux of it is how congress is basically wasting time trying to come up with immigration reform when it should first find "ways to strengthen and protect America's middle-class jobs". interesting. congress should cease efforts aimed at least partially at securing the border, one of the main functions, one would think, of the federal government, until it interferes in the private sector, past actions of which have already put a drag on economic activity (taxes, regulations, etc.). i'm not sure i agree with that. i think i agree with mr. chapman of the rival tribune when he said the best job security is job insecurity. shouldn't at least a little job insecurity, knowing that you are not entitled to your job, make you that much better of a worker? wouldn't that tend to give you a leg up when job cuts come around, or worse, when looking for another job? too much "job security" and the u.s. will start to look like europe. it seems that over there "job security" has an inverse relationship to job creation.
if you want the complete picture on what contributes to unemployment amongst "school drop-outs, unskilled laborers, and young African-American males", you must include the minimum wage in the conversation. fortunately, there are enough senators and congressmen who know that the minimum wage hurts the ones, the aforementioned, that it is meant to help by pricing them out of the market, and therefore have defeated efforts to raise it. on the bright side, however, the minimum wage surely has helped to bring about the innovations in self-service in places such as gas stations and grocery stores.
it seems that mr. daschle speaks for those who are unaware of a concept known as creative destruction. most, though not all, jobs sent overseas are low-paying, more lowly skilled jobs. when companies do that, one thing they are freed up to do is expand and create more high-paying jobs. while india, china and the like are labor abundant, the u.s. is capital and land abundant. highly skilled workers are needed to work that capital. that's why, if nothing else, mom and dad always said "get a college education".
ah, "an honest accounting of the nation's true unemployment rate" would also include the household survey, which takes into account the self-employed, the entrepreneur's who make america go. while the business survey recently said a "lower-than-expected" 120K jobs were recently created, the household survey said more than 350K were created! this is, unfortunately, one of the best kept secrets from the american people.
this piece, particularly the part about all the tax cuts and credits, reminds me of that ridiculous piece on the the daily kos the other day with regard to "libertarian dems". the solution to the vast majority of problems/issues these days is not more and more government, or in the case of this article, a more and more convoluted income tax code. we ought to just strip away 99% of business regulations (i suppose there are a couple good ones out there) and streamline the tax code, be it via a flat tax or a national sales tax. that right there is the purest way to encourage people to save and invest more.
leave them alone and see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)