And I think it was Republicans that someone recently told me they didn't vote for because they want to control too much of our lives.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/disparities_in_income_wealth.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/edwards_still_doesnt_get_it.html
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Wow, What a Novel Concept!
"Less than 20 percent of the budget is available for education, highways, housing and courts, discretionary programs that are being further squeezed by an increasingly expensive military." (Democrats Pledge to Restrain Spending, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500549.html)
Hmm, drop education and housing, and you approach what is actually in the Constitution, the document by which we are supposed to live by.
Hmm, drop education and housing, and you approach what is actually in the Constitution, the document by which we are supposed to live by.
Friday, December 22, 2006
In the Interests of Full Disclosure...
Whatta shocker; someone/thing else calling for a "roll back" (Please, don't insult me; it's a hike) of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in order to pay for the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. This time, it's the Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/16294900.htm).
Here's my favorite passage:
"Hiking the marginal income tax rate for the wealthiest taxpayers - those earning $200,000 per year or more - would raise about $800 billion over 10 years. Doing so would rightly require some financial sacrifice from the taxpayers who have enjoyed most of the benefit from the Bush tax cuts."
It never ceases to amaze me that liberals think the effects of a tax cut/hike stop there. Basically, that rich people will simply have less money. Who could get mad about that? But, as my friend Peek once told me, rich people do not put their spare cash in a bag and bury it in the backyard. That is the only way it would not be put to work and cycle it's way back through the economy. They either invest it, possibly creating new ventures and, subsequently, new jobs. Or, they spend it, keeping other ventures (by now, more likely established businesses) in business and people employed.
But hey, that kinda talk won't appeal to emotions, will it? That won't sell papers or advance an envy-agenda.
I'll be the first one to agree that deficits, as a matter of principle, and regardless if they are below 2% of GDP (I do have some practical business sense) are not desirable. It is not advisable to spend beyond one's means. But, by the same token, why are spending cuts never seriously entertained?? Government spending is the real problem behind deficits. And by that I do not simply mean excessive earmarks. I mean any and almost all social spending: retirement security, health care, etc. Why don't people take care of themselves and their families?
This country is, in my mind, on (if only slightly) a downward trend as long as government intrudes into the free market and free society in such a way.
Here's my favorite passage:
"Hiking the marginal income tax rate for the wealthiest taxpayers - those earning $200,000 per year or more - would raise about $800 billion over 10 years. Doing so would rightly require some financial sacrifice from the taxpayers who have enjoyed most of the benefit from the Bush tax cuts."
It never ceases to amaze me that liberals think the effects of a tax cut/hike stop there. Basically, that rich people will simply have less money. Who could get mad about that? But, as my friend Peek once told me, rich people do not put their spare cash in a bag and bury it in the backyard. That is the only way it would not be put to work and cycle it's way back through the economy. They either invest it, possibly creating new ventures and, subsequently, new jobs. Or, they spend it, keeping other ventures (by now, more likely established businesses) in business and people employed.
But hey, that kinda talk won't appeal to emotions, will it? That won't sell papers or advance an envy-agenda.
I'll be the first one to agree that deficits, as a matter of principle, and regardless if they are below 2% of GDP (I do have some practical business sense) are not desirable. It is not advisable to spend beyond one's means. But, by the same token, why are spending cuts never seriously entertained?? Government spending is the real problem behind deficits. And by that I do not simply mean excessive earmarks. I mean any and almost all social spending: retirement security, health care, etc. Why don't people take care of themselves and their families?
This country is, in my mind, on (if only slightly) a downward trend as long as government intrudes into the free market and free society in such a way.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Kinda Sad
Not one mention of school choice in Mort Kondracke's report on changes proposed by the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce to improve (presumably) public education(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/needed_a_governor_to_launch_ra.html). Zero, zip, nada. No mention of the correlation between increased liberty and societal progress. Zilcho.
Tell me again why parents can't use public funds allotted to their children to pick which schools they attend???
Tell me again why parents can't use public funds allotted to their children to pick which schools they attend???
Friday, December 08, 2006
My New Krugman
I like to consider myself fair, and honest, with regard to the articles and opinions I read. Sure, I tend to agree much more with conservative/libertarian pieces I read, but how to what degree would I know that if I didn't read stuff I knew slanted the other way? That part of my reading took a sizable hit when the New York Times decided a year or so ago to make their columnists accessible only via paid subscription. Only very infrequently, thanks mostly to the gentlemen at RealClearPolitics.com, can I catch one of their articles as syndicated through another paper. For a fleeting moment, I thought Maureen Dowd was the left's answer to Ann Coulter. Even though I generally disagreed with her, she made me laugh. Alas, her ability to make me laugh lasted for a piece or two, while my impression of her snootiness continues. Bob Herbert occasionally has a good, honest, personal piece. But then he goes and shows his true liberal colors. The one I miss the most, however, is Paul Krugman, if only because we share a bit (and I mean just a bit) of academic background in economics.
Rejoice! I have found a new leftie columnist I like to read regularly: Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post and American Prospect. This guy takes positions opposite mine on everything from the minimum wage (that which contributes to unemployment, particularly amongst youth), the estate tax (which makes death a taxable event), unions (which retard economic growth and intrude on the free market) and more. I have to say, though, I did agree with him on the inevitable political realignment from Democrat to Republican in the northeast, much like the south turning the other direction in the last decade or so.
He wrote a good one Thursday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120601671.html), starting off by casting his lot with those who thought ads run against Harold Ford in the recent Tenessee senate campaign were racist. He most surely has in mind the one with the lady claiming she "met Harold at the Playboy party...hey Harold, call me." Joshua Marshall over at TalkingPointsMemo.com was the first one I can remember who raised a stink about that ad. In an email exchange, he said he'd give me, and by extension my wife, who agreed with me (two native southerners from Texas), the benefit of the doubt that I was "just acting stupid and not the real deal." Gee, thanks, but 3 college degrees between us tell me differently. Where, in the ad, was the N-word used? Where, in the ad, did it say African-Americans were in any way inferior to Americans of other descent? I guess some of us are more colorblind than others.
Then, unfortunately, he goes the disingenuous demagogue route by claiming that Republicans "blocked stem cell research." This kinda stuff really peeves me. They did NO...SUCH...THING! What they did do was strictly limited federal funding of such research. (Unfortunately, however, many of them did do it on the grounds that it would be funding the destruction of life. That's true, and personally, I would not want my taxes going to fund such practices, but how about taking the if-it's-really-as-promising-as-is-claimed-to-be,-why-are-private-investor-funds-not-enough? Someone once said "the market is smart; government is dumb.") It's one thing to have an opinion. I can at least respect that. But don't intentionally mislead people. What good does it do to be anything less than honest??
Finally, he wouldn't be a true liberal if he didn't rail against Wal-Mart. My favorite passage here was "expands this practice...of offering low wages and no benefits...threatening the living standards of unionized retail workers". What?? Exactly what kind of living standards should people who work retail jobs have? I worked retail. My sister worked retail. Most of my friends worked retail. But, we worked retail when we were either living with our parents and/or going to school. I remember when one day I thought to myself 'I don't want to go through life supporting myself on these wages,' so I got off my ass and went to school. It says a lot about a person who parks his/her life working behind a cash register (slacker) and even more about their enablers (democrats, unions, liberals). Retail unions combine with wage controls (minimum wage rates) to suck ambition from people. Moreover, they keep many teens from getting their foot in the door of the workplace. Think about it: isn't that who low hourly-wage jobs are perfect for, those just breaking into the workforce who don't need to support themselves?
There does seem to be one difference between Meyerson and Krugman. Krugman is highly educated in economics, whereas I see no such evidence that Meyerson is. When one speaks about economic matters, he knows what he's talking about. The other one does not. One would tend to think, therefore, that one can be taken seriously. But it has always seemed blasphemous to me for an economist to support liberal policies, which, more times than not, intrude on the free market and retard growth.
Rejoice! I have found a new leftie columnist I like to read regularly: Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post and American Prospect. This guy takes positions opposite mine on everything from the minimum wage (that which contributes to unemployment, particularly amongst youth), the estate tax (which makes death a taxable event), unions (which retard economic growth and intrude on the free market) and more. I have to say, though, I did agree with him on the inevitable political realignment from Democrat to Republican in the northeast, much like the south turning the other direction in the last decade or so.
He wrote a good one Thursday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120601671.html), starting off by casting his lot with those who thought ads run against Harold Ford in the recent Tenessee senate campaign were racist. He most surely has in mind the one with the lady claiming she "met Harold at the Playboy party...hey Harold, call me." Joshua Marshall over at TalkingPointsMemo.com was the first one I can remember who raised a stink about that ad. In an email exchange, he said he'd give me, and by extension my wife, who agreed with me (two native southerners from Texas), the benefit of the doubt that I was "just acting stupid and not the real deal." Gee, thanks, but 3 college degrees between us tell me differently. Where, in the ad, was the N-word used? Where, in the ad, did it say African-Americans were in any way inferior to Americans of other descent? I guess some of us are more colorblind than others.
Then, unfortunately, he goes the disingenuous demagogue route by claiming that Republicans "blocked stem cell research." This kinda stuff really peeves me. They did NO...SUCH...THING! What they did do was strictly limited federal funding of such research. (Unfortunately, however, many of them did do it on the grounds that it would be funding the destruction of life. That's true, and personally, I would not want my taxes going to fund such practices, but how about taking the if-it's-really-as-promising-as-is-claimed-to-be,-why-are-private-investor-funds-not-enough? Someone once said "the market is smart; government is dumb.") It's one thing to have an opinion. I can at least respect that. But don't intentionally mislead people. What good does it do to be anything less than honest??
Finally, he wouldn't be a true liberal if he didn't rail against Wal-Mart. My favorite passage here was "expands this practice...of offering low wages and no benefits...threatening the living standards of unionized retail workers". What?? Exactly what kind of living standards should people who work retail jobs have? I worked retail. My sister worked retail. Most of my friends worked retail. But, we worked retail when we were either living with our parents and/or going to school. I remember when one day I thought to myself 'I don't want to go through life supporting myself on these wages,' so I got off my ass and went to school. It says a lot about a person who parks his/her life working behind a cash register (slacker) and even more about their enablers (democrats, unions, liberals). Retail unions combine with wage controls (minimum wage rates) to suck ambition from people. Moreover, they keep many teens from getting their foot in the door of the workplace. Think about it: isn't that who low hourly-wage jobs are perfect for, those just breaking into the workforce who don't need to support themselves?
There does seem to be one difference between Meyerson and Krugman. Krugman is highly educated in economics, whereas I see no such evidence that Meyerson is. When one speaks about economic matters, he knows what he's talking about. The other one does not. One would tend to think, therefore, that one can be taken seriously. But it has always seemed blasphemous to me for an economist to support liberal policies, which, more times than not, intrude on the free market and retard growth.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Eddie Murray, anyone?
To borrow a line from Michael Corleone, "I'm with you now, Cowboys. I'm with you now."
I have been wary of giving too much of my time to the Pokes in recent years, for more reasons than one. For one, I just recently finished graduate school. Second, the Mavericks ascendancy in the N.B.A. has coincided with the continued, prolonged swoon for the Cowboys.
But mostly, the Cowboys haven't worth my undivided attention for 3+ hours every Sunday, not to mention the countless additional minutes/hours reading about them. Actually, that was made easier when the Dallas Morning News started charging to read more than one Cowboy story a day on their website. That was actually not a bad idea on their part, given the 'Boys popularity. They just picked a bad time to do it; during their decline. Then, they were trying to plug holes around Troy Aikman with band aids, trying to prevent him from absorbing the next concussion. The only real thing of interest concerning the Star was Emmitt Smith's pursuit of the all-time rushing record, which he eventually captured. That was great and noteworthy, but it was not going to win any Super Bowls. Charging for coverage of a franchise in decline was like raising taxes at the onset of a recession.
I'm almost as big a Cowboys fan as the next guy, but if you don't have the feeling that 'it's there this year', shouldn't you direct your focus to something more productive? At least the Mavericks had a young core they were/are building on to try and get somewhere. That, in my mind, has been the Cowboys' problem, mainly and if only at what is often referred to as the most important position on the field: quarterback. The selection of Quincy Carter a few years ago wasn't exactly me with enthusiasm, but when Bill Parcells signed on, they actually went to the playoffs. There was promise. A young qb playing a young team that was shedding the last of it's older players from the glory decade of the 90s (with the notable exceptions of Larry Allen and Darren Woodson). Then Q failed a drug test. Great. The next steps at qb gave me no confidence. Nothing against Vinny Testaverde or Drew Bledsoe, but they were older veterans, perfect examples of a band aid in my mind, and at the most important position. Following the Cowboys from the late 70s, I had come to learn that they were best when they invested time in a young qb. That was probably the hope of most fans when Jerry Jones signed Chad Hutchinson, and then Drew Henson. But they did not pan out. Maybe it's not so easy to turn back to football after having given baseball a try. Who knows? Turns out, however, that Q's dirty pee may have helped plant the seed that is being borne out today (see Randy Galloway's article, "Romo's rise aided by Quincy's demise", from last week's Fort Worth Star Telegram: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/columnists/randy_galloway/16139753.htm).
While I was running this morning, I started to wonder just how much Tony Romo's insertion and play at qb has helped the Pokes mentally. When you include Vanderjagt's wobbliness, did it at all exist in any of their minds that regardless of how hard they played that they were just an interception or missed field goal away from losing? They have been, after all, hovering around the top five in both offense and defense for most of the season. Did that contribute at all to their penalties, which they seemed to have a lot of, or dropped passes (excluding Terrell Owens. He continues to be consistent in that area) or the like? Who knows? Then Romo comes in and passes for 300+ yards in this game and that, with an interception or two, and BOOM! They take over first in the division (with a little help from a collapsing New York Giant team). Bledsoe could easily have thrown either of those two INTs yesterday, but could he have scrambled and hit his tight end in stride yesterday, like Romo hit Witten? The only thing they needed now was a kicker they could count on. Voila! Exit Mike Vanderjagt, enter Martin Gramatica, he of the exuberantly celebratory Grammatica kicking clan. Does anyone now remember that he missed the first of his four attempts yesterday? Ha!
Take it for what it is, but I think the team now feels as if they have a qb and kicker who has their back.
I have been wary of giving too much of my time to the Pokes in recent years, for more reasons than one. For one, I just recently finished graduate school. Second, the Mavericks ascendancy in the N.B.A. has coincided with the continued, prolonged swoon for the Cowboys.
But mostly, the Cowboys haven't worth my undivided attention for 3+ hours every Sunday, not to mention the countless additional minutes/hours reading about them. Actually, that was made easier when the Dallas Morning News started charging to read more than one Cowboy story a day on their website. That was actually not a bad idea on their part, given the 'Boys popularity. They just picked a bad time to do it; during their decline. Then, they were trying to plug holes around Troy Aikman with band aids, trying to prevent him from absorbing the next concussion. The only real thing of interest concerning the Star was Emmitt Smith's pursuit of the all-time rushing record, which he eventually captured. That was great and noteworthy, but it was not going to win any Super Bowls. Charging for coverage of a franchise in decline was like raising taxes at the onset of a recession.
I'm almost as big a Cowboys fan as the next guy, but if you don't have the feeling that 'it's there this year', shouldn't you direct your focus to something more productive? At least the Mavericks had a young core they were/are building on to try and get somewhere. That, in my mind, has been the Cowboys' problem, mainly and if only at what is often referred to as the most important position on the field: quarterback. The selection of Quincy Carter a few years ago wasn't exactly me with enthusiasm, but when Bill Parcells signed on, they actually went to the playoffs. There was promise. A young qb playing a young team that was shedding the last of it's older players from the glory decade of the 90s (with the notable exceptions of Larry Allen and Darren Woodson). Then Q failed a drug test. Great. The next steps at qb gave me no confidence. Nothing against Vinny Testaverde or Drew Bledsoe, but they were older veterans, perfect examples of a band aid in my mind, and at the most important position. Following the Cowboys from the late 70s, I had come to learn that they were best when they invested time in a young qb. That was probably the hope of most fans when Jerry Jones signed Chad Hutchinson, and then Drew Henson. But they did not pan out. Maybe it's not so easy to turn back to football after having given baseball a try. Who knows? Turns out, however, that Q's dirty pee may have helped plant the seed that is being borne out today (see Randy Galloway's article, "Romo's rise aided by Quincy's demise", from last week's Fort Worth Star Telegram: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/columnists/randy_galloway/16139753.htm).
While I was running this morning, I started to wonder just how much Tony Romo's insertion and play at qb has helped the Pokes mentally. When you include Vanderjagt's wobbliness, did it at all exist in any of their minds that regardless of how hard they played that they were just an interception or missed field goal away from losing? They have been, after all, hovering around the top five in both offense and defense for most of the season. Did that contribute at all to their penalties, which they seemed to have a lot of, or dropped passes (excluding Terrell Owens. He continues to be consistent in that area) or the like? Who knows? Then Romo comes in and passes for 300+ yards in this game and that, with an interception or two, and BOOM! They take over first in the division (with a little help from a collapsing New York Giant team). Bledsoe could easily have thrown either of those two INTs yesterday, but could he have scrambled and hit his tight end in stride yesterday, like Romo hit Witten? The only thing they needed now was a kicker they could count on. Voila! Exit Mike Vanderjagt, enter Martin Gramatica, he of the exuberantly celebratory Grammatica kicking clan. Does anyone now remember that he missed the first of his four attempts yesterday? Ha!
Take it for what it is, but I think the team now feels as if they have a qb and kicker who has their back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)