"It's always fascinating, however, to read about the passion Paul does inspire in his fans."
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/12/the_daily_2008_180.html
It's the purest, most admirable kind of passion because the guy is the straightest shooter up there. I mean, how can you go wrong when you the Constitution is your guide 100% of the time?? I'd argue that his supporters are the most dedicated to the Constitution and have the most faith in what the Founding Fathers did. They have the most respect for the Founding Fathers. Any supporter of the so-called "Living Constitution" or of any non-defense, non-justice taxpayer-funded government program or any regulation of private behavior, they think less of the wisdom of what the Founding Fathers put down in writing, whether it's the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, etc
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Monday, December 03, 2007
Please...
Giuliani Assails 'Fair Tax' Plan (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TA6KR80&show_article=1&catnum=0)
GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani criticized the "fair tax" plan that has been touted by rival candidate Mike Huckabee on Monday, saying it could hurt home buyers.
The former New York City mayor cited the struggling U.S. housing market as a reason to avoid the plan, which would eliminate all taxes on income and investments in favor of a hefty federal sales tax.
A questioner asked about the plan but did not mention Huckabee. Nor did Giuliani mention his rival in his response.
"I think there are several tax deductions that are vital to our economy," Giuliani said. "This would not be a good time—I don't know if there would ever be a good time to do this—to advocate ending the home mortgage deduction. The home mortgage deduction is considered by many critical to the ability of people to buy a home and keep their home."
He also said deductions for charitable contributions and state and local taxes were important tax breaks that Huckabee's plan would eliminate."
====
Who would seriously want to keep the system we have now, instead of a much simpler, less time-consuming option, just for the deductions? No tax deduction is "vital" to the economy. People won't refrain from buying a house because they won't get to write part of it off. And it has been shown that charitable giving actually increases when taxes are lowered, not necessarily when deductions are increased.
It'd be one thing if he were showing how his radical tax simplification plan was preferable, but he's not. Only Thompson and Paul could do that. How does Rudy want to drastically reform the tax code??
GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani criticized the "fair tax" plan that has been touted by rival candidate Mike Huckabee on Monday, saying it could hurt home buyers.
The former New York City mayor cited the struggling U.S. housing market as a reason to avoid the plan, which would eliminate all taxes on income and investments in favor of a hefty federal sales tax.
A questioner asked about the plan but did not mention Huckabee. Nor did Giuliani mention his rival in his response.
"I think there are several tax deductions that are vital to our economy," Giuliani said. "This would not be a good time—I don't know if there would ever be a good time to do this—to advocate ending the home mortgage deduction. The home mortgage deduction is considered by many critical to the ability of people to buy a home and keep their home."
He also said deductions for charitable contributions and state and local taxes were important tax breaks that Huckabee's plan would eliminate."
====
Who would seriously want to keep the system we have now, instead of a much simpler, less time-consuming option, just for the deductions? No tax deduction is "vital" to the economy. People won't refrain from buying a house because they won't get to write part of it off. And it has been shown that charitable giving actually increases when taxes are lowered, not necessarily when deductions are increased.
It'd be one thing if he were showing how his radical tax simplification plan was preferable, but he's not. Only Thompson and Paul could do that. How does Rudy want to drastically reform the tax code??
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Theoretically Wrong; Practically...Correct
I was going to give a regular guy's rebuttal to Michael Kinsley's piece in the L.A. Times yesterday ("Flat-tax and spend GOP", http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kinsley1dec01,0,1162496.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail). I was so confident that I could provide a quality response to his 'I-don't-know-how-he-won;-I-don't-know-anyone-who-voted-for-him' attitude and tone, but he got me in the end, (ahem) so to speak.
Maybe he was just exaggerating when he said he thinks "approximately zero" people would go for the simplicity of a flat tax or embedded (it's NOT a sales tax) FairTax if it meant losing deductions which would thereby increase their tax bills. To that, I was going to say he must have forgotten the approximately 6 billion hours Americans take each year to file their taxes. He must not fully understand the concept of opportunity cost. Some of those hours are hours that could be spent doing something else, whether something leisurely or productive. And what about all the money people already spend to have their taxes done for them? My guess is that those who have more and varied deductions might pay more and/or spend more time to do their taxes. That might make it a wash. To use Fred Thompson's plan on us as an example, we could choose to pay a flat 10% for this year. After accounting for personal exemptions ($39K for a family of 4, ~$49K when extrapolating that out to a family of 5, such as ours), our tax bill would roughly be what it would the same either way. Hmm, I'll go the simpler, flatter route. The only problem with Thompson's plan (and it's a small one, given that it is, after all, a step in the right direction) is that the rate would go up to 25% after income of $100K. As it stands right now, we straddle that line in that the missus works part time while our girls are pre-K. What will be the incentive for her to go back to work some more, not necessarily full-time if the little bit we go over $100K would compel us to pay another 15% in marginal taxes? We'd have more incentive for her to keep us just under that threshold to avoid it. Now THERE'S a system meant to foster productivity!
Then I wondered if the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation uses the same kinda static scoring of this tax cut that always, always overestimates the revenue shortfall from a tax cut (or, for that matter, underestimates the revenue increase from a tax hike). Why, oh why is it always assumed that the tax base will stay the exact same after alterations to the tax code? This is the folly that is the liberals' belief that wealth just occurs. It will always be there for more taxing. It never occurs to them...do they think it appeared just out of thin air?? Do they not think it has to be created it? Do they not think increased taxation is a disincentive to create more, or at least to change reporting structures so as to shelter more from taxation??
I was also going to no doubt perplex Mr. Kinsley again by raising my hand to say I'd accept lower Social Security payments (as long as I get back close to what I put in; please, just that) for a simpler tax code. I believe Thompson would also allow me to take back some of my contributions and invest them on my own, which I know could earn me a higher return.
He went on to say some other goofy stuff, like if person A's taxes go down, person B's taxes must necessarily go up, before stating the obvious: "The GOP bluff has been called. Republicans had six years in which they controlled the White House and (for most of that time) Congress. They could have cut any spending they wanted. They did the opposite. None of the realistic Republican presidential possibilities is discussing spending cuts except in the vaguest terms."
That makes it tough to be an enthusiastic GOP supporter.
Maybe he was just exaggerating when he said he thinks "approximately zero" people would go for the simplicity of a flat tax or embedded (it's NOT a sales tax) FairTax if it meant losing deductions which would thereby increase their tax bills. To that, I was going to say he must have forgotten the approximately 6 billion hours Americans take each year to file their taxes. He must not fully understand the concept of opportunity cost. Some of those hours are hours that could be spent doing something else, whether something leisurely or productive. And what about all the money people already spend to have their taxes done for them? My guess is that those who have more and varied deductions might pay more and/or spend more time to do their taxes. That might make it a wash. To use Fred Thompson's plan on us as an example, we could choose to pay a flat 10% for this year. After accounting for personal exemptions ($39K for a family of 4, ~$49K when extrapolating that out to a family of 5, such as ours), our tax bill would roughly be what it would the same either way. Hmm, I'll go the simpler, flatter route. The only problem with Thompson's plan (and it's a small one, given that it is, after all, a step in the right direction) is that the rate would go up to 25% after income of $100K. As it stands right now, we straddle that line in that the missus works part time while our girls are pre-K. What will be the incentive for her to go back to work some more, not necessarily full-time if the little bit we go over $100K would compel us to pay another 15% in marginal taxes? We'd have more incentive for her to keep us just under that threshold to avoid it. Now THERE'S a system meant to foster productivity!
Then I wondered if the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation uses the same kinda static scoring of this tax cut that always, always overestimates the revenue shortfall from a tax cut (or, for that matter, underestimates the revenue increase from a tax hike). Why, oh why is it always assumed that the tax base will stay the exact same after alterations to the tax code? This is the folly that is the liberals' belief that wealth just occurs. It will always be there for more taxing. It never occurs to them...do they think it appeared just out of thin air?? Do they not think it has to be created it? Do they not think increased taxation is a disincentive to create more, or at least to change reporting structures so as to shelter more from taxation??
I was also going to no doubt perplex Mr. Kinsley again by raising my hand to say I'd accept lower Social Security payments (as long as I get back close to what I put in; please, just that) for a simpler tax code. I believe Thompson would also allow me to take back some of my contributions and invest them on my own, which I know could earn me a higher return.
He went on to say some other goofy stuff, like if person A's taxes go down, person B's taxes must necessarily go up, before stating the obvious: "The GOP bluff has been called. Republicans had six years in which they controlled the White House and (for most of that time) Congress. They could have cut any spending they wanted. They did the opposite. None of the realistic Republican presidential possibilities is discussing spending cuts except in the vaguest terms."
That makes it tough to be an enthusiastic GOP supporter.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The FairTax Clarified...Finally!
Now I think I get it.
Back a few months, I read the back and forth between Neal Boortz and Bruce Bartlett regarding the the FairTax. The former, you may know, is a radio talk show host who co-authored a book on the subject with prime proponent in the House of Representatives, John Linder of Georgia. The latter is a columnist who has served as deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury Department (1988 - 1993) and executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress before that. Bartlett, no doubt, felt compelled to study and comment on the FairTax in, given the unexpectedly strong finish by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in the Ames Straw Poll of candidates for the republican nomination for president. Huckabee's support for the FairTax is arguably one of his signature issues. Even though a flat tax is my preferred form of tax reform (simpler, does not require the repeal of a Constitutional amendment), I want to understand the FairTax.
One of Bartlett's main critiques, as written in The Wall Street Journal, was that it would actually be a 30% tax on all goods and services. Many others have made this claim, too. For example, if you buy a home for $100,000, it would actually end up costing $130,000. So naturally, Boortz felt compelled to write an entry on his blog Neal's Nuze (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html) in an effort to clarify. To use our home example (Boortz actually used a $100 lamp, which changed to a $100 griddle for another clarification op-ed yesterday), he said the tax was already figured into the price of the house. Essentially, it's a $77,000 house with a $23,000 tax added. Hence, the $100,000 final price tag. I don't know about you, but I've always assumed that the FairTax is basically a national sales tax. Therefore, I saw a $23,000 tax on a $77,000 home. Living in Texas, I know sales taxes are computed on products bought. Using that logic, I came to, voila, a 30% tax.
So far, no good. I was confused and not being anymore swayed from the flat tax.
So I emailed him. I agree with much of what Boortz says and admire the passion and assertiveness with which he opines and explains. But, at least on this issue, the resulting clarity of his attempted explanations did not match his flabbergastedness over the fact that some people still don't get it. If someone with a graduate degree in economics and a big interest in serious tax reform/simplification still doesn't quite understand it, I'm betting more than a few other people don't get it either.
Alas, I get it now, thanks to another effort by him (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/NealBoortz/2007/11/27/the_fairtax_--_the_truth) to explain it in response to another critique, this time by Hank Adler of Townhall.com (Give him credit for continually being up to the challenge of trying to explain this issue. It finally helped at least one person understand it). One word and one phrase helped me see the light: embedded and "sales tax". The part that stumped me was the fact that the FairTax is often taken as synonymous with a sales tax. Again, living in Texas all my life, I'm sure I'm not the only one who understands that a sales tax of, say, 8% is added to the cost of a $1.29 soda, thereby making it $1.39. The way the final price of a good is figured out using the embedded FairTax is to divide the final cost of the product by 77%.
In the same way people need to unlearn what they've been told/taught with regard to tax cuts draining and tax hikes raising federal revenue, FairTax proponents need to clarify that it is not a sales tax. I almost flipped my lid last night while watching the CNN/YouTube GOP Presidential debate, when the I-Want-You animated Uncle Sam character came on asking if any of the candidates supported the "FairTax...sales tax"! Almost a quarter of the electoral votes needed to win the presidency reside in states that employ a sales tax rather than a personal income tax, and those states (Texas, Florida and Nevada) are 3 of the fastest growing states in the union. That share could possible approach a 1/3 by the time the 2012 Presidential election rolls around. So this is a clarification that needs to occur if there is any chance that the FairTax ever becomes a reality.
The part of his defense of a couple months ago I sufficiently understood was the fact that the tax is embedded in the price of a product (A $23 tax within the $100 cost of a lamp). It made sense to me that part of the cost of a good is the income tax that company pays, the payroll taxes it pays, the income taxes paid by the employees of the company, etc. The first bit of protest a person would lodge against this theory is "What makes you so sure a company would lower it's price by something close to the 22% currently estimated to be embedded in products?" I've heard similar doubts with regard to salaries increasing when companies no long have less of an incentive to offer/provide health insurance than a person has to buy it on his/her own. The answer I offer is basically the same one I give whenever someone, in a temporary bout of insanity, says "The big oil & gas companies are conspiring the keep gas prices high." If a company, after having been relieved of the burden of myriad taxes, still charges what it did before, some enterprising individual will figure it out and enter the market to sell that product at a lower price. If that individual, in the interests of making as much as he/she can, doesn't quite come down as much as possible (say, 15% of the estimated 22%), another one will come along and drop the price further, and so on and so on.
The only problem with that is the current American psyche that has to have everything right now! True, in the short run, where unfortunately too many Americans live these days, there might very well be a producer surplus, where prices are slow adjust and come down once the FairTax is enacted. But they will, and eventually that producer surplus will become a consumer surplus. One need look no further for an example than the price of televisions over the years. Perhaps you've noticed that the price of flat-panels t.v.'s, whether LCD or plasma, has dropped drastically in the last few years. Even though this is more the result of supply-side economics, the similarity is that other producers saw opportunity and started offering their t.v.'s for lower prices. The same would inevitably happen when adjusting to a new, more efficient tax scheme. That's the beauty of the dynamism of our free-market economy.
Back a few months, I read the back and forth between Neal Boortz and Bruce Bartlett regarding the the FairTax. The former, you may know, is a radio talk show host who co-authored a book on the subject with prime proponent in the House of Representatives, John Linder of Georgia. The latter is a columnist who has served as deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury Department (1988 - 1993) and executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress before that. Bartlett, no doubt, felt compelled to study and comment on the FairTax in, given the unexpectedly strong finish by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in the Ames Straw Poll of candidates for the republican nomination for president. Huckabee's support for the FairTax is arguably one of his signature issues. Even though a flat tax is my preferred form of tax reform (simpler, does not require the repeal of a Constitutional amendment), I want to understand the FairTax.
One of Bartlett's main critiques, as written in The Wall Street Journal, was that it would actually be a 30% tax on all goods and services. Many others have made this claim, too. For example, if you buy a home for $100,000, it would actually end up costing $130,000. So naturally, Boortz felt compelled to write an entry on his blog Neal's Nuze (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html) in an effort to clarify. To use our home example (Boortz actually used a $100 lamp, which changed to a $100 griddle for another clarification op-ed yesterday), he said the tax was already figured into the price of the house. Essentially, it's a $77,000 house with a $23,000 tax added. Hence, the $100,000 final price tag. I don't know about you, but I've always assumed that the FairTax is basically a national sales tax. Therefore, I saw a $23,000 tax on a $77,000 home. Living in Texas, I know sales taxes are computed on products bought. Using that logic, I came to, voila, a 30% tax.
So far, no good. I was confused and not being anymore swayed from the flat tax.
So I emailed him. I agree with much of what Boortz says and admire the passion and assertiveness with which he opines and explains. But, at least on this issue, the resulting clarity of his attempted explanations did not match his flabbergastedness over the fact that some people still don't get it. If someone with a graduate degree in economics and a big interest in serious tax reform/simplification still doesn't quite understand it, I'm betting more than a few other people don't get it either.
Alas, I get it now, thanks to another effort by him (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/NealBoortz/2007/11/27/the_fairtax_--_the_truth) to explain it in response to another critique, this time by Hank Adler of Townhall.com (Give him credit for continually being up to the challenge of trying to explain this issue. It finally helped at least one person understand it). One word and one phrase helped me see the light: embedded and "sales tax". The part that stumped me was the fact that the FairTax is often taken as synonymous with a sales tax. Again, living in Texas all my life, I'm sure I'm not the only one who understands that a sales tax of, say, 8% is added to the cost of a $1.29 soda, thereby making it $1.39. The way the final price of a good is figured out using the embedded FairTax is to divide the final cost of the product by 77%.
In the same way people need to unlearn what they've been told/taught with regard to tax cuts draining and tax hikes raising federal revenue, FairTax proponents need to clarify that it is not a sales tax. I almost flipped my lid last night while watching the CNN/YouTube GOP Presidential debate, when the I-Want-You animated Uncle Sam character came on asking if any of the candidates supported the "FairTax...sales tax"! Almost a quarter of the electoral votes needed to win the presidency reside in states that employ a sales tax rather than a personal income tax, and those states (Texas, Florida and Nevada) are 3 of the fastest growing states in the union. That share could possible approach a 1/3 by the time the 2012 Presidential election rolls around. So this is a clarification that needs to occur if there is any chance that the FairTax ever becomes a reality.
The part of his defense of a couple months ago I sufficiently understood was the fact that the tax is embedded in the price of a product (A $23 tax within the $100 cost of a lamp). It made sense to me that part of the cost of a good is the income tax that company pays, the payroll taxes it pays, the income taxes paid by the employees of the company, etc. The first bit of protest a person would lodge against this theory is "What makes you so sure a company would lower it's price by something close to the 22% currently estimated to be embedded in products?" I've heard similar doubts with regard to salaries increasing when companies no long have less of an incentive to offer/provide health insurance than a person has to buy it on his/her own. The answer I offer is basically the same one I give whenever someone, in a temporary bout of insanity, says "The big oil & gas companies are conspiring the keep gas prices high." If a company, after having been relieved of the burden of myriad taxes, still charges what it did before, some enterprising individual will figure it out and enter the market to sell that product at a lower price. If that individual, in the interests of making as much as he/she can, doesn't quite come down as much as possible (say, 15% of the estimated 22%), another one will come along and drop the price further, and so on and so on.
The only problem with that is the current American psyche that has to have everything right now! True, in the short run, where unfortunately too many Americans live these days, there might very well be a producer surplus, where prices are slow adjust and come down once the FairTax is enacted. But they will, and eventually that producer surplus will become a consumer surplus. One need look no further for an example than the price of televisions over the years. Perhaps you've noticed that the price of flat-panels t.v.'s, whether LCD or plasma, has dropped drastically in the last few years. Even though this is more the result of supply-side economics, the similarity is that other producers saw opportunity and started offering their t.v.'s for lower prices. The same would inevitably happen when adjusting to a new, more efficient tax scheme. That's the beauty of the dynamism of our free-market economy.
Friday, October 12, 2007
"For the Children" Is Not an Impenetrable Shield Anymore
I'm kinda confused why those on the right find it so hard that those on the left are dumbfounded by the reporting on the Frosts since Graeme's radio response to President Bush. This is, after all, an issue about the principle of personal responsibility, something the left has a hard time grappling with (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/
2007/10/why_did_they_attack_graeme_fro.html). It seems kinda simple to me.
First of all, I know that's Maryland and this is Texas, so I'm sure there's a bit of a difference in the cost of living. But more than $400,000 worth of property and 3 nice/new cars is "modest"?? I don't think so. We have 2 cars, one of which is paid off and one which is brand new, but only ~40% financed thanks to having it's trade-in paid off. We have a 1/4 of the property. I think we're living a bit more modestly. "...the Frosts...are expected to sell their investment property to pay for health care. Why?" Because those assets are the very means with which they should!! If we were in their predicament, what would we do? Liquidate, as much as necessary to pay the bills. What are assets there for if not to be used, especially in an emergency situation?
And did I read that the Frosts' parents were OK financially? If that's the case, you also go to your family for help. Isn't a major system of support supposed to be the family? This is why some say big government contributes to the erosion of the family.
It's kinda sad that someone as seasoned (don't wanna say old, since I'm getting up there) and experienced as Mr. Dionne still refers to government as just some entity that has money (if you think about it, that's kinda how the left views the affluent; they just have money so higher taxes should result in higher revenue, never mind that that wealth actually has to be created). I say this in reference to his mention of "government-supported vouchers that would help Graeme attend his private school...(f)ederal money for private schools but not for health insurance?" First of all, the federal government should not be involved in public education. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution quite clearly implies this. But that's another subject. It is completely legitimate for parents to petition their state governments to be able to use the taxes THEY PAY to fund government schools, to pay for the school of their choice for their children. This is one kinda of choice that the left, ironically, does not favor. The opposition to it is sheer insanity. All schools would become private schools, in a way, but it would still be public education. Liberals continue to miss the boat when it comes to how much better the private sector provides goods than does the public sector.
Finally, I'd love to see where this "average family policy in employer-provided plans now costing more than $12,000 annually" figure comes from. My family of 5 pays about a 1/3 of that. It's hard for me to believe that we pay that much less than average.
2007/10/why_did_they_attack_graeme_fro.html). It seems kinda simple to me.
First of all, I know that's Maryland and this is Texas, so I'm sure there's a bit of a difference in the cost of living. But more than $400,000 worth of property and 3 nice/new cars is "modest"?? I don't think so. We have 2 cars, one of which is paid off and one which is brand new, but only ~40% financed thanks to having it's trade-in paid off. We have a 1/4 of the property. I think we're living a bit more modestly. "...the Frosts...are expected to sell their investment property to pay for health care. Why?" Because those assets are the very means with which they should!! If we were in their predicament, what would we do? Liquidate, as much as necessary to pay the bills. What are assets there for if not to be used, especially in an emergency situation?
And did I read that the Frosts' parents were OK financially? If that's the case, you also go to your family for help. Isn't a major system of support supposed to be the family? This is why some say big government contributes to the erosion of the family.
It's kinda sad that someone as seasoned (don't wanna say old, since I'm getting up there) and experienced as Mr. Dionne still refers to government as just some entity that has money (if you think about it, that's kinda how the left views the affluent; they just have money so higher taxes should result in higher revenue, never mind that that wealth actually has to be created). I say this in reference to his mention of "government-supported vouchers that would help Graeme attend his private school...(f)ederal money for private schools but not for health insurance?" First of all, the federal government should not be involved in public education. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution quite clearly implies this. But that's another subject. It is completely legitimate for parents to petition their state governments to be able to use the taxes THEY PAY to fund government schools, to pay for the school of their choice for their children. This is one kinda of choice that the left, ironically, does not favor. The opposition to it is sheer insanity. All schools would become private schools, in a way, but it would still be public education. Liberals continue to miss the boat when it comes to how much better the private sector provides goods than does the public sector.
Finally, I'd love to see where this "average family policy in employer-provided plans now costing more than $12,000 annually" figure comes from. My family of 5 pays about a 1/3 of that. It's hard for me to believe that we pay that much less than average.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
My Lone Divergence with Kudlow
Ironic, indeed, says Larry Kudlow today (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/anatomy_of_a_fabulous_fed_flip.html).
I’m just not sold that cutting the interest rate a couple weeks ago was the best thing. Do we really need more dollars in the system right now? Isn’t the dollar already weak enough (benefits to exports notwithstanding), and inflation a real enough threat? Most importantly, wouldn’t it be a good thing to steer Americans a little more away from charging on the credit card and more toward saving? For the record, I think the so-called trade deficit (since writing a paper on it in grad school, I refer to it as the ‘foreign direct investment surplus’) garners a much worse reputation than it deserves. It’s not nearly as much of a principled concern as the federal budget deficit, and national debt. It just seems a poor personality trait to me to charge something right now as opposed to saving for the purchase.
A step in this direction would have been supported by the Fed staying at 5.25%. I can only hope that this was a temporary, symbolic cut that allowed the markets to feel like the Fed was there at the ready, and that there will be no more cuts for a while. I actually wouldn’t lose any sleep if some inflation indicators perked up a little, compelling the Fed to pull rates back up. People have not incentive to stick some money in their savings accounts. We just do it because it’s a good idea to have some there. I’m sure we’re not the only ones who, at one point or another, had (much) more in credit card balances than in savings, or even assets such as automobiles.
For all the unwarranted worrying about the foreign direct investment surplus, it’d be hard not to see how the trade deficit wouldn’t come down if more domestic investment derived from Americans’ savings and investments, in something other than retirement accounts and homes. And really, how much of a negative effect would there be on the economy if Americans changed their habits in such a way? Even though some of the slowdown in consumer spending would be made up by the investment e made with their savings (via bank loans, stock investments, etc.), it could amount to just one quarter’s worth of GDP slowing. Once the adjustment is made, consumer spending could resume, but with real money instead of credit. Not only is that preferable financially, it would be good individually as people could teach themselves some discipline and patience. Plus, a new model of whatever they might want might be introduced, making the wait worth it.
On another note, do you really believe the recent jobs report would have been any, much different without the cut?? Please; I don’t think so. And while it might not have returned to its record heights of 14,000+, I bet the Dow Jones would have risen back up into the mid-to-upper 13,000s.
One last thing about the politics of all this. Speaking as a liberta
rian-conservative, while there is no part of me that believes Democrats espouse better ideas on economic and budget matters, Republicans deserve to be trailing Democrats in polling in all such matters (except taxes…huh?) . Almost 6 years of complete Republican control in D.C. and we get…a new farm bill, a tack on to Medicare, an expansion of the education department (doesn’t the Constitution prescribe that as a state matter in the 10th Amendment??), a 16,000-earmarked transportation bill, etc. etc. Is the budget deficit at a manageable level? Yes, but it could have been gone by now and paving the way for perhaps more tax cuts. Better yet, serious income tax reform. Who knows; we might have even had more success with Social Security reform.
Great; now I’m all depressed remembering what a lost opportunity Republicans had a few years ago.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
I Guess $40,000/year Wasn't Enough, Ay Gov. Richardson?
The American Federation of Teachers recently endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president (http://www.aft.org/presscenter/releases/2007/100307.htm). My reaction: who cares? Public education, I would point out, is something that should be a state matter. I guess that's kind of a quaint notion in this day of a federal department of education, NCLB and the like.
Regardless, establishment educators (I reserve these remarks for those actively involved in the union, because I'm sure there are some teachers and administrators who do not fit this characterization) these days still don't have students' and parents' best interests at heart, while at the same time essentially showing an utter lack of confidence in their own ability. If they, and the educational bureaucracy within which they exist in this country were, in fact, so confident, and really cared about the quality of public education, why would they stand in the way of allowing parents to choose where to send their kids' to school using the taxes they pay to support public education??
It's interesting on their website that they have pages for "Academic Freedom" and "Employee Free Choice Act". Yet, every time the issue of allowing parents of modest-to-low means the freedom to use at least a part of what they pay to support public education (I support public education, just not government schools), groups like this and the NEA vociferously oppose it. What are they so worried about?? There will always, always be demand for good teachers. I can only believe it is the paranoid and slackers amongst them who drive this opposition.
Too bad a dollar figure can't be applied to public education quality (results) in much the same way as they can be toward the U.S.-owned automobile industry. Hopefully, though, people will start to wonder why, as funding for government schools continues to increase unabated, the number of students being home/private schooled continues along the same trajectory. "Why is the rate of growth of funding increasing faster than the rate of growth in the public student body," they might ask.
Maybe then, the number of school choice legislators will also grow.
Regardless, establishment educators (I reserve these remarks for those actively involved in the union, because I'm sure there are some teachers and administrators who do not fit this characterization) these days still don't have students' and parents' best interests at heart, while at the same time essentially showing an utter lack of confidence in their own ability. If they, and the educational bureaucracy within which they exist in this country were, in fact, so confident, and really cared about the quality of public education, why would they stand in the way of allowing parents to choose where to send their kids' to school using the taxes they pay to support public education??
It's interesting on their website that they have pages for "Academic Freedom" and "Employee Free Choice Act". Yet, every time the issue of allowing parents of modest-to-low means the freedom to use at least a part of what they pay to support public education (I support public education, just not government schools), groups like this and the NEA vociferously oppose it. What are they so worried about?? There will always, always be demand for good teachers. I can only believe it is the paranoid and slackers amongst them who drive this opposition.
Too bad a dollar figure can't be applied to public education quality (results) in much the same way as they can be toward the U.S.-owned automobile industry. Hopefully, though, people will start to wonder why, as funding for government schools continues to increase unabated, the number of students being home/private schooled continues along the same trajectory. "Why is the rate of growth of funding increasing faster than the rate of growth in the public student body," they might ask.
Maybe then, the number of school choice legislators will also grow.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Shedding More Light
Fortunately, slooowly but surely, more light is being shed on "47 million Americans...uninsured" (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/
cguerra/stories/MYSA092507.01B.guerra.345d50c.html).
The first and most striking being that 1/5 of them aren't even American! It was entertaining to watch Hillary Clinton this weekend assert that her plan wouldn't cover illegal immigrants, yet she, along with other demagogues, continue to cite that number. Isn't that at least a little disingenuous??
Also, more than 1/3 make more than $50,000, with almost 1/5 of those making more than $75,000. Many choose to go without, as is their perfect right. I once did, even though, at the time, I made less than $30,000. Whenever I went to the doctor, I paid out of pocket, which one could argue is better in that it exposes the patient to the true cost of health care today. More of that and costs might come down as a result of people thinking twice before going in for a simple cold.
Then there are those who are eligible for government plans but who haven't signed up. Who's fault is that??
The very snapshot nature of that figure explains that many of those "47 million" are without insurance (NOT without health care) only temporarily, for example due to the fact that they are between jobs, something that itself can be remedied by conferring upon individuals the same kind of tax treatment businesses receive.
I thought a little bit more this weekend about the fact that this could extend eligibility to kids living in households making more than $80,000. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of that prospect, and the backdoor way in which it attempts to engulf a few more citizens into government-run health care. I understand that costs of living are different from state to state; $80,000 doesn't go as far, say, in California as it does here in Texas (and only partially due to higher taxes out there). This debate also brings to light the need, perhaps, to determine poverty rates based on state and local costs of living.
cguerra/stories/MYSA092507.01B.guerra.345d50c.html).
The first and most striking being that 1/5 of them aren't even American! It was entertaining to watch Hillary Clinton this weekend assert that her plan wouldn't cover illegal immigrants, yet she, along with other demagogues, continue to cite that number. Isn't that at least a little disingenuous??
Also, more than 1/3 make more than $50,000, with almost 1/5 of those making more than $75,000. Many choose to go without, as is their perfect right. I once did, even though, at the time, I made less than $30,000. Whenever I went to the doctor, I paid out of pocket, which one could argue is better in that it exposes the patient to the true cost of health care today. More of that and costs might come down as a result of people thinking twice before going in for a simple cold.
Then there are those who are eligible for government plans but who haven't signed up. Who's fault is that??
The very snapshot nature of that figure explains that many of those "47 million" are without insurance (NOT without health care) only temporarily, for example due to the fact that they are between jobs, something that itself can be remedied by conferring upon individuals the same kind of tax treatment businesses receive.
I thought a little bit more this weekend about the fact that this could extend eligibility to kids living in households making more than $80,000. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of that prospect, and the backdoor way in which it attempts to engulf a few more citizens into government-run health care. I understand that costs of living are different from state to state; $80,000 doesn't go as far, say, in California as it does here in Texas (and only partially due to higher taxes out there). This debate also brings to light the need, perhaps, to determine poverty rates based on state and local costs of living.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
My Thoughts Right Now
In response to my inquiry the other day, my solid-red republican friend told me that he is as undecided as anyone with regard to the Presidential candidates. It gave me the opportunity to assess where I stand currently:
Romney seems too slick to me. As much as anyone, I can understand how someone can go from generally (not stridently) pro-choice to pro-life, but his history just seems too inconsistent.
Huckabee's "Club for Greed" comment and support of a national smoking ban have me souring on him. His support for the FairTax (I still prefer a flat tax, but either would be an improvement) and the health example he set by losing so much weight work in his favor. He's striking me as the closest to a Bush-Republican, which isn't 100% good thing.
McCain has too many strikes against him for me. Voted against the tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, he's bought into the blame-human aspect of global warming, the immigration thing (which immediately bit him in the ass), etc. His military service, his consistency and foreign policy stances work for him.
Don't know enough about Fred yet. Between his March "I-might-run" announcement and now, he's written many good things on townhall.com.
Paul is the person with whom I agree the most, especially since I found out he is pro-life. He acknowledges the wasted, double-standard nature of the vaunted War on Drugs. He's for the kind of scaled back government I'd like to see. I'm not sure I agree with his anti-Federal Reserve stance. He's for pure free trade, not the "managed" kind that works around tariffs and other artificial barriers. And there's a couple thoughts I've always had that make me curious about his foreign policy stance: why were we as involved as we were with Iran in the years leading up to the hostage crisis (reading up on that is at the top of my if-I-had-more-hours-in-the-day list), and would Reagan have gone to such lengths to kick Saddam out of Kuwait? Part of me thinks we dole out way too much in foreign aid (actually, 90% of me thinks that) and that we're too involved, whether overtly or covertly, in other countries' affairs. Anyway, chances of him being elected are slim.
That's why I'm still leaning solidly toward Giuliani. I like his idea on health insurance reform, which is a lot like W's. I have little doubt about his leadership and how forceful he'd be in promoting and defending our interests. I think he knows the correct prescription for a strong economy. While he's said the right thing about judges (which, in my mind, all but cancels out his pro-choice stance), what I've read about his history is a little inconsistent with that. Other than that, he's been consistent and unapologetic with regard to who he is and what he believes. Take him or leave him. Plus, it'd be different to have a former mayor as president. And who else could put New York and California in play more than him?
Out of all those, however, I think Newt is the smartest.
Romney seems too slick to me. As much as anyone, I can understand how someone can go from generally (not stridently) pro-choice to pro-life, but his history just seems too inconsistent.
Huckabee's "Club for Greed" comment and support of a national smoking ban have me souring on him. His support for the FairTax (I still prefer a flat tax, but either would be an improvement) and the health example he set by losing so much weight work in his favor. He's striking me as the closest to a Bush-Republican, which isn't 100% good thing.
McCain has too many strikes against him for me. Voted against the tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, he's bought into the blame-human aspect of global warming, the immigration thing (which immediately bit him in the ass), etc. His military service, his consistency and foreign policy stances work for him.
Don't know enough about Fred yet. Between his March "I-might-run" announcement and now, he's written many good things on townhall.com.
Paul is the person with whom I agree the most, especially since I found out he is pro-life. He acknowledges the wasted, double-standard nature of the vaunted War on Drugs. He's for the kind of scaled back government I'd like to see. I'm not sure I agree with his anti-Federal Reserve stance. He's for pure free trade, not the "managed" kind that works around tariffs and other artificial barriers. And there's a couple thoughts I've always had that make me curious about his foreign policy stance: why were we as involved as we were with Iran in the years leading up to the hostage crisis (reading up on that is at the top of my if-I-had-more-hours-in-the-day list), and would Reagan have gone to such lengths to kick Saddam out of Kuwait? Part of me thinks we dole out way too much in foreign aid (actually, 90% of me thinks that) and that we're too involved, whether overtly or covertly, in other countries' affairs. Anyway, chances of him being elected are slim.
That's why I'm still leaning solidly toward Giuliani. I like his idea on health insurance reform, which is a lot like W's. I have little doubt about his leadership and how forceful he'd be in promoting and defending our interests. I think he knows the correct prescription for a strong economy. While he's said the right thing about judges (which, in my mind, all but cancels out his pro-choice stance), what I've read about his history is a little inconsistent with that. Other than that, he's been consistent and unapologetic with regard to who he is and what he believes. Take him or leave him. Plus, it'd be different to have a former mayor as president. And who else could put New York and California in play more than him?
Out of all those, however, I think Newt is the smartest.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The Minimum Wage Lives On, Unemploys More!
OK, time to speak up.
I was going to sit out recent discussion, including Carlos Guerra's piece last Thursday in the San Antonio Express News, about the increase in the federal minimum wage last week for a couple reasons. Based on my graduate studies, it affects so few people, and even fewer breadwinners these days, I thought there were more important topics out there. Plus, whenever I see a "Hiring" sign these days, particularly at fast food restaurants, they’re mostly starting at about $2 above the minimum.
The Heritage Foundation published an article in January of this year based on a study of exactly who and how many earn the minimum wage based on Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey in 2006. It indicated (as I suspected and recalled) that 1.7 million Americans earn the minimum wage or less. That's just 1.3% of all U.S. workers. More than 62% of these, just over 1 million, are part-timers. Of those, almost 650,000 are between the ages of 18 and 24. I'd be willing to bet that most of those fit my characteristic when I was that age: living at home, not the sole-breadwinner and/or in school. That's not to deny that there were others, and I knew some, who were either out on their own and/or supporting children.
Mr. Guerra and the left-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities, whom he cites, use a dividing age of "adults of 20 or older". OK. Seems to me 18-24 is a better segment to use as that is when many, if not most, young adults are still finding their way, trying to figure out what they want to do with their life. In the meantime, they are working hourly jobs. At any rate, it's hard to put into comparative context the fact that fewer that 70,000 minimum wage workers are single parents working full-time.
Then there's a whiff of Al "The-time-for-debate-is-over" Gore when Don Baylor, senior policy analyst for the CPPP, says "We need to take (minimum wage increases) off the table as a political issue..." Wow! So I guess people who argue that the minimum wage is a form of social promotion (giving workers a raise via government mandate as opposed to employers rewarding them solely on merit) should just shut up. And I guess people who have studied the topic even more than I have and found that there is a link between the minimum wage and teenage unemployment are just wasting their time. I wish I'd heard from people like Mr. Baylor sooner; I wouldn't have wasted all that time at school.
I was going to sit out recent discussion, including Carlos Guerra's piece last Thursday in the San Antonio Express News, about the increase in the federal minimum wage last week for a couple reasons. Based on my graduate studies, it affects so few people, and even fewer breadwinners these days, I thought there were more important topics out there. Plus, whenever I see a "Hiring" sign these days, particularly at fast food restaurants, they’re mostly starting at about $2 above the minimum.
The Heritage Foundation published an article in January of this year based on a study of exactly who and how many earn the minimum wage based on Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey in 2006. It indicated (as I suspected and recalled) that 1.7 million Americans earn the minimum wage or less. That's just 1.3% of all U.S. workers. More than 62% of these, just over 1 million, are part-timers. Of those, almost 650,000 are between the ages of 18 and 24. I'd be willing to bet that most of those fit my characteristic when I was that age: living at home, not the sole-breadwinner and/or in school. That's not to deny that there were others, and I knew some, who were either out on their own and/or supporting children.
Mr. Guerra and the left-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities, whom he cites, use a dividing age of "adults of 20 or older". OK. Seems to me 18-24 is a better segment to use as that is when many, if not most, young adults are still finding their way, trying to figure out what they want to do with their life. In the meantime, they are working hourly jobs. At any rate, it's hard to put into comparative context the fact that fewer that 70,000 minimum wage workers are single parents working full-time.
Then there's a whiff of Al "The-time-for-debate-is-over" Gore when Don Baylor, senior policy analyst for the CPPP, says "We need to take (minimum wage increases) off the table as a political issue..." Wow! So I guess people who argue that the minimum wage is a form of social promotion (giving workers a raise via government mandate as opposed to employers rewarding them solely on merit) should just shut up. And I guess people who have studied the topic even more than I have and found that there is a link between the minimum wage and teenage unemployment are just wasting their time. I wish I'd heard from people like Mr. Baylor sooner; I wouldn't have wasted all that time at school.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Is Dick Durbin Simply Unlucky?
I have to think Senator Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) is a smart fellow. He is highly educated, and he is, after all, Assistant Majority Leader in the Senate. One does not ascend to such a post by being empty-headed, even if it is in the Democratic caucus. He would also have to be, one would think, a pretty decent politician. Yet, he lobs some of the softest pitches right down the middle of the plate when debating Republicans, more than any other senator or congressman/woman I can think of.
I remember an appearance he made on CNN's Crossfire in 2001. He was on opposite former Senator Rick Santorum (R.-Pa.) debating President Bush's tax cut proposal. Naturally, like all redistributionist's, he was whining about how unfair it was, how it was a "tax cut for the rich". Leave aside, for a moment, how obtuse of an argument that is (in an across-the-board cut, wouldn't those who pay the most save the most in taxes??). Senator Santorum broke it down in a perfectly simple way. If 4 people paid $40, $30, $20 and $10, respectively, to go to a ball game that ended up being rained out, if the Democrats were in charge of the refunds, they'd give all 4 a $20 refund, plus $20 for a guy walking past the ballpark who wasn't even going to the game. You have to hand that debate to Senator Santorum. Durbin just got beat.
It wasn't too smart of him, however, to compare treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo a couple years ago to treatment received by the those in Soviet gulags and Nazi concentration camps. Seriously, I understand pandering to the base, but don't such claims have to be tethered at least a little bit, perhaps by a hair, to truth? How do you compare 100s of enemy combatants to, by most accounts, 1000000s of innocents, including women and children? We feed these people probably more than they were eating on the battlefield. Did he seriously think not 1 of the 55 Republican senators at the time would stand up to debate him on that subject? The way Senator McConnell rose and asked "Is the Senator aware that millions died under Pol Pot?", for example, was entertaining. On the other hand, it was baffling, because it was still sinking in that Durbin made it so easy for Republicans to score political points.
Then a couple weeks ago came a debate on the Fairness Doctrine. Senator Durbin believes "that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision." Here was yet another hanging curve for someone to knock out of the park! How stupid does he think we are?? Every time a new issue comes to the fore, be it net neutrality, private equity taxation, the troop surge in Iraq, etc., I read both sides of the argument. I'd feel dishonest, disingenuous arguing or debating my point with someone if I didn't know all sides. I'd also feel kinda vulnerable not knowing the other side's argument. We don't get this information from only talk radio. When he asked "What is (sic) the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view?" during a recent floor debate, Republican Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota reminded him, as if he or we needed it, of the 1000s of "opportunities for stations and satellite, where you have cable, you have blogs, you have a whole range of information." I'm sure Senator Durbin has heard, for example, of The Daily Kos, or the Huffington Post, or The New York Times, although he probably thinks they have no slant. Funny thing about The Times. I used to read their columnists as regularly as I read conservative columnists. I miss Paul Krugman, yet they don't offer up their columnists for the kind of public balance that Senator Durbin et al seek.
Sometimes, his statements simply prey on the ignorance and fear of the population. One of the Democratic goals this Congress was to assume negotiating power on behalf of Medicare prescription drugs. If Congress takes that power from insurance companies, they will achieve monopsony power. Monopsony is the inverse of monopoly. Whereas a monopoly is the sole supplier of a good, a monopsony is the sole buyer. Think of a coal mining company in a small, mountain town. If that were allowed to occur, pharmaceutical companies would be brow-beaten into selling their product at a price determined by government bureaucrats, not by competing insurance companies. Watch R&D and the number of new drugs developed dwindle. This would be just another step in the government creep to take over the health care industry.
When I see Senator Durbin, I always kind of wonder if he knows there are smart people watching him, when there isn't a smart person sitting next to him to soundly refute what he says.
I remember an appearance he made on CNN's Crossfire in 2001. He was on opposite former Senator Rick Santorum (R.-Pa.) debating President Bush's tax cut proposal. Naturally, like all redistributionist's, he was whining about how unfair it was, how it was a "tax cut for the rich". Leave aside, for a moment, how obtuse of an argument that is (in an across-the-board cut, wouldn't those who pay the most save the most in taxes??). Senator Santorum broke it down in a perfectly simple way. If 4 people paid $40, $30, $20 and $10, respectively, to go to a ball game that ended up being rained out, if the Democrats were in charge of the refunds, they'd give all 4 a $20 refund, plus $20 for a guy walking past the ballpark who wasn't even going to the game. You have to hand that debate to Senator Santorum. Durbin just got beat.
It wasn't too smart of him, however, to compare treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo a couple years ago to treatment received by the those in Soviet gulags and Nazi concentration camps. Seriously, I understand pandering to the base, but don't such claims have to be tethered at least a little bit, perhaps by a hair, to truth? How do you compare 100s of enemy combatants to, by most accounts, 1000000s of innocents, including women and children? We feed these people probably more than they were eating on the battlefield. Did he seriously think not 1 of the 55 Republican senators at the time would stand up to debate him on that subject? The way Senator McConnell rose and asked "Is the Senator aware that millions died under Pol Pot?", for example, was entertaining. On the other hand, it was baffling, because it was still sinking in that Durbin made it so easy for Republicans to score political points.
Then a couple weeks ago came a debate on the Fairness Doctrine. Senator Durbin believes "that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision." Here was yet another hanging curve for someone to knock out of the park! How stupid does he think we are?? Every time a new issue comes to the fore, be it net neutrality, private equity taxation, the troop surge in Iraq, etc., I read both sides of the argument. I'd feel dishonest, disingenuous arguing or debating my point with someone if I didn't know all sides. I'd also feel kinda vulnerable not knowing the other side's argument. We don't get this information from only talk radio. When he asked "What is (sic) the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view?" during a recent floor debate, Republican Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota reminded him, as if he or we needed it, of the 1000s of "opportunities for stations and satellite, where you have cable, you have blogs, you have a whole range of information." I'm sure Senator Durbin has heard, for example, of The Daily Kos, or the Huffington Post, or The New York Times, although he probably thinks they have no slant. Funny thing about The Times. I used to read their columnists as regularly as I read conservative columnists. I miss Paul Krugman, yet they don't offer up their columnists for the kind of public balance that Senator Durbin et al seek.
Sometimes, his statements simply prey on the ignorance and fear of the population. One of the Democratic goals this Congress was to assume negotiating power on behalf of Medicare prescription drugs. If Congress takes that power from insurance companies, they will achieve monopsony power. Monopsony is the inverse of monopoly. Whereas a monopoly is the sole supplier of a good, a monopsony is the sole buyer. Think of a coal mining company in a small, mountain town. If that were allowed to occur, pharmaceutical companies would be brow-beaten into selling their product at a price determined by government bureaucrats, not by competing insurance companies. Watch R&D and the number of new drugs developed dwindle. This would be just another step in the government creep to take over the health care industry.
When I see Senator Durbin, I always kind of wonder if he knows there are smart people watching him, when there isn't a smart person sitting next to him to soundly refute what he says.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Don't We Want to Be the Best?
Living in San Antonio, one might think I am mentally under the weather due to, well, the weather. We have received the most rain I can remember in my 7+ years living here. But guess what; I love it! It's keeping summer temperatures down, we don't have to water our lawn and, consequently, we're saving on our water and electric bills. The other day I heard news radio talk in terms of record levels for the Edwards Aquifer, the main source of drinking, bathing, watering, etc. water for the area. Incidentally enough, it was while doing one of my favorite things, reading bedtime stories to one of my girls, that all this came to head...in my head ("Daddy, why'd you stop reading?")
The first thing that came to mind is something that pops up from time to time; people paying attention to politics and the goings-on of their different levels of government about as often as they pay attention to the Olympics. What brought it to mind recently was an article in the Washington Post by Markus Prior ("The Real Media Divide", http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/15/AR2007071501110.html). It's no secret to those who know me that my T.V.-watching habits have changed and been squeezed in the last few years, basically ever since I started paying more attention to relevant stuff (the aforementioned politics and government). I should clarify what I mean by 'relevant'. Watching The Food Network or DIY and/or HGTV is probably relevant if you cook or build and/or decorate houses for a living. In his piece, he declares that "The new fault line of civic involvement is between news junkies and entertainment fans," with fewer than 20% making up the former. It doesn't surprise me that the other 4/5 have become even more entrenched in entertainment that "promises greater immediate gratification," and that, as a result, "cut down on their political participation" even more. What I lament is that they don't go far enough and just refrain from voting. Because they pay so little attention to politics, they are more susceptible to 30-sound bites, what makes politics politics and politicians politicians. If you don't know, for example, that tax increases on wealth and the creation thereof actually hurt the economy, or that school choice would actually help your child's education, please stay home on that first Tuesday after the first Monday every other November (research).
The second item to disappoint me stemmed from James Pethokoukis' blog entry in U.S. News & World Report yesterday ("1980s Redux: Hillary Clinton and Industrial Policy", http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/7/23/1980s-redux-hillary-clinton-and-industrial-policy.html) concerning industrial planning. One could successfully start and finish the argument against industrial policy by simply saying, as Pethokoukis does, that it was the Democrats "'big idea' to counter Reagonmics", a philosophy that provided and/or laid the groundwork for the economic growth of the past quarter century. But that wouldn't be any fun. Pethokoukis hits the nail on the head when he counters the claim by Ezra Klein, he of the recent opinion that the U.S. can probably remain the wealthiest country in the world even if keeping people from working more ("Land of the Overworked and Tired", http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-klein15jul15,0,6435203.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail), that industrial policy seems to have worked in recent years for China and India by pointing out that "it's easier to run an industrial policy when you are a developing economy playing catch-up rather than a leading-edge economy that relies on innovation for future growth."
That gets to the heart of what depresses me; don't Democrats want us to remain a "leading-edge economy"? Don't they want us to remain the wealthiest country in the world, or do they perhaps feel guilty that we are, and want us to come back to the pack? Such a policy, along with their pro-union and "soak the rich" stances, would certainly do it. It would engender favoritism toward certain industries and big companies therein in the form of tax breaks, protective trade barriers, etc. For one, under Democratic leadership, it would, no doubt, be easier to unionize workers. Thanks to the hit the bottom line that results at least partly from unionization, trade barriers would have to go up to protect these companies from foreign competition (never mind the screwing the consumer gets). After all, we can't allow this policy to fail, now can we?? To pay for the tax breaks derived from the favoritism, the unfavored companies would effectively have to pony up more. Sure, "the rich" are "the rich" no matter how they make their money (assuming Democrats believe wealth is actually created), but the favored "rich" aren't as affected by their personal income taxes because of how handsomely their rent-seeking activities would probably be paying off. In the meantime, the unfavored, and everyone else for that matter, are being discouraged from inventing new and improving existing products. Where's the incentive when you're being taxed more??
Did I mention that ever-increasing trade barriers and taxes hurt the overall economy, both on the supply and demand side? I'll save that for another day. Right now, I'm going to go watch storm clouds gather and enjoy myself.
The first thing that came to mind is something that pops up from time to time; people paying attention to politics and the goings-on of their different levels of government about as often as they pay attention to the Olympics. What brought it to mind recently was an article in the Washington Post by Markus Prior ("The Real Media Divide", http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/15/AR2007071501110.html). It's no secret to those who know me that my T.V.-watching habits have changed and been squeezed in the last few years, basically ever since I started paying more attention to relevant stuff (the aforementioned politics and government). I should clarify what I mean by 'relevant'. Watching The Food Network or DIY and/or HGTV is probably relevant if you cook or build and/or decorate houses for a living. In his piece, he declares that "The new fault line of civic involvement is between news junkies and entertainment fans," with fewer than 20% making up the former. It doesn't surprise me that the other 4/5 have become even more entrenched in entertainment that "promises greater immediate gratification," and that, as a result, "cut down on their political participation" even more. What I lament is that they don't go far enough and just refrain from voting. Because they pay so little attention to politics, they are more susceptible to 30-sound bites, what makes politics politics and politicians politicians. If you don't know, for example, that tax increases on wealth and the creation thereof actually hurt the economy, or that school choice would actually help your child's education, please stay home on that first Tuesday after the first Monday every other November (research).
The second item to disappoint me stemmed from James Pethokoukis' blog entry in U.S. News & World Report yesterday ("1980s Redux: Hillary Clinton and Industrial Policy", http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/7/23/1980s-redux-hillary-clinton-and-industrial-policy.html) concerning industrial planning. One could successfully start and finish the argument against industrial policy by simply saying, as Pethokoukis does, that it was the Democrats "'big idea' to counter Reagonmics", a philosophy that provided and/or laid the groundwork for the economic growth of the past quarter century. But that wouldn't be any fun. Pethokoukis hits the nail on the head when he counters the claim by Ezra Klein, he of the recent opinion that the U.S. can probably remain the wealthiest country in the world even if keeping people from working more ("Land of the Overworked and Tired", http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-klein15jul15,0,6435203.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail), that industrial policy seems to have worked in recent years for China and India by pointing out that "it's easier to run an industrial policy when you are a developing economy playing catch-up rather than a leading-edge economy that relies on innovation for future growth."
That gets to the heart of what depresses me; don't Democrats want us to remain a "leading-edge economy"? Don't they want us to remain the wealthiest country in the world, or do they perhaps feel guilty that we are, and want us to come back to the pack? Such a policy, along with their pro-union and "soak the rich" stances, would certainly do it. It would engender favoritism toward certain industries and big companies therein in the form of tax breaks, protective trade barriers, etc. For one, under Democratic leadership, it would, no doubt, be easier to unionize workers. Thanks to the hit the bottom line that results at least partly from unionization, trade barriers would have to go up to protect these companies from foreign competition (never mind the screwing the consumer gets). After all, we can't allow this policy to fail, now can we?? To pay for the tax breaks derived from the favoritism, the unfavored companies would effectively have to pony up more. Sure, "the rich" are "the rich" no matter how they make their money (assuming Democrats believe wealth is actually created), but the favored "rich" aren't as affected by their personal income taxes because of how handsomely their rent-seeking activities would probably be paying off. In the meantime, the unfavored, and everyone else for that matter, are being discouraged from inventing new and improving existing products. Where's the incentive when you're being taxed more??
Did I mention that ever-increasing trade barriers and taxes hurt the overall economy, both on the supply and demand side? I'll save that for another day. Right now, I'm going to go watch storm clouds gather and enjoy myself.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
"I have nothing against rich people, but..."
After watching the Democratic Presidential debate the other night, my wife brought up the topic of the flat tax "Who could possibly be against it (or the national sales tax, for that matter). What's not fair about it?" I believe she asked. Ostensibly, liberals/Democrats will always tell you it's not progressive. On the face of it, they're right. The sales tax is even regressive, regardless of the fact that, the less you spend (and subsequently, the more you save), the less no tax you pay. It's all about appearance.
Another smaller argument they could use, if they had to resort to it, is all the jobs that would be lost if the code was so simplified, both public and private. They might be more concerned with public since they're more likely unionized. Welcome to the dynamic economy that is that of the United States. Sure, there might be a little uptick in unemployment, but in the long run (something fewer and fewer Americans think about), the tax industry lawyers, accountants, etc. would find more productive work, work that actually adds value to the economy. Their work currently just contributes to deadweight loss.
Despite the evidence to the contrary since the 2003 Bush tax cut and the late 90s Clinton tax cuts, both of which cut that of the capital gains, they use static analysis and insist that revenues are unequivocally lost when taxes are cut ("It was Clinton's 1993 budget plan i.e. tax hike that produced the late 90s surpluses", they'll say). That's why they think revenues will most definitely go up when taxes are raised; $1 revenue increase for $1 tax hike.
Unless they are willing to admit that tax cuts (the right kind, on marginal rates and particularly that on capital) actually increase revenue some by making work, savings and investing more attractive, you have to reach the conclusion that they just don't want the more productive citizens keep more of their pay. I once heard a saying "Holding back the strong is no way to help the weak"? One could be allowed to think, given just how little more government really helps the poor all that much, that it's class envy.
That's one thing that has irked me about Bush. He possibly could have had surpluses by now. Not that surpluses are a good thing since, theoretically, it means Uncle Sam has overcharged us. But they are good thing politically, since they are, by definition, not deficits. But he had to go on a spending spree while in office, spending money on education (which, according to the Constitution, is a state issue), adding a new, fat entitlement, continuing farm subsidies, signing pork-laden spending bills, etc. The GOP might not have lost Congress had they not gone along with him and allowed the surpluses to come back.
That would have lent a substantive Keynesian quality to the 2001 tax cut where, up to that point, such a characteristic was fulfilled only by the non-productive, but feel-good $600 check we received back in 2001. A Keynesian quality, I might add, that was helped a great deal by what really works; supply-side policy.
Another smaller argument they could use, if they had to resort to it, is all the jobs that would be lost if the code was so simplified, both public and private. They might be more concerned with public since they're more likely unionized. Welcome to the dynamic economy that is that of the United States. Sure, there might be a little uptick in unemployment, but in the long run (something fewer and fewer Americans think about), the tax industry lawyers, accountants, etc. would find more productive work, work that actually adds value to the economy. Their work currently just contributes to deadweight loss.
Despite the evidence to the contrary since the 2003 Bush tax cut and the late 90s Clinton tax cuts, both of which cut that of the capital gains, they use static analysis and insist that revenues are unequivocally lost when taxes are cut ("It was Clinton's 1993 budget plan i.e. tax hike that produced the late 90s surpluses", they'll say). That's why they think revenues will most definitely go up when taxes are raised; $1 revenue increase for $1 tax hike.
Unless they are willing to admit that tax cuts (the right kind, on marginal rates and particularly that on capital) actually increase revenue some by making work, savings and investing more attractive, you have to reach the conclusion that they just don't want the more productive citizens keep more of their pay. I once heard a saying "Holding back the strong is no way to help the weak"? One could be allowed to think, given just how little more government really helps the poor all that much, that it's class envy.
That's one thing that has irked me about Bush. He possibly could have had surpluses by now. Not that surpluses are a good thing since, theoretically, it means Uncle Sam has overcharged us. But they are good thing politically, since they are, by definition, not deficits. But he had to go on a spending spree while in office, spending money on education (which, according to the Constitution, is a state issue), adding a new, fat entitlement, continuing farm subsidies, signing pork-laden spending bills, etc. The GOP might not have lost Congress had they not gone along with him and allowed the surpluses to come back.
That would have lent a substantive Keynesian quality to the 2001 tax cut where, up to that point, such a characteristic was fulfilled only by the non-productive, but feel-good $600 check we received back in 2001. A Keynesian quality, I might add, that was helped a great deal by what really works; supply-side policy.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Concert review: Tool
A few minutes before Tool came on, I turned to my wife and said "After tonight, Alice in Chains will be the only band I've really wanted to see but never have/will never be able to (it's not really AIC unless Layne Staley is out front wailing)." I suppose I should include in that Black Sabbath since it seems that, to a metal fan that is the equivalent of a Muslim's requirement to make at least one trip in his/her lifetime to Mecca. But that's another story.
Then, they strode up onto the stage; singer Maynard James Keenan, bassist Justin Chancellor, guitarist Adam Jones and drummer Danny Carey, who shamelessly pandered to the crowd by wearing a Tim Duncan jersey. This fan developed a nervous feeling seeing them walk up on stage to stand next to one another. 'Two postponements is bad enough, but not a third not announced until the arena is full!' Maynard took the mic, said a few indecipherables and ended with "We have good news and bad news." 'Great!' I thought. "The good news is there is no bad news." Ha! And with that, they ripped into "Jambi", the 2nd track on their latest album "10,000 Days". Of the 3 1/2 conventional songs (something that always needs pointing out with a Tool record), that one is probably my favorite, and it's definitely the one that whips my 4 and 2 year-old girls into a frenzy.
One of the best things about the show was the stage set-up. The floor itself appeared, from the cheap seats, to be white or off-white tile or porcelain. It was as if they were performing on a bathroom floor. As a backdrop, they had 4 screens side-by-side. Probably the coolest thing was where each member was stationed. You had Jones, creator of most of their unique music videos, and Chancellor, who seemed to remind me of the late Cliff Burton, standing at the front corners. Kennan and Carey were up a step in the back middle. That set-up, plus the visuals that were passing on the screens and the stage (ahh, that's why the such clean, white floor), reaffirmed Tool as the most unique rock group today. I am trying to realize, however, that that might also explain the course of the concert.
After mowing through "Jambi", they proceeded to tackle "Aenima"s "Stinkfist" and "46 & 2" (not one of my favorite Tool songs, but I sounded good live) and "Schism", off their 3rd full-length album (does anyone call them "albums" anymore?) "Lateralus". I don't recall the hearing a crowd sing along so loud in such unison to a live show as I did up to that point. Then, they almost put me to sleep. I wake up at 4:30 most weekday mornings to workout and/or run. This Monday morning was no different, although today proved to be. I went into the show thinking there was no way they could take up too much of the concert playing the many non-song tracks from their CDs, particularly the last two discs. I stood (or sat) corrected. They played a couple from each and a few other...ditties. I seriously thought about leaving, and I never, NEVER, ever think that during a show, especially one I/We've been so looking forward to. Then they started up what turned out to be an extended version of the title track to "Lateralus". Another least of my favorites, but not too bad.
And with a "Thank you. Good night.", it was over. That was it. Nothing from their 1st album "Undertow"; no "Sober", no "Prison Sex", no "Intolerance"; nothing. There was no "Aenima". At first I thought it was probably too much to think they might also play from that album either "Eulogy" or "Pushit", two long, unconventional songs. But now, as I describe them that way, coming off as eccentric as they sometimes do, one of those songs could probably have fit into the tone of last night's show. But no.
Walking out and toward the car, my wife looked at me and said "You don't look like you enjoyed the show." My first thought was one of agreement. I even told her that every show we've seen since we've been down here, from System of a Down to Korn's Family Values to even Chevelle was better because I got what I came for, with few song exclusions. Then I started continuing out loud the thoughts I started to have while making a pit stop after the show ended; did that show and playlist just fit in with Tool's persona? Should I just take it for what it was? Then, this morning I had another thought; was that their way to keep their fans coming back for more (even though any band with as large of a following will always attract a full house)? Should I admire them for that?
Maybe after last night I might need to kinda add Tool back to that list with Alice in Chains. Maybe that's what their aim was. Maybe they could care less. And maybe that's why they are who they are and we will go back for second helpings one day. They have to have "Aenima" on some playlist, don't they??
Then, they strode up onto the stage; singer Maynard James Keenan, bassist Justin Chancellor, guitarist Adam Jones and drummer Danny Carey, who shamelessly pandered to the crowd by wearing a Tim Duncan jersey. This fan developed a nervous feeling seeing them walk up on stage to stand next to one another. 'Two postponements is bad enough, but not a third not announced until the arena is full!' Maynard took the mic, said a few indecipherables and ended with "We have good news and bad news." 'Great!' I thought. "The good news is there is no bad news." Ha! And with that, they ripped into "Jambi", the 2nd track on their latest album "10,000 Days". Of the 3 1/2 conventional songs (something that always needs pointing out with a Tool record), that one is probably my favorite, and it's definitely the one that whips my 4 and 2 year-old girls into a frenzy.
One of the best things about the show was the stage set-up. The floor itself appeared, from the cheap seats, to be white or off-white tile or porcelain. It was as if they were performing on a bathroom floor. As a backdrop, they had 4 screens side-by-side. Probably the coolest thing was where each member was stationed. You had Jones, creator of most of their unique music videos, and Chancellor, who seemed to remind me of the late Cliff Burton, standing at the front corners. Kennan and Carey were up a step in the back middle. That set-up, plus the visuals that were passing on the screens and the stage (ahh, that's why the such clean, white floor), reaffirmed Tool as the most unique rock group today. I am trying to realize, however, that that might also explain the course of the concert.
After mowing through "Jambi", they proceeded to tackle "Aenima"s "Stinkfist" and "46 & 2" (not one of my favorite Tool songs, but I sounded good live) and "Schism", off their 3rd full-length album (does anyone call them "albums" anymore?) "Lateralus". I don't recall the hearing a crowd sing along so loud in such unison to a live show as I did up to that point. Then, they almost put me to sleep. I wake up at 4:30 most weekday mornings to workout and/or run. This Monday morning was no different, although today proved to be. I went into the show thinking there was no way they could take up too much of the concert playing the many non-song tracks from their CDs, particularly the last two discs. I stood (or sat) corrected. They played a couple from each and a few other...ditties. I seriously thought about leaving, and I never, NEVER, ever think that during a show, especially one I/We've been so looking forward to. Then they started up what turned out to be an extended version of the title track to "Lateralus". Another least of my favorites, but not too bad.
And with a "Thank you. Good night.", it was over. That was it. Nothing from their 1st album "Undertow"; no "Sober", no "Prison Sex", no "Intolerance"; nothing. There was no "Aenima". At first I thought it was probably too much to think they might also play from that album either "Eulogy" or "Pushit", two long, unconventional songs. But now, as I describe them that way, coming off as eccentric as they sometimes do, one of those songs could probably have fit into the tone of last night's show. But no.
Walking out and toward the car, my wife looked at me and said "You don't look like you enjoyed the show." My first thought was one of agreement. I even told her that every show we've seen since we've been down here, from System of a Down to Korn's Family Values to even Chevelle was better because I got what I came for, with few song exclusions. Then I started continuing out loud the thoughts I started to have while making a pit stop after the show ended; did that show and playlist just fit in with Tool's persona? Should I just take it for what it was? Then, this morning I had another thought; was that their way to keep their fans coming back for more (even though any band with as large of a following will always attract a full house)? Should I admire them for that?
Maybe after last night I might need to kinda add Tool back to that list with Alice in Chains. Maybe that's what their aim was. Maybe they could care less. And maybe that's why they are who they are and we will go back for second helpings one day. They have to have "Aenima" on some playlist, don't they??
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Winning Does Not Require Compromise
"He's been tossing hanging curve balls for two debates."
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/05/remove_ron_paul_from_the_debat.html
The guy...I don't get him. I take a keen interest in Rep. Paul for two reasons: he is a Libertarian and my mom lives in his district. I always tell my mom, who always told me she "votes for the person; not the party" (which, as I go on in life, I'm finding out is a mistake) and doesn't follow politics much, that she has a good congressman. I agree that the federal government should be much, much smaller than it is, and applauded him when he said "let's start with departments themselves" in response to Goler's invitation to improve upon Gov. Thompson's answer on cutting spending. And I also agree with him and libertarians' stance against the ongoing War on Drugs. What a waste of money and infringement on personal liberty! Didn't we learn anything from Prohibition.
But I have not noticed him say anything about that topic, nor should he at a GOP debate! That's one "hanging curve ball" he has held back (thus far, anyway). Why won't he hold the others back? THIS IS A FREAKING GOP DEBATE, RON! If you want to score points, talk about the things libertarians and conservatives agree on, like trade, the budget, personal responsibility, taxes, social security/entitlement reform, campaign-finance reform, etc. Every time I've seen a budget or spending question posed to him (granted, I have not yet made it all the way through the second debate), he always tries to explain in on foreign policy terms. If that's what he believes, fine. He's standing on principle. I admire ANYone, conservative or liberal, who does that. But you're not compromising that by sticking to, or more closely to, conservative/Republican talking points on which you agree. If these are some things you want to change about your party (nominally speaking, anyway), fine, but get elected first and work from the inside.
I would have zero problem whatsoever if a libertarian-leaning (acknowledging your description of him as just a straight-out libertarian) candidate was ever elected. It would at least, in my opinion, pull the country in a better direction. Hell, Rudy is close to that based on his socially liberal views and his professed interest in a flat tax, for example. But Congressman Paul's performances so far, by and large, are unfortunately helping me see the light on why libertarians are seen as somewhat kooky.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/05/remove_ron_paul_from_the_debat.html
The guy...I don't get him. I take a keen interest in Rep. Paul for two reasons: he is a Libertarian and my mom lives in his district. I always tell my mom, who always told me she "votes for the person; not the party" (which, as I go on in life, I'm finding out is a mistake) and doesn't follow politics much, that she has a good congressman. I agree that the federal government should be much, much smaller than it is, and applauded him when he said "let's start with departments themselves" in response to Goler's invitation to improve upon Gov. Thompson's answer on cutting spending. And I also agree with him and libertarians' stance against the ongoing War on Drugs. What a waste of money and infringement on personal liberty! Didn't we learn anything from Prohibition.
But I have not noticed him say anything about that topic, nor should he at a GOP debate! That's one "hanging curve ball" he has held back (thus far, anyway). Why won't he hold the others back? THIS IS A FREAKING GOP DEBATE, RON! If you want to score points, talk about the things libertarians and conservatives agree on, like trade, the budget, personal responsibility, taxes, social security/entitlement reform, campaign-finance reform, etc. Every time I've seen a budget or spending question posed to him (granted, I have not yet made it all the way through the second debate), he always tries to explain in on foreign policy terms. If that's what he believes, fine. He's standing on principle. I admire ANYone, conservative or liberal, who does that. But you're not compromising that by sticking to, or more closely to, conservative/Republican talking points on which you agree. If these are some things you want to change about your party (nominally speaking, anyway), fine, but get elected first and work from the inside.
I would have zero problem whatsoever if a libertarian-leaning (acknowledging your description of him as just a straight-out libertarian) candidate was ever elected. It would at least, in my opinion, pull the country in a better direction. Hell, Rudy is close to that based on his socially liberal views and his professed interest in a flat tax, for example. But Congressman Paul's performances so far, by and large, are unfortunately helping me see the light on why libertarians are seen as somewhat kooky.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Ignorance is Bliss, I guess
I've been thinking lately. You know how many people don't care to talk about politics or governmental actions or the like? I wonder if some people just believe a certain way and don't want to think they might be wrong.
I keep going back to a day when my coworkers and I went out to lunch and the subject of the minimum wage came up. One lady had been talking about it because her daughter just received a promotion and subsequent raise and thought her coworkers were about to receive a raise just because Uncle Sam said so. Another, however, said as much that she didn't think she agreed with me, but didn't want to talk about it. Looking back on it, I wouldn't be surprised if she put her hands over her ears when I said that it contributes to unemployment, especially amongst teens and minorities. This no secret. Yet, she'd probably be ok if the subject never came up again. I had the impression that she didn't want to go in depth about it.
And I'm wondering if I just discovered the reason why.
I keep going back to a day when my coworkers and I went out to lunch and the subject of the minimum wage came up. One lady had been talking about it because her daughter just received a promotion and subsequent raise and thought her coworkers were about to receive a raise just because Uncle Sam said so. Another, however, said as much that she didn't think she agreed with me, but didn't want to talk about it. Looking back on it, I wouldn't be surprised if she put her hands over her ears when I said that it contributes to unemployment, especially amongst teens and minorities. This no secret. Yet, she'd probably be ok if the subject never came up again. I had the impression that she didn't want to go in depth about it.
And I'm wondering if I just discovered the reason why.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Welcome to America!
Wow. That (http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/79938.html) almost made me wonder if my eyes should be watering up while reading it.
Welcome to America, where we have the freedom to seek out jobs that have generous benefits. And, if at that point in time, we do not qualify for such jobs, we have the freedom to go to school and/or attain further training to make ourselves more marketable for employment with the most such desirable employers.
We also have the freedom to seek union shelter, which would provide the opportunity to put my career in neutral while the benefits I derive from union membership slowly suck the competitiveness out of my employer until one day it has to close up shop because it is either losing money (see: Ford, GM) or losing customers (see: public schools).
Even better than that, we have the freedom to downshift our career into full slacker mode and work a job that pays less than double the minimum wage, another economic, societal drag of a policy. The hours are super flexible and I don't have to think or exert myself too much at work. Heck, I could even go to work stoned and not relegate that kinda partying to my off-hours. And if I need to go to the doctor, I'll just stroll right up to the ER and whip out my Medicaid card. Sometimes I miss such flexible, care-free work-hours (Although I didn't get high or fall back on Medicaid). Honestly, I do. That'd be cool if I could go back to a job like that, much like Lester Burnham did in American Beauty, and know that I could be taken care of by Uncle Sam. There's just ... there's just this issue I have:
I have more pride. I have a greater sense of responsibility. I feel I ought to be self-sufficient, especially since I now have a family. Everyone makes choices. If you choose to make yourself marketable only for jobs that allow few, if any benefits, then you should live with the consequences. Government should not intrude in the free marketplace. Businesses should offer the benefits they want and can get away with. If Target offers better leave benefits than Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart suffers.
How many years has it been now that liberals do not understand the law of unintended consequences?? You tax more, which is what would be required for "a paid leave fund for workers nationwide", and the economy suffers. You regulate more and employers start receding (That's based on the same word as "recession", in case you didn't notice) from the labor market. Hence, unemployment increases, and the economy suffers. Incentives to work or increase productivity declines and what results is, actually, the downward spiral in employment I mentioned previously: from self-improvement to union protection to hourly freeloader. Society suffers because the work ethic that made this country great, better than any other, disappears. Pretty soon, you start stacking more regulations on top of more regulations, more taxes upon taxes and you get...
If you want the European or Venezuelan style of economy-wrecking socialism, why don't you just come out and say it?
Welcome to America, where we have the freedom to seek out jobs that have generous benefits. And, if at that point in time, we do not qualify for such jobs, we have the freedom to go to school and/or attain further training to make ourselves more marketable for employment with the most such desirable employers.
We also have the freedom to seek union shelter, which would provide the opportunity to put my career in neutral while the benefits I derive from union membership slowly suck the competitiveness out of my employer until one day it has to close up shop because it is either losing money (see: Ford, GM) or losing customers (see: public schools).
Even better than that, we have the freedom to downshift our career into full slacker mode and work a job that pays less than double the minimum wage, another economic, societal drag of a policy. The hours are super flexible and I don't have to think or exert myself too much at work. Heck, I could even go to work stoned and not relegate that kinda partying to my off-hours. And if I need to go to the doctor, I'll just stroll right up to the ER and whip out my Medicaid card. Sometimes I miss such flexible, care-free work-hours (Although I didn't get high or fall back on Medicaid). Honestly, I do. That'd be cool if I could go back to a job like that, much like Lester Burnham did in American Beauty, and know that I could be taken care of by Uncle Sam. There's just ... there's just this issue I have:
I have more pride. I have a greater sense of responsibility. I feel I ought to be self-sufficient, especially since I now have a family. Everyone makes choices. If you choose to make yourself marketable only for jobs that allow few, if any benefits, then you should live with the consequences. Government should not intrude in the free marketplace. Businesses should offer the benefits they want and can get away with. If Target offers better leave benefits than Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart suffers.
How many years has it been now that liberals do not understand the law of unintended consequences?? You tax more, which is what would be required for "a paid leave fund for workers nationwide", and the economy suffers. You regulate more and employers start receding (That's based on the same word as "recession", in case you didn't notice) from the labor market. Hence, unemployment increases, and the economy suffers. Incentives to work or increase productivity declines and what results is, actually, the downward spiral in employment I mentioned previously: from self-improvement to union protection to hourly freeloader. Society suffers because the work ethic that made this country great, better than any other, disappears. Pretty soon, you start stacking more regulations on top of more regulations, more taxes upon taxes and you get...
If you want the European or Venezuelan style of economy-wrecking socialism, why don't you just come out and say it?
Friday, February 16, 2007
"A little ditty..."
Ahh, it's nice to know someone else has this kind of a problem (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/e9851d97-85f6-4581-8800-35eadfdb3e73). I have had to deal with this ever since I can remember. One of my favorite bands that has posed this problem is Slayer. I completely dig their music, and yet I am completely aware that some of their lyrics are satanic. I'm not much of a churchgoer, but more than that, I'm certainly no devil worshiper. I'm sure, now being a parent myself, regardless of being a good kid who earned good grades (all the way through graduate school) and hung out with other good kids, this probably provided at least a little unease for my parents. Nowadays, I just wonder how a guy who says he believes in God, or at least a higher being, like vocalist Tom Araya claims to, can belt out the satanic lyrics guitarists Kerry King and Jeff Hanneman sometimes write.
However, such a contradiction, or conflict, wasn't brought to my attention until I graduated and started working. A female coworker said that by buying Marilyn Manson records, I was supporting his beliefs. I disagreed simply on the grounds that I did not share those beliefs, I just dug the music (even though I've never been interested in seeing them live, unlike Slayer).
That passed and I didn't think about it again until a few years later when I started listening to Rage Against the Machine and System of a Down. The conflict hit home harder partially due to my maturity, but mostly because I was much more interested in the social issues RATM and SOAD addressed than I was the religious issues dealt with by Slayer and MM. I can't think of anything RATM and SOAD sing about with which I agree. They both take a hard left at the ideological fork in the road, particularly RATM. RATM, and now Audioslave guitarist Tom Morello, who has a Harvard degree in, I believe political science, and SOAD lead singer Serj Tankian formed a group called Axis of Justice. They support and demonstrate for, among other things (most notably to me), the minimum wage, workers' rights and anti-globalization. In my mind, workers have a right to work wherever they want (assuming the employer agrees) and a safe work place, but that's it.
I will probably continue to listen to and buy the music of these acts while holding my nose at some of what they espouse. Until someone comes along raging at an equal decibel level about the inefficiencies of the tax code or the erosion of states rights, I think I'm stuck.
However, such a contradiction, or conflict, wasn't brought to my attention until I graduated and started working. A female coworker said that by buying Marilyn Manson records, I was supporting his beliefs. I disagreed simply on the grounds that I did not share those beliefs, I just dug the music (even though I've never been interested in seeing them live, unlike Slayer).
That passed and I didn't think about it again until a few years later when I started listening to Rage Against the Machine and System of a Down. The conflict hit home harder partially due to my maturity, but mostly because I was much more interested in the social issues RATM and SOAD addressed than I was the religious issues dealt with by Slayer and MM. I can't think of anything RATM and SOAD sing about with which I agree. They both take a hard left at the ideological fork in the road, particularly RATM. RATM, and now Audioslave guitarist Tom Morello, who has a Harvard degree in, I believe political science, and SOAD lead singer Serj Tankian formed a group called Axis of Justice. They support and demonstrate for, among other things (most notably to me), the minimum wage, workers' rights and anti-globalization. In my mind, workers have a right to work wherever they want (assuming the employer agrees) and a safe work place, but that's it.
I will probably continue to listen to and buy the music of these acts while holding my nose at some of what they espouse. Until someone comes along raging at an equal decibel level about the inefficiencies of the tax code or the erosion of states rights, I think I'm stuck.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Timing is Everything
Mom charged after toddler drowned in tub
A 29-year-old Charlotte woman was charged with capital murder Monday after she told authorities she drowned her 3-year-old daughter in the bathtub, said David Soward, chief deputy of the Atascosa County Sheriff's Department.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA021307.01A.daughter_drowned.1bdf1c3.html
==
This reminds me two people I just read about in Bernard Goldberg's 110 People Who Are Screwing Up America.
One was a lady in New York who, after she found out she was pregnant with triplets (a single and a pair of twins), asked a doctor "Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?" because "I'd have to give up my life and start shopping at Costco". He said yes, so he helped her "selectively reduce" with a "shot of potassium chloride to the heart" of each twin.
The other is the doctor who invented partial-birth abortion. He talked of how he would "grab the foot of the fetus" and "collapse the head" and pull "it" out.
Keep voting democrat!
A 29-year-old Charlotte woman was charged with capital murder Monday after she told authorities she drowned her 3-year-old daughter in the bathtub, said David Soward, chief deputy of the Atascosa County Sheriff's Department.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA021307.01A.daughter_drowned.1bdf1c3.html
==
This reminds me two people I just read about in Bernard Goldberg's 110 People Who Are Screwing Up America.
One was a lady in New York who, after she found out she was pregnant with triplets (a single and a pair of twins), asked a doctor "Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?" because "I'd have to give up my life and start shopping at Costco". He said yes, so he helped her "selectively reduce" with a "shot of potassium chloride to the heart" of each twin.
The other is the doctor who invented partial-birth abortion. He talked of how he would "grab the foot of the fetus" and "collapse the head" and pull "it" out.
Keep voting democrat!
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Wonderful, Wonderful, Wonderful!
When a BIG component of the msm realizes the benefits of free trade (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020201541.html), there is a real chance remaining skepticism will be further eroded. If the New York Times were to jump on board and acknowledge the obvious, free trade would become the norm.
Wait a second...(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/opinion/02fri1.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&oref=slogin). Wow! I am impressed!
Wait a second...(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/opinion/02fri1.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&oref=slogin). Wow! I am impressed!
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Crike!
The democrats are right! We need to raise taxes on the rich to bring down the def...wait a second...nevermind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/washington/25budget.html?hp&ex=1169787600&en=fb17e1d11b52463f&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/washington/25budget.html?hp&ex=1169787600&en=fb17e1d11b52463f&ei=5094&partner=homepage
More Government Should Help
I have a good idea for how to get back at American Airlines (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/16533365.htm). It's a little complicated, so follow closely: fly another airline next time. If you need further explanation, please contact me.
Seriously, I sympathize. I wouldn't want to be stuck on a plane for that long, just sitting on the tarmac, especially if I had either of my pre-K girls with me. I'd raise hell if they became excessively hungry, needed medicine or the like.
The publicity this is garnering should be a catalyst for one of two things, or both: American will lose present and future customers (something it cannot afford to do) or they will improve their processes.
But please, can we cease all the 'Passenger's Bill of Right' baloney, please? The last thing that needs to happen is the introduction of more regulation on every airline because of the actions, or lack thereof, of one. The market works these things out. Uncle Sam already has his hands way too far into mine and your private lives.
You don't think they know about all this, and are taking measures to make sure it doesn't happen on one of their airplanes??
Seriously, I sympathize. I wouldn't want to be stuck on a plane for that long, just sitting on the tarmac, especially if I had either of my pre-K girls with me. I'd raise hell if they became excessively hungry, needed medicine or the like.
The publicity this is garnering should be a catalyst for one of two things, or both: American will lose present and future customers (something it cannot afford to do) or they will improve their processes.
But please, can we cease all the 'Passenger's Bill of Right' baloney, please? The last thing that needs to happen is the introduction of more regulation on every airline because of the actions, or lack thereof, of one. The market works these things out. Uncle Sam already has his hands way too far into mine and your private lives.
You don't think they know about all this, and are taking measures to make sure it doesn't happen on one of their airplanes??
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
"A Revolution"
I was listening to a local newstalk station, 1200 WOAI, while making breakfast for myself this morning, as I customarily do. Pags* was talking to Jim Pinkerton of Newsday and Fox News Watch about President Bush's State of the Union address last night. I didn't pay close attention until Pinkerton mentioned the sight of Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary. I had a feeling when he mentioned his name, he might talk about social security, based on reports that Paulson is going about quietly the process of negotiating with members of Congress social security reform. Why quietly? Because reports have been floating around, pretty much since Paulson was confirmed last June, that W might be willing to allow taxes to go up as part of a compromise. And make no doubt about it, discriminately raising, if not all out eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the social security tax is just as much a tax increase as "rolling back" or "repealing" (as liberals like to say) Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest American taxpayers. I used to wonder why there was such a cap. Then I figured out that people making that much per year, currently in the mid $90Ks, probably will not rely as much on social security when they retire (if they do, given that they are indeed the most productive members of society) as will those who make less. Then, it made perfect sense: welfare restrained. I like it!
Pinkerton finished by saying that if such a thing happens, there will be a "revolution" within the republican ranks. I hope, for the good of the economy, and society, that the cap is left alone (better yet to privatize it all together, but who am I kidding?). But, if it is lifted or eliminated, I welcome a "revolution". What's more, I look forward to seeing how current congressman (Ron Paul) and senators (McCain, Brownback) vote for it, and how that will effect the position on the issue staked out by those running for the nomination who will not have a vote, like Guiliani.
One of these days, someone running for public office will take seriously those who wish the government was at least half the size it is today.
And one other thing that has been on my mind for a while. Those for a vastly simpler tax code, such as myself, should have known better (and probably did) than to think Bush would be the one to deliver, given how he wants to address the health care issue.
*I give credit to Joe Pagliarulo. He started as the host of WOAI's morning program about a year or so ago. My first impression: 'Sheesh; what a radio voice!', which is another way of saying 'Ugh! What a fake!' He repeated himself, some of the things he said, so much from day to day, I started to wonder if it was a recording. But I must say, I have come to like him doing that job, and that's probably only partially because it seems he holds many of the same beliefs as me.
Pinkerton finished by saying that if such a thing happens, there will be a "revolution" within the republican ranks. I hope, for the good of the economy, and society, that the cap is left alone (better yet to privatize it all together, but who am I kidding?). But, if it is lifted or eliminated, I welcome a "revolution". What's more, I look forward to seeing how current congressman (Ron Paul) and senators (McCain, Brownback) vote for it, and how that will effect the position on the issue staked out by those running for the nomination who will not have a vote, like Guiliani.
One of these days, someone running for public office will take seriously those who wish the government was at least half the size it is today.
And one other thing that has been on my mind for a while. Those for a vastly simpler tax code, such as myself, should have known better (and probably did) than to think Bush would be the one to deliver, given how he wants to address the health care issue.
*I give credit to Joe Pagliarulo. He started as the host of WOAI's morning program about a year or so ago. My first impression: 'Sheesh; what a radio voice!', which is another way of saying 'Ugh! What a fake!' He repeated himself, some of the things he said, so much from day to day, I started to wonder if it was a recording. But I must say, I have come to like him doing that job, and that's probably only partially because it seems he holds many of the same beliefs as me.
Friday, January 12, 2007
music review: army of anyone
I recently finished making it through the cd and found it to be pretty good. It's at least better than the new Audioslave, who's songs sound too much alike, although not quite as good as Velvet Revolver's Contraband, to which Army will inevitably be compared due to the Stone Temple Pilots link. Some of Army's songs kinda surprised me with how good they are. And some reminded me of a Joe Walsh-y, Peter Frampton-ish 70s. You can detect the similarities to STP's music, but it also sounds to have evolved some out of that. I really like track 9, "Father Figure."
Friday, January 05, 2007
Jeepers!
The democrats are right: we better do something about this foreign direct investment surplus, er, I mean, trade deficit, before this country collapses!
"Toyota Motor Corp. on Thursday would not confirm published reports that it is close to choosing a site for its eighth assembly plant in North America, possibly in the southern United States."
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA010507.06C.toyotaplans.26a126d.html
"Toyota Motor Corp. on Thursday would not confirm published reports that it is close to choosing a site for its eighth assembly plant in North America, possibly in the southern United States."
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA010507.06C.toyotaplans.26a126d.html
Drats!
The democrats are right: we better do something about this economy before it's too late!
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Employers stepped up hiring last month, boosting payrolls by a healthy 167,000 and keeping the unemployment rate steady at a still historically low 4.5 percent. Workers' wages grew briskly."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ECONOMY?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Employers stepped up hiring last month, boosting payrolls by a healthy 167,000 and keeping the unemployment rate steady at a still historically low 4.5 percent. Workers' wages grew briskly."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ECONOMY?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Painful
I flipped to C-Span before going to bed late last night (been working late for year-end closing) with all the interest of watching a train wreck, given that it was the democrats first full day back in control (makes me ill to type that). I saw Dreier from Cali (republican) speaking. OK. Then McGovern from Mass. (there are only democrats there, Romney not withstanding) responding. OK, same as before. Normal. It became too much for me when I saw Barney (heh, I pause here remembering Dick Armey's, ahem, 'slip up' with his last name) Frank from Mass. in the speaker's chair presiding over the debate.
I've been kinda curious the last few years to see what democratic control would look like and see if they, and the GOP, would turn into hypocrites.
I found last night that it's going to take some time.
I've been kinda curious the last few years to see what democratic control would look like and see if they, and the GOP, would turn into hypocrites.
I found last night that it's going to take some time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)