Well, it’s been two weeks since the election. In that time, even though I voted for McCain, I have felt some enthusiasm with anticipation of a fresh start. To honest, I’m ready to be finished with the Bush years. But I just can’t bring myself to get excited about Obama. A few reasons keep a lid on it.
There was an episode of South Park where Cartman’s mom was lobbying, in her own special way, different public officials to legalize abortion all the way up to the (divide Cartman’s age by ¾)th trimester. It was a funny bit because the notion was outrageous. It might still have been at least a little funny if she’d have instead said 4th trimester. Why? Because in either case, the baby is already born and there’s no way imaginable someone could lobby for that, or even close to that. This presidential campaign proved that isn’t so far fetched when we learned of President-elect Obama’s opposition to a Born Alive Infants bill, which directed medical attention to babies who survived botched abortions (wouldn’t the 4th trimester theoretically start at birth?). When he says he doesn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby”, he really means it!
Even though he acknowledged in a debate that raising capital gains rates has proven, in the past, to bring about decreased federal tax receipts, he still wants to raise it in the name of “fairness”. Two things come to mind. One is the saying “Holding back the strong is no way to help the weak”, never mind that it’s a debatable point if the weak became so as a result of their own actions. It is this kind of stance that has convinced me that liberals sincerely do believe in equality of outcome, if they’re not downright hostile to those who succeed (especially without government help). How else to explain them depriving beloved government programs/ideas of funds when they know they’ll get more if they cut taxes on higher earners?? Second, if he means fairness is lacking because tax rates on income derived from labor are higher than those on income derived from investments (capital gains, dividend, rents, etc.), OK, but he’s only half way there. Why not bring down those top marginal rates in an effort to have them eventually meet capital gains, and dividend rates, somewhere in the middle?
If he has his way, and there’s little reason to doubt he will given expanded democratic majorities in congress, there will be fewer people pulling the American economic wagon and yet more riding. This was one of the areas I wish the McCain campaign would have hit earlier, harder and more frequently: if upwards of 40% of Americans pay no net taxes, how can Obama possibly cut taxes for 95% of us? Now there’s some fuzzy math! How is that anything other than more people going on the dole?? One could argue that there are already too many people who pay no taxes. If, however, they would like to trade their right to vote while they owe no taxes, fine by me. Otherwise, it could conceivably be viewed that they vote for a ‘pay raise’ every time they vote democrat, kinda like how they can count on increases in the minimum wage (why stop at $7.25?) or strengthening organized labor (nothing like getting paid 90% of your salary when there’s no work to do).
There are other things, like his declaration that we have to get “past the notion that we are better than everyone else”, even though many Americans, like myself, think we are indeed exceptional. I do hold out some hope that he will all-of-a-sudden value life more, that he will turn away from professed desire to “spread the wealth around”, that he will realize the markets are gyrating right now because they don’t know what Washington is going to do next and that he shouldn’t contribute to that uncertainty with “experimentation”. I do hold out hope, a sliver, that he will do a 180. But that’s hoping for a lot.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
How Much Less Can I Get Away With?
I had an immediate opinion about this piece (http://www.mysanantonio.com/moms/Caregivers_watch_little_ones_in_wee_hours_so_parents_can_sleep.html) as soon as I read it. But, since I'm only a dad (of 3 pre-K girls), regardless that I also get up in the middle of the night, handle most bath times, share in bedtime stories, change diapers, etc. etc., I figured I would send it to my wife and see what she thought. She and I agree the vast majority of the time, so I thought it would be safe, and smart, to defer to her on this idea of nighttime nannies.
That evening I asked her if she read the article and what she thought. She said "Sounds like more outsourcing of parental duties." "That's EXACTLY what I was thinking!!" I love her.
How much more parental responsibility, one might say 'the parental experience', are we going to delegate to others? Putting babies/children in daycare because you have to go out to earn a living to make (reasonable) ends meet is one thing. But passing off the responsibility of soothing your baby in the middle of the night? Isn't that where part of the parental-child bond is formed?? No pain, no pain, right? But if that is your mantra, perhaps the parenting gig isn't for you.
I suppose soon some of these nannies will also offer breastfeeding as part of an a la carte menu.
That evening I asked her if she read the article and what she thought. She said "Sounds like more outsourcing of parental duties." "That's EXACTLY what I was thinking!!" I love her.
How much more parental responsibility, one might say 'the parental experience', are we going to delegate to others? Putting babies/children in daycare because you have to go out to earn a living to make (reasonable) ends meet is one thing. But passing off the responsibility of soothing your baby in the middle of the night? Isn't that where part of the parental-child bond is formed?? No pain, no pain, right? But if that is your mantra, perhaps the parenting gig isn't for you.
I suppose soon some of these nannies will also offer breastfeeding as part of an a la carte menu.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Why Health Insurance is Expensive and Continues to Go Higher
"Verizon Communications Inc. was facing a weekend labor strike deadline as it negotiated Friday with unions representing about 65,000 employees.
"The workers object to the company's plans to require employees to contributed toward health-care coverage costs.
"Verizon currently picks up the entire cost of insurance premiums for C.W.A. (Communications Workers of America) and I.B.E.W. (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) workers."
When something is inexpensive, or outright free, whether through normal market mechanisms or artificially so (such as as in this example), more is demanded of it. When demand increases accordingly, the price goes up in an attempt to reach a market-clearing price. Yet, in cases such as this, the final consumers never feel the pinch of increased prices. So what happens? Their demand continues unabated, and prices continue to rise and the cycle continues.
Read that passage again. Verizon's unionized workers, which fortunately make up a small portion of their entire workforce, pay nothing. Zero, and they want to keep it that way. Do they have no pride, no shame or integrity?? Do you know anyone who has ever bragged about being a freeloader?? They are coddled like babies and now they're crying because their free goodies might be taken away. Welcome to the real world where we pay for essential goods and services!
On a side note, it's interesting that neither Yahoo nor AP, just to name a couple, pointed out the specifics of the health insurance point of contention. This passage was taken from Saturday's Wall Street Journal.
"The workers object to the company's plans to require employees to contributed toward health-care coverage costs.
"Verizon currently picks up the entire cost of insurance premiums for C.W.A. (Communications Workers of America) and I.B.E.W. (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) workers."
When something is inexpensive, or outright free, whether through normal market mechanisms or artificially so (such as as in this example), more is demanded of it. When demand increases accordingly, the price goes up in an attempt to reach a market-clearing price. Yet, in cases such as this, the final consumers never feel the pinch of increased prices. So what happens? Their demand continues unabated, and prices continue to rise and the cycle continues.
Read that passage again. Verizon's unionized workers, which fortunately make up a small portion of their entire workforce, pay nothing. Zero, and they want to keep it that way. Do they have no pride, no shame or integrity?? Do you know anyone who has ever bragged about being a freeloader?? They are coddled like babies and now they're crying because their free goodies might be taken away. Welcome to the real world where we pay for essential goods and services!
On a side note, it's interesting that neither Yahoo nor AP, just to name a couple, pointed out the specifics of the health insurance point of contention. This passage was taken from Saturday's Wall Street Journal.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Take This to the Ballot Box
"Offshoring does create losers, most obviously those whose jobs disappear when business operations are shunted abroad. But on balance it is good for the economy, making domestic firms more productive and generating jobs at home as well as abroad. Just as trade delivers overall gains to developed economies by allowing them to specialise in activities in which they have a comparative advantage, so does offshoring."
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11506740&subjectID=423172&fsrc=nwl
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11506740&subjectID=423172&fsrc=nwl
Sunday, May 25, 2008
The Dead Horse That Apparently Still Needs Beating
The “oil economy” may be in a state of flux, perhaps even a bit volatile, but I’d hardly say the collapse thereof is imminent.
The one thing that contributes largely to this volatility seems to be the one thing Robert Rivard of the San Antonio Express-News suggest employing to help us in his piece this morning ("A new energy economy in S.A. could be the next big thing": http://www.mysanantonio.com/columnists/stories/MYSA.052508.METRO3BRivard.2f26c04.html): more government. It is a good thing that gas prices are spurring the search for other forms of energy, but it is artificially inflated due to too much government involvement in the market via excessively low interest rates, restrictions on domestic production and refining, etc. Hopefully, the new finds in Brazil won’t head off at the pass sources that have become more viable due to high prices, such as the tar sands in California. Those are two examples right there that, if government would just get out of the way, new supplies would start flowing into the market and perhaps stabilize, if not bring prices down eventually.
Another example is his suggestion of offering Toyota incentives to switch the local plant from producing Tundras to hybrids. They simply need no such incentive. It’s like throwing gas onto a fire. They’re sales have taken a dip, as have truck sales in general. That’s all the incentive they need!
There will be clients for such alternatives when they become economically viable. Nothing would make me happier than to spend less on gas. But instead of looking at Priuses, I’m looking at scooters. It’s just not worth it to my family right now to spend a few thousand on a hybrid when my Camry does OK. We know two people who have Priuses, and we applaud them. They are the types of people who brought down the prices of flat screens. They wanted the product, regardless of price, and as more people bought them, the prices came down.
Surely, though, he doesn't believe in a free lunch. There’s no such thing as free bus ridership. The buses will not be maintained, tanks be filled, drivers be paid with money that comes out of thin air. The funds will come from somewhere, and that somewhere will be increased taxes, likely paid by people who still will not ride public transit.
Here’s hoping his “mandatory recycling program” only includes a recycling can for every trash can. The last thing I, or any freedom-loving American needs is to be forced to do something I may (which I am), or may not already be doing.
The one thing that contributes largely to this volatility seems to be the one thing Robert Rivard of the San Antonio Express-News suggest employing to help us in his piece this morning ("A new energy economy in S.A. could be the next big thing": http://www.mysanantonio.com/columnists/stories/MYSA.052508.METRO3BRivard.2f26c04.html): more government. It is a good thing that gas prices are spurring the search for other forms of energy, but it is artificially inflated due to too much government involvement in the market via excessively low interest rates, restrictions on domestic production and refining, etc. Hopefully, the new finds in Brazil won’t head off at the pass sources that have become more viable due to high prices, such as the tar sands in California. Those are two examples right there that, if government would just get out of the way, new supplies would start flowing into the market and perhaps stabilize, if not bring prices down eventually.
Another example is his suggestion of offering Toyota incentives to switch the local plant from producing Tundras to hybrids. They simply need no such incentive. It’s like throwing gas onto a fire. They’re sales have taken a dip, as have truck sales in general. That’s all the incentive they need!
There will be clients for such alternatives when they become economically viable. Nothing would make me happier than to spend less on gas. But instead of looking at Priuses, I’m looking at scooters. It’s just not worth it to my family right now to spend a few thousand on a hybrid when my Camry does OK. We know two people who have Priuses, and we applaud them. They are the types of people who brought down the prices of flat screens. They wanted the product, regardless of price, and as more people bought them, the prices came down.
Surely, though, he doesn't believe in a free lunch. There’s no such thing as free bus ridership. The buses will not be maintained, tanks be filled, drivers be paid with money that comes out of thin air. The funds will come from somewhere, and that somewhere will be increased taxes, likely paid by people who still will not ride public transit.
Here’s hoping his “mandatory recycling program” only includes a recycling can for every trash can. The last thing I, or any freedom-loving American needs is to be forced to do something I may (which I am), or may not already be doing.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
It Had to Come Down to These Two??
It’s been a depressing couple of political days lately…week and a half, actually. I’ve always been realistic about how unrealistic the chances are of my 1st choice, Dr. Paul, ascending to the presidency. But now, after the unremarkable campaign of Fred Thompson has ended, Rudy Giuiliani’s Florida/Super Tuesday strategy has gone down in flames and Mike Huckabee has predictably proven to be a 1-hit wonder, I might be left to choose between my two least favorites: John McCain and Mitt Romney. Yuck!
McCain is, as he likes to proclaim, a “straight-shooter”. Problem is, many of his shots are in the wrong direction i.e. man-mad global warming, the evilness of the pharmaceutical industry, campaign-finance reform, etc. (I do believe he has sincerely seen the problem with the immigration bill he tried to ram through last summer) He voted against the tax cuts and has said nothing more than he sign major tax reform if it “hit his desk”. That’s code for “It ain’t my issue and I’m not gonna push it.” And, although both Reagan and W proved you can never be sure, given his aforementioned errant ways, I’m not sure he’d nominate the right people to the federal bench. The only two areas in which I’ve been a big fan of his are national security/foreign policy hawkishness and his stance against federal spending. And if it wasn’t for the fact that Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm and Tom Coburn and the like support him, it’d be easier instead to support…
Mitt Romney. I’m not thrilled about someone to whom labels such as “panderer” and “flip-flopper” can be legitimately affixed. He has just always seemed to slick, too…politician-y. And shouldn’t he have a plan to simplify the tax code? I mean, he’s supposed to be the business guy in this race. Paul, Thompson, Giuliani and Huckabee all have/had such plans. Why doesn’t he? He wants to “clean up Washington” (a phrase I tire of hearing less than only “change”). Isn’t the tax code the best place to start? Hell, couldn’t you stop there, too?!? Still, at least this year (say what you will), he stands on the right side of more issues, in my mind, than McCain does. Regardless, if either is elected and don’t hew closely enough to the party line (i.e. Papa Bush), they’ll both be one-termers. Of course, the same thing could probably be said with regard to hewing close to the party line in the campaign, and that doesn’t seem to be holding true.
Finally, I want to say a pleasant ‘Good-bye’ to Mayor Giuliani. He has been 1st, 2nd or 3rd on my list the whole campaign (even though Fred moved ahead of him briefly, he wasn’t in the race long enough for me to have as good a vibe). I trusted him on national security. He said all the right things with regard to reforming health insurance. He was always quick to address the fallacy in thinking that revenues can only be increased by raising taxes. He finally came out with a good idea for tax reform. It was looking for a while like his Florida/Super Tuesday strategy might just work. I personally think the tipping point came in the debate where he and Romney went at it over sanctuary cities. He seemed petty with the “sanctuary mansion” tack. Plus, that was also about the time it was alleged that his then-mistress may have been protected with taxpayer funds. That gave me a sour feeling (it was also about that time that Fred came out with his 2-rate, optional income-tax return). That’s when he dropped to 3rd on my list. But still, I would have more enthusiastically supported him than either McCain or Romney. I suppose it wasn’t mean to be.
Unless of course McCain taps him for V.P. That would make my day in that it would effectively smooth the path for a Rudy nomination after McCain’s time passes.
I guess there’s hope.
McCain is, as he likes to proclaim, a “straight-shooter”. Problem is, many of his shots are in the wrong direction i.e. man-mad global warming, the evilness of the pharmaceutical industry, campaign-finance reform, etc. (I do believe he has sincerely seen the problem with the immigration bill he tried to ram through last summer) He voted against the tax cuts and has said nothing more than he sign major tax reform if it “hit his desk”. That’s code for “It ain’t my issue and I’m not gonna push it.” And, although both Reagan and W proved you can never be sure, given his aforementioned errant ways, I’m not sure he’d nominate the right people to the federal bench. The only two areas in which I’ve been a big fan of his are national security/foreign policy hawkishness and his stance against federal spending. And if it wasn’t for the fact that Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm and Tom Coburn and the like support him, it’d be easier instead to support…
Mitt Romney. I’m not thrilled about someone to whom labels such as “panderer” and “flip-flopper” can be legitimately affixed. He has just always seemed to slick, too…politician-y. And shouldn’t he have a plan to simplify the tax code? I mean, he’s supposed to be the business guy in this race. Paul, Thompson, Giuliani and Huckabee all have/had such plans. Why doesn’t he? He wants to “clean up Washington” (a phrase I tire of hearing less than only “change”). Isn’t the tax code the best place to start? Hell, couldn’t you stop there, too?!? Still, at least this year (say what you will), he stands on the right side of more issues, in my mind, than McCain does. Regardless, if either is elected and don’t hew closely enough to the party line (i.e. Papa Bush), they’ll both be one-termers. Of course, the same thing could probably be said with regard to hewing close to the party line in the campaign, and that doesn’t seem to be holding true.
Finally, I want to say a pleasant ‘Good-bye’ to Mayor Giuliani. He has been 1st, 2nd or 3rd on my list the whole campaign (even though Fred moved ahead of him briefly, he wasn’t in the race long enough for me to have as good a vibe). I trusted him on national security. He said all the right things with regard to reforming health insurance. He was always quick to address the fallacy in thinking that revenues can only be increased by raising taxes. He finally came out with a good idea for tax reform. It was looking for a while like his Florida/Super Tuesday strategy might just work. I personally think the tipping point came in the debate where he and Romney went at it over sanctuary cities. He seemed petty with the “sanctuary mansion” tack. Plus, that was also about the time it was alleged that his then-mistress may have been protected with taxpayer funds. That gave me a sour feeling (it was also about that time that Fred came out with his 2-rate, optional income-tax return). That’s when he dropped to 3rd on my list. But still, I would have more enthusiastically supported him than either McCain or Romney. I suppose it wasn’t mean to be.
Unless of course McCain taps him for V.P. That would make my day in that it would effectively smooth the path for a Rudy nomination after McCain’s time passes.
I guess there’s hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)