I had intended that I would post a short video as per my usual holiday tradition. Alas, the government has recently been up to so much I feel the need to comment on the happenings during the past couple weeks. My own schedule has prevented me from from my usual research so this is largely an opinion piece.
The Obama tax compromise was a true compromise in that there are parts that each side finds deplorable and other parts that each side are happy with. I'm disappointed that the Republicans didn't hold out until the "Zombie Congress" (a term I much prefer over "Lame Duck Congress") left Washington and an invigorated Republican House took office but it does make sense to extend the cuts for all tax brackets. By extending them for two years, this ensures taxes will be the main issue in the presidential election. I predict this will help the Republicans because tax cuts are more palatable than social issues to the electorate.
The defeat of the omnibus bill was a victory for America. Normally, appropriation bills fund the government but the previous Congress has pass continuing resolutions, basically running government without a budget. This, in and of itself, is shameful. The omnibus bill would have funded government but also included over 6,000 earmarks. Everything from studies of bugs, bridges to nowhere (sooner or later we're going to run out of nowheres to build bridges to), light rail, and other sweeteners for various congressmen trying to get a few million to take back to their district in time for Christmas. The Republicans deserve credit for killing the bill and leaving the Democrats hoping that Santa will give them their Christmas wish list rather than the American taxpayers.
The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a good thing. America is one of the few countries which does not allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Although there will be some effect on unit cohesion, anyone who tells you otherwise is naive, any soldier who acts out regardless of sexual orientation will be reprimanded. When such reprimands occur, we need to remember that soldiers are held to a higher standard because their job is truly a matter of life and death.
The defeat of the DREAM act, a bill which would give illegal aliens tax subsidized in-state tuition to colleges in whichever state they claimed residence in (who could check?), was also heartening. The supporters of this bill tearfully claim its defeat means that college is out of reach for millions of children who had little choice in choosing to cross the border. When one looks at the plethora of free services from social to governmental to medical that illegal aliens get for free while contributing nothing in taxes, the question is not what more can we do for these people but how can an American renounce his citizenship to cash in on all these benefits!
And since I already had a couple videos picked out for today it seemed a shame to waste them. Does Joe Biden hate Christmas? This edited video says yes:
Most people don't think of Santa Claus as a business owner but this video reveals his struggle to make toys for kids all over the world while still not knowing what the tax rates will be long term:
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all my readers,
Conservative Ken
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Julian Assange Is Not A Freedom Fighter
I believe there are very few secrets that a government should keep from its people. That being said, Julian Assange crossed a line when he released a quarter of a million diplomatic cables passed onto him from Pfc. Bradley E. Manning.
Some of the cables have identifying information about elders in Afghanistan that are actively helping the United States. Even with the names redacted, enough information remains to endanger those that we will need to rely on when we leave the country so that it is even marginally better than before we invaded it. Assange is a third party on these cables, not knowing the full extent of what should be redacted to protect the identities of those who may be put at risk. In the cited article, the Taliban actually thanks Assange for letting them know who to target.
When the judiciary rules on free speech, they often strike down laws that do not restrict speech but could be said to have a "chilling effect" on speech due to onerous requirements. Assange's release of diplomatic cables could very well have a "chilling effect" on other countries which may want to share information off the record. With two hot wars winding down, Iran pursuing a bomb, and North Korea launching offensives on South Korea, we need as much diplomatic leverage as possible.
Although Assange maintains no damage is done by his leaks, he maintains that he has stores of unredacted and damaging documents that he will release if he is imprisoned or in any other way held responsible for what he has done.
Currently Assange is in jail for unrelated sexual assault charges stemming from, supposedly, his refusal to wear a condom despite two girl's wishes. Others say the condom was not part of the charge while Michael Moynihan of Reason.com, who lived in Sweden for many years, says that overly radical rape laws in Sweden can charge me for merely rejecting a woman's wish to wear a condom even if consensual sex follows.
Some of the people defending Assange include MSNBC's Keith Olberman who believe the women are US operatives that lured Assange into a "honey trap." Olbermann's source for this information was an article on the far-left website Counterpunch by the writers Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett. Shamir is a fringe writer who has devoted his professional life to exposing the supposed criminality of “Jewish power," a paranoid anti-Semite who curates a website full of links to Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi sites, defenses of blood libel myths, and references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Note: For those who don't know, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was published by the Russian Empire in 1903 supposedly revealing a Jewish plot for world domination. The text was conclusively determined to be fraudulent anti-semitic propaganda in 1921.
Olbermann later tweeted that he regretted citing the article and repudiated the author.
It seems very likely that Assange could be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 and some lawmakers of both parties have endorsed the idea. Assange seems to get a pass from the same people who decried the Climategate E-mail dump and the outing of non-covert operative Valerie Plame. He is even an early favorite for Time's Man-of-the-Year. Just because Assange used the Internet to disseminate his intercepted cables does not make him any more noble than anyone else who has ever revealed state secrets. Assange is not a freedom fighter, he may well have put America and her allies in danger and he belongs in a jail cell.
Some of the cables have identifying information about elders in Afghanistan that are actively helping the United States. Even with the names redacted, enough information remains to endanger those that we will need to rely on when we leave the country so that it is even marginally better than before we invaded it. Assange is a third party on these cables, not knowing the full extent of what should be redacted to protect the identities of those who may be put at risk. In the cited article, the Taliban actually thanks Assange for letting them know who to target.
When the judiciary rules on free speech, they often strike down laws that do not restrict speech but could be said to have a "chilling effect" on speech due to onerous requirements. Assange's release of diplomatic cables could very well have a "chilling effect" on other countries which may want to share information off the record. With two hot wars winding down, Iran pursuing a bomb, and North Korea launching offensives on South Korea, we need as much diplomatic leverage as possible.
Although Assange maintains no damage is done by his leaks, he maintains that he has stores of unredacted and damaging documents that he will release if he is imprisoned or in any other way held responsible for what he has done.
Currently Assange is in jail for unrelated sexual assault charges stemming from, supposedly, his refusal to wear a condom despite two girl's wishes. Others say the condom was not part of the charge while Michael Moynihan of Reason.com, who lived in Sweden for many years, says that overly radical rape laws in Sweden can charge me for merely rejecting a woman's wish to wear a condom even if consensual sex follows.
Some of the people defending Assange include MSNBC's Keith Olberman who believe the women are US operatives that lured Assange into a "honey trap." Olbermann's source for this information was an article on the far-left website Counterpunch by the writers Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett. Shamir is a fringe writer who has devoted his professional life to exposing the supposed criminality of “Jewish power," a paranoid anti-Semite who curates a website full of links to Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi sites, defenses of blood libel myths, and references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Note: For those who don't know, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was published by the Russian Empire in 1903 supposedly revealing a Jewish plot for world domination. The text was conclusively determined to be fraudulent anti-semitic propaganda in 1921.
Olbermann later tweeted that he regretted citing the article and repudiated the author.
It seems very likely that Assange could be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 and some lawmakers of both parties have endorsed the idea. Assange seems to get a pass from the same people who decried the Climategate E-mail dump and the outing of non-covert operative Valerie Plame. He is even an early favorite for Time's Man-of-the-Year. Just because Assange used the Internet to disseminate his intercepted cables does not make him any more noble than anyone else who has ever revealed state secrets. Assange is not a freedom fighter, he may well have put America and her allies in danger and he belongs in a jail cell.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
T (S) and A!
Anyone planning on flying this holiday season is in for an awkward choice. Due to the latest security measures put in place by the TSA you can either walk through a full body scanner which takes pictures of you without that pesky clothing that you put on that morning in the way or you can opt for the enhanced pat-down complete with groin check. If it sounds ridiculous and Orwellian, that's because it is.
Although they've only been in place for a short time, The U.S. Marshals Service recently admitted saving some 35,000 images from a full body scanner at a federal courthouse in Florida. Understandably many people do not want to have their picture taken without their clothing on (I mean, that's why we wear it, right?) with the possibility that their image could be saved for posterity so there is an alternative. The alternative is getting an enhanced pat-down including a groin check to move through security. John Tyner found this out the hard way when he shot this youtube video after opting for the pat-down. After the pat-down was explained to him he now famously stated, "Don't touch my junk" and had a conversation with the TSA supervisor before leaving the airport and deciding not to fly. He was later told he had to pay an $11,000 fine (referenced in the video) but that has since been rescinded.
Of course everyone wants to be safe while flying but the politically correct route of looking for bombs and not bombers is causing nuns and 3 year olds to be subjected to groin checks. I guess we should be lucky they drew the line at our crotch, the DHS reports a terrorist tried to hide a bomb in his anal cavity last year.
So what is the alternative in a time where a terrorist could very well have a bomb sewn into his underpants? The Israelis have been the target of terrorism since long before 9/11 and they don't pat down every person who gets on a plane. They have a few minutes of conversation with each passenger to determine who needs extra scrutiny and who does not. Critics of this policy believe that the screeners would target Muslim men at a higher rate than other races but as Mona Charen points out, some terrorists have been blond-haired, blue-eyed females so anyone who raises flags on the initial check should be pulled aside regardless of race.
We can make airline travel much less intrusive without trampling on the civil rights of any one group (or all groups, as it stands now) but the White House seems reluctant to even try the Israeli style security for fear of discrimination. In fact Janet Napolitano, head of DHS, says the scanners could be expanded for use on trains, boats and the subway system. All this makes me pine for the days when the closest the government came to impinging on my civil rights was tapping overseas phone calls. I guess the Left forgot their "passion" for civil rights the day they got elected.
An example of an actual body scan picture
Of course everyone wants to be safe while flying but the politically correct route of looking for bombs and not bombers is causing nuns and 3 year olds to be subjected to groin checks. I guess we should be lucky they drew the line at our crotch, the DHS reports a terrorist tried to hide a bomb in his anal cavity last year.
So what is the alternative in a time where a terrorist could very well have a bomb sewn into his underpants? The Israelis have been the target of terrorism since long before 9/11 and they don't pat down every person who gets on a plane. They have a few minutes of conversation with each passenger to determine who needs extra scrutiny and who does not. Critics of this policy believe that the screeners would target Muslim men at a higher rate than other races but as Mona Charen points out, some terrorists have been blond-haired, blue-eyed females so anyone who raises flags on the initial check should be pulled aside regardless of race.
We can make airline travel much less intrusive without trampling on the civil rights of any one group (or all groups, as it stands now) but the White House seems reluctant to even try the Israeli style security for fear of discrimination. In fact Janet Napolitano, head of DHS, says the scanners could be expanded for use on trains, boats and the subway system. All this makes me pine for the days when the closest the government came to impinging on my civil rights was tapping overseas phone calls. I guess the Left forgot their "passion" for civil rights the day they got elected.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Less We Can!
Meteoric, historic, a tidal wave, all of these terms have been used to describe the recent midterm elections. Most surprising of all, these words are actually pretty good descriptors of the events of November second. Pundits opined that the midterm could be a repeat of the '94 elections when Republicans gained 52 House seats and control of that chamber. Some conservative pundits shushed other conservative pundits, worried that such rosy optimism would suppress turnout and cause the Republicans to lose seats they would have gained otherwise. As of the current count right now Republicans have won 60 seats in the House, their largest sweep not since 1994 but since 1938. State legislatures broke big for Republicans as well, not only was the sweep a large one but now the total percentage of Republican state legislators is the largest it has been since 1956. With all these Republicans now in power, does that mean that we are headed towards fiscal sanity? Well, probably not.
Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have introduced legislation to end earmarks, the pet projects that Senators and Congressmen attach to bills with little to no oversight. Last year earmarks cost taxpayers $17 billion. Although that sounds like alot of money, that's less than one-half of one percent of the annual budget.
Republicans are also touting that they will cut government waste, fraud and abuse from the budget but if economics teaches us anything it is that government is inherently inefficient and rife with waste, fraud and abuse because government is a non-profit driven monopoly. With no incentive from either competition or profit, there is no incentive to be efficient. Although some Republicans have talked about privatizing various functions of the government, no broad based support exists to do this.
What about the deficit commission that recently released its report advising some tax raising measures like doing away with home mortgage interest deductions and some cost cutting measures such as reforming entitlement programs? Doing away with the home mortgage interest deduction might very well tank the real estate markets (again) and would effectively raise taxes on the middle class in the midst of a recession. Reforming entitlements is a great idea and the only one likely to put a dent in the budget. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and interest on the debt add up to more than 80% of the annual budget. Any serious talk of cutting spending must include these sacred cows. Of course, how serious could the commission be on reforming entitlements when they made no suggestion of repealing the latest one, Obamacare? Also, Americans have no appetite for cutting entitlements. Among the signs at Tea Party rallies about cutting spending are also signs that say "Get The Government Out Of My Medicare!" When asked generally, Americans want the government to cut spending but when asked on specifics still consider 80% of the budget untouchable.
Entitlement reform is not coming anytime soon and it would be a miracle to even preemptively reform Obamacare, forget repeal. Republicans may slam the brake on this administration's big spending ways by virtue of gridlock but there's no sign that they want to turn the car around. Worse yet, there's no sign that Americans want them to. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "In a democracy, we get the government we deserve."
Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have introduced legislation to end earmarks, the pet projects that Senators and Congressmen attach to bills with little to no oversight. Last year earmarks cost taxpayers $17 billion. Although that sounds like alot of money, that's less than one-half of one percent of the annual budget.
Republicans are also touting that they will cut government waste, fraud and abuse from the budget but if economics teaches us anything it is that government is inherently inefficient and rife with waste, fraud and abuse because government is a non-profit driven monopoly. With no incentive from either competition or profit, there is no incentive to be efficient. Although some Republicans have talked about privatizing various functions of the government, no broad based support exists to do this.
What about the deficit commission that recently released its report advising some tax raising measures like doing away with home mortgage interest deductions and some cost cutting measures such as reforming entitlement programs? Doing away with the home mortgage interest deduction might very well tank the real estate markets (again) and would effectively raise taxes on the middle class in the midst of a recession. Reforming entitlements is a great idea and the only one likely to put a dent in the budget. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and interest on the debt add up to more than 80% of the annual budget. Any serious talk of cutting spending must include these sacred cows. Of course, how serious could the commission be on reforming entitlements when they made no suggestion of repealing the latest one, Obamacare? Also, Americans have no appetite for cutting entitlements. Among the signs at Tea Party rallies about cutting spending are also signs that say "Get The Government Out Of My Medicare!" When asked generally, Americans want the government to cut spending but when asked on specifics still consider 80% of the budget untouchable.
Entitlement reform is not coming anytime soon and it would be a miracle to even preemptively reform Obamacare, forget repeal. Republicans may slam the brake on this administration's big spending ways by virtue of gridlock but there's no sign that they want to turn the car around. Worse yet, there's no sign that Americans want them to. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "In a democracy, we get the government we deserve."
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Funny Birthday Card
I've been celebrating my birthday over the weekend with my family and fell behind on my post schedule. This week's column will be up no later than Wednesday with next week's column going up no later than Sunday. In the meanwhile, I figured I would share a humorous birthday card I received from my parents.
Front of Card
Inside of Card
Friday, November 5, 2010
F.A Hayek and John Maynard Keynes Rap Battle For America's Future
Since Republicans have taken the House and are already talking about combating Obama's Keynesian economic model with their own (somewhat more) Hayekian one, I figured it might be time to dust off this gem. This video of two economists dressing up as Hayek and Keynes and rap-battling is too bizarre not to pass on:
For those who don't know, John Maynard Keynes was FDR's main economic advisor during the Great Depression and advocated big government solutions like the stimulus we are using today. F.A. Hayek was an Austrian economist who advocated free markets and laissez faire government.
The video is a bit buggy as an embedded object so you can also find the source video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
For those who don't know, John Maynard Keynes was FDR's main economic advisor during the Great Depression and advocated big government solutions like the stimulus we are using today. F.A. Hayek was an Austrian economist who advocated free markets and laissez faire government.
The video is a bit buggy as an embedded object so you can also find the source video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Pre-Election Post-Mortem
With only 2 days remaining until the election, it is hard to watch TV, listen to the radio, talk to coworkers or even drive down a stretch of road without being reminded of how deeply divided an election this promises to be. It is the job of politicians and pundits to convince voters every two years that this election is the most important election in your lifetime. Even knowing the game, I'm convinced that this upcoming election is the most important of my lifetime and that the following will be even more significant.
This election will be conservatives' last chance to defund Obamacare. RCP shows Republicans with at least a 7 seat lead in the House even if the Democrats win every single toss-up race, and Republicans will likely take most of those, increasing their lead considerably. RCP also shows the Senate being competitive but likely staying in Democratic hands. The Senate not reverting control is more a of function of our electoral system than Democrat's popularity, only a third of the Senate is up for election.
Although much maligned, the Tea Party is worthy of some credit for this wave that threatens to end Obama's agenda. While we have them to thank for Christine O' Donnell (who believes mice are being cross-bred with humans in secret American laboratories and that they are creating rodents with "fully-functional human brains."), Sharron Angle is in a toss-up race against Reid in Nevada and Rand Paul has a comfortable lead against Conway in Kentucky. The Tea Party could also be an effective force in gubernatorial and more local races in ways that could be monumental. Just by installing some leaders to help Paul Ryan turn the party around, the Tea Party's wins could more than make up more their losses.
The 2012 election, of course, would be to remove Obama from the White House. Most Presidents in modern times have been granted two terms, even those who performed poorly in their first term (ie. Clinton, Eisenhower, and Truman). The counterexamples, Carter and Bush (41), tend to be disregarded even by members of their own party. In the bellweather state of Ohio, 50-42 would prefer to have Bush back in the White House rather than Obama. Of course these polls are done just to make a stark comparison, Bush can't run but who would have predicted polling like that in 2008?
Note to my readers: On Sept 19, I endorsed Christine O' Donnell for Senator in my Are You A Good Witch Or A Bad Witch? post. The torrent of background information released on her since then has convinced me that she is truly unfit for the Senate although still not as bad as Joe Biden, who previously held the seat. I have endorsed a total of two candidates since beginning this blog, both of which either have lost or will lose. In keeping with that tradition I renounce (or is that "refudiate"?) my endorsement of O' Donnell and endorse Jim Rash (L) for US. Senator from Delaware.
This election will be conservatives' last chance to defund Obamacare. RCP shows Republicans with at least a 7 seat lead in the House even if the Democrats win every single toss-up race, and Republicans will likely take most of those, increasing their lead considerably. RCP also shows the Senate being competitive but likely staying in Democratic hands. The Senate not reverting control is more a of function of our electoral system than Democrat's popularity, only a third of the Senate is up for election.
Although much maligned, the Tea Party is worthy of some credit for this wave that threatens to end Obama's agenda. While we have them to thank for Christine O' Donnell (who believes mice are being cross-bred with humans in secret American laboratories and that they are creating rodents with "fully-functional human brains."), Sharron Angle is in a toss-up race against Reid in Nevada and Rand Paul has a comfortable lead against Conway in Kentucky. The Tea Party could also be an effective force in gubernatorial and more local races in ways that could be monumental. Just by installing some leaders to help Paul Ryan turn the party around, the Tea Party's wins could more than make up more their losses.
The 2012 election, of course, would be to remove Obama from the White House. Most Presidents in modern times have been granted two terms, even those who performed poorly in their first term (ie. Clinton, Eisenhower, and Truman). The counterexamples, Carter and Bush (41), tend to be disregarded even by members of their own party. In the bellweather state of Ohio, 50-42 would prefer to have Bush back in the White House rather than Obama. Of course these polls are done just to make a stark comparison, Bush can't run but who would have predicted polling like that in 2008?
Note to my readers: On Sept 19, I endorsed Christine O' Donnell for Senator in my Are You A Good Witch Or A Bad Witch? post. The torrent of background information released on her since then has convinced me that she is truly unfit for the Senate although still not as bad as Joe Biden, who previously held the seat. I have endorsed a total of two candidates since beginning this blog, both of which either have lost or will lose. In keeping with that tradition I renounce (or is that "refudiate"?) my endorsement of O' Donnell and endorse Jim Rash (L) for US. Senator from Delaware.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Regurgitating The Apple
I am in State College, PA this weekend as a groomsman in my friend's wedding. So this week I'm phoning it in.
Evan Sayet was a liberal Manhattan Jew who became a conservative shortly after 9/11. The following video is a speech of this comedian giving a mostly serious speech at the Heritage Foundation. His speech, Regurgitating The Apple, has been called the unified field theory of liberal thought. It explains liberal's power bias/victim mentality and how it is based on the idea that to discern between good and evil or even the behaviors that lead to success vs. the behaviors that lead to failure is not discernment but discrimination and must be avoided at all costs.
His speech is loosely based on the book, The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. Its a great read if anyone is interested.
Congratulations Joe and Kristen, I have never met two people who were made for each other more than you two are. I am honored to know you both, to call Joe my brother, and to be a groomsman in your wedding. I wish you all the happiness that life surely has in store for you.
Evan Sayet was a liberal Manhattan Jew who became a conservative shortly after 9/11. The following video is a speech of this comedian giving a mostly serious speech at the Heritage Foundation. His speech, Regurgitating The Apple, has been called the unified field theory of liberal thought. It explains liberal's power bias/victim mentality and how it is based on the idea that to discern between good and evil or even the behaviors that lead to success vs. the behaviors that lead to failure is not discernment but discrimination and must be avoided at all costs.
His speech is loosely based on the book, The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. Its a great read if anyone is interested.
Congratulations Joe and Kristen, I have never met two people who were made for each other more than you two are. I am honored to know you both, to call Joe my brother, and to be a groomsman in your wedding. I wish you all the happiness that life surely has in store for you.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Obamanomics
Although no one would accuse President Obama of intentionally sabotaging the U.S. economy, it is hard to imagine a more counter-productive path than the one that the President and his fellow Democrats have laid out for us.
By extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, Obama has expanded the safety net into a hammock. Extensions to unemployment are always popular when they pass because Americans rightfully feel sorry for those who are out of work. While a case can be made for some minimal support, the massive extension of benefits changes the market incentives. As John Stossel reports, when Denmark extended their unemployment benefits to 4 years, the average length of unemployment was 4 years. When extended to 5 years, many people found employment only after 5 years.
Speaker Pelosi defends the unemployment benefits by saying they are one of the biggest job creating initiatives and that they are the most useful of all stimulus spending.
Of course, every spending bill is defended by the administration as stimulus but no economist (with the unfortunate exception of Paul Krugman) would argue that unemployment creates jobs. The data clearly shows the complete opposite.
On the other side of unemployment are the businesses who do not hire. Obama recently called out businesses for sitting on 1.8 trillion dollars that they could be using for hiring new employees. But Congress has done little to spur private sector growth by leaving lingering uncertainty about tax rates. Congress adjourned without voting on whether to extend the Bush tax cuts, leaving small businesses and S-class corporations especially vulnerable. Reason reports that according to the National Federation of Independent Business, the largest small business association in the country, two-thirds of small businesses report their business income through the personal income tax system. Business owners who claim over $250,000 on their tax return but use most of that money to pay employees or fixed costs will find themselves hit with the millionaire's tax (leave it to government to start the "millionaire's tax" at a quarter of a million dollars). If you owned a small business and knew this possibility was looming, would you hire new employees?
To spur private employment and increase total revenue to the government, we already have a great example of what should be done. Tax rates should be cut, incentives should be aligned toward employment and government should get out of the way. Reagan taught us this. Unfortunately I don't have much faith that this administration will ever get the message because of something else Reagan taught us, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
By extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, Obama has expanded the safety net into a hammock. Extensions to unemployment are always popular when they pass because Americans rightfully feel sorry for those who are out of work. While a case can be made for some minimal support, the massive extension of benefits changes the market incentives. As John Stossel reports, when Denmark extended their unemployment benefits to 4 years, the average length of unemployment was 4 years. When extended to 5 years, many people found employment only after 5 years.
Speaker Pelosi defends the unemployment benefits by saying they are one of the biggest job creating initiatives and that they are the most useful of all stimulus spending.
Of course, every spending bill is defended by the administration as stimulus but no economist (with the unfortunate exception of Paul Krugman) would argue that unemployment creates jobs. The data clearly shows the complete opposite.
On the other side of unemployment are the businesses who do not hire. Obama recently called out businesses for sitting on 1.8 trillion dollars that they could be using for hiring new employees. But Congress has done little to spur private sector growth by leaving lingering uncertainty about tax rates. Congress adjourned without voting on whether to extend the Bush tax cuts, leaving small businesses and S-class corporations especially vulnerable. Reason reports that according to the National Federation of Independent Business, the largest small business association in the country, two-thirds of small businesses report their business income through the personal income tax system. Business owners who claim over $250,000 on their tax return but use most of that money to pay employees or fixed costs will find themselves hit with the millionaire's tax (leave it to government to start the "millionaire's tax" at a quarter of a million dollars). If you owned a small business and knew this possibility was looming, would you hire new employees?
To spur private employment and increase total revenue to the government, we already have a great example of what should be done. Tax rates should be cut, incentives should be aligned toward employment and government should get out of the way. Reagan taught us this. Unfortunately I don't have much faith that this administration will ever get the message because of something else Reagan taught us, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Just Say Now
In November, Californians will vote on Proposition 19 which would decriminalize possession and growing of marijuana. What makes this measure different from all the other measures that have been put on the ballot in California and other states before is that Prop 19 is actually polling positively at nearly fifty percent and could possibly pass.
Why is this important to most Americans who neither smoke pot nor have any intention to if it passes? Because we all pay the price for the misguided prohibition policies in the guise of the War on Drugs. Prohibition is the wrong way way to approach drugs for at least three reasons.
The first reason is prohibition impinges upon each person's right to be sovereign over their own body. As long as you are not hurting someone else, you should not be restricted in any way by the government. Protecting people from themselves is a futile effort and often leads to prohibition on things like trans fats, salt and other "lesser evils".
The second reason is prohibition does not work. We tried banning alcohol and it was a miserable failure. By allowing a significant market to become a black market, we empowered and enriched criminals. This isn't to say that alcohol legalization does not have negative side effects. In 2008, 13,846 people were killed in drunk driving accidents. That's 37 percent of all traffic accidents. In 1982, 26,173 people died in drunk driving accidents. That's 60 percent of all traffic accidents. Even with these gruesome statistics, we know better than to try to ban booze. Alcohol prohibition did little to decrease use while causing other more serious unintended consequences.
Black markets work the same way other markets do. A shortage causes prices to spike which causes more product to be pushed to market. Each big drug bust is a notice to suppliers to send more product to take advantage of artificially inflated prices. Each big arrest creates a power vacuum for a person to satisfy the constant demand that has existed since the beginning of time and will exist until the end of time. Disagreements between competitors often favor the party willing to be more violent, leading to a natural selection for more and more violent criminals.
The third reason is we all pay the financial cost of the Drug War. The direct cost of the Drug War is somewhere around $40 billion dollars a year. However, when you factor in the cost to incarcerate nonviolent offenders, subsidies to foreign countries like Mexico to fight their regional drug wars, prosecution costs, police overtime costs, etc. the cost edges up to nearly $50 billion a year. By comparison, taxing and regulating marijuana would bring a billion dollars annually in California alone. If replicated throughout the US, several billion could be brought in annually. Between not funding the War on Drugs and collection of tax revenue, the total swing could approach $60 billion a year in the taxpayers' favor.
We are already living with the negative side effects of marijuana but why should we have to live with the unintended consequences of prohibition? We don't fear cigarette manufacturers or French wine cartels even if we do live with the realization of lung cancer and drunk driving. With or without legalization, people will get stoned. The Sisyphean Drug War only ensures that we have to deal with the worst possible consequences of that fact.
Why is this important to most Americans who neither smoke pot nor have any intention to if it passes? Because we all pay the price for the misguided prohibition policies in the guise of the War on Drugs. Prohibition is the wrong way way to approach drugs for at least three reasons.
The first reason is prohibition impinges upon each person's right to be sovereign over their own body. As long as you are not hurting someone else, you should not be restricted in any way by the government. Protecting people from themselves is a futile effort and often leads to prohibition on things like trans fats, salt and other "lesser evils".
The second reason is prohibition does not work. We tried banning alcohol and it was a miserable failure. By allowing a significant market to become a black market, we empowered and enriched criminals. This isn't to say that alcohol legalization does not have negative side effects. In 2008, 13,846 people were killed in drunk driving accidents. That's 37 percent of all traffic accidents. In 1982, 26,173 people died in drunk driving accidents. That's 60 percent of all traffic accidents. Even with these gruesome statistics, we know better than to try to ban booze. Alcohol prohibition did little to decrease use while causing other more serious unintended consequences.
Black markets work the same way other markets do. A shortage causes prices to spike which causes more product to be pushed to market. Each big drug bust is a notice to suppliers to send more product to take advantage of artificially inflated prices. Each big arrest creates a power vacuum for a person to satisfy the constant demand that has existed since the beginning of time and will exist until the end of time. Disagreements between competitors often favor the party willing to be more violent, leading to a natural selection for more and more violent criminals.
The third reason is we all pay the financial cost of the Drug War. The direct cost of the Drug War is somewhere around $40 billion dollars a year. However, when you factor in the cost to incarcerate nonviolent offenders, subsidies to foreign countries like Mexico to fight their regional drug wars, prosecution costs, police overtime costs, etc. the cost edges up to nearly $50 billion a year. By comparison, taxing and regulating marijuana would bring a billion dollars annually in California alone. If replicated throughout the US, several billion could be brought in annually. Between not funding the War on Drugs and collection of tax revenue, the total swing could approach $60 billion a year in the taxpayers' favor.
We are already living with the negative side effects of marijuana but why should we have to live with the unintended consequences of prohibition? We don't fear cigarette manufacturers or French wine cartels even if we do live with the realization of lung cancer and drunk driving. With or without legalization, people will get stoned. The Sisyphean Drug War only ensures that we have to deal with the worst possible consequences of that fact.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Crouching Patriot, Hidden Bircher
Most people have heard about the book, The 5,000 Year Leap. It's billed as a book which explains about how representative democracy, which began in the US, propelled humanity forward the same distance in 200 years as it had taken 5,000 to previously transverse. In terms of freeing up markets and granting people civil rights, America became a place where it was better to have a great idea than to be born into an aristocratic family. This allowed America to progress at a greater rate than nations who still answered to a monarch or where social status was the sole determinant.
Principles 1-5 are directly related to God or morality, Principle 9 refers to divine law. The remaining principles are all derived from a narrow view of religion and seem to only have a thin veneer of political thought. As a religious book, it's passable if not quite inspiring. As a political book, it's garbage.
After suffering through fifty pages, I decided to look up the author. From the introduction, he described himself only as a constitutional historian but I guessed there was more to that story. The author, Cleon Skousen, turned out to be a Mormon evangelizer and an associate of the John Birch society. His other works covered topics such as New World Order conspiracies, end of the world prophecies, and parenting (I have not read the parenting books by him, but I can't quite recommend them either!).
After reading up on Skousen, I contacted Amazon and told them I had bought the book in error. It was removed from my Kindle and I was issued a full refund. I suppose many people would have let their experience with the book pass without comment or simply would have stopped reading the book without undertaking the level of research I did. My reason for needing to warn others about the author is as much motivated by personal reasons as political ones. Over the years I have read thousands of books. While other kids played, I read. In 26 years, I have only ever not finished three books after starting them. The first was an uninteresting and over-technical book by Piers Anthony in the Mode series which was a fantasy series based around the geometric pattern of the Mandelbrot set. The second was Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. Zinn was at best a deluded moron or at worst a pathological liar, there is enough there to start another post so I'll simply direct anyone interested in Zinn to Reason.com's latest post on him. The third will be the 5,000 Year Leap.
Having only heard about the book in passing but agreeing with the thesis in general, I decided to purchase a copy for my new Kindle. The sample section talked about federalism, the Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, Jamestown, socialism, and capitalism. After purchasing the book, however, I learned that the real message had to do with the supposed 28 principles for good government and that is when I started to notice a trend.
Principles 1-5 are directly related to God or morality, Principle 9 refers to divine law. The remaining principles are all derived from a narrow view of religion and seem to only have a thin veneer of political thought. As a religious book, it's passable if not quite inspiring. As a political book, it's garbage.
After suffering through fifty pages, I decided to look up the author. From the introduction, he described himself only as a constitutional historian but I guessed there was more to that story. The author, Cleon Skousen, turned out to be a Mormon evangelizer and an associate of the John Birch society. His other works covered topics such as New World Order conspiracies, end of the world prophecies, and parenting (I have not read the parenting books by him, but I can't quite recommend them either!).
For those not familiar with the John Birch Society, it takes what should be a good foundation of anti-communism and succeeds into making it a bizarre belief system. Birchers, as they are often called, believe President Eisenhower was a communist. They also believe that adding fluoride to the drinking water (which occurred way back in 1945) was a communist plot. As Ayn Rand said of them, "What is wrong with them is that they don't seem to have any specific, clearly defined political philosophy. I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism, but merely against communism. I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today's world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naive and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy, it can be destroyed only by ideas. The Birchers seem to be either nonintellectual or anti-intellectual. They do not attach importance to ideas. They do not realize that the great battle in the world today is a philosophical, ideological conflict."
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Are You A Good Witch Or A Bad Witch?
Christine O'Donnell upset the GOP establishment candidate for the Delaware primary in the Senate race last week. The establishment candidate, Mike Castle, was a nine term member of the House who supported abortion, gun control, cap and trade, and did not support repealing Obamacare. A virtual unknown in the race several weeks ago, Sarah Palin's endorsement rocketed her past Mike Castle with six points to spare. Unfortunately, that's when the trouble started.
Mike Castle ran negative campaign ads against O'Donnell but it is when she won the primary that the national media starting repeating the same set of talking points. One Mike Castle ad that has found new life in syndication claims that O'Donnell "owes $11,744 in back taxes and penalties," and "was sued by Fairleigh Dickenson University for unpaid expenses." The ad goes on to say O'Donnell, "defaulted on her mortgage," "ran up huge campaign debt and left vendors and staff unpaid," and "used campaign donations to pay her rent."
Back in 1999 while on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect", O' Donnell said, "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven." She continued, "I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar."
To overcome this perception, O' Donnell should be going on every interview she can while being prepped for the tough questions she will inevitably get. Unfortunately she seems to be passing up early chances to change the tone and her campaign is suffering.
Unlike Sharron Angle or Rand Paul, this "Tea Party" candidate looks almost completely unelectable. Whether religious people take offense to the witchcraft statement or the nonreligious just find her too kooky, she has an almost impossible uphill battle. Although many in Obama's cabinet also have large unpaid tax bills, it is a bigger deal for someone who is pushing fiscal restraint.
I disagree with her opponent, Coons, on more substantive issues and her win could be the 51st Senate seat so I must say that despite all this I will likely vote for her. If it was anything short of that level of importance, I would likely vote 3rd party.
Although the Tea Party can do great things, we must remember the rule given to us by the great William F. Buckley, "Support the most conservative candidate who is electable." The Tea Party must not assume its own enthusiasm is enough to elect candidates, especially in the Northeast.
Mike Castle ran negative campaign ads against O'Donnell but it is when she won the primary that the national media starting repeating the same set of talking points. One Mike Castle ad that has found new life in syndication claims that O'Donnell "owes $11,744 in back taxes and penalties," and "was sued by Fairleigh Dickenson University for unpaid expenses." The ad goes on to say O'Donnell, "defaulted on her mortgage," "ran up huge campaign debt and left vendors and staff unpaid," and "used campaign donations to pay her rent."
Back in 1999 while on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect", O' Donnell said, "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven." She continued, "I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar."
To overcome this perception, O' Donnell should be going on every interview she can while being prepped for the tough questions she will inevitably get. Unfortunately she seems to be passing up early chances to change the tone and her campaign is suffering.
Unlike Sharron Angle or Rand Paul, this "Tea Party" candidate looks almost completely unelectable. Whether religious people take offense to the witchcraft statement or the nonreligious just find her too kooky, she has an almost impossible uphill battle. Although many in Obama's cabinet also have large unpaid tax bills, it is a bigger deal for someone who is pushing fiscal restraint.
I disagree with her opponent, Coons, on more substantive issues and her win could be the 51st Senate seat so I must say that despite all this I will likely vote for her. If it was anything short of that level of importance, I would likely vote 3rd party.
Although the Tea Party can do great things, we must remember the rule given to us by the great William F. Buckley, "Support the most conservative candidate who is electable." The Tea Party must not assume its own enthusiasm is enough to elect candidates, especially in the Northeast.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Don't Believe Obama's Deathbed Conversion On Tax Cuts
After borrowing money, printing money and raising taxes (or "fees" if you believe the text of the Obamacare legislation), Obama now says he wants to give Americans a tax cut. Some speculated that even Obama realizes his stimulus programs didn't work and is now pursuing solutions within the Austrian school of economics. This view was shattered when Obama took to the road touting the necessity of a second stimulus. Although he hypes the tax cut portion of it, there is also 50 billion dollars for infrastructure repair (didn't we already designate a 767 billion dollar stimulus for "mostly" infrastructure repair? Those roads must be in terrible shape!).
And even when it comes to tax cuts, Obama has decided to extend them only to the middle class regardless of the fact that filers in the top 3 percent are responsible for generating 50 percent of small business income. While this would still help the poor and middle class by reducing their tax bill, it would do nothing to improve the economy which would them exponentially more than a tax cut alone. In fact, since Obama's tax cut is really only a middle class only extension of the currently active Bush tax cut, high earners actually face a tax hike.
Senior citizens might be some of the hardest hit by the new tax structure, according to Heritage. While the Medicare Advantage supplemental program will be done away with in part to move $500 billion out of Medicare and into Obamacare, subsidies to similar plans will be cut forcing premiums up. Ninety-one percent of all Medicare beneficiaries have some kind of supplemental coverage. While seniors costs will go up, their income may decline due to the dividend tax rate rising (as referenced previously in End The Recession By Taxing The Rich). The taxes are projected to drop the value of stock prices by 211 billion dollars. Seniors hold the most stock of any demographic group and are most likely to hold high dividend stocks which are perceived as lower-risk.
Regardless of his motivation, Obama deserves at least a little credit for proposing the extension of tax cuts but when the alternative is raising taxes in the midst of a recession the amount of credit is small indeed. Although more an idealist than a pragmatist, even Obama saw the political repercussions of not extending the tax cuts. Let's just hope a Republican House can hold his feet to the fire after November and force him permanently into a pragmatic mindset.
And even when it comes to tax cuts, Obama has decided to extend them only to the middle class regardless of the fact that filers in the top 3 percent are responsible for generating 50 percent of small business income. While this would still help the poor and middle class by reducing their tax bill, it would do nothing to improve the economy which would them exponentially more than a tax cut alone. In fact, since Obama's tax cut is really only a middle class only extension of the currently active Bush tax cut, high earners actually face a tax hike.
Senior citizens might be some of the hardest hit by the new tax structure, according to Heritage. While the Medicare Advantage supplemental program will be done away with in part to move $500 billion out of Medicare and into Obamacare, subsidies to similar plans will be cut forcing premiums up. Ninety-one percent of all Medicare beneficiaries have some kind of supplemental coverage. While seniors costs will go up, their income may decline due to the dividend tax rate rising (as referenced previously in End The Recession By Taxing The Rich). The taxes are projected to drop the value of stock prices by 211 billion dollars. Seniors hold the most stock of any demographic group and are most likely to hold high dividend stocks which are perceived as lower-risk.
Regardless of his motivation, Obama deserves at least a little credit for proposing the extension of tax cuts but when the alternative is raising taxes in the midst of a recession the amount of credit is small indeed. Although more an idealist than a pragmatist, even Obama saw the political repercussions of not extending the tax cuts. Let's just hope a Republican House can hold his feet to the fire after November and force him permanently into a pragmatic mindset.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Vacation Post
Happy Labor Day to everyone. I'll be taking a working vacation this weekend trying to clean up the house and hit as many barbecues as possible. This week's update is a riff off of Bud Light's Real Men of Genius ads. This week we salute Vice President Joe Biden.
On my computer, the video seems to be a little out of frame so you can click on the video area itself to go to the Youtube source link if you have the same issue.
On my computer, the video seems to be a little out of frame so you can click on the video area itself to go to the Youtube source link if you have the same issue.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
"Unity" Mosque Causes Deep Divisions
Ever since the media first started covering the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque," there has been a frenzy of strongly stated dissenting opinions. Many on the left say we should accept the mosque at face value and accept it as part of the healing process. Those on the right are suspicious of the imams and the financial backers' motives. It's odd to see the left jumping to the mosque's defense and citing freedom of religion. Aren't these the same people who started the Freedom From Religion Foundation?
While the left is certainly deserving of mockery for their selective outrage (would they feel the same way about a church being built close to the site where a believer bombed an abortion clinic? Certainly they wouldn't tar an entire religion for the acts of one member, right?), that doesn't mean that the right is handling the issue well. Some conservatives want to see building codes enforced to the point where the mosque is effectively blocked by the state. Bad idea. Republicans knew this ten years ago when they passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. RLUIPA, as it is awkwardly abbreviated, was aimed at local government bodies using zoning authority to prevent religious institutions from moving in or expanding their operations. Land use laws are so byzantine that any building can be prevented from being built almost anywhere almost anytime. However, by preventing the building of one mosque we would not only give government a stick to use against thousands of churches but we would also not be living up to the values that Americans hold dear.
So does that mean the mosque has to be built? Not necessarily. Public pressure is still a legitimate way to deter the mosque being built. To tar those who oppose the mosque as right-wing racists is lunacy. A majority (52%) of New Yorkers oppose the mosque and Big Apple residents are not exactly known for their conservative bona fides. This kind of pressure was legitimate when Jews opposed the monastery at Auschwitz. Although no one doubted the Catholic nuns had the best of intentions in praying for those who perished in the Holocaust, Jews felt the ground was sacred to them and demanded the monastery be moved. Pope John Paul II obliged and agreed it was "hallowed ground." Even without suspecting the imam's motives, there are legitimate objections to the mosque.
And for those who would like to take a closer look at Imam Rauf's motives, he is putting fuel on the fire. A mere 19 days after the attack he contends that the US was an accessory to 9/11.
The imam also was caught on tape saying that America has more blood on its hands than Al Qaeda although the video has been quickly pulled by the copyright owner. Also for someone who claims unity is his goal, he seems fine with opposing more than 50% of New Yorkers. When it comes to funding he says he will not accept money from terrorist organizations but when asked if Hamas and Hezbollah were terrorist organizations, he refuses to answer.
Whether you question his motives or just think that he should voluntarily be respectful of the land he is choosing to build on, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose the mosque but if he chooses to press on, I would rather have a mosque at Ground Zero than a black mark on our history of the government not impinging on religious freedom.
While the left is certainly deserving of mockery for their selective outrage (would they feel the same way about a church being built close to the site where a believer bombed an abortion clinic? Certainly they wouldn't tar an entire religion for the acts of one member, right?), that doesn't mean that the right is handling the issue well. Some conservatives want to see building codes enforced to the point where the mosque is effectively blocked by the state. Bad idea. Republicans knew this ten years ago when they passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. RLUIPA, as it is awkwardly abbreviated, was aimed at local government bodies using zoning authority to prevent religious institutions from moving in or expanding their operations. Land use laws are so byzantine that any building can be prevented from being built almost anywhere almost anytime. However, by preventing the building of one mosque we would not only give government a stick to use against thousands of churches but we would also not be living up to the values that Americans hold dear.
So does that mean the mosque has to be built? Not necessarily. Public pressure is still a legitimate way to deter the mosque being built. To tar those who oppose the mosque as right-wing racists is lunacy. A majority (52%) of New Yorkers oppose the mosque and Big Apple residents are not exactly known for their conservative bona fides. This kind of pressure was legitimate when Jews opposed the monastery at Auschwitz. Although no one doubted the Catholic nuns had the best of intentions in praying for those who perished in the Holocaust, Jews felt the ground was sacred to them and demanded the monastery be moved. Pope John Paul II obliged and agreed it was "hallowed ground." Even without suspecting the imam's motives, there are legitimate objections to the mosque.
And for those who would like to take a closer look at Imam Rauf's motives, he is putting fuel on the fire. A mere 19 days after the attack he contends that the US was an accessory to 9/11.
The imam also was caught on tape saying that America has more blood on its hands than Al Qaeda although the video has been quickly pulled by the copyright owner. Also for someone who claims unity is his goal, he seems fine with opposing more than 50% of New Yorkers. When it comes to funding he says he will not accept money from terrorist organizations but when asked if Hamas and Hezbollah were terrorist organizations, he refuses to answer.
Whether you question his motives or just think that he should voluntarily be respectful of the land he is choosing to build on, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose the mosque but if he chooses to press on, I would rather have a mosque at Ground Zero than a black mark on our history of the government not impinging on religious freedom.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Media Being Left By The Wayside
Americans have always relied on the media to keep tabs on those in power. It now seems we need someone to keep tabs on the media.
During the 2008 primaries an online listserv group of liberal journalists going by the name Journolist plotted to cover up the Jeremiah Wright story in an effort to boost Obama into the Presidency. Sound like a nutty right wing conspiracy? Not so. According to records obtained by Tucker Carlson of the Daily Caller this actually happened.
During the debates when Obama was asked by George Stephanopoulos, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” Richard Kim of the Nation fumed on Journolist that Stephanopoulos was “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent went even further. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” He continued: “I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a right winger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously, I mean this rhetorically.” I guess I should be thankful he only meant it "rhetorically."
As if journalists showing their already present biases weren't enough Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun, suggested “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?”
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Government In Your Bathroom and Car
Buying your first house and moving out of state is a unique experience. Maybe I just feel that way because that is where I am in life but to be sure there are more than a few things to be learned in the process and almost as many to be detested. Most are the result of government intervention into that which they have no reason to be involved with.
Shortly after moving in I learned that the showerhead didn't work. Not a problem, I ran to Home Depot and bought a new one. As I perused the instructions I found an interesting statement along the bottom in small type: This product meets federal standards for GPM and psi. GPM, as I learned later, stands for gallons per minute. Federal law decrees that showerheads may have a maximum of 2.5 GPM and at no greater pressure than 80 psi. Fortunately the law was largely unenforced except for those unlucky to sell nonconforming showerheads, such as Paul Coombs of Zoe Industries, in states that had laws that mirrored the federal statute. However the Wall Street Journal reports that this could all change soon. Some "rain-fall" showerheads emit as much as 12 GPM. Some showerheads that aid disabled people could also be in violation. Many older units installed in schools and gyms could also run afoul of the law. The proponents of the law claim this will save water. It might, although some people may choose to take longer showers after turning in their nonstandard heads. It would also undoubtedly reduce water usage to pass a law saying no one may shower for longer than 15 minutes, or to limit people to one shower a day. A faucet that leaks twice per minute will waste over 100 gallons of water a year, maybe the government should mandate random home inspections as well. As always the government is making a token effort to control people's behavior in one specific and business unfriendly fashion while not doing much at all to solve the problem. I wouldn't want a "rain-fall" showerhead even if it was legal. I fixed all the leaky faucets in my house when I moved in not because I am worried about the planet but because I didn't want to pay for 100 gallons of water a year that I was gaining no benefit from. Water costs money and many would choose to use a showerhead that is economical. Do we really need a law that would prevent those willing to pay a little more for a higher volume of water per minute from having it?
Shortly after replacing the water head, I had a similar situation with my new toilet. My old one was an older model which used 3.5 gallons per flush. New toilets must be "low-flow" toilets that only use 1.6 gallons per flush. Although it is not illegal to operate an older toilet, it is illegal to install them if your old one breaks. "Low-flow" toilets are more economical but less effective. Once again, it is a choice that is taken away from consumers by government busybodies.
Federalism is one of the great things about America. Each state can pass its own laws independently of the federal government as long as they do not contradict eachother. The framers envisioned the federal government to pass basic laws and leave the details to the states. Unfortunately, the federal government got in the business of details and states now regulate even further. After returning to the DMV for my license plates, I was confused. I was only issued one plate. I had previously had two in New Jersey. Only a rear plate is necessary for most states, I came to realize. Problem is when I bought my car in New Jersey, the plate holder was mounted to bumper. After removing the New Jersey plates, as is required by law, I ended up with this:
I am not really a car person so I'm not furious that my car has prominent nail holes in it now but why do states regulate cars down to the details of numbers of plates? What about cars sold to out of state used car lots that don't have matching laws? A cop trails someone before pulling them over, so what is the need of the front plate? It's OK though, I can now hang a vanity plate on the front, I was thinking of something like NOCHANGE in this holder:
Shortly after moving in I learned that the showerhead didn't work. Not a problem, I ran to Home Depot and bought a new one. As I perused the instructions I found an interesting statement along the bottom in small type: This product meets federal standards for GPM and psi. GPM, as I learned later, stands for gallons per minute. Federal law decrees that showerheads may have a maximum of 2.5 GPM and at no greater pressure than 80 psi. Fortunately the law was largely unenforced except for those unlucky to sell nonconforming showerheads, such as Paul Coombs of Zoe Industries, in states that had laws that mirrored the federal statute. However the Wall Street Journal reports that this could all change soon. Some "rain-fall" showerheads emit as much as 12 GPM. Some showerheads that aid disabled people could also be in violation. Many older units installed in schools and gyms could also run afoul of the law. The proponents of the law claim this will save water. It might, although some people may choose to take longer showers after turning in their nonstandard heads. It would also undoubtedly reduce water usage to pass a law saying no one may shower for longer than 15 minutes, or to limit people to one shower a day. A faucet that leaks twice per minute will waste over 100 gallons of water a year, maybe the government should mandate random home inspections as well. As always the government is making a token effort to control people's behavior in one specific and business unfriendly fashion while not doing much at all to solve the problem. I wouldn't want a "rain-fall" showerhead even if it was legal. I fixed all the leaky faucets in my house when I moved in not because I am worried about the planet but because I didn't want to pay for 100 gallons of water a year that I was gaining no benefit from. Water costs money and many would choose to use a showerhead that is economical. Do we really need a law that would prevent those willing to pay a little more for a higher volume of water per minute from having it?
Shortly after replacing the water head, I had a similar situation with my new toilet. My old one was an older model which used 3.5 gallons per flush. New toilets must be "low-flow" toilets that only use 1.6 gallons per flush. Although it is not illegal to operate an older toilet, it is illegal to install them if your old one breaks. "Low-flow" toilets are more economical but less effective. Once again, it is a choice that is taken away from consumers by government busybodies.
Federalism is one of the great things about America. Each state can pass its own laws independently of the federal government as long as they do not contradict eachother. The framers envisioned the federal government to pass basic laws and leave the details to the states. Unfortunately, the federal government got in the business of details and states now regulate even further. After returning to the DMV for my license plates, I was confused. I was only issued one plate. I had previously had two in New Jersey. Only a rear plate is necessary for most states, I came to realize. Problem is when I bought my car in New Jersey, the plate holder was mounted to bumper. After removing the New Jersey plates, as is required by law, I ended up with this:
I am not really a car person so I'm not furious that my car has prominent nail holes in it now but why do states regulate cars down to the details of numbers of plates? What about cars sold to out of state used car lots that don't have matching laws? A cop trails someone before pulling them over, so what is the need of the front plate? It's OK though, I can now hang a vanity plate on the front, I was thinking of something like NOCHANGE in this holder:
Monday, August 2, 2010
From libertarian to Libertarian
Since about 2005, I've considered myself a libertarian. The lower case "l" designates that ideologically I am in the camp but not necessarily a member of the Libertarian party. Since I could vote, I have always been a registered Republican. It's not that I was hedging my bet or being indecisive or using the libertarian title as a way to be a conservative without being written off as a Republican during the Bush years, it was simply that as a registered Republican I could vote in their primary whereas the Libertarians had no primary.
Recently I moved to Delaware and had the pleasure of going to the DMV to get my license, registration, title, and inspection transferred over. As I walked through the doors of the dingy government building, a emotionless bureaucrat mumbled "3 hour wait" as he handed me a number. I got back into my car and drove around the previously unexplored area for an hour, picked up lunch, cleaned out my car, and even thumbed through my car manual a few dozen times. As I returned to the lobby and watched the numbers tick away (still 100+ from my own), I couldn't help thinking about how some states had allowed the private sector to compete for government contracts to provide services. I couldn't think of any time in my life where a restaurant had told me they had a 3 hour wait but somehow when government gets involved, it's not only accepted but expected.
Finally my number is called and I approach the stall. "What do you need today?" the bureaucrat asks.
"Everything," I reply, "just moved from New Jersey and I need my license, registration, title, and inspection transferred over."
The bureaucrat smiles as if he knows I might try to reach over the stall and throttle him in the next few seconds, "I can help you with your license," he starts, "I would normally give you another number to start in the title line but it's 4:45 and we close at 4:30. I'm not allowed to issue any more numbers after closing time."
Incredulously I reply, "But I've been here since 1 PM."
The bureaucrat's smile became more strained, "I'm really sorry but you'll have to come back. Let's take care of your license though. Please look into the camera but don't smile"
"No risk of that," I deadpanned.
"Would you like to become an organ donor or register to vote?" He meekly asked.
"Yes to both," I curtly responded.
"Party affiliation?" He inquired.
"Libertarian," I said with no hesitation. I hadn't planned to change from Republican but as I looked around the DMV and wondered why the hell anyone would trust government to register vehicles, or even more surprisingly run a national health care system or write tax law or run the school system or run the park system or do any damn thing, it was clear I had moved beyond the bounds of the Republican Party.
I collected my license, left the DMV cursing and got into my still unregistered-in-Delaware car and drove home. A few days later I received a voting card in the mail:
I couldn't hardly believe it except that I should have expected it, they misspelled "Libertarian." I guess I am a "Libertarin" at least until my license expires in 5 years. Yeah, I truly believe government cannot do anything right. That's why I went from a libertarian to to a Libertarian...or a Libertarin depending on who you ask.
Recently I moved to Delaware and had the pleasure of going to the DMV to get my license, registration, title, and inspection transferred over. As I walked through the doors of the dingy government building, a emotionless bureaucrat mumbled "3 hour wait" as he handed me a number. I got back into my car and drove around the previously unexplored area for an hour, picked up lunch, cleaned out my car, and even thumbed through my car manual a few dozen times. As I returned to the lobby and watched the numbers tick away (still 100+ from my own), I couldn't help thinking about how some states had allowed the private sector to compete for government contracts to provide services. I couldn't think of any time in my life where a restaurant had told me they had a 3 hour wait but somehow when government gets involved, it's not only accepted but expected.
Finally my number is called and I approach the stall. "What do you need today?" the bureaucrat asks.
"Everything," I reply, "just moved from New Jersey and I need my license, registration, title, and inspection transferred over."
The bureaucrat smiles as if he knows I might try to reach over the stall and throttle him in the next few seconds, "I can help you with your license," he starts, "I would normally give you another number to start in the title line but it's 4:45 and we close at 4:30. I'm not allowed to issue any more numbers after closing time."
Incredulously I reply, "But I've been here since 1 PM."
The bureaucrat's smile became more strained, "I'm really sorry but you'll have to come back. Let's take care of your license though. Please look into the camera but don't smile"
"No risk of that," I deadpanned.
"Would you like to become an organ donor or register to vote?" He meekly asked.
"Yes to both," I curtly responded.
"Party affiliation?" He inquired.
"Libertarian," I said with no hesitation. I hadn't planned to change from Republican but as I looked around the DMV and wondered why the hell anyone would trust government to register vehicles, or even more surprisingly run a national health care system or write tax law or run the school system or run the park system or do any damn thing, it was clear I had moved beyond the bounds of the Republican Party.
I collected my license, left the DMV cursing and got into my still unregistered-in-Delaware car and drove home. A few days later I received a voting card in the mail:
I couldn't hardly believe it except that I should have expected it, they misspelled "Libertarian." I guess I am a "Libertarin" at least until my license expires in 5 years. Yeah, I truly believe government cannot do anything right. That's why I went from a libertarian to to a Libertarian...or a Libertarin depending on who you ask.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Yes They Did?
Barack Obama has a new campaign slogan as the midterm elections approach, "Yes We Did." Really? The Democrats are going to run on their record over the last 2 years? I figured since we are around the 100 day mark out from the midterms, the point at which things start to heat up, we should look back and see what Obama and the congressional Democrats have done over the last 2 years:
- Although Obama promised that if we passed his stimulus that unemployment would remain below 8%, unemployment has remained above 9% for several quarters, it has remained above 15% including an unprecedented high level of discouraged workers (also known as the U-6 index). The chairman of tthe Fed has suggested it will remain above 7% for the rest of Obama's term.
- Obama dithered when McChrystal asked for troops in Afghanistan last year even though the general warned of mission failure. Obama eventually gave McChrystal a fraction of the requested troops after several months of delay and only after his nonresponse was leaked to the media. July was the bloodiest month of the Afghan front and a Rolling Stone reporter recorded the general bashing the President, saying he wasn't taking the war seriously.
- Obama seemed to take the oil spill unseriously, only lifting the Jones Act to let in foreign oil skimmer after two and a half months. Although BP rightfully should have taken point on the clean-up, it is becoming more and more clear that Obama actually stood in the way of the clean-up. From rejecting berms from being built, to demanding the Coast Guard call all boats back to check if they had adequate safety gear, to ridiculous OSHA regulations requiring cleanup workers to take mandatory breaks after 20 minutes of work, it is emerging that the federal government made the spill much worse than it had to be.
- Obama is raising taxes the first of next year by letting the Bush tax cuts expire as explained in depth in my post "End The Recession By Taxing The Rich!"
- Obama alienated our allies. Obama returned the bust of Churchill to the British shortly after taking office. The bust was on loan after 9/11 and its return was considered a rude act by the Brits who expected the White House to hold onto it for another 4 years. Obama has alienated Turkey, our only real Muslim ally, who is now going through a rapproachment with Iran. Use of Turkey's airspace is crucial for the planned countermeasures necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons, which many people believe could happen in the next year.
- Obama has been quick to deny any systemic Islamofacist threat after every attempted attack on this country during his tenure. Whether it be the Fort Hood shooter, who had business cards stating he was a "Soldier of Allah" or the Christmas Day bomber, whose father told the FBI his son had been radicalized, or the Times Square bomber who was seen in a video meeting with the head of the radical terrorist organization Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan.
- Despite supposedly being a "post-racial" candidate, Obama has repeatedly engaged in demagoguery to rally his base. Whether it be saying that the cops "acted stupidly" in the Cambridge police case, dismissing voter intimidation charges against the Black Panthers in Philly or jumping the gun on firing Sherrod at the USDA, Obama seems mired in the race hustling politics that you would expect Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson to participate in.
- Obama spent much time both on the campaign trail and in office decrying the Bush administration tactics of rendition, military tribunals and using Guantanamo to house prisoners. However, Obama still uses rendition, backed off of public civilian trials for terrorists after Americans became furious with the handling of Khalid-Sheikh Mohammed, and Gitmo is still running almost a year after Obama's self imposed deadline with no sign of closing during his first term.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Vacation Post = Short Post
Was in North Carolina this weekend and there was some interesting local news. Congressman, Bob Etheridge, (D-NC) apparently was stumbling down the street drunk as a skunk during broad daylight when two students with a camera asked him if he supported Obama's agenda. The congressman grabs them and tries to steal the camera eventually taking an awkward swipe at one while clutching the student's wrist. Of course it is all on Youtube:
If he's this drunk now, just imagine how blotto he'll be after the midterm election results come in.
If he's this drunk now, just imagine how blotto he'll be after the midterm election results come in.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Vacation Time
Due to an extended vacation, updates may be spotty or completely nonexistent for the next couple weeks. Probably completely nonexistent.
If you find yourself unable to cope without conservative commentary, please visit some of my favorites:
Reason has great libertarian commentary, John Stossel's weekly column can be found there. Nick Gillespie also does amazing work. My hands down favorite.
George F. Will is a great level headed conservative who opposes the war, I don't always agree with him but he makes compelling arguments.
Pat Buchanan is a paleoconservative whose protectionist arguments I disagree with but he always makes his points.
Drudge Report is a great place to get headlines of current news. Some commentary here but mostly articles from major newspapers like the NYT.
Charles Krauthammer is more of a Neocon but still has thoughtful pieces. It's OK to call him a neocon because he is, in fact, Jewish. Sorry liberal media, only Jews can be neocons, just ask Irving Kristol who invented the term.
If you find yourself unable to cope without conservative commentary, please visit some of my favorites:
Reason has great libertarian commentary, John Stossel's weekly column can be found there. Nick Gillespie also does amazing work. My hands down favorite.
George F. Will is a great level headed conservative who opposes the war, I don't always agree with him but he makes compelling arguments.
Pat Buchanan is a paleoconservative whose protectionist arguments I disagree with but he always makes his points.
Drudge Report is a great place to get headlines of current news. Some commentary here but mostly articles from major newspapers like the NYT.
Charles Krauthammer is more of a Neocon but still has thoughtful pieces. It's OK to call him a neocon because he is, in fact, Jewish. Sorry liberal media, only Jews can be neocons, just ask Irving Kristol who invented the term.
McChrystal Out, Petraeus In
What was McChrystal thinking? While chatting up a Rolling Stone reporter, the general managed to trash the civilian leadership (read: the White House) of the war. Some of the points I found enlightening like Obama meeting McChrystal for the first time and making nothing more than a photo-op out of the whole deal with no talk of substance. Others I found merely redundant, apparently McChrystal thinks Biden is a moron which puts him in the company of not only most Americans but most Democrats (no poll linked, just ask one). As bad as the photo-op meeting with the President must have been, Rolling Stone is not the place to voice your outrage.
It's hard to say what the result of McChrystal's dismissal might be. Changing generals is a legitimate way to change the tide in a war. With June facing up to be the bloodiest month in Afghanistan, this might merely be a less critical way to push a general with a flawed vision aside. The question is was it for the that reason? If instead it was due to the Rolling Stone article, Obama is not living up to his idol. As Reason reports "Once, when Lincoln paid an evening visit to his top commander, George McClellan, the famously arrogant general came home and went to bed without so much as acknowledging the president. Lincoln shrugged it off, saying he would hold McClellan's horse if it would produce a victory."
Obama inheriting two wars, one of which is going poorly at the moment, would be better served by a victory than a dismissal of a general who insulted him. The AP is reporting that the Petraeus will continue McChrystal's strategy which begs the question, why was McChrystal not severely dressed down (as well he should have been) instead of dismissed entirely?
Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, certainly said worse in public about Obama and did so in paid advertisement running all over the country. Bill Clinton, a White House insider, dismissed the Obama as a purely racial candidiate during the South Carolina primaries. Many of Clinton's former advisers now serve the President, many of which have probably said rude or disparaging things in the past about the current Commander-in-Chief. Obama reached out to these people for a political return as any good politician would do and many accepted his offer, also as any good politician would do. Why didn't Obama reach out to McChrystal for political expediency since he still utilizes the general's strategy?
Regardless of the President's reasoning, General Petraeus has my support and I hope he can turn around Afghanistan as he did Iraq. If Obama made a misstep, he corrected himself quickly by replacing him with a genuine war hero with a proven track record. I suppose I too am wary about the civilian leadership under this Administration.
It's hard to say what the result of McChrystal's dismissal might be. Changing generals is a legitimate way to change the tide in a war. With June facing up to be the bloodiest month in Afghanistan, this might merely be a less critical way to push a general with a flawed vision aside. The question is was it for the that reason? If instead it was due to the Rolling Stone article, Obama is not living up to his idol. As Reason reports "Once, when Lincoln paid an evening visit to his top commander, George McClellan, the famously arrogant general came home and went to bed without so much as acknowledging the president. Lincoln shrugged it off, saying he would hold McClellan's horse if it would produce a victory."
Obama inheriting two wars, one of which is going poorly at the moment, would be better served by a victory than a dismissal of a general who insulted him. The AP is reporting that the Petraeus will continue McChrystal's strategy which begs the question, why was McChrystal not severely dressed down (as well he should have been) instead of dismissed entirely?
Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, certainly said worse in public about Obama and did so in paid advertisement running all over the country. Bill Clinton, a White House insider, dismissed the Obama as a purely racial candidiate during the South Carolina primaries. Many of Clinton's former advisers now serve the President, many of which have probably said rude or disparaging things in the past about the current Commander-in-Chief. Obama reached out to these people for a political return as any good politician would do and many accepted his offer, also as any good politician would do. Why didn't Obama reach out to McChrystal for political expediency since he still utilizes the general's strategy?
Regardless of the President's reasoning, General Petraeus has my support and I hope he can turn around Afghanistan as he did Iraq. If Obama made a misstep, he corrected himself quickly by replacing him with a genuine war hero with a proven track record. I suppose I too am wary about the civilian leadership under this Administration.
Friday, June 18, 2010
End The Recession By Taxing the Rich!
After 9/11, the stock market tanked and unemployment rose. Some economists predicted a massive recession bordering on depression. America hadn't been hit by a major attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor, they reasoned, anything could happen. Then-President Bush enacted across-the-board tax cuts and the economy recovered. Based on this reasoning, Obama has a blueprint of how to end the current recession if only he would use it.
The Bush tax cuts are due to expire January 1st, 2011. Obama has said he will let them expire, thereby raising taxes on all Americans. Once the taxes expire, the highest federal personal income tax rate will go to 39.6% from 35%. But it is not only income taxes that will rise. The highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. At a time when the stock market can lose a thousand points in a week and a half do we really want to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains?
Although the income tax will go up for all Americans and anyone with a 401K will be affected by the other hikes, the rich are all Obama and his team want to talk about. Hillary Clinton recently said that the wealthy do not pay their fair share. However, the New York Times found that "In 2006, the top quintile of households earned 55.7 percent of pretax income and paid 69.3 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 18.8 percent of income and paid 28.3 percent of taxes." Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie explains this better in his video than I can so I defer to him:
But who cares if the rich are taxed into oblivion to pay for government services? I'm not wealthy and no one I know is so it won't affect me, right? Wrong. Taxing the rich is the same as taxing investors and employers. It is apparent from anemic performance of the market that we should not be raising taxing on those who would infuse the market with cash. The unemployment rate similarly implies that no good would come from further taxing employers. Raising taxes on everyone, including the rich, is the quickest way to kill off a recovery and lead us into a double dip recession. Arthur Laffer, of the Laffer Curve fame, agrees. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the economist says that the expiration of the tax cuts is even fooling people into thinking we are in recovery now. His reasoning is that companies are pushing as much production as possible into this year from next year due to tax incentives. The results are twofold, unpredicted economic growth this year followed by lackluster performance next year.
Even when the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers foot the bill for almost 30% of our nation's taxes, it is never enough for liberals. They don't think in absolute terms when it comes to taxes or entitlement programs. We are always told that we could do so much more with just a little more money but the request never ends no matter how much money the government takes. In good economic times, this is an annoyance. In bad economic times, it is a recipe for disaster.
The Bush tax cuts are due to expire January 1st, 2011. Obama has said he will let them expire, thereby raising taxes on all Americans. Once the taxes expire, the highest federal personal income tax rate will go to 39.6% from 35%. But it is not only income taxes that will rise. The highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. At a time when the stock market can lose a thousand points in a week and a half do we really want to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains?
Although the income tax will go up for all Americans and anyone with a 401K will be affected by the other hikes, the rich are all Obama and his team want to talk about. Hillary Clinton recently said that the wealthy do not pay their fair share. However, the New York Times found that "In 2006, the top quintile of households earned 55.7 percent of pretax income and paid 69.3 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 18.8 percent of income and paid 28.3 percent of taxes." Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie explains this better in his video than I can so I defer to him:
But who cares if the rich are taxed into oblivion to pay for government services? I'm not wealthy and no one I know is so it won't affect me, right? Wrong. Taxing the rich is the same as taxing investors and employers. It is apparent from anemic performance of the market that we should not be raising taxing on those who would infuse the market with cash. The unemployment rate similarly implies that no good would come from further taxing employers. Raising taxes on everyone, including the rich, is the quickest way to kill off a recovery and lead us into a double dip recession. Arthur Laffer, of the Laffer Curve fame, agrees. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the economist says that the expiration of the tax cuts is even fooling people into thinking we are in recovery now. His reasoning is that companies are pushing as much production as possible into this year from next year due to tax incentives. The results are twofold, unpredicted economic growth this year followed by lackluster performance next year.
Even when the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers foot the bill for almost 30% of our nation's taxes, it is never enough for liberals. They don't think in absolute terms when it comes to taxes or entitlement programs. We are always told that we could do so much more with just a little more money but the request never ends no matter how much money the government takes. In good economic times, this is an annoyance. In bad economic times, it is a recipe for disaster.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
No Really, The Leak Isn't Obama's Responsibility
Obama is responsible for our anemic footing on the War on Terror. Obama is responsible for nationalizing industries like Chevy and Chrysler. Obama is responsible for the inevitable double dip recession due to his insistence on short term stimulus rather than long term tax relief. Obama is responsible for puffing up tin-pot dictators around the world with his Blame-America-First mentality. However, Obama is NOT responsible for the oil leak, nor is he repsonsible for cleaning it up, BP is.
Of course, Obama didn't do himself any favors by offering to take "full responsibility" for the disaster. He thought the Top Kill was going to work and the matter would be resolved in days. Taking responsibility when what you think is a winning strategy is already being implemented is a cheap way to take credit for the win itself. Unfortunately for Obama, the plan didn't work and his approval ratings hit a new low. Now the spill is being compared to Bush's Hurricane Katrina and Carter's Iran Hostage Crisis. As Obama weaves and bobs on the issue of the spill, which the federal government is ill-equipped to deal with, he seems like he is trying to shirk his responsibility now that the task has become more difficult. Pointing the finger at BP (which is correct, even if it is superfluous for him to do so) is looking to more and more people like he is merely trying to take the attention off of himself.
If Obama is getting an unfair shake in the media, BP is being savaged by comparison. A federal criminal investigation has been launched into why the leak occurred and what has been done to contain it since. BP should make full and complete restitution to everyone affected and pay to clean up the mess but clamoring for executives to go to jail spooks the industry and, in turn, the stock market as a whole. It also doesn't help speed up the process one iota. Obama pledges to keep his "boot to the neck" of BP but knowing that they will have to make full restitution, aren't market forces already putting the "boot to the neck" more effectively than government ever could? Isn't BP looking to minimize the damage done to the coast for the purpose of minimizing damage done to their bottom line? Isn't government (as it always does) just looking for a politically good outcome, either taking credit for fixing the leak or pushing blame off on BP entirely?
Because Obama believes government oversight is necessary for practically everything, he raced to make this a political story. Of course, Obama's faith in government is misplaced and the government's response has disappointed him as many conservatives could have predicted. Government's only proper role in all of this is to ensure that BP cleans up their mess in toto.
Government should only do what people are unable to do for themselves. In short that might only be command the armed forces, run the court system, police the streets and a few other narrowly defined tasks. BP can and will plug the leak. They will do so as quickly as they can at whatever cost necessary because the financial responsibility put upon them to clean up the aftermath is easily greater than any consequence Obama could dream up.
Of course, Obama didn't do himself any favors by offering to take "full responsibility" for the disaster. He thought the Top Kill was going to work and the matter would be resolved in days. Taking responsibility when what you think is a winning strategy is already being implemented is a cheap way to take credit for the win itself. Unfortunately for Obama, the plan didn't work and his approval ratings hit a new low. Now the spill is being compared to Bush's Hurricane Katrina and Carter's Iran Hostage Crisis. As Obama weaves and bobs on the issue of the spill, which the federal government is ill-equipped to deal with, he seems like he is trying to shirk his responsibility now that the task has become more difficult. Pointing the finger at BP (which is correct, even if it is superfluous for him to do so) is looking to more and more people like he is merely trying to take the attention off of himself.
If Obama is getting an unfair shake in the media, BP is being savaged by comparison. A federal criminal investigation has been launched into why the leak occurred and what has been done to contain it since. BP should make full and complete restitution to everyone affected and pay to clean up the mess but clamoring for executives to go to jail spooks the industry and, in turn, the stock market as a whole. It also doesn't help speed up the process one iota. Obama pledges to keep his "boot to the neck" of BP but knowing that they will have to make full restitution, aren't market forces already putting the "boot to the neck" more effectively than government ever could? Isn't BP looking to minimize the damage done to the coast for the purpose of minimizing damage done to their bottom line? Isn't government (as it always does) just looking for a politically good outcome, either taking credit for fixing the leak or pushing blame off on BP entirely?
Because Obama believes government oversight is necessary for practically everything, he raced to make this a political story. Of course, Obama's faith in government is misplaced and the government's response has disappointed him as many conservatives could have predicted. Government's only proper role in all of this is to ensure that BP cleans up their mess in toto.
Government should only do what people are unable to do for themselves. In short that might only be command the armed forces, run the court system, police the streets and a few other narrowly defined tasks. BP can and will plug the leak. They will do so as quickly as they can at whatever cost necessary because the financial responsibility put upon them to clean up the aftermath is easily greater than any consequence Obama could dream up.
Monday, May 31, 2010
BP and Moral Hazard
Rumors have it that earlier this week President Obama yelled at his aides, "Plug the damn hole!" It's no wonder that Obama wants the hole in the rig plugged as it is not only expelling oil but also dragging down his poll numbers. To use Top Kill or not to use Top Kill, to plug the hole or to encass the pipe in cement, to allow BP to fix the problem or nationalize the effort, these questions have been debated nonstop for the last several weeks. Even if Obama had invented a cure for cancer and instituted Pizza Party Fridays it seems that all the media would talk about would be the leak.
Of course there is good reason to talk about the leak. Some reports say the damage might exceed that of the Exxon-Valdez. Many more say that this will destroy most agriculture along the Louisiana shoreline. You can't watch the evening news without seeing video of an oil soaked bird. Yes, this will be something that the region will be dealing with for the next few years.
Fortunately for Obama, BP is getting most of the blame. That blame is rightfully deserved, BP certified that the rig was sound and it was not. A Plan B was not in place in case something went wrong. Eleven men died and the Louisiana shoreline will suffer as a result. BP should make full restitution.
However, because of government, BP does not have to. The government sets a statutory cap of 75 million dollars on oil spills through the Oil Pollution Act. BP has said that they will pay more than the cap since not doing so would have huge PR implications on their business. Also with pundits like James Carville demanding the Department of Justice indict BP representatives on crimes, the oil company is probably more than happy to pony up a few extra dollars.
The media is running with Carville's lines and demanding a criminal investigation be started but isn't this a matter of negligence, not malevalence? BP had no motive to intentionally cause the spill, and all the reasons in the world not to. Even if they scaled down safety is that not a result from having their liability capped? If you have less to lose, you will spend less to avoid losing it. The negligence is not even merely their own, the Obama administration gave the very same rig that exploded a safety award last year. The articles goes on to say that even though the government agency responsible for safety requires inspections every month, the agency had "fell well short of its own policy." The government's statement is proof in action that vagueness rules where specificity fears to tread.
Obama even said he took "full responsibility" for plugging the leak.
The truth of the matter is Obama didn't have anything to do with the leak. It was an unholy alliance of big government and big business. When gains are privatized and losses are socialized, it creates a situation known as moral hazard. Moral hazard prevents the prudence that might normally temper a company's activity and make it act responsibly. After all, if you keep your winnings and your losses are subsidized, is not the proper route to go for broke? A free market may not have prevented this accident but we would not have to rely on BP's public relations department to accept financial responsibility for the spill.
But even after the spill, capitalism works its magic. BP will pay millions in damages and will probably upgrade their safety. If they do not, they will fail and the company will go under or be bought out by a larger, safer company. As for the government agency that failed, it will receive more money and more personnel. Talk about moral hazard.
Of course there is good reason to talk about the leak. Some reports say the damage might exceed that of the Exxon-Valdez. Many more say that this will destroy most agriculture along the Louisiana shoreline. You can't watch the evening news without seeing video of an oil soaked bird. Yes, this will be something that the region will be dealing with for the next few years.
Fortunately for Obama, BP is getting most of the blame. That blame is rightfully deserved, BP certified that the rig was sound and it was not. A Plan B was not in place in case something went wrong. Eleven men died and the Louisiana shoreline will suffer as a result. BP should make full restitution.
However, because of government, BP does not have to. The government sets a statutory cap of 75 million dollars on oil spills through the Oil Pollution Act. BP has said that they will pay more than the cap since not doing so would have huge PR implications on their business. Also with pundits like James Carville demanding the Department of Justice indict BP representatives on crimes, the oil company is probably more than happy to pony up a few extra dollars.
The media is running with Carville's lines and demanding a criminal investigation be started but isn't this a matter of negligence, not malevalence? BP had no motive to intentionally cause the spill, and all the reasons in the world not to. Even if they scaled down safety is that not a result from having their liability capped? If you have less to lose, you will spend less to avoid losing it. The negligence is not even merely their own, the Obama administration gave the very same rig that exploded a safety award last year. The articles goes on to say that even though the government agency responsible for safety requires inspections every month, the agency had "fell well short of its own policy." The government's statement is proof in action that vagueness rules where specificity fears to tread.
Obama even said he took "full responsibility" for plugging the leak.
The truth of the matter is Obama didn't have anything to do with the leak. It was an unholy alliance of big government and big business. When gains are privatized and losses are socialized, it creates a situation known as moral hazard. Moral hazard prevents the prudence that might normally temper a company's activity and make it act responsibly. After all, if you keep your winnings and your losses are subsidized, is not the proper route to go for broke? A free market may not have prevented this accident but we would not have to rely on BP's public relations department to accept financial responsibility for the spill.
But even after the spill, capitalism works its magic. BP will pay millions in damages and will probably upgrade their safety. If they do not, they will fail and the company will go under or be bought out by a larger, safer company. As for the government agency that failed, it will receive more money and more personnel. Talk about moral hazard.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Phoning it In
Alright, so I've been trying to put up one column a week but this is my moving week, in addition to that one of my good friends is being ordained this weekend, also Monday starts a vacation I scheduled before I knew about the first two. So I'm phoning it in this week and giving some funny pictures and good links.
I still remember when it was considered cool to "Do the Urkel!" after that dancing episode aired.
God, 90's TV was terrible.
I'd rather use Mercurochrome than Hydrogren Barackside, if you don't know what Mercurochrome is then you are under 50 and not dying of heavy metals poisoning.
Here's a good post on standing up to radical Islam, specifically with the fatwa on anyone who shows an icon of the prophet Mohammad. The author asks the great question, why are we not all wearing Mohammad T-shirts? Every so often an artist has a "everybody draw Mohammad" day but after years of this B.S. why hasn't our "f*** you" culture produced a plethora of Mohammad consumer goods that we can all display to end this nonsense?
Arizona is still getting boycotts of its products, but no one has really been able to list one main one. It was funny to see liberals organize boycotts of Arizona ice tea only to find out it was made in New York. But LA is learning that a quarter of its power comes from Arizona and the Arizona utilities commissioner is threatening to cut all power to LA if they go through with the boycott. Hey great news California, you finally found an Arizonan product!
I keep hearing about anti-incumbency fever but looking back at the primary results of this week, it seems like only the Dems have caught it. Fred Barnes explains it's not "anti-incumbency" fever, it's anti-Obama fever.
La Raza, for those of you who don't know, is Spanish for "The Race." It is a group that both Obama and McCain spoke in front of during the election. It's also the Hispanic version of the clan. Here is an example of a professor at UCLA speaking out against "frail white people" and talking about the need for a Mexican revolution in America to destroy capitalism that took place on May 8th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
