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.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
