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.
Friday, October 22, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
