Scott's Slant

Blog Update

2011-11-27T08:49:00.000-05:00

You may have seen my posting is rather intermittent over the past few months. These days they are calling me "Editor" on Political Derby so I have been focusing my writing over there. So go to Political Derby and see my stuff. I would especially recommend the Political Derby Composite that I created or this link that goes directly to everything I write.

I look forward to seeing you on Political Derby.

And, as always, you can drop me a line by clicking here.

Rick Perry's not-so-flat tax plan

2011-10-28T13:57:00.001-04:00

Rick Perry has outlined today what some entities are referring to as a "flat tax", but nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, Perry's plan is intended to gain the attention and fervor of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan while at the same time appeasing multiple groups.

The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.

In other words, if you are part of the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income taxes today, you still won't pay any income taxes. Everyone whose effective tax rate is higher than 20 percent would take this option, which includes most of the top 20 percent of income earners and very few others. Additionally, every high income earner using the mortgage interest tax credit on a multi-million dollar jumbo loan will continue to benefit and drive the effective 20 percent no-so-flat tax rate down.

In other words, this plan would actually be a disaster for revenues and this is where Perry's plan only begins to stumble.

Temporarily lower the rate to repatriate funds to 5.25%.

It is important to bring our capital back for investment in our country, but a temporary fix is a waste. It will only create a bubble, a nice surge that will help the economy enough so the the incumbent President is more likely to gain reelection. You either believe in allowing funds to be repatriated or you do not. Otherwise, you are no different than President Bush in sending out ~~reelection payoffs~~ "stimulus" checks to the masses.

Reduce the corporate tax rate to 20%.

This is this most sensible measure in Perry's plan. It would put business on an even playing field, assuming he does not have hidden deductions making the tax not really flat, as he does in the optional personal "flat" income tax. A lower tax rate for business would free up capital for investment and growth. A flat tax would provide certainty for the future, also encouraging growth.

Eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits, boosting the incomes of 17 million current beneficiaries who see their benefits taxed if they continue to work and earn income in addition to Social Security earnings.

The real problem is we are paying people to not work through Social Security who are perfectly capable of working. Some of these people actually want to work. Perry's proposal does not solve the actual problem. A real solution would encourage people to work without drawing Social Security, such as providing the option for people eligible to draw Social Security to continue working 100 percent federal tax free (income, payroll, etc.) until the day they choose to take Social Security. This solution would allow people the dignity of working when it is still possible for them to work, potentially making more income, while simultaneously preserving the Social Security program for those who actually are in need of it. Perry's plan is simply designed to win votes, not fix anything.

A clear goal of balancing the budget by 2020.

In the real world, no plans, especially those made by the federal government, will remain intact nine years from now, let alone next year. Congress has not even passed a budget for several years (we have been operating under a series of continuing resolutions). Over the time frame from now until 2020, the entire House of Representatives will have been up for reelection five times (including 2020), and the entire Senate one and one third times. The only realistic way the budget becomes balanced is in the President's first term.

Passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution

There is a whole lot more to this than saying "hey, we're going to pass a balanced budget amendment!" Amending the Constitution is significant process. Although I agree with this sentiment, Perry is throwing it in here as political rhetoric.

Freezes federal civilian hiring and salaries until the budget is balanced.

This is common sense. It is exactly what business does when it is facing economic difficulties.

Overall, Perry is trying to gain the notoriety earned by Herman Cain by proposing a so-called flat tax. But in reality, with it being "optional", it is all talk and with the exemptions it allows, it is not a flat tax. This plan is intended only the lower the taxes of the top 20 percent of income earners without requiring any contribution from the bottom 47 percent of income earners who pay nothing today. I'm all for lowering the tax rates of those who are forced to pay all the taxes in this country, but only when the tax burden is fairly distributed. A true flat tax would tax every income earner at exactly the same rate, with no loopholes or exceptions whatsoever. Then people would choose how to spend their money in whatever way was most economically beneficial to them, rather that the way the tax code dictates.

Being advised by the great mind of Steve Forbes, I expected so much more from Rick Perry. This however, is a unmitigated disaster.

Do corporations pay taxes?

2011-10-28T13:56:00.002-04:00

Corporations physically conduct the tax paying transactions, however in reality, corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do. If the tax, or regulation, for that matter, bill increases, corporations do not absorb the cost out of the goodness of their hearts, they pass the increased cost along to their customers. A simple example that has recently effected a majority of Americans is the cost of Dodd-Frank. It limits the transaction cost of using a debit card to a level below the current market rate. This is why you are seeing free checking disappear at banks or a charge being assessed to have a debit card.

In reality, corporations exist for one purpose, and one purpose alone: To make money. That is it. If a corporation were not successful in making money, any other stated purpose for its existence would be irrelevant as it would cease to exist. Now watch as the Occupy Wall Street crowd is confronted with this fact.

ACORN behind Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-26T13:56:00.000-04:00

While reports are surfacing that Herman Cain has hired the Smoking Man as his national spokesman, FOX News is reporting the the organization ACORN evolved into is a driving force behind the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The former New York office for ACORN, the disbanded community activist group, is playing a key role in the self-proclaimed “leaderless” Occupy Wall Street movement, organizing “guerrilla” protest events and hiring door-to-door canvassers to collect money under the banner of various causes while spending it on protest-related activities....

The former director of New York ACORN, Jon Kest, and his top aides are now busy working at protest events for New York Communities for Change (NYCC). That organization was created in late 2009 when some ACORN offices disbanded and reorganized under new names after undercover video exposes prompted Congress to cut off federal funds....

Sources said NYCC has hired about 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities – paying some of them $100 a day - to attend and support Occupy Wall Street. Dozens of New York homeless people recruited from shelters are also being paid to support the protests, at the rate of $10 an hour, the sources said.

At least some of those hired are being used as door-to-door canvassers to collect money that’s used to support the protests....

Top ex-ACORN staff members and current NYCC officials have been planning events like the Occupy Wall Street protests since February. That’s when planning began for May 12 protests against Chase bank foreclosures, which were followed by the formation of the Beyond May 12 campaign . . . to go after the banks, Chase in particular

Rate that ad--Ron Paul

2011-10-20T15:59:00.002-04:00

Ron Paul isn't quite as effective in this ad as he is in this video, but let's rate this ad regardless.

Also, did you catch who speaks at 0:36?

Who won the CNN / Western Republican debate?

2011-10-19T07:28:00.000-04:00

Instant analysis (originally posted within minutes of the conclusion of the debate on Political Derby):

Romney still is the clear leader in this race. Sometimes he looks like he’s just humoring his children around him.

Cain did not look good. He clearly lost momentum. Saying “read our analysis” and “apples and oranges” over and over again did not explain his plan. When that is your explanation, people absorb what your opponent says.

Perry is on a downward spiral. He came out throwing hay makers at Romney that sometimes landed and at other times made him look petty and worse, desperate.

Newt is consistently a solid debater. He may have been the only one on stage to keep his cool all night. Because of this, he is likely the only candidate that gained ground.

Paul was Paul. He made some great, common sense points. Offered a couple of head-scratchers and ultimately he will get his 10% and disappear.

Santorum was trying to come up with something to make him sound viable, talking about being the only person to win an election in a swing state, despite the fact that his political career has basically been over since he lost in a swing state in 2006.

Bachmann was simply annoying. Her nasally laugh into the microphone throughout the debate and her yelling Anderson! Anderson! Anderson! was horrid.

Huntsman didn’t bother to show up. Not that it matters. We didn’t miss him anyway.

CNN / Western Republican debate live blog transcript

2011-10-19T06:00:00.000-04:00

Last night I blogged live along with the debate over at Political Derby. I have posted my unedited commentary below.

It is another pivotal night for Herman Cain. He will likely either solidify his position as a serious challenger to Mitt Romney or go the way of Rick Perry. Also, you probably wouldn’t notice if I didn’t point it out now, but Jon Huntsman is “boycotting” this debate. However, a month ago he was at risk of not even qualifying. In other words, Huntsman said, “You can’t fire me! I quit!”

If you’re looking for where to watch the debate, go here.

Live updates after the jump. Refresh early and often.

Ron Paul: “I am Ron Paul from Texas. I am the champion of liberty.” Solid opening line.

Herman Cain: “I am a 42 year businessman which means I solve problems for a living.” Also solid.

Mitt Romney: He honestly sounded like he was playing second fiddle to Cain.

Rick Perry: Claims to be an “authentic conservative, not one out of convenience”. I guess he forgot about being Al Gore’s campaign manager.

Newt: Always taking to focus to Republicans against Obama. Running for VP.

Wow. The first question comes from Kevin from The Office. He goes straight to the fair tax question.

Bachmann focuses on 999 and doesn’t answer the question. The so-called “fair-tax” would eliminate the federal income tax. Also odd that Bachmann gets the first question. She is irrelevant at this point.

999 is immediately under attack. Unfortunately for Herman Cain, the argument of “go read our analysis” is not an effective argument in a debate. He needs talking points.

Ron Paul says replace the income tax with nothing. The government did operate just fine before the early 1900s without an income tax.

Mitt Romney has been winning so far. He hasn’t had to speak.

Cain keeps saying “apples and oranges”. He cannot effectively explain the embedded 35% corporate taxes and 15% payroll taxes that are added to every product sold that would drop prices on commodity products.

Cain is getting killed.

I am quite disappointed to see a bunch of Republicans playing the class warfare game with each other. Herman Cain’s play would treat everyone fairly. But Romney, Bachmann, and Perry are focusing on who it may pay more under the plan….like the 47% that pay nothing.

Perfect

Anderson Cooper asks the perfect question to Bachmann, asking whether the 47% who pay nothing should pay something. Bachmann essentially contradicted herself saying they should pay something. So which is it? Yet another example of why you are irrelevant right now.

Blah. Santorum is going on and on about his made in America manufacturing bull. He wants to give manufacturers special tax treatment. Santorum should learn a thing or two about American manufacturing. We have the highest value per unit produced in the world because we have the most technologically advanced manufacturing the world. In other words, we get by far the highest output per worker in the world.

Santorum won’t let Romney get a word in. And he was booed. Solid. Have some class 2% poller.

Romney just opened up a can claiming he knows “how to lower the cost of healthcare”. That’s a joke. The cost of Massachusetts healthcare has skyrocketed since Romneycare was instituted.

Newt, ever the politician says Romneycare is bad, but Obamacare is worse. Right.

I wish we could have the honest healthcare conversation. We need to remove all the regulations and incentives that have created the third party payer system and open up competition across state borders.

Well we can all sing Kumbayah now. All the Republicans agree that Obamacare is awful. Funny, the polls agree.

Romney and Perry both look awful talking over each other. Once Perry stops, Romney takes a shot at him.

All of Romney’s squabbling with others, baited into it or otherwise, takes some of his luster of appearing “Presidential” away.

Perry interrupts Romney again. Romney tells him that interrupting people won’t make him a good president.

It’s too bad Herman Cain cannot effectively defend his 999 plan because sometimes he really brings the common sense, like on the immigration issue currently being discussed.

Bachmann is trying to sound like a VP, much like Newt. She is working hard to get jabs in at Obama on nearly every answer. She just isn’t as good at it as Newt.

Ha ha. Anderson Cooper briefly interrupted Rick Perry to add to his question.

Romney compares Perry’s border security “experience” to a college coach that goes 0-40 going to the NFL.

Perry, for a third time, mocks Romney for Romney’s lawn care company having illegals on its crew. The crowd boos and jeers. It is getting old.

Ron Paul says the answer to border security isn’t a fence, but doesn’t actually offer a solution.

Rick Perry tells Anderson Cooper “You ask the questions. I get to answer them how I want.” What an idiot. You don’t actually say that.

Perry looks worse and worse every single debate.

Anderson Cooper is trying to get someone to answer whether we should repeal the 14th Amendment. Cain declines. Perry says no. Bachmann doesn’t answer. Santorum doesn’t answer. So much for Cain’s straight talk.

The answer is easy. Repeal the 14th Amendment. It was instituted to ensure the citizen of slaves were citizens. Those days are long gone.

Who cares about Yucca Mountain. That is a state issue. This is a national debate. Try screening your questioners CNN.

Ron Paul manages to make the case that the other 49 states shouldn’t dump their trash on one state. That is a fantastic answer. Romney takes it even further to say let the states bid on the contracts for these wasteful materials.

Cain was for TARP before he was against it. That’s a nice bit John Kerry right there.

Should government protect people from losing their houses? Of course not. But of course none of the Republicans have the guts to say that. Buying a house is a gamble. Sometimes you lose. That’s life. You wouldn’t understand sweet without the bitter and vice versa.

I’m glad to hear Herman Cain clearly stand behind his stance that people earn their way.

I don’t think I have ever disagreed with Ron Paul more than when he says Cain is “blaming the victims”. Cain advocated personal responsibility, which is why he got the loudest cheer of the night from the crowd.

I’m happy to have a break right now. This one has moved quickly.

The comment by Pastor Jeffers was brought up by Anderson Cooper. The crowed booed. People may not realize that Las Vegas’s population is about 10% members of the Mormon Church.

Santorum makes the right point that it is the values that religion teaches that matter. The path to salvation that an individual religion teaches has no impact on governing a nation.

Newt took it even further to say that you must be a person who prays to make the right decisions. I agree. Hopefully people who hear him say that also believe in repentance.

So have we reached Rick Perry’s bed time now? I think he has reached that hour. Perry is done.

Anderson Cooper is clearly becoming frustrated. But he is nothing close to where Charlie Rose was.

Ron Paul is the only candidate on this stage that takes our budget problem seriously. We spend $1.2 trillion-plus more than we take in every year. We must make tough decisions, not make cute political speeches.

Paul: “I want to find another person on this stage willing to cut something.” Fantastic.

Okay, foreign aid is dumb, but the real problems are the entitlements and defense. These grow exponentially year over year and comprise about 3/4 of the total budget.

Israel is our greatest ally, but why do we have to pay them to be our ally?

The candidates seem to be running out of steam. It’s a good thing the next debate isn’t for another month.

The CNN/Opinion Research poll is stupid. It only qualifies that respondents are adults.

Hey Rick Santorum, how did that election in 2006 go for you in your swing state?

I wish Perry would stop talking about how many jobs he has “created”. Governments don’t create jobs.

Interesting seeing Cain/Romney/Perry on stage together in the camera shot. Cain looks a little angry. Romney has a smile and Perry needs a nap.

Bachmann “I am the most different candidate from Barack Obama on this stage.” Yeah. For the wrong reasons.

Newt want seven three hour debates with Obama. That would be amazing!

Thanks everyone for joining tonight.

Obama sells mug with his mug and birth certificate

2011-10-18T17:00:00.002-04:00

The Obama campaign played the birther conspiracy theorists like Jenny Oaks Baker plays a tune, smooth, in control and beautifully.

Now they mock them again. I must say, it is actually kind of funny.

Live blogging the debate tonight

2011-10-18T15:30:00.000-04:00

FYI: I'll be live blogging the debate tonight at 8:00 pm Eastern on PoliticalDerby.com.

Ron Paul's 'Plan to Restore America'

2011-10-18T12:00:00.000-04:00

Mitt Romney has a plan. Herman Cain has a plan. Now Ron Paul has published a plan.

These plans are not entirely comparable, as each addresses different issues, so note that this post is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis. Rather, it is intended to show that the plans cannot necessarily be compared.

Romney's plan is focused on supply side, or job creation, not federal spending or receipts (somewhat assuming the job creation helps to fix those issues).

Cain's plan is intended to be revenue neutral, but does not reduce federal spending, leaving us at our current deficits and adds yet another means for the federal government to tax Americans (also somewhat assuming job creation through his simplified plan fixes the spending issues).

Paul's plan cuts both revenue and spending, but more so spending to the point of a balanced budget within three years without addressing all the loopholes in the federal income tax while reducing the corporate tax to 15%, rather than 9% plus 9% sales tax (which may be seen or unseen in total retain prices, dependent upon price elasticity).

Despite the plans not being exactly comparable, if there would be one to select, it would be Paul's plan. It is mathematically impossible to reduce our debt by increasing taxes (revenues). Paul's plan addresses this through significant budget cuts. Additionally, I would much rather see a 15% corporate tax than yet another tax in the form of a national sales tax because the federal government rarely relinquishes any means of taxation.

Highlights of Paul's plan are after the jump.

-Balanced budget within three years

-Cuts $1 trillion in spending year one

-Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out

-Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.

-Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows
American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.

-Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.

-Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.

'9 responses to 9 false attacks on the 9-9-9 plan'

2011-10-17T14:00:00.000-04:00

Herman Cain has released his thematic "9" responses to "9" criticisms of his 9-9-9 plan. Despite the candidate's appearance of lacking depth on issues at times during the debates, the boldness and straightforwardness he speaks and writes with is absolutely refreshing. One significant factor that differentiates Herman Cain from the rest of the field is that we can be far more certain about what he stands for.

Here is a little taste:

Claim 8: Some people (like Herman Cain) who may live off capital gains, would pay no income taxes. Is that fair? Response: First, one of the benefits of the 9-9-9 plan is that, even if someone doesn’t pay much or any of one of the taxes, he or she is still likely affected by the other two. More to the point, though, everyone has the same opportunity to work hard, earn capital and put that capital at risk. Whatever I have earned has come from hard work, good decisions (and some bad ones), a willingness to take risks and a constant honing of strategy. Nothing is stopping anyone else from doing the same thing. I realize many are being told there are no opportunities available to them, but that is not true and I wish people – for their own sakes – would stop listening to such doom and gloom and come to understand all the opportunity that truly exists, and learn how to access it.

Cain's explanations of some of the other issues raised with 9-9-9 are good reading. Let us know what you think.

Tag: Humor?

2011-10-04T07:00:00.003-04:00

Note: Also posted on Political Derby, where some of the comments will be more in context.

We break momentarily from our normal politics to tell this tale.

It was a set up.

I'm in Philadelphia for an industry conference. This morning I was riding high. I had sat forth row in the center for Stuart Varney's keynote address, that by the way, was fantastic. I've long enjoyed Varney because he is so direct. I even tweeted some of his comments live during his speech.

Later, I somehow let David Kaiser talk me into lunch. When we pulled into Tony Luke's rather than Geno's or Pat's, I should have known something was wrong.

I returned to the conference, attended a couple of dud sessions, then returned to my hotel room for the evening only to find this:

Yeah. I have blond hair.

So I don't know how he did it, but Kaiser managed to get into my room with a friend who has black hair, use my razor, leave gobs of hair in the razor, on my toothbrush, mouthwash, deodorant, and contact lens case.

However it is also possible that it might have been Attack Watch drones, as I have enjoyed mocking President Obama's McCarthy Team incessantly.

Perhaps it was our own Political Derby obsessive Ron Paul contingency because despite leaning toward his views, I just cannot join the irrational crazies.

Maybe it was Edgar. He does have black hair.

But likely it was the "housekeeping" at the Embassy Suites where I am staying.

Seriously, everything written here actually happened today. This was the most disgusting, nasty, repulsive, thing I have ever experienced in a hotel. So thanks Hilton brands for leaving me squeamish in my own hotel room, afraid to leave anything behind. I don't think I'll be needing your "cleaning" service the rest of my stay and despite my Diamond status, it will be very difficult to come back.

Though the case against Kaiser is compelling.... I'll call Attack Watch! now.

Obamacare going to Supreme Court

2011-09-27T14:45:00.002-04:00

The Obama administration decided to forgo its last lower-court appeal on Obamacare, leading to the next step in the judicial process. The Supreme Court will now have the opportunity to rule on the law. We all knew this we inevitable. However, I am surprised the administration/marketing firm has not tried to delay the Supreme Court taking up this case until after the 2012 election. For once they will make a stand and Americans will have clear choices. That is, unless Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination and you don't buy his recent love for the 10th Amendment, but that might be just what the Pennsylvania administration/marketing firm is banking on.

Additional analysis from Politico:

The move puts the Supreme Court in the difficult position of having to decide whether to take the highly politically charged case in the middle of the presidential election....

But former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who has worked on briefs in support of the legislation, said the move should be read as a sign of confidence from the administration.

“This confirms what I had already concluded: That the government is confident that it’s going to prevail in the Supreme Court and would like to have a decision sooner rather than later,"

Chris Christie reconsidering 2012 POTUS run?

2011-09-23T23:34:00.002-04:00

Could Chris Christie fill the void felt left by the current slew of candidates? From Newsmax:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is reconsidering his decision not to enter the 2012 presidential race — and he says he will let top Republican donors know within days about his plans, Newsmax has learned.

During the past few weeks, several leading Republican donors and fundraisers have been urging the popular Republican governor to reconsider his decision not to run and to enter the GOP primary....

"I think what the country is thirsting for, more than anything else right now, is someone of stature and credibility to tell them that and say, 'Here's where I want us to go to deal with this crisis,'" Christie said.

Christie continued: "The fact that nobody yet who's running for president, in my view, has done that effectively is why you continue to hear people ask Daniels if he'll reconsider and ask me if I'll reconsider."

Who won the debate?

2011-09-22T23:05:00.000-04:00

Without pausing to think about the debate, my instant thoughts are that Herman Cain was the most likeable guy in the debate. His cancer survivor moment was unbeatable. Newt is still by far the best debater. If he didn't have so much baggage, he would be a serious candidate. Bachmann disappeared again. She is done. Romney and Perry continued to beat each other up, but will continue as the leading candidates. They will certainly be fact-checked. Perry's immigration stance may be a big turn-off for many. He clearly ran out of steam late in the debate again. Romney continues to defend Romneycare while saying how bad Obamacare is, which likely will not play well with voters. But Romney was smooth and strong overall.

All of this said, Cain wins, Newt makes everyone smile, and Perry/Romney hold as the leaders.

Live blog: Fox News-Google Republican debate

2011-09-22T20:50:00.001-04:00

Pre-debate thoughts: ~~Thaddeus McCotter~~ Gary Johnson (same difference) finally gets into a debate. It will be his first and last. However, a ninth debater was the last thing we needed when some candidates get one question and others another, giving the moderators too much control over who the candidates come across. I, for one, cannot wait until Huntsman, Newt, Cain, and Santorum follow the lead of Pawlenty and disappear into the sunset, joining forces with either Romney or Perry.

Refresh early and often.

9:00: (tagging in 5 minute blocks)
Have you ever noticed how Brett Baier looks like he's about 25?

I'm shocked the FOX map of where the questions came from was so heavily weight toward the East coast, considering the general political distribution in the US.

9:05:
Texas does have a loser pays law in malpractice suits. It has made healthcare costs stabilize if not drop, rather than the double-digit increasing we are seeing across the nation.

The candidates are playing to their strengths early. Perry is running on his job creation record in Texas. Romney is driving for the general election, mention President Obama early.

Dumb question from Baier. How exactly do you define "rich"? The average income in the US is $47,200. So what is rich?

Bachmann gets a softball on how much should people be taxed. They did well with her appearance today. She doesn't looks to plastic, especially her hair.

9:10

"Right to work" versus union membership requirement is a state issue, not a national issue, since it is not in the constitution. That would have been the right answer, Santorum.

Unemployment merely pays people to not work. Newt nailed the question. "People should not get money for doing nothing."

Huntsman is an idiot. He still wants the government to pick business and industry winners and losers by continuing subsidizes.

9:15

More Cain 9-9-9 plan. The idea is right. But the last thing we should do is open the door to yet another federal taxing method (sales). However, "That dog won't hunt." Best line so far.

Ron Paul: "Veto every bill that violates the 10th amendment". Then Chris Wallace eggs him on to use the rest of his time and he nails it. The federal government has no authority outside of what the constitution specifically allows. Everything else belongs to the individual states, per the 10th amendment of the constitution.

9:20

And Gary Johnson gives his opening campaign speech because he knows almost no one has ever seen him before.

So is anyone else sick of the "someone wants to chat with you in Gmail" chime yet?

9:25

Perry has to repeat what he said about everyone being close to social security having nothing to worry about, just as he said in the first debate because the media focused to the "ponzi scheme" part.

Perry vs. Romney on Social Security is getting old.

Wow. Perry's research staff has been working overtime. They found a line about healthcare in Romney's book changed from the hardcover to softcover version. Though Romney denies it. I guess we will have to wait for the "fact"-checkers.

9:30

Megan Kelly asks Romney to call Obama a Socialist and he does everything but call him one, including saying he has modeled his policies after the European Democratic Socialists. He is always playing the politicians.

Huntsman goes with this common line of essentially "we can't raise taxes with the economy in its current state". Doesn't that imply that raising taxes always hurts economic growth? Are there times where we should hurt our own economy?

9:35

Cain would eliminate federal government departments everywhere. However, his focus on the EPA, despite it being out of control as he described, will not play well with voters.

Newt just essentially told Megan Kelly that she asked a stupid question. Classic.

Gary Johnson commits to eliminate the Department of Education. Santorum piles on with the facts that educational spending has only increased dramatically while results have decreased nearly as dramatically.

Ron Paul: "If you care about your children you'll get the federal government out of the business of educating your kids." I could not agree more. I have acted on this by taking my children out of public school and home schooling.

9:40

Perry takes a shot at Romney on his education question. Perry clearly knows where his competition is.

Romney responds with "nice try" then talks about other things entirely rather than refuting anything Perry said.

Bachmann: "What I would do as President is pass the mother of all repeal bills". If only it were that easy....unfortunately.

Cain: Agrees with what every one else has said. The bad part of being in the latter half of debaters who are battling to be the most conservative.

9:45

Chris Wallace asks Bachmann an impossible question, "Should states enforce immigration laws since the federal government is not? And if the answer is yes, how does that square with the constitution?" Bachmann wisely stays away from it, rather than committing her enforce the law as President. But what a ridiculous question.

Newt calls for English to be named the official language of the federal government and gets a wide applause.

9:50

In the immigration debate, Romney sideswipes Perry talking about how the University of Texas gives illegals in-state tuition. This is a problem, but why specifically UT Romney? That's not the only problem.

Perry says you don't have heart if you don't want everyone else to pay to education illegal aliens. Though I do agree with him that if the state wants to spend their money that way, they should.

Santorum makes a fair point that illegals are getting preferential treatment by getting in-state tuition, compared to legal students from other states paying more.

Perry: "You put the aviation assets on the ground." (He said it twice!) I hope the aviation assets make it to the air. I'm just sayin'.

9:55

Paul: "Attack [illegals] benefits." Then they will leave the country.

It is nice that Huntsman is not getting a disproportionate amount of time in this debate compared to his popularity in national polls.

FOX News' in-debate online poll: "What government department should be eliminated?" The most popular answer was the Department of Education. People clearly are seeing that ever-increasing union-driven federal involvement on education is only hurting, not helping our children.

10:00
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Auto Care commercial cracks me up. My wife used to be an editor at a phone book company and she used to tell me about how several businesses tried to throw a bunch of "A"s in front of their names to be first in each category. That sort of stuff is real.

Romney is back to speaking to the general election audience. Yawn.

Romney and Cain support Israel. Shocker. One thing that amazes me. How do Jews generally support President Obama when he more or less ignores Benjamin Netanyahu and supports the Palestinian state?

10:06

Santorum wants to leave troops in Iraq. WHEN WILL IT END? There is no mission there. There is no reason to have our troops scattered across the world!

Newt: Why are we giving money to the UN if it supports countries that oppose us? Yet another no-brainer.

10:10

Hey, if you were wondering, Gary Johnson will submit a balanced budget in 2013. It's what, the 3rd, 4th time he has mentioned it?

This is sad. Bachmann and Huntsman are both begging for time.

The debaters have realized the moderators aren't actually holding anyone to the time limits. Huntsman just went over by at least a minute.

Santorum says we should fight wars to win, yet he want troops to remain in Iraq? Which is it?

Social issues. Why?

10:15

Bachmann invokes Thomas Jefferson somewhat loosely but makes the correct point that any separation of church and state (a term created by a court in the past 100 years) was intended to be no official church sponsored by the federal government, not that individuals cannot worship freely.

Santorm surprised me in saying sex has nothing to do with the military.

Ron Paul: "Only the moral character of the people will solve this problem [of abortion]." Exactly.

10:20

Perry makes himself sound like buddies with Obama. That won't work with Republican voters.

Cain explaining how he likely would have died had Obamacare been in place when he was diagnosed with cancer really hit home with the audience. I think it connected well with Americans.

These YouTube video questions are of awful quality.

And is it just me, or is anyone else sick of the silly "word clouds".

Huntsman goes for sympathy pointing out that his daughter has Juvenile Diabetes.

10:25

Huntman talks about letting the states "innovate" on healthcare, then he describes how he would make health insurance more affordable. So he wants to go with more of the same? How about not subsidizing 3rd the ridiculous 3rd party payer system and let the markets determine the best way to delivery healthcare?

Bachmann goes back on the attack on HPV. Perry comes up with a story about a 31 year old girl who had been affected. Then he went back to looking terrible on the question.

10:30

Perry looks once again like he is tired. His bedtime must by 10:30 EST, 9:30 Texas time. I never thought Fred Thompson could be so young.

Romney continues to mock Perry. "I don't think he knows what he's talking about." He normally rubs me the wrong way, but tonight, Romney is really rubbing me the wrong way. He again repeats his pledge to submit an executive order to give every state an Obamacare waiver. So the constitution is only good for Romney when it works for him?

Perry responds by stumbling through several areas where Romney has flip-flopped.

Romney tries to hold strong saying "he knows what he believes and has written it down." I wish Perry or the ghost of Ted Kennedy could have asked him, "which time?"

10:35

This commercial break isn't so bad. After a day of fence-building, my hands and fingers are tired.

And the lightning round. How will you turn around the economy in 30 seconds candidates?

Huntsman: Blah blah blah

Cain: We need a leader

Bachmann: Repeal Obamacare

Romney: We need a leader

10:40

Perry: Pull back regulations, make America energy independent

Paul: Free the markets, fix the tax and regulatory system and the FED. Unleash the people.

Newt: Channels Reagan. Delivers the best line of the night: "When Jimmy Carter's unemployed it's a recovery." American turns around when "Barack Obama loses on eelection night decisively".

Newt appears to be running more for the Republicans than himself.

Santorum: Remove Obama

Johnson (he's still on stage): "My neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this President." Balance the budget, throw out the federal income tax structure, institute the FAIR Tax (a national sales tax).

Newt and Johnson clearly took this sound-bite driving lightning round.

10:45

Final question: "Who would you choose as your running mate from those on the stage?"

Johnson: Paul. Libertarians unite!

Santorum: Newt.

Newt: The first to not answer the question, which is the right answer at this point. It could be politically devistating.

Paul: Refuses to pick since he's now in the top-tier, polling #3 in most polls.

Perry: "Herman Cain mated up with Newt Gingrich."

10:50

Romney: Refuses to select, but says anyone on stage would be a better President than Obama.

Bachmann: Does not answer. Wants a conservative.

Cain: Proudly announces he will play the game. Says he will take Romney if he throws out his jobs plan in favor of 9-9-9. Selects Newt.

Huntsman: Based upon his tie and 9-9-9

Final thoughts:

Without pausing to think about the debate, my instant thoughts are that Herman Cain was the most likeable guy in the debate. His cancer survivor moment was unbeatable. Newt is still by far the best debater. If he didn't have so much baggage, he would be a serious candidate. Bachmann disappeared again. She is done. Romney and Perry continued to beat each other up, but will continue as the leading candidates. They will certainly be fact-checked. Perry's immigration stance may be a big turn-off for many. He clearly ran out of steam late in the debate again. Romney continues to defend Romneycare while saying how bad Obamacare is, which likely will not play well with voters. But Romney was smooth and strong overall.

All of this said, Cain wins, Newt makes everyone smile, and Perry/Romney hold as the leaders.

What the . . . ?

2011-09-21T12:00:00.000-04:00

I find myself completely shocked by this poll and I would be curious to see a corroborating poll, though it does appear to have been conducted in a normal, statistically significant manner.

After trailing Obama by more than 20 percentage points in polls all year, the new national survey, taken Sept. 13-14, found Palin trailing the president by just 5 points, 49-44 percent. The key reason: She now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround.

Social Security and political games

2011-09-13T09:30:00.000-04:00

Daniel Mitchel, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, on the Republicans debating the Social Security issue:

Shame on Romney and Bachmann. With an inflation-adjusted long-run shortfall of about $28 trillion, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme on steroids....

Here’s what’s so frustrating. Romney and Bachmann almost certainly understand that Social Security is actuarially bankrupt. And they probably realize that personal retirement accounts are the only long-run answer.

But they’re letting political ambition lure them into saying things that they know are not true. Why? Because they think Perry will lose votes and they can improve their respective chances of getting the GOP nomination.

Sounds like a smart approach, assuming truth and morality don’t matter.

The day after

2011-09-12T08:00:00.001-04:00

Thousands, if not millions of Americans read Paul Krugman’s repulsive article on the New York Times site yesterday. When I first read it, I was angry, very angry. It is clearly a politically-driven hack job from a frustrated economist who has been unsuccessful in his desire to be considered this generations’ great economist, whose Keyensian ideals based on a single data point prove over and over again not to work.

But people can see from what he wrote what a little man Krugman really is, so I will leave it at that.

What we should remember today is what happened after the atrocious attacks of 9/11/01.
Americans found God again. Churches and synagogues left previously half-empty were packed again, like they were during our parents’ generation and more so in the generation before theirs. Neighbors helped neighbors in true Godly service. We believed in each other and remembered a higher power again.

It is an interesting dichotomy how a tragedy can bring us closer together, closer to each other and our God. But it does. It is also easy to forget those feelings. Today, I hope we can all remember the spring that rose of the winter that was 9/11, the outpouring of good from the tragedy, the brighter side of a bitter evil brought by those who thought they could bring us to our knees.

Rather, today, we as Americans stand taller, stronger, and resolved to overcome with our genuine goodness.

God bless the USA.

'Drunken moose ends up stuck in Swedish apple tree'

2011-09-11T22:48:00.003-04:00

How about a good laugh to wrap up an otherwise very important and somber day?

Per CNN.

It was a dark, windy and rainy night when Per Johansson returned from work to his home in Saro just south of Gothenburg, Sweden.

"It was raining really bad. In the wind I heard something screaming with a very dark voice," Johansson told CNN. "At first I wondered if it was the crazy neighbors, but then I heard it again and went and checked. I saw something really big up in a tree in my neighbors' yard and it was a moose. It must have been drunk after eating fermented apples and as it was reaching out for more fruit it must have slipped and fallen into the tree."

'A guide to code words in presidential speeches'

2011-09-09T12:00:00.002-04:00

From John Merline at Investor's Business Daily:

When he says: We need to put politics aside and pass the three pending trade bills.

What he means is: I've been holding these bills up for more than two years, but I want to make it look like it's the Republicans' fault, and I know I can count on my lap dog media friends not to call me on this blatant falsehood.

When he says: We need to focus on jobs.

What he means is: After $830 billion in stimulus spending, an auto bailout, cash for clunkers and several other multibillion-dollar "jobs" bills, none of which has worked, we need to try more of the same, but please don't call it a stimulus.

When he says: It's time to put country ahead of party.

What he means is: If you don't pass my plan, you're unpatriotic.

When he says: Our politics are broken.

What he means is: Republicans stubbornly refuse to act like potted plants.

When he says: We need to invest in infrastructure.

What he means is: We need to put more money into the pockets of my public union friends, even though we know from last year that pouring tens of billions of dollars into road projects won't create jobs

When he says: We need to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.

What he means is: I'm completely out of ideas on how to get this economy moving, since these two ideas have already been tried and failed.

When he says: We need temporary, targeted business-tax credits.

What he means is: The government knows best, otherwise, I'd propose an across-the-board tax cut and let the free market sort things out.

When he says: I've been aggressively cutting job-choking regulations.

What he means is: I scraped up a few minor rules we can toss overboard, while at the same time I pile up far more expensive new ones.

When he says: To show how serious I am about regulatory reform, I just put off an EPA smog rule.

What he means is: I'm so desperate to get reelected, I'll try anything. But when I do get reelected, that EPA rule will be the first thing I reinstate.

When he says: We need to invest in clean energy jobs of the future.

What he means is: Pay no attention to all those failed taxpayer-supported "green" companies over there.

One of a million reasons why this election matters

2011-09-07T08:00:00.000-04:00

Obamacare must be repealed. Here is a glance at one of the many joys brought by a government-run healthcare system from the UK's Telegraph.

At least 10 primary care trusts (PCTs) have told hospitals to increase the length of time before they see patients in order to save money, an investigation by The Daily Telegraph has found.

In some areas, patients endured delays of 12 or 15 weeks after GPs decided they needed surgery, even though hospitals could have seen them sooner.

The maximum permitted time between referral and treatment is 18 weeks. In one case a manager said the policy keeps patients in line as “short waiting times also create more demand for treatment due to the expectations this raises”.

It comes after an NHS watchdog suggested that if patients are forced to wait a long time, they will remove themselves from lists “either by dying or by paying for their own treatment”.

Let's recap.

The government will save money in its inefficient healthcare system if it makes people wait longer for surgery because more people will die off and more people will willingly die off because the government has so lowered expectation that people expect nothing better.

This is a necessary reality under such a system and it will eventually happen in the US due to scare resources and no incentive to innovate. Not to say that our current system is not a disaster, it is, but government healthcare is not the answer.

Ron Paul: A dangerous President?

2011-09-06T08:00:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul would leave Iran alone, leaving them to develop weapons of mass destruction as they see fit. Meanwhile, per the AP, a recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran's nuclear weapons development is well underway, despite everything done by the "international community" to prevent it to date:

The U.N. nuclear agency said Friday it is "increasingly concerned" about a stream of intelligence suggesting that Iran continues to work secretly on developing a nuclear payload for a missile and other components of a nuclear weapons program.

In its report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said "many member states" are providing evidence for that assessment, describing the information it is receiving as credible, "extensive and comprehensive."

The restricted 9-page report was made available Friday to The Associated Press, shortly after being shared internally with the 35 IAEA member nations and the U.N. Security Council. It also said Tehran has fulfilled a pledged made earlier this year and started installing equipment to enrich uranium at a new location - an underground bunker that is better protected from air attack than its present enrichment facilities.

This is not Canada that we are talking about. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said, amongst other things:

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene" (June 2, 2008, AFP).

"The main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime" (August 3, 2011, Washington Post).

Referring to Isreal: "Do not assume you will be boosted with a (U.N.) recognition of a Palestinian state. There is no room for you in the region" (August 26, 2011 Fox News).

And of course, what is perhaps the most well-known, concise, and straight forward of Ahmadinejad's statements, made early in his Presidency:

"Israel must be 'wiped off the map'" (October 27, 2005, NY Times).

Are you comfortable with a President Ron Paul who would resume the pre-1900 US position of non-interventionism? Would Ron Paul be dangerous as President of the United States, not working to prevent opening the doors to outright nuclear war? Or does it matter anyway, since Iran has continued to develop its nuclear capability despite all that has supposedly been done by the "international community"?

Bush speechwriter: Christie 'actively' considering POTUS run

2011-09-05T08:15:00.000-04:00

One exceptionally vocal conservative voice may be having her long-time wish granted.

Per the Huffington Post:

The speculation simply won't die. On Sunday, former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was "actively" weighing the option of jumping into the Republican presidential race amid voter discontent with the current field.

"I don't think Republicans regard this as a strong field," Gerson said, during an appearance on ABC's "This Week." "So there is still talk of people getting in the race. Not just [Sarah] Palin but last week, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey was in Chicago and had two meetings with serious Republican groups from the Midwest."

"He is actively, I think, considering getting in this race, which would throw things open once more," he added. "But the desire for that to happen ... it shows that they are not happy with the current field, they think it needs to be filled out in an important way. I don't know if that is going to happen, but the desire for many Republicans to expand this field shows that they are not content with it."

Palin in?

2011-09-03T08:15:00.001-04:00

Please don't.

Sarah Palin tantalized supporters on the eve of her appearance at a tea party rally by telling reporters “there’s room for more” candidates in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination. But she gave no hint as to whether she was talking about herself.

The former Alaska governor was mobbed by enthusiastic supporters who chanted, “Run, Sarah, run!” when she arrived at a Des Moines suburb Friday evening. Many had come hundreds or thousands of miles to attend Saturday rally in Indianola and many believe that Palin will become a candidate.

Now back to college football.

Obama-wan knows best

2011-08-16T11:47:00.000-04:00

Obama knows what people want so he will force them to have it.

“You can’t just make money on SUVs and trucks. There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money.”

President Obama is seriously talking about "the market" here? If he knew the first thing about "the market", he would know that term typically implies the free market. In the free market consumers make choices. If consumers freely choose to buy more small cars, then automakers will make more small cars. If consumers freely choose to buy an SUV because, say they have three or four kids or dogs or kids and dogs, and realize it is more fuel efficient to take one vehicle rather than two, they might freely choose that instead. Or consumers may freely choose to drive an SUV because they like it better and do not mind that they freely chose to pay more for gas. That is what the free market does. It freely chooses what meets its needs and desires. Your dictated decrees by force, often seen as regulations, such as emissions standards, run exactly opposite of the free market you are attempting to attach yourself to Mr. President. If you do not realize that, well, it explains quite a bit about our economy.

T-Paw smoked by Bachmann, quits race

2011-08-14T10:02:00.000-04:00

Just head over to Political Derby for this one.

Who won the Iowa debate?

2011-08-11T23:05:00.003-04:00

Note: A very good discussion was held on this same post where it was cross-posted on Political Derby.

Another debate is down. Some of the Republicans really went after each other, which was fantastic to watch. How would you rate the results?

I saw it this way:

Helped themselves
1. Gingrich
2. Perry
3. Romney

The civil war hurt
4. Bachmann
5. Pawlenty

Everyone else...meh
6. Hunstman
7. Cain

Why are you actually still in the race???
5,292,186. Santorum

Where does the world go from here?

2011-08-10T12:00:00.002-04:00

London is on fire. A quarter million protesters have made their views heard in Israel. Riots and protest have been frequent over the past few months in Spain Greece, and Portugal. The Philippines and China have workers protesting over the cost of living and doing business. Syria is seeing riots.

All of these events are related to economic issues. Some may argue that the evil rich are hoarding their money and letting everyone else starve. Others may argue that we have reached a tipping point where the incentive no longer exists for the producers to produce due to increasingly heavy taxation. One thing is certain. The global economy is largely dependent upon the United States economy. That being said, where do you see the global economy moving in the next few year? Will civil unrest, violence, and uprisings continue? How does it end? Or is this all no more than a cycle and the global economy along with the civil unrest will correct itself with time?

Politico: 'Obama plan: Destroy Romney'

2011-08-09T14:00:00.002-04:00

Per Politico, President Obama and his campaign team are expecting Mitt Romney to be the Republican horse in 2012.

Barack Obama’s aides and advisers are preparing to center the president’s reelection campaign on a ferocious personal assault on Mitt Romney’s character and business background, a strategy grounded in the early-stage expectation that the former Massachusetts governor is the likely GOP nominee.

The dramatic and unabashedly negative turn is the product of political reality. Obama remains personally popular, but pluralities in recent polling disapprove of his handling of his job, and Americans fear the country is on the wrong track. . . .

“Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney,” said a prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House.

Thus it begins.

Government 'Department of Innovation'

2011-08-08T12:00:00.000-04:00

Check out the logo for the new 'Department of Innovation'. Do you see something innovative here?

Impact of the budget "deal"

2011-08-04T08:40:00.000-04:00

This chart shows you what a joke all consternation around the budget deal truly was.

Political Calculations put it best:

So, to recap, when compared to the pre-crisis decade of federal government spending, instead of increasing at an annualized rate of 7.35% per year, the total amount of U.S. federal government spending is now projected to only increase at an annualized rate of 6.78% per year, thanks to the so-called "Budget Control Act".

No word yet on whether or not the nation's GDP will grow as quickly....

Real job creation

2011-08-03T15:30:00.000-04:00

There is a rather widespread argument recently circulated. It essentially is: Unemployment would not be so bad if government tax revenues were not down, causing governments to lay off workers.

This argument assumes that government jobs have no negative effect on other employment, or the negative effect is offset by the positive effect of those employees having a job. It also assumes that all jobs are good because they provide the employee income, driving the multiplier effect, or are essentially Keynesian “stimulus”.

Both premises are wrong.

Outside of government, jobs exist for one reason alone.

Profit.

For governments to operate, they must have revenue. Revenue comes from various forms of taxes, with the most prevalent being on income, sales, and property. Generally when something is taxed, you get less of it.

Politicians love to tout their “job-creation record”. They always want to talk about all the jobs they have created. The current administration has taken this a step further reporting on the incalculable “jobs saved”.

However, in reality, politicians do not create jobs. They merely create an environment that affects job creation positively or negatively.

At present, the Obama administration has created an environment of high level of uncertainty with a constant stream of new, costly regulations and the prevailing threats of additional and higher taxes. This has caused many businesses to stall plans to expand and add new jobs.

While it is true that some taxes are necessary because a government must exist, the size of the government is the issue. Every dollar the government takes in taxes reduces the means of production of the economy, thereby reducing investment in business growth, which costs jobs.

Some may argue that the government “creates” jobs with new government positions funded by those taxes. However, most Americans agree that government is exceptionally inefficient and wasteful. There are several reasons for this. One of them is that government has no incentive to be efficient as it has no profit motive.

Businesses are always looking for ways to innovate and drive efficiency to be more profitable (or charitable in the case of a non-profit), thereby freeing up more capital, creating the means to grow the business and pay the owners who took the risk on the business, be they direct owners or shareholders.

However, government does no such thing. Using President Obama’s recent example, if the government had operated all banks, it surely would have never created the ATM because government has no incentive to innovate. Further, it is so difficult for the government to reduce its workforce; it would then be left with the problem of what to do with those employees.

One of the benefits of the economic downturn has been government tax revenues have decreased forcing government to pursue some innovation, driving it, especially at the state and local, level to find ways to do more with fewer employees. This is a constant pursuit in the private sector, as efficiency leads to profitability, which leads to business growth, which leads to more jobs. In much the same way, a leaner government will leave more of the means of production—capital--in the private sector, where the economy grows.

However, politicians like to claim direct “job creation” by naming new positions. This is the reality of how our country operates. Unfortunately, these jobs always come at the expense of the general economy, as its pool of capital is reduced and any benefits of the current leaning of government will be lost. This slows the economy down, as fewer private jobs are created which grow businesses which create additional self-funded jobs.

A job is not a right. If a politician wants to “create” government jobs for the sake of having more “jobs”, they might as well redistribute the producer’s wealth by any of the government’s various other means. There is no difference.

The best way a government can participate in job creation is to leave job creation to the private sector, where the true incentive for growth and real, additional job creation exists.

US credit downgraded from AAA to AA+

2011-08-02T12:00:00.003-04:00

Perhaps it was missed over the weekend that Egan-Jones was the first to downgrade the credit of the United States of America from AAA to AA+. This downgrade was not based upon the latest "significant crisis", but rather our long-term performance.

The major factor driving credit quality is the relatively high level of debt and the difficulty in significantly cutting spending. We are taking a negative action not based on the delay in raising the debt ceiling but rather our concern about the high level of debt to GDP in excess of 100%....

History has proven that defaults on domestic public debt do occur. In fact, seventy out of three
hundred twenty defaults since 1800 have been on domestic public debt

Think of our debt as charged to a credit card with a variable rate. If Moody's and the other credit ratings agencies follow Egan-Jones' lead, our variable rate just went up. Considering that servicing our debt ($213B) is currently about 6% of the federal spending ($3.6T) and 10% of total revenue ($2.2T), imagine the compounding effect of this cost, especially as we continue to add to the $14.6 trillion debt exponentially. For perspective, over the past two years, the debt has increased from about $8T to $14.6T. The annual budgets alone are scheduled to add over $1 trillion per year, less the average of $0.24 trillion per year to be removed with the new bill passed yesterday.

Debt will increase while interest rates simultaneously increase which could very well put us in a situation as illustrated by the chart at the left (click to enlarge the chart). This could become a hole that is impossible to dig out of.

Again, the reason our credit rating has dropped:

The major factor driving credit quality is the relatively high level of debt and the difficulty in significantly cutting spending. We are taking a negative action not based on the delay in raising the debt ceiling but rather our concern about the high level of debt to GDP in excess of 100%....

The debt ceiling debate was nothing but a distraction. The debt "ceiling" has never stopped the US from spending more, as we discussed previously. The real issues are "the difficulty in significantly cutting spending" and addressing the cumulative debt.

Revised GDP numbers paint bleak picture

2011-08-01T10:00:00.001-04:00

As usual, bad news was released on Friday when the nation was focused on the debt deal that has apparently been completed with non-binding "savings" stretched out over ten years, which covers three Presidential terms and five congressional terms. We will not see it. Anway, since it is Monday, the beginning of the news cycle, let us talk about the economic data that was buried in Friday's news. The economy has not grown since 2009. All of the stimulus money has been burned with nothing to show for it. See a telling graphic here from Political Calculations that shows if anything, we have actually entered into a microrecession.

Here is the Wall Street Journal's analysis (or click through Google News):

The historical pattern is that the deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery. This is precisely what happened after the deep 1982 recession, as the nearby table shows. Growth was 4.5% in 1983, 7.2% in 1984, and it averaged nearly 4% for the five years after that through 1989. That is what a healthy recovery is supposed to look like, which is in marked contrast to the anemic eight quarters of this recovery.

This tale of two recoveries is an object lesson in economic policy. Taking office in 2009, President Obama embarked on one of the greatest reflation bets in history. He deployed the entire arsenal of neo-Keynesian policies to lift domestic demand, much as former White House economist Larry Summers still instructs at Harvard and most of the media still recommend.

So Congress deployed nearly a $1 trillion in stimulus, plus a battalion of temporary and targeted programs: cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, tax credits for home buyers, 99 weeks of jobless benefits, "clean energy" grants, subsidies to states, and so much more. We were told that every $1 of this spending would conjure $1.50 in new economic output. The Federal Reserve has also more than cooperated by keeping interest rates near-zero for 31 months.

The bet was that with all this stimulus the economy would rebound as it did in the 1980s. Most of Washington and Wall Street believed that Mr. Obama was set up beautifully to inherit a normal recovery, claim victory for his policies, and ride easily to re-election. The problem is that the policies haven't worked. We are left with slow growth, high unemployment and $4 trillion in new debt.

An old axiom in managing your career is to never take over an organization or team that is excelling because there is only one way to go. Rather, the best thing you can do for yourself is to take over at the lowest possible point because the odds are good time and circumstance will be in your favor. However, if you do take over at the worst point and your leadership takes your organization even lower, you rarely do not keep your job for long.

Perspective

2011-07-30T08:00:00.000-04:00

‘Apple has more cash than the federal government’

Who's ready for iAmerica?

As the BBC has reported, the software company Apple has more cash on hand than the United States federal government, according to the company's financial records.

Stossel: 'Take a chainsaw to the budget'

2011-07-29T12:00:00.005-04:00

If we were actually serious about eliminating the national debt, we need to stop adding to the deficit.

John Stossel, Chris Edwards from the Cato Institute, and Stuart Butler from the Heritage Foundation have put together a list cuts that would balance the budget today and partially address social security and medicare for the future, which are the most significant long-term budget and deficit issues.

From John Stossel's Take:

Defense cut by 2/3: $475 billion (Federal Budget, pg. 58)

Medicare/Medicaid*: $441 billion (Cato Institute)

Social Security*: $170 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate Dept. of Education (includes Pell Grants): $106.9 billion (Cato Institute)

Social Security Means Testing*: $85.7 billion (Cato Institute)

Eliminate Dept. of Transportation: $84.8 billion (Cato Institute)

Tax Amnesty: $80 billion (Rep. Jared Polis D-Co.)

Eliminate Dept. of Labor*: $78.6 billion (Department of Labor and White House)

Eliminate HUD: $60.8 billion (Cato Institute)

Eliminate Dept. of Agriculture*: $33 billion (Cato Institute)

Cut civilian employee compensation: $30 billion (Cato Institute)

Stop maintaining vacant federal property: $25 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate Foreign Aid: $21.2 billion (Cato Institute)

Eliminate Dept. of Energy*: $20.8 billion (Cato Institute)

Eliminate NASA: $19.6 billion (Cato Institute)

Federal Drug War: $15 billion (White House)

Earmark moratorium: $16 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate Fannie/Freddie Subsidies: $14 billion (Federal Housing Finance Agency (p. 10))

Eliminate Dept. of Commerce: $13.9 billion (Department of Commerce)

Eliminate Dept. of Interior: $12 billion (White House)

Legalize Pot, Online gambling, Immigrants: $12 billion (Rep. Jared Polis D-Co.)

Privatize Army Corps of Engineers: $10.6 billion (Cato Institute)

Cut federal employee travel budget: $10 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate National Science Foundation: $7.4 billion (National Science Foundation)

End EPA’s State and Local grants: $6.5 billion (Cato Institute)

Repeal Davis-Bacon: $6 billion (Republican Study Committee)

Privatize TSA: $5.7 billion (Federal Budget)

Cut Dept. of Justice’s State and Local grants: $5 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Privatize Post Office: $4 billion (White House)

Eliminate Small Business Administration: $1.8 billion (Small Business Administration)

Lease coastal plain of ANWR: $1.5 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate Federal Flood Insurance: $1.3 billion (CBO, pg. 3)

Abolish SEC: $1.3 billion (SEC)

Eliminate Corporation for National Community Service: $1 billion (Cato Institute)

Suspend acquisition of federal office space: $1 billion (Heritage Foundation)

End subsidies for public broadcasting: $500 million (Cato Institute)

Eliminate the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp: $480 million (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate the FCC: $439 million (FCC)

Eliminate the Endowments for Arts/Humanities: $332 million (NEA/NEH)

Total Cut: $1,882,619,000,000

Current deficit: $1,645,000,000,000

Surplus Achieved: $237,619,000,000

Everything wrong with our government

2011-07-28T18:47:00.006-04:00

You do not have the votes because the constituents of the members of Congress do not agree with the bill you are attempting to pass.

So what do you do? They call it compromise. It is also known as "the way things are done in Washington".

However, in plain language, this practice is nothing more than buying votes. In still plainer language, this is bribery, illegal everywhere but in the halls of our lawmakers. Obamacare would not have passed without it and neither will John Boehner's debt ceiling bill. Politico reports:

In the closing hours before a critical debt-limit vote, the speaker was pulling Republicans off the floor and meeting with them in his ceremonial office on the second floor of the Capitol as he tries to make sure he has at least 217 votes to pass his deficit package....

GOP aides said Boehner and the entire Republican leadership are pulling out all the stops for the debt vote. Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers of Kentucky is helping usher members into their meetings with Boehner. While Rogers can’t hand out bridge and road projects like his predecessors, he has a wide network of contacts after three decades in Congress, both in Washington and beyond. This network is being worked hard by Boehner and other top Republicans.

“We’re calling governors, donors, former senators, anyone we can to talk to these guys,” said a Republican staffer involved in the frantic arm-twisting effort....

I do not know of one person who served a term in Washington and came home as a better person. It seems every man, in Washington anyway, does have his price.

30 years of out-of-control spending

2011-07-26T12:00:00.004-04:00

Thomas Sowell preaches the gospel on the national debt non-ceiling (via Mark Perry).

The national debt-ceiling law should be judged by what it actually does, not by how good an idea it seems to be. The one thing that the national debt-ceiling has never done is to put a ceiling on the rising national debt. Time and time again, for years on end, the national debt-ceiling has been raised whenever the national debt gets near whatever the current ceiling might be.

Regardless of what it is supposed to do, what the national debt-ceiling actually does is enable any administration to get all the political benefits of runaway spending for the benefit of their favorite constituencies -- and then invite the opposition party to share the blame, by either raising the national debt ceiling, or by voting for unpopular cutbacks in spending or increases in taxes.

The Obama administration is a classic example. When all its skyrocketing spending bills were being rushed through Congress without even being read, the Democrats had such overwhelming majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives that Republicans had all they could do to get a word in edgewise -- even though their words had no chance of stopping, or even slowing down, the spending of trillions of dollars.

Now that the bill is coming due for all that spending and borrowing, Republicans are suddenly being invited in to share the blame for either raising the national debt ceiling or for whatever other unpopular measures will be legislated.

Many years ago, someone said, "If you didn't invite me to the big take-off, don't invite me to the crash landing." This was Obama's big spending spree, but "bipartisanship" requires Republicans to either split the bill or be blamed if the government shuts down or defaults.

What would happen if there were no national debt-ceiling law?

Those who got the political benefits from handing out trillions of dollars of the taxpayers' money (plus borrowed money) would also get the clear and sole blame for the resulting skyrocketing national debt and all the unpopular consequences.

Huntsman campaign over before it started

2011-07-21T16:38:00.001-04:00

Jon Hunstman appears to be early on the same path as Newt Gingrich.

Only a month into his run for the Presidency, his campaign manager has quit.

Do not worry Jon. You never had a chance anyway. But I'm sure you will go on simply to harass your mortal enemy, the seed of your jealousy and current leader of the Derby, Mitt Romney.

You're too dumb to comment on the economy if you don't have a degree in economics!

2011-07-21T08:00:00.001-04:00

According to the liberal media, if you do not have a degree in economics, you are just not smart enough to understand the complexity of the issues, while the media obviously does--duh!

And when it turns out you do have a degree in economics, well, that doesn't matter anyway, if you disagree with media!

MSNBC. All comedy, all the time.

Rick Perry one step closer to running

2011-07-20T17:00:00.000-04:00

KHOU is reporting that Rick Perry's wife Anita is telling him to run. His entrance in the Republican primary is beginning to look like a foregone conclusion. Expect an official announcement before the end of summer. Also expect a significant move up from the "honorable mention" section in the next edition of the Power Rankings.

Steve Wynn's Obama commentary

2011-07-19T15:00:00.001-04:00

If you missed it, Steve Wynn, the casino mogul, recently had quite a bit to say regarding the economy under President Obama during his Q2 results call. In fact, being an actual job creator, he credibly explains the present unemployment situation better than any pundit, commentator or Political Derby writer ever could.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.

William Jacobson's analysis summarizes this well.

It’s been something I’ve been writing about since before the election, the Obama effect. It’s why Obama owns the job losses in the late fall of 2008 and winter of 2009 even before he became president. The Obama effect since the moment it became clear he would become president has forced investors and businesses to the sidelines. Would the layoffs in November 2008 through January 2009 — which regularly are blamed on Bush — have been as bad except for the business fear of what was to come under Obama? I think not, businesses prepared for the worst, which is exactly what they got.

Coburn's debt plan

2011-07-18T10:00:00.000-04:00

Later today, Tom Coburn intends to release his debt plan that includes "increased revenues" through tax reforms. It is a plan that on the surface seems to make a lot of sense. Here are some elements of his plan:

$9 trillion deficit-reduction package

$1 trillion cut by eliminating special tax breaks, such as the tax subsidy for ethanol

$1 trillion cut from the Defense Department budget over the next decade

$500 billion cut from other government agencies.

$1 trillion saved in federal interest payments over the next nine years by curbing the projected growth of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. (This likely relates to the social security calculation, as we've talked about before.)

Additionally, from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

Instead of just hiking taxes or only “closing loopholes,” Coburn wants to lower overall rates while flattening and simplifying the system. That takes some of the sting out of revenue increases and gives both parties something to win. Republicans get their tax reform and simplification, and Democrats get to take credit for more “fairness” through the elimination of arcane tax deductions, especially in the corporate tax code. That kind of compromise has been easily achievable — and almost entirely ignored by the White House.

Simplifying the tax system and removing some of the government's centralized planning, also known as the game of picking and winners and losers, also known as subsidies, are both things I would like to see. In the case of Coburn's plan, as far as what we know prior to its release later today, I can absolutely accept these "revenue increases" as part of what the President would call a "balanced plan", though these are not the revenue increases he is looking for.

Obama blatantly lying?

2011-07-15T14:30:00.000-04:00

Today President Obama claimed:

The bottom line is that this is not an issue of salesmanship to the American people, the American people are sold. The American people are sold, I just want to repeat this. … You have 80% of the American people who support a balanced approach. 80% of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts.

However in this poll released yesterday by Rasmussen Reports, only "34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling". Additional, on July 9th, Rasmussen polls showed that "55% of Likely U.S. Voters now think decreases in government spending help the economy" and "just 24% of Likely U.S. Voters think tax increases help the economy".

I frankly don't know where the President is getting his data from, other than the thin air around him. It seems he believes that if he tells you what it is you should think, that is what you will think.

TSA: Too Stupid for America

2011-07-14T12:00:00.000-04:00

John Stossel has written fantastic piece on the Transportation "Security" Administration (emphasis added throughout).

Maybe it stands for "Thousands Standing Around."

Under the guise of making us safer, government has greatly expanded its role in airport security.

But according a report released today, we're not very much safer. Since November 2001, there have been 25,000 security breaches in our nation's airports. And these are just the breaches that we know about. A few days ago, a man managed to fly from Boston to Newark with a stun gun.

Like most failed government programs, many people think that the solution is to throw more money at the problem, even though the first version of the TSA spent far more than the private screeners they replaced, and since then the TSA's budget has increased from $4.7 billion in 2002 to $7.8 billion [66%!] in 2011.

All that extra money gives them more opportunity to do ever more invasive searches

The answer to this problem is the same as most others--allow competition.

By privatizing airport security, we can make the TSA more accountable. The government can fire a bad private security firm, but government never fires itself. Even the TSA knows that privatization works. Their own leaked study found that private security works at the "same level or better" than TSA screeners. In one test, TSA employees at Los Angeles Airport missed 75% of explosives used by inspectors to test screeners. But San Francisco screeners, who work for a private company, missed only 20%.

Despite this internal TSA study that had results reaching back into 2002 TSA Administrator John Pistole lied:

I examined the contractor screening program and decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time.

This is not really about security. It is about power and control. If it were about security, the TSA would voluntarily go away be replaced by superior private contractors rather than acting as Napoleon's attack dogs.

Jimmy Carter’s 2nd term?

2011-07-14T08:00:00.000-04:00

Charlie Hurt's take in the Washington Times:

It has taken three decades, but Americans are finally living through Jimmy Carter’s second term.

Now we’ve got Jimmy Jr. barking at us from the White House about eating our peas and ripping off our Band-Aid. He might not even let us have our Social Security checks....

The problem with reaching a deal to raise the debt ceiling, [Obama] explained in a long sermon, is that there is this huge wave of Republicans who won control of the House in the last election by promising not to raise any more taxes and to cut the absurd overspending that has driven this town for decades.

He bemoaned - in public - that these Republicans are more concerned about the “next election” rather than doing “what’s right for the country.” In other words, he is saying the honorable thing would be for these Republicans to ignore the expressed wishes of voters, break their campaign promises and raise taxes. Wow.

As if the whole problem of Washington spending us into oblivion is the fault of stingy taxpayers and stupid voters. And what we really need is Jimmy Jr., who knows what is best for us despite what we may think.

Read it in its entirety here.

Scare tactics in use by the President again

2011-07-13T12:00:00.000-04:00

Yesterday President Obama went with 'the elderly won't get their social security' and 'we are facing overall economic catastrophe' so you must do what he wants.

President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

The Obama administration and many economists have warned of economic catastrophe if the United States does not raise the amount it is legally allowed to borrow by August 2.

Nothing like the classic scare the old people tactic to signal we are already in election season.

California's two state solution

2011-07-12T12:00:00.003-04:00

Thoughts from Andrew Malcolm on California being divided into two states:

One advantage of adding a 51st state is that President Obama would be a little less wrong when he refers to 57 states.

The new boundaries would also stick Nancy Pelosi's Bay Area California in with Los Angles. The two crowded, polluted urban areas deserve each other, and their residents could chat all they want about wine and NPR without boring hardworking conservative neighbors who can't afford maids....

Hollywood celebrities attempting to cross the new state for Las Vegas would encounter outrageously high tolls equivalent to twice the current price of a movie ticket or combo pack at the concession stand. (Tom Selleck, Patricia Heaton and Jerry Bruckheimer would be exempt from such levies.)

The new state would, of course, get the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, the Miramar Naval Air Station and the San Diego naval base, including the nuclear sub facilities.

That's because with the GOP always in charge of the 51st state there would finally be some serious border security with old Mexico, possibly modeled on the Korean DMZ.....

However, let's be honest, "South California, Not as Bad as You Might Think" is just a lame name. That implies some kind of parity with another California. So does California Adjacent. Flyover California doesn't sing. The Other California could confuse.

Read the column in its entirety here.

Unemployment goes up yet again

2011-07-11T08:30:00.002-04:00

As posted on PoliticalDerby.com.

Click to enlarge

I am amazed Americans are still buying the 'blame the other guy it's not my fault' argument on the economy. There should be wide-spread outrage. The unemployment report for June has just been released showing yet another increase to 9.2%! Businesses will not invest in growth or expansion in the current political environment filled with government intervention.
To the left you can see a slight dated (though the point remains the same) chart from Jame Pethokoukis comparing President Obama's claims of the effects on employment with and without his so-called 'stimulus' compared with reality.

This is why anyone with the generic title of "Republican" is polling ahead of Obama and the administration itself has admitted to the negative effects of the 'stimulus' bill.

Is this country so partisan that it is now rendered blind and stupid? Where is the wide-spread outrage against the worst economic policies since Jimmy Carter?

Easy campaign issue

2011-07-07T12:00:00.001-04:00

Fifty three percent of "likely voters" favor repealing Obamacare, according to Rasmussen Reports. There are not many issues, save taxes and spending, that will be more broadly discussed and contested. However, the Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney, will have the most difficult time making the case against Obamacare.

This leads to some interesting questions. A majority of those who favor repealing the health care law are likely Republicans. Will this cause them to reject Romney? If so, do candidates without the national appeal of Romney such as Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Cain even stand a chance, were they to take the nomination. If Romney does win the nomination, does his record on health care drive independent voters who want the law repealed back to Obama?

‘Stimulus’ non-results as reported by Obama administration

2011-07-06T07:13:00.003-04:00

You know it is bad news for the current administration when a report is released on a Friday before a holiday weekend to presumably be buried by time, which is precisely why I bring it up this week.

I'll let Jefferey Anderson from The Weekly Standard explain.

The “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus”.... was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus” was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.

Independence Day required reading

2011-07-04T09:14:00.000-04:00

Click to enlarge

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Unintended consequences of government regulations

2011-06-30T15:30:00.000-04:00

Today California took another stand against business. Governor Jerry Brown has signed a law taxing internet sales with immediate effectiveness

According the Orange County Register:

[The law] will immediately cut small-business website revenue 20% to 30%, experts say.

The state Board of Equalization says the tax will raise $200 million a year, but critics claim it will raise nothing because online retailers will end their affiliate programs rather than collect the tax.

First of all, "The state Board of Equalization"? Really? I guess my friend who manages a business in California that calls it the "Socialist Republic of California" is right.

Furthermore, it is typical of government to sell a new policy based on revenues that assume its intervention will have no effect on the current business environment. However, there are always unintended consequences. In California's case, these consequences were rather immediate.

Amazon has already emailed its termination of its affiliate advertising program with 25,000 websites.

This is what happens with you are dealing with one of the quickest to respond to the market companies in the world--unintended consequences. Thousands of Californians lost their jobs today. More businesses immediately made plans to leave the state, which will add to the 5.4 businesses per week that leave, as we have discussed previously.

Almost all the California Amazon affiliates have fewer than 75 employees and a large percentage have no employees, according to Rebecca Madigan executive director of the Performance Marketing Association, a Camarillo-based nationwide trade association.

"This law won't impact Amazon that much but it is a crisis for website owners who make revenue by placing ads on their websites for thousands of online retailers," Madigan said. "Most of them don't have a physical presence in California."

Governor Brown has immediately disabled and liked closed many of the small businesses operating 25,000 websites!

California Retailers Association stated: "We thank Governor Jerry Brown and the leaders in the California State Legislature who have demonstrated their leadership and commitment to California businesses by passing and signing e-fairness into law. Small and large businesses across the state have been held at a major disadvantage by the current law that out-of-state online companies like Amazon.com and Overstock.com have exploited for years. This has cost us jobs and revenues."

And now we discover the truth. The board members of the California Retailers Association are all big businesses. Under the guise of "fairness", the usual lie, these big business recognized their inability to complete with with an innovator like Amazon.com or its small business affiliates due to their quickly-fading antiquated business models. So rather than embrace the competition and evolve with what consumers demand, these big businesses sought government intervention. Ironically, the California Retailers Association also claims membership in Californians Against Higher Taxes. It appears they are only against higher taxes when it is in their individual interest.

In reality, government protectionism only stifles innovation. Can you image a world where the government decided the stagecoach industry was indispensable and created unrealistic barriers to entry for the automobile manufacturers? This is the same situation. Amazon.com is better at retailing than the California Retailers Association, it provides what the market demands. So rather than figure out a way to retail better than Amazon, the California Retailers Association expects Californians to be happy with their old, under performing, undesirable business models.

Bachmann’s best line yesterday

2011-06-30T08:00:00.000-04:00

Yesterday Michelle Bachmann was in my backyard. I would have gone to listen to her speech, but I have this pesky thing they call a job.

However, the best line reported from her speech was one someone asked her about alleged tension between herself and Sarah Palin. Referring to the media, Bachmann said:

They want to see two girls come together and have a mud-wrestling fight, and I'm not going to give it to 'em.

I think I'm going to quite enjoy now living in an early primary state.

Any (R) in the derby polls ahead of Obama

2011-06-30T07:00:00.001-04:00

Per Rasmussen Reports (emphasis added):

A generic Republican candidate now holds a four-point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup. It's a fifth week in a row that the GOP candidate has been ahead and the widest gap between the candidates to date.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds a generic Republican candidate earns support from 46% of Likely U.S. Voters, while the president picks up 42% of the vote. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and nine percent (9%) are undecided.

Iran launches nukes

2011-06-29T09:30:00.000-04:00

In my view, Iran is one of the top five most concerning countries to have nuclear weapons capabilities, especially considering the views of its leaders on Israel. Now reports are they have been test launching nuclear missiles.

Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said they had fired 14 missiles in an exercise, one of them a medium-range weapon capable of striking Israel or US targets in the Gulf....

Iran had also announced plans to triple its capacity to produce 20 percent enriched uranium....

Western governments fear Tehran is seeking to develop a ballistic capability to enable it to launch atomic warheads under cover of its civil nuclear programme.

Read the rest here.

Corn prices and the Iowa Caucus

2011-06-29T08:00:00.000-04:00

Corn subsidizes for ethanol are one of the most ridiculous examples of government intervention causing unintended consequences. Iowa is the largest producer of corn in the country. It is also where the presidential primary season begins. Of course this is all connected. According to Steven Rattner:

In a crowd of rising food and commodity costs, corn stands out, its price having doubled in less than a year to a record $7.87 per bushel in early June. Booming global demand has overtaken stagnant supply.

But rather than ameliorate the problem, the government has exacerbated it, reducing food supply to a hungry world. Thanks to Washington, 4 of every 10 ears of corn grown in America — the source of 40 percent of the world’s production — are shunted into ethanol, a gasoline substitute that imperceptibly nicks our energy problem. Larded onto that are $11 billion a year of government subsidies to the corn complex.

Corn is hardly some minor agricultural product for breakfast cereal. It’s America’s largest crop, dwarfing wheat and soybeans. . . .

To ease the pain, Congress threw in a 45-cents-a-gallon subsidy ($6 billion a year); to add another layer of protection, it imposed a tariff on imported ethanol of 54 cents a gallon. That successfully shut off cheap imports, produced more efficiently from sugar cane, principally from Brazil.

Here is perhaps the most incredible part: Because of the subsidy, ethanol became cheaper than gasoline, and so we sent 397 million gallons of ethanol overseas last year. America is simultaneously importing costly foreign oil and subsidizing the export of its equivalent.

That’s not all. Ethanol packs less punch than gasoline and uses considerable energy in its production process. All told, each gallon of gasoline that is displaced costs the Treasury $1.78 in subsidies and lost tax revenue.

Read the rest here.

Top American-made cars are Toyota and Honda

2011-06-28T07:00:00.001-04:00

According to Cars.com's American-Made Index ranking, five Toyota and Honda models are included in the top ten and four of the top six, with the Camry and Accord taking the first two spots. The system, according to Cars.com:

Rates vehicles built and bought in the U.S. Factors include sales, where the car's parts come from and whether the car is assembled in the U.S. We disqualify models with a domestic parts content rating below 75 percent, models built exclusively outside the U.S. or models soon to be discontinued without a U.S.-built successor.

The UAW ought to be reminded that many of the "foreign" cars are as much as if not more American than Ford, Chevrolet, and Chrysler, not to mention often have greater sales!

However, politicians will only continue to bail out the American automotive manufacturing industry from its abject failures due to the union money laundering scheme.

Bachmann, Romney dead heat in Iowa poll

2011-06-27T13:30:00.001-04:00

Don't forget to checkout my article in the Deseret News here!

Per the Des Moines Register:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann sit atop the standings in the year’s first Des Moines Register Iowa Poll on the Republican presidential field.

Romney, the national front-runner and a familiar face in Iowa after his 2008 presidential run, attracts support from 23 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers. Bachmann, who will officially kick off her campaign in Iowa on Monday, nearly matches him, with 22 percent.

“She’s up there as a real competitor and a real contender,” said Republican pollster Randy Gutermuth, who is unaffiliated with any of the presidential candidates. “This would indicate that she’s going to be a real player in Iowa.”

The rest is here.

You get what you don't tax

2011-06-24T08:00:00.002-04:00

The economist's axiom is you if tax something, you get less of it. This is the argument behind so called "sin" taxes on items such as cigarettes and alcohol.
This being the case, why do politicians continually rail about jobs leaving the US (or going to ATMs? Yup should have subsided the stagecoach and kept it around too) when corporations are continually taxed more for having employees?

Have a look below at how the makeup of corporate taxes has changed over the years from Political Calculations:

If you want to see less outsourcing, then your policy should be to reduce payroll taxes, which are costs of having employees. When I have worked on labor reduction efforts at a few different companies, we always add 35%-40% to the affected employees' salaries to account for taxes and benefits for the saving calculation. It is exceptionally expensive to employ Americans. So the questions is, what behavior do you want your policy to drive? As economist Mark Perry has written: "Build it and they will come; tax it and they will leave."

Democrats want to do the same thing, expect different results

2011-06-23T08:00:00.003-04:00

As if wasting hundreds of millions of dollars over the past two years on pet projects flippantly referred to as "stimulus" was not enough, with unemployment not improving, the today the Democrats are talking about spending even more.

Democratic leaders called on Wednesday for additional spending to boost the sluggish U.S. economy, setting up a fresh hurdle for bipartisan efforts in Washington to head off a government debt default this summer.

Proving he has zero understanding of who or what actually creates jobs, Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin said:

"Get the recovery right before you get in this deficit-cutting mode. Get people back to work. Let's start moving in that direction."

How was it that Einstein defined insanity? Right. Einstein was not that bright anyway, I guess.

Chart credit: Jim Hoft.

Worshiping with the Saints in India

2011-06-22T12:00:00.000-04:00

My latest work has been carried by the Deseret News and Mormon Times. Please click over there and have a look! If you like it, please recommend the Mormon Times link on Facebook as well!

Why do business in California?

2011-06-20T13:00:00.002-04:00

According to the Tax Foundation, California currently ranks next-to-last (only New York is worse) among U.S. states for "business tax climate". When a state, or nation for that matter, is hostile to businesses within its borders, business leaves. So do the jobs. Because, as economist will often say, when you tax something, you get less of it. Check out the graphic to the left showing the number of companies leaving California weekly before reading the analysis of consultant Joseph Vranich below.

Today, California is experiencing the fastest rate of disinvestment events based on public domain information, closure notices to the state, and information from affected employees in the three years since a specialized tracking system was put into place.

Out-of-state economic development officials are traveling through the state to alert frustrated business owners and corporate executives to their friendlier business climate versus California's hostility toward commercial enterprises.
From Jan. 1 of this year through this morning, June 16, we have had 129 disinvestment events occur, an average of 5.4 per week.
For all of last year, we saw an average of 3.9 events per week.
Comparing this year thus far with 2009, when the total was 51 events, essentially averaging 1 per week, our rate today is more than 5 times what it was then.
The top five destinations are (1) Texas, (2) Arizona, (3) Colorado, (4) Nevada and Utah tied; and (5) Virginia and North Carolina tied.

Graphic from the Tax Foundation.

Note: Click to enlarge.

Affirmative action quandary

2011-06-15T08:15:00.001-04:00

Watch what happens when students at the University of California-Riverside are asked to apply the concept of affirmative action in a way not typically done, but still under the typical reasons of "equity" and "leveling the playing field". Hypocrisy may abound!

This type of ridiculousness is propagated by organizations like the University of Central Florida, that has long tried to make a name for itself by producing an annual "Racial and Gender Report Card" for each of the major professional sports leagues. For example, in 2010, UCF awarded the National Basketball Association (NBA) "an 'A' for race . . . higher than any other sport in the history of the Racial and Gender Report Card." What goes in to earning an 'A'? Here is the racial breakdown of the NBA, according to UCF:

White: 18%

Black: 77%

Latino: 3%

Asian: 1%

Now, according to the CIA World Factbook, the racial breakdown of the United States:

White: 80% (NBA-18%)

Black: 13% (NBA-77%)

Latino: 15%* (NBA-3% )

Asian: 4% (NBA-1%)

This is your "level playing field" of 'A'-rated behavior that apparently is the model all others should emulate.

*Note: A separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic.

Happy Birthday to My Sweet Wife!!!

2011-06-14T10:47:00.003-04:00

Click to enlarge!!!

Which state’s economy grew the most from 2009-2010?

2011-06-13T15:40:00.002-04:00

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the answer is the economic powerhouse of North Dakota. In fact, 48 of the 50 states and the District that wants to be a state all experienced growth in GDP from 2009 to 2010. But as you look through the changes from state to state, is it largely a reflection of being so far down that the states could not help but get better, is it the effects of winners and losers picked by the President's spending "stimulus" bill, is it positive results in states where government does not make it difficult to do business, is it something else entirely, or is it some combination thereof?

Click to enlarge.

Romney beats Obama in poll

2011-06-07T11:08:00.003-04:00

It is within the margin of error, but per a Washington Post poll, Mitt Romney is ahead of President Obama. With som very interesting polling data, the Post explains:

The public opinion boost President Obama received after the killing of Osama bin Laden has dissipated, and Americans’ disapproval of how he is handling the nation’s economy and the deficit has reached new highs, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey portrays a broadly pessimistic mood in the country this spring as higher gasoline prices, sliding home values and a disappointing employment picture have raised fresh concerns about the pace of the economic recovery.

By 2 to 1, Americans say the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track, and nine in 10 continue to rate the economy in negative terms. Nearly six in 10 say the economy has not started to recover, regardless of what official statistics may say, and most of those who say it has improved rate the recovery as weak.

New Post-ABC numbers show Obama leading five of six potential Republican presidential rivals tested in the poll. But he is in a dead heat with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney . . . the former governor is numerically ahead, 49 percent to 46 percent

Read the rest here.

That was awkward

2011-05-23T14:43:00.003-04:00

Tough weekend.

This is what government overregulation gets you

2011-05-12T11:39:00.000-04:00

In today's Wall Street Journal, Boeing President and CEO Jim McNerney responds to the National Labor Relations Board's recent complaint against them, which essentially alleges retaliation against the union and unfair labor practices for opening an additional plant with an additional production line for the Dreamliner, or 787, in North Charleston, South Carolina.

Deep into the recent recession, Boeing decided to invest more than $1 billion in a new factory in South Carolina. Surging global demand for our innovative, new 787 Dreamliner exceeded what we could build on one production line and we needed to open another.

This was good news for Boeing and for the economy. The new jetliner assembly plant would be the first one built in the U.S. in 40 years. It would create new American jobs at a time when most employers are hunkered down. It would expand the domestic footprint of the nation's leading exporter and make it more competitive against emerging plane makers from China, Russia and elsewhere. And it would bring hope to a state burdened by double-digit unemployment—with the construction phase alone estimated to create more than 9,000 total jobs.

Eighteen months later, a North Charleston swamp has been transformed into a state-of-the-art, green-energy powered, 1.2 million square-foot airplane assembly plant. One thousand new workers are hired and being trained to start building planes in July.

It is an American industrial success story by every measure. With 9% unemployment nationwide, we need more of them—and soon.

Yet the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) believes it was a mistake and that our actions were unlawful. It claims we improperly transferred existing work, and that our decision reflected "animus" and constituted "retaliation" against union-represented employees in Washington state. Its remedy: Reverse course, Boeing, and build the assembly line where we tell you to build it.

The NLRB is wrong and has far overreached its authority. Its action is a fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America's competitiveness since it became the world's largest economy nearly 140 years ago. We've made a rational, legal business decision about the allocation of our capital and the placement of new work within the U.S. We're confident the federal courts will reject the claim, but only after a significant and unnecessary expense to taxpayers.

More worrisome, though, are the potential implications of such brazen regulatory activism on the U.S. manufacturing base and long-term job creation. The NLRB's overreach could accelerate the overseas flight of good, middle-class American jobs.

Read the rest here.

Goodbye Trump

2011-05-12T11:38:00.000-04:00

Well that didn't take long. Donald Trump has moved from winning polls of the Republican field only a few weeks ago to tying for 5th place with 8 percent of the potential vote.

Of course, you can't always trust polling data....

A poll released Tuesday by Public Policy Polling (PPP), a firm with connections to prominent Democrats, showed Republicans have increasingly turned against billionaire and reality TV star Donald Trump’s presidential ambitions. While Trump led the Republican pack in April’s version of the PPP poll, he was a distant fifth in the May poll.

In this latest poll former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee leads the pack with 19 percent. Former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts is right at his heels in second with 18 percent. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, expected to announce his presidential bid on Wednesday, placed third with 13 percent, followed by former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska with 12 percent. Trump tied U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas for fifth with 8 percent, followed by two Minnesotans -- U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann with 7 percent and former Gov. Tim Pawlenty in eighth with 5 percent.

“Donald Trump had a meteoric rise to the top of the GOP presidential field and has fallen back down just as quickly,” said Dean Debnam, president of PPP. “Republican voters burned out on him pretty fast, especially after the birther issue lost some of its potency with the release of President Obama’s birth certificate.”

Read the rest here where there is some interesting analysis on what happens when you remove certain candidates from the available selections which make for more realistic polls.

If supermarkets were like public schools

2011-05-09T08:56:00.000-04:00

Donald Boudreau of George Mason University poses an interesting analogy in the Wall Street Journal.

Suppose that groceries were supplied in the same way as K-12 education. Residents of each county would pay taxes on their properties. Nearly half of those tax revenues would then be spent by government officials to build and operate supermarkets. Each family would be assigned to a particular supermarket according to its home address. And each family would get its weekly allotment of groceries—"for free"—from its neighborhood public supermarket.

No family would be permitted to get groceries from a public supermarket outside of its district. Fortunately, though, thanks to a Supreme Court decision, families would be free to shop at private supermarkets that charge directly for the groceries they offer. Private-supermarket families, however, would receive no reductions in their property taxes.

Of course, the quality of public supermarkets would play a major role in families' choices about where to live. Real-estate agents and chambers of commerce in prosperous neighborhoods would brag about the high quality of public supermarkets to which families in their cities and towns are assigned.

Being largely protected from consumer choice, almost all public supermarkets would be worse than private ones. In poor counties the quality of public supermarkets would be downright abysmal. Poor people—entitled in principle to excellent supermarkets—would in fact suffer unusually poor supermarket quality.

How could it be otherwise? Public supermarkets would have captive customers and revenues supplied not by customers but by the government. Of course they wouldn't organize themselves efficiently to meet customers' demands.

Responding to these failures, thoughtful souls would call for "supermarket choice" fueled by vouchers or tax credits. Those calls would be vigorously opposed by public-supermarket administrators and workers.

Opponents of supermarket choice would accuse its proponents of demonizing supermarket workers (who, after all, have no control over their customers' poor eating habits at home). Advocates of choice would also be accused of trying to deny ordinary families the food needed for survival. Such choice, it would be alleged, would drain precious resources from public supermarkets whose poor performance testifies to their overwhelming need for more public funds.

As for the handful of radicals who call for total separation of supermarket and state—well, they would be criticized by almost everyone as antisocial devils indifferent to the starvation that would haunt the land if the provision of groceries were governed exclusively by private market forces.

Read the rest here.

Economic destruction

2011-05-05T10:08:00.002-04:00

I often wonder what the real motives of politicians are. The healthcare law that was supposed to be the end-all and be-all of all laws, touted as the best way to help all Americans does not provide health insurance for everyone and as of today has 729 approved waivers to the law. These waivers create a competitive advantage for those companies and unions, which the list is littered with, that the Obama Administration deemed as above the law. This is how free markets are destroyed. It is another kind of economy altogether when the government picks the winners and losers.

Today a new report has surfaced of Obama's plan to tax every car by the mile driven, pathetically titled: "The Transportation Opportunities Act". Combined with today's historically high gas prices, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is clearly an economically destructive policy. However, in reality, through regulations and exemptions, winners and losers will again be picked. The friends and donors of the politicians will be just fine and the rest of us will have to survive on even less.

Or the President simply wants to destroy our economy. It does not make sense.

Another state votes to eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees

2011-04-29T09:08:00.003-04:00

The evil Republicans who care about supposed fiscal responsibility are at it again.

House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states.

I am waiting for the same protesting we saw in Wisconsin, especially since this goes further. Governor Walker's bill exempted police officers and fire fighters.

Except that isn't going to happen.
Because in this case:

The push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

The unions need to wake up to the reality that the public does not have unlimited funds and that even honest Democrats recognize. These are the same Democrats, who are, in the words of Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, "The same Democrats that all these labor unions elected."

In the end, the tax money to union dues to roughly 95% of political contributions for Democrats money laundering scheme (remember, the "labor union elected [them]") will likely win out in Massachusetts. But it is quite impressive to see some Democrats who are reasonable.

By the way, where is the national media in all of this? Where is Michael Moore?

Fight of the century

2011-04-28T09:30:00.000-04:00

It seems rather apropos that the day after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told us that the FED's stimulus policy would remain in place and inflation would increase 33% more than originally projected that John Papola and Russ Roberts' second rap video has been released.

By the way, concerning the FED Chairman's remarks, CNBC reported:

The Fed cut its growth estimate for 2011 to between 3.1 percent and 3.3 percent from a January forecast of 3.4 percent to 3.9 percent.

The Fed also raised its estimate of inflation this year to a range of 2.1 percent to 2.8 percent, taking into account a recent surge in oil prices. However, it bumped its core inflation forecasts only marginally to a 1.3 percent to 1.6 percent range.

If you missed the first fantastic video, here it is:

Birthers, please go away now

2011-04-27T09:45:00.000-04:00

Update: The birth certificate the media won't show you!

Today President Obama released his much unanticipated long-form birth certificate which leads to several important questions.

What will World Net Daily do? Will it have any content left to justify its existence?

Will Donald Trump have anything serious to talk about in his supposed run for the Presidency?

Will the media continue to give the populist Trump his bully pulpit now that his primary issue has been wholly diffused?

What led the Obama administration to release the document at this point? Was it actually so concerned with Trump's viability?

Unfortunately, the birthers will still be out there, as there is certain to be a faction who will consider President Obama's birth certificate to be a fake.

Where should you live?

2011-04-26T07:00:00.001-04:00

States compete for jobs and wealth creators. When New York State went after those making over $250,000 per year, falsely calling it a millionaires tax, several high profile businessmen, such as Rush Limbaugh changed their residence to Florida, a state with no income tax. Further, the last few censuses have show a general trend for people to leave the northeast and west coast, moving toward the center and south of the country. This isn't a coincidence.

If your job allows you the the choice of where to live and family was not a deciding factor, where would you live?

Map created by The Tax Foundation.

Honor Michael Vick

2011-04-25T15:00:00.002-04:00

Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick is one of two choices remaining as a possibility to grace the cover of Madden 2012, based on fan voting. I cannot think of someone more deserving, as Vick is a person who has more than paid his debt to society and has had a fantastic year on the football field. Furthermore, EA Sports clearly no longer sees him as a marketing liability, or they certainly would have never put him on the short list as it is.

Of course, according to PETA, there is no redemption, as they believed Vick should have been removed from consideration. Fortunately, EA was principled enough (be it by the potential revenue or believing in personal redemption, though as a for-profit company, I would give more weight to the former) to leave the Eagles' quarterback in the running.

Vick, upon hearing of this, was his now-humble self, telling the Philadephia Inquirer: "I appreciate EA sports standing tall and sticking up for me. I will continue to be positive. Let other people be negative. That's their view. They're entitled to their opinion. I won't try to change it."

Michael Vick is an amazing example of what someone can do when they decide to make a change to their life and he deserves all good things that come to him. I am one person hoping the big endorsement deals come back to the distinguished Mr. Vick.

The new banana republic?

2011-04-22T12:24:00.000-04:00

Has the United States of America become nothing but a banana republic? Washington's Blog asserts as much:

Experts on third world banana republics from the IMF and the Federal Reserve have said the U.S. has become a third world banana republic (and see this and this).

Are they right?

Well, let's look at Wikipedia's description of the four factors which make a country a banana republic.

Profits Privatized and Debts Socialized

The first feature of a banana republic as "A collusion between the overweening state and certain favored monopolistic concerns, whereby the profits can be privatized and the debts socialized."

Devalued Paper Currency

The second characteristic of a banana republic is "Devalued paper currency in the international community."

Politicians Use Time in Office to Maximize Their Own Gains

The third characteristic of a banana republic is:

Kleptocracy -- those in positions of influence use their time in office to maximize their own gains, always ensuring that any shortfall is made up by those unfortunates whose daily life involves earning money rather than making it.

Corruption Remains Unchecked, Politicians Are Only for Show

And the fourth characteristic of a banana republic is:

There must be no principle of accountability within the government so that the political corruption by which the banana republic operates is left unchecked. The members of the national legislature will be (a) largely for sale and (b) consulted only for ceremonial and rubber-stamp purposes some time after all the truly important decisions have already been made elsewhere.

You can read his full analysis of each point here and additional analysis by Political Calculations here.

A majority of us are 'all Socialists now'

2011-04-21T15:30:00.002-04:00

In 2009 Newsweek ran a cover with the headline "We are all Socialists Now". At the time, tax year 2008 data was out that showed 49% of Americans paid no federal taxes. 2009 tax data was similar in that 47% of Americans paid no federal taxes. Most of these that do not pay taxes receive government payouts, or "transfers", as economists call it.

In reality, this is the redistribution of wealth, or Socialism.

Now we learn that in 2010 the government paid out more in handouts than it took in tax revenue.

Even if you believe the government programs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and stimulus are some great altruistic programs, do you really believe it makes sense to run the printing presses at the treasury to support such programs?

The last time the United States government paid out more in handouts than it received in tax revenue, we ended up with a four term President.

I have argued before that politicians are working to create a block of voters who will never vote them or their party out of office. We are nearly there. This country will never had a Socialist revolution. Rather, a majority of Americans will happily choose this path in the voting booth because they were paid to make that choice.

The effects of gas prices

2011-04-18T09:30:00.002-04:00

Batman, for one, can afford a new car to combat high gas prices, unlike the the person President Obama told to buy a new car to fix his financial woes. Because if you're struggling financially, buying another car will always help. Such logic only makes sense in the world of the President whose budget spends three dollars for every two dollars it takes in.

HT: Political Calculations

At least the bad guys will have a chance now which is more "fair" to them.

Equal pay for equal work

2011-04-15T06:46:00.000-04:00

Tuesday was the supposed equal pay day, so named by several feminist organizations to denote the wages women earn compared to men in aggregate. However, this is a convenient way to look at things. It is similar to the "it's not fair that the top 1 percent of Americans hold about 24% of the wealth, they should pay more in taxes!", as the President is essentially promoting. Then you realize this 1 percent of the population already pays approximately 38% of the tax bill and 47% of Americans pay no federal taxes, which is akin to the feminist argument. Or as put by Mark Twain, "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"

It is true that numbers can be contorted or analyzed in a way to show many things like "Donald Trump is the second choice today among Republicans!' This particular poll means very little because the total number of candidate choices available to those polled skew the results (over ten). However, the statement of Trump being second choice of Republicans behind Mitt Romney sounds very significant until you realize he was selected by only 17% of those polled. That's the equivalent of saying, "Ron Paul is always first or second in CPAC pull, he must a be viable candidate for President!"

Some have argued that this was what I was up do when I argued that the federally mandated minimum wage increase does indeed have an impact on unemployment, though I would, of course, disagree.

Numbers mean completely different things, depending upon how you look at them. What is called by most in the media "the single biggest cut ever made to the federal budget in one year" could not be farther from the truth. In reality, the United States Federal Government will spend more in 2011 than 2010. That is not a cut. The supposed cut is a reduction from the budget originally proposed by President Obama. I can tell my wife I'm increasing our budget from $12,000 to $1,000,000 for housing this year. If we compromise on $900,000 which is $888,000 more that we spent in 2010, that isn't a cut. It is merely irresponsible.

That's how numbers can work. Which is why pay data can be distorted. Men and women traditionally work in different occupations. If I work in mining, the second most dangerous field in America measured by fatalities, and my wife works in education, one of the safest and lowest-risk professions in America, I would expect to be paid more. More risk rightly should determine more pay.

Chart by Mark J. Perry.

Here are a few more ways to look at it, per Carrie Lukas, Executive Director of the Independent Women's Forum.

The Department of Labor's Time Use survey shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap. . . .

Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.

Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.

Recent studies have shown that the wage gap shrinks—or even reverses—when relevant factors are taken into account and comparisons are made between men and women in similar circumstances. In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts.

Ah. It is interesting what happens when you compare like samples. Single, childless, urban workers may be about the only way to truly compare wages between men and women. Though I"m certain there are several ways you could argue this is not a good sample.

The Republican Study Committee's budget plan

2011-04-08T11:20:00.000-04:00

The Republican Study Committee, which is composed of 170 conservative congressmen, has published its budget plan, which differs from Paul Ryan's plan.

The highlights, per John Stossel:

Their plan would balance the budget in just eight years, with reforms like these:

-Raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, and Social Security from 67 to 70. It’s phased in gradually – two months are added every year – and those currently over age 60 are unaffected.
-Reduce the federal workforce by 15 percent, through attrition
-Sell five percent of federal lands and assets
-End extended unemployment benefits
-Reduce farm subsidies by $6 billion a year
-Eliminate the presidential election campaign fund
-Repeal Obamacare

As for me, this still does not go far enough. If we are convinced as a society we must have Social security and Medicare, which is another argument altogether, this is only a short-term fix. The long-term solution is to index the benefit age for each program to life expectancy. Additionally, the scheduled benefit payout calculation for social security must be changed. Essentially, it is based on the average of American incomes today. However, the income distribution is terribly right skewed. The solution is to base the payout calculation on the median American income.

Further, as Stossel also pointed out, this budget proposal does not include any military spending cuts, which are also necessary to get our budget crisis under control.

Look at it this way:

Let's say you make $2,174 per month. You pay $738 for rent, $738 for your car payment, $879 for your wife's car payment, and $251 in minimum payments on your credit cards to maintain your $14,280 of previously accumulated debt. This totals $2,606 in payments. So, to make due, you withdraw cash advances on your credit cards every month to cover the remaining $432. Additionally, you spend $1,213 each month on "discretionary" items such as food, entertainment, clothing and services. Add it all up and your total monthly expenditures are $3,819.

Further, you live in an area where rent expenses increase significantly each year. You made an even poorer decision on financing your cars. Both are financed with loans where the payments are structured to increase substantially each year.

Should you cut your spending? If so, what should you cut?

This problem is real, substantial, and can no longer be ignored by you.

You are the federal government of the United States of America.

Add nine zeros to every number and this scenario is federal government's annual budget for 2011.

Jon Stewart on Obama 2012

2011-04-06T08:00:00.002-04:00

Jon Stewart offered his thoughts on Obama launching his reelection bid Monday. Note: language disclaimer.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Barack Obama 2012 campaign launch video

2011-04-04T07:00:00.000-04:00

And they are off.

While the Republican will be slugging it out, beating each other up for months, President Obama has officially begun his campaign. Though the skeptic in me says it never actually ended since "Organizing for America" at BarackObama.com has always been active, now morphing to Obama 2012

The battle in Wisconsin continues

2011-03-30T12:00:00.002-04:00

Friday Judge Maryann Sumi placed a temporary restraining order on the implementation of Wisconsin's new law regulating public sector employees. However, Judge Sumi's neutrality is rather questionable. From Red State:

This is a problem. Judge Maryann Sumi should have recused herself entirely from the Wisconsin battle due to her inability to be neutral in this case. You see, Maryann Sumi has a clear conflict of interest. Her son is a political operative who also happens to be a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council. Both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO have members who are public-sector employees in Wisconsin. In fact, as a federation, the AFL-CIO can boast of several member-unions that represent public-sector employees. Maryann Sumi is hardly an unbiased judge in the matter.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has refused to run this op-ed from Governor Scott Walker, explaining his position, which is something the mainstream media refuses to do. Here is part of the Governor's response to his critics:

In Wisconsin, we are doing something progressive in the best sense of the word. We are implementing reforms to protect middle class jobs and middle class taxpayers. While our idea may be a bold political move it is a very modest request of our employees.

We are reforming the bargaining system so our state and local governments can ask employees to contribute 5.8% for pension and 12.6% for health insurance premiums. These reforms will help them balance their budgets. In total, our reforms save local governments more than $700 million each year.

Most workers outside of government would love our proposal. Over the past several months, I have visited numerous factories and small businesses across Wisconsin. On these tours, workers tell me that they pay anywhere from 15% to 50% of their health insurance premium costs. The average middle class worker is paying more than 20% of his or her premium.

Even federal employees pay more than twice what we are asking state and local government workers to pay and most of them don’t have collective bargaining for wages or benefits. These facts beg the question as to why the protesters are in Wisconsin and not in Washington, D.C. By nearly any measure, our requests are quite reasonable.

Beyond helping to balance current and future budgets, our reforms will improve the quality of our governments. No longer will hiring and firing be done solely based on seniority and union contracts. Instead, schools - as well as state and local governments - will be able to make decisions based on merit and performance.

Read the rest here.

Understanding world events

2011-03-30T07:30:00.000-04:00

From Mark Smith. HT: Legal Insurrection.

Bachmann to run for President

2011-03-24T12:30:00.001-04:00

The Tea Party has their candidate. CNN is reporting that Michelle Backmann will run for President.

CNN has exclusively learned that Rep. Michele Bachmann will form a presidential exploratory committee. The Minnesota Republican plans to file papers for the committee in early June, with an announcement likely around that same time.

But a source close to the congresswoman said that Bachmann could form the exploratory committee even earlier than June so that she could participate in early Republican presidential debates. . . .

Meanwhile, CNN has also learned that Iowa Republican state Sen. Kent Sorenson has been hired to be Bachmann's political director for the state - and that Bachmann aides hope to have a complete team together for Iowa by this weekend.

Sorenson is a prominent Tea Party figure in Iowa and holds sway with evangelicals in the state.

Romney would end Obamacare on 'day one'

2011-03-23T08:30:00.000-04:00

Over at the National Review Online, Mitt Romney has pledged:

If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.

I am as opposed to Obamacare as a solution to our broken healthcare system as anyone, but this is absolutely the wrong approach. Conservatives and constitutionalists should look upon Romney with utter dismay for making this proclamation. 'Executive orders' are entirely unconstitutional. That Romney is throwing this out there to score political points with those of us opposed to Obamacare and to further distance himself from his Romneycare baggage, is pathetic. He does go on to clarify in his second paragraph that the states should be free to experiment in any way they choose with their laws, such as the Romneycare plan in Massachusetts, but the declaration of an executive order that entirely subverts the legislative process is wrong in every way and has significantly reduced my respect for Governor Romney.

Pawlenty has 'Special Message' planned today

2011-03-21T12:15:00.001-04:00

Tim Pawlenty has announced that at 3:00 pm on his Facebook page, he will be delivering a "special message".

Will he be the first to officially declare for the race? If so, how quickly do the dominoes fall? Which other candidates will quickly jump in to keep T-Paw from capturing all the headlines?

Wars and rumors of wars

2011-03-21T07:43:00.003-04:00

For the guy that ran on the evils of the war in Iraq and closing Gitmo, he does not seem to shy away from war. Afghanistan continues on as if we are at war with Eastasia and now we're firing missiles into Libya. How long did it take to move from "enforcing a no fly zone" to firing missiles at a "compound [that] was targeted because it contains capabilities to exercise command and control over Libyan forces"? Yet U.S. Vice Adm. Bill Gortney says, "we are not going after Gadhafi". Though if he "happens" to be killed, I doubt you will hear complaints.

Apparently we are only going after his compound, and we are not actually engaging in acts of war. We are also fighting the "real" war in Afghanistan, though it never ends, and closing Gitmo. When does this all blow up in our faces? How many wars are we going to enter? What if there is another uprising that becomes violent? Where does it stop?

Edit: Jake Tapper is asking the relevant questions a not receiving an official response from the White House

ABC News also asked the official three questions about the nature of this military engagement for which we had yet to hear answers:
1) Why Attack Libya But Not Other Places Where the Government Is Attacking Its Population -- Such as Bahrain?
2) Why Not Seek Congressional Authorization Before Beginning This War?
3) What Does the Endgame Look Like -- Can Gadhafi Stay In Power?

Obama's Department of "Justice"

2011-03-15T12:00:00.001-04:00

Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the United States. His role is to uphold the law. However, he seems to prefer spending his time supporting his racially-driven politics. Earlier in his reign, he dismissed the case of the black panthers who were clearly intimidating voters, despite a default judgment due to the defendants not showing up.

Now Holder has required the Dayton, Ohio Police Department to lower its testing standards due to "not enough African-Americans pass[ing] the exam".

Holder is essentially saying that Black Americans are not smart enough to pass the test so it should be made easier for them to qualify. This is one of the most racist actions I have seen in recent years.

Now, based upon the Department of "Justice's" involvement, passing scores for the two sections will be lowered to 58% and 63%, the equivalent to failing and "D" work on most grading scales. Even the Dayton NAACP disagrees with this racist policy, saying, "The NAACP does not support individuals failing a test and then having the opportunity to be gainfully employed".

I don't know about you, but I want a police force built with the best officers that can be found rather than a police force built based upon the color of some people's skin.

Why President Obama can blame President Bush, part 2

2011-03-14T12:08:00.000-04:00

A few months ago, I wrote "Why President Obama can blame President Bush". However, I was somewhat criticized--and rightfully so--that part of my argument was a matter of correlation that may not necessarily imply causation when I presented this chart (also below) as evidence of minimum wage's effect on unemployment, thereby blaming President Bush rather for contributing significantly to the worst unemployment in the United States since the early 1980s.

Now, over at Political Calculations, they have done the math to show that "the federal minimum wage hikes of 2007, 2008 and 2009 account for 41.8% of the total reduction in jobs seen since 2006" or 2,234,383 total jobs lost.

Here is a graphical representation of the data from Political Calculations:

As you can see, while the minimum wage is sold as something to "help those in need", in reality it destroys jobs, increases unemployment, and deprives the opportunity for many teens and young adults to work, as 49% of workers making minimum wage are 24 or younger.

This destructive policy should be eliminated.

Or as Milton Friedman put it:

Wisconsin Senators sent death threats

2011-03-10T17:04:00.002-05:00

How evil do you have to be to threaten to kill the democratically elected Wisconsin Senate? I suppose if unions working hand in hand with the evil that is the International Socialist Organization is any indication, you know. Why? Because Socialism leads to communism or oligarchy and what happens in that scenario? People die. See Mao, Hilter, Stalin, etc.

If you want to see where the real hate is, the real threat of violence, read the death threat obtained by Newsradio 620 in Milwaukee after the jump (emphasis added).

From: XXXX
Sent: Wed 3/9/2011 9:18 PM
To: Sen.Kapanke; Sen.Darling; Sen.Cowles; Sen.Ellis; Sen.Fitzgerald; Sen.Galloway; Sen.Grothman; Sen.Harsdorf; Sen.Hopper; Sen.Kedzie; Sen.Lasee; Sen.Lazich; Sen.Leibham; Sen.Moulton; Sen.Olsen
Subject: Atten: Death threat!!!! Bomb!!!!

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes
will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain
to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it
will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit
that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for
more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in
the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me
have decided that we’ve had enough. We feel that you and the people that
support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing
with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand
for it any longer. So, this is how it’s going to happen: I as well as many
others know where you and your family live, it’s a matter of public records.
We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a
nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn’t leave
it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the
message to you since you are so “high” on Koch and have decided that you are
now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a
demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed
in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent.
This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won’t
tell you all of them because that’s just no fun. Since we know that you are
not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided
to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it’s
necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making
them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families
and themselves then We Will “get rid of” (in which I mean kill) you. Please
understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked
everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel
that it’s worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives
of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and
say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!

Wisconsin Senate succeeds in eliminating public union collective bargaining

2011-03-10T08:00:00.000-05:00

We talked a few days ago about how completely unnecessary public unions are. Now those elected in Wisconsin to fix that state's fiscal problems have finally acted after allowing the grandstanding to continue for three weeks while the Democrats had run away.

Per the AP:

The Wisconsin Senate succeeded in voting Wednesday to strip nearly all collective bargaining rights from public workers, after Republicans outmaneuvered the chamber's missing Democrats and approved an explosive proposal that has rocked the state and unions nationwide.

Per the Wisconsin Senate's press release:

After nearly a month of debate on the budget repair bill, nearly three weeks of childish stunts and delay tactics from the Democrats, the longest public hearing in state history and the longest Assembly debate in state history, the Senate met tonight to pass the non-fiscal items in the Budget Repair Bill. . . .

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald added:

Enough is enough. The people of Wisconsin elected us to do a job. They elected us to stand up to the broken status quo, stop the constant expansion of government, balance the budget, create jobs and improve the economy. The longer the Democrats keep up this childish stunt, the longer the majority can’t act on our agenda. . . .

We have confirmed with the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Reference Bureau that every item in tonight’s bill follows the letter of the law.

The people of Wisconsin elected us to come to Madison and do a job. Just because the Senate Democrats won’t do theirs, doesn‘t mean we won’t do ours.

Is there a need for public unions?

2011-03-10T07:00:00.004-05:00

This is an interesting read from Jonah Goldberg at National Review. I understand why unions exist in some industries, especially considering the lack of decent labor laws early in the industrial revolution. Have you ever been to a coal mine or an iron foundry? The types of work in these places make you pause and think why the need for a union may have been or may still be necessary if not managed properly. However, in the public sector, I agree with Goldberg, I don't see a justifiable purpose.

The argument for public unionization wasn’t moral, economic, or intellectual. It was rankly political.

Traditional organized labor, the backbone of the Democratic party, was beginning to lose ground. As Daniel DiSalvo wrote in “The Trouble with Public Sector Unions,” in the fall issue of National Affairs, JFK saw how in states such as New York and Wisconsin, where public unions were already in place, local liberal pols benefited politically and financially. He took the idea national.

The plan worked perfectly — too perfectly. Public-union membership skyrocketed, and government-union support for the party of government skyrocketed with it. From 1989 to 2004, AFSCME — the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees — gave nearly $40 million to candidates in federal elections, with 98.5 percent going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Why would local government unions give so much in federal elections? Because government workers have an inherent interest in boosting the amount of federal tax dollars their local governments get. Put simply, people in the government business support the party of government. Which is why, as the Manhattan Institute’s Steven Malanga has been chronicling for years, public unions are the country’s foremost advocates for increased taxes at all levels of government.

Read the rest here.

Where does it end?

2011-03-09T08:30:00.001-05:00

This nation has become great because it was a nation founded on laws, not on men, a nation where all were considered equal. However, in today's society we seem to think "all [people] are equal, but some [people] are more equal than others".

Today in our country only 53% percent of all workers pay 100% of the federal income tax bill. Therefore 47% of workers pay no taxes. Additionally 40% of workers actually receive additional funds when filing their taxes redistributed from the group that pays all the taxes. I'll even point you to that evil conservative news source NPR for this data (though it is widely available).

Further, in research released yesterday, "government social benefits . . . were equal to 35% of all private and public wages and salaries in the 12 months ended January, up from 10% in 1960 and 21% in 2000."

Meanwhile, the government is working diligently to implement its takeover of an additional approximate 15% of the economy through the healthcare law. Yet, over 1,000 waivers to the law have been granted and now the entire state of Maine has been exempted for the time being.

When you also consider that the United States Department of Justice, whose role is to defend the laws of this land, is only selectively defending laws its leaders and likely the White House (for personal or political reasons, we do not know) agree with, as in the case of the Defense of Marriage Act*, you have to wonder, what is next.

We are creating a great block of voters, who will soon be the majority of voters, who pay no taxes. At the same time, our federal government grants broad exemptions to laws or chooses not to defend the law altogether.

As the federal government has never shown any signs of actual restraint, where does it all end?

*It is my view that marriage should be defined by the states, not the federal government. It is not a federal constitutional issue. Don't get sidetracked on the nature of the law, the point is the DOJ not defending an existing law, which is their responsibility.

Largest monthly deficit in history: February 2011

2011-03-07T08:00:00.003-05:00

Is anyone actually surprised that we would today be looking back at last month as the largest monthly deficit in history? Update: The deficit for February 2011 alone greater than the deficit for all of 2007! Per the Washington Times:

The federal government posted its largest monthly deficit in history in February at $223 billion, according to preliminary numbers the Congressional Budget Office released Monday morning.

That figure tops last February’s record of $220.9 billion, and marks the 29th straight month the government has run in the red — a modern record. The last time the federal government posted even a monthly surplus was September 2008, just before the financial collapse.

But that isn't the scary part. What should concern you is that neither the Republicans or the Democrats take it seriously.

Last month’s federal deficit is nearly four times as large as the spending cuts House Republicans have passed in their spending bill, and is more than 30 times the size of Senate Democrats’ opening bid of $6 billion.

You may say the Republicans take it more seriously than the Democrats. As for me, I would prefer no death versus death by 1,000 compared with death by 10,000 cuts. Or put better, I'd prefer to not be ruled China rather than partially or completely ruled by China. The time has come to make serious and dramatic cuts. This is out of control, as someone might have mentioned a couple of days ago!

The fiscal problem

2011-03-04T08:00:00.001-05:00

Let's have a discussion based on data and reality rather than economic theories. I have my theories, you have yours, and we probably all believe in portions of the theories of many economists, though it is nearly impossible to see many economic theories in pure practice due to all the external factors at play.

Since taking power, the party and administration of no personal responsibility has continually blamed the Bush administration while doing nothing to fix the real fiscal problems because (okay, one economics theory reference) "in the long run we're all dead anyway" or whatever their reasons are. However, do not get me wrong here this is not a pro-Republican, anti-Democrat post, it is a "the problem with the federal government" post.

For purposes of simplicity, we'll use data since 1980, though federal deficits have grown continually since 1970, with the exception of the Clinton years, who at least did bring us some fiscal sanity (the lack of which was probably Reagan's greatest shortfall).

Since 2005 tax receipts have never been higher. Though there is some year to year variance, the fact is the federal government has never received as much annual tax revenue in any single year as it has each year since 2005. Meanwhile, since 2002, the deficit has increased annually. Therefore, Bush ran continual deficits that have been continued by the Obama administration, despite both have annual tax receipts higher than any other President in history. However, rather than balancing the budget with two years of a Democrat-controlled congress, President Obama only exaggerated the problem. With nearly the same annual revenues as in 2005 (revenues in trillions: 2005: $2.154, 2009: 2.105, 2010: 2.163) when federal expenditures were $2.472 trillion, the Obama budget led to federal expenditures of $3.518 trillion in 2009 and $3.456 trillion in 2010, or 42% and 40% more than in 2005 (source: The White House Office of Management and Budget, Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2016).

Now this does not mean Bush was a patron saint either. Although he had significantly higher revenues from 2006-2008, he continued to run a budget deficit. Additionally, as I said before, Reagan was not exactly fiscally responsible, rather Clinton set a better example (how often are you going to say that?).

However, if the past two years did not concern you, what is coming most definitely should. Again, per the White House Office of Management and Budget:

This government is drunk with spending which will destroy our country's future. In your personal finances, if since 2002 you had spent between 6%-40% more than your income and put the rest on a credit card, where would you be? Would you keep spending money? This is the current state of our country. We cannot "spend money to keep from going bankrupt", as Vice President Biden has proclaimed. However, every President's actions for the past several decades have also espoused this nonsensical concept. Presidents from both parties are most definitely to blame, even the Republican's sacred cow Ronald Reagan.

The time has come in this country to cut spending dramatically. We have already begun to see the effects of printing more and more money to cover these deficits. A prime example is the price of gasoline. Crude oil prices are pegged to the dollar. As the dollar is devalued by increasing supply, our dollars buy less.

The leaders of this country must have courage to take unpopular stances, because they are the right thing to do, much like Governors Walker and Christie. Social Security, Defense, and all federal handout programs cannot be protected. Salaries and benefits must be cut, as they have been overall in the private sector.

If we do not change, food may be the only currency of value left in this country.

By the way, this post was only about deficits. We didn't even get into the national debt, which is even a bigger problem.

Restoring America’s standing in the world, one dollar at a time

2010-11-08T10:58:00.001-05:00

Note: This is also posted on PoliticalDerby.com

One of the positions President Barack Obama vigorously campaigned on was "restoring America's standing in the world". In fact, he commented after only one year from winning his election in an interview with CNN the he believed this had already occurred:

I think that we've restored America's standing in the world, and that's confirmed by polls.

I wonder what "the polls" have to say today as we are being openly mocked internationally. Indeed, the UK's Daily Mail ran a piece on Saturday that began with this indictment:

Probably not since the days of the Pharaohs or the more ludicrous Roman Emperors has a head of state travelled in such pomp and expensive grandeur as the President of the United States of America.

While lesser mortals – the Pope, Queen Elizabeth and so on – are usually happy to let their hosts handle most of the security and transport arrangements when they venture beyond their home shores, the United States creates a mini-America on the move to ensure that nothing is left to chance. . . .

The White House has, according to some reports, booked the entire Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai, the city’s most luxurious. It is not uncommon for the grander heads of state to reserve a floor or two, but a whole hotel is unprecedented.

You read that correctly, the British, world leaders in over-done "pomp" and "grandeur" are mocking our President for just that. Further, they are openly saying the President places himself above the Pope and the British Crown. I thought this was a new age of hope and change, where the United States of America would not act like it was better than the rest of the world, where in the President's own words:

To those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

Yet the President travels around the world as if he were the greatest king of all-time, spending a reported, though not confirmed, $200 million per day of the "the world's resources", or $2 billion for the entire trip. Now I understand that the President's security is of utmost importance, and I wholeheartedly agree that it must be. But if security is the reason for such an exorbitant expenditure, then why take the trip? America is suffering, the government is spending $1.35 trillion more than it takes in, and the President can blow $2 billion dollars over 10 days. Real leaders lead by example.

Meanwhile, China also does not look highly upon the United States of late either:

Cui Tiankai, a deputy foreign minister and one of China’s lead negotiators at the G20, said on Friday that the US plan for limiting current account surpluses and deficits to 4 per cent of gross domestic product harked back "to the days of planned economies".

So if by "restoring America's standing in the world", President Obama really meant "being mocked by communist China for being more communist than China" and "being mocked by the British for holding himself up as greater than the Pope or the Crown", he has accomplished his goals. Let's consult the polls.