Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Same old whining from the left

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/opinion/08wed1.html?ref=opinion

The left leaning NY Times editorial board wrote a piece today that repeats the same greedy, jealous, and misguided complaints as the past when it comes to tax cuts. Of course the NY Times thinks that the Republicans are the real evil ones.

"The real responsibility for what’s wrong with the tax deal lies with Republicans. They coldly insisted on the high-end tax cuts at all costs, no matter the pain they might inflict further down the income ladder or what staggering cost they might impose in years to come."

I just cannot wrap my head around the crazy liberal thought that taking from some to give to others is not only OK, but the morally right thing to do! We shouldn't let "rich" people keep their money because it inflicts pain further down the income ladder? How? And even if it does, what's your point? Are we all bounded by some higher law to take every person's well being into account before we can do something? "Rich" people have earned their money, and charging them lower taxes is simply letting theme keep what is theirs. It is as simple as that.

Later the article says;

"There will be no sound economic reason to make the tax cuts for the top 2 percent of taxpayers permanent in two years."

Perhaps not, but since when do sound economics play a role in deciding who can steal from whom? There's no sound economic reason as to why Jay Leno has 100 cars but if I used that as my excuse for stealing one of them I doubt the police would let me slide.

The democrats remind me of some elitist parents trying to plot out their kids life. Poor Johnny (aka the "rich") is sitting at the kitchen table while the know it all parents (aka the Dem's) talk about where he's going to school, tennis or violin, whether he's going to be a Dr. or a lawyer, etc. Meanwhile Johnny is like "hey assholes, I have some thoughts of my own. There is stuff that I want to do". But the "rich's" ideas for their own money don't matter. The uber smart Dem's need to control it and spread it around. They know best damn it and we would all be better off if Johnny just sucked it up, played the violin and lived a miserable life as a lawyer. Who cares if one day he cracks and bludgeons his parents to death with that violin.

If only the "rich" could figure out a way to do the same thing to the Dem's.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Another thief at the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/opinion/18kristof.html?ref=opinion

We can add Mr. Kristof to the list of liberal thieves who believe that it's the government's money first and foremost, and that they should get to decide where it goes.

"At a time of such stunning inequality, should Congress put priority on spending $700 billion on extending the Bush tax cuts to those with incomes above $250,000 a year? Or should it extend unemployment benefits for Americans who otherwise will lose them beginning next month?"

Notice the bold print. Mr. Kristof honestly believes that it is Congress' money. This perception is mind boggling to me. The choice is not should Congress spend the money on tax cuts or unemployment benefits. The choice is should Congress forcibly take money from some people and give it to others, or let people keep their own money. Those are the options. I wish Mr. Kristof could at least be honest about the question instead of making it sound like a simple spending issue. I hope that he is just being disingenuous when talking about the issue but perhaps he is truly that ignorant and doesn't see the stupidity of what he is saying.

Mr. Kristof is entitled to his opinion but his attempt to hide the real question with his "spending" disguise is pathetic. Man up Mr. Kristof and at least tell your reading public that you like to steal from some and give to others, as long as they are "rich" enough to afford it of course.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

So stupid

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7567291&page=1

Apparently being a white African American can get you in a lot of troube in New Jersey.

A 3rd generation white man from Mozambique, Africa, Paulo Serodio, was suspended from medical school for labeling himself a white African American in a class. One of his classmates said they were offended by his characterization. Apparently only black people can be from Africa.

This raises quite the dilemma. Are black people born in England not allowed to call themselves English? Where is the outrage when white people from Australia call themselves Australians? They aren't native to that land. How many generations must a family live in a place before they can begin referring to themselves as being from there?

To add even more complication, what about someone from Egypt, Algeria, or Morocco? All of these countries are in Africa yet their native inhabitants are not black. Are they not allowed to refer to themselves as African Americans if they choose?

Anyone who takes offense to a man who was born and raised in Africa and then became an American citizen calling himself an African American needs to be ignored as the idiot they are.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Mankiw on the estate tax

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_npc.pdf

Good remarks from Dr. Mankiw concerning the estate tax. There is currently no estate tax for 2010 but the tax will revert to 2001 rates in January if Congress does nothing.

What Congress should do is permanently repeal the estate tax and Dr. Mankiw does an excellent job of explaining why.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

I totally agree

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12529

Good article from David Boaz at the CATO institute. The economy needs to be and remain the #1 focus of the GOP controlled House into the foreseeable future. The GOP needs to put the social issues on the back burner for a while and cut spending, cut taxes, and get the economy moving again.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

How much is enough?

http://robertreich.org/post/1471662081

In a recent blog post (link above), Robert Reich offers up a compromise for Republicans and Democrats concerning the expiring Bush tax cuts:

"He (Obama) should respond by offering this olive branch: Extend the Bush tax cuts to the bottom 99 percent — to families earning less than half a million dollars.

But not to the top 1 percent."


So instead of extending them for everyone or only people making less than $250,000 a year, Dems and the GOP should meet in the middle, stack hands, and then go grab a sundae together, slapping each other's asses for a job well done.

My problem with this though is the arrogance of people like Robert Reich. You see, Mr. Reich, in his infinite wisdom, knows how much money is too much. He used to think it was more than $250,000/yr, but now after crunching some more numbers, or talking to God, Buddha, Tom Cruise, Allah, or whoever it is he talks to, he has decided $500,000/yr is the right number. Anything over that is just too much and it needs to be shared with the rest of us.

He tries to show his reasoning with this wonderful bit of logic:

"The top 1 percent now gets almost a quarter of the nation’s total income — a larger share than at any time since the 1920s. The top 1 percent have also received about 40percent of the benefits of the Bush tax cuts."

Wow, that sure does seem unfair. But wait, the top 1% don't "get" almost a quarter of the nation's total income do they? Does it rain down from the heavens and land in their yard? I don't understand what "get" means. They EARN almost a quarter of the nations income Mr. Reich. And unless they do something illegal to earn this money, what they earn is theirs, and you and your liberal friends aren't allowed to just decide "Hey, that's too much, we are going to take some of that now and put it over here because we are so smart and right and cool." (On a side note, the top 1% may have gotten 40% of the benefits of the tax cuts, but they also still currently pay 40% of the nations income tax. So yeah Mr. Reich, lets take a bit more of that money huh?)

The problem with people like Mr. Reich, Krugman, Pelosi and Pres. Obama is that they are greedy. They don't see this, but it's true. They cannot stand the fact that their are rich people out there that aren't them, and they want their money. They disguise this greed by saying "we need to help the middle class and save starving babies", but if that is their real intention, they can do that with their own money. None of these democrats are living in near poverty themselves, giving everything they have earned to the poor a la Mother Theresa. They just have some number that they plucked out of the air and decided that anything over that is too much and we need to take if from you. Giving it to the poor is just a way to make it sound better.

I am sure that liberals like to think of themselves as modern day Robin Hoods. But Robin Hood was a thief, a title he embraced. Perhaps it is time for Mr. Reich and friends to start referring to themselves as thieves. I am sure that the American people would see the Robin Hood connection and embrace them as heroes, right?

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Awesome

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704361504575552080488297188.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Mr. Langone nails it in this oped. Everything he says is absolutely spot on. Thank you Mr. Langone.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Somebody needed to say it

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html?_r=1

Great oped by Greg Mankiw. He very clearly explains the effect that higher marginal tax rates have on people's decision making. Is it any wonder that people like him work less than they would otherwise?

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Wow

"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"

A speech delivered by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Monday, September 20, 2010

Paul Krugman's greed and arrogance know no bounds

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20krugman.html?hp

Entitlement: the state of being entitled.

Entitled: to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim

Mr. Krugman: "And among the undeniably rich, a belligerent sense of entitlement has taken hold: it’s their money, and they have the right to keep it."

A belligerent sense of entitlement? Could anyone really write that above line without doing a double take and going "Wow, that sounds really stupid"? In order for this to make any sense all rich people must have stumbled across their money while going to get the mail. Or maybe all rich people were given their money by some leprechaun via a pot of gold. And for some reason they feel they have a right to it. An undeserved right according to Mr. Krugman, since it was after all just happenstance that they met the leprechaun and not you.

Of course this is not true. For every Bernie Madoff there is a Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Forbes, CEO's, athletes, or even George Soros. Fantastically wealthy men and women who have the right amount of drive, skills, perseverance, talent, and yes, some luck, to make it big. These people are no less "entitled" to their money than the Burger King cashier. They have earned it with their intellect, ambition, and labor. You are never just entitled to something that is yours without a doubt. It is yours period. People only use the word entitled when there is some debate over whether they really have a claim to it. If it is yours, like your money, there is no reason to speak of entitlements.

Complete morons like Paul Krugman seem to believe that once you hit some arbitrary threshold set by him and his fellow liberal nut jobs you are no longer allowed to make decisions with your money. It is the responsibility of the rich to take care of everyone. They should want to give money to the government and help the country. Of course no intelligent businessman should every want to give money to the black hole of inefficiency that is the US govt. I am sure that most of them realize they could get a better bang for their buck by donating to a private charity. Or even going out to some alley in NYC and handing out stacks of one hundred dollar bills to every panhandler they see.

Paul Krugman and those that think like him are the real greedy. They want to feel good by "standing up for the workers". They are usually unsuccessful themselves or choose not to donate their own money, but instead demonize successful people for being too successful. They lust after other people's success. I am almost certain that they have a self esteem issue and thus they strive to get people to like them by pointing out how "terrible" other people are. Then they pat themselves on the back and go get a hooker (see Spitzer, Elliot)

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Pick a side

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575435942829722602.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Good history lesson from Mr. Ronald Pestritto in the WSJ today. People in the news keep talking about the "middle ground" and compromising. The way I see it, there are two options. Either you believe that individual freedom exists as a God given right, and thus each of us is free to pursue whatever we wish as long as we do not infringe on another person's right to do the same, or you believe, as Teddy Roosevelt put it:

"It is not enough," that a fortune was "gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."

And thus everything a person does is only good so long as it benefits everyone else.

Pick a side.

"So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." Revelation 3:16

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Modifying ObamaCare is not enough

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703369704575461840575037482.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Good opinion piece today in the WSJ about repealing ObamaCare. Dr. Hal Scherz and his colleagues at Docs4PateientCare (http://docs4patientcare.org/) are posting the letter in the op ed in their patient waiting rooms.

I think this is a fantastic idea and great way to spread the real facts about ObamaCare. It is imperative that people know that many members of the medical community are against the new healthcare law. As Dr. Scherz points out on his website, less than 20% of all physicians in the U.S. are members of the AMA. Yet when the AMA endorsed ObamaCare many thought that this meant that all (or at least most) doctors also endorsed it. Hopefully these letters posted in waiting rooms around the country will show once and for all that this is not true.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Extending unemployment benefits and reducing taxes are not the same thing

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opinion/20krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

In his article in the NY Times today, Mr. Krugman talks about what he considers is an irrational fear of rising bond prices. Deficit hawks, namely republicans and moderate democrats that Krugman does not like, keep insisting that the US focuses on deficit reduction to ensure that we do not end up like Greece, prisoners of the bond market.

While this may not be happening, as Krugman argues, it is Krugman's statement near the end of the article that bothers me more:

"Notice, in particular, how suddenly Republicans lost interest in the budget deficit when they were challenged about the cost of retaining tax cuts for the wealthy. But that won’t stop them from continuing to pose as deficit hawks whenever anyone proposes doing something to help the unemployed."

I am extremely tired of liberals equating wealth redistribution, such as extending unemployment benefits, with tax cuts. While both indeed may negatively impact the budget, it is nonsense to say that taking someones money and giving it to someone else is the same as letting everyone keep more of their money. I am very much in favor of taking steps to reduce the deficit. But I am also in favor of letting people keep their own money. I am not in favor of wealth redistribution. This is not hypocritical. Both lower taxes and a lower deficit are good things, in my mind morally right things. Wealth redistribution is stealing. If Mr. Krugman wants to be Robin Hood lets at least call him what he is. Prince of THIEVES.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Listen up Obama

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2010/08/unions-and-the-obama-administrationbecker.html

Nobelist Gary Becker is right on point in this piece. The reasons for the slow economic recovery are right under Pres. Obama's nose, he just refuses to acknowledge them. Instead of freeing up the economy, Obama continues to micromanage it, granting tax breaks here, taxing other industries there, cutting deals for his union buddies over there, etc. As I have said before and will continue to say, put some simple, clear rules in place and get out of the way. That is the best thing that the gov't can do for the economy.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Who really has created spiraling deficits?

Today in the NY Times Mr. Krugman argues that Pres. Bush is responsible for the current budget deficit problems, amongst other things (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion).

But Keith Hennessey shows on his blog who is really leading a decade of spiraling deficits, Pres. Obama. (http://keithhennessey.com/2010/07/12/spiraling-deficits/)

As Mr. Hennessey points out, Pres. Bush's avg deficit, with 2008 included, was 2.7%. This is just above the historical avg of 2.6%. Pres. Obama's 9 yr projection (Mr. Hennessey explains why he uses 9 yrs on his blog) is 6.35% according to the CBO's current estimates. Granted a lot could happen in another 7 yrs (assuming Pres. Obama gets a 2nd term, which is looking unlikely) but to say that Pres. Bush was an out of control deficit spender does not match the historical record. Pres. Bush wasn't the most fiscally responsible President of all time, but he wasn't even close to the worst. Pres. Obama looks to be taking that title.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

It's about time

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365161631063340.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Nice op ed from Gregg Sherrill in today's WSJ standing up for business. As he says, business has been too silent and too passive when it comes to the criticism that it has received lately. I am not sure if it is fear or what, but I do not understand why the bank CEO's, BP's CEO, or any of the other people called in to testify in front of Congress just sit there and take the verbal lashing given to them. These executives are private citizens, Congress works for them, and they don't need to be lectured by some half wit rep who never made it past an entry level job before being elected to office (see Kucinich, Dennis).

As much as I dislike overpaid CEO's, I dislike politicians even more, and I realize that big corporations employ tens of millions of people while politicians do nothing but interfere so that they can toot their own horn on CSPAN.

If all of the good CEO's and businesses of the world would stand up to the various govt's trying to portray them as the bad guy I think that they would find that they have a lot of supporters.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Minority Report a reality?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/opinion/13tue1.html?ref=opinion

The NY Times editorial board believes it's a good idea to allow law enforcement to search and investigate partial DNA matches. The cite a recent example in CA in which a serial killer was charged after being found through a partial DNA match to his son.

I do not think that it is a good idea, nor constitutional, for someone to be investigated simply because they have a family member committing crimes. If the police are unable to find the criminals then maybe we need better police, but what we do not need is for police to interrogate and bully innocent citizens. I wonder how that pillar of liberty, the ACLU, will react to this.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Uncertainty is ruining the recovery

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325233508651458.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Good editorial from Allan Meltzer in today's WSJ.

It is probably the most important thing you never hear about when people talk about the economic recovery, or lack thereof. Uncertainty. Health care reform, the pending expiration of the Bush tax cuts, financial reform, cap and trade, the oil spill...all of these things create an uncertain environment. Businesses and the stock market hate uncertainty. No one wants to play a game where the rules are in flux. I do not understand how Pres. Obama's econ team is not telling him this. Or maybe they are and he is just not listening. Of course I doubt that too many of the people that Pres. Obama surrounds himself with have ever started or ran a business, so maybe they don't even understand how much uncertainty hinders hiring and overall economic growth.

Put some rules in place and stick too them Mr. President, or this recovery is going to take a long time....

Monday, June 28, 2010

Please define "fair share"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703615104575329252152750186.html

Steve Forbes has a nice rebuttal to Hillary Clinton's fair share comment at the Brookings Institution.

As Mr. Forbes points out, the richest 1% of Americans pay ~40% of federal income taxes. The richest 5% pay ~60% of income taxes. How much does Mrs. Clinton think is fair? 1% pay 50%, 60%, 80%? Any avg American will recognize that 1% paying 60% - 80% of taxes is basically robbery, which is why no one on the left will give a number. 40% is bad enough but no sane person will demand anything higher, which is why Clinton and others run around crying about some subjective "fair share". In fact, if we want to use the term fair, we should be lowering the tax burden on the wealthy, not raising it.

All of this class warfare needs to stop.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Stunning Hypocrisy

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/22/mexico.arizona.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T2

In its brief, Mexico "underscored that it is fundamental and imperative that the human and civil rights of its citizens are duly respected while present in Arizona or in any other state of the United States," the foreign ministry said.

All I can say is wow. Is it truly possible that Mexico has the audacity to lecture the US on human rights? This coming from a country that in the last 40 yrs committed the following, according to the Human Rights Watch:

"violations included the massacres of student protesters in 1968 and 1971, and the torture, execution, and forced disappearance of hundreds of civilians during the country's "dirty war" in the 1970s and early 1980s.Compounding the horror of these atrocities was the fact that, for decades,Mexico failed to investigate and prosecute those responsible, thereby forcing Mexican society to assimilate the ultimate lesson in the limits of their country's rule of law: government officials could get away with even the most brutal crimes."

The entire report from HRW can be found here:
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2006/05/16/mexico-lost-transition-0

The Mexican gov't needs to use its resources to fix its problems at home.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Govt is too big to function correctly

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704895204575320560421570360.html

Good op ed piece from Paul Rubin. While I still maintain that the federal government would be doing a poor job of stopping the oil leak regardless of who was in charge (how can anyone get something that messy to work right?), I do agree that Pres. Obama was being treated far more kindly than Pres. Bush until recently. It was also interesting to read about the mistakes made by the local politicians Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin, but that is another issue.

We as Americans need to decide what we want our federal, state, and local governments to do. Until we realize that they can not and should not do everything, we will have an inefficient, bureaucratic nightmare at all levels, and the things that we want them to do, like manage oil spills, they will be unable to do.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Jus soli

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/arizona.immigration.children/index.html?hpt=Sbin

AZ republicans are planning to introduce a law that would prohibit the children of illegal immigrants born in the US from becoming citizens. The 14th amendment seems to prohibit this, but I will let the courts decide that if it gets that far.

More interesting to me is the argument by some that say that this goes against the spirit of America. This country was built by immigrants after all. While I won't deny history, I also think that comparing current Mexican immigration to say, the Irish immigration of the late 19th century, does not hold up. I say this for 2 main reasons:

1. When the Irish were coming over, there were no immigration laws. Thus they were not breaking any laws. The people who are crossing our borders today illegally are doing just that, breaking laws.

2. There was no social safety net in the 1800's. Becoming a US citizen entitled you to nothing. No Social Security, no Welfare, no Medicare, no Medicaid, nothing. You were given an opportunity only, and you got out of it only what you put in to it. That is not the case today. Every US citizen adds to our already exploding entitlement burden. Sure they pay taxes, but illegal immigrants are generally poor and the poor receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. This was not the case in the pre FDR days. This added fiscal burden is probably why most Western European countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK do not allow a child to become a citizen simply because they were born in the country.

The economic structure of this country has changed immensely since the Irish and other Europeans were coming through Ellis Island. The US is no longer a dog eat dog world, where you alone are responsible for your well being. As we continue to increase our safety net it is imperative that we recognize the cost of our altruism. We simply do not have the money to pay for every single person that wants to be a US citizen. I am not sure that denying children born on US soil is the best way to keep costs down, but it is obvious that something needs to be done. Of course a good place to start would be to enforce our current immigration laws.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Should we be surprised?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Dan Klein, an economics professor at George Mason University, conducted a survey that asked basic economic questions. Self identified Democrats averaged 4.59 incorrect answers, Republicans 1.61, and Libertarians 1.26.

I don't think it is a stretch to conclude that this explains some of the current economic woes.

Surprised? I'm not.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Do we?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/justice-souters-class/?hp

Retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter gave the commencement speech at Harvard this year. In it, he talked about interpreting the Constitution and how it is necessary to treat it as a "living" document. While I strongly disagree with his interpretation, I found this quote from his speech to be especially troublesome.

"A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague, but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice."

I for one do not desire equality. I know that it is attainable only by bringing the excellent down to the average. For Mr. Souter to equate the desire for liberty to the desire for equality is to go against every thing this country once stood for. Liberty should always win over equality, there should be no debate, no struggle. I am confident that every Founding Father would agree. Patrick Henry cried out, "Give me liberty or give me death!". I remember no such quote concerning equality.

To hear a retired Supreme Court Justice announce his desire for equality, and then broadly apply this desire to all Americans, shows exactly what is wrong with the supreme court. But perhaps Mr. Souter is referring to the equality of opportunity. If this is so, then I would agree with him to some extent. Of course, if that was the case, then equality would not clash with liberty as he suggests. His voting record also leads one to believe that he is referring to the equality of results.

The Supreme Court should not be in the business of promoting the equality of results. Even if it could be achieved, it is undesirable, as equality will always equal mediocrity. For our country's sake, I hope future Justices realize this.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Absolutely ridiculous

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11861

A Maryland resident's home was searched, computers and a camera were seized, and he was taken to jail for 26 hrs after he posted a video of a traffic stop he was involved in. All of this was done because of an anti wire tapping statute on Maryland's books that needs to be revised.

Police officers work for the people and we have every right to monitor their conduct while they are on duty. Prosecuting a citizen for posting a video of a traffic stop is the behavior of a dictatorship, not a democracy.

Friday, May 28, 2010

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/going-quot-green-quot.html

Great article from John Stossel about the myths surrounding green energy. The sheer magnitude of worldwide energy use makes the transition to only green energy completely unrealistic. Like Mr. Stossel, I plan on riding my bike to class once I start at Clemson. But as the article points out, it will take a lot more than bike riding to lessen our dependence on oil.

One more quick note. I especially like how Mr. Stossel points out that they have been talking about electric cars as the cars of the future since 1915! This is similar to how dippin dots have been the ice cream of the future since I was 10, lol.

Here is the link to Robert Bryce's web page.

http://www.robertbryce.com/

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Too much easy money will be a problem

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27einhorn.html?ref=opinion

Great op ed from the NY Times today explaining the pitfalls of easy money. As the article points out, it's more than just inflation. Feeding asset bubbles and artificially improving the fiscal position of govt's are also the results of easy money.

I personally agree with this op ed and other economists who say that the Fed Funds rate needs to be raised. Unfortunately, the dovish behavior of the Bernanke Fed makes this unlikely at the moment.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

The new "Jobs" bill is a joke

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264532051783298.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

The above link is a great opinion piece from today's Journal dissecting the new stimulus/jobs bill pending in the House. My fave line from the article:

Representative Jim McDermott recently declared on the House floor that jobless payments are "one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus" because "every unemployment dollar spent returns $1.64 of economic benefits". So let's lay off everybody, pay them for not working, and watch the economy really boom. Where do they teach this stuff?

So true. I hope some Republican in the House responded with that. This "Jobs" bill will have the same effect as the last one....and I believe unemployment currently stands at 9.9%. Let's hope this thing gets thrown on the legislative trash heap and the gov't quits wasting taxpayer dollars.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Political free speech for all? Not so fast....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703460404575244772070710374.html

Excellent opinion piece about a bill being introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer that attempts to blunt the effects of the recent Supreme Court decision Citizens United vs. FEC.

Sen. Schumer's attempt to "equalize" political speech really creates even more burdensome regulation than already exists. This will make it even harder for grass roots campaigns and small groups of individuals to partake in the political process due to the high costs of meeting all of the regulations and the fear of breaking a Federal law.

The law also treats Unions and Corporations differently, which will allow unions to continue to exert heavy influence on policy while corporations and other groups will be forced to remain on the sidelines.

Just another example of a politician helping his/her friends while claiming to help average Americans.

Monday, May 17, 2010

I don't think adhering to the Constitution is extreme

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/opinion/17krugman.html?ref=opinion

In his op ed for the NY Times, Mr. Krugman claims that wanting to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Dept. of Education, and the EPA are radical ideas that are part of "Republican extremism". I challenge Mr. Krugman to show me where in the Constitution it mandates or even suggests any of these govt entities.

Mr. Krugman may think that they are important and disagree with the calls to abolish them (as I do with the Federal Reserve), but to say that they are extreme ideas is ridiculous and only distracts us from the necessary debate we should be having about frivolous govt programs. Once again Mr. Krugman shows himself to be a partisan first and foremost.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

What is really fair?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ref=opinion

Above is a link to Paul Krugman's NY TIMES piece in which he criticizes Sen. Jim Bunning (KY) for holding up an unemployment benefits extension in March. Krugman argues that Democrats are the morally superior party, that they are working for the common people. He points to that well known sympathizer and all around good guy, William Jefferson Clinton, as a shining example of the noble politician.

"Bill Clinton famously told a suffering constituent, “I feel your pain.” But the thing is, he did and does — while many other politicians clearly don’t. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the parties feel the pain of different people."

Wasn't this the same guy that didn't even consider the pain he would cause his own wife when he caught a bj under his desk from a White House intern? And yet Krugman wants me to believe he truly cares about some struggling worker in Anytown, USA?

Krugman's terrible example aside, giving people money they did not earn through endless unemployment benefits extensions is not as morally clear cut as he wants you to believe, nor is it as big of a boon to the overall economy as he argues.

Let's start with the economy. In order to extend unemployment benefits, Congress will need to take money from somewhere else. This will be done through higher taxes of fees leveled on people with jobs. This may be done today or in the future, but eventually it will have to be done. Assuming it is done today, all of the money used for the additional unemployment benefits has been taken from other workers, mostly through wages that will never be paid because their employers must pay unemployment taxes to both the Federal and state gov'ts instead.

It is often argued, as Krugman does, that unemployed people help the overall economy because they spend this additional money. Krugman says this is "textbook economics". But am I really less likely to spend that money if it was given to me? I would love to get an extra $100 a week. Perhaps I would pay off credit card bills or deposit it in a savings account, both of which would help to shore up banks balance sheets, which Krugman and other economists say are lacking. Or maybe I would buy some new clothes, or a watch, or some other consumer goods, which would increase demand in the exact same way that the unemployed's expenditures would. Textbook economics also says that spending money is spending money, and letting me spend it (or even save/invest it) would help the economy just as much. And the best part of all is that it wasn't taken from me and "given" to someone else, but was mine the whole time.

And now the moral part. Helping people without jobs buy food and other necessities is indeed a good thing. I don't think any reasonable person will argue with that. But are unemployment benefits really the best way to do that? As I noted before, all of the money that businesses pay the govt in unemployment taxes are wages that will never be paid to each of the employer's workers. If instead of the employer paying the govt and then the govt paying the unemployed, what if I just got to keep my money and I donated it to charity? Then the unemployed could go to local foodbanks and other charitable organizations to have their basic needs met. This would eliminate the waste and red tape associated with all govt programs and allow people to provide the help their areas need on a more local scale. In addition, it would stop the truly immoral practice of taking someone's lawfully earned money and giving it away.

Of course Democrats and people like Krugman think that will never happen. They think that people are inherently greedy and will never share their money. That is why we need the govt to collect the money by force and then distribute it as it sees fit. We can't trust individuals to help each other. After all, only about 20 - 30% of registered votes are Democrats, the morally superior party. Republicans and Independents are only about themselves and their rich friends. It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats always portray themselves as so caring and helpful while believing that everyone else is so greedy and selfish. It must be nice to be Paul Krugman, to be able to look into the mirror every morning knowing that you are a wonderful human being because you support the govt taking other people's money to redistribute to the less fortunate. Who cares what you do with your own money, as long as you support higher taxes and more spreading of wealth there will be a place for you in liberal heaven.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Obamacare is unconstitutional

http://article.nationalreview.com/424754/obamacare-vs-the-us-constitution/deroy-murdock

Great article from National Review online about how the mandate to buy health insurance in the current health care bill is unconstitutional. I have thought this ever since I heard that there would be a mandate and it is a point that I wish would get more attention. There is absolutely no way that the government can force citizens to buy anything and then penalize them if they don't.

If Obamacare does somehow pass the Senate and becomes law it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court handles the mandate. They will be doing this country irreparable harm if they do not strike this down if it comes before them. Once the government can force you to buy health insurance there will be nothing stopping them from forcing you to buy other goods and services, all under the disguise of being for your benefit. Let's hope that this mandate never comes to pass.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

It's been a while...

So it has been a while since my last post. The holidays, moving, applying to grad school, and getting my new computer set up each contributed to my tardiness. But I'm back now and I recently wrote a new letter to my Senators and Congressman concerning health care reform that I wanted to post. I encourage all of you to write your elected officials as well and let them know your thoughts. It really can make a difference.

Dear Congressman/Senator,

As Congress continues to debate health care reform, I encourage you to stick to the free market principles that have made this country great and insist that the following be included in any health care reform bill:

1. Allowing health insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines. This would increase the competition among insurers and eventually lead to lower costs.


2. Take insurance out of the hands of employers and into the hands of consumers. This would make insurance portable, which would allow people to leave their jobs without having to worry about losing their health care. It would also make consumers more aware of the costs of health care, as they would be responsible for picking out a plan that fit their needs and budget. This could be done with a tax credit for individuals and families, say up to $5,000 for individuals and 12,500 for families, with additional aid to low income Americans.

3. Eliminate the ability for insurers to deny people with preexisting conditions. All Americans deserve to be insured. Those with preexisting conditions, however, must realize that they are riskier and their premiums must reflect that while not pricing them out.

4. Put an end to frivolous lawsuits. Doctor's cannot be constantly worried about getting sued out of their practice for honest mistakes. Doctor's must be held accountable, but the number of lawsuits and the amount of rewards need to be brought under control.

I also implore you to stand up against any public option, either in this bill or a future bill, as well as any additional taxes on the “wealthy”. Masking the costs of health care by pushing more of the burden on the “wealthy” will do nothing to bring down costs and in fact will likely increase them.

In closing, remember that it is the free market that made America great and it will be the free market that keeps us great.

Thank you,
Adam Millsap, Voter
Westerville, OH