Coincidence

"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed." - Ayn Rand

Point 1:

Tax Tyranny

"The United States has the most progressive (i.e., unequal) tax system in the world. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on average, receives more in tax benefits than they pay in taxes — while the highest earners pay a wildly disproportionate amount of their income in taxes — despite the myth that Warren Buffett has a lower tax rate than his secretary. A progressive income tax only meets the test of “consent of the governed” when a majority of each class of taxpayers consents to its tax rate. Otherwise, it is tax tyranny of a low-tax-rate majority against a vote-poor, high-tax-rate minority. The apologists for the progressive income tax claim it is only “fair,” ignoring the fact there is nothing at all “fair” about taxing at a higher tax rate those who work longer and harder and/or spend more time acquiring an education and work skills. It is destructive and tyrannical for a society to tax the most productive, innovative and job-creating people at a higher rate than others."

Point 2:

Forcing Trade

"The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.

The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate."

Point 3:

Control the Message

"Dept. of Labor Forcing Media To Use Government Computers"

"Unrest is simmering in some quarters of the Washington news universe regarding changes in the way the Department of Labor (DOL) manages its pre-release media “lockups” on sensitive data like weekly jobless benefits and unemployment...The system insures that major news organizations get the data as soon as possible and allows journalists covering the release get a jump on providing analyses and opinion about the data.

But Carl Fillichio, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’ top communications advisor, circulated a memo earlier this week to interested media informing them that everybody is being required to re-submit their credentials requests.

Fillichio reminded participants that there are only 20-30 seats available for the lockups and that priority will be given by DOL in selecting participants to those that “are primarily journalistic enterprises.”

He also offered a one-sentence assurance that 'the department will not consider editorial or political viewpoints in making credentialing decisions.'

Whatever grumbling might be occasioned by being forced to go through the credentialing process again, the element of the Fillichio memo that has journalists worried is this paragraph:

'Second, as a measure toward enhancing security in its main lockup facility (the DOL news room), the department will supply and maintain standardized equipment with a standard configuration for all participants. This change means that privately owned computer and telephone equipment, including hardware, software, cabling, wiring and Internet and telephone lines will be replaced with equipment owned by the department.'

In other words, journalists will no longer be allowed to bring their laptops or other equipment to the lockups, they will have to use government-supplied equipment, described by Fillichio as including 'a virtualized desktop running a Windows operation system, a web browser, word-processing software, an Adobe Reader application and secure file transfer capability. Equipment provided will not have wireless networking capability. Provisions will be in place for news organizations to transmit their stories over the Internet.' "

Point 4:

The Bottomless Pocket

"The government spent at least $205,075 in 2010 to 'translocate' a single bush in San Francisco that stood in the path of a $1.045-billion highway-renovation project that was partially funded by the economic stimulus legislation President Barack Obama signed in 2009...the bush—a Franciscan manzanita—was a specimen of a commercially cultivated species of shrub that can be purchased from nurseries for as little as $15.98 per plant. The particular plant in question, however, was discovered in the midst of the City of San Francisco, in the median strip of a highway, and was deemed to be the last example of the species in the 'wild.' "


Ah, I'm sure I'm just using pieces of news stories to try and make some pithy argument.  Apparently, libertarians like myself are extreme (and would spit in the face of Dr. King, hate the people, hate the brown folk, the gays, the lesbians, the people with piercings and tattoos).  Extreme in the idea that each of us should enjoy the least possible restraints on our behavior and lives, only restraining ourselves when that behavior interferes with the freedom of others.  Government has a place...in enforcing personal property and law.  It should not be our big brother who we run to whenever there is a problem.

But, oh, I'm probably being extreme.  Yeah, that's probably accurate.  I mean, what's the point of looking at the big picture?  What has that ever solved?

Walking Backwards

The President's recently submitted budget is slated to kill the D.C. school voucher program called the Opportunity Scholarship Program.

School vouchers have proved a huge success, giving parents choice in how their tax dollars go to providing an education to their children.  Opponents of the voucher program attempt to find every possible failure of individual students, and use those failures to draw a bleak picture of the program.

Yet the overall facts don't support detractor's theories.

But, when you support increased government control over people's lives (as the administration does...and it's not just Democrats, you know) and when you must appease a union powerhouse (aka the teacher's unions)...

...you kill individual choice.

"The D.C. OSP (Opportunity Scholarship Program--aka, School Voucher program) has been highly successful. According to federally-mandated evaluations of the program, student achievement has increased, and graduation rates of voucher students have increased significantly. While graduation rates in D.C. Public Schools hover around 55 percent, students who used a voucher to attend private school had a 91 percent graduation rate.

And at $8,000, the vouchers are a bargain compared to the estimated $18,000 spent per child by D.C. Public Schools.

The Department of Education’s budget will increase 3.5 percent if the proposal is enacted, continuing a failed trend of spending more taxpayer dollars through Washington on a myriad of programs with a poor track record.

By contrast, the D.C. OSP has a stellar track record of increasing academic success, student safety, and parental satisfaction. And because of the nature of the District of Columbia (education in D.C. is under the jurisdiction of Congress), it is entirely appropriate for the federal government to fund the D.C. OSP."

Less money for people to make the best choices for themselves and more money for central planners.

Yup, walking backwards on the road to recovery and moving forward on the Road to Serfdom.

The Unemployment Calculation: Abbott and Costello Style

When you study basic economics, you learn the many ways to count the unemployment rate...and then learn the the government calculates it very absurdly.  You see, if you are out of work, and stop looking for work because (1) there's none to be had or (2) you just quit, you don't get counted anymore!  Wow, our numbers just got better (because an unemployed dropped off the radar)!

Here's a "Who's on First" explanation:

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 17%

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 17%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 17% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 17%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 17% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed?

ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To who?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work... Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 17%. You don't want to read about 17% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

U.S. Economic Bellwether: California

The Controller for California reported to state lawmakers today that the State of California will run out of money in March.

Governor Jerry Brown and his allies predicted $2.6 billion more in revenue that what has actually occurred, and lawmakers and the courts have spent or delayed cuts on programs costing $2.6 billion more than budgeted for.

"The Assembly budget committee approved a bill today that would enable $865 million of borrowing from existing state accounts, Senate Bill 95. Chiang, after consultation with the Department of Finance and state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, is also seeking about $2.4 billion in delayed payments to universities, counties and Medi-Cal, as well as additional borrowing from outside investors.
Absent these actions, the state would fall below its prudent $2.5 billion cash cushion on Feb. 29, Chiang estimated. On March 8, the state would actually end up $730 million in the red. The state would be below the safe cash cushion for several weeks ending April 13, save for several days at the end of March."

This mirrors much of what is to come for the rest of the country, in my humble opinion.  For years, tax rates have skyrocketed in California, and spending on entitlement programs has also skyrocketed.  These two factors create loss of revenue (when people, tired of the taxes, move or quit producing) and an increase in expenditures.  California is finding is harder and harder to find loans to cover the difference, as potential creditors foresee economic doom and gloom for the state.  For those not economically inclined, that spells bankruptcy in the long term.

Now, we see the same on the national stage, but just a little more behind in the timeline.  As soon as our creditors dry up, we can expect the same in the national economy.  Businesses will leave because of high tax rates, people will become more dependent on the national government as their income falls, and the economic death spiral will ensue.

Or not.  Just depends on our future actions.  On the current path, the Controller for California is a bellwether for the nation.  Take aggressive steps now, or we'll be bankrupt.

You can argue all you want with politics, but the numbers just don't lie.

Those Evil Corporations

You have probably noticed already, but I am not a fan of the Occupy Wall Street movement(s).  Why?

First, they lack a coherent argument.  Most of their sputterings arguments center around either socialist or communist platforms.  Second, they lack a sustainable vision for the country.  The effects they call for would not only make the economy worse, they would cripple it. Third, they offer no reasonable, rational, or executable solutions.  Most of these folks have not considered the secondary and tertiary effects of their solutions...and those effects are the most important for long term economic viability.

And they are just plain weird.  That should count for something, right?

And if that doesn't make sense, maybe this will.  Enjoy!

"That's Who We're Creating"

I am not a regular watcher of Judge Judy, but I must admit...I might start.

Below is a great video clip from the Judge Judy show (now on You Tube...because it's been pulled by CBS from their site?)

Summary:  Guy gets government money for rent.  You see, he's a student (already receiving $22,000 from the government to go to school) and he doesn't have a job.  Therefore, the government gives him an extra $400 for rent.  If we just stopped there, it wouldn't sound so different than what we have become accustomed to from the government.

Yet, this man decides to live with his girlfriend and spend the money on...other things.  Judge Judy has a few words for this...uh, upstanding young man.

Judge Judy...yes, send it to Congress.  In the meantime, the rest of us will remember this debacle when we vote.

A Simple Explanation

Ok, I stand corrected.  Here's a recent video which, I guess, totally makes me wrong in everything I've thought about the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

And here I thought these folks had no logic or economic foundation on which to make a coherent argument.

Just kidding.  Enjoy the circus.

The Definition of Irony

Via Hot Air.

The "Occupy Wall Street" (aka, I'm a socialist and give me all your money!) crowd just discovered the definition of irony.

The same people who say this:



...are now upset that they are being robbed by fellow "protesters".  When they want redistribution of property and wealth, they weren't referring to themselves, of course.  To the "rich"...whatever that means.

Me?  I'm just sad that this stupidity still exists in the 21st century.  After all the struggle, pain, and failure of socialism and communism, people are still ready to embrace it.  Logic does not matter to these people.

I still ask the same question to people who believe in socialism: "Who produces things that make our lives better when there is no incentive to produce?"

Still awaiting an answer that is filled with logic and facts rather than hyperbole.  

Numbers

You know, like words, numbers have meaning.

I'm a big fan of Marco Rubio.  I'm not a fan of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Case in point.



You see, the jobs act is so fundamentally important (according to the President), that there is no option but to support it.  If you don't support it?  Then according to his party, then you're against preventing murder, rape, paying firefighters, police, etc.  Hyperbole.  Pure and simple.

I think what the American people are tired of is speaking out of both sides of the mouth when real people are hurting.  People want real solutions, not real campaigning.  That goes for not just Democrats, but for Republicans too.

Me?  I'm still waiting for a leader.

The Tax Man: Part II

I've heard comments around the blog that the U.S. enjoys a low tax burden compared with other countries.  This, of course, is a reason that is given to support the idea that we can be taxed more.

Found this chart at the Tax Foundation.  Very interesting.  You see, the people who say we're not taxed as much are looking at the overall taxation percentage.  But if you look closely, you'll see that all other taxes are about the same, except the Value Added Tax (or VAT).  That's a consumption tax.

So, in essence, we're taxed at the same level at most other countries...but taxed less on consumption.  Consumption taxes are tricky.  If you consume less, you pay less taxes.  If you consume more, you pay more taxes.  You can (theoretically) adjust your own tax rate with the VAT method.

Problem is, the VAT theory only holds if all other taxes remain the same.  You see, if we all decided to buy less, the federal government would take in less revenue.  Their response?  Raise your other taxes.  This is where the VAT theory falls apart.  I don't think most politicians who talk VAT are actually trying to give you more control of your pocket book...I think they just want more of it.

Interesting stuff to think about.

If this stuff bores you, that makes politicians happy.  The less you pay attention, the more they get of your wallet.

Keynes Was Wrong

Well, that headline is contested by about half the population.  But, that's my take.

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has a good video supporting this idea.  Give it 5 minutes.  It will help you make better decisions at the ballot box.

All You Need To Know

I will not offer many responses to this, as I think it's important to just let a socialist speak for herself.  Elizabeth Warren is the new front runner in the Massachusetts Senate race.  She has a lot to say, as most politicians do who want to call themselves Senator.

What caught my ear was her reaction to business.  In my opinion, business is what makes the world go 'round.  Business employs, business creates, business pays taxes (and so do the people who the business hires and so do the people who buy their products).

But she thinks that business "owes" something more, just because, well they're a business.  You see, in her opinion, business would not survive if it were not for the tax revenue that paid for the roads, schools, police, and fire that the business uses.

I disagree.  In my opinion, business pays a lot more tax than the common American.  In fact, 50% of Americans don't pay any taxes at all.  Does that mean that 50% of Americans who don't pay taxes should be grateful to the wealthy who do?  They should, but seems like lately, it's the wealthy who are deemed "bad" and should pay their "fair share" (even though they already pay far more than most...far more).  Even though the business is paying a higher rate and greater quantity of taxes than the common American, Elizabeth thinks that business owes....and owes....and owes some more.

You see, Elizabeth gets it backwards.  It should be the taxpayers who are grateful to business, for business supplies the jobs, business produces what we consume, business pays most of the taxes...business is the economy we rely on.  Yet, in her world...in her socialist viewpoint...business should be grateful to us.  Business "owes" us more.  In her world, a "fair portion" of tax is more...and more....and more...and more....

If you think socialism is a thing of the past or just a punch line, just remember...she's the front runner.

What Do You Deserve?

Recently, Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said that "I'll put it this way, you don't deserve to keep all of it.  It's not a question of deserving, because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together."

"Keep all of what?" you may be asking.  Your money.

You see, Representative Schakowsky believes that you don't deserve to keep all of your money.  Why don't you deserve to keep all of your hard-earned money?  Because of government.  You see, we have to have government.  We can't exist without government.

I disagree.  I say, government can't exist without us.

There is another conversation that we need to have before we can talk taxes.  It's a conversation about whether we, as American citizens, have inalienable rights.

Tina Korbe from Hot Air recently blogged about this.  Quote:
"...the government does have that authority (to tax) from our consent, the consent we express in the Constitution, which does give the federal government the power to tax...when the federal government taxes us, then, it doesn't really take our money.  We freely--if indirectly--choose to appropriate our money to the federal government by voting in the Congress that establishes the tax rates in the first place.  We consent to giving the federal government authority over a particular portion of our private resources, making those private resources public.  In effect, we cede our right to that property to the federal government.  The federal government, then, has a right to our tax dollars because we give it that right."

Did you catch the important phrase?  "...we give it that right".

J.E. Dyer from Hot Air continues this thought.  She says, "The question of what we 'deserve' boils down to which came first, the individual human with rights, or the state.  America was founded on the principle that the individual human with rights comes first.  Any idea that violates that principle is counter to our founding idea...The American founding idea is that we the people decide what government will do, and we decide how much money government will have to do it with.  Then we contribute out of which is inalienably ours."

Catch that one?  "Then we contribute out of which is inalienably ours."

You see, this is the core of the true debate.  How big should the government be?  How much should the government do?  What does the government deserve to get?

How many of our rights to property (our money) do we cede to the government?  How should the government spend our ceded property?

And...who gets to decide this?  We the People or We the Feds?

Now, back to Congresswoman Schakowsky.  She, along with many in our country, have reversed the above.  They believe that government existed first, and should, therefore, have first dibs on our property.  She says, "Government is those things we decide to do together.  And there are many things we decide to do together."

Really?  I don't remember wanting to purchase shares of Chrysler.

She continues, "I think you need to pay your fair share of the things we decided are national priorities."

Bingo.  She's not talking about all of government.  You see, most of your life you exist at the local level.  Local ordinances, local government, local codes, property taxes, state ordinances, etc.  Very rarely, are you living at the national level.  But she's reversed that.  What she calls "we" is really "them" at the federal level.  The federal government is consuming more and more of your property.  And what do you have to show for it?  Less and less.  In fact, much of what you give to the federal government, in the hopes of future pay outs, is  insolvent.  Like Social Security.

So, if you believe that we give the government power, and we decide how big government should be, then I propose you do this:

Go cash in your shares of Chrysler.  Get your money back...we are constantly told "we own" the company.

Yet, this is what will happen.  Nothing.  You don't own anything.  The federal government owns the shares.  Now, tell me, is Representative Schakowsky talking about the things "we decide to do together", or is she really saying, "we the federal government has decided the things we will do without you"?

Interesting question to ponder.  Are We the People really in control?  For if our government does things we do not consent to, nor have the ability to correct, are we still living under the wishes of the Founding Fathers?  Are we still living under the guide of the Constitution?

Or are we somewhere else?

"If any of us doesn't deserve to keep everything he has earned, then that man is a slave...in the American idea, the state doesn't operate on the basis of 'what we deserve'.  It operates on the basis of law.  'What we deserve' is outside the scope of the state's competence to decide.  America was founded on the principle that individual rights precede and constrain the state.  As far as government is properly concerned, we all deserve to keep 100% of our money.  The question of what we decide to do with it, and how the functions of government figure into that, is a separate and subordinate topic.

It is impossible to live as free men and women otherwise."

Keynesian Socialist

What's the difference between a $14.7 Trillion debt and a $15.7 Trillion debt?

Maxine Waters.

Regular readers of this blog know my feelings about the Congresswoman representing South Central Los Angeles.  She's threatened to nationalize the oil companies (which reminds me of someone else), and has told a good number of voting Americans to "go to hell" due to their desire that the federal government live within their financial means.

There are many more reasons, but let's focus on the most recent.  Congresswoman Waters believes in the fallacy that if the government gives someone a dollar, they'll create $1.84 in economic stimulus.  The problem with this theory is that the government doesn't create wealth.  It has to take wealth, in the form of taxes, to spend on government programs.  Money taken in the form of taxes is wealth that could have been used to invest, create, hire, or spend in a free-market economy.  This is simply redistributing wealth not creating it, either telling how people should spend their money or simply making that decision for them.  She apparently doesn't understand this...or, she's a socialist and doesn't care.  Case in point, Meet the Press from this weekend.  She wants to spend a trillion dollars on a "jobs plan".




"I don't think he can have a program that simply gives more tax breaks to the very people who got us in this trouble in the first place."

You mean Congress?

Ma'am, let me introduce you to another theory.  The people in your district would be served better if you thought this way...and you would make less ridiculous statements on national t.v.

What Would You Do?

Let's play a game! Sorta like the TV series, we'll be playing "What Would You Do?" Skippy-style.  After I ask the question, take a moment to think about what you would do, then I'll give you the government's answer to all the questions.  Let's play!!

Question 1:  Your favorite ice cream company delivers their yummy products via trucks across the country.  The company finds out that one of their drivers is often drunk when he drives the trucks.  You think to yourself how many people that trucker has put at risk.  The company no longer allows the trucker to drive their trucks, but keeps the trucker in the company to do something non-driving related.  Did the company make the right decision?

Government Answer: No.  You violated the man's civil rights by removing him from driving.  You see, alcoholism is a "disability".  You know, the same as blindness, deafness, down syndrome, and multiple sclerosis.  Therefore, by removing him from his position (doesn't matter that you didn't fire him and kept him with the company) you violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, and we, as the government, are going to sue you.  We will sue you to reinstate the man as a driver again, provide him with back pay, and provide him with punitive damages.  Full story here.

Question 2:  California has a multi-billion dollar budget deficit.  It has some tough decisions to make.  For one, it has decided to close over 70 state parks.  For anyone that has been to California, they know that some of the most beautiful parks are located within the state.  What should the state do next?  Cut more from the budget?

Government Answer: No.  Actually, just the opposite.  You see, the federal government couldn't pass the DREAM Act because of a lack of support.  No problem.  California has plenty of support for illegal aliens....excuse me, undocumented workers....so, they'll pass the DREAM Act at the state level.  Even though they're having incredibly huge budget problems, the California Appropriations Committee has decided to spend $40 million via Assembly Bill 131.  This funds "Cal Grants", which would allow illegal aliens to collect public financial aid to spend for a college education. Story here.

Question 3:  The US Postal Service is going bankrupt.  As their costs grow beyond their revenues, the Post Office has recently closed 3,700 branches and eliminated Saturday delivery.  What could be causing the budget problems?  Labor.  FedEx labor costs are 32% of costs and UPS's labor costs are 53%.  The US Post Office's labor costs are 80% of all costs.  You see, the US Post Office has so many contractual issues with their employees (via labor unions), which include "no-layoff clauses", they are unable to control the costs of paying their people.  What should the Post Office do?  Re-negotiate with the unions?

Government Answer:  No.  Hey, Post Office.  We're going to bail you out.  Even though the American taxpayer is voting with their feet (via UPS and FedEx), we'll use taxpayer money to continue your unsustainable business model.  We understand unsustainable monetary models...we're the Federal Government.

That's all for today's game!  Hope you enjoyed today's frustrating results.  Excuse me, I must go give Office Depot more business.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Seems the representatives of the people are not educated in the ways of supply and demand or debits and credits.

According to a report from the Employment Policies Institute, only 1 in 5 members of Congress has a formal education in business or economics.  Broken down, only 8 percent majored in economics while 14 percent majored in business or accounting.

Of course, you don't necessarily need a formal education to make good policy.  But if you lack the formal education, maybe you should spend more time listening than talking.  Maybe your statements would not make you sound, so...what's the technical term?  Ah, yes.  Boneheaded.



Well, based on that logic, let's give everyone food stamps!  Put everyone on food stamps and we'll really stimulate the economy.  We'll borrow the money (from China, probably) and turn every one of those dollars from China into $1.84.  We'll have a robust economy!  And we'll have more money so we can pay them back!  Heck, if we gave everyone food stamps, we could stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget and eliminate the national debt!  And if a dollar turns into a $1.84, why stop at food stamps?  Let's give everyone a huge paycheck each month, and then they can go out and buy all kinds of stuff!!!  Of course, we'll need to take everyone's income and production so we can fund it.  Hmm, that sounds like another economic theory, but I just can't put my finger on it.  An economic free lunch!  Of course, the above video was only the Secretary of the Agriculture.  I'm sure no one in Congress would say such a thing.



The report says of our politicians, "This research suggests that our elected representatives may want to dust off their Econ 101 textbook (if they have one) before trying to tackle the weighty questions about the impact of taxes, spending, and debt on our economy and the labor market."

Gee, how novel of an idea.

Allow Me To Retort

Today, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled "Obamacare" (Affordable Care Act) unconstitutional.

Of course, the White House was not pleased with the decision and issued a statement on the White House blog. I'll save you some time and provide the most qualifying comments...with Skippy "addendum's", of course.

“There has been no shortage of court cases regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Before today, four courts, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, examined the health reform law and found it constitutional.  Today, a different court ruled against the Affordable Care Act’s individual responsibility provision. We strongly disagree with this decision and we are confident it will not stand.”

Skippy summation: "We would like to pick and choose which law is good and which law is bad. You see, these judges over here are making the right decisions...those over there are not. Since these judges over here agree with us, then they are right. Since those judges over there do not agree with us, they are wrong. Questions?"

“The individual responsibility provision – the main part of the law at issue in these cases – is constitutional. Those who claim this provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce are incorrect.”

Skippy summation: "It's constitutional because we say it's constitutional...capiche? Those who claim this provision exceeds Congress' power to regulate are either Tea Party terrorists, or people who think that government should not be able to tell its people what they should buy and how much they should pay for it, essentially destroying any free market solution. The former probably believe that government should allow the free market to decide the price of goods and services. Those same people probably assume that pharmaceutical companies who make profits from people being sick is a good thing, in that the desire to make profits cure disease and increase the medical welfare of the people, as shown over the last 100 years. Those same people probably wish that government would help increase the supply of doctors vice incentivizing the increase of supply of free riders who increase the demand of medical services (increase in demand with decrease in supply...aka, what economists call a shortage...we've seen that in Canada and the U.K., but we're confident it just can't happen here...we're awesome!). We completely disagree with those people. They are idiots."

“Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us – when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayer are often left to pick up the tab.”

Skippy's summation: "Not one single person in this country goes without health care. There are, of course, people who go without health insurance. We'd like to conflate those two so that you find it harder to understand. You see, while we don't have a problem with illegal immigrants who use health care and make the rest of us pay for it, those Americans who do the same are bad, very bad people. Also, we don't like that people can make economic decisions that affect other people. For example, if you have an iPad and I don't, you've created a inequality that just can not stand in this America, comrade. If you have great insurance, and this guy over here does not have great insurance, well, that just will not stand. We must make everyone equal. To each according to his ability, to each according to his need. (P.S.--the "pick up the tab" thing was probably a bad choice of words after Congress increased the debt limit this past week, ensuring our children's children's children will be picking up the tab of our current spending)."

“That’s why the Affordable Care Act requires everyone who can afford it to take responsibility for their own health care and carry some form of health insurance.”

Skippy's summation: "We'd like you to take personal responsibility for your own health care, but we need you to choose this plan for this price...we don't care if you don't like it and could do better. Or for that matter, we don't care if the country can't actually pay for this system. We're talking about your personal responsibility, not the government's responsibility, ok? You see, health care is a right. If we call it a right, the government must pay for it. You question this? Capitalist Pig! Now that we think about it, isn't food a right? Well, we'll be implementing the Affordable Safeway and Kroger Act soon which will ensure everyone eats well and doesn't have to pay for it. Also, we plan on enacting the Affordable House Act, which will ensure everyone has a free house to live in. I mean, if health care is a right, then surely food and and a place to live are also. And for that matter, we'd like to see the Affordable Water, Sewage, and Electricity Act, because people have rights to those also. How could you live without water, sewage or electricity? Those are rights too. And since everyone needs to be able to transport themselves to their jobs, we'll be recommending the Affordable Car Act, followed shortly by the Affordable Gas Act. I mean, a car without gas does no good, right? We plan on funding these too, via the federal government...we'll just need to continue to increase your taxes. What, you have a problem with increasing your taxes? What are you, a terrorist?"

Well, in all seriousness, I don't blame the White House for responding. It was a great piece to read (and I know the brother of the author...Guano, you owe me money). It just still amazes me that so many people still believe in the fallacy of a socialist world. It doesn't work. I wish I could say something to these people who believe in socialism that would change their mind. But there's really nothing I can say. Like telling my daughter, over and over, not to touch the hot stove, sometimes...well, she just has to touch the stove to see that it really will burn.

I just wish we all didn't have to feel the pain along with them.

Your Yearly Hearing Test

Listen closely.  Replay if necessary, but turn your volume up.  If you catch it, congrats, you pass...er, bad choice of words.



I'm sure it was just the chair.  But wouldn't it be great if it wasn't?  Disclaimer:  I'm no fan of Congressman Barney Frank.  Especially since he thinks that the first place to gut funding is the Department of Defense, and that "no good purpose" has come from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, we're spending $140 Billion a year on these operations....but, currently, the debt is increasing by $3.8 Billion per day.  In July of 2009, we paid $19 billion just in interest on our debt.

By my math (using old 2009 numbers), that's approximately $230 Billion a year just in interest.  Almost double what we paid in military operations.  While he may think we're not getting much out of these operations, I think he would privately admit it's a lot more than we're getting by paying interest.

Or not.  He is a politician.  But back to my original point, I do feel sorry for that chair.

Update:

And one more thing for the Honorable Congressman from Massachusetts (that's a hard state to spell...and I'm from Mississippi!).

Since 1967, our spending on the DoD has fallen from 45% of the budget to 20%.  Social Security has risen from 14% to 21%.  The payment on the interest (to our debt) has risen from 7% to 9%.Medicare and Medicaid has risen from 2% to 21% of the federal budget.

You tell me...which is the growing beast?  Defense or entitlements?  Which is the growing problem, defense or entitlements?  Which, if left unchanged, will consume the federal budget...that which is shrinking or that which is growing?

It's a pretty simple answer, but a very complex solution.  

The Art of Compromise

Ah, yes, compromise.  Like I said before, compromise for the sake of compromise is worthless.  Unless something good comes from it, compromise is...compromising.

Good thing we "hurried" to get the compromise debt deal through...you know, before our credit was downgraded.

Behold!  The art of compromise!

Ever been to a art studio?  Sometimes, the art just sucks.

Admitting You Have a Problem

Well, the first step to dealing with a problem is accepting you have one.

White House Press Secretary: "The White House doesn't create jobs."

Bravo.  I'm actually surprised they understand this, with their massive Keynesian gavel they've been slamming on our heads lately.

Next step, though, is actually putting your actions behind your words.  You see, if you admit that the White House (executive branch of government) doesn't create jobs, then who does?

Business creates jobs.  Business, with the goal of making profit, producing goods that people want to consume, hire labor to produce those goods.  Those goods meet a demand (hmm...supply to the demand...think I read that somewhere before).  Those laborers then can purchase other goods with their salary and contribute to funding the government with taxes.

The White House spokesman (Jay Carney), went on to say that "legislative priorities the President believes will create jobs" will help the economy.  Doh!

Well, I guess he needs to go back to step 1.  The legislature doesn't "create" jobs.  Business does.  Government jobs (all jobs, really) are a cost, not a benefit.  Government should only provide services which the benefits outweigh the costs...or those that can only be realized at an organized federal level (e.g., the military).  Economically, you should only invest in that which the benefit outweighs the cost.  Businesses, as a logical being, incur costs only when the benefit is greater, and part of those costs are jobs.  Those jobs are the costs which are incurred by attaining the benefit.

Where does tax revenue come from?  Ah yes, the laborers from the businesses (who are actually the creator of jobs). You see, there would be no government jobs if there was no revenue coming into the government to hire those government workers.  Government doesn't create wealth, it redistributes it.

Well, I guess the simple fact of saying "the White House doesn't create jobs" is pretty good for this administration.  You know what, who am I to lecture on economics?  Listen to an expert.  I wish I could have spent an hour with the Professor.