Yup. I'd say that pretty much says it all.
(H/T GraniteGrok)
Recently in Congressional Shenanigans Category
Yup. I'd say that pretty much says it all.
(H/T GraniteGrok)
They just don't make 'em like they used to. Democrats, that is.
George McGovern, former Senator from South Dakota and Presidential candidate in 1972, was a class act. And one thing that made him that was his ability to see things from someone else's viewpoint. And once he 'walked a mile' in that someone's shoes, he came to a realization that some of the legislation he supported or authored while in Congress did more harm than good, particularly in matters pertaining to the economy and the businesses that drive it.
How do we know this? Because he told us so way back in 1992 in a WSJ op-ed piece. It so impressed another member of Congress that he had it submitted in its entirety to the Congressional Record, both as a reminder and a warning.
Here are McGovern's very words, words that should be read by every member of Congress, and particularly those from the Democrat Party.
George McGovern, former Senator from South Dakota and Presidential candidate in 1972, was a class act. And one thing that made him that was his ability to see things from someone else's viewpoint. And once he 'walked a mile' in that someone's shoes, he came to a realization that some of the legislation he supported or authored while in Congress did more harm than good, particularly in matters pertaining to the economy and the businesses that drive it.
How do we know this? Because he told us so way back in 1992 in a WSJ op-ed piece. It so impressed another member of Congress that he had it submitted in its entirety to the Congressional Record, both as a reminder and a warning.
Here are McGovern's very words, words that should be read by every member of Congress, and particularly those from the Democrat Party.
It seems to me that question hasn't been asked at all by the Democrats in Congress since at least 2007. It certainly hasn't been asked since 2009 by either the Democrats in Congress or The One in the White House. There have also been far too few Republicans asking that question, too. It's a question that is long overdue.A Politician's Dream Is A Businessman's Nightmare
`Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.'--Justice Felix Frankfurter.
It's been 11 years since I left the U.S. Senate, after serving 24 years in high public office. After leaving a career in politics, I devoted much of my time to public lectures that took me into every state in the union and much of Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.
In 1988, I invested most of the earnings from this lecture circuit acquiring the leasehold on Connecticut's Stratford Inn. Hotels, inns and restaurants have always held a special fascination for me. The Stratford Inn promised the realization of a longtime dream to own a combination hotel, restaurant and public conference facility--complete with an experienced manager and staff.
In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn's 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.
Today we are much closer to a general acknowledgment that government must encourage business to expand and grow. Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey and others have, I believe, changed the debate of our party. We intuitively know that to create job opportunities we need entrepreneurs who will risk their capital against an expected payoff. Too often, however, public policy does not consider whether we are choking off those opportunities.
My own business perspective has been limited to that small hotel and restaurant in Stratford, Conn., with an especially difficult lease and a severe recession. But my business associates and I also lived with federal, state and local rules that were all passed with the objective of helping employees, protecting the environment, raising tax dollars for schools, protecting our customers from fire hazards, etc. While I never doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: `Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.' It is a simple concern that is nonetheless often ignored by legislators.
For example, the papers today are filled with stories about businesses dropping health coverage for employees. We provided a substantial package for our staff at the Stratford Inn. However, were we operating today, those costs would exceed $150,000 a year for health care on top of salaries and other benefits. There would have been no reasonably way for us to absorb or pass on these costs.
Some of the escalation in the cost of health care is attributed to patients suing doctors. While one cannot assess the merit of all these claims, I've also witnessed firsthand the explosion in blame-shifting and scapegoating for every negative experience in life.
Today, despite bankruptcy, we are still dealing with litigation from individuals who fell in or near our restaurant. Despite these injuries, not every misstep is the fault of someone else. Not every such incident should be viewed as a lawsuit instead of an unfortunate accident. And while the business owner may prevail in the end, the endless exposure to frivolous claims and high legal fees is frightening.
Our Connecticut hotel, along with many others, went bankrupt for a variety of reasons, the general economy in the Northeast being a significant cause. But that reason masks the variety of other challenges we faced that drive operating costs and financing charges beyond what a small business can handle.
It is clear that some businesses have products that can be priced at almost any level. The price of raw materials (e.g., steel and glass) and life-saving drugs and medical care are not easily substituted by consumers. It is only competition or antitrust that tempers price increases. Consumers may delay purchases, but they have little choice when faced with higher prices.
In services, however, consumers do have a choice when faced with higher prices. You may have to stay in a hotel while on vacation, but you can stay fewer days. You can eat in restaurants fewer times per month, or forgo a number of services from car washes to shoeshines. Every such decision eventually results in job losses for someone. And often these are the people without the skills to help themselves--the people I've spent a lifetime trying to help.
In short, `one-size-fits-all' rules for business ignore the reality of the market place. And setting thresholds for regulatory guidelines at artificial levels--e.g., 50 employees or more, $500,000 in sales--takes no account of other realities, such as profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics.
The problem we face as legislators is: Where do we set the bar so that it is not too high to clear? I don't have the answer. I do know that we need to start raising these questions more often.
As if we need any more evidence that Obama and the Congressional Democrats are paying off the public employees unions for their past support, there's this little $26 billion bribe just passed by Congress and signed by the Socialist In Chief.
Never mind that we don't have to money to pay for this. Never mind the string attached that are trying to force states accepting any of this money to bypass their own budgeting process. Never mind that the $10 billion of that money to be used for education won't help anyone because it won't be available until after the school year starts and cities and towns have already set their budgets and their personnel requirements.
It is a blatant, in-your-face bribe to the unions using our money and the Democrats in Congress don't care who knows it. It doesn't help that President Obama helped sell the lie by making claims he knew the general public wouldn't accept. For one thing there isn't a single public union contract out there that guarantees employment for life, but to hear the President tell it the $26 billion he and Congress just spent are supposed to help spendthrift states do just that. Since when are public employees supposed to be immune to the effects of a recession? Since when are we supposed to fund pay raises when many of us haven't seen a pay raise in two years, or worse, have received pay cuts?
All this little $26 billion bribe does is further illustrate the utter contempt the Democrats in Congress and the present occupant of the White House have for those of us actually paying the bills.
Never mind that we don't have to money to pay for this. Never mind the string attached that are trying to force states accepting any of this money to bypass their own budgeting process. Never mind that the $10 billion of that money to be used for education won't help anyone because it won't be available until after the school year starts and cities and towns have already set their budgets and their personnel requirements.
It is a blatant, in-your-face bribe to the unions using our money and the Democrats in Congress don't care who knows it. It doesn't help that President Obama helped sell the lie by making claims he knew the general public wouldn't accept. For one thing there isn't a single public union contract out there that guarantees employment for life, but to hear the President tell it the $26 billion he and Congress just spent are supposed to help spendthrift states do just that. Since when are public employees supposed to be immune to the effects of a recession? Since when are we supposed to fund pay raises when many of us haven't seen a pay raise in two years, or worse, have received pay cuts?
All this little $26 billion bribe does is further illustrate the utter contempt the Democrats in Congress and the present occupant of the White House have for those of us actually paying the bills.
It has become quite evident to me and many millions of others that the Powers-That-Be, meaning the so-called 'Political Class', are clueless and out of touch with the rest of America and the people who live there. What's worse, they are convinced they are the anointed, the only ones with the knowledge, wisdom, and the will to use it even though those they look down upon see them as nothing more than elitist snobs without a lick of common sense or decency.
What's sad is the 'common folk' - that's you and me - are right and they are so incredibly wrong. The political class has no advanced wisdom, no special knowledge divulged to them through secret and ancient organizations, and no divine right or ability to rule you, me, or anyone.
They are nothing more than a mutual admiration society striding within the halls of power with impunity, an undeserved sense of entitlement, and the arrogance to believe they are the only ones with the answers. They believe the rest of us are incapable of running our own lives and need to be taken care of. That's ironic considering how many of them can't even run their lives. They have the same problems, the same foibles, the same weaknesses, the same flaws as everyone else. But somehow I doubt you'd ever get them to admit that, for to do so would mean they aren't any more enlightened than the rest of us and that doesn't track with their belief system.
How do I and the rest if America know this? Because we see it every day on the news, on CSPAN, in the newspapers, and in almost every law passed by Congress or a large number of blue state legislatures over the past few years. Our wishes, our desires, our demands, and our knowledge of the real world is dismissed out of hand because we aren't them. Never mind that we're the ones who pay the bills, create the jobs, build the cities, grow the food, and everything else they depend on. Without the rest of us they are nothing.
Wait. What the heck am I saying? I meant to say that even with us they are nothing. Perhaps it is time for them to learn this truth.
What's sad is the 'common folk' - that's you and me - are right and they are so incredibly wrong. The political class has no advanced wisdom, no special knowledge divulged to them through secret and ancient organizations, and no divine right or ability to rule you, me, or anyone.
They are nothing more than a mutual admiration society striding within the halls of power with impunity, an undeserved sense of entitlement, and the arrogance to believe they are the only ones with the answers. They believe the rest of us are incapable of running our own lives and need to be taken care of. That's ironic considering how many of them can't even run their lives. They have the same problems, the same foibles, the same weaknesses, the same flaws as everyone else. But somehow I doubt you'd ever get them to admit that, for to do so would mean they aren't any more enlightened than the rest of us and that doesn't track with their belief system.
How do I and the rest if America know this? Because we see it every day on the news, on CSPAN, in the newspapers, and in almost every law passed by Congress or a large number of blue state legislatures over the past few years. Our wishes, our desires, our demands, and our knowledge of the real world is dismissed out of hand because we aren't them. Never mind that we're the ones who pay the bills, create the jobs, build the cities, grow the food, and everything else they depend on. Without the rest of us they are nothing.
Wait. What the heck am I saying? I meant to say that even with us they are nothing. Perhaps it is time for them to learn this truth.
One of the more lucid commentaries I've ever read dealing with the financial mess the Democrats have been foisting upon us came not from this Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, but from a WSJ reader who manages to put it into perspective for those of us not infected with the progressive mind rot about economics (how it should work rather than how it does work).
Reader Geoff Wilson writes:
How many times have we seen a government decide it knew best how to handle its national economy, only to see all its efforts make things progressively worse to the point where the economy collapses, and with it, the government that tried to 'save' it? The harshest example has to be the the old Soviet Union, where all their 5-year economic plans failed to produce anything in abundance except inefficiency, shortages of vital goods, and misery. Venezuela has been heading down that road to hell and Argentina is following close behind.
Britain narrowly escaped the same fate when Maggie Thatcher became prime minister and proceeded to undo all the damage done to the British economy by her wrong-headed, though good intentioned predecessors. She understood, as did Ronald Reagan, that no one person or group of people are smart enough to control an economy to the betterment of all.
The only explanation I can come up with for the Progressives' belief they can succeed where everyone else has failed is insanity. You know, the type of insanity defined so: "Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results this time."
Indeed.
Reader Geoff Wilson writes:
The Progressive mindset is a curious one. It only makes sense or becomes predictable once you realize that to them, Utopia is reached through faith in the inherent goodness of their goals. As such, it is really a religion. I say this not to disparage the concept of religion in general, but to recognize that religion is marked by a belief that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Thus, to a true believer, no amount of logic or objective evidence will sway their opinion, since in their eyes, the true test of faith is to adhere to your beliefs when all else tells that your course of action has no chance to bring about the result you wish it to.Ah, yes, good intentions. We all know where that road leads, don't we?
Thus, Progressives cling to their backwards, illogical view of the workings of the economy not because they have ever been proved correct, but because they have faith that this is the way the world works, and because this is the only pseudoscientific framework that has ever been constructed that gives their desire to control other people for their own good some sort of supposed systematic logical basis. Thus, telling them that their logic makes no sense actually only serves to solidify their resolve, because Keynesian thought is actually based on the economy being controlled by "animal spirits" that are illogical. Thus, economic crashes are not brought about by predictable, understandable chains of logical cause and effect, but instead are brought about by the capricious whimsy of illogical humans, who stampede over the cliff of liquidity traps with wild abandon like lemmings.
They don't expect the economy to make sense. Rather, they expect to follow the wisdom of their high priests no matter what the economic dials and guages (sic) are showing, because the two things they have faith in are that good intentions will always triumph, and that the economy is a backwards, illogical machine that can only be steered by turning left if you want to go right.
How many times have we seen a government decide it knew best how to handle its national economy, only to see all its efforts make things progressively worse to the point where the economy collapses, and with it, the government that tried to 'save' it? The harshest example has to be the the old Soviet Union, where all their 5-year economic plans failed to produce anything in abundance except inefficiency, shortages of vital goods, and misery. Venezuela has been heading down that road to hell and Argentina is following close behind.
Britain narrowly escaped the same fate when Maggie Thatcher became prime minister and proceeded to undo all the damage done to the British economy by her wrong-headed, though good intentioned predecessors. She understood, as did Ronald Reagan, that no one person or group of people are smart enough to control an economy to the betterment of all.
One of the most easily documented examples has been economic central planning, which was tried in countries around the world at various times during the 20th century, among people of differing races and cultures, and under government ranging from democracies to dictatorships.All such control diminishes economies and acts as a disincentive for anyone trying to do anything to improve it. China and India came to understand the concept and abandoned tight government control over their economies and they boomed to a level never seen before in either country's history. It's too bad the Progressives in this country have failed to learn that lesson and are willing to make the same mistake. Of course I expect their refrain will be "But we'll get it right this time!"
The people who ran central planning agencies usually had more advanced education than the population at large, and probably higher IQs as well.
The central planners also had far more statistics and other facts at their disposal than the average person had. Moreover, there were usually specialized experts such as economists and statisticians on the staffs of the central planners, and outside consultants were available when needed. Finally, the central planners had the power of government behind them, to enforce the plans they created.
What is remarkable is that, after a few decades of experience with central planning in some countries, or a few generations in others, even communists and socialists began to repudiate this approach.
The only explanation I can come up with for the Progressives' belief they can succeed where everyone else has failed is insanity. You know, the type of insanity defined so: "Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results this time."
Indeed.
Despite all it's promises to the contrary, the Obama Administration has failed to stimulate the housing market in any meaningful way. While the attempt made with the home buyer tax credits did boost home sales a bit, home sales tanked after the tax credit ended.
Last month mortgage applications for new homes and refinancing hit a 13-year low despite record low interest rates (see below). It's also expected the number of foreclosures this year will be greater than last year despite the Obama Administration's attempts to "bully and wheedle banks into stopping foreclosures", an effort that's failed for the most part.
I ran the numbers for our present 30-year mortgage (at 5.75%) through their calculator and found we'd save $70 per month on our mortgage payment if we took out a 20-year mortgage for refinance. That means we'd take years off our remaining mortgage and still pay less than we're paying now.
Needless to say, we made the call and have started the ball rolling.
Last month mortgage applications for new homes and refinancing hit a 13-year low despite record low interest rates (see below). It's also expected the number of foreclosures this year will be greater than last year despite the Obama Administration's attempts to "bully and wheedle banks into stopping foreclosures", an effort that's failed for the most part.
Remember when the Obama administration announced its plan to spend billions of dollars to prevent foreclosures? The White House threatened banks that attempted to seize defaulted property and tried to get judges to reset the principal of the loans in court. None of that has helped stop the wave of foreclosures; it has only delayed and strung out the pain, ironically cresting just as voters go to the midterm polls.The housing market won't recover until the economy actually starts creating more jobs. Without jobs, nothing Obama does is going to fix the worst housing market we've seen in decades.
None of the stimuli and the rescue plans worked, because none of them addressed the core problem: joblessness. Without jobs, people lose their homes no matter how much the government intervenes to stop it.Obama has put the cart before the horse, trying to bolster one part of the economy (housing) without making sure another part has the means to sustain it (jobs). Maybe he's expecting the housing market to lead the way to recovery. If so he has made a major faux pas as the housing market tends to be a lagging indicator of economic recovery. It's a leading indicator only if the economy starts heading down into recession.
Until we get people back to work, these programs are simply futile. A homebuyer tax break doesn't help someone without a job qualify as a buyer, and restructuring plans for existing mortgages can't help an unemployed person make a mortgage payment.
**********************
I took a look at today's finance rates from our local bank which shows a fixed 30-year mortgage at 4.375% and a 20-year fixed at 4.25%! That's the lowest I've seen, ever.I ran the numbers for our present 30-year mortgage (at 5.75%) through their calculator and found we'd save $70 per month on our mortgage payment if we took out a 20-year mortgage for refinance. That means we'd take years off our remaining mortgage and still pay less than we're paying now.
Needless to say, we made the call and have started the ball rolling.
I don't know if you've noticed it, but I have. So has John Stossel.
What am I talking about?
A host of ever growing laws and rules that make it more difficult to be a law abiding citizen.
One of my pet peeves when it comes to this kind of nonsense? Zero tolerance policies.
I've written more than once how such policies are crutches for the weak willed pencil-pushers and bureaucrats too damn afraid or too lazy to apply a little common sense and make a judgment call.
Stossel also provides a few examples of zero tolerance laws that do nothing more than make the local policymakers look like imbeciles. My favorite is this one:
How do we solve this increasingly monstrous trend?
I can think of a few remedies, including a constitutional amendment that requires that for every new law passed, an old one must be repealed. And not just any old law, but one of equal import and scope. If not for that condition we'd be seeing all kinds of new laws passed that end up being balanced by repealing trivial laws that have outlawed things like spitting on the sidewalk.
Another tactic is to file a class action suit against every trivial, wasteful, and mind-numbing piece of legislation or regulation that comes out of government at every level. Bury them in endless litigation, making it difficult, if not impossible to enforce.
One of the tactics I like best? Ridicule. Make it known far and wide the abject stupidity of any law, rule, or regulation that defies common sense and has a profound negative effect on the citizens and relieves the bureaucrats from actually having to make any decisions about anything. Let the people know of the unintended consequences of imposing such laws, rules, or regulations and let them know who it is that created them. Show them for the lazy dunces they are.
A follow up to this last tactic: Vote them out of office or fire them. People this stupid or lazy shouldn't be holding positions of authority over any of us.
What am I talking about?
A host of ever growing laws and rules that make it more difficult to be a law abiding citizen.
Something's happened to America, and it isn't good. It's become easier to get into trouble. We've become a nation of a million rules. Not the kind of bottom-up rules that people generate through voluntary associations. Those are fine. I mean imposed, top-down rules formed in the brains of meddling bureaucrats who think they know better than we how to manage our lives.This problem is getting worse all the time. We hear stories about some poor sap ending up being fired or expelled or arrested for breaking some nonsensical and totally useless rule or law that no one in their right mind would ever think were necessary or desirable.
Cross them, and we are in trouble.
One of my pet peeves when it comes to this kind of nonsense? Zero tolerance policies.
I've written more than once how such policies are crutches for the weak willed pencil-pushers and bureaucrats too damn afraid or too lazy to apply a little common sense and make a judgment call.
Stossel also provides a few examples of zero tolerance laws that do nothing more than make the local policymakers look like imbeciles. My favorite is this one:
Ansche Hedgepeth, 12, committed this heinous crime: She left school in Washington, D.C., entered a Metrorail station to head home and ate a French fry. (Emphasis added) An undercover officer arrested her, confiscating her jacket, backpack and shoelaces. She was handcuffed and taken to the Juvenile Processing Center. Only after three hours in custody was the 12-year-old released into her mother's custody. The chief of Metro Transit Police said: "We really do believe in zero-tolerance. Anyone taken into custody has to be handcuffed for officer safety." She was sentenced to community service and now carries an arrest record. Washington's Metro has since rescinded its zero-tolerance policy.Examples of that kind of stupidity and sloth abound. Yet Congress and the federal government continue to crank out new laws that criminalize the most trivial behavior, or in some cases non-behavior in an effort to control every aspect of our lives. And it's not just the feds, but state and local governments and institutions that have fallen into the same mindset.
How do we solve this increasingly monstrous trend?
I can think of a few remedies, including a constitutional amendment that requires that for every new law passed, an old one must be repealed. And not just any old law, but one of equal import and scope. If not for that condition we'd be seeing all kinds of new laws passed that end up being balanced by repealing trivial laws that have outlawed things like spitting on the sidewalk.
Another tactic is to file a class action suit against every trivial, wasteful, and mind-numbing piece of legislation or regulation that comes out of government at every level. Bury them in endless litigation, making it difficult, if not impossible to enforce.
One of the tactics I like best? Ridicule. Make it known far and wide the abject stupidity of any law, rule, or regulation that defies common sense and has a profound negative effect on the citizens and relieves the bureaucrats from actually having to make any decisions about anything. Let the people know of the unintended consequences of imposing such laws, rules, or regulations and let them know who it is that created them. Show them for the lazy dunces they are.
A follow up to this last tactic: Vote them out of office or fire them. People this stupid or lazy shouldn't be holding positions of authority over any of us.
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record in regards to ObamaCare, but it appears our not-so-wise Congresscritters still don't understand the concept of It Ain't Gonna Work.
Again, the health insurance system upon which ObamaCare was heavily based is coming apart at the seams, with costs rising, courts overturning arbitrarily imposed rate caps, and actual access to health care declining.
But the Democrats in Congress and the White House insist everything will work just fine once the program goes national. Never mind that it's no better than what we're seeing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, just a heck of a lot more expensive and destructive. I guess they think that if they just believe it as hard as they can it will all come true. Too bad that history is against them.
There isn't a single member of Congress capable of pointing out a socialist health care system that works well and provides the level of care available here in the US. Why? Because it doesn't exist and never has.
Every such system eventually fails, either spectacularly or one slow painful step at a time. While a lot of people tout the British, Canadian, and French health care systems as superior to ours, they are wrong. Oh, they'll give us anecdotal evidence that out system really sucks, quoting long discredited WHO studies about things like infant mortality or life spans. But when it comes down to it, after taking a look at thinks like cancer survival rates, survival rates for strokes, heart attacks, actual infant mortality rates (taking into account that the US has a far higher survival rate for preemies, something the WHO stats ignore), the effectiveness of rehabilitative therapy, and a host of other branches of medicine, the US comes out on top. That's why so many people come from all over the world to be treated here rather than going to the UK, France, or Canada. Once ObamaCare kicks in and does great damage to our health care system, that will all change because the US will no longer have such a great health care system.
I must change course on this a little bit to cover something that has become a big pet peeve of mine in regards to ObamaCare.
One thing that drives me to distraction is the mistaken belief that ObamaCare will somehow provide access to medical care. It won't. It isn't designed to do that, despite what many may claim. What it's supposed to do is provide health insurance to those presently without it. It doesn't guarantee access to health care at all. Even today people with health insurance may have limited or no access to routine health care because they can't find a doctor who is willing to take on new patients. (In many cases it's not that doctors don't want to take on more patients, it's that they can barely handle the ones they already have.) Others won't take Medicare or Medicaid patients because of the extra requirements the government imposes on them in regards to staffing and reporting and the poor reimbursements. And yet others in certain specialties won't take on high-risk patients because of the fear of malpractice suits.
Does our health care system have problems? Absolutely. Does it make any sense to pass poorly thought out and damaging legislation that will only make the existing problems worse? Of course not. But that's what we ended up with, courtesy of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Again, the health insurance system upon which ObamaCare was heavily based is coming apart at the seams, with costs rising, courts overturning arbitrarily imposed rate caps, and actual access to health care declining.
But the Democrats in Congress and the White House insist everything will work just fine once the program goes national. Never mind that it's no better than what we're seeing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, just a heck of a lot more expensive and destructive. I guess they think that if they just believe it as hard as they can it will all come true. Too bad that history is against them.
There isn't a single member of Congress capable of pointing out a socialist health care system that works well and provides the level of care available here in the US. Why? Because it doesn't exist and never has.
Every such system eventually fails, either spectacularly or one slow painful step at a time. While a lot of people tout the British, Canadian, and French health care systems as superior to ours, they are wrong. Oh, they'll give us anecdotal evidence that out system really sucks, quoting long discredited WHO studies about things like infant mortality or life spans. But when it comes down to it, after taking a look at thinks like cancer survival rates, survival rates for strokes, heart attacks, actual infant mortality rates (taking into account that the US has a far higher survival rate for preemies, something the WHO stats ignore), the effectiveness of rehabilitative therapy, and a host of other branches of medicine, the US comes out on top. That's why so many people come from all over the world to be treated here rather than going to the UK, France, or Canada. Once ObamaCare kicks in and does great damage to our health care system, that will all change because the US will no longer have such a great health care system.
I must change course on this a little bit to cover something that has become a big pet peeve of mine in regards to ObamaCare.
One thing that drives me to distraction is the mistaken belief that ObamaCare will somehow provide access to medical care. It won't. It isn't designed to do that, despite what many may claim. What it's supposed to do is provide health insurance to those presently without it. It doesn't guarantee access to health care at all. Even today people with health insurance may have limited or no access to routine health care because they can't find a doctor who is willing to take on new patients. (In many cases it's not that doctors don't want to take on more patients, it's that they can barely handle the ones they already have.) Others won't take Medicare or Medicaid patients because of the extra requirements the government imposes on them in regards to staffing and reporting and the poor reimbursements. And yet others in certain specialties won't take on high-risk patients because of the fear of malpractice suits.
Does our health care system have problems? Absolutely. Does it make any sense to pass poorly thought out and damaging legislation that will only make the existing problems worse? Of course not. But that's what we ended up with, courtesy of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
As if the stock market downturn and declining home sales aren't enough, the so-called Frank-Dodd Financial Reform bill will make sure to kill off one thing that many of us depend upon - our local community banks.
It has become increasingly apparent the Democrats in Congress are not friends of the American people. The only ones they're interested in helping are themselves...to our money.
The comprehensive financial reform agreed upon by the House and Senate on Friday, along with all the new regulations of the past year, could signal the end of community banking. The new reforms will give more power to the Federal Reserve to regulate how [small banks] do business.I thought financial reform was supposed to help both consumers and banks to survive. Instead it looks like it's designed to destroy small banks and make it very difficult to get loans of any type. How is this helping anyone except the banks that are too large to fail?
What does all this mean for our customers? Less credit will be available, costs will increase, and we will be less able to make loans to regular people who were creditworthy in the past. This is the perfect storm for the small retail banking customer. We will start to see more small community bank failures and mergers because of voluminous regulation.
It has become increasingly apparent the Democrats in Congress are not friends of the American people. The only ones they're interested in helping are themselves...to our money.
You know it's bad when even CNN is dumping on ObamaCare.
The CNN report linked above covers the growing problems with Massachusetts health insurance program upon which ObamaCare has been modeled. None of the goals stated in the Massachusetts version have been met. The system is failing financially, with no control over costs, mandated coverage adding to health insurance premiums, subsidies for low/medium-income earners heading ever upwards, disincentives for people to work (higher income means paying a lot more for health insurance), and unintended incentives for businesses to drop their employees health insurance plans entirely.
The Massachusetts system is a preview of what we can expect as ObamaCare kicks in.
Already the the side effects of ObamaCare can be seen as the costs of it become more apparent. If most of the details of this bill had been made known to all of Congress before the vote it never would have passed. Anyone in Congress with a modicum of knowledge about business would have been able to see the negatives of ObamaCare far outweighed any perceived benefits.
With the unintended incentives ObamaCare gives businesses to drop employee health care, or worse, have all future hires brought on as temporary or contract employees, Obama's promise that we'd "be able to keep our present health insurance if we want to" rings hollow and shows he either doesn't truly understand the ramifications of health care reform, or doesn't care. The fact that he needs to spend $125 million of taxpayer funds to sell the idea that ObamaCare will be wonderful proves how bad it will be. If it was truly all that great it would sell itself. But the more he tries to push it on the American people the more they resist letting him destroy the imperfect but world class health care system we have.
Anyone with even a little math ability can figure out that the numbers don't add up, that they don't take into account real world conditions, and totally ignore the effects of the fiscal disincentives that will cause companies to drop health insurance for their employees and induce health care professionals to leave the medical field.
The CNN report linked above covers the growing problems with Massachusetts health insurance program upon which ObamaCare has been modeled. None of the goals stated in the Massachusetts version have been met. The system is failing financially, with no control over costs, mandated coverage adding to health insurance premiums, subsidies for low/medium-income earners heading ever upwards, disincentives for people to work (higher income means paying a lot more for health insurance), and unintended incentives for businesses to drop their employees health insurance plans entirely.
The Massachusetts system is a preview of what we can expect as ObamaCare kicks in.
Already the the side effects of ObamaCare can be seen as the costs of it become more apparent. If most of the details of this bill had been made known to all of Congress before the vote it never would have passed. Anyone in Congress with a modicum of knowledge about business would have been able to see the negatives of ObamaCare far outweighed any perceived benefits.
With the unintended incentives ObamaCare gives businesses to drop employee health care, or worse, have all future hires brought on as temporary or contract employees, Obama's promise that we'd "be able to keep our present health insurance if we want to" rings hollow and shows he either doesn't truly understand the ramifications of health care reform, or doesn't care. The fact that he needs to spend $125 million of taxpayer funds to sell the idea that ObamaCare will be wonderful proves how bad it will be. If it was truly all that great it would sell itself. But the more he tries to push it on the American people the more they resist letting him destroy the imperfect but world class health care system we have.
Anyone with even a little math ability can figure out that the numbers don't add up, that they don't take into account real world conditions, and totally ignore the effects of the fiscal disincentives that will cause companies to drop health insurance for their employees and induce health care professionals to leave the medical field.
It was 80 years ago yesterday, June 17th, that President Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act into law, which instantly turned the Great Recession into the Great Depression. It was an act of trade protectionism that had exactly the opposite effect from the one intended. Call it an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences writ large.
It seems modern day Democrats are now looking to make the same mistake as the Republicans did in Hoover's day and for the same reasons. Should they pull it off, the unintended consequences won't be the same as those back in 1930. Instead, they'll be far worse.
Perhaps it's time for Congress and the President to stop punishing American businesses for succeeding here. Who knows, maybe new jobs will be created here as a result.
Hoover and his congressional allies thought that reducing imports would strengthen the economy. Instead, it contributed to a collapse in world trade and the spread of protectionism around the globe. The lessons from this policy mistake are unfortunately all too relevant today.It was one of the biggest mistakes the Republican Party ever got involved with.
The Smoot-Hawley tariff, conceived as a Republican ploy to gain the farm vote in the 1928 election, was a bad idea from the start.
It seems modern day Democrats are now looking to make the same mistake as the Republicans did in Hoover's day and for the same reasons. Should they pull it off, the unintended consequences won't be the same as those back in 1930. Instead, they'll be far worse.
Perhaps it's time for Congress and the President to stop punishing American businesses for succeeding here. Who knows, maybe new jobs will be created here as a result.
Since it appears that Cap-And-Tax is moribund (for now), the Democrats are trying a different piece of legislation to achieve the same thing, only a bit more piecemeal this time around.
The so-called American Power Act seeks to tax carbon emissions from "coal-fired power plants and other large polluters."
It would not surprise me to see all kinds of amendments to this bill, most of them intended to turn it into a stealth Cap-And-Tax law.
It doesn't help that the White House is using the oil spill in the Gulf as a rallying cry to choke off the supply of oil and other fossil fuels "for our own good." Not that this bill will have any effect on the oil spill or its side effects. All it's designed to do is make energy more expensive all in the name of saving the planet even though no one can rightfully prove it needs saving. But that's never stopped the Left from doing it anyway.
The so-called American Power Act seeks to tax carbon emissions from "coal-fired power plants and other large polluters."
A climate and energy bill being pushed in the Senate would cost American households 22 to 40 cents a day -- less than the cost of a first-class postage stamp, the Obama administration said Tuesday.Sounds great, doesn't it? But knowing government as we all do, we must ask about the hidden costs and the how the numbers were derived. As history has shown us again and again, government (and particularly Congress) have a tendency to underestimate the costs of new mandates and programs and overestimate the revenues or benefits derived from them. The fact that the cost estimates come from the EPA makes me skeptical the numbers are even close to being realistic. One must keep in mind that it will be the EPA regulating CO2 emissions since it has now been erroneously classified a pollutant.
An analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the Senate bill, sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., would cost households an average of $79 to $146 per year. A first-class postage stamp costs 44 cents.
It would not surprise me to see all kinds of amendments to this bill, most of them intended to turn it into a stealth Cap-And-Tax law.
It doesn't help that the White House is using the oil spill in the Gulf as a rallying cry to choke off the supply of oil and other fossil fuels "for our own good." Not that this bill will have any effect on the oil spill or its side effects. All it's designed to do is make energy more expensive all in the name of saving the planet even though no one can rightfully prove it needs saving. But that's never stopped the Left from doing it anyway.
Just when I think Obama and/or Congress couldn't come up with any more ways to delay or destroy economic recovery, he proves me wrong.
First, there was the stimulus. Then Cash for Clunkers, followed by ObamaCare. Cap and Trade still lurks, waiting to make energy cost skyrocket. (Like that will help the economy). Then there was the first time home buyers tax credit, followed by a modified version that covered anyone buying a home. Now, to kill off the housing market entirely, they're looking to do away with the mortgage interest tax deduction, which will add thousands of dollars per year to the taxpayer's tax burden.
Do they really think this will help anything? Estimates predict elimination of the tax deduction will bring in $208 billion over the next ten years, but at what cost? What will the actual revenues be when all factors are taken into consideration?
Frankly, I doubt they'll collect anywhere near what they expect to because a lot of people that might have otherwise bought homes will decide it's no longer financially attractive to do so. What will that do to the housing values and the housing market? Two things that I can see.
First, housing values will drop, making an already shaky housing market even more so as an increasing number of homeowners will see their equity disappear. Some of those will find themselves upside down on their mortgages. This in turn means we'll probably see an increase in foreclosures and 'walk-aways', where people abandon their homes because they can no longer justify paying the mortgages even if they do have the money to pay them. Why should they when they'll end up with far less than they started with when they first bought their home? It will make more sense to let the home go into foreclosure rather than to keep paying for housing guaranteed to depreciate greatly in value. (In effect, it's like having your mortgage rate increase from 5.5% to 20%. Even if you can afford to pay it, you're really getting little in return for tall he money you spend.)
Second, the housing market will shrink even more than it has since the home buyer tax credits ended this past April. The only difference will be that the effect on the market will be semi-permanent. It could take decades for the market to recover and even when it does, there will a large stock of homes looking for buyers that don't exist.
In turn, all of this could affect the financial industry as people won't be taking out mortgages or equity loans. The banks won't be making any money because of the dearth of loans (and likely a large supply of foreclosed homes they can't sell at any price).
Again, Congress is getting ready to shoot itself (and the economy) in the foot by proposing legislation that will have the unintended consequence of killing off yet another part of the economy and ending up with even less revenue than they started with. If they really want to help reduce the deficit, then perhaps they should stop spending money we don't have.
If Congress were really interested in generating a little more revenue, then perhaps they could do away with the interest deduction for second homes. It's been done before and had little overall effect on the housing market as most activity on the market is for primary homes.
But they won't do that because, after all, it makes sense.
First, there was the stimulus. Then Cash for Clunkers, followed by ObamaCare. Cap and Trade still lurks, waiting to make energy cost skyrocket. (Like that will help the economy). Then there was the first time home buyers tax credit, followed by a modified version that covered anyone buying a home. Now, to kill off the housing market entirely, they're looking to do away with the mortgage interest tax deduction, which will add thousands of dollars per year to the taxpayer's tax burden.
Do they really think this will help anything? Estimates predict elimination of the tax deduction will bring in $208 billion over the next ten years, but at what cost? What will the actual revenues be when all factors are taken into consideration?
Frankly, I doubt they'll collect anywhere near what they expect to because a lot of people that might have otherwise bought homes will decide it's no longer financially attractive to do so. What will that do to the housing values and the housing market? Two things that I can see.
First, housing values will drop, making an already shaky housing market even more so as an increasing number of homeowners will see their equity disappear. Some of those will find themselves upside down on their mortgages. This in turn means we'll probably see an increase in foreclosures and 'walk-aways', where people abandon their homes because they can no longer justify paying the mortgages even if they do have the money to pay them. Why should they when they'll end up with far less than they started with when they first bought their home? It will make more sense to let the home go into foreclosure rather than to keep paying for housing guaranteed to depreciate greatly in value. (In effect, it's like having your mortgage rate increase from 5.5% to 20%. Even if you can afford to pay it, you're really getting little in return for tall he money you spend.)
Second, the housing market will shrink even more than it has since the home buyer tax credits ended this past April. The only difference will be that the effect on the market will be semi-permanent. It could take decades for the market to recover and even when it does, there will a large stock of homes looking for buyers that don't exist.
In turn, all of this could affect the financial industry as people won't be taking out mortgages or equity loans. The banks won't be making any money because of the dearth of loans (and likely a large supply of foreclosed homes they can't sell at any price).
Again, Congress is getting ready to shoot itself (and the economy) in the foot by proposing legislation that will have the unintended consequence of killing off yet another part of the economy and ending up with even less revenue than they started with. If they really want to help reduce the deficit, then perhaps they should stop spending money we don't have.
If Congress were really interested in generating a little more revenue, then perhaps they could do away with the interest deduction for second homes. It's been done before and had little overall effect on the housing market as most activity on the market is for primary homes.
But they won't do that because, after all, it makes sense.
One thing that has always bothered me about the folks in Congress is their incredible ignorance and arrogance when it comes to technology and science. Very few members of Congress have the background or expertise to make law or policy on science and technology matters. Far too often they get it wrong, meaning the nation and the economy suffer for it. After all, what do they know?
I'm not saying that Congress shouldn't get involved with such issues. But they should be more willing to take the time to learn about them well before deciding anything. There are very few science or technology issues that require immediate action by Congress. Unfortunately Congress doesn't realize this, or worse, they don't care. It's all about posturing and politics and power and not about the actual issues.
The answer, in a word, is obvious: they know pretty much nothing. What's worse is that they don't feel that ignorance should preclude them from talking until there is an initial technical investigation, done by some technically qualified people (from various reputable organizations). (We saw this same rush to judgment by the know-nothings after the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in 1986.)People in general have little or no understanding of the technology they use every day, but at least they know they don't understand it and are willing to admit they don't understand it. All they know is that they can use it. Unfortunately Congress doesn't know that they don't know, and that's the problem. This false belief means they will, more often than not, come to the wrong conclusions about some scientific or technological issue. It also means that the rest of us will pay the price for their decisions, one way or another.
To me, all this is just another manifestation of the sad, ironic reality that engineers have made the incredibly difficult look way too easy. Everyone thinks it's all no big deal and not very hard, so it's easy to be an expert. It's happened in nearly all engineering and scientific disciplines.
I'm not saying that Congress shouldn't get involved with such issues. But they should be more willing to take the time to learn about them well before deciding anything. There are very few science or technology issues that require immediate action by Congress. Unfortunately Congress doesn't realize this, or worse, they don't care. It's all about posturing and politics and power and not about the actual issues.
On a number of occasions I have mentioned the Laffer Curve, an illustration of the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues and how once tax rates fall above or below a certain point tax revenues fall off. It is a simplistic illustration but no less correct for its simplicity. Simply stated, if the tax rate for a given tax is either 0% or 100%, the amount of revenue collected will be zero. As the tax rate moves away from either extreme the amount of revenue increases. The trick is to figure out the magic tax rate that maximizes the revenue collected. And that magic number will be different depending on what kind of tax is being imposed, meaning the tax rate on income that maximizes revenue will be entirely different from the tax rate on sales of goods and services, and so on.
It can be argued that the taxes we pay to the federal government are well above the sweet spot, meaning that when the government increases taxes the expected revenues will not meet projections. Others seem to believe no tax rate is too high and that the rich, meaning those of us with jobs that actually pay taxes, should have even more of our money taken from us to fund things we neither need or want.
Now comes what is being called Hauser's Law, which states that regardless of the total tax burden of the American taxpayers (this includes all taxes imposed, and not just on individuals), the revenues collected will be less than 20% of Gross Domestic Product. The chart below, created by using the National Income Accounting method rather than the CBO or OMB methods, shows that since 1929 the revenues collected have always been below 20% of the GDP. (The chart isn't all that clear, but it is readable...sort of.)
Click on image to enlarge
As tax rates increase economic activity slows when billions are siphoned out of the economy and used for non-wealth producing activities. The more money siphoned out of the economy, the more economic growth declines and the less revenue is collected by the government. Hauser's Law implies the Laffer Curve, showing revenues fall as taxes rise or fall above a certain point.
But we know that won't stop our tax and spend Congress from taxing the hell out of everything that moves in an effort to pay for all the 'free' programs they and the President are trying to shove down our throats. Too bad they'll be limited by Hauser's Law, meaning they'll keep spending far more than they will ever be capable of collecting in taxes.
It can be argued that the taxes we pay to the federal government are well above the sweet spot, meaning that when the government increases taxes the expected revenues will not meet projections. Others seem to believe no tax rate is too high and that the rich, meaning those of us with jobs that actually pay taxes, should have even more of our money taken from us to fund things we neither need or want.
Now comes what is being called Hauser's Law, which states that regardless of the total tax burden of the American taxpayers (this includes all taxes imposed, and not just on individuals), the revenues collected will be less than 20% of Gross Domestic Product. The chart below, created by using the National Income Accounting method rather than the CBO or OMB methods, shows that since 1929 the revenues collected have always been below 20% of the GDP. (The chart isn't all that clear, but it is readable...sort of.)
As tax rates increase economic activity slows when billions are siphoned out of the economy and used for non-wealth producing activities. The more money siphoned out of the economy, the more economic growth declines and the less revenue is collected by the government. Hauser's Law implies the Laffer Curve, showing revenues fall as taxes rise or fall above a certain point.
What's the origin of this limit beyond which it is impossible to extract any more revenue from tax payers? The tax base is not something that the government can kick around at will. It represents a living economic system that makes its own collective choices. In a tax code of 70,000 pages there are innumerable ways for high-income earners to seek out and use ambiguities and loopholes. The more they are incentivized to make an effort to game the system, the less the federal government will get to collect. That would explain why, as Mr. [W. Kurt] Hauser has shown, conventional methods of forecasting tax receipts from increases in future tax rates are prone to over-predict revenue.Far too often those projections fall victim to the Law of Unintended Consequences, where higher taxes on some economic activity discourages that activity, in turn lessening the activity being taxed and reducing the revenues expected. (Ayn Rand wrote about that over 50 years ago in Atlas Shrugged, though she's not the first to do so.)
But we know that won't stop our tax and spend Congress from taxing the hell out of everything that moves in an effort to pay for all the 'free' programs they and the President are trying to shove down our throats. Too bad they'll be limited by Hauser's Law, meaning they'll keep spending far more than they will ever be capable of collecting in taxes.
Back in June 2008, I predicted the Law of Unintended Consequences would assert itself in regards to the increase of the minimum wage.
Time has proven me right.
A sign of those unintended consequences can be seen in a memo from an employer to his employees, explaining why he's cut back on their hours across the board even though he wishes he could give them all the hours they'd like.
This is yet another example of how government intervention in the economy has a negative effect that far outweighs any possible positive effect that was used as the justification for such an intervention. Something as simple as raising the minimum wage 40% over three years can turn a money-making business into a money-losing business in very short order. I don't know of any business (other than government) that can absorb a 40% increase in labor costs and not suffer the consequences.
Time has proven me right.
A sign of those unintended consequences can be seen in a memo from an employer to his employees, explaining why he's cut back on their hours across the board even though he wishes he could give them all the hours they'd like.
This is yet another example of how government intervention in the economy has a negative effect that far outweighs any possible positive effect that was used as the justification for such an intervention. Something as simple as raising the minimum wage 40% over three years can turn a money-making business into a money-losing business in very short order. I don't know of any business (other than government) that can absorb a 40% increase in labor costs and not suffer the consequences.
I know the Democrats would like to regain their supermajority in the Senate, but isn't this going just a little too far?
Are the Democrats that desperate that they need to resort to trickery to ensure a Democrat majority in the Senate?
Wait. What am I saying? Of course they'll do that. They play by Chicago Democrat rules now, just like the Teleprompter In Chief.
As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing for all the details of this backdoor attempt by the Democrats at garnering two more seats in the Senate.
1. In the past when Puerto Rico voted no to statehood the question asked on the ballot was, 'Do you want to become a State?' Each time this question has been asked the citizens of Puerto Rico have overwhelmingly voted that they do NOT want to become a state.That's only the beginning. If the first ballot has a clear majority voting 'no', the follow up question during a later ballot only gives them the choice of statehood or independence, with no third choice to for no change in status. That's no choice at all.
2. The current bill introduced in Congress is NOT, in fact, intended to 'grant Puerto Rico the right to decide if they want statehood,' as lying Congressmen and Senators claim. This bill changes the wording of the question that is to be put to the citizens of Puerto Rico - a scheme designed to trick the citizens into something they have already indicated the do not want.
3. The bill would require Puerto Rico to ask the following question on the ballot. In place of 'Do you want to become a State' would be the question 'Do you want to maintain current status?' This is key. By changing the wording on the ballot one gets an entirely different result. Polls, for example, indicate that Puerto Ricans do not want to maintain the status quo (which means they want some changes) yet they still do not want statehood. But this ballot would not even ask the question 'Do you want Statehood.'
Are the Democrats that desperate that they need to resort to trickery to ensure a Democrat majority in the Senate?
Wait. What am I saying? Of course they'll do that. They play by Chicago Democrat rules now, just like the Teleprompter In Chief.
As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing for all the details of this backdoor attempt by the Democrats at garnering two more seats in the Senate.
Thursday I attended one of the hundreds of TEA party protests held around the nation. Turnout was around 1000, which was similar to last year's Tax Day TEA Party protest.
Of the myriad of speakers at the protest, only one was a sitting member of the House of Representatives and he was visiting from Michigan. A number of Congressional hopefuls were there, but none spoke, preferring to press the flesh and speak one-on-one with TEA party supporters. Not surprisingly, only GOP candidates showed up even though invitations were extended to candidates from all parties.
Three of the more inspiring speakers included former US Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH), Thom Thomson - son of the late New Hampshire governor Meldrim Thomson, and former New Hampshire Senator George Lovejoy.
Senator Humphrey related his experiences of serving in the Senate for two terms. (He promised when he was elected that he'd only serve two terms, then come home. He kept his promise.) The one thing he said that stuck in my mind was his comparison of Congress to "a pit of vipers." He also warned that even those with the best of intentions when they arrive in Washington are eventually seduced by the power their office confers. It doesn't happen quickly, but it does happen, which is why he has supported term limits. He also led the call to "Throw the bums OUT!", something the crowd quickly picked up and chanted with increasing volume. Humphrey said we shouldn't discriminate as there were plenty of Republican bums deserving to be thrown out as much as their Democrat colleagues.
Both Thom Thomson and Senator Lovejoy spoke about the fiscal problems visited upon the people of New Hampshire by both the legislature and the governor, with legislative Democrats willing to spend money the state doesn't have, implementing tax hikes that hit the people most affected by the recession, and attempting to 'appropriate' private funds from a medical malpractice fund in an effort to fund the runaway budget. The governor also failed to protect the taxpayers in the state by refusing to use his veto pen to stop the 30% increase in state spending over the past 2 budgets.
While other TEA party protests drew some number of infiltrators/agitators, the Manchester protest drew only one 'visitor' from the New Hampshire Democrat Party, and he pretty much just watched the activities.
All in all it was a great gathering with appreciative crowd all sharing the same message: "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more!"
Of the myriad of speakers at the protest, only one was a sitting member of the House of Representatives and he was visiting from Michigan. A number of Congressional hopefuls were there, but none spoke, preferring to press the flesh and speak one-on-one with TEA party supporters. Not surprisingly, only GOP candidates showed up even though invitations were extended to candidates from all parties.
Three of the more inspiring speakers included former US Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH), Thom Thomson - son of the late New Hampshire governor Meldrim Thomson, and former New Hampshire Senator George Lovejoy.
Senator Humphrey related his experiences of serving in the Senate for two terms. (He promised when he was elected that he'd only serve two terms, then come home. He kept his promise.) The one thing he said that stuck in my mind was his comparison of Congress to "a pit of vipers." He also warned that even those with the best of intentions when they arrive in Washington are eventually seduced by the power their office confers. It doesn't happen quickly, but it does happen, which is why he has supported term limits. He also led the call to "Throw the bums OUT!", something the crowd quickly picked up and chanted with increasing volume. Humphrey said we shouldn't discriminate as there were plenty of Republican bums deserving to be thrown out as much as their Democrat colleagues.
Both Thom Thomson and Senator Lovejoy spoke about the fiscal problems visited upon the people of New Hampshire by both the legislature and the governor, with legislative Democrats willing to spend money the state doesn't have, implementing tax hikes that hit the people most affected by the recession, and attempting to 'appropriate' private funds from a medical malpractice fund in an effort to fund the runaway budget. The governor also failed to protect the taxpayers in the state by refusing to use his veto pen to stop the 30% increase in state spending over the past 2 budgets.
While other TEA party protests drew some number of infiltrators/agitators, the Manchester protest drew only one 'visitor' from the New Hampshire Democrat Party, and he pretty much just watched the activities.
All in all it was a great gathering with appreciative crowd all sharing the same message: "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more!"
The axiom goes, "If you tax it, you get less of it. If you subsidize it, you get more of it." A number of times throughout our history we have seen that axiom proven true. Starting prior to the Great Depression, and running the gamut from FDR's numerous 'recovery' programs in the 1930's, LBJ's Great Society programs in the mid 60's, and extensions of those programs that placed ever greater burdens on the taxpayers supposedly for the benefit of the poor, we've seen the government providing all kinds of incentives for people to remain poor and unemployed.
The welfare programs as envisioned by Woodrow Wilson and FDR and attempted by LBJ did more to subject otherwise productive Americans to abject poverty than any economic or natural disaster. Of course I would expect proponents and recipients to claim otherwise. But history shows many of the programs designed to 'help' the poor did nothing more than trap them into government subsidized poverty with little hope of getting out from under the government thumb.
One of the more insidious programs that has been turned into a political football recently has been unemployment compensation.
While in and of itself unemployment isn't necessarily a bad thing, the extension of benefits that have been piled on one after another have been used for political gain and not for the benefit of those receiving them.
All these serially extended benefits have done is work as an incentive not to work. That isn't supposed to be the way unemployment works. They were supposed to be a short term temporary bridge between jobs. But they are in danger of becoming more long term and, if some in Congress had their way, to become permanent. That would be a disaster for the American economy, just as a similar program devastated the the British economy as increasing numbers of unemployed ended up staying 'on the dole' rather than actively seeking work.
Whenever jobless benefits have been extended in the past, any recovery in the jobs market has slowed because the unemployed won't start looking for jobs in earnest until just before their benefits run out. All extending the benefits does is move that time out by weeks or months and add to the cost of providing those benefits.
The welfare programs as envisioned by Woodrow Wilson and FDR and attempted by LBJ did more to subject otherwise productive Americans to abject poverty than any economic or natural disaster. Of course I would expect proponents and recipients to claim otherwise. But history shows many of the programs designed to 'help' the poor did nothing more than trap them into government subsidized poverty with little hope of getting out from under the government thumb.
One of the more insidious programs that has been turned into a political football recently has been unemployment compensation.
While in and of itself unemployment isn't necessarily a bad thing, the extension of benefits that have been piled on one after another have been used for political gain and not for the benefit of those receiving them.
All these serially extended benefits have done is work as an incentive not to work. That isn't supposed to be the way unemployment works. They were supposed to be a short term temporary bridge between jobs. But they are in danger of becoming more long term and, if some in Congress had their way, to become permanent. That would be a disaster for the American economy, just as a similar program devastated the the British economy as increasing numbers of unemployed ended up staying 'on the dole' rather than actively seeking work.
Democrats seem to think that extending jobless benefits for another 20 weeks is a big political winner. Iowa Senator Tom Harkin recently roared, "Is there any compassion at all left with Republicans for people whose checks are going to run out?" New York's Chuck Schumer calls Republicans "inhumane."Yeah, that ought to be a real winning campaign strategy. "If you vote for me I'll make sure the likelihood of you actually getting a job remains small because we'll do what we can to discourage you from looking for one."
But do these Senators really think it's compassionate to give people an additional incentive to stay out of the job market, losing crucial skills and contacts? And how politically smart is it for Democrats to embrace policies that keep the jobless rate higher than it would otherwise be? How many Democrats share Mr. Harkin's apparent desire to defend a jobless rate near 9% (today it is 9.7%) in the fall election campaign.
Whenever jobless benefits have been extended in the past, any recovery in the jobs market has slowed because the unemployed won't start looking for jobs in earnest until just before their benefits run out. All extending the benefits does is move that time out by weeks or months and add to the cost of providing those benefits.
If Republicans were really cynical, they'd let the new benefits pass and run against the higher jobless rate in the fall. In any case, no one should be surprised that when you subsidize people for not working, more people will choose not to work.'Nuff said.
Tea Party Derangement Syndrome is making itself more widely known in a number of ways, but it seems to be manifesting itself as claims of incipient violence against all "right-thinking people", meaning liberal Democrats.
But more often the violence is threatened or committed by members of the very groups claiming tea party supporters are the ones going to commit violence. Union members seem to be the ones most often committing acts of violence against tea party activists.
But it isn't limited to just union thugs. It seems to affect Congressmen, too.
It isn't only Grayson showing symptoms of TPDS, but a number of other CongressCritters too, including my own representative, Carol Shea-Porter.
Recently she's tried to make it seem as if she's been misunderstood, but we understand her all too well. She's shown nothing but contempt for those of us disagreeing with her and her socialist beliefs. Are we supposed to believe that she's suddenly seen the light and that we should re-elect her come November? Not likely.
I expect more incidents linked to TPDS to manifest themselves as we get closer to elections in November. I expect to see more union thugs committing acts of violence against tea party activists. I expect to see less civil discourse from Democrat incumbents towards tea party supporters. I expect the hysteria from the Left to reach deafening levels. And I expect the hateful and demeaning rhetoric aimed at tea party supporters to reach epidemic proportions.
But more often the violence is threatened or committed by members of the very groups claiming tea party supporters are the ones going to commit violence. Union members seem to be the ones most often committing acts of violence against tea party activists.
But it isn't limited to just union thugs. It seems to affect Congressmen, too.
On Thursday, April 8th, 2010, Congressman Alan Grayson, Democrat in Florida's 8th district, interrupted a district meeting of the local Orange County Republican Executive Committee. The meeting was being held at Perkins, a family restaurant.The answer: TPDS (not to be confused with PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Or maybe Grayson has come to believe he is entitled to his office and that anyone daring to displace him deserves nothing but contempt, derision, and ridicule.
Matthew Falconer, candidate for Orange County Mayor, quickly challenged Alan's rudeness. Grayson demanded not to be interrupted, but Falconer quickly reminded the congressman that he is in fact interrupting their meeting.
Grayson threatened Falconer by saying that he'll spend thousands of dollars making sure he doesn't get elected. Question: Is it legal or at least unethical for a sitting congressman to threaten to influence a local election? Why is Matt Falconer, running for local Mayor, even on the radar of Alan Grayson?
It isn't only Grayson showing symptoms of TPDS, but a number of other CongressCritters too, including my own representative, Carol Shea-Porter.
Recently she's tried to make it seem as if she's been misunderstood, but we understand her all too well. She's shown nothing but contempt for those of us disagreeing with her and her socialist beliefs. Are we supposed to believe that she's suddenly seen the light and that we should re-elect her come November? Not likely.
I expect more incidents linked to TPDS to manifest themselves as we get closer to elections in November. I expect to see more union thugs committing acts of violence against tea party activists. I expect to see less civil discourse from Democrat incumbents towards tea party supporters. I expect the hysteria from the Left to reach deafening levels. And I expect the hateful and demeaning rhetoric aimed at tea party supporters to reach epidemic proportions.
About Comments