When the courts have told a government agency "you can't do that", and when a majority of Congress has asked that agency not to do "that", and when the American people don't want the agency to do "that", and the agency does "that" anyway, do we have a problem?
The "that" in question is the so-called "net neutrality" regulations being pursued by the FCC. In addition to flouting the courts, Congress and the American people, the FCC is angling to fix that which isn't broken. The FCC is in desperate need of being slapped down. Will anyone do it?
Net Neutrality is Theft
December 30, 2010
December 29, 2010
Villains Hall of Fame
In the Villains Hall of Fame, several notables come to mind...Beelzebub, Caligula, Vlad the Impaler, Napoleon, Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Al Gore.
We have a new inductee to the Hall. The 111th Congress.
According to Terence Jeffrey at CNS, the 111th added more to the national debt than the first 100 Congresses combined, $3.22 trillion. That's $10,429.64 for every man, woman and child in the country. Total national debt is now $44,886.57 per person. Jeffrey gets his figures from the U.S. Treasury.
Happy New Year!
We have a new inductee to the Hall. The 111th Congress.
According to Terence Jeffrey at CNS, the 111th added more to the national debt than the first 100 Congresses combined, $3.22 trillion. That's $10,429.64 for every man, woman and child in the country. Total national debt is now $44,886.57 per person. Jeffrey gets his figures from the U.S. Treasury.
Happy New Year!
December 16, 2010
Kill Lame Ducks
Would someone please drive a stake through the heart of the 111th Congress and kill this evil creature?
In November, voters sent what should have been a loud and clear message to the current Congress...Stop it! Go away! We don't like you anymore!
Proving that this Congress couldn't care less what the country wants, it is giving the finger to voters. Rather than deal only with items that are absolutely essential (funding government or dealing with tax rates) or absolutely meaningless (name a bridge for somebody) during a lame duck session, this group of bloodsucking leeches is intent on ramming through as much of its agenda as possible in the next couple of weeks. Voters be damned. And country be damned.
A recent poll found that approval of Congress is at an all-time low--13%. I am astounded that it is that high.
In November, voters sent what should have been a loud and clear message to the current Congress...Stop it! Go away! We don't like you anymore!
Proving that this Congress couldn't care less what the country wants, it is giving the finger to voters. Rather than deal only with items that are absolutely essential (funding government or dealing with tax rates) or absolutely meaningless (name a bridge for somebody) during a lame duck session, this group of bloodsucking leeches is intent on ramming through as much of its agenda as possible in the next couple of weeks. Voters be damned. And country be damned.
A recent poll found that approval of Congress is at an all-time low--13%. I am astounded that it is that high.
December 12, 2010
The Mitch Daniels Dilemma
I wonder if Mitch Daniels is the kind of Republican that even those who don't care for the GOP could get behind should he decide to run in 2012...
The Mitch Daniels Dilemma
The Mitch Daniels Dilemma
December 10, 2010
December 9, 2010
U.S. Energy Independence
For years I have come across reports on the vast reserves of oil and natural gas available to us, should we decide to get it. Now comes the United Nations with a report that predicts North America could be an exporter of reasonably cheap energy in the next decade or so.
Energy independence is apparently within our grasp. The problem, for some, is that independence, at least in the foreseeable future, will not come from wind, solar or biomass. Will environmentalists, warming fundamentalists and democrats be successful in their efforts to prevent energy independence? Will they succeed in preventing free markets from determining how our energy needs are met? Our future hangs on the answer to those questions.
U.S. on verge of energy independence without green fuels
Energy independence is apparently within our grasp. The problem, for some, is that independence, at least in the foreseeable future, will not come from wind, solar or biomass. Will environmentalists, warming fundamentalists and democrats be successful in their efforts to prevent energy independence? Will they succeed in preventing free markets from determining how our energy needs are met? Our future hangs on the answer to those questions.
U.S. on verge of energy independence without green fuels
December 5, 2010
The Rich Can Afford Tax Increases; Can We?
I read an article today which posed an interesting question regarding the current debate on tax increases: The rich can afford it; can we?
Think about it. Let's say I make $1 million a year. If the democrats have their way, my tax bill will go up next year. Or will it? I may very well go to my tax accountant and explore some tax avoidance strategies. If I'm an employer, I might decide that I can no longer hire the extra few employees I had planned to bring on. If I'm an investor, I might decide to move investments from one place to another to reduce my tax liability. But whatever I do, I will be able to afford the tax increase. I might forego the new Porsche or the Picasso, but I will still live well. No need to worry about me.
But what about the guy I might have hired who as a result of the tax increase won't get a job? What about the start up company I might have invested in that won't get off the ground? I can afford a tax increase. Can they?
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both pontificate about how the wealthy should pay more in taxes, while they shield much of their income by setting up foundations. Nancy Pelosi and her philosophical soulmates preach that the rich should pay more, but I would bet my life that they all employ tax accountants to avoid paying taxes. Their hypocrisy sickens me. Their stupidity astounds me.
Some years ago, the Congress in its wisdom decided to stick it to the rich by enacting a luxury tax. Yachts, for example, were hit with an extra sales tax. From the progressive point of view, this was a great way to make the rich pay their fair share. One problem. The rich, as it turned out, could hold on to the yacht they already had. Or decide not to buy a yacht. Didn't hurt the rich at all. But companies that make yachts, and service yachts, and repair yachts, and the employees of those companies, all got clobbered.
No doubt about it. The rich can afford tax increases. Can we?
Think about it. Let's say I make $1 million a year. If the democrats have their way, my tax bill will go up next year. Or will it? I may very well go to my tax accountant and explore some tax avoidance strategies. If I'm an employer, I might decide that I can no longer hire the extra few employees I had planned to bring on. If I'm an investor, I might decide to move investments from one place to another to reduce my tax liability. But whatever I do, I will be able to afford the tax increase. I might forego the new Porsche or the Picasso, but I will still live well. No need to worry about me.
But what about the guy I might have hired who as a result of the tax increase won't get a job? What about the start up company I might have invested in that won't get off the ground? I can afford a tax increase. Can they?
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both pontificate about how the wealthy should pay more in taxes, while they shield much of their income by setting up foundations. Nancy Pelosi and her philosophical soulmates preach that the rich should pay more, but I would bet my life that they all employ tax accountants to avoid paying taxes. Their hypocrisy sickens me. Their stupidity astounds me.
Some years ago, the Congress in its wisdom decided to stick it to the rich by enacting a luxury tax. Yachts, for example, were hit with an extra sales tax. From the progressive point of view, this was a great way to make the rich pay their fair share. One problem. The rich, as it turned out, could hold on to the yacht they already had. Or decide not to buy a yacht. Didn't hurt the rich at all. But companies that make yachts, and service yachts, and repair yachts, and the employees of those companies, all got clobbered.
No doubt about it. The rich can afford tax increases. Can we?
December 2, 2010
Farmer Fraud
The numbers below are estimates based on different sources, but I believe they are reasonably accurate.
In 1997, 400 black farmers filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Pigford v Glickman), alleging they had been discriminated against in obtaining loans from USDA during the period from 1983-1997. In 1999, USDA settled the case, agreeing to pay each plaintiff $50,000. By then it had grown to a class action suit, and it was agreed that any black farmer who had so much as filed a complaint during the time frame would automatically be paid $50,000. They would not have to prove discrimination.. According to several sources, a total of something over 13,000 black farmers received this settlement. Beyond these, some 70,000 claims were denied because they were filed too late.
Now comes Pigford II, a new settlement announced last February by Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, allowing those claimants who didn't get money the first time around to collect. Various estimates I've seen of new claimants range from 80,000-90,000. Combining the lower estimate with those who have already been paid, we will now have over 90,000 black farmers who end up with a nice check from the government.
So what, I hear some say. The government discriminated, it should pay. But there's a problem. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1983 (the beginning of the time frame) there were only 19,000 black farmers/farm managers. It is unlikely that the number of black farmers increased in any year since then, given that ownership of farms by both blacks and whites have been declining for decades as big farms gobble up small ones. Even if one assumes that the number of black farmers increased by 10% per year, in order for these claims to be legitimate it would be necessary for every black farmer during the time period to have suffered discrimination at the hands of the USDA, and then some.
This stinks.
In 1997, 400 black farmers filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Pigford v Glickman), alleging they had been discriminated against in obtaining loans from USDA during the period from 1983-1997. In 1999, USDA settled the case, agreeing to pay each plaintiff $50,000. By then it had grown to a class action suit, and it was agreed that any black farmer who had so much as filed a complaint during the time frame would automatically be paid $50,000. They would not have to prove discrimination.. According to several sources, a total of something over 13,000 black farmers received this settlement. Beyond these, some 70,000 claims were denied because they were filed too late.
Now comes Pigford II, a new settlement announced last February by Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, allowing those claimants who didn't get money the first time around to collect. Various estimates I've seen of new claimants range from 80,000-90,000. Combining the lower estimate with those who have already been paid, we will now have over 90,000 black farmers who end up with a nice check from the government.
So what, I hear some say. The government discriminated, it should pay. But there's a problem. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1983 (the beginning of the time frame) there were only 19,000 black farmers/farm managers. It is unlikely that the number of black farmers increased in any year since then, given that ownership of farms by both blacks and whites have been declining for decades as big farms gobble up small ones. Even if one assumes that the number of black farmers increased by 10% per year, in order for these claims to be legitimate it would be necessary for every black farmer during the time period to have suffered discrimination at the hands of the USDA, and then some.
This stinks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)