Robert and Patricia Haynes live in Michigan. They have two adult children, both of whom have cerebral palsy. The parents are the caregivers for the adult children. The Hayneses receive assistance from the state in the form of Medicaid. So far, so good.
But there's a problem. According to state law, the Haynes are state employees since they care for their children. This means that they must pay dues to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Therefore, union dues are deducted from their Medicaid payments, even though the Haynes are not employed by the state in any real sense and they have no interest in belonging to a union.
According to the Examiner," Michigan Department of Community Health Director Olga Dazzo explained the process in to her members of her staff. 'MQC3 basically runs the program for SEIU and passes the union dues from the state to the union,' she wrote in an email obtained by the Mackinac Center. Initiated in 2006 under then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., the plan reportedly provides the SEIU with $6 million annually in union dues deducted from those Medicaid subsidies."
This is a good example of the money laundering scheme that exists between unions and democrats, both of which claim to be champions of the downtrodden.
The entire article is linked below for anyone who gives a damn.
SEIU Siphons "Dues" from Michigan Medicaid Program
November 16, 2011
November 14, 2011
Quote of the Day
… is from an 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay:
"A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves."
From Cafe Hayek
From Cafe Hayek
November 13, 2011
Rooting for Failure
This will not be accurately portrayed by major media...
Rooting for Failure: Democrats Walk Away From Super Committee
Rooting for Failure: Democrats Walk Away From Super Committee
November 12, 2011
November 11, 2011
Axelrod: Obama's Hired Muscle
Is the Obama machine behind the attacks against Herman Cain? I don't know. But they have done this sort of thing before. More than once. No one would know who Obama is but for this type of campaign.
David Axelrod's Pattern of Sexual Misbehavior
David Axelrod's Pattern of Sexual Misbehavior
October 14, 2011
October 12, 2011
Fun Facts
OK, here's a pop quiz. In what year did the U.S. federal government collect the most tax revenue in its history? (Jeopardy theme song playing) Give up? The answer is 2007, when it collected $2.568 billion. But wait. How can that be? What about those Bush tax cuts? Hmmm, quite a mystery. Maybe the conundrum can be solved by adjusting for inflation. Nope. The answer is still 2007. Well, what about tax revenues as a percentage of GDP? Got me there. In FY 2007 the percentage was 18.5%. The record is 20.9%, in 1944. But that 18.5% is still higher than the average from 1970-2000. So, how is it that the federal government got historically solid revenues after Bush cut taxes?
What has happened to revenues since FY2007? From FY2007 to FY2011 revenues fell $394 billion, and 4.1% as a percentage of GDP. Of course this is a result of the recession, but it's worth noting that bad economic times have not just hit the middle class. The rich also got poorer. From 2007-2009 the number of $1 million earners dropped by 40%. Their income dropped 48%. Federal taxes paid by this group dropped 43%.
The point of all these numbers is that it should be clear that the Bush tax cuts are not responsible for the fiscal mess we are in. While revenues have fallen in the past fews years due to the recession and a sluggish, fragile recovery, federal spending per year has increased by approximately $1 trillion. Presto, crippling deficits and debt, capital that is unavailable to the private sector, and an environment in which businesses are leary about hiring new employees.
Now, Obama wants more Keynsian stimulus to provide what he calls a "jolt" to the economy. The imagery is disturbing. It brings to mind a guy on the operating table who has flat-lined and the doctors use the shock paddles while yelling "Clear!" Perhaps that is the current state of the economy. But it is difficult to see how another, smaller jolt is going to help after the major jolt, aka Stimulus 1, has failed miserably. He ridicules Republicans for promoting the same old policies that haven't worked (tax cuts, reduced spending and fewer regulations) while simultaneously promoting policies that didn't work in the 1930's, haven't worked since then, and most recently haven't worked since he took office. It's bad enough that Obama knows nothing about economics. The bigger tragedy is that he thinks he does.
One more point. While Obama has been chastising Republicans for not bringing his "jobs bill" to a vote, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid prevented just that last night. Republicans in the Senate were happy to bring the bill to a vote. Granted, they knew it wouldn't pass, but so did Reid, because several Democrats (one suspects those up for election next year) won't vote for it. Reid broke long standing Senate rules to save Obama the embarrassment of having Democrats shoot down the bill. Don't expect any public acknowledgement of this from Obama. He will continue to smear Republicans as the only ones standing between the people and good jobs. He will, of course, know that he is being disingenuous (to be kind), but he'll say it anyway.
What has happened to revenues since FY2007? From FY2007 to FY2011 revenues fell $394 billion, and 4.1% as a percentage of GDP. Of course this is a result of the recession, but it's worth noting that bad economic times have not just hit the middle class. The rich also got poorer. From 2007-2009 the number of $1 million earners dropped by 40%. Their income dropped 48%. Federal taxes paid by this group dropped 43%.
The point of all these numbers is that it should be clear that the Bush tax cuts are not responsible for the fiscal mess we are in. While revenues have fallen in the past fews years due to the recession and a sluggish, fragile recovery, federal spending per year has increased by approximately $1 trillion. Presto, crippling deficits and debt, capital that is unavailable to the private sector, and an environment in which businesses are leary about hiring new employees.
Now, Obama wants more Keynsian stimulus to provide what he calls a "jolt" to the economy. The imagery is disturbing. It brings to mind a guy on the operating table who has flat-lined and the doctors use the shock paddles while yelling "Clear!" Perhaps that is the current state of the economy. But it is difficult to see how another, smaller jolt is going to help after the major jolt, aka Stimulus 1, has failed miserably. He ridicules Republicans for promoting the same old policies that haven't worked (tax cuts, reduced spending and fewer regulations) while simultaneously promoting policies that didn't work in the 1930's, haven't worked since then, and most recently haven't worked since he took office. It's bad enough that Obama knows nothing about economics. The bigger tragedy is that he thinks he does.
One more point. While Obama has been chastising Republicans for not bringing his "jobs bill" to a vote, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid prevented just that last night. Republicans in the Senate were happy to bring the bill to a vote. Granted, they knew it wouldn't pass, but so did Reid, because several Democrats (one suspects those up for election next year) won't vote for it. Reid broke long standing Senate rules to save Obama the embarrassment of having Democrats shoot down the bill. Don't expect any public acknowledgement of this from Obama. He will continue to smear Republicans as the only ones standing between the people and good jobs. He will, of course, know that he is being disingenuous (to be kind), but he'll say it anyway.
Figures from an article I read, which used: Source for budget numbers: The White House Office of Management and Budget, Table 1.3. Source for tax numbers: Internal Revenue Service, Table 1.1.
October 11, 2011
Random Thoughts...
For what it's worth, some comments on items in the news...
1) Attorney General Eric Holder is either incompetent or a liar, or both. He testified last spring that he had first heard about operation Fast & Furious "a few weeks" earlier. We now know that he was told about it at least as early as summer of 2010. He should be fired. But he won't be. No way Obama will fire a black Attorney General.
1) Attorney General Eric Holder is either incompetent or a liar, or both. He testified last spring that he had first heard about operation Fast & Furious "a few weeks" earlier. We now know that he was told about it at least as early as summer of 2010. He should be fired. But he won't be. No way Obama will fire a black Attorney General.
2) Can anyone explain how Obama's newly proposed "jobs bill" is anything other than Stimulus 2? More spending of money we don't have, more spending on infrastructure, more central planning. Wasn't Stimulus 1 supposed to fund infrastructure, aka "shovel ready projects"? Shovel ready projects have been replaced by projects that are "ready to go", which is nothing more than rhetorical sleight of hand intended to the ignorant masses. Obama recently mocked Republicans for proposing the same old ideas that, he says, don't work. No word from the White House on whether he grasped the irony.
He also said recently that there are 153 bridges in the country that are so dilapidated they are dangerous, so we must pass his bill. But he didn't tell us which bridges we should avoid. If these bridges actually exist, shouldn't he have named them? You know, in the interest of public safety?
3) Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) took to the Senate floor the other day to tell the public not to bank with Bank of America. BofA apparently aroused Durbin's ire by deciding to charge customers a $5 per month fee to use their debit cards. Bastards! What Durbin failed to mention is why BofA is charging the fee. Durbin himself included an amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that limited the amount banks could charge retailers for accepting debit cards. Anyone who is reasonably familiar with how business works could have told Durbin that when government passes a law that reduces income, businesses will look for ways to recoup the loss. But Durbin is shocked that BofA acted in its own best interests and the interests of its shareholders. Durbin is a poster child for what happens to a politician after years of spending other people's money.
4) The Washington Post's attempt to destroy Rick Perry is both despicable and predictable. The Perry family leased the property, with a rock that had the word "Niggerhead" on it, for the purpose of hunting. The Perrys evidently sprayed paint over the offensive word and turned the rock over. This doesn't sound like the action of a racist, but the Post used unnamed sources and innuendo to smear Perry.
5) Some leading Democrats and liberal media pundits are quite enamored of the protesters known as Occupy Wall Street. These protesters are essentially a bunch of anti-capitalist, anti-profit, anti-business dimwits who think the minimum wage should be $20 per hour, that people have a "right" to a "living wage" regardless of employment status, and that all debt, of every type, should be erased. In other words, they are taking the lessons they learned from their college professors and trying to force their implementation. A self-avowed communist and former Obama czar, Van Jones, is a leading figure in the movement. But these knuckleheads are being cheered by so-called progressives. Have they learned nothing from history?
By comparison with the Tea Party movement, Occupy Wall Street is an incoherent mob. Some of these protesters are actually comparing themselves to the original Boston Tea Party, evidently unaware that Paul Revere and others in 1773 were protesting against higher taxes and intrusive government, concepts that are appalling to modern day redistributionists.
6) After throwing away over $500 million on loan guarantees to Solyndra, the administration is not only unapologetic, it is spending an additional $6 billion on green energy companies. The administration continues to believe that it is better equipped to determine the best use of capital than the private sector. This is the height of hubris. I have heard many on the left defend the administration's subsidizing of solar energy on the basis that China is pouring money into it and we can't get left behind. Their argument boils down to this: since the Chinese government is stupid enough to subsidize an energy source that can't survive on its own in a free market, we should be just as stupid. The "China does it" crowd also fails to mention that China is also pursuing all sources of energy, including coal and oil, which environmentalists in the U.S. are doing everything in their power to curtail. If we're going to use China as a shining example, let's at least try to follow their lead when they do something smart.
7) Speaking of China, some in Congress, primarily Democrats, think it's a good idea to punish the ChiComs for manipulating their currency. China may in fact be doing that, but it not clear that, on net, it does more harm to us than it does to them. In either event, slapping tariffs on Chinese goods will likely lead to retaliatory tariffs on our goods, aka, a trade war. Does Smoot-Hawley ring a bell?
Those who promote such measures are generally those who also bemoan our trade deficits. But trade deficits are as poorly understood by politicians as most other economic concepts. I have commented in the past about the fact that accounting for trade must consider two different elements, the current account and the capital account. When we hear about deficits, the reference is to the current account. But these deficits are offset by capital account surpluses. Google "cafe hayek trade deficts" for more on this. When considered in its entirety, trade is always, by definition, balanced. Viewed another way, if trade (or current account) surpluses are so desirable, why did we have surpluses in all but one year (1936) of the Great Depression? We have had these trade deficits every year since 1976. If they are as awful as we hear, how have we survived? The fact is that data indicates a strong correlation between expanding trade deficits and economic growth. Yet we constantly hear politicians bray that something must be done about these horrible things. And over such specious claims and worries about China's currency, some are willing to enter a trade war, which would be truly disastrous.
August 29, 2011
Monetary Policy
The following article from the Cato Institute does a good job explaining why interest rates should, and at some point must, go up.
The Federal Reserve's Flawed Approach to Monetary Policy
The Federal Reserve's Flawed Approach to Monetary Policy
August 25, 2011
Unpatriotic Obama
There's no longer any doubt about it. Obama is not a patriot.
This isn't my assessment. It's his. In 2008 he accused Bush of being unpatriotic for raising the nation's debt by $4 trillion over 8 years.
Surely, then, when Obama has raised the debt by $4 trillion (and still rising) in only 2 1/2 years, he must be even more unpatriotic. Right? Anyone disagree?
Obama in 2008: "Adding $4 Trillion to National Debt is Unpatriotic"
This isn't my assessment. It's his. In 2008 he accused Bush of being unpatriotic for raising the nation's debt by $4 trillion over 8 years.
Surely, then, when Obama has raised the debt by $4 trillion (and still rising) in only 2 1/2 years, he must be even more unpatriotic. Right? Anyone disagree?
Obama in 2008: "Adding $4 Trillion to National Debt is Unpatriotic"
August 23, 2011
Clinton's Surpluses
It's common knowledge that in the last few years of the Clinton administration, the budget was not just balanced, we actually had surpluses. Bill Clinton has claimed that he reduced the national debt by $360 billion in his last three years. But is it true?
Figures from the U.S. Treasury on total debt for fiscal years 1998-2001 are as follows (bear in mind that Clinton's last budget ended on 9/30/2001):
Fiscal Yr. Year ending National debt Deficit
Figures from the U.S. Treasury on total debt for fiscal years 1998-2001 are as follows (bear in mind that Clinton's last budget ended on 9/30/2001):
Fiscal Yr. Year ending National debt Deficit
| FY1998 | 09/30/1998 | $5.526193 trillion | $113.05 billion |
| FY1999 | 09/30/1999 | $5.656270 trillion | $130.08 billion |
| FY2000 | 09/29/2000 | $5.674178 trillion | $17.91 billion |
| FY2001 | 09/28/2001 | $5.807463 trillion | $133.29 billion |
As one can see, the debt went up each year, and there were deficits each year. Each year of the Clinton administration saw deficits and rising debt. And Clinton clearly did not turn surpluses over to Bush, which he then squandered, as the conventional wisdom says. So how did this myth arise?
According to an article I recently read, the answer lies in the distinction between public debt and intragovernmental debt. Public debt is (you guessed it) debt held by the public. T-bills, bonds, what have you. Intragovernmental debt occurs when the government borrows money from itself, mostly from Social Security. Add the two together and you get total national debt.
What Clinton did over the last few years of his administration was pay down public debt. But he did this by borrowing more in the form of intragovernmental debt, again, mostly from Social Security.
From U.S. Treasury data:
| Fiscal Year | End Date | Claimed Surplus | Public Debt | Intra-gov Holdings | Total National Debt |
| FY1997 | 09/30/1997 | $3.789667T | $1.623478T | $5.413146T | |
| FY1998 | 09/30/1998 | $69.2B | $3.733864T  $55.8B | $1.792328T  $168.9B | $5.526193T $113B |
| FY1999 | 09/30/1999 | $122.7B | $3.636104T $97.8B | $2.020166T $227.8B | $5.656270T $130.1B |
| FY2000 | 09/29/2000 | $230.0B | $3.405303T $230.8B | $2.268874T $248.7B | $5.674178T $17.9B |
| FY2001 | 09/28/2001 | $3.339310T $66.0B | $2.468153T $199.3B | $5.807463T $133.3B |
As one can see, over the years in question, public debt went down, but intragovernmental holdings and total national debt went up.
To be fair to Clinton, it's unlikely that this was his plan. By law, the Social Security Administration is required to take its surpluses and buy U.S Government securities, which are then sold and which then immediately become part of the national debt. During the dot-com boom of the late 1990's, payments to social security unexpectedly went way up. This may explain why the Clinton administration predicted in 1996 large deficits as far as the eye could see, and suddenly a couple of years later we have supposed "surpluses". The administration must have been shocked to see all this extra dough available, and, to his credit, he did pay down public debt. But the only way this can be characterized as surpluses is if one ignores the other element of the total national debt.
Thanks to political spin, a compliant media, and lack of awareness by the public of the arcane accounting methods of Washington, the myth of the Clinton surpluses was born and survives today.
None of this is meant to defend George Bush. But I think it's important to realize that when people say we should return to the tax rates of the Clinton years because, after all, we had surpluses then, that assertion is simply false. I also find it very interesting when I discover that what we have been told, ad nauseum, for several years, just ain't so.
It would appear that high unemployment is not just painful for the unemployed. With fewer FICA taxes coming into the government, it has less money to hide what it's been doing over the past few decades. If corporate CEO's pulled this kind of stuff, they'd go to jail.
August 22, 2011
August 21, 2011
Eating Paul Krugman
I have long been on record as being highly skeptical of global warming alarmism. But when new information comes to light, I'm not afraid to admit that I may have been mistaken.
It turns out that if we don't stop CO2 emissions, aliens from outer space may decide to kill us. According to a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, one possible scenario is that extraterrestrials may decide that we are a threat to the intergalactic ecosystem and should therefore be destroyed.
The study says that extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) "could attack and kill us, enslave us, or potentially even eat us. ETI could attack us out of selfishness or out of a more altruistic desire to protect the galaxy from us. We might be a threat to the galaxy just as we are a threat to our home planet."
This frightening scenario comes on the heels of New York Times writer Paul Krugman suggesting that if we were attacked by space aliens, it could be helpful to the economy.
This is a bit confusing. Attacked and eaten if we don't stop global warming, or attacked but it'll be good for the economy. Or maybe they attack but just eat Paul Krugman, which would make them vomit and they'd go look for food on some other planet.
It turns out that if we don't stop CO2 emissions, aliens from outer space may decide to kill us. According to a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, one possible scenario is that extraterrestrials may decide that we are a threat to the intergalactic ecosystem and should therefore be destroyed.
The study says that extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) "could attack and kill us, enslave us, or potentially even eat us. ETI could attack us out of selfishness or out of a more altruistic desire to protect the galaxy from us. We might be a threat to the galaxy just as we are a threat to our home planet."
This frightening scenario comes on the heels of New York Times writer Paul Krugman suggesting that if we were attacked by space aliens, it could be helpful to the economy.
This is a bit confusing. Attacked and eaten if we don't stop global warming, or attacked but it'll be good for the economy. Or maybe they attack but just eat Paul Krugman, which would make them vomit and they'd go look for food on some other planet.
I don't know how this is going to turn out, but just in case I think we'd better stop any activity that creates CO2 (except for breathing) and return to a prehistoric lifestyle. It won't be pleasant, but it beats being an entree for a Martian.
August 19, 2011
Green Jobs
Last year the mayor of Seattle, Mike McGinn, announced that the city had won a $20 million federal grant to "weatherize" homes. Specifically, the grant was supposed to create 2,000 jobs to retrofit 2,000 homes in poor neighborhoods. McGinn flew to D.C. where Joe Biden characterized the program as a "promise to boost the economy, reduce consumer bills and lower greenhouse gas emissions...a triple win." What's not to like? A government "investment" that creates jobs, reduces energy bills and saves the planet, all in one little grant.
So, over a year later, how is the program going?
As of last week, 3 homes have been weatherized and 14 jobs have been created. According to Michael Woo, director of a community organizing group called Got Green which promotes the environment and social justice, "The jobs haven't surfaced yet." No kidding.
The good news is that some non-residential buildings have been weatherized - the Washington Athletic Club, which presumably caters to people who can afford to join, and a few hospitals. Nice, but these aren't homes in poor neighborhoods. Howard Greenwich is a director with Puget Sound Sage, an economic justice group. He says "Who's benefiting from this program right now – it doesn't square with what the aspiration was." No kidding.
I pass this along as a cautionary tale. When you hear politicians tout the wonders of green jobs, it might be a good idea to be skeptical. Government inefficiency knows no bounds.
August 12, 2011
10,000 Cocksure Moralists
Came across a quote attributed to H.L. Mencken, early 20th century journalist who wrote for the Baltimore Sun...
“One man who minds his own business is more valuable to the world than 10,000 cocksure moralists.”
Just so.
“One man who minds his own business is more valuable to the world than 10,000 cocksure moralists.”
Just so.
August 11, 2011
Ann Coulter on Britain
Love her or hate her, she does have a way with words.
THE SUN NEVER SETS ON THE BRITISH WELFARE SYSTEM
August 10, 2011
Those of you following the barbaric rioting in Britain will not have failed to notice that a sizable proportion of the thugs are white, something not often seen in this country.
Not only that, but in a triumph of feminism, a lot of them are girls. Even the "disabled" (according to the British benefits system) seem to have miraculously overcome their infirmities to dash out and steal a few TVs.
Congratulations, Britain! You've barbarized your citizenry, without regard to race, gender or physical handicap!
With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.
I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.
In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case -- only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men.
The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: "Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on."
Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles -- whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.
(Is Father's Day celebrated in England? If so, how?)
The Daily Mail (London) traced the family's proud Anglo ancestry of stable families back hundreds of years. The Nazi war machine couldn't break the British, but the modern welfare state has.
A year earlier, in 2007, another product of the new order, Fiona MacKeown, took seven of her eight children (by five different fathers) and her then-boyfriend, on a drug-fueled, six-month vacation to the Indian island of Goa. The trip was paid for -- like everything else in her life -- with government benefits.
(When was the last time you had a free, six-month vacation? I'm drawing a blank, too.)
While in Goa, Fiona took her entourage on a side-trip, leaving her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlett Keeling, in the capable hands of a 25-year-old local whom Scarlett had begun sleeping with, perhaps hoping to get a head-start on her own government benefits. A few weeks later, Scarlett turned up dead, full of drugs, raped and murdered.
Scarlett's estranged stepfather later drank himself to death, while her brother Silas announced on his social networking page: "My name is Si, n I spend most my life either out wit mates get drunk or at partys, playing rugby or going to da beach (pretty s**t really)."
It's a wonder that someone like Silas, who has never worked, and belongs to a family in which no one has ever worked, can afford a cellphone for social networking. No, actually, it's not.
Britain has a far more redistributive welfare system than France, which is why France's crime problem is mostly a matter of Muslim immigrants, not French nationals. Meanwhile, England's welfare state is fast returning the native population to its violent 18th-century highwaymen roots.
Needless to say, Britain leads Europe in the proportion of single mothers and, as a consequence, also leads or co-leads the European Union in violent crime, alcohol and drug abuse, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases.
But liberal elites here and in Britain will blame anything but the welfare state they adore. They drone on about the strict British class system or the lack of jobs or the nation's history of racism.
None of that explains the sad lives of young Shannon Matthews and Scarlett Keeling, with their long English ancestry and perfect Anglo features.
Democrats would be delighted if violent mobs like those in Britain arose here -- perhaps in Wisconsin! That would allow them to introduce yet more government programs staffed by unionized public employees, as happened after the 1992 L.A. riots and the 1960s race riots, following the recommendations of the Kerner Commission.
MSNBC might even do the unthinkable and offer Al Sharpton his own TV show. (Excuse me -- someone's trying to get my attention ... WHAT?)
Inciting violent mobs is the essence of the left's agenda: Promote class warfare, illegitimate children and an utterly debased citizenry.
Like the British riot girls interviewed by the BBC, the Democrats tell us "all of this happened because of the rich people."
We're beginning to see the final result of that idea in Britain. The welfare state creates a society of beasts. Meanwhile, nonjudgmental elites don't dare condemn the animals their programs have created.
Rioters in England are burning century-old family businesses to the ground, stealing from injured children lying on the sidewalks and forcing Britons to strip to their underwear on the street.
I keep reading that it's because they don't have jobs -- which they're obviously anxious to hold. Or someone called them a "kaffir." Or their social services have been reduced. Or their Blackberries made them do it. Or they disapprove of a referee's call in a Manchester United game.
A few well-placed rifle rounds, and the rioting would end in an instant. A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can't find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds. We can be sure there's no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.
But like Louis XVI, British authorities are paralyzed by their indifference to their own civilization. A half-century of berating themselves for the crime of being British has left them morally defenseless. They see nothing about England worth saving, certainly not worth fighting for -- which is fortunate since most of their cops don't have guns.
This is how civilizations die. It can happen overnight, as it did in Revolutionary France. If Britain of 1939 were composed of the current British population, the entirety of Europe would today be doing the "Heil Hitler" salute and singing the "Horst Wessel Song."
August 10, 2011
Those of you following the barbaric rioting in Britain will not have failed to notice that a sizable proportion of the thugs are white, something not often seen in this country.
Not only that, but in a triumph of feminism, a lot of them are girls. Even the "disabled" (according to the British benefits system) seem to have miraculously overcome their infirmities to dash out and steal a few TVs.
Congratulations, Britain! You've barbarized your citizenry, without regard to race, gender or physical handicap!
With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.
I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.
In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case -- only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men.
The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: "Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on."
Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles -- whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.
(Is Father's Day celebrated in England? If so, how?)
The Daily Mail (London) traced the family's proud Anglo ancestry of stable families back hundreds of years. The Nazi war machine couldn't break the British, but the modern welfare state has.
A year earlier, in 2007, another product of the new order, Fiona MacKeown, took seven of her eight children (by five different fathers) and her then-boyfriend, on a drug-fueled, six-month vacation to the Indian island of Goa. The trip was paid for -- like everything else in her life -- with government benefits.
(When was the last time you had a free, six-month vacation? I'm drawing a blank, too.)
While in Goa, Fiona took her entourage on a side-trip, leaving her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlett Keeling, in the capable hands of a 25-year-old local whom Scarlett had begun sleeping with, perhaps hoping to get a head-start on her own government benefits. A few weeks later, Scarlett turned up dead, full of drugs, raped and murdered.
Scarlett's estranged stepfather later drank himself to death, while her brother Silas announced on his social networking page: "My name is Si, n I spend most my life either out wit mates get drunk or at partys, playing rugby or going to da beach (pretty s**t really)."
It's a wonder that someone like Silas, who has never worked, and belongs to a family in which no one has ever worked, can afford a cellphone for social networking. No, actually, it's not.
Britain has a far more redistributive welfare system than France, which is why France's crime problem is mostly a matter of Muslim immigrants, not French nationals. Meanwhile, England's welfare state is fast returning the native population to its violent 18th-century highwaymen roots.
Needless to say, Britain leads Europe in the proportion of single mothers and, as a consequence, also leads or co-leads the European Union in violent crime, alcohol and drug abuse, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases.
But liberal elites here and in Britain will blame anything but the welfare state they adore. They drone on about the strict British class system or the lack of jobs or the nation's history of racism.
None of that explains the sad lives of young Shannon Matthews and Scarlett Keeling, with their long English ancestry and perfect Anglo features.
Democrats would be delighted if violent mobs like those in Britain arose here -- perhaps in Wisconsin! That would allow them to introduce yet more government programs staffed by unionized public employees, as happened after the 1992 L.A. riots and the 1960s race riots, following the recommendations of the Kerner Commission.
MSNBC might even do the unthinkable and offer Al Sharpton his own TV show. (Excuse me -- someone's trying to get my attention ... WHAT?)
Inciting violent mobs is the essence of the left's agenda: Promote class warfare, illegitimate children and an utterly debased citizenry.
Like the British riot girls interviewed by the BBC, the Democrats tell us "all of this happened because of the rich people."
We're beginning to see the final result of that idea in Britain. The welfare state creates a society of beasts. Meanwhile, nonjudgmental elites don't dare condemn the animals their programs have created.
Rioters in England are burning century-old family businesses to the ground, stealing from injured children lying on the sidewalks and forcing Britons to strip to their underwear on the street.
I keep reading that it's because they don't have jobs -- which they're obviously anxious to hold. Or someone called them a "kaffir." Or their social services have been reduced. Or their Blackberries made them do it. Or they disapprove of a referee's call in a Manchester United game.
A few well-placed rifle rounds, and the rioting would end in an instant. A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can't find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds. We can be sure there's no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.
But like Louis XVI, British authorities are paralyzed by their indifference to their own civilization. A half-century of berating themselves for the crime of being British has left them morally defenseless. They see nothing about England worth saving, certainly not worth fighting for -- which is fortunate since most of their cops don't have guns.
This is how civilizations die. It can happen overnight, as it did in Revolutionary France. If Britain of 1939 were composed of the current British population, the entirety of Europe would today be doing the "Heil Hitler" salute and singing the "Horst Wessel Song."
August 8, 2011
Bush Tax Cuts
I don't normally defend George W. Bush on his economic policies. He spent way too much. But one of the canards that has become an article of faith among democrats needs to be exposed, namely that the Bush tax cuts are mostly (or completely, for some) responsible for the mess we're in now. Nonsense.
Bush inherited an economy that was coming back to earth from the dot-com bubble, resulting in a recession from March-November of 2001. As one would expect after a recession, income tax receipts fell from 2001 to 2002, by about 13%, and fell again in 2003, by about 7.5%. But from 2003, when the tax cuts were fully implemented, to 2007, an interesting thing happened. Income tax receipts rose from about $794 billion to $1.16 trillion. This is an increase of 46%. Income tax revenues fell by only about 1.3% in 2008, at which point the Great Recession hit, leading to decreased federal revenues. Of course, the recession was caused by the implosion of the housing bubble, not the tax cuts.
The obvious conclusion is that Bush's tax cuts did not cause a revenue problem for the government. They certainly did not cause the recession. They spurred economic growth, which led to significantly increased revenues. Bush had a spending problem. Unfortunately, Obama has a much bigger spending problem.
Bush inherited an economy that was coming back to earth from the dot-com bubble, resulting in a recession from March-November of 2001. As one would expect after a recession, income tax receipts fell from 2001 to 2002, by about 13%, and fell again in 2003, by about 7.5%. But from 2003, when the tax cuts were fully implemented, to 2007, an interesting thing happened. Income tax receipts rose from about $794 billion to $1.16 trillion. This is an increase of 46%. Income tax revenues fell by only about 1.3% in 2008, at which point the Great Recession hit, leading to decreased federal revenues. Of course, the recession was caused by the implosion of the housing bubble, not the tax cuts.
The obvious conclusion is that Bush's tax cuts did not cause a revenue problem for the government. They certainly did not cause the recession. They spurred economic growth, which led to significantly increased revenues. Bush had a spending problem. Unfortunately, Obama has a much bigger spending problem.
At any rate, I pass this along so that the next time you hear some fool blame the Bush tax cuts for our current dilemma, you'll know that he or she is full of it.
Source of data: Office of Management and Budget
August 4, 2011
Failed Policies
Following is a pretty concise explanation of why Obama's policies are causing problems with the economy...
Punishing Success: Why Obama's Economy Won't Improve
Punishing Success: Why Obama's Economy Won't Improve
August 2, 2011
How We Got to This Point
From the Wall Street Journal. The question is: will we ever learn?
The Road to a Downgrade: A Short History of the Entitlement State
The Road to a Downgrade: A Short History of the Entitlement State
August 1, 2011
No Easy Answers
Below is an article which explains nicely why we should eschew central planning and the allure of easy answers to economic problems.
NOT SO SIMPLE
By Donald Boudreaux
July 27, 2011
Harry Truman famously longed for a one-armed economist. Our 33rd president was tired of his economic advisers qualifying their counsel by saying "but on the other hand."
Reality is like that. It's complex. The economy is especially so.
In the U.S. alone, hundreds of millions of consumers daily make choices, often different from the choices made yesterday. Millions of entrepreneurs daily anticipate what consumers want -- and try to outguess each other in the competition to anticipate correctly. Countless investors, business executives, labor-union officials -- just like consumers and entrepreneurs -- attempt to promote their self-interest in a world of innovation, change and, hence, uncertainty.
Mixed in with all these private-sector activities are the actions and reactions of politicians, government administrators, judges and jurors, each of whom -- sometimes individually, more commonly in groups -- can alter the rules that govern private-sector economic activities.
Over the past two-plus centuries, economists have made real progress in the quest to explain economic activity in ways that meet scientific standards and to enhance our understanding of the economy. But this real progress does not mean that economists can make predictions as precise as those made by, say, astronomers.
The zillions of decisions made daily by the billions of people in today's global economy simply cannot be predicted -- and the detailed consequences of these decisions cannot be predicted -- with the kind of precision that we take for granted in many of the natural sciences. So any economist worth his or her salary will qualify any prediction of the future -- and qualify any explanation of the past -- with the recognition that other predictions and explanations also have potential merit.
Economists cannot avoid the large amounts of uncertainty and imprecision that make economics unsatisfying to people, such as Truman, who demand simple and unambiguous answers.
But because there's a large demand -- especially among politicians -- for simple and unambiguous answers, there's no shortage of people willing to supply such answers.
Consider the history of tariffs in America. Protectionists today are fond of pointing out that U.S. tariffs in the 19th century were high by modern standards, and that economic growth during that century was also impressively robust. From these two facts, protectionists dive confidently into the conclusion that America's 19th-century economic growth was promoted by tariffs. These protectionists then assert that if we would raise tariffs to heights not seen in generations, today's economic troubles would be diminished.
Reality, though, allows no such simplistic conclusions.
Nineteenth-century America was full of policies nonexistent -- or much modified -- in 20th- and 21st-century America. For example, women weren't allowed to vote in national elections in the 19th century. Should we therefore conclude that the prohibition on women voting during America's first full century caused the impressive amount of economic growth during that century? Should we disenfranchise women today as a means of reinvigorating the economy?
Although anyone with a decent amount of creativity could concoct a logically coherent "theory" to explain just how the prohibition on women voting led to economic growth, almost everyone would reject that "theory." And rightly so.
The implausibility of economic growth being fueled by keeping women from casting ballots is so great, especially in light of many other things that we know about the 19th-century American economy, that we sensibly reject that "theory" out of hand.
What are some of the other things that we know about the 19th-century U.S. economy? For starters, it was a giant free-trade zone. From Miami to Seattle, from San Diego to Caribou, Maine, men and women traded freely with each other. States -- tempted as governments always are to shield producers within their jurisdictions from competition -- were stopped from engaging in such protectionism by strict application of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
If free trade discourages economic development, it's difficult to explain the economic growth that took place in the 19th century among the tariffless U.S. states spanning a huge continent. Does anyone believe that Californians and Pennsylvanians would be even richer today had states been allowed to impose tariffs on each others' products?
We know also that, apart from imposing tariffs and handing out some subsidies, Uncle Sam in the 19th century followed a comparatively laissez-faire policy. Now there's a plausible source of economic growth, one that is consistent with the facts -- including the fact that the economy is astonishingly complex.
The more complex the economy, after all, the more we must rely upon localized individual decision-makers and less on centralized, collective plans to keep it going and growing. Such plans, relative to the economy, are always simplistic -- and, hence, dangerously alluring to minds that seek simple answers.
NOT SO SIMPLE
By Donald Boudreaux
July 27, 2011
Harry Truman famously longed for a one-armed economist. Our 33rd president was tired of his economic advisers qualifying their counsel by saying "but on the other hand."
Reality is like that. It's complex. The economy is especially so.
In the U.S. alone, hundreds of millions of consumers daily make choices, often different from the choices made yesterday. Millions of entrepreneurs daily anticipate what consumers want -- and try to outguess each other in the competition to anticipate correctly. Countless investors, business executives, labor-union officials -- just like consumers and entrepreneurs -- attempt to promote their self-interest in a world of innovation, change and, hence, uncertainty.
Mixed in with all these private-sector activities are the actions and reactions of politicians, government administrators, judges and jurors, each of whom -- sometimes individually, more commonly in groups -- can alter the rules that govern private-sector economic activities.
Over the past two-plus centuries, economists have made real progress in the quest to explain economic activity in ways that meet scientific standards and to enhance our understanding of the economy. But this real progress does not mean that economists can make predictions as precise as those made by, say, astronomers.
The zillions of decisions made daily by the billions of people in today's global economy simply cannot be predicted -- and the detailed consequences of these decisions cannot be predicted -- with the kind of precision that we take for granted in many of the natural sciences. So any economist worth his or her salary will qualify any prediction of the future -- and qualify any explanation of the past -- with the recognition that other predictions and explanations also have potential merit.
Economists cannot avoid the large amounts of uncertainty and imprecision that make economics unsatisfying to people, such as Truman, who demand simple and unambiguous answers.
But because there's a large demand -- especially among politicians -- for simple and unambiguous answers, there's no shortage of people willing to supply such answers.
Consider the history of tariffs in America. Protectionists today are fond of pointing out that U.S. tariffs in the 19th century were high by modern standards, and that economic growth during that century was also impressively robust. From these two facts, protectionists dive confidently into the conclusion that America's 19th-century economic growth was promoted by tariffs. These protectionists then assert that if we would raise tariffs to heights not seen in generations, today's economic troubles would be diminished.
Reality, though, allows no such simplistic conclusions.
Nineteenth-century America was full of policies nonexistent -- or much modified -- in 20th- and 21st-century America. For example, women weren't allowed to vote in national elections in the 19th century. Should we therefore conclude that the prohibition on women voting during America's first full century caused the impressive amount of economic growth during that century? Should we disenfranchise women today as a means of reinvigorating the economy?
Although anyone with a decent amount of creativity could concoct a logically coherent "theory" to explain just how the prohibition on women voting led to economic growth, almost everyone would reject that "theory." And rightly so.
The implausibility of economic growth being fueled by keeping women from casting ballots is so great, especially in light of many other things that we know about the 19th-century American economy, that we sensibly reject that "theory" out of hand.
What are some of the other things that we know about the 19th-century U.S. economy? For starters, it was a giant free-trade zone. From Miami to Seattle, from San Diego to Caribou, Maine, men and women traded freely with each other. States -- tempted as governments always are to shield producers within their jurisdictions from competition -- were stopped from engaging in such protectionism by strict application of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
If free trade discourages economic development, it's difficult to explain the economic growth that took place in the 19th century among the tariffless U.S. states spanning a huge continent. Does anyone believe that Californians and Pennsylvanians would be even richer today had states been allowed to impose tariffs on each others' products?
We know also that, apart from imposing tariffs and handing out some subsidies, Uncle Sam in the 19th century followed a comparatively laissez-faire policy. Now there's a plausible source of economic growth, one that is consistent with the facts -- including the fact that the economy is astonishingly complex.
The more complex the economy, after all, the more we must rely upon localized individual decision-makers and less on centralized, collective plans to keep it going and growing. Such plans, relative to the economy, are always simplistic -- and, hence, dangerously alluring to minds that seek simple answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)