A quick note to waitresses, waiters and bartenders

Robert Samuelson, one of the House Economists at The Washington Post, has penned a quick and dirty hit on ObamaCare. 

The points he makes are similar to the ones our company president made in a management meeting a week ago.  Namely, ObamaCare is going to change our lives.  For the worse. 

The Law Of Unintended Consequences is going to be a major factor here.....

Here's Samuelson:

Just recently, the Internal Revenue Service issued an 18-page, single-spaced notice explaining how to distinguish between full-time and part-time workers under the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). The difference matters, because the act requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide health insurance for those workers. At the same time, no company has to buy insurance for part-time employees, defined as those working less than 30 hours a week.....

Let me interrupt here....  They're not going to let anyone chop a 500 employee company into 10 smaller companies with 49 employees each.  We've already checked. 
This alone is proof that ObamaCare is going to be a drain on the economy.  No business owner is going to hire employee number 50 without lots of prayer and fasting. 
It's also proof that the President Of The United States flunked Economics 101 at Occidental College.  You can look it up.  Having never held a real private sector job, he doesn't understand incentives.   

Obamacare has faded as a campaign issue, perhaps because it doesn’t suit either the president or Mitt Romney. It’s not popular, a minus for Barack Obama. Its resemblance to Romney’s Massachusetts program is a minus for him. But Obamacare’s relentless march to full-fledged introduction in 2014 demonstrates that, for all its good intentions, it will make the health-care system more confusing (see here), costly and contentious. It won’t control health spending — the system’s main problem — and will weaken job creation.

One more interruption....  Things are expensive when they are scarce, relative to demand.  ObamaCare doesn't eliminate the scarcity of doctors, nurses, or drugs.  It only eliminates the scarcity of IRS worker/drones by mandating that we hire another 16,000 of them. 

Consider the treatment of full-time and part-time workers as an object lesson.

Exempting part-time workers is a concession to practicality. If companies had to provide insurance for all part-time and seasonal workers — often unskilled and poorly paid — the high costs (a worker-only insurance policy can run more than $5,000) would eliminate many jobs or inspire mass evasion. On the other hand, exempting too many “part-time” and “seasonal” workers would make achieving near-universal insurance coverage much harder.

I think we're gonna see "mass evasion".  Remember this, oh waitresses, waiters and bartenders....  You don't claim all of your tips and income on your taxes.  If our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ was a bartender, he wouldn't claim all of his tips on Caesar's taxes.  So don't get all pissy if your employer tries to save some money on taxes. 

So there’s a balancing act: preserving jobs vs. providing insurance. The problem isn’t small. In September, 34 million workers, about a quarter of total workers, were part-time, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the bureau defines part time as less than 35 hours a week; Obamacare’s 30 hours a week was presumably adopted to expand insurance coverage. There are now 10 million workers averaging between 30 and 34 hours a week. To the bureau, they are part-time; under Obamacare, they’re full-time.

So do you think your employer is going to leave you at 35 hours a week, just to satisfy the mandates of this crazed bastard?  Or do you think he's going to cut you to 30?  Remember this, watresses, waiters, musicians and bartenders....You don't claim all your tips on your taxes.  You want that money.  You don't want John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and Barack to have it.  So what's your employer going to do???  He's going to do the same thing you do.  End of story.  He will not give the government any more money, for the same reasons that you don't. 

Employers have a huge incentive to hold workers under the 30-hour weekly threshold. The requirement to provide insurance above that acts as a steep employment tax. Companies will try to minimize the tax. The most vulnerable workers are the poorest and least skilled who can be most easily replaced and for whom insurance costs loom largest. Indeed, the adjustment has already started.

But...But...But....when I voted for Obama, that's not what I thought would happen !! 
Yeah, yeah, I know.  It was really cool to vote for the hip, fit, multi-racial guy and make history.  You've made your point.  Now you can make your point by staying home on November 6th. 

As first reported in the Orlando Sentinel, Darden Restaurants — owners of about 2,000 outlets, including the Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains — is studying ways to shift more employees under the 30-hour ceiling. About three-quarters of its 185,000 workers are already under, says spokesman Rich Jeffers. The question is “can we go higher and still deliver a great [eating] experience.” The financial stakes are sizable. Suppose Darden moves 1,000 servers under 30 hours and avoids paying $5,000 insurance for each. The annual savings: $5 million.

I just finished reading Keith Richards' autobiography.  Fascinating book.  Scattered throughout are accounts of how he and the other Rolling Stones have a masssive roster of lawyers and accountants telling them where they can live, rehearse, and record (and for how long) because of the tax implications. 

This isn't evil.  It isn't selfishness.  It's why you don't report all your tips on your taxes.  You believe, like Keith Richards, that you are the best at spending your own money.  And this includes charitable contributions. 

As a reaction to Obamacare, this makes business sense, but in other ways, it doesn’t. Waiters and waitresses going below 30 hours a week will lose income. They make about $15 an hour with tips, says Jeffers. A server who drops five hours would lose $75 a week. Although some servers under the limit might increase their hours and incomes, jobs will become less attractive because earnings will be effectively capped. Turnover, already 50 percent annually, might rise, as would Darden’s training costs. On average, servers receive 35 hours of training, says Jeffers.

Here's something from the preface to "Anthem", a short novel by Ayn Rand:

The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one's eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: "But I didn't mean this!"

Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead.

They must face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

So, do you want it?  Better hurry.  You've got two weeks to decide between an Obamney or Gary Johnson. 

Many companies, especially in the fast-food, retailing and hotel industries, will explore similar changes. Some workers will resent the limits on their wages. Others will think that companies have illegally denied them insurance, even though the IRS guidelines permit much flexibility in calculating who exceeds the 30-hour limit. That’s why the IRS notice is so long and complex. Still, some firms will cheat; enforcement will be hard.

But government bureaucrats and the insurance companies that they're demanding you purchase insurance from?  They're going to do well. 

The argument about Obamacare is often framed as a moral issue. It’s the caring and compassionate against the cruel and heartless. That’s the rhetoric; the reality is different. Many of us who oppose Obamacare don’t do so because we enjoy seeing people suffer. We believe that, in an ideal world, everyone would have insurance. But we also think that Obamacare has huge drawbacks that outweigh its plausible benefits.

Would you support Jimmy Swaggart's Healthcare Plan?  Please list the reasons you wouldn't.  Those are the reasons to oppose ObamaCare. 

It creates powerful pressures against companies hiring full-time workers — precisely the wrong approach after the worst economic slump since the Depression. There will be more bewildering regulations, more regulatory uncertainties, more unintended side effects and more disappointments. A costly and opaque system will become more so.

Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  There are huge penalties associated the 50th employee.  There are huge penalties associated with hiring ONE full-timer. 
You must face it, and decide if this is what you want or not. 

Why Markets Are Miraculous

I'm browsing through a new hardback called "Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion", by Jonathan Haidt.  Haidt is a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.  He also teaches Business Ethics at New York University. 

This is good stuff.  Here's a snippet called "Markets Are Miraculous", where he looks at the Libertarian mindset on a few issues:

"In 2007, David Goldhill's father was killed by an infection he caught while in the hospital.  In trying to make sense of this unnecessary death, Goldhill began to read about the American health care system, which kills about 100,000 people annually buy such accidental infections.  He learned that the death rate can be cut by two-thirds when hospitals follow a simple checklist of sanitary procedures, but most hospitals don't adopt the checklist. 

Goldhill, a businessman (and Democrat), wondered how it was possible for any organization to pass up a simple measure that yielded such massive payoffs.  In the business world, such inefficiency would soon lead to bankruptcy.  As he learned more and more about the healthcare system, he discovered just how bad things get when goods and services are provided without a properly functioning market. 

In 2009, Goldhill published a provocative essay in The Atlantic Monthly titled "How American Health Care Killed My Father".  One of his main points was the absurdity of using insurance to pay for routine purchases.  Normally we buy insurance to cover the risk of a catastrophic loss.  We enter an insurance pool with other people to spread the risk around, and we hope never to collect a penny.  We handle routine expenses ourselves, seeking out the highest quality for the lowest price.  We would never file a claim on our car insurance to pay for an oil change. 

The next time you go to the supermarket, look closely at a can of peas.  Think about all the work that went into it - the farmers, truckers, and supermarket employees, the miners and metalworkers who made the can - and think how miraculous it is that you can buy this can for under a dollar.  At every step of the way, competition among suppliers rewarded those whose innovations shaved a penny off the cost of getting that can to you.  If God is commonly thought to have created the world and then arranged it for our benefit, then the free market (and its invisible hand) is a pretty good candidate for being a god.  You can begin to understand why libertarians sometimes have a quasi-religious faith in free markets. 

Now let's do the devil's work and spread chaos throughout the marketplace.  Suppose that one day all prices are removed from all products in the supermarket.  All labels too, beyond a simple description of the contents, so you can't compare products from different companies.  You just take whatever you want, as much as you want, and you bring it up to the register.  The checkout clerk scans in your food insurance card and helps you fill out your itemized claim.  You pay a flat fee of $10.00 and go home with your groceries.  A month later you get a bill informing you that your food insurance company will pay the supermarket for most of the remaining cost, but you'll have to send in a check for an additional $15.00.  It might sound like a bargain to get a cartload of food for $25.00, but you're really paying your grocery bill every month when you fork over $2,000.00 for your food insurance premium. 

Under such a system, there is little incentive for anyone to find innovative ways to reduce the cost of food or increase its quality.  The supermarkets get paid by the insurers, and the insurers get their premiums from you.  The cost of food insurance begins to rise as supermarkets stock only the foods that net them the highest insurance payments, not the foods that deliver value to you. 

As the cost of food insurance rises, many people can no longer afford it.  Liberals (motivated by Care - you'll have to read the entire book to get that part - TWS) push for a new government program to buy food insurance for the poor and the elderly.  But once the government becomes the major purchaser of food, then success in the supermarket and food insurance industries depends primarily on maximizing yield from government payouts.  Before you know it, that can of peas costs the government $30.00, and all of us are paying 25 percent of our paychecks in taxes just to cover the cost of buying groceries for each other at hugely inflated costs. 

That, says Goldhill, is what we've done to ourselves.  as long as consumers are spared from taking price into account - that is, as long as someone else is always paying for your choices - things will get worse. 

In the U.S., 84% of our healthcare checks are written by someone else - Uncle Sam or an insurance company - TWS

We can't fix the problem by convening panels of experts to set the maximum allowable price for a can of peas.  Only a working market can bring supply, demand, and ingenuity together to provide health care at the lowest possible price.  For example, there is an open market for LASIK surgery (a kind of laser eye surgery that removes the need to wear contact lenses).  Doctors compete with one another to attract customers, and because the procedure is rarely covered by insurance, patients take price into account. 

Have you ever heard a radio ad about a doctor who will fix a broken arm better and cheaper than anyone else?  I haven't.  How about LASIK surgeons?  They advertise as much as McDonald's.  - TWS. 

Competition and innovation have driven down the price of the surgery by nearly 80 percent since it was first introduced.  (Other developed nations have had more success controlling costs, but they too face rapidly rising costs that may become fiscally ruinous.  Like America, they often lack the political will to raise taxes or cut services.) 

When libertarians talk about the miracle of "spontaneous order" that emerges when people are allowed to make their own choices (and take on the costs and benefits of those choices), the rest of us should listen.  Care and compassion sometimes motivate liberals to interfere in the working of markets, but the results can be extraordinary harm on a vast scale.  (Of course, as I said above, governments often need to intervene to correct market distortions, thereby making markets work properly. - I believe he's talking about externalities, etc. - TWS)    Liberals want to use government for so many purposes, but health care expenses are crowding out all other possibilities.  If you think your local, state, and federal governments are broke now, just wait until the baby boom generation is fully retired. 

I find it ironic that liberals generally embrace Darwin and reject "intelligent design" as the explanation for design and adaptation  in the natural world, but they don't embrace Adam Smith as the explanation for design and adaptation in the economic world.  They sometimes prefer the "intelligent design" of socialist economics, which often ends in a disaster from a utilitarian point of view. 

I can't wait to read the rest of this book. Greatness. 

Becker, Krugman, and spending other people's money

Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker has some more to say about Warren Buffett's assertion that Warren Buffett is undertaxed.... (Buffett is currently in a dispute with the IRS about how much he owes in back taxes, BTW.) 

Warren Buffett has persuaded 68 other billionaires to follow his example and promise to give at least half their wealth to charities. But why hasn’t Buffett proposed also that the very rich make large gifts to the federal government to offset what he considers ridiculously low taxes on their incomes and wealth? My guess is that he and the others who pledged to give away their wealth to charity would have little confidence in how the government would spend such gifts. Buffett, for example, is giving most of his wealth to the Gates Foundation, not to the federal government, and is relying on how this foundation will spend his vast gift. Given this reluctance to make large gifts to the federal government, why should anyone have confidence that the federal government will spend additional tax revenue in a sensible way?

Go here to read Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman's assertion that we need to either print, borrow, or steal enough money to give the government so they can't crank out another stimulus package. 

Can anyone out there name a single instance of wisely spent stimulus money?  Anybody?  Anybody at all? 

Here's a highlight from Krugman's editorial:

Although you’d never know it listening to the ranters, the past year has actually been a pretty good test of the theory that slashing government spending actually creates jobs. The deficit obsession has blocked a much-needed second round of federal stimulus, and with stimulus spending, such as it was, fading out, we’re experiencing de facto fiscal austerity. State and local governments, in particular, faced with the loss of federal aid, have been sharply cutting many programs and have been laying off a lot of workers, mostly schoolteachers.

And somehow the private sector hasn’t responded to these layoffs by rejoicing at the sight of a shrinking government and embarking on a hiring spree.

O.K., I know what the usual suspects will say — namely, that fears of regulation and higher taxes are holding businesses back. But this is just a right-wing fantasy. Multiple surveys have shown that lack of demand — a lack that is being exacerbated by government cutbacks — is the overwhelming problem businesses face, with regulation and taxes barely even in the picture.

No, no, no, no, no.   The United States government is going to spend more this year than it did last year.  They're going to spend more in 2012 than in 2011.  They're going to print or borrow the money to do this. 

ObamaCare is not yet repealed. 

Card Check is not yet dead and buried. 

Our government has not yet taken the suggestions of The Libertarian Party, and gotten the hell out of the economy.  And our government is really, really crappy at intervening in the economy. 

That's enough to make the U.S. a crappy place to do business, or hire people. 

I'm betting that Paul Krugman has made some good investments in his day.  If Congress passes another stimulus package, someone should challenge Krugman to "invest" in the same companies that Pelosi/Boehner/Reid pick for stimulus spending. 

Seriously, can you imagine someone saying "My broker is Barack Obama...and when Barack Obama talks, people listen !"  (This is a 1980's reference.  Sorry for the obscurity.) 

Fred Bastiat Quote Of The Day

“Poor people!” he lamented of the duped French populace in the same tumultuous year [1848]. “How much disillusionment is in store for them! It would have been so simple and so just to ease their burden by decreasing their taxes; they want to achieve this through the plentiful bounty of the state and they cannot see that the whole mechanism consists in taking away ten to give it back eight, not to mention the true freedom that will be destroyed in the operation!” - Frederic Bastiat

From The Coyote Blog

Picture of Fred Bastiat The Dachshund and Fred Bastiat The French Economist came from my dining room table. 

On house fires and ObamaCare

You've probably heard about the South Fulton Fire Department - the one that wouldn't put out a house fire because the homeowner hadn't paid his yearly $75.00 fire protection fee. 



This thing is a great parable/metaphor for about a dozen different things, but let's hit some of the high points. 

* Let's start by saying that most of us would've put out the fire if we owned a fire truck.  We would have done it at no charge.  Once.  Maybe five or six times.  But after that.... 

* People fear what would happen if libertarians got their way and more and more government services were privatized.  (People wouldn't have access to government services if fees weren't paid, etc.)  Well, that's already happening with government services, isn't it? 

* Do you think that a lot of people who had not yet paid their $75.00 fee to the South Fulton Fire Department have now done so?  In a hurry?  Ya think? 

* If the South Fulton Fire Department had put out this fire, do you think anyone in his right mind would have paid the $75.00 fee next year? 

* If you were in the business of putting out fires for people who had paid a yearly $75.00 insurance policy, how many fires could you put out for no charge before you went bankrupt ?  Would anyone ever pay your $75.00 insurance policy if they knew that you were always on call and willing to sacrifice your time, equipment, and/or life for no charge? 

* And now the big one.... Once ObamaCare goes into effect, insurance companies won't be able to turn away people who haven't been paying insurance premiums.  If you're willing to pay a (relatively) small fine up front, they have to take you as a customer and start paying all your medical bills.  Will anyone in his right mind pay for insurance before he gets sick? 

* I'm going into metaphor overload.  Have a good day ! 

Do you ever voluntarily participate in activities where success is punished?

Here are some quick Monday morning questions.

Who would you rather have investing your money?  10 billionaires, selected at random, or the top 10 people on the president's economic advisory team?

Who would select the investments most likely to assure a long term profit?   10 billionaires, selected at random, or the top 10 people on the president's economic advisory team?

When government spends your money, do you believe that they are making the best possible decisions when doing so?  Even when they spend it on Turtle Tunnels and African Genital Washing?  (Google it.)  Are the Turtle and Sanitizing jobs likely to grow without further government support?   

If the Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to expire, do you believe that the wealthy will continue to put the same amount of money at risk, which, by the way, is the only way to create continued employment growth? 

Do you know how much Federal tax revenue declined after the Bush tax cuts went into effect?  Is it possible that Capital Gains Tax revenues doubled after the tax cuts? 

If Capital Gains Tax revenues doubled after the Bush tax cuts, if you were going for the maximum amount of tax revenue, would you prefer to take 39% of $100 or 35% of $200?

Do you voluntarily participate in activities where success is punished? 

I'm just wondering.....

Why aren't businesses hiring? Why don't more people play Blackjack in Oklahoma?

John Stossel has a piece in Real Clear Politics about why businesses aren't hiring.  Here are the high points:

"Corporate profits are soaring. Companies are sitting on billions of dollars of cash. And still, they've yet to amp up hiring or make major investments."

"....The problem today is that the economy is not being left alone. Instead, it is haunted by uncertainty on a hundred fronts. When rules are unintelligible and unpredictable, when new workers are potential threats because of Labor Department regulations, businesses have little confidence to hire. President Obama's vaunted legislative record not only left entrepreneurs with the burden of bigger government, it also makes it impossible for them to accurately estimate the new burden."

"In at least three big areas -- health insurance, financial regulation and taxes -- no one can know what will happen."

New intrusive rules for health insurance are yet to be written, and those rules will affect hiring, since most health insurance is provided by employers.

Thanks to the new 2,300 page Dodd-Frank finance regulatory act, The Wall Street Journal reports, there will be "no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies." These as-yet unknown rules will govern lending to business and other key financial activity.
The George W. Bush tax cuts might be allowed to expire. But maybe not. Social Security and Medicare are dangerously shaky. Will Congress raise the payroll tax? A "distinguished" deficit commission is meeting. What will it do? Recommend a value-added tax?
Who knows? But few employers will commit to a big investment with those clouds hanging over our heads."

Let's look at the tax situation using an analogy that I've used before. 

I love to play Blackjack.   

In Vegas, Shreveport, and on cruise ships, Blackjack odds are roughly 51-52% in favor of the house.  That's good enough for me to put my superstitions to the test.  I'll play under those conditions.  

When I lose a hand at a $5.00 table, I lose 500 cents on every five dollars that I've bet.  
When I win a hand, I win 500 cents on every five dollars that I've bet.  Sometimes more if I can hit 21.  

But if you go to Oklahoma casinos to play, they have a rule where you have to lay out a .50 cent chip as a dealer commission for every five dollar bet.  

When you lose a hand at a $5.00 table in Oklahoma, you lose 550 cents on every five dollars that you've bet. 
When you win a hand in Oklahoma, you win 450 cents on every five dollars that you've bet. 

Notice the generic "you" in those previous sentences.   I've never played in Oklahoma, despite it only being a two hour trip.  The house keeps too much of the money.  I don't like those odds. 

When businesses start a new project, roll out a new product, or even try to stay open for another month, they could lose everything.  The could lose 100 cents on the dollar. 
Under the current regime, which wants to make businesses play doctor, mommy, Labor Union antagonist, and Bureaucrat Pension supporter, business owners could still "win" something.  But no more than, say, 50 cents on the dollar if pending legislation is voted into law. 

Earnings much greater than 65 cents on the dollar, according to our President, would put players in the category of "the most fortunate", and expose the business and its owners to higher and higher levels of confiscation. 

That's bad enough to make Oklahoma casinos to look like a good deal. 
Would you put your money at risk with those odds? 

                       **********************
The picture of Uncertainty came from here.  The picture of the Firelake Indian Casino came from here.  The picture of the taxpayer burdened with bloodsucking leeches came from here. 

Paul Krugman couldn't find his way out of a sack

It's Fisking time, boys and girls ! 

I'll be needing a few tools....

Scalpel - thanks.
Laptop - got it.
Righteous Indignation - I've got plenty.
Various Free Market, Libertarian and Christian websites - check.
Copy of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics (3rd edition) - got it.
Chainsaw - yep.
Metzenbaum scissors - check.

Let the Fisking begin ! 

Paul Krugman, the most drop-kickable of all Statist apologists, has typed up this little beauty for The New York Times:

NOW THAT'S RICH
We need to pinch pennies these days. Don’t you know we have a budget deficit? For months that has been the word from Republicans and conservative Democrats, who have rejected every suggestion that we do more to avoid deep cuts in public services and help the ailing economy.

My time is limited, and I don't have enough time or space to do anything but ask this simple question....  What in the hell does providing "public services" have to do with helping the economy?  Barack Obama has poured more swill and slop into the "public services" trough than any other president who has ever lived.  It has done nothing to help the economy, but it has saved a lot of Obama supporters government jobs.  All of this was done at the expense of the private sector.

But these same politicians are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.

These politicians don't want to cut checks, Paul.  They want to let people keep the money they earned.  The money doesn't belong to the government until the government decides to graciously give some back.  They money belongs to the people who earned it.

What — you haven’t heard about this proposal? Actually, you have: I’m talking about demands that we make all of the Bush tax cuts, not just those for the middle class, permanent.

That's a nice attempt at class warfare.  But consider this:  47 percent of us pay NO income tax.  If taxes (and spending) are ever going to be cut significantly, the cuts will come from the taxes paid by someone other than the lower classes.  (Subject for further review: how many of our super-rich came from the middle and lower classes.  Another subject for further review:  who woke up one day and decided that America has classes?  One more subject:  Should people try hard to change their economic status?  What would be in it for them?)

Some background: Back in 2001, when the first set of Bush tax cuts was rammed through Congress, the legislation was written with a peculiar provision — namely, that the whole thing would expire, with tax rates reverting to 2000 levels, on the last day of 2010.

Paul says that like it is a bad thing.  Also, note the use of the word "rammed".  In Paul's world, Cash For Clunkers, ObamaCare ® and TARP were "passed".  Tax cuts are "rammed". 

Why the cutoff date? In part, it was used to disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts: lopping off that last year reduced the headline cost of the cuts, because such costs are normally calculated over a 10-year period.

Let's define Fiscal Irresponsibility.....How about "failure to reduce spending to reflect income"? 

It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation — yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform — while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits.

Ditto.  Bush spent money like a recovering alcoholic cowboy.  So did Daddy Bush.  So did Reagan.  But they were mere hints of what was yet to come, a series of John The Baptists preparing the way for The Teleprompter Jesus....

Obviously, the idea was to go back at a later date and make those tax cuts permanent. But things didn’t go according to plan. And now the witching hour is upon us.

That's because The Crips And The Bloods The Republicans and Democrats will never, ever voluntarily cut spending.  That's why we need to elect some Libertarians and get back to a two-party system. 

So what’s the choice now? The Obama administration wants to preserve those parts of the original tax cuts that mainly benefit the middle class — which is an expensive proposition in its own right —

Once again Paul reveals his belief that letting people keep their own money is expensive.  MAKING PEOPLE PAY RIDICULOUSLY HIGH TAXES IS EXPENSIVE ! ! !

....but to let those provisions benefiting only people with very high incomes expire on schedule. Republicans, with support from some conservative Democrats, want to keep the whole thing.

Abso-freakin'-lutely.  Keep the whole thing.  Starve the beast.  Federal employees have compensation and pensions anywhere from 50% to 100% better than those found in the private sector.  And from what I've seen, they have about half as much responsibility.  What is so criminal about not wanting to be robbed to support the Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous?

And there’s a real chance that Republicans will get what they want. That’s a demonstration, if anyone needed one, that our political culture has become not just dysfunctional but deeply corrupt.

The mind recoils.  Paul Krugman won a Nobel in economics.  Next thing you know, they'll be giving Nobels to someone in the last three Democrat administrations, like Obama, Gore, or Carter.  Oh.  Never mind. 

What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

That logic assumes that the super-wealthy will continue to produce income if they know that Obama is going to get more of the (potential) profit. 
But $680 billion....That's the amount of the previous stimulus package, right?  Well, if we don't give 'em the money, they can't redistribute it to their friends, right? 

For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

Let's not ask why the states needed $26 billion dollars.  We don't want to go there.  Surely California was spending its money responsibly, and isn't on the hook for ridiculous public employee pensions....

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year.

Paul, you ignorant slut.  The money wouldn't GO to the richest 1 percent.  It would STAY with them.  They are the ones who are producing the alleged $680 billion.  They would get to spend it in the way that they think best, instead of forking it over to be spent the way George Bush, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid thinks best. 
Also, Paul, I'm betting that you are well paid.  I'm also betting that you have a tax expert go through your taxes, looking for every possible deduction.  I'm just betting that you talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.  

But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

You can also take the same group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick out 470 of them.  These 470 are paying no income tax. 
You can probably pick out another 330 of them who are government employees or suppliers, and who live off of taxes paid by the top 100. 
What does all this mean? 
It means we have too many people living off of money taken by force.  If you announce that more money is going to be taken for redistribution to Statists, the infamous top 5% is going to start hiding its money.  Wait and see. 

How can this kind of giveaway be justified at a time when politicians claim to care about budget deficits?

Well, because of Texas A&M University, I'm having a budget deficit.  Therefore, I spend less. 

Well, history is repeating itself. The original campaign for the Bush tax cuts relied on deception and dishonesty. In fact, my first suspicions that we were being misled into invading Iraq were based on the resemblance between the campaign for war and the campaign for tax cuts the previous year. And sure enough, that same trademark deception and dishonesty is being deployed on behalf of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

It is now impossible to cut taxes for anyone except the wealthiest 50% of Americans, dumb ass. 
Speaking of dishonesty, our government is now claiming that we're pulling the combat troops out of Iraq, but we are still going to have 50,000 troops over there, and I think they have guns.  Whassup with that? 

So, for example, we’re told that it’s all about helping small business; but only a tiny fraction of small-business owners would receive any tax break at all. And how many small-business owners do you know making several million a year?

Perhaps it is an aspirational thing.  I don't make several million a year, but I would like to.  I will try harder if I can keep the several million a year, instead of giving more of it to our costly adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and California. 

Or we’re told that it’s about helping the economy recover. But it’s hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren’t likely to spend a windfall.

GIVING THE MONEY?  GIVING THE MONEY?  THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T GOING TO GIVE PEOPLE THAT MONEY ! ! !   THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TAKE THE MONEY, AND BLOW IT ON STUPID CRAP ! ! ! 
Paul, please go to "Clues 'R' Us", and get one. 

No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, it’s about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won’t take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

According to The Washington Post, we're spending $25,000 per kid in many public schools.  How much more do you want to blow per classroom, under the heading of  "saving teaching jobs"?  Is there any amount that would be enough? 
So far, the Obama administration is standing firm against this outrage. Let’s hope that it prevails in its fight. Otherwise, it will be hard not to lose all faith in America’s future.

1)  People spend their own money more wisely than 3rd parties spend it. 
2)  Taxes must be taken by force. 
3)  High taxes act as a disincentive to wealth creation.
4)  Make-work jobs, those created by government, eventually run out of money. 
5)  Paul Krugman couldn't find his way out of a sack.

High taxes equal high emigration and high deficits

This is from the TaxProf blog, where Paul L. Caron lists the states with the highest tax rates for top earners.  All of these are Blue States that went for Obama, by the way:

1. Hawaii:  11% (income over $400,000 (couple), $200,000 (single))
2. Oregon:  11% (income over $500,000 (couple), $250,000 (single))
3. California: 10.55% (income over $1 million)
4. Rhode Island:  9.9% (income over $373,650)
5. Iowa:  8.98% (income over $64,261)
6. New Jersey  8.97% (income over $500,000)
7. New York:  8.97% (income over $500,000)
8. Vermont:  8.95% (income over $373,650)
9. Maine:  8.5% (income over $39,549 (couple), $19,749 (single))
10. Washington, D.C.:  8.5% (income over $40,000)

Ok, so what? 
Well, this is from the Wall Street Journal.  It's a map showing the migration patterns from state to state. 

With the exception of Oregon, all of the top tax states lost population from 2008 to 2009.  Most of them were already losing population in the earlier time period. 

Entrepreneurs don't like putting money at risk in places where greedy little government munchkins can confiscate more of their increasingly unlikely earnings. 

(Washington D.C. isn't shown on these maps, and would probably be an exception to all trends since it is ground zero for the currently popular porkfests.  Looters are moving there to be a part of the ongoing orgy of stimulus pillaging.)

But don't state governments need more money to operate?  Can't states just increase the tax percentage and have an automatic increase in revenue? 

Here's a map from The Economic Populist, showing each state's budget deficit as a percentage of the state's overall budget:

Hawaii is the only pale outsider among the ten listed by The TaxProf above. All of the other top tax states have a large gap between revenue and spending.  (Granted, a state can "go Reagan" with low taxes and insanely high spending levels and go dark brown on this map.) 
So what does it all mean? 

Be like Texas.  Take less away from people.  Spend less of their money.  You'll probably end up with more people and more money. 

Why economic conservatives need to start voting for Libertarians

Here's wannabe House Speaker John Boehner (Daddy Party - Ohio) from last Sunday's edition of Meet The Press.
Lord have mercy, what an empty suit.  At least when Pelosi is wrong, she's entertaining.  She's displays a vibrant, colorful ignorance.  Ignorance that I can have fun with.   All Boehner can do is pull the string in the back of his neck and stumble through his talking points with his calm, soothing, mid-1970's disc jockey baritone fog of a voice. 

David Gregory, the host, in this segment and the later ones, keeps harping that THE BUSH TAX CUTS AREN'T PAID FOR.  And they aren't.  They don't have to be. 


Here's how Boehner should have responded:

Boehner:  David, thank you for that interesting perspective.  I would like to agree with you, but that would make both of us wrong, wouldn't it? 
You see, when you cut taxes, you allow people to make better choices with their money, instead of letting Washington pour the money into the gaping maw of the government beast.  The economy is more likely to expand when this is the case.  People can make rational investments in rational projects.  Raising taxes also makes people less likely to take risks with their investments - you see, David, starting a business is a risky proposition.  Would YOU take that risk if government munchkins were allowed to confiscate 50% of your potential profits?  (long pause....)

David Gregory:  I was speaking more about the hypothetical.....

Boehner:  No, David, I'm not speaking of hypotheticals.  I'm talking about reality, and how people act.  Do you have a tax attorney or accountant who tries to guarantee that you pay as little as possible in taxes?

David Gregory:  Well, yes.  But how are the Bush Tax Cuts going to be paid for? 

Boehner:  I'll get there, David.  Give me time.  You see, the super-wealthy have tax accountants also.  The super-wealthy, like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and every other member of the megabucks earning circle, they all have tax accountants.  If you raise their taxes, they're simply going to put their money into shelters instead of into more productive investments.  Increasing their taxes will change their behavior.  It will not guarantee that a higher percentage of money will pour into Tiny Timmy Geithner's piggy bank.
Look at what happened when Reagan cut the tax rate.  The amount coming into the treasury increased !

David Gregory:  But the deficit increased under Reagan !

Boehner (embarrassed):  Well, yes, the deficit increased because we also increased spending at the same time.  We are, after all, Republicans, and that's what we do with money. 
Ok, let's go back to hypotheticals: say you are playing roulette.  You can either bet on red or black, and there's a $100.00 minimum wager.  If you lose, you lose everything.  If you win, you could win another $100.00 or possibly $200.00 or maybe even $300.00    Would you play? 

David Gregory:  Possibly.....

Boehner:  But what if the Nutcase-In-Chief declares that nobody should be able to win more than $75.00, and that all winnings above that rate will be given to the government.  Would you play?

David Gregory:  No.....But how would the Bush Tax Cuts be paid for? 

Boehner:  David, please listen to me.....when the pie is expanding, which is what happens when you lower tax rates, the amount the government collects increases also.  Investor behavior will....

David Gregory:  Thank you for being with us, Congressman Boehner !   Please stay with us after this break, when I will be joined by presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, New York Times columnist David Brooks, Tennessee congressman Harold Ford, and Democrat campaign consultant Bob Shrum, as we discuss "How Are We Going To Pay For The Bush Tax Cuts?" 

6 suggestions for creating jobs

On Meet The Press yesterday, I watched former Tennessee congressman Harold Ford, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, the Republican National Committee’s Ed Gillespie, and New York Times typist David Brooks.  The sat in a circle and lamented the current failure of the Statist dream.


They were trying to decide how to create jobs and “grow” the economy. It would have been funny had it not been so depressing. Some level of government pump-priming was assumed by all to be necessary. Needless interference from Washington munchkins was a given. No one really questioned the level of harm caused by the recent Porkulus, TARP, Detroit and Wall Street bailouts. Even ideas about tax cuts were presented as “for small businesses only”, as if the janitors at General Electric weren’t worth a raise, but the millionaire owners of a Mom’n’Pop enterprises should automatically get a tax break.

(One important thing to remember: Corporations don’t pay taxes. People do. Corporations merely aid the government in collecting taxes from people - they funnel money to Uncle Sam from their employees, their vendors, customers, and their owners.)

Ford, Maddow, Gillespie and Brooks, along with their lords and masters in government, are like the folks whose only tool is a hammer. Everything looks like a nail. The only remaining solution in their toolbag is to take away everything, and then parcel it back out to the people whose behavior they like.

Imagine that you are a small business owner, one of the ones now beloved by politicians everywhere. Or imagine that you are one of Obama's greedy mega-business owners and that you have difficulty speaking because of all the steak and lobster stuffed into your cheeks and the multiple cigars in your mouth that you lit with $100 bills stolen from the savings of orphans.

Imagine that you’re either one of those types of guys. There’s really no difference between the two, except for lobbying power. What would encourage you to hire more people? More speeches from The Teleprompter Jesus? “Investments” of more of your tax money into green “energy”? (Note the scorn quotes.) Would you feel better about hiring more people if the government passed another Porkulus Plan to spend even more money on….government?

I think not. Ask yourself if the following proposals might be more effective:

1. We currently have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Cut that tax rate in half. Let businesses keep the money that they’re earning and let them spend it as they see fit. They can spend it on themselves, on employees, on equipment, on paying vendors, or giving the savings to customers. Either way, it will still get spent or invested. Letting Bill Gates or Mark Cuban or even Jerry Jones spend the money is always a better choice than letting Obama, Reid and Pelosi give the money to their constitutents. If that means there’s less money to be squandered by the Richland Hills Texas City Planning Department, well, so be it.

2. The teen unemployment rate is hovering around 40-50%. We just had a minimum wage increase from $5.25 to $7.25 an hour. Statists are always, always, always surprised when these arbitrary price-fixes hurt teen employment. I have teenagers show up every day looking for work, and some of them might already be worth $10.00 or $12.00 an hour to my employer. Some of them are worth about $3.00 an hour, if motivated with cattle prods. Some of them aren’t worth the amount of CO2 they pump into the environment every day. I would be willing to take a chance on hiring trainloads of these kids if I could do so at around $4.00 an hour. Some of them would be making $12.00 within a year. Most would not. Others would quit within the first week. The only way to find out who is in which group? Hire a bunch of them. But I’m not taking that chance at $7.25 an hour.

3. The black unemployment rate is now at 15%, as compared to a nationwide rate of 9.6%. Why is this? It’s because if I hire a black guy and he doesn’t work out, I’m going to have to spend countless hours with our Human Resources department proving that I’m not a racist who discriminates against black people. The black employee that I let go will automatically be given unemployment compensation, whereas we usually fight those claims filed by someone in a non-protected group. If employees couldn’t sue employers who didn’t want to employ them any longer, just like grocery stores or lawn services can’t sue me when I stop employing them, we might again see minority employment once again pass white employment levels. (Do a bit o’Googling to find out when that was last true. Hint: use the key words “Davis Bacon Act”.)

4. When you hire a babysitter, do you look forward to withholding and paying her taxes? Do you feel obligated to provide for her health insurance? Do you believe that babysitters should be unionized, without benefit of a secret ballot election, and that you should then be forced to hire ONLY union babysitters? Would collecting taxes, providing healthcare, and paying more for union babysitters cause you to hire more or less of them? Please be brief with your response.

5. Our president delights, absolutely delights, in demonizing successful large businesses and employers who want to hang onto the money they earn after they take the risk of hiring people. Could whoever programs his teleprompter change the script and get that idiot to stop doing that? He’s scaring people.

6. Central banks are starting to look at dollars as if they were hand-grenades dipped in HIV vaseline. These people know that the current regime isn’t going to stop throwing money to its constituents as if every day is Mardi Gras, and billions are beads. They know that the Obama/Bernanke/Pelosi Axis Of Inflation is about to start firing up the printing presses. Could we encourage them to stop spending, since dollars are the only currency we can use in the U.S., and we don’t want the market to be flooded with them?

I don’t have an economics degree, and I will never, ever be selected as a talking head on Meet The Press. But I do hire people. Or don't.  It just depends on the incentives, doesn't it?

LeBron James, U-Haul rental rates, the Ocean Endeavor drilling rig, and Central Banks

Speaking of LeBron James moving from a state with a 7% state income tax (Ohio) to a state with a 0% state income tax (Florida) and apparently not even considering a state with a 12% income tax (New York).....


Mark Perry at the Carpe Diem economics blog has been looking at U-Haul rental rates between Ohio and Florida.  LeBron isn't the only one leaving the Buckeye state. 

One-way rental rates for a 26-foot U-Haul truck on August 4, 2010

Miami, FL to Cleveland, OH: $1,000
Cleveland, OH to Miami, FL: $1,457
Premium to leave Ohio: 45.7%

Orlando, FL to Cleveland, OH: $834
Cleveland, OH to Orlando, FL: $1,301
Premium to leave Ohio: 56%

Tampa, FL to Cleveland, OH: $917
Cleveland, OH to Tampa, FL: $,1379
Premium to leave Ohio: 50.4%

Assuming that one-way U-Haul rates are based on relative demand, there are lot more people and trucks leaving Ohio for Florida than vice-versa, resulting in large premiums to rent trucks going to Florida and large discounts for trucks going to Ohio.

Any idea why?  Here's something from an earlier post about Ohio:

While LeBron's departure got extraordinary media attention, it is hardly unique. In the early 1990s, Ohio was the home of 43 Fortune 500 companies. Twenty years later the number is 24. Census Bureau data show that from 2004-2008 Ohio saw a net outmigration of $6 billion of income and some 97,000 taxpayers. Even Ohio's famously liberal Senator, the late Howard Metzenbaum, moved to Florida late in his life to reduce his estate taxes.

Just for grins, here's the U-Haul relative demand between Detroit (relatively statist) and Dallas (relatively libertarian).

In related news, from The Houston Chronicle:

Diamond Offshore announced Friday that its Ocean Endeavor drilling rig will leave the Gulf of Mexico and move to Egyptian waters immediately — making it the first to abandon the United States in the wake of the BP oil spill and a ban on deep-water drilling....

Larry Dickerson, CEO of Houston-based Diamond, signaled that other of his company's rigs could be relocated, too.


"As a result of the uncertainties surrounding the offshore drilling moratorium, we are actively seeking international opportunities to keep our rigs fully employed," Dickerson said. "We greatly regret the loss of U.S. jobs that will result from this rig relocation."

It was unclear how many U.S. jobs could leave with the Ocean Endeavor, but typically more than 100 workers are on the rig at any given time, doing everything from drilling to cooking meals. Onshore, a network of businesses supplies the rigs with groceries, equipment, uniforms and drilling materials.

"It's not unusual for an energy service company to have 1,000 vendors that they buy from or purchase services from," noted Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands. As a result, Brady said, the economic damage from the moratorium stretches far and wide.

And finally, from Fortune magazine:

A new report from Morgan Stanley analyst Emma Lawson confirms what many had suspected: the dollar is firmly on its way to losing its status as the reserve currency of the world.

We already knew that central banks have preferred gold to dollars, and that they're even selling their gold for cash; now, according to Lawson's data, it seems that those central banks prefer almost anything to dollars.

So what do LeBron James, the Ocean Endeavor drilling rig, and Central Banks have in common? 
They all respond to negative incentives.  All three of them are abandoning places and commodities run by crazy people. 
Just like you do, every time you get a chance. 

*******

A fresh coat of Whitening to Newsalert for all the links. 

Note to LeBron James: Elections have consequences

Here are excerpts from a couple of related posts about LeBron James.  Let me begin by stating that I don't care where LeBron James chooses to throw plastic bags of air through metal rings.  I'm a football guy. 

The first (from back in October 2008) is from BET.com, in which rapper Jay-Z and LeBron James offer the following words of encouragement:

If you plan on voting for Barack Obama, Jay-Z would prefer that you do it sooner than later. He and NBA superstar LeBron James are calling on people to cast their ballots ahead of time – and vote for Obama. James and Jay-Z hosted a concert and rally Wednesday at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland . James attended a Cleveland rally earlier this month to encourage people to vote for Obama. He’s also contributed $20,000 to a committee supporting the Democratic presidential nominee.

Next, we have this gem from the Wall Street Journal.  I'm quoting from the version quoted at The Tax Prof, since I don't subscribe to the WSJ's online edition:

We come not to praise or bury LeBron James, but only to note that by moving to Miami he's going to save a bundle on taxes. ... Florida has no income tax. The rate in Akron, Ohio is a little over 7%.


Mr. James figures to earn close to $100 million in salary over five seasons in Miami. According to an analysis by Richard Vedder, an economist at Ohio University, Mr. James's net present value tax savings on his salary are between $6 million and $8 million by living in Miami versus his home town of Akron. Professional athletes do have to pay other state taxes for the dates they play in visiting team arenas, but most of Mr. James's considerable endorsement income would be taxed at Florida rates.

The tax comparisons looked even worse for two other teams in the LeBron bidding, the New York Knicks and New Jersey Nets. ...

The New York State tax rate is 12%.  If James was serious about supporting the Teleprompter Jesus and all his holy works, wouldn't New York have been the best place to go?  The idea behind Obama's candidacy was for the wealthy to start paying as much as possible as soon as possible, right?   

While LeBron's departure got extraordinary media attention, it is hardly unique. In the early 1990s, Ohio was the home of 43 Fortune 500 companies. Twenty years later the number is 24. Census Bureau data show that from 2004-2008 Ohio saw a net outmigration of $6 billion of income and some 97,000 taxpayers. Even Ohio's famously liberal Senator, the late Howard Metzenbaum, moved to Florida late in his life to reduce his estate taxes.


We feel for Cleveland fans, but maybe they should allocate some of their wrath to the state politicians who keep driving high-income individuals and their businesses to financially sunnier climes.

$8,000,000 is merely the amount that Mr. James is trying to save on state taxes.  That's on his basic salary, not endorsement deals.  Does anyone care to guess how many tax accountants LeBron James is now currently employing to protect his earnings from Barack Obama's Treasury goons?  (Hint: I bet that the answer is "lots".) 

The LeBron James Nike ad came from here. 

Mowing yards, unemployment, the joys of the lake, and perverse incentives

Imagine that you need to find a neighborhood kid to mow your lawn. 
You bang on three different doors, but none of the kids want to come outside.  You learn that the parents at all three houses are paying their children to "house sit".  The kids could make a little more money mowing yards than house-sitting (i.e. - doing nothing) but not much.  It's not worth their while to get up and mow yards just for an additional, say, $1.00 per hour. 
For you, the frustrating thing is that all three groups of parents owe you money.  They are using your money to pay the kids to sit and play video games, watch TV, and surf the internet all day. 
So you either mow your own yard or you hire a lawn service whose employees are already putting in 60 hours a week. 

*******

I've been unemployed before, once for about 4 weeks.  It wasn't fun, but it was comfortable.  I went to the unemployment office downtown, filled out some paperwork, and then checked my mailbox for a check every week. 
I made a few efforts to find jobs that paid as much as the one I had lost.  There were none. 
Every two or three days I put on a suit and made the interview rounds, but The Cooking Channel beckoned.  Blockbuster Video had tons of movies I'd not yet rented.  Short trips to the lake were suddenly possible every day. 
Various companies offered me jobs that were almost exactly the amount of my unemployment compensation.  But why in the world would I want to take one of those and work for 40 hours a week when I could get the same amount by staying at home and learning how to cook Peking Duck and watching old episodes of Monty Python?  Where were the incentives? 
The incentives eventually came in the form of Mrs. Whited, who told me to take a job, any job, because she was tired of coming home from working all day and seeing me unshaved, unwashed, and on the couch. 
I took a job that paid around .75 cents an hour more than my unemployment compensation.  Within about a year and a half, I was up to my old salary again. 
But man, it was hard to tear myself away from cable TV, Blockbuster Video, and the lake. 

******

I've interviewed three different people in the last month who knew that the jobs I was trying to fill were perfect for them.  They knew that they would fit in well.  They had friends who worked for me.  They were perfect for what I needed. 
But dammit, the government was also paying them (with your money) to sit at home.  The government's pay rate is about 80% of what I offer to start at some of those jobs. 
Unemployment insurance is a good thing.  But when it is automatically extended and extended and extended, just to show how compassionate politicians are in an election year, it can totally destroy incentives.  But get ready for a barrage of political ads denouncing the evil meanies in Congress who voted against extending unemployment benefits through the end of The Obamessiah's term.   

******

Hope everybody had a good 4th.  I'm gonna go get they guys started in one of the warehouses and then see if I can find a kid to mow my yard.

******

Addition: Go here to see a totally different point of view from The Obamessiah's pet journalist/economist Paul Krugman.  Mr. Krugman neglects to mention the root cause of so much of the unemployment we're seeing - The Teleprompter Jesus demonizing employers, forcing corporations to become nannies, and demanding that those who put their capital at risk pay even more tribute money to Washington if they're succesful.  
I've been able to see things from Paul Krugman's point of view a few times in the past, but it was uncomfortable having my head that far up my ass.    

Memorial Day Hypothetical Question

We've been putting in 60-70 hour weeks at Jukt Micronics.  We've worked all weekend, and I'm working a small crew today (Memorial Day) getting a major project out the door. 
Assorted Vice Presidents and Operations V.P.'s have come by every day bringing lunch for my crews. 
The Sales V.P. who came by today didn't bring enough ice so I went a few miles up the road to a convenience store to pick up some.  Since I'm fundamentally a lazy person I took my time getting back to the warehouse, driving through a couple of Richland Hills TX industrial parks to see if anyone else was working on the holiday. 

Instead of the hundreds and hundreds of cars and trucks outside the warehouses, this is what I saw:

In front of one warehouse I saw a Mercedes-Benz. 
Parked in front of another was a Jaguar. 
Further down, nobody was working except one more Mercedes owner. 
In the next row of warehouses, there was one beautifully restored 1960's (?) era Cadillac. 
Finally, there was a Ford F-250 with all the bells and whistles, the kind I'm going to buy if The Aggie ever gets out of college. 

I get a  feeling that these vehicles don't belong to the forklift drivers. 

So here are some hypothetical questions for your holiday weekend.

1) Do you think there is a correlation between working ridiculous hours (like holidays) and getting to own a Mercedes, Jag, Cadillac, or mid-life crisis F-250?
2) Chances are, these Mercedes, Jag, Cadillac, and F-250 owners are the ones who took the risk of starting the companies where they're now spending their holiday today.  What do you think?
3) And finally, since the Mercedes, Jag, Cadillac and F-250 owners are "more fortunate", how much do they owe the people who are spending their holiday in their back yards or at the lake? 

Here's our Secretary Of State on that subject:


I hope you'll ask yourself how much longer the Mercedes, Jag, Cadillac, and F-250 owners will continue working holidays if a larger and larger percentage of their potential profit is going to be confiscated by this idiot.
Have a good holiday !   Some of us are still out there SAVING AND CREATING JOBS ! ! !

We, too, will soon be guaranteed surgeries withing 18 weeks. It's a basic human right.

Britain (you know, the place across the Atlantic with socialized healthcare) has introduced something called "A Patient's Bill Of Rights".

British officials say the NHS is now less likely to face a big bill because the Government has sought to cut waiting lists and has sometimes sent patients abroad.The Department of Health says that, while in 2000, people could be waiting as long as 18 months for surgery, the average wait for inpatient treatment was now eight weeks. It has also set a target to reduce to 18 weeks the time from an appointment with a general practitioner to an operation.



I'm gonna let that quote stand as is. No further commentary necessary, except to explain to my readers overseas that we don't wait that long for anything except transplants.


Picture of British plumber who has been waiting 10 months for surgery on broken arm came from here.

Thomas Sowell on the motivations and incentives of politicians

Please stand for this month's reading from The Gospel According To Saint Thomas....

Economist Thomas Sowell, the smartest man in the world now that Milton Friedman is dead, has given us an assortment of new scriptures to ponder.
This month, Saint Thomas gives us a variety of new observations to ponder, mostly on the perverse desires of those who would gain control over every aspect of our lives:

No statement is more unnecessary than the statement that the government should "do something" about some issue. Politicians are going to "do something," whether or not something needs to be done, and regardless of whether what they do makes matters better or worse. All their incentives are to keep themselves in the public eye.

Let us continue with a later next verse:

One of the few advantages to the country in having Congress overwhelmingly in the hands of one party is that the lack of need to compromise lets the leaders of that party reveal themselves for what they are-- in this case, people with unbounded arrogance and utter contempt for the right of ordinary people to live their lives as they see fit, much less the right to know as citizens what laws are going to be passed by their government. The question is whether voters will remember on election day in 2010.

The man has spoken.
Thus endeth the reading from The Gospel According To Saint Thomas.
You may be seated.
Those of you interested in other lessons from this sermon series from the writings of Saint Thomas may go here.