The Tax Implications Of The X-Men Being Human Or Not Human

The X-Men are not human.  The courts have said so. 

Why would the courts care?

To enjoy this particular situation, one must be aware of the following:

1) Politicians are elected by selling exemptions to the tax code.  Sometimes these exemptions are in the form of exceptions to tariff and quota rules.  Sometimes a rule is put in place to punish a competitor.  

2) This is why our tax code is four million words long, and growing by the day.    

3) Efficiency is good.  Inefficiency is bad.  If all merchandise came into the United States at the same tax/tariff rate, we could eliminate tens of thousands of government jobs and the godawful pensions that go with them. 

4) These wasteful "jobs" will never be eliminated.  There will always be an organized groups for exemptions in their medical device / green energy / children with cooties / American flag / Bibles For The Troops / javelin / coffin handle / Scrabble tile-manufacturing industries.  These groups are more organized than you.  They'll get their exemption, and you'll be taxed to supply enough bureaucrats, lawyers and courts to keep the rules sorted out. 

Now that my preliminary throat-clearing is out of the way, here goes:  

 Toy Biz v. United States was a 2003 decision in the United States Court of International Trade that determined that for purposes of tariffs, Toy Biz's action figures were toys, not dolls, because they represented "nonhuman creatures." This decision effectively reduced the tariff rate by a factor of two.


U.S. law distinguishes between two types of action figures for determining tariffs: dolls, which are defined to include human figures, and toys, which include "nonhuman creatures". Because duties on dolls were higher than on toys, Marvel Comics subsidiary Toy Biz argued before the U.S. Court of International Trade, that their action figures (including the X-Men and Fantastic Four) represented "nonhuman creatures" and were subject to the lower tariff rates for toys instead of the higher ones for dolls. On January 3, 2003, after examining more than 60 action figures, Judge Judith Barzilay ruled in their favor, granting Toy Biz reimbursement for import taxes on previous toys.

To summarize, the taxes on imported (human) dolls are lower than the taxes on imported (non-human) toys.  There's no reason for this distinction, and it would take a dozen Library Of Congress employees to figure out which politician put the distinction in place.  The donor he did it for is probably long-dead. 

It took almost ten years and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars in expenses to make this toy vs. doll distinction.

Here's just part of one logic behind one of the official rulings.  Go here for the whole thing.  If you can read this without praying for a nuclear strike on D.C., you're not part of the 49% who pay taxes.  

It is Customs position that the intent of the committees in reaching this conclusion is to deny the doll classification to those figures which possess non-human characteristics that are immediately apparent to the casual observer. Where the non-human feature(s) can only be discovered by close examination, the doll classification may be appropriate. The phrase "close examination" may encompass the need to look closely, the need to remove the clothes of the figure, or perhaps even the need of the observer to guess as to whether a feature that appears to be non-human is, in actuality, such a feature. Most angels and devils possess readily apparent non-human features, i.e., halos, large wings, visible horns, pointed tails, etc. -6-


However, if a figure is marketed as an angel or devil, and yet appears human to the casual observer, then, again, the doll classification may be appropriate.

In HRLs 081201 and 089895, issued October 3, 1988 and November 4, 1991, respectively, we classified certain troll figures that were described, in pertinent part, as being pot- bellied, flesh-colored, erect-standing figures, having flat heads with virtually no foreheads, pointed ears, and large, upturned snouts. We noted the guidance provided by the EN, that dolls should "represent" human beings, and cited Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961), which defines "represent" as meaning "to portray by pictorial, plastic, or musical art: delineate, depict...to serve as the counterpart or image of: typify." In each case, we held that, while certain troll figures may have "resembled" human beings to some extent, it was immediately apparent to the casual observer that the subject figures did not "represent" humans, but rather represented widely recognized non-human creatures, i.e., trolls.

In HRL 085855, issued August 9, 1990, this office affirmed the doll classification of a "Beetlejuice" figure, which represented the ghost character from a popular movie and television show. The doll featured characteristics claimed to be non-human, but which could only be discovered by close examination. We stated that "[i]n order not to be classified as dolls, figures representing...other creatures, must possess appendages and features which immediately, at first glance, identify them as non-human."

Looking to the figures that have been classified as dolls in this case, we note that in most instances, the patent distortions essentially consist of such features as odd skin color, intricate headgear, capes which bear resemblance to wings, weaponry that is uniquely attached to, but is not an integral part of, the body, etc. As noted above, when a figure's non-human features can only be discovered by close examination, the doll classification may be appropriate.

Come quickly, Lord Jesus.  Come quickly. 

This brings us to the related case of Kamar Int’l v. United States, 10 C.I.T. 658 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986).

That case dealt with whether E.T. the Extraterrestrial dolls represented an “animate” object, which would result in a lower tax rate than for toys in general (the customs classifications have changed a lot over the years, apparently). The Court of International Trade agreed with the plaintiff, despite the United States’ arguments that E.T. was a fictional alien and thus not an animate object. The Court cited as precedent the classification of Star Wars toys as toy figures of animate objects because “as depicted in the movie Star Wars they are living beings endowed with animal life.” Kamar, 10 C.I.T. at 661.

I don't believe that the E.T. case should have been argued as Dolls vs. Toys. 
Dolls vs. some other type of toy woulda been the appropriate discussion. 

The only employment number that matters

Barack Obama has spent a trillion dollars trying to improve this number.   This chart shows the percentage of Americans who are working. 

Do you think that spending other people's money on your friends and supporters to "stimulate" the economy just might be a mistake?  Does it do more harm than good? 
Is this how FDR turned a recession into a long, long depression? 
In short, does having a pack of thieves at the top of the pyramid scare the crap out of people, and cause them to stop investing in employment?

Chart compliments of Greg Mankiw's blog, from the U.S. Department Of Labor. 

On getting work done at the lowest possible price

Wal-Mart used to have a "Made In The USA" campaign.  They tried to fill their stores with nothing but U.S. manufactured products. 

The campaign folded. 

Why? 

Because you won't support it.  If you can save .75 cents on a water hose made in Taiwan instead of Tennessee, you're going to purchase the one in Taiwan.  I've sat back and watched you do it. 

But doesn't that hurt America? 

Here's a helpful chart showing the possessions of those living in poverty.  It's from the noted right-wing, conservative periodical The Atlantic Monthly:

And how long have the poor amongst us owned these riches that would make a Roman Emperor turn green with envy? 

Here's something from The Austrian Economists.  I never tire of posting this chart, mostly because I'm old enough to remember most people doing without a lot of the following:

% Households with:	Poor 1984	Poor  1994	Poor 2003	Poor 2005	All 1971	All 2005
Washing machine	58.2	71.7	67.0	68.7	71.3	84.0
Clothes dryer	35.6	50.2	58.5	61.2	44.5	81.2
Dishwasher	13.6	19.6	33.9	36.7	18.8	64.0
Refrigerator	95.8	97.9	98.2	98.5	83.3	99.3
Freezer	29.2	28.6	25.4	25.1	32.2	36.6
Stove	95.2	97.7	97.1	97.0	87.0	98.8
Microwave	12.5	60.0	88.7	91.2	1.0	96.4
Color TV	70.3	92.5	96.8	97.4	43.3	98.9
VCR	3.4	59.7	75.4	83.6	0.0	92.2
Personal computer	2.9	7.4	36.0	42.4	0.0	67.1
Telephone	71.0	76.7	87.3	79.8	93.0	90.6
Air conditioner	42.5	49.6	77.7	78.8	31.8	85.7
Cellular Telephone			34.7	48.3	0.0	71.3
One or more cars	64.1	71.8	72.8 (2001)		79.5
source: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/extended-05.html and prior years

So tell me this....  Do you look back fondly on the pre-globalization era? 

I don't. 

My employer, Jukt Micronics, had something like 300 employees in the U.S. before we started outsourcing like mad.  We now get something like 45% of our products from China, Taiwan and Japan. 

Now that we've sent all those jobs oversease, we have 500 employees in the U.S.  Go figure.  We do the hard stuff, China does the easy stuff. 

Here's something by Erika Johnsen that I wish was tattooed on the forearms of every racist, anti-globalization idjit on the planet:

....if everybody on planet earth could just get the following through their heads so we can all move on and lead more productive lives, that would be great: When businesses find ways to do business less expensively, consumers win. Whether the business can offer their product more cheaply and consumers can then stretch their dollars further, or if the business is able to then hire more workers and grow their operation — the economy is going to grow. Which, in turn, means that everybody wins. That’s the great thing about free trade: all transactions are voluntary and mutually beneficial. When businesses outsource, they cut costs, and people in other, poorer countries with fewer opportunities are able to find jobs and income.


Everything related to this whole “Buy America” fallacy is just awful — barring even greater costs such as threats to national security, why on earth would you do something more expensively than necessary? That’s not the way to help people — buying goods from where they are most cheaply and efficiently produced is the best way to make everyone wealthier. Prosperity is not a zero-sum game, and a busy, bustling global economic village is probably just about the only true route to world peace in existence.

This sort of populist rhetoric that perpetuates these types of economic myths sorely needs to end.

Amen. 

Person Of The Year for 2011 - the nomination standards

The Person Of The Year for 2010 was Thomas J. Perez, the Justice Department's unelected menace who refused to allow state college textbooks to be made available on the Kindle because they discriminate against blind people. 

The Year Of Our Lord 2011 will require different standards.  The Teleprompter Jesus is being more careful these days and isn't regulating, banning, forbidding, subsidizing and porking quite so blatantly with another election looming.  Therefore 2011's POTY will be selected by other guidelines, guidelines that reflect the spirit of the last 365 days. 

Here goes: 

1)  All successful people avoid paying taxes, much like all sane people avoid drinking diesel fuel.  But to be honored and praised in the year 2011, one must lobby for higher taxes for the wealthy, even if one is wealthy.  Warren Buffett, for instance, lobbied for higher taxes while his Berkshire-Hathaway firm was fighting the government (for two years) over a billion-dollar tax bill.  The successful applicant for POTY2011 must rise to this level of hypocrisy.  

2)  I believe that it is none of the government's business if I send jobs to North Dakota, Canada, Mexico, China, the moon, or the ice planet Nekthar.  It saves money for my customers, and THAT is what helps an economy grow.  This is a minority opinion, though.  Some Republican presidential candidates are being pilloried by other Republicans for committing similar Acts Of Capitalism. 
Obama has thoroughly condemned anyone who sends a "job" overseas. 

To run a large business efficiently, one must seek out the lowest labor rates. 
But to gain favor with The Obamessiah, one must blather on and on about saving American jobs. 
The successful applicant for POTY2011 will do both. 

3)  Green, Green, Green !!   This is one area where our government Lords'n'Masters still insist on more and more regulation and control.  My trucking company is about to jump over some truly idiotic hurdles because of these bundles of red tape.  (And oh yes, oh yes, I'll be posting about them.) 
They're pointless. 
The planet isn't warming. 
But these regulations are nice symbolic gestures that keeps little government toads, gremlins and hobbits employed and feeling righteous.  The POTY2011 must subsidize, manufacture, market, lobby for, or mandate a product or activity that is nothing more than an expression of Cultural Sanctimony. 
He must also profity handsomely from this activity. 

4)  There has been an unhealthy overlap betwen Obama's Big Government and Big Business for the last year.  Well-informed political junkies call it Fascism.  Others call it Crony Capitalism, or a rebirth of old-school British Mercantilism. 
I generally describe it as Fascism because, of course, that's what it is. 

Therefore, the Person Of The Year for 2011 must work for the government and for a major corporation. 
At the same time.   

Those are the standards by which the Person Of The Year for 2011 will be chosen.  I eagerly await the Committee's decision. 

Fascism pic came from here. 

A terrifying glimpse into the mind of Barack Obama

Every now and then, someone pulls back the curtain and we get to see how Barack Obama's mind works. 
It is terrifying. 
Here is the Washington Examiner, quoting words that Obama said with his very own mouth:

As Obama called for passage of those bills, he also responded to a recent Republican push to require him to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. "However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," he said, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."

I'm afraid I'll have to spend the rest of my life listening to elected idiots blather about creating jobs, creating jobs, creating jobs. 

If The Obamessiah wanted to create jobs, he could outlaw use of the Interstate Highway System.  He could mandate that all freight be hauled in oxcarts.  He could sign an executive order stating that all fast food be cooked over campfires fueled by buffalo chips.    

All of these proposals would create more jobs than the Keystone pipeline.  But that is not the point of the Keystone pipeline.  The point of the Keystone pipeline is to save money on fuel.  The money saved could then be spent on other things, things that Barack Obama can't predict.  These things would (incidentally) create lots of jobs. 

The best way to improve an economy is to get people like Barack Obama out of the way so he can't take money out of the productive part of the economy.  Then unleash the entrepreneurs.  Millions of jobs will be destroyed, but far more will be created. 

Hell, how many jobs did the internet create in its first decade?  Hardly any.  How many typewriter factory employees became unemployed later on, all because of the internet?  Tens of thousands.  How many more jobs did the internet "create" later on?  Millions.  How many politicians (with plans, plans, and more plans) saw this coming? 

None of them.  Not a single one. 

I'm calling in sick today, as I intend to spend the rest of my time praying for the salvation of our nation. 

Good luck, everybody. 

Which variety of wasteful spending creates the most jobs?

Our government employees are now arguing over which type of wasteful spending creates the most jobs - Military waste, or Domestic waste. 

From ThinkProgress:

Facing deep spending cuts, the Department of Defense, including Secretary Leon Panetta, and military-industrial trade associations have complained that tightening the U.S. security budget will cause greater unemployment. And even while toeing the (dubious) conservative line that government spending cannot create jobs, right wingers like Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) insist that military spending must stay high to keep unemployment from increasing.


But a new study (PDF) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) highlighted by economist Dean Baker shows that, contra the conservative talking point, non-military spending can create more jobs than money going to defense programs. (Blah blah blah blah blah....Hit the link at the top to read the whole thing.)  Among them, military spending was the lowest, creating fewer jobs per billion dollars spent than even consumer-oriented tax cuts.


Here’s a chart from the study showing how many jobs each area produced from a billion dollars in spending:

Great God Almighty, where to begin, where to begin....

Let's start with the motivations of entrepreneurs in the real world.  Think of the people you know who have started their own businesses.  I've never heard someone describe the experience by saying "Well, you know, I had this overwhelming urge to work 80 hour weeks, with no guarantee of a reward, so that I could hire a lot of people."
But letting entrepreneurs start and grow their businesses are the only way to grow the economy, and that's the only way out of the current swamp where we find ourselves.  Uncle Sam's remedies are politcally-oriented, not economically-oriented.  The Obamamedia have done such an outstanding job of parroting Barry's "jobs created or saved" bullshit, no Congressman will ever again stand in front of a microphone and boast of lowering taxes on businesses so they can grow and make a lot of money (and incidentally, maybe hire people). 

On to the next point....  Do domestic spending boondoggles create more jobs than military boondoggles?  That's an interesting question, one that I hope will be fully answered in the next life. 
In the meantime, debating such gibberish is contributing to the problem. 
It doesn't matter if we're going to the Middle East to blow up brown children, or preserving the Department of Education to destroy our own children.  If we're doing either of these to create jobs in the U.S., we're screwing up.  It would destroy fewer resources and minds if we paid the soldiers and education bureaucrats to stay home.  Long-term welfare, according to a lot of experts, is harmful.  But it's not as harmful as maintaining bad programs to "create jobs", right? 

Third, nowhere in this idiotic article does the author acknowledge that the money from this crap comes from someplace else: taxes, loans, or Bernanke's printing press. 
Taxes are a necessary evil, even at the lowest rates.  At worst, they stifle growth. 
Taking out loans to be paid by unborn fetuses?  Let's go ahead and call that bad. 
Bernanke's printing presses should be carefully disassembled, and the component parts distributed to the bottoms of lakes and oceans all over the world. 

I hope that I never wake up in the morning and read something like this again. 

First they came for the Goat-Counters

First they came for the Goat-Counters,
But I did not speak out, for I was not a Goat-Counter....

Go here. 

Thanks to Radley Balko of The Agitator Blog for speaking out about the plight of government Goat-Counters. 
When the budget-cutters come for the government's Catfish-Counters, will YOU be the one who speaks out? 

Do you feel lucky?

About a week ago, I was minding my own business in my favorite bar. A guy came in who looked to be a few years older than me, but with a lot more mileage. He had a Neon Tan, complete with the Bourbon spiderweb/vein marks on his nose. We made some small talk, and then he started harassing one of the ladies at the bar. He eventually asked her if she was a lesbian, which didn’t go over well. She got very angry and gave him a five minute harangue that I’d pay good money to have on tape. It was a brilliant beat-down.

The guy retreated and started talking to me again, and asked if I wanted to shoot some pool. I said “Sure”, mostly because that lady was going to go Postal on him if I didn't get him away from the bar.

I walked over to the pool table and the guy said “How about we play for a pitcher of beer. Loser buys.”

I’m not a great pool player. I can hold my own, but not against a legit shark. However, I knew that I wanted to beat this clown, and I wanted it bad. So I agreed to the bet.

The guy (who I’ll call Morton from now on) watched me rack the balls, and he was getting ready to break. Morton looked over at me and said “You know I’m broke, right? I don’t have any more money on me. Just thought you should know.”

A seasoned pool player or gambler would’ve sat down at that moment, or asked someone else to play. But I wanted to beat Morton so, so, so badly. In public. In front of the lady that he had called a lesbian. I wanted his broke, deceptive, beer-hustling ass to retreat from my tavern owing me a pitcher of Shiner.

I told Morton that if I won we could work something out on his next trip to the bar.

Then we started playing. I spent more time lining up some of those shots than I did filling out my home mortgage paperwork. I made some two-cushion bank shots that I’ve never even attempted before. And I also got lucky. Morton flubbed a few easy shots. Throughout the entire game, I heard Morton’s voice in my head saying “You know I’m broke, right? I don’t have any more money on me. Just thought you should know.”

It came down to the 8-ball. I made it with nothing else left on the table. (Graduates of North Sunflower Academy or Ole Miss won’t be surprised that I heard the marching band fight-song version of “Dixie” playing in my head when I sank the 8-ball. I’ve never made a touchdown in my life, but a marching band plays “Dixie” in my head whenever I win anything, including Tic-Tac-Toe, coin flips, and pool games.) I shook hands with Morton and we both went back to the bar, where I explained to the bartender that Morton didn’t have any money for the pitcher she was about to pour at somebody’s expense.

The bartender was almost as pissed as the lady who wasn't a lesbian. 

The more I talked with Morton about meeting him at the bar some other time for my pitcher of Shiner, the more uncomfortable he became. He left before the lady who wasn't a lesbian got involved in the discussion.

“You know I’m broke, right? I don’t have any more money on me. Just thought you should know.”

I don’t care what Morton does or did with his paycheck. I'd feel sorry for the guy if he hadn’t tried to hustle me. He’s probably an alcoholic. I’ve never come close to having a drinking problem, and I can’t imagine what it would be like to have a thirst strong enough to try a stunt like Morton tried that afternoon. I didn’t think much more about the incident.

Three nights later, Thursday night, Barack Obama gave his Jobs Speech. I didn’t write much about it, mostly because I suspected it would be a re-hash of Porkulus One. And it was.

But certain phrases started reminding me of something, and I couldn’t quite put my finger on it until today….. And then it hit me.

Barack Obama and the George Bushes and Reagan have spent us into a hole that we’ll probably never get out of. (Clinton was fairly restrained by comparison.)

Obama has already added 4 trillion dollars to the national debt. Obama threw $800 billion in Porkulus at the unions and government employees. He destroyed about 600,000 automobiles to “stimulate” Detroit. Businesses and Doctors are acting like ObamaCare will make Death look like a reasonable alternative. Obama fired up another war in Libya. And now our economy is behaving like we owe $15 trillion dollars to somebody, which we do. Very few people want to take the risk of bringing on more employees. The piper must be paid.

They have blown it all.  Every cent of it. 

So here are some excerpts from the Obama Jobs Speech, the way that I now hear them.

*********

Pass this jobs bill, and we can put people to work rebuilding America. Everyone here knows we have badly decaying roads and bridges all over the country. Our highways are clogged with traffic. Our skies are the most congested in the world. It’s an outrage. “And you know I’m broke, right? I don’t have any more money on me. Just thought you should know.”

*********

There are private construction companies all across America just waiting to get to work. There’s a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that’s on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America. A public transit project in Houston that will help clear up one of the worst areas of traffic in the country. And there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating. How can we expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart? This is America, and by the way “you know I’m broke, right? I don’t have any more money on me. Just thought you should know.”

*********

Ask yourselves -- where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways, not to build our bridges, our dams, our airports? What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, had the opportunity to go to school because of the G.I. Bill. Where would we be if they hadn’t had that chance? “And you know I’m broke, right? I don’t have any more money on me. Just thought you should know.”

Barack Obama is like an old drunk trying to hustle one more round of drinks for his union and government cronies. He's got a strong need.  He's getting the shakes.  But he's blown it all. 

You know he’s broke, right. He doesn’t have any more money on him.


Just thought you should know.

So do you feel lucky?

A reaction to the Jobs Speech

I didn't get to listen to Obama read his Jobs Speech.  I've read most of the transcript. 

Libertarians generally believe that the purpose of the Democrat and Republican parties is to ladle massive amounts of pork to their supporters. 

They've done it for so long that our debt level is killing the economy.  Entrepreneurs are worried about starting anything new, not in this climate of debt and inevitably higher taxes.  Nobody from anywhere else on the planet is very interested in starting a business here. 

The purpose of the Democrat and Republican parties is to ladle massive amounts of pork to their supporters.  They'll always find a good reason to do so. 

Judged by that standard, Barack Obama, because of Porkulus, Cash For Clunkers, multiple wars, spending levels that make Imelda Marcos look like a medieval hermit, and this latest appeal for more slop to be dumped into the communal troughs, I'm preparted to say that....

BARACK OBAMA IS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER. 

We will never see another one like him, and we should enjoy this while it lasts.  We are like beginning musicians getting to watch Beethoven compose symphonies, or amateur artists watching Van Gogh paint.  Because you are lucky enough to be alive at this moment, you can tell your grandchildren that you got to watch Barack Obama hand out money. 

A reminder for all Human Resource and Personnel Managers

Are you prepared to hire millions of people tomorrow?  Barack Obama's Jobs Speech will be read live from the teleprompter tonight, and millions of new workers are going to be required at your companies to meet the pent-up customer demand for your goods and services following this essay by a community organizer. 

Or it could be that consumers are going to be scared shitless again by the prospect of having to come up with, say, another 300 billion dollars to finance these boondoggles.  In that case, never mind. 

 The "Are You Ready" poster came from here. 

LateBlogging the Republican Debate. September 7, 2011 - total failure at pretending to be interested

If it weren't for Ron Paul, I wouldn't be doing this. 
I usually liveblog interesting debates.  This one won't be interesting.  I didn't even get home in time to liveblog the thing.  Thank you, Tivo. 

Ok, here we go. 

Mitt Romney and Rick Perry just finished a little argument over who created the most jobs as governor.  Perry claims that Michael Freakin' Dukakis created more jobs as Massachusetts governor than Romney did.  Romney claims that George W. Bush created more jobs as Texas governor than Perry did. 

Who gives a rip?  You know who isn't here at this debate?  Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson.  He's wasn't invited to this thing because he's a libertarian-ish sort.  Johnson claims (truthfully) that he didn't create a single job as New Mexico governor.  He just got the government out of the way and let the private sector take care of it.  Can you imagine anyone at MSNBC letting that cat out of the bag to run around on this stage, making a mockery of the proceedings? 

The MSNBC moderators (and the rest of the lamestream media) ought to show how many government employees were on the payroll before and after the Romney and Perry administrations.  That's what matters. 

Michele Bachmann just ripped ObamaCare a new one. 

Brian Williams just asked Ron Paul how the world would survive without government regulations.  Ron Paul just gave a somewhat rambling answer, but got to the point.... we don't need the government to do it.  "But who would keep the airplanes from dropping out of the sky?"  Paul shoulda said "follow the Canadian model and privatize it.  Canadian Air Traffic Controllers don't fall asleep on the job."  But he just said, essentially, let the Free Market handle it. 

Why is there an airplane hanging over the audience? 

MSNBC, like most left-wing organizations, is having a hard time making things work properly.  They can't coordinate their video clips with the debate moderators' questions. 

The debate moderators are trying to hang the Massachusetts RomneyCare model on Mitt Romney (where it belongs).  Romney is dodging the question, and talking about what he would do in the future. 

These people are talking about jobs as if they're the goal of a business.  Jobs are not the goal.  They are a by-product.  Lordy. 

Michele Bachmann is claiming that she's the only person with the legislative experience to repeal ObamaCare. 

Gingrich is trying to get some party unity going, claiming that all of his brothers in pork are against ObamaCare, and he's not going to put up with MSDNC trying to get Republicans fighting with each other. 

Herman Cain, after multiple appearances on Stossel, Freedomwatch, and debates that I've seen, finally cut loose a rip on ObamaCare that I could agree with. 

God help me.  Rick Santorum just answered a trick question on welfare, using words that I could have possibly written.  I think the entire world, after the last 3 years, is now leaning Libertarian. 

Bachmann says that "energy" is one of the greatest opportunities for job creation that we have.  Bullshit.  Outlawing "energy" and digging ditches with spoons would create the most jobs.  But that's not the point.  We'll have good job creation when we allow entrepreneurs to get filthy stinkin' rich.  Jobs are merely a by-product of that process. Deal with it.  Thank you. 

They just asked Ron Paul if eliminating the minimum wage would create more jobs.  He answered that it would.  Didn't even think about it.  Why?  Because it would. 

Ron Paul just scared the shit out of me.  I thought he'd lost it.  He said he could create a gallon of gas for a dime.  Yes, for a dime.  But yes, if you have an old-school silver dime, it's now worth $3.50. 

Brilliant.  Freakin' brilliant. 

Now Perry is attacking Paul for quitting the party, and writing an anti-Reagan letter.  Paul says Reagan taxed too much and spent too much.  Yep.  Until Obama came along, more debt was rung up under presidents named Reagan and Bush than all other presidents combined.  Look it up.  Hit the Ronald Reagan label at the bottom of this post. 

Ok, the airplane hanging over the audience is Reagan's Air Force One plane.

Shortly after hitting Ron Paul with an anti-Reagan question, they're acknowledging Nancy Reagan in the audience and giving her a round of applause.  Nice. 

Rick Perry is saying good stuff about Social Security being as broke as The Ten Commandments, and that anyone who promises money to today's young workers is lying. 

Mitt Romney, bless his Mormon heart, is defending Social Security.  Let's see two workers support one retiree.  That's where we're headed. 

Rick Perry, bless his perfect hair, is calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.  Because that's what it is. 

Herman Cain, bless his thick crust, just suggested that we go to the Chilean system for retirement plans.  Go here for info. 

The moderators have now taken us off into inoculations.  I bet fluoride in the water supply will be next. 

Ron Paul just hit a home run on a TSA question.  Now Brian Williams is going after him on FEMA.  Paul asks him back "What happened before 1979 when we didn't have FEMA?"  Let the states handle it.  Doh. 

Herman Cain wants to fix FEMA and fix Homeland Security.  Good luck, Herm. 

Jon Huntsman is bleating about what he did for job creation. 

I can't watch any more of this.  With the possible exception of Ron Paul, I can't drink enough beer to imagine any of these people being willing to cut out a single cabinet-level department.  I can't imagine MSDNC asking the question. 

If something happens that's remotely interesting, I might expand on this thing.  Dull, dull, dull.  Talking points, talking points, talking points.

Good night !!

If you're disappointed in this blog post, I apologize. Here's a fun video:

Just when I think I've created the dumbest analogy ever....

For the last few years, I've used the following analogy when trying to get people to understand how regulations and government involvement can discourage businesses from hiring employees:

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?

What I try to do is convince people that if they had to provide babysitter healthcare, rest breaks, retirement plans, 401K's, tax withholding, and the like, they would simply hire fewer babysitters.  People probably wouldn't hire any babysitters. 

I use this example because in my mind, providing babysitter benefits is the most unlikely, stupidest proposal that I can think of. 

But I forgot about California. 

How will parents react when they find out they will be expected to provide workers' compensation benefits, rest and meal breaks and paid vacation time for…babysitters? Dinner and a movie night may soon become much more complicated.


Assembly Bill 889 (authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, will require these protections for all “domestic employees,” including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers.


The bill has already passed the Assembly and is quickly moving through the Senate with blanket support from the Democrat members that control both houses of the Legislature – and without the support of a single Republican member. Assuming the bill will easily clear its last couple of legislative hurdles, AB 889 will soon be on its way to the Governor's desk.


Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck.


Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys' fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers – from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers. (On the bright side, language requiring an hour of paid vacation time for every 30 hours worked was amended out of the bill in the Senate.)

Unfortunately, the unreasonable costs and risks contained in this bill will discourage folks from hiring housekeepers, nannies and babysitters and increase the use of institutionalized care rather than allowing children, the sick or elderly to be cared for in their homes. I can't help but wonder if that is the goal of AB 889 – a terrible bill that needs to be stopped.

No matter how far I try to stretch reality, no matter what dumbassed imaginary example I create, they always find a way to outdo me.  Unbelievable. 

Go here to read the entire bill. 

On having to ring up your own groceries but pay "full price"

I saw the following quote on Instapundit:

SEEN ON FACEBOOK: “I work all day, go to Kroger late night, stock up on groceries and then get to the checkout and have to scan and bag everything by myself and still pay full price while Kroger can eliminate a job. Hmmmmm. That’s the equivalent to you coming into my restaurant, cooking your own food and I still get to charge full price. Am I being unreasonable???”

I honestly don't know where to begin.  For lack of a better place, let's start with the history of grocery stores. 

If you ever find yourself in Memphis Tennessee with a couple of hours to kill, check out The Pink Palace museum.  They've got a beautifully reconstructed model of a Piggly Wiggly grocery store inside. 

Why? 

Piggly Wiggly (founded in Memphis) was the first self-serve grocery store in the U.S.  Instead of handing the clerk behind the counter your list of groceries, if you were a Piggly Wiggly shopper, you took a cart or a basket and got your groceries all by yourself. 

This move didn't save or create any jobs in the grocery industry.  In fact, it eliminated them.  But it saved a lot of money for consumers.  This allowed them to eventually purchase more of other things instead of food: iPods, flatscreen TV's, or laptop computers, creating jobs in the iPod, TV and laptop industries. 

Skip forward about a half century.  Someone came up with a pattern of lines called a "barcode" that could be read by another device called a "scanner". 

This move didn't create any jobs in the grocery industry.  It made checking out much, much faster, and eliminated a lot of inventory and supply chain jobs in the grocery distribution system.  But it saved a lot of money for consumers. This allowed them to eventually purchase more of other things instead of food: iPods, flatscreen TV's, or laptop computers, creating jobs in the iPod, TV and laptop industries.

By the time the scanners came along, the U.S. military had already been using a warehouse concept called "cross-docking" for quite some time.  This is a warehouse design where incoming shipments are received on one side, outgoing shipments are shipped on the other, with minimal storage space in between.  Minimal inventory is kept on hand in the warehouse at any given time. 

Sam Walton, of Wal-Mart fame, was the first to apply this concept to the grocery and retail industry. 

This move didn't create any jobs in the grocery industry. It made distribution much, much faster, and eliminated a lot of inventory and supply chain jobs in the grocery distribution system. But it saved a lot of money for consumers. This allowed them to eventually purchase more of other things instead of food: iPods, flatscreen TV's, or laptop computers, creating jobs in the iPod, TV and laptop industries.

Finally, someone invented the self-serve grocery checkout stand.  If you have a minimal amount of stuff to ring up, you can choose to do it yourself. 

As the Facebook commenter wrote, the customer is doing some of the work himself.  Kind of like the Piggly Wiggly customer started doing in the 1920's. 

This move toward self-checkout doesn't create any jobs in the grocery industry. It makes getting out of the store much, much faster, and it saves a lot of money for consumers. This allows them to eventually purchase more of other things instead of food: iPods, flatscreen TV's, or laptop computers, creating jobs in the iPod, TV and laptop industries.

I hope this has helped. 

We have not become a prosperous nation by "saving or creating jobs".  We have become a prosperous nation by constantly churning the process, always trying to come up with a better way to get things done. 

No one can predict what the next way will be.  No one knows which kid is working in the Produce Department of an Albertson's Grocery Store who has already come up with a better way to distribute and merchandise fruit and vegetables, and who just can't wait to open his own store and try out his idea.  No one knows which computer geek in his Mom's basement has already come up with a system to make distribution and logistics more efficient. 

These people are going to bring us improvements and levels of progress that we can't even imagine, here in the primitive year 2011. 

The only thing we do know is that there will always be someone complaining about the cost of progress and doing everything in his power to keep it from happening. 

You can program The Teleprompter Jesus, but you can't program its audience

Last week, some of the spokesmodels for The Teleprompter Jesus got booed and jeered at the lefty-ish Netroots convention. 
Now people are starting to laugh at the content of the programs that are projected through The Teleprompter's neural interface, also known as Barack Obama. 

According to Politico, The Teleprompter and its Obama hardware were sent to a fundraiser and programmed to broadcast the following statement:

"Over the last 15 months we’ve created over 2.1 million private sector jobs."

Granted, this is an idiotic statement.  For instance, I now employ about 20 good temp employees.  But because of their dismal public school educations, I've had to go through about 60 temp employees to find these 20 decent workers.  40 of them either couldn't read, couldn't write, or couldn't remember the "righty-tighty, lefty-loosey" rule for using an end wrench.  I had to release those 40 people back to the marketplace. 

The Teleprompter Programmers are counting situations like those 40 short-term jobs, some of which ended at 10:00 a.m. on the day they began, as a "job created".  (That's what they did with census workers who were re-hired for the same job multiple times.)  This is total bullshit.  The "jobs created" statistic doesn't matter.  The unemployment rate is all that matters. 

Sorry for the digression.  Back to my point....

Programmers, for the most part, are very literal people.  If you ask them to write lines of code that will cause one of the animatronic Barack Obamas to recite sentences like "Over the last 15 months we’ve created over 2.1 million private sector jobs", that's what you'll get. 

And dammit, if you ask them to record the reaction to the speech in an official White House transcript, that's what you'll get.  This is from the official transcript of Monday's fundraiser, which went out to the press around 11:30 Monday night:

"Over the last 15 months we’ve created over 2.1 million private sector jobs. (Laughter.)"

Whoops. 

According to Politico 44, this brought on a frenzy of wagering amongst the White House Press Corps, many of them betting on how long it would take the programmers to correct the reality-based transcript of the event. 
Whoever wagered closest to 4:04 p.m. Tuesday won the bets; that's when the program was altered to state "applause" instead of "laughter". 

I came of age hearing the following mantra from computer programmers:  "Computers cannot make a mistake.  People make mistakes". 

In this case, who made the mistake?  The programmers, by allowing The Teleprompter Jesus to display and broadcast an idiotic statement?  Or the audience, with their inappropriate laughter? 

Dammit, why aren't people following the program?  When can they be replaced with voters whose software doesn't have a "laughter" glitch? 

I had some really cool pictures selected to accompany this post, but the Blogspot software I use has a programming problem this morning.  Either that, or the White House programmers are already intervening and working on the "inappropriate laughter" bug that has infected the citizenry. 

In which Jesse Jackson Jr. proposes a constitutional right to an Ipod and a laptop

Here's noted manufactuer and constitutional law expert Jesse Jackson Jr., proposing a constitutional amendment to give every ghetto kid a "right" to an Ipod and a laptop.  Imagine if someone had proposed similar sentiments 30 years ago.

"Every ghetto kid should have a constitutional right to... an 8-track tape player !  And then a Sony Walkman !  And then a Betamax ! And every child in these United States should have a constitutional right to a TRS-80 !!! No, wait, a Commodore 360 !!

And if you take the time to watch the video, he really does frame all of this lunacy in terms of creating jobs.

We are slowly, slowly losing our minds.
 

How to get people off the fence in the War On Drugs

You might remember this video of the Columbia Missouri SWAT raid, the one where they bust in, terrorize the family and shoot the dogs for a trifling amount of weed? 

....and maybe wishing they would have the balls to try that idiotic stunt in some more upscale neighborhoods? Maybe try breaking into some well-connected politician's residence in the name of The War On Personal Freedom? 

Well, it finally happened.  Here's the Cato Institute:

The SFPD and DEA found no piles of marijuana money at 243 Diamond St., one of six addresses raided simultaneously in San Francisco that morning. Instead, they found Clark Freshman, who rents the penthouse at the two-unit building. Freshman, a UC Hastings law professor and the main consultant to the television show Lie to Me, was put into handcuffs while in his bathrobe as agents searched, despite Freshman's insistence that they had the wrong place and were breaking the law…

Soon they may be called defendants in a lawsuit. A furious Freshman has pledged to sue the DEA and the SFPD for unlawful search and seizure of his home…

[Officer] Biggs describes 243 Diamond as a "two-story, one-unit" building in the warrant. There's no mention of Freshman or Larizadeh's son-in-law or seven-months pregnant daughter who were detained in the downstairs unit that morning. But property records — and a quick visual scan of the property — reveal it to be a three-story, two-unit building. That mistake alone may be enough to invalidate the search warrant.

Here's the San Francisco Examiner on what will probably happen next:

But Peter Keane, dean emeritus of Golden Gate University's School of Law, says there appears to be a problem. "There's been cases like this in the past where police have a warrant to search [a single residence], then they get there and it's a multi-unit building and they search the whole building. In those cases, people have sued and collected substantial settlements. I think whomever is representing the government better get out his checkbook."

I disagree.  The people of San Francisco shouldn't have to pay for this lawsuit.  Most of them would probably say that they don't approve of our version of Sharia Law.  The thugs who broke the door in and tied up the family should have to pay.  Here's a parting shot from someone who is no longer a neutral party in The War On Personal Freedom:

"I've been on the fence for years about the legalization of drugs ... and now I'm a victim of this crazy war on drugs," says Freshman, who pledged to sue until "I see [the agents'] houses sold at auction and their kids' college tuitions taken away from them. There will not be a better litigated case this century."

They really, really, need to stop doing this.  No matter how much we want to save and create jobs for narcs and SWAT teams.  No matter how much we want to support the private prison lobby, the counseling industry, the parole officer cartel, the urinalysis industry, the Department Of Homeland Security, the people trying to stamp out Afghan Opium production, and the people we're paying to ride around and monitor probationers' ankle bracelets.  They can eventually find other jobs where people WANT their services. 

And isn't it about time that we end the monopoly that the Mexican Drug Lords are enjoying?  Haven't we screwed up that poor country enough? 

So, good luck, Clark Freshman !  Sue 'em until that have a bright, radioactive glow. 

FBI creates a fake Al-Qaeda plot, creates a fake bomb, and creates a real terrorist to thwart

Well done, gentlemen. Well done.

We stopped the baby from drinking the poison that we gave your baby. Give us more money, please.

Congratulations to the FBI, which has thwarted a bomb plot in Portland, Oregon. 
Because of the FBI's efforts, Mohamed Osman Mohamud was prevented from igniting a bomb at a Christmas Tree-lighting celebration. 
Mr. Mohamud, thinking he was going to ignite the bomb, drove to the corner of the square at Southwest Yamhill Street and Sixth Avenue in downtown Portland and attempted to set off the explosives packed inside his van.
The public was never in danger, however, since the "bomb" had been provided to Mr. Mohamud by the FBI, and wouldn't have ignited in the middle of a forest fire. 
We do not yet know if the FBI provided Mr. Mohamud with the van. 
The FBI did help him test a similar bomb someplace out in the boondocks. 
This is called entrapment.

In providing this doofus with a fake bomb, working with him on his plans to kill people, and essentially enabling and encouraging his criminal activities, the FBI has created and saved jobs for numerous FBI agents. 
They have given the citizens of Portland Oregon some Performance Art that will encourage them to give away more and more of their rights, privacy, and property in the name of public safety. 
In the words of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, "The system worked".

The "Idiot Bait" logo came from here. 

In Praise Of Temp Services

A friend and I have been having Spontaneous Entrepreneurial Seizures (that means we want to start a small sideline business). 

We've been brainstorming the thing for a while, looking at possibilities. 

This afternoon, I was going through an online checklist of things to consider before taking a large step like this one.  One of the items was employees.  Where are you going to find them?  What are you looking for?  How much will you have to pay to attract the talent you need? 

Without even thinking about it, I made a note to myself to call a couple of Temp Services on Monday. 

Temp Services?  What the heck? 

1) Temp employees cost anywhere from 50% to 100% per hour more than the same employee is willing to work for as a permanent employee. 
2) The temp will leave you at the drop of a hat if he finds something better (and he often has the temp service in his corner working to achieve that objective.)
3) My "keep to hire" rate with temps is somewhere below 2%, and I bet I've worked with more than 100 this year alone.  I spend a lot of time re-training. 
4) My "keep for the lifetime of the project" rate with temps is somewhere below 25%.  Many of those guys are not invited back to work the next day.  Some don't even last until the first 15 minute break. 

So why in the world would anyone hire a temp, instead of hiring the worker outright? 

1) The employer doesn't have to mess with tax witholding (income tax withholding has been a temporary wartime measure since 1943).  I don't want to be in charge of paying anyone's taxes for them.  It is totally insane. 

 
2) If I hire an employee who doesn't work out, he or she can sue me for a large number of real or imaginary offenses should I end the work relationship.  It is totally insane. 

3) There's something in the works called ObamaCare ® .  You may have read something about it.  It is totally insane. 

 

4) The business we're considering is not particularly dangerous.  But have you looked at Worker's Comp insurance rates lately?  I'd rather insure an offshore oil rig than 10 typists.  It's totally insane.  Temp Services take care of insurance for you.  Yeah, it's included in the rate you pay, but the Temp Service deals with the government, not you.     

5) Then there's the gloriously mis-named Employee Free Choice Act, which would do away with secret ballots in unionization votes.  It's totally insane.   

6) In all of our conversations about starting this little sideline, we haven't had a single conversation about "Saving And Creating Jobs".  Not a single one.  We've only talked about creating something that people will value more highly than the amount it will cost us to produce it.  Can you imagine us pitching our idea to a legit bank or investor and starting the conversation with "We've come up with a way to create 50 jobs ! ! !"

No, if we want to be taken seriously, we'll have to walk in the door with a scheme that involves fewer people, not more.  The current bunch of Thieves & Looters in D.C. seem to reward people for taking the opposite approach, don't they? 
So until that mindset changes, I don't see us hiring anything but short-term temps.  The current political mess it totally insane.   

7) All businesses are forced to pay into an Unemployment Compensation Fund.  The amount you are charged depends on the number of people you release back into the marketplace without just cause.  I don't want to go through a demeaning song and dance of finding reasons to fire someone who hasn't done anything wrong, when I could pay a bit extra and have the problem taken out of my hands.  The mess my employer goes through in Human Resources is....totally insane.   

That's the way I see it right now, on 10-10-2010.  I could change my mind tomorrow.  Temp Services rule ! !

OK, Next question:  Why aren't more businesses hiring?

Fresh coats of Whitening to here and here and here and here for the pics. 

Driving You To Drink

Check this out, from a link provided by Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine:

These are the top contributors to the main group opposing marijuana legalization in California. 

The #1 contributor is SA Recycling.  Guess what they recyle? 
Metal cans. 

The #2 contributor? 
The California Beer & Beverage Distributors.

#3 is someone named Diane Lake.  If the Diane Lake is the person whose contributions are shown here, she has given a ton of money to various Republicans and Barack Obama.  Not that there's any difference between the two on this issue. 

Ms. Lake is followed by the Deputy Sheriffs and the Narcotics Agents, two groups who are concerned about job security (their own, not the people whose lives they destroy because of a victimless crime).

Late and $5000+ Contributions Received
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR CITY STATE/ZIP
GEORGE ADAMS ANAHEIM CA / 92869
ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION
SA RECYCLING RECYCLING
AMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE TRANS #
$10,000.00 INITIAL 9/9/2010 9/9/2010 1517618-INC85

NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR CITY STATE/ZIP
CALIF BEER & BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS STATE ISSUES SACRAMENTO CA / 95814
ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION
1326337
AMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE TRANS #
$10,000.00 INITIAL 9/7/2010 9/7/2010 1517176-INC54

NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR CITY STATE/ZIP
DIANE LAKE BAKERSFIELD CA / 93309
ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION
N/A NONE
AMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE TRANS #
$5,000.00 INITIAL 9/7/2010 9/7/2010 1517176-INC53

NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR CITY STATE/ZIP
PLACER COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION PAC LOOMIS CA / 95650
ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION
890856
AMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE TRANS #
$1,000.00 INITIAL 9/1/2010 9/2/2010 1516741-INC52

NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR CITY STATE/ZIP
CALIF. NARCOTIC OFFICERS' ASSOC. SANTA CLARITA CA / 91355
ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION
AMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE TRANS #
$20,500.00 INITIAL 7/13/2010 7/13/2010 1500207-INC17

Here's Steve Fox, co-author of Marijuana Is Safer, on the surprising number of Bud Distributors (the drink, not the weed) opposing marijuana legalization:

Unless the beer distributors in California have suddenly developed a philosophical opposition to the use of intoxicating substances, the motivation behind this contribution is clear. Plain and simple, the alcohol industry is trying to kill the competition. They know that marijuana is less addictive, less toxic and less likely to be associated with violent behavior than alcohol. So they don't want adults to have the option of using marijuana legally instead of alcohol. Their mission is to drive people to drink.

Pic came from here