The Greatness of Cafe Hayek

George Mason University economics professor Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek has been in rare form lately. 

First he talks about a semi-debate he had with "An Unfair Trader".  I think Boudreaux had a (very) brief appearance on the Lou Dobbs Protectionist Parade Program, but was cut off before he could make this argument: 

Dobbs argued that trade is free only if both parties deal with each other on equal terms — so that, for example, America’s trade with China can never be free unless and until Beijing removes all trade restrictions and stops all subsidies (or, at least, restricts and subsidizes Chinese trade no more than Uncle Sam restricts and subsidizes American trade).

I (and June and Tom) argued that, as good as it would be for Americans and, especially, the Chinese for Beijing to remove such restrictions and to halt all such subsidies, free trade for Americans would be achieved if Uncle Sam abolished all of his trade restrictions and subsidies, regardless of what any other government does.
Dobbs thought that this argument was simply hilarious.
I wanted to ask him (but did not get the opportunity) the following question:

Don Boudreaux: “Mr. Dobbs. Will you buy my shoes – the ones now on my feet. I’ll sell them to you for $100 – a more-than-fair price.”

I imagine that the ensuing conversation would have gone something like this:

Lou Dobbs: “What? What are you talking about? Of course I won’t buy your shoes.”

DB: “Why not? I bought (and read) your book, Exporting America.”

LD: “So….??”

DB: “So you said that trade isn’t free unless both parties are equally willing to buy from the other – and that if party A isn’t willing to buy from party B, then party B harms himself by continuing nevertheless to buy from A.”

LD: “So…..??”

DB: “Stick with me, amigo. I bought something from you. You’ve bought nothing from me – even though I’m here making a sincere offer to sell my shoes to you. You refuse to buy them. Trade, therefore, isn’t free. So clearly I should not have purchased your book; clearly I made myself worse off; clearly you are behaving unfairly.”

LD: ?????

Here's an excerpt from another post where Boudreax tries to make a $5,000.00 bet with White House Budget Manipulater Peter Orszag and then with White House Sickness Socialst Nancy-Ann DeParle about the true cost of the Healthcare Abortion.  It's called Spend Your Own Money For A Change:

So I [Don Boudreaux] challenge you [Mr. Orszag and/or Ms. DeParle] to put your money where your words are. Let’s make a real bet.

Pick any year in the future between 2021 and 2046. Tell me your estimate today of how much Uncle Sam will spend on health care that year. I’ll bet each of you $5,000 that Uncle Sam’s actual expenditures on health care in that year — adjusted for inflation — will be at least 25 percent higher than your estimate.
If Uncle Sam’s health care expenditures in that year are less than 25 percent higher than you project them to be, I’ll congratulate you as I mail you your checks. If those expenditures are 25 percent higher than you project them to be — or more — I’ll contribute my winnings to a private health-care charity, as I predict that the need for philanthropic contributions along those lines will be great.
Do we have a bet?

Based on past performance, I'd say that the Boudreaux money is safe, since government bean-counters couldn't properly estimate the cost of Happy Meals while waiting in the McDonald's drive-through.  See: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Iraq, Afghanistan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, toilet seats, screwdrivers, etc. 

Next he links to this great quote from Megan McArdle:

And I’ve watched congressional hearings. There’s no chance that four CEO’s are going to explain the accounting code to the fine folks in Congress; explaining how to boil water would challenge the format.
 

And last, Dr. B. gives us a video on Frederic Bastiat's "Broken Windows"  In addition to being a short little intro to Broken Windows and Things Seen And Unseen, it also proves that Paul Krugman is a silly person.   



That's all for today. Skip me altogether, and READ CAFE HAYEK EVERY DAY ! ! ! 

On Chinese farmers, Plymouth pilgrims, and property rights.

“Any man worth his salt would fight for his home but only a damn fool would fight for his boarding house.”
                                                                    -Mark Twain

Here's a story that I first heard in China several years ago.  The best online account I've found is on the World Socialist Website (chuckle chuckle).  It's about some Chinese farmers who got tired of starving. 

On one night in Nov. 1978, 18 villagers of Xiaogang, including (leader) Yan Jinchang, risked their lives to sign secretly an agreement, which divided the then People's Commune-owned farmland into pieces for each family to cultivate.
This was a bold move, as it was seen as "capitalist" and might have led to severe punishment from the government at that time.
Thus, on that secret agreement covered with villagers' seals and red fingerprints, there was a wobbly line saying that "If any word about this is divulged and the team leader is put in prison, other team members shall share the responsibility to bring up his child till he (or she) is 18. "

The original copy of this agreement is now in a museum someplace in China.  It had a huge influence.  Instead of farming the land together, and putting up with slackers, loafers, regulatory parasites and the other inevitable Socialist baggage, this brave group of Chinese farmers decided that each family would be responsible for a certain section of the land. 
That clause about agreeing to care for each others' children was a simple insurance policy.  To the best of my knowledge, none of the farmers agreed to care for the families of those who didn't share their risks.  In other words, you couldn't waltz into the agreement AFTER losing your head of household.  There's not even a hint of Obamacare in this document. 

The facts proved that it's worthwhile to take the adventure. Allocating farmland to each household, also known as "household contract responsibility system", fired the locals' enthusiasm for agriculture production, which had been contained in the outmoded planned economy, and helped poverty-stricken locals out of starvation.

That's just what happened when they agreed to stop the collectivist nonsense.  Think of what could happen if they'd been allowed to own the land, instead of having it allocated to them by their "leaders".   

The grains that a local farmer turned over to the state in the following year almost totaled what he did in past two decades, recalled Yan Hongchang, one of the 18 Xiaogang villagers who initiated the contract system.
Their practice was later supported by Deng Xiaoping, chief architect of China's reform and opening-up drive, and recognized by the Chinese government. Xiaogang has since been labeled as the pace-setter of the nation's rural reform.

Here's a similar story, from the Volokh Conspiracy.  This one hits closer to home. 

Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.


Time to quote Thomas Sowell for the 10,000th time.  Laws and policies should never be evaluated by their stated goals and objectives, but by the incentives they create. 

In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials.

Like we're about to do with healthcare. 

People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.

In other words, when the hardest-working, most creative Pilgrims realized that they were working themselves to death for people who didn't want to work as hard?  They started Going Galt.   

Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.

This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.

Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.

And what have we learned from this? 
Nothing.  Absolutely nothing. 

The Socialism Kills sign came from here. 
The Pilgrims, from here.

Congressman Hank Johson questions Admiral about Guam tipping over and capsizing

I found this on Denny's site.
Can you imagine how the admiral felt having to take questions from this dolt?
This is Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia questioning Admiral Robert Willard, who runs our Pacific fleet.
No, this conversation didn't take place on April Fool's Day.
This is not a joke.  I repeat, this is not a joke. 
Congressman Johnson spends a mere 45 seconds proving that he can read a map. Then he gets to the good part.
Remember the floating islands of the movie Avatar?
Guam is apparently one of those, and is in danger of capsizing.
(If you don't have 2:48 to devote to this, go to the 1:15 mark.  But watch the whole thing, please.  Especially if you vote.)
Remember, this man is now in charge of your healthcare decisions. You're paying him $174,000.00 per year, plus expenses.



For the rest of the day, don't huddle together in large groups. You might cause us to tip over and capsize.

My favorite April Fool's Joke

I'm probably going to re-post this every April Fool's Day until I die.  When I linked it on Facebook for the first time, my college roommate, Scott Moore, declared the entire prank to have been "brilliantly conceived and flawlessly executed". 
I couldn't agree more.  I've changed a name or two, in light of about 500 people having different memories of how they heard it first. 

Somewhere around 1982, my mother played an April Fool's Day prank on me. We don't remember what it was, except that it was effective and complicated. I immediately vowed to have my revenge.
April Fool's Day in 1983, I was in my Delta State University dorm room with my roommate, Scott A. Moore. (Scott A. now busies himself playing trumpet in the Memphis Symphony. Hit the link.)

Scott and I waited until about 11:45 p.m., and then called my parents' house. My mother answered. 

"Hello?"
"Is this Elizabeth Patterson ?" Scott asked.
"Yes it is." (still coming out of a deep sleep)
"Are you the parent or guardian of Allen Patterson?"
"YES I AM !" (wide awake now)
"Mrs. Patterson, my name is John Jakes, and I'm with the Cleveland, Mississippi police department. Are you in a place where you can talk?"
"YES I AM !" (totally wide awake.)
"Mrs. Patterson, we have arrested your son Allen for possession of a controlled substance, and we're holding him in one of the cells at the Bolivar County Sheriff's department, and we need to know if either you or your husband can come down and post bond and.....
"You mean you've arrested ALLEN ??? MY SON ALLEN?" (Needing to be scraped off the bedroom ceiling.)
"Yes, Mrs. Patterson, as I said, we've arrested Allen for possession of a controlled substance and..."

At this point, my mother says the only thing she could think of was who she could get to ride to the jail with her.... Billy Joe Waldrup or Lonnie Herring. She wanted one of them (they're both really big men) to beat the hell out of me, because she didn't think my father would do it properly. To fully appreciate the situation, you also need to know that I was employed as the part-time choir director at a Baptist church. A nice drug bust at this time would've been....awkward.

Then Scott, still in character as Officer John Jakes, said "Mrs. Patterson, would you like to speak to Allen?"
I could hear her on the phone from halfway across the room. "YES I WOULD."
"Mama?" I said.
"ALLEN? IS THAT YOU THEY'VE LOCKED UP, ALLEN?"
"Yes," I said. "I just want to tell you something."
"WHAT? WHAT? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO TELL ME?"
"April Fools," I said.

That was 25 years ago. She's never done another April Fool's joke. Not on me, anyway.

Three reasons why public sector unions are killing the economy

More brilliance from Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine.

The Republican Young Eagles go to an S&M restaurant: The Transcript

From Talking Points Memo:

According to FEC reports, the Republican National Committee spent $1,946.25 at Voyeur West Hollywood, which the Caller describes as "a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex."

From Red County:

According to sources who were in attendance that night, the "official" part of the evening started with 50+ person dinner at the Beverly Hills Hotel, then carried on throughout the evening, eventually ending up at Voyeur. While RNC employees, who were in town to recruit members to its "RNC Young Eagles" program, did participate throughout the entire evening and did find their way to the bondage-themed club,

And from Hot Air:

So it was related to business, and for all we know might even have netted the RNC some cash. The libertarian angel on my shoulder is telling me to shrug it off and remind people that not everyone in the party is a social (conservative)  — lesbian bondage fans have rights, too! — but that’s not really the issue. The real issue, I dare say, is that if you’re going to risk a media clusterfark and the antagonism of a huge chunk of your base by conducting official business in some sort of S & M theme restaurant, Use. Your. Own. Money.

I've never understood the bondage, domination, sadism, and masochism thing, since I know that if I ever want to get hamstrung, beaten down, humiliated, abused, or mistreated, I can always go to work.  If that's not enough, I can go home.  (Joking, joking, just joking.)

But, dear readers, this is your lucky day.  One of my contacts on the west coast has sent me a recording of the seedy happenings that night at The Voyeur West Hollywood bondage /discipline /lesbian /stripper restaurant.  The sound quality isn't that good, and no video exists, but here's a transcript:

Republican Young Eagle:  Hi, I'm Jason.  Want to come over to my table and meet my....

Mistress Jasmine: DO NOT EVER ADDRESS ME WITHOUT BEING ASKED TO SPEAK ! !  KNEEL BEFORE ME, MAGGOT ! !

Republican Young Eagle:  (giggling) Kneel before you?  But these are my new....

Whack !  Whack ! Whack ! 

Republican Young Eagle:  SWEET MOTHER OF JESUS, DON'T HIT ME WITH THAT THING AGAIN !  PLEASE, please, please.  Ok, I'm kneeling, I'm kneeling, I just wanted....

Mistress Jasmine: What you want doesn't matter, you filthy worm.  Tell me what you've done.  Tell me every single bad thing you've done.

Republican Young Eagle: But I haven't done anything, ma'am, I haven't....

Whack ! Whack ! Whack !

Mistress Jasmine: DO NOT EVER CALL ME ANYTHING BUT MISTRESS JASMINE, YOU SUBHUMAN PIECE OF CRAP !  You are to call me Mistress Jasmine, and you will speak when spoken to.  Now.  Tell me about the earmarks. 

Republican Young Eagle:  Earmarks?  I don't like that term.  I like to call it giving back to the taxpayers.  You see, if someone in my district pays a lot of taxes, I think he should get it back, plus 120% so....O GOD, DON'T HIT ME AGAIN....Ok, ok, ok, I had my Congressman put earmarks into the stimulus package for a 4 million dollar turtle tunnel, and a 3 million dollar rest stop named after my grandfather, and a research grant to study perpetual motion at our Community College....

Mistress Jasmine:  You supported the stimulus package?  You hypocritical little shit ! ! ! 

WHACK !  WHACK !  WHACK ! ! ! !

It's difficult to tell what's going on at this point in the recording.  The crowd is cheering like drunk Romans in the Coliseum, and some of the Republican Young Eagles with fraternity backgrounds are yelling "Paddle him !"

Mistress Jasmine:  Now. Tell me about what you did with eminent domain.

Republican Young Eagle:  It was just some crummy little apartments !   They were a blight on the landscape !  My new shopping center is generating twice that much tax revenue for the city ! 

Mistress Jasmine:  You're a dirty little thief.  Nothing more.  Lick my boots, you RINO.

Republican Young Eagle:  But I'm a Reagan Conservative, I advocate....

Mistress Jasmine:  Did you say "Reagan" Conservative?  Did you really say it?  You ignorant little worm !  RONALD REAGAN SPENT OUR MONEY FASTER THAN A VEGAS COKE WHORE !  YOU ! whack! STUPID ! whack! LITTLE ! whack! INSECT ! 

Republican Young Eagle:  (whimpering) O dear God, somebody help me....

The Republican Young Eagle says nothing else. But after a few minutes of no conversation at all, we can safely assume that Mistress Jasmine's boots are now very, very clean.

Mistress Jasmine:  If I had my way, you would be scrubbing Barney Frank's toilet with your toothbrush for the rest of your life.  Now.  Tell everyone here about the war on drugs. 

Republican Young Eagle:  The war on drugs is vital to America's well-being, and keeping illegal drugs away from America's children is.....

WHAP ! 

Mistress Jasmine:  Are you begging me to take you to the dungeon room?  Look at your eyes.  You came in here higher than a Chinese kite, didn't you?  You get high all the time, don't you, maggot? 

Republican Young Eagle:  But I use drugs responsibly.  All those other people would....

Mistress Jasmine:  ASSUME THE POSITION, SLAVE ! 

WHACK !  WHACK !  WHACK ! 

Mistress Jasmine:  Had enough, you dirty dog?  HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH?  Ok.  Tell everyone here about that secret weekend in Atlanta.  Tell them.  Tell everybody.  NOW. 

Republican Young Eagle:  O JESUS CHRIST DON'T HIT ME WITH THAT THING AGAIN.  OK, I WENT TO ATLANTA ONE TIME WITH THIS DUDE I MET AT A BAR, AND HE WAS A LOT MORE "EXPERIENCED" THAN ME, AND I WENT TO BED WITH HIM, AND good god almighty, I was just young and stupid.  (Sob)  I was just a kid.  I was still experimenting.  BUT I'LL SAY IT !  I'LL SAY IT NOW, DAMMIT !  I LIKED IT.  I LIKED IT.  AND WE STILL GET TOGETHER IN NEW ORLEANS TWICE A YEAR ! !    THERE !  ARE YOU HAPPY NOW, BITCH ????  I GO TO NEW ORLEANS TO MEET MY BOYFRIEND TWICE A YEAR ! ! 

Mistress Jasmine:  So why do you spend every free moment gay-bashing, you subhuman slime?  Tell us everything.  Go ahead, tell us everything. 

Republican Young Eagle:  Ok, ok, you win.  Every chance I get I have lobbyists push for trade barriers that protect my company from ever having any major competitors and it costs American consumers a fortune and then I had them put production quotas in place for the ones that remain because protecting the big money people is what the party is all about just like the democrats and if you only knew how cynical the politicians are about saying one thing and doing another because they're basically no better than crack whores and I even support Carbon Cap And Trade because one of our factories makes Green Energy bullshit and I secretly gave money to Pelosi a few times because I have stock in an insurance company that's about to get 30 million new customers because of her healthcare scam and then another time I.....

This babble continues for about ten more minutes.  According to my west coast contact, Mistress Jasmine eventually outfitted the Republican Young Eagle with something like this:

The other Republican Young Eagles left it in place, for their own protection. 

I usually link back to sites where I find pictures for my posts.  Not this time.  I've seen my fair share of weird, sick stuff on the internet, but you BDSM people are at a new level.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  The Libertarian Party supports your right to be weird, sick, and to exist at new levels as long as it is between consenting adults and other adults and their inflatable devices. 
But I've seen things this morning that will haunt me the rest of my life.

The Weekly Radley - Exasperated question edition

From Radley Balko's Agitator blog:

There's no way to rule innocent men

In addition to plowing through the recent Cedric Katesby haul o' plunder, I recently purchased Three Felonies A Day: How The Feds Target The Innocent, by Harvey A. Silvergate. 

I'm not very far into it, but the premise of the book is that government is trying to expand its power by criminalizing more and more everyday activities. 

It used to be said that "ignorance of the law is no excuse".  That maxim is now a hopelessly naive statement, as our government has written law after law after law, mostly to please various well-entrenched supporters and to increase funding for their various and sundry insane projects.

Nobody, I repeat, nobody can hope to navigate any major business project without hiring a legal, tax, environmental, or labor expert.  That's the way our government wants it to be.   

This morning's web browsing took me to a recent post by The Devil's Kitchen, on a slightly different topic.  Mr. Kitchen quotes this passage from Atlas Shrugged, on the topic of manufacturing criminals. 

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against—then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

Whether you know it or not, you are probably commiting an average of three felonies a day.  Do these crimes harm anyone? No.  But they're a good source of funding when Uncle Sam needs some more food for the machine.

Lord Oxburgh wants to be the J.R. Ewing of carbon capture

From The Times (U.K.):

Lord Oxburgh, the climate science peer, ‘has a conflict of interest’

A member of the House of Lords appointed to investigate the veracity of climate science has close links to businesses that stand to make billions of pounds from low-carbon technology.


Lord Oxburgh is to chair a scientific assessment panel that will examine the published science of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The CRU has been accused of manipulating and suppressing data to overstate the dangers from climate change. Professor Phil Jones, its director, has stood down from his post while a separate inquiry, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, takes place into the leaking of e-mails sent by him and his colleagues.

Climate sceptics questioned whether Lord Oxburgh, chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables, was truly independent because he led organisations that depended on climate change being seen as an urgent problem.

Andrew Montford, a climate-change sceptic who writes the widely-read Bishop Hill blog, said that Lord Oxburgh had a “direct financial interest in the outcome” of his inquiry.

Lord Oxburgh has said that he believes the need to tackle climate change will make capturing carbon from power plants “a worldwide industry of the same scale as the international oil industry today”.

A great case of hiring a fox to guard the henhouse. 
 
Isn't it funny how so many of the people clamoring for immediate and decisive action on this non-crisis are the ones who stand to make millions from it? 
 
Remember:  If Lord Oxtail can "tackle climate change" by forcing industry to purchase his voodoo machinery, he becomes the J.R. Ewing of carbon capture. 
 

Picture of J.R. Ewing from the Dallas TV program came from here. 

Rise Up ! !

Enjoy.
Pastor Manning is not pleased. Turn your speakers up to 11.



I love the internet.

Tea Party Protesters Throw Eggs At Harry Reid's Bus ! We Need More Civility !

This troubled times require civility, not violence. 
What can we expect if those who are so passionate about Obamacare are misguided by all the harsh, shrill rhetoric from their leaders. 
Tea Party protesters have thrown eggs at Harry Reid's bus. 

Go to Moonbattery to read more about this unfortunate.............

........incident.  (Sorry about the sentence break.  All of this overwhelming nastiness from the Tea Party Movement, people throwing eggs at Harry Reid's bus, well, it caught me by surprise.  I passed out on the floor of Starbucks just thinking about what it could lead to, and my smelling salts and ammonia capsules were in the truck, and Starbucks employees have no idea how to revive someone suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.  Like much of the American news media, I have an unfortunate tendency to pass out from The Vapors when exposed to partisan conflicts.)

Remember, get the kids out of the room, brace yourself, and go to Moonbattery for details on the vandalism.  Will keep everyone posted when Harry holds a press conference to denounce partisan violence.

Update from Monday morning.....Once again, a commenter has been punked.  Hit the links to Moonbattery.  Hit the links.  Hit the links. 

The Bart Stupak Demotivational Poster

The Artwork above was inspired by this piece of greatness at Real Clear Politics written by Kathleen Parker:

Stupak.

Etymology: Eponym for Congressman Bart Stupak.
Function: verb

1: In a legislative process, to obstruct passage of a proposed law on the basis of a moral principle (i.e. protecting the unborn), accumulating power in the process, then at a key moment surrendering in exchange for a fig leaf, the size of which varies according to the degree of emasculation of said legislator and/or as a reflection of just how stupid people are presumed to be. (Slang: backstabber.)


(I didn't have room for all that on the poster.)  Ms. Parker continues:

Poor Bart Stupak. The man tried to be a hero for the unborn, and then, when all the power of the moment was in his frail human hands, he dropped the baby. He genuflected when he should have dug in his heels and gave it up for a meaningless executive order.

Now, in the wake of his decision to vote "yes" for a health care bill that expands public funding for abortion, he is vilified and will be forever remembered as the guy who Stupaked health care reform. 

And, since Easter is approaching:

After the Sunday vote, a group of Democrats, including Stupak, gathered in a pub to celebrate. In a biblical moment, New York Rep. Anthony Weiner was spotted planting a big kiss on Stupak's cheek.


To a Catholic man well versed in the Gospel, this is not a comforting gesture.

Criticize Obamacare and get hauled in front of Congress

From Ace Of Spades:

This past week several big companies, including Caterpillar, Verizon, and AT&T, announced that ObamaCare would cost them millions of dollars this year. To pay for it they variously suggested layoffs and benefits reductions. Analysts suggest that the total first-quarter hit to S&P 500 firms will be $4.5 billion.

Well, Democrats can't stand to have their precious economy-destroying healthcare program criticized in its very first week, so they've announced an "investigation" into the claims. Late yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation sent letters to the CEOs of AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere & Co, and Verizon asking them to appear for a hearing on their claims. In the letters, Waxman and Stupak ask for company documents including accounting analyses and the internal emails of all "senior company officials" related to the projected costs of ObamaCare. How serious are they? The letter actually defines "senior company officials."

More from Ace:

This will be as much of an "investigation" as the Democrats' demonization of oil company CEOs last summer or Toyota execs more recently.

The Powerline Blog has copies of one of the letters.  You have to read this thing.  God have mercy on us all.  Go here for page one and here for page two. 
And look on page two at who is chairman of the House Committe On Oversight And Investigation, helping preside over these show trials. 
Bart "Hold Out For More Earmarks" Stupak.   

To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds, they told me that if I didn't vote for Barack Obama, there would be a government crackdown on free speech.  Well, they were right.

Anthony Bourdain at Ted Nugent's ranch

Here's TV chef Anthony Bourdain at Ted Nugent's ranch near Waco, Texas, cooking meat over an open flame and shooting some automatic weapons.



THIS is why Texas is great.

Our Obamacare victory message from our Health Insurance Company

My employer, Jukt Micronics, uses Aetna for employee medical insurance.
Our Human Resources Manager knew I would want to do something with this letter that Aetna sent him yesterday. 
We are about to get screwed, glued, and Bar-B-Q'd on the healthcare scam. 
Get ready for it.
 

March 24, 2010
Dear Plan Sponsor,

Yesterday, President Barack Obama signed health care reform legislation passed by the Senate in December and the House on Sunday. As a result, millions of Americans can look forward to gaining access to health insurance, a significant milestone for this country. The challenge unmet by this bill, however,is how to effectively deal with the critical issue of affordability, which has become a burden for so many people, particularly individuals and small business owners.

The phrase "The challenge unmet" is an ancient bureaucratese expression meaning "Nobody even thought about paying for it".  That would also be "the challenge unmet" if we were to give everyone a yacht, a G.M. vehicle, or even a free pony.  "The challenge unmet" in this bill is that it does nothing, absolutely nothing, to reduce scarcity of medical care.  Therefore, "millions of Americans can look forward to" costs and prices going through what one of our salespeople recently called The Next Stratosphere. 

We are aggressively working to weigh the impact of this legislation on our various businesses, customers, and members. In the meantime, the Senate is still wrestling with a “reconciliation” bill that contains “fixes” to the legislation signed by the President today.

Note the scorn quotes around the words "reconciliation" and "fixes".
In other words, the Senate believes that with enough sanitizing and cleaning and sculpting and power-washing, it will be possible to pick up this turd by the clean end. 

It is important to remember that most of the legislation will not go into effect until 2014 or later.

I remember going to hear Candidate Obama speak at Reunion Arena in Dallas, back in February of '08.  It was inspiring, even to a skeptic.  One of the phrases that Obama used was Dr. Martin Luther King's quote about "the fierce urgency of now".  Whatever happened to now?  If this thing is wonderful, why not now?  Why the fierce urgency to delay implementation until 2014? 
Election cycles, anyone? 

The details of implementing legislation can take months, even years to work through the regulatory process. Much of what Congress has passed will require additional regulations that will bring further clarity to this new law, and those regulations will truly shape the impact on consumers and employers.

"...that will bring further clarity..."
"...that will bring further clarity..."
"Those regulations will truly shape the impact on consumers and employers." 
"Those regulations will truly shape the impact on consumers and employers."
Can clarity be furthered?  Or can it only be increased or added?  Can impacts be shaped?  That sentence is so poorly written that it is almost unfiskable. 

We will continue to play an active role in the detailed discussions during the lengthy implementation process.

Translation from bureaucratese: "We've been working with Obama to divide your carcass for about a year.  We've got 30 million new customers.  You're on your own.  Keep them checks coming !"

Given what we know about the mandates and taxes included in the legislation,we do anticipate the likelihood of additional new costs.

No shit.  I now anticipate the likelihood of Polar Bears refusing to migrate southward to Miami.  I now anticipate the likelihood of compass needles pointing north.  I anticipate the likelihood of....

The longer I go with it, the worse it gets.  You anticipate things, and sometimes you think things are likely.   Anticipate the likelihood of something is like making a bet that something is probable. 

I didn't mean to become the grammar/style Nazi, but this dude is distracting me from the topic at hand, which is Obamacare.  Sheesh.  Say that the our prices are going to go up.  Speak English. 

We intend to focus our efforts in the rulemaking process to lessen the financial impact of these changes on our customers and members.

How about this: We're going to lobby for less government so you don't have to pay as much. 
There. 
Is that better?  Sometimes I get wordy, but I'm usually trying to be colorful or mildly entertaining at the same time.  Intend focus efforts process lessen impact....Christ almighty, I started this post thinking this guy was on my side. 

Aetna plays a significant role in helping both employers and individuals meet the cost challenge. Our role won’t change with this legislation. But, as a nation, we need to come together to bring greater focus on addressing the many underlying factors that are driving soaring health care costs. When the nation inevitably turns to finding ways of reducing this alarming trend, we stand ready to help.

We will continue to keep you updated as this process moves forward.

Yes.  Move the process forward.  Forward moves the progress, addressing that which is focused upon, lest challenges go unmet, not just in helping, but by playing a significant role in helping when mere helping is not enough.  Or something. 

Sincerely,

Anonymous Bureaucrat,

Vice President of Sales and Service,
Southwest Region

If you think this is confusing, verbose, and intentionally vague, go here to see the Healthcare bill.  Everyone involved in this debacle - Congressional Staffers, Insurance Execs, Legal Vultures, and Lobbyists - learned English from the same set of Taiwanese DVD player instructions.

No Corruption Here. Move Along, Please......

Move along people, nothing to see here.  Keep moving folks, keep moving, this isn't corruption.  None of this is as it seems.  You're holding up traffic.  Stop looking at this.  These are not the Droids you are looking for.  The Quid is far enough away from the Pro Quo.  No corruption here.  Totally unrelated.  Stop gawking, please, you're holding up traffic. 

Found it on Instapundit.  Picture of Officer Barbrady came from here. 

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

"Health care 'reform' passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a President who smokes, administered by an obese Surgeon General, financed by a Treasury Secretary who didn't pay his taxes, and paid for by a country that is broke - what could possibly go wrong?"

Go to The Humble Libertarian to buy the T-shirt. 

Reason magazine on the Davis-Bacon Act

Here's Reason magazine on The Davis-Bacon Act, one of the most vile pieces of legislation ever signed into law.  Until the last week, anyway. 
The Davis-Bacon Act essentially gave us the minimum wage, mostly as a way to keep minorities from competing with the white majority for certain jobs. 
An excerpt:

To make matters worse, the Davis-Bacon Act has explicitly racist origins. It was introduced in response to the presence of Southern black construction workers on a Long Island, N.Y.. veterans hospital project. This "cheap" and "bootleg" labor was denounced by Rep. Robert L. Bacon, New York Republican, who introduced the legislation. American Federation of Labor (AFL) president William Green eagerly testified in support of the law before the U.S. Senate, claiming that "colored labor is being brought in to demoralize wage rates."


Emil Preiss, business manager of the New York branch of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (a powerful AFL affiliate that banned black workers from its ranks) told the House of Representatives that Algernon Blair's crew of black workers were "an undesirable element of people." The bill's co-sponsor, Republican Sen. James Davis of Pennsylvania, was an outspoken racist who had argued in 1925 that Congress must restrict immigration in order "to dry up the sources of hereditary poisoning."

The result was that black workers, who were largely unskilled and therefore counted on being able to compete by working for lower wages, essentially were banned from the upcoming New Deal construction spree. Davis-Bacon nullified their competitive advantage just when they needed it most.

Politicians do silly things when times get tough.  And when times aren't tough.  Here's some more from Reason:

More recently, the Obama administration extended Davis-Bacon via the American Recovery and Reinvestment of Act of 2009, also known as the stimulus bill. According to an All-Agency Memorandum issued by the Department of Labor, Davis-Bacon now applies to all "projects funded directly by or assisted in whole or in part by and through the Federal Government."

In other words, even projects that are only partially funded by the stimulus must obey the costly pro-union requirements of Davis-Bacon. With the economy floundering and the government apparently set on another New Deal-style construction spree, the last thing taxpayers needed were rules that force stimulus projects to cost even more.

In sum, we have a law that drives up the costs of federal projects, hurts unskilled workers, unfairly advantages organized labor, and has explicitly racist roots. It's time for Davis-Bacon to go.

But we're too humane to do it any other way. 

Libertarians For Life

I've avoided starting any abortion debates on this site for several reasons - the best of which is that I can't have babies. 
But while doing a bit of websurfing tonight, I found a blog called Libertarians For Life , whose stated goal is "presenting the pro-life case to libertarians, and the libertarian case to pro-lifers."

Their argument goes as follows: 

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

I learned my response to the abortion issue from Big Daddy John Spivey - It's a 10th Amendment issue that should be left to the states, and no government (i.e. taxpayer) money should ever be used to fund abortion. 
But these folks are making a liberty-based argument about the issue. 
Your thoughts?

It really is that bad, isn't it ?

I found this on Denny's site. 

Thanks to Obamacare....

Our extremist rhetoric is causing a violent ripple across America

Like many of you, I am troubled.  Deeply, deeply troubled.
 
Other people find it troubling also, and that's why we should dial it back a bit. 

Our extremist rhetoric is causing a violent ripple across America. 

Political party headquarters have been vandalized, and the President and a senator have been burned in effigy.  Police called it "a planned and orchestrated event". 

Drive-by shooters have attacked a campaign headquarters.  Thank God no one was inside.

Protesters in Florida ransacked another campaign center, stating that they "wanted to send a message". 

Dial it back, people.  Dial it back.  It's just a new law requiring you to spend your money with certain favored healthcare compnies, nothing more.  Maybe we can find a way to get past it. 

Remember: If the American news media ever start giving these violent incidents a lot of attention, it will hurt the cause.

Update from Friday, March 26th.....It amazes me when I look at my hit-counter, and see that there are SO many people out there looking at this post but not hitting the links.  Maybe I shoulda made the links sexier in some way.  Hit the links above for some hot, steamy, anti-Statist violence, people !  Get outraged !  Hit the links to see the scorn that the people now have for their superiors !  

With "Reform" like this, who needs corruption ???

Guess who has exempted themselves from The Obamacare Salvation Plan? 

Go here.  It's not just Congress. 

The AG Lawsuits And The Political Theatre Of Healthcare

My employer, Jukt Micronics, is in the middle of a huge shipping push this week, and I haven't had time to post anything of my own.  So here's another press release from Patrick Dixon and Robert Butler of the Libertarian Party Of Texas. 
If you like what you read, hit this link and send them some money so we can continue fighting the good fight.  You can also go there to get these emails and bypass me altogether..... 

AUSTIN, TEXAS - March 23, 2010 -- Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, along with attorneys general from dozens of other states, are planning to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Democrat's healthcare bill as soon as it is signed.


"The audacity of the Democrats to pass an unconstitutional healthcare reform law is only matched by the Republicans' recent posturing as anti-government crusaders," said Patrick Dixon, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Texas. "If the Republicans were serious about their constitutional concerns, they would raise the legal argument that no healthcare spending by Congress is anywhere authorized by the US Constitution.

"Republicans passed the largest government takeover of healthcare in 30 years when they granted senior citizens an unfunded Prescription Drug benefit known as Medicare Part D," said Dixon. "The Prescription Drug benefit will cost taxpayers $727 billion in the next nine years. The Democrat's current plan will cost an estimated $950 billion over the next ten years. Both parties have dramatically increased the federal government's role in healthcare. The Republican response to the Democrats appears to be complete theater."

The Republican Party has a long history of supporting the Federal government's expansion into healthcare. In 1997, the Republican Congress passed CHIP, the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since Medicaid began in the 1960's. It was sponsored by the late Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy in a partnership with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch with the support of then First Lady Clinton. The Republican Congress repeatedly voted to expand SCHIP throughout the 2000's.

"Let's not forget that the Democrat's original plan to take over healthcare this year was copied from Republican Mitt Romney's plan for Massachusetts," said Libertarian Executive Director Robert Butler. "Apparently it's OK when Republicans reform healthcare, but when Democrat's enact a similar plan it's an 'obamanation'."

The Libertarian Party has a completely different approach to the current high prices of healthcare. Libertarians propose that all federal regulation of the healthcare industry be repealed so that prices can fall back to the market-determined prices.

Consumers do not realize that healthcare prices would dramatically drop if the government ended its monopoly of the industry. In 1910, 56% of hospitals were privately owned and for-profit; that number shrank to only 10% of hospitals in 1989, according to the late Nobel-laureate economist Milton Friedman. And this small number of private, for-profit hospitals actually hire more staff to administer government compliance than patient care.

Butler concluded, "We know that government alternatives cost more than the private sector, so decreasing cost by expanding government is a plan doomed to failure."
 

Robert and Patrick are great people, and would never, ever, post pics of a donkey screwing an elephant.  Those are my choices, and they came from  here and here and here and here and here and here. 

What's the difference between a gas station and a hospital?

Robert Butler, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party Of Texas, sent me this little gem this morning. 

We hear a lot of Republican and Democrat talking points about healthcare. As Libertarians, it's important that people understand that we have our own voice and our own solutions for the rising costs of healthcare. If you like this story, please forward it to your friends and family by clicking the Forward button below.


So, what is the difference between gas stations and hospitals?

1. Prices - The most obvious difference is price. Gas Stations have big signs advertising their prices so that you as a consumer can decide how much you are willing to pay without even slowing down along the highway. There are federal regulations that prohibit hospitals from advertising and competing based on prices.

2. Upfront Estimates - When you need a mechanic to replace your head gasket, he will give you an upfront estimate of the price. He will often give you a list of less expensive alternatives if they are available. When you ask a surgeon to replace your heart, there are federal regulations and AMA rules that prevent the distribution of price estimates.

3. Competition - If someone wants to build a Gas Station across the street from a competing Gas Station, its quite alright. If someone wants to build a hospital, they have to prove to the Federal Trade Commission that the hospital won't lower prices in the community or cause undue competition.

4. Monopoly - In the early 20th century, the federal government broke up a monopoly on oil and gasoline distribution. In the mid-20th century, they created a monopoly on hospitals and doctors because the American Medical Association said there were too many doctors, too much competition, and doctor's couldn't earn enough money.

Allow me a brief digression....Please go here and then get back to Mr. Butler's excellent email.  The AMA's monopoly is the leading cause of high healthcare costs.  Deregulating this mess would lower costs quicker than any Republicrat or Demoblican scheme ever conceived. Things are expensive when they are scarce (relative to demand).  Ending scarcity or reducing demand is the only way to lower the cost of anything.  It really is that simple.   

5. Do It Yourself - When you go to the Gas Station, you can pay someone to fix your car and fill up your tank, or you can buy what you need to do it yourself. At a hospital or pharmacy, you can't make any decisions on what medications you can take, dosage levels, or treatments. You must have the "official" opinion of a state regulated doctor.

6. Choice - When shopping for mechanics, you can decide to hire your handy neighbor, or find someone with all the latest training and certifications. When shopping for doctors, your only choice is regulated by the state.

7. Purchasing Power - When you buy gasoline, you are paying for the gasoline you actually purchase (and a little extra for the small amount of theft). When you buy healthcare, your price includes a large government imposed subsidy for those who can't afford it, thus making healthcare less affordable to more and more people each year.

So if you wanted to make healthcare cheaper what would you do? Impose more rules or less? Allow competition or create a more restrictive monopoly?

Only the Libertarian Party supports more freedom, more choices, and more competition on healthcare. The Democrats have passed their bill to create a government guaranteed monopoly on health insurance and hospitals. And the Republicans will be campaigning this year on "Repeal and Replace". Yes, Republicans want to repeal or reject the Democrats' reform, and replace it with their own rules, restrictions, and regulations. "Repeal and Replace" is not the answer.

The real answer is to make hospitals a little more like gas stations and end the government's monopoly on healthcare. Vote Libertarian; the revolution is golden. 
 
Go here to double the effectiveness of any contribution you make to the Libertarian Party. 

The U.S. National Debt Clock

It seems appropriate this morning to look at the U.S. National Debt Clock. 
Go here. 

The average citizen has a net worth of $235,000.00, and that includes all corporations, foundations, companies, and all the assets of The Evil Rich. 

The amount currently on your bar tab is $350,000.00.  

Total government bar tab per family is now at $650,000.00.   We're too fair, humane, and ethical to have it any other way.   

I have advantages that many of you do not have.  I still remember about 100 words and phrases in Mandarin Chinese, and I'm still in good enough shape to operate a lawnmower.  I'm uniquely qualified to go to China during vacations and holidays and start working off my share of this debt. 

Good luck to the rest of you.  Go here to learn how to clean a Wok. 

World-class healthcare is now guaranteed for every American

I'm not in the mood to write anything original about last night's 32 million customer gift to the insurance industry.  So here's Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek:

Watching tonight on television the charlatans who infest Pennsylvania Avenue gaudily pronounce their saintly motives and their deity-like powers to “guarantee world-class health care for every American” (as one creep put it to a NewsChannel 8 reporter here in DC) makes me want to vomit.


These people look like serious adults; the timber of their voices make them sound like serious adults; and their titles are ones that are assumed to be reserved for serious adults. But, in fact, these people – from Obama to Pelosi to Hoyer to Reid – are nothing of the sort.

If they really believe even a quarter of the things they say, they’re imbeciles. If they aren’t imbeciles, they’re scoundrels. No third alternative is conceivable.

Either way, they’re an utterly detestable bunch.

Watching Pelosi join arms with Civil Rights pioneers to take a victory lap around her D.C. slaughterhouse was truly nauseating. 

How the insurance "reforms" will take away our freedoms

Here's a partial list of the ways that the insurance "reforms" will take away our freedoms.  (Those scorn quotes in the previous sentence were intended as such.)  I'm scraping this from Investors.com. 

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Can anyone name anything, anything at all, where our government has stepped into something and lowered the cost? 

President Obama - Stop The Drug Wars ! !

Bryon Severns for Congress

I went to a District Libertarian Convention this morning, a meeting where we nominated and voted on candidates for various multi-county, state, and national offices. 
One of the speakers was a guy named Bryon Severns, who is running for U.S. Congress, Texas District 6.

Each candidate had a couple of minutes to give a brief bio, explain his political philosophy, and to take any questions.  Someone asked Bryon to give us his two minute "elevator speech" on the healthcare disaster that's about to descend upon us. 

Bryon didn't even have to think about it.  I don't have his exact words, but he said, in effect, "Healthcare is expensive because there is not enough supply to meet the demand.  The current healthcare proposal in Congress does nothing to increase the supply of healthcare providers.  Therefore it's a mistake."

I immediately jumped up and started applauding, the way Nancy Pelosi does when Obama takes a breath.  I mean, how long has it been since you heard someone running for public office stand up and speak the truth? 

But instead of flooding the market with doctors, nurses, medics, and pharmacists, and instead of doing something to make entering the market with a new pharmaceutical product less expensive, what are we about to do? 

We're about to create a monster.  Here's Mark Steyn.....

Meanwhile, Obamacare will result in the creation of at least 16,500 new jobs. Doctors? Nurses? Ha! Dream on, suckers. That’s 16,500 new IRS agents, who’ll be needed to check whether you — yes, you, Mr. and Mrs. Hopendope of 27 Hopeychangey Gardens — are in compliance with the 15 tax increases and dozens of new federal mandates the Deemocrats are about to “deem” into existence. This will be the biggest expansion of the IRS since World War II — and that’s change you can believe in. This is what “health” “care” “reform” boils down to: fewer doctors, longer wait times, but more bureaucrats.  

But back to the subject of Bryon Severns.  Here's what he's got to say about the printing press abomination currently running on overdrive on Fort Worth's Blue Mound Road:

Republicans turned money into paper so they could fund war in Vietnam and outspend the Soviet Union. Now the money printer has gone digital and both major parties will “borrow and spend” until the world stops trusting our DOLLAR and changes to a different reserve currency, causing our nation to crumble like the Soviet Union.

Vote Libertarian to stop Congress from playing monopoly with our money or the next bailouts will be for states. Giving bailouts supports failing management.
Since the federal government spends, borrows and prints money without control we need to end the madness to preserve the savings of Americans. I would sponsor a bill called “Stop the Money Printing” Act of 2011. This bill would ban all federal borrowing and would ban all printing of money. As a result money will stop losing value. Without new money being printed we could feel secure that our life savings will stop getting “watered down.”

And you can go here to read Bryon's proposals for achieving a smaller government with less public debt.  This isn't a hot issue yet, but it will be.

Here's what he's got to say about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.  It's very similar to what I've often said about the Crips and the Bloods, but more to the point. 

Go here to be Bryon's friend on Facebook.  Go there.  Go ahead, do it.  Even if you live in England.  Git ! 

Want some real Change?  Want some Hope for a stable tomorrow?  Please vote for Bryon Severns for Congress.