This Reason.tv video cleverly says something I’ve been saying for years: both Republicans and Democrats want to control you, just in different ways.
Recently I received this ebullient newsletter from one of my esteemed senators in Pennsylvania. The newsletter boasted as its title:
Barack & Bob: 5 Months of Progress
So, let’s see what Bob thinks of as progress:
1. Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: See the Heritage Foundation about why this could hurt those it is intended to help.
2. Helping Families Save their Home Act: See Reason for a fabulous analysis of why this is so ridiculous.
3. Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act: I thought volunteer meant something different than being paid?
4. Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act: Oh God, are you kidding me? See the Heritage Foundation for an analysis of this one.
5. Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act: Please, please save me from myself!
6. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act: Please, please save me from myself! Let us all repeat, we can only own our own bodies and no one else’s.
7. American Clean Energy and Security Act (he just can’t wait to work on the Senate version): A big stinking pile of crap that won’t produce enough methane to cook a veggie burger, while killing jobs in the process.
I have one word to describe all seven of these acts: coercion.
In a previous post I wrote about the law suit filed by 7 families from Ardmore, PA that do not want to be bussed to a different high school, when they can just keep walking to the one they are supposed to go to. I am happy to report that a judge is allowing their court case to proceed. The judge also reaffirmed their right to keep the names of the children confidential.
Today I read with following headline with glee:
Community group seeks ways to cut Tredyffrin spending
The article goes on to state
Township residents overwhelmingly prefer budget cuts to tax increases to close a $3 million budget gap, according to the Township Budget Advisory Working Group.
Imagine that - revenues go down and spending goes down. Perhaps the federal goverenment could pay attention to this example.
The Waxman-Markey (often called the cap and trade) bill states on its front page, that its mission is:
To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.
As I’ve posted about before, the creation of green jobs is a myth. In essence, if you just ignore opportunity costs (which, of course, you can’t), then it all makes sense. Now, the EPA has released an analysis of Waxman-Markey, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, that their bill
would actually result in slightly less new renewable energy generation capacity by the year 2020 than if the U.S. continued on a business-as-usual path with no emissions caps.
Maybe business as usual isn’t so bad after all.
This short post exposes so many things that could greatly slow the growth and prosperity of Americans.
Let me take a shot at listing them.
1. Big labor leverages the EPA to go after a company who doesn’t use Unions. So big labor in essence, has the full power of the federal government behind them to get their way in private negotiations.
2. The companies in question are solar power companies. Both of these companies exist only because of government assistance. To put it another way, the government takes your money (or borrows money on your behalf) and gives it to them. Now I know there are market failures, but I find it hard to believe that the market won’t invest (or even over-invest) in truly promising technologies (think the tech bubble in the 90s). However, if you want to invest in lead to gold projects, you are going to need to loot other folks money to do it.
3. The new “CO2 as pollutant” rules allows the EPA to basically regulate all private activity. Right now the EPA head indicates that she will be a kind dictator but who knows? The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of man and any political fad can dictate whether you get in trouble or not. Not for nothing, but if increasing CO2 is truly a problem, a solution where the EPA can arrest/fine anyone they choose is definitely a cure worse than the disease.
4. Private property rights… Who needs private property rights?. Both these firms buy land but that doesn’t mean that they “own” it in any conventional sense. Their use of private land must be blessed by the powers that be in order to ensure they don’t impact any wildlife on their own property.
5. The utilitarian reason for free markets and free enterprise is that it is the best framework for rapid human innovation. I don’t know about you, but I would like people in 50 years to be grateful that they didn’t have to live in the primitive state of existence that we live in now. If you want growth in human prosperity, the increasing regulation and scrutiny of private affairs doesn’t help.
Lord knows I disagree with the President on most things but from where I sit, I’m not sure I disagree with his approach on the Iranian elections. When it comes to Iran, the United States Government should care about these things:
The first 3 directly effect the United States and should be a far higher priority than the latter two. From a moral perspective, individual liberty for Iranian citizens should be more important to the United States than democracy. Now the way, I see it, the United States government knows something about the Iranian elections. I don’t know what we know but its one of these things:
If we know that Ahmadinejad stole the election then the moral thing to do is to strongly back the protesters. I don’t know that we know that and I haven’t seen any western media (right or left slanted) declare that this was a rigged election. If it becomes clear that is what happened AND a reasonable man in Obama’s position would come to that conclusion, then his actions demonstrate a lack of moral courage.
However, if we’re just not sure what happened then the only reason to take a stand for the protesters is if we think it will help improve the stuff we care about.
That is, by pushing Iran to boot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or redo the elections then we’ll reduce Iranian meddling in Iraq or their sword waving or their nuclear programs. If the opponents are just as hateful of Israel as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and/or just as opportunistic when it comes to nuclear weapons then honestly, what do we care which knucklehead is in charge?
So the president isn’t going to take a stand. Without further information, I trust that the president doesn’t know with a degree of confidence that the elections were stolen AND doesn’t think taking a stand will help with the stuff we care about.
The Forbes train is starting to roll, so get on board bitches! From the comments section of my Steve Forbes for President in 2012 post.
Greetings! I searched Google expecting to be the only person with this admittedly fanciful idea in my head. I think Forbes’ campaign platform circa 96 repackaged and given another try in ‘012 would be surprisingly effective:
1) Forbes touted himself as a Washington outsider who could see through partisan gridlock and bring change. The public ate this concept up in 08 and opinion polls continue to show a subterranean opinion of Washington among the populace; Obama is now shoring up corrupt career politicians like Dodd and Specter, so that message will be lost to him.
2) (The big if) After four years of heavy government spending, if the economic situation has not rebounded significantly, Forbes’ policies of a spending decrease and a flat tax will resonate with an electorate weary of excessive taxes and spending.
3) (Seriously important, in my view): 96 Forbes eschewed divisive social issues, focusing on his ability to bring business sense to the presidency and usher in economic improvement. I believe that this same tactic could sweep blue areas like New England, pulling Reagan Democrats into the fold, particularly if point 2 comes to pass.
I will be watching with interest; he claims to only be an “agitator” now. One thing is for certain, a Forbes candidacy would excite me exponentially more than a Barbour (the esteemed governor of my state)candidacy.
“They want separation of church and state while revering the head of state as a god.”
Snort. Chortle.
Check it out: ZoNation.
Well, I should have googled just a little more.
Yesterday I wondered if Patrick Murphy supported the public option in health care.
Today I learned he does. Imagine my surprise. Yawn.
Rep. Patrick Murphy (Penn.) still backs a public plan without a trigger, said his spokeswoman Kate Hansen. “Congressman Murphy stands with President Obama in supporting the inclusion of a public option without a trigger in healthcare reform legislation, and believes it would be a good way to introduce transparency, competition, and cost-control into the insurance market,” she said.
As the public plan is just single-payer in the womb, it’s fair to say Patrick Murphy is a single-payer supporter.
Just so you know.
Bob Casey is a dull and unimaginative politician, so it’s no surprise that his his web-site lists one of the most dull, unimaginative and shop-worn political platitudes currently in use today:
All people have a fundamental right to quality health care.
We hear this phrase all the time but it is meaningless drivel. As John Goodman et.al. point out in Lives At Risk, “the right to quality health care” as currently implemented by our European (and Canadian) colleagues is, shall we say, misleading.
In fact, there is no such right in any sense that people ordinarily understand the meaning of the term. What the right to care means almost everywhere is nothing more than the opportunity to get services for free (or at very little cost) as the government decides to make those services available. But government is under no obligation to provide any particular service. And if it fails to provide a service, people are not entitled to go to court and sue the way that Americans, for example, can sue an employer, a health maintenance organization (HMO) or even Medicaid.
I’d love to hear what a British patient denied a kidney transplant by the NHS because he is too old has to say about his precious so-called right. Thanks, Bob, but we’ll take a pass on that.
Obama and the Democrats spent 6 years denigrating Bush’s policy of promoting democracy and 6 years of subtly and not so subtly undermining democracy in Iraq.
So it should be a laugh to watch Obama try to feign indignence with Iran’s sham election. Perhaps this is why the White House has yet to offer a statement.
Sweet Jesus, what the heck is Magic wearing at the Los Angeles - Orlando hoop game? It looks like his suit is made out of aluminum foil.
Whatever his other personal characteristics, when it comes to his views on health-care reform, Patrick Murphy likes to hide behind women and children. References to SCHIP and the Children’s Health Protection Act top his page dedicated to healthcare issues.
But the current battle raging in Washington - or should I say the current battle raging among those in Washington who have any power, i.e., the Democrats - concerns the existence of the public option within the health care reform bill currently being drawn up by President Goodwrench.
The public option is a government run insurance program meant to compete with private health insurance companies. Virtually everyone acknowledges such an entity will use the purse of the Federal government to drive out all private competition, ergo its controversy, even among the collectivist Democrats.
Patrick Murphy has been silent about his views on this. No doubt he wants the generally supportive of private enterprise voters of Bucks County to think he is against using the Federal government to back-door nationalize the health insurance industry, but from what I’ve been able to pull together, he seems to be lining up with President Goodwrench on this one.
On the one hand, Murphy may have reservations about the public option. The Blue Dog coalition, of which Murphy is ostensibly a member if obviously not a leader by example, is allegedly a bit squeamish on the public option as displayed by their white paper:
The Blue Dog Coalition strongly supports health care reform that lowers costs for families and small businesses, increases choice and competition, and allows individuals to keep their doctor. We are concerned, however, about a “Medicare-like” public option and its ability to achieve all of the benefits put forth by its proponents. How a public option is constructed and allowed to compete are critically important to ensuring families have the ability to keep their current health coverage and continue to see the doctor of their choice.
On the other hand, according to Talking Points Memo, Patrick Murphy is having issues with the Blue Dog coalition … having issues:
It should be noted that the Blue Dogs aren’t monolithic on this point. Already, Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and Mike Michaud (D-ME) are distancing themselves from this statement–and several others have signaled in the past that they support a public option at the outset.
We wouldn’t be surprised if Murphy supported the public option. Hell, I expect he supports full-on nationalization of every industry within the health-care sector, but it would be nice if he came clean on it.
Ahh, that's better.
Price represents percent likelihood that event occurs
