Archive for October 9th, 2010

Income Redistribution: A Stimulating Look at Utopian Economics

October 9, 2010

Albert Einstein purportedly stated, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Apparently, the Obama administration disagrees, especially in light of its new report claiming that the spending-upon-spending “stimulus” plan is on-time, under budget and relatively fraud- and abuse-free — other than sending $18 million to dead people, anyway. Moreover, the measure worked as planned, and the economy is back on track. No doubt it’ll be even more robust after even more government spending.

Silly us for believing that double-digit unemployment, depressed markets and unprecedented budget deficits are all indicators of an economy nowhere close to being “back on track.” Our mistake, it seems, was neglecting to use the “jobs-saved” new math that has been the hallmark of the Chosen Administration since its inception. White House officials touted the relatively small number of complaints — less than 2 percent in over 200,000 contract awards — as evidence of the success of the drunken-sailor spending program. We would like to offer a different explanation as to the paucity of complaints, namely, that few complain when a gift horse (read: big government) is throwing billions of dollars at them. Independent of the degree to which spending is “fraud-free,” it’s still spending.

On a completely unrelated note, tens of thousands of workers have just been shown the door, courtesy of the termination of stimulus-subsidized employment programs. A $5 billion program, “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,” is drawing to an end, and with it approximately 250,000 more will hit the streets and unemployment lines, highlighting yet again that government does not produce jobs. Any jobs it claims to “produce” will both cost more and be less sustainable than would otherwise be true in the free market. Meanwhile, in September, another 95,000 jobs were lost.

In contrast, Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden’s Pollyanna-ish chief economist, stated that the report on stimulus spending affirms that “the recovery act has accomplished much of what it set out to do.” Sadly, we must agree: Hamstringing the free market while redistributing wealth to Democrat constituency groups? Check. Helping the economy to actually recover? Not so much.

And then we have;

The Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency announced last Friday that they are considering regulating fuel mileage for vehicles even further — to an eye-popping 62 mpg by 2025 — so that CO2 emissions per mile might possibly be reduced by 3 to 6 percent. The Associated Press reports, “The government envisions gas-electric hybrids making up about half the lineup of new vehicles under the most aggressive standards, while electrics and plug-ins would comprise about 10 percent of the fleet.” These changes would add about $3,500 to the price of every vehicle, though the government claims owners would save $7,400 over the vehicle’s lifetime.

Meanwhile, in the government’s version of Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the Roadrunner, the Obama administration appears to be simultaneously trying to “stimulate” interest in higher mileage vehicles by choking off oil supplies through dragging out its offshore drilling ban, which artificially drives up gas prices. We can only hope this scheme will blow up in the their face too. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is “reviewing” the moratorium just as Europe’s energy chief is considering putting a ban in place.

In other oil news, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling released a report on the federal response to April’s oil spill and, not surprisingly, the administration comes in for criticism. The report said, “The federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem.” That, in a nutshell, is the essence of Hope ‘n’ Change.

SOURCE

New & Notable Legislation

October 9, 2010

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) introduced legislation for the lame-duck session that would repeal right-to-work laws in 22 states. Currently, workers in those states employed in unionized companies can choose whether to join the union and pay dues. In the other 28 states, known as “forced dues” states, it’s legal for unions to mandate that all workers pay union dues and to fire workers who don’t comply. This is a blatantly obvious power grab by unions and their minions in the Democrat Party. Sherman disguises it as an attempt to level the playing field for “forced dues” states like his native California that “have to compete with the race to the bottom as our companies have to compete with those where the workers would like better wages, working conditions and benefits but are unable to organize to get them.”

Sherman is either incorrect or just plain lying about the fact that workers in right-to-work states don’t have the right to unionize. Nothing prevents unionizing in these states other than workers’ votes. Furthermore, while he’s correct that California businesses are losing out to right-to-work states, that’s because unions have put such a squeeze on companies to enrich their own bank accounts that many choose not to set up shop there. Others have simply moved to other states.

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced legislation that would require the president to deploy a minimum of 10,000 National Guard troops to the southern border in an effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration. “The uniqueness of this,” said Poe, is that the troops “would be paid by the federal government, because everybody says it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect the border. So the federal government will use the resources it already has to pay for those 10,000 National Guard troops, but they will be supervised by the governors of the four states on the border.”

In other news, the House is waiting on the Senate to take action on some 420 bills it has passed since January 2009. We never thought we’d say it, but we’re thankful for the 111th Senate.

SOURCE

ObamaCare — Would You Like Fries With That Exemption?

October 9, 2010

A silver lining of the Democrat hegemony in Washington has been the massive resurgence of conservative thinking and action among the general public. It certainly would have been nice two or four years sooner, but better late than never.

Given that Republicans can’t possibly win a veto-proof majority in the Senate, the job of cleaning up government will take more than one election cycle. One of the biggest messes is ObamaCare. It remains to be seen whether the GOP has the fortitude to follow through on their pledge to “repeal and replace,” but the resounding defeats this primary season of several incumbent RINOs certainly serve as a motivation.

Democrats up for re-election in three weeks are running from the issue like the plague, and little wonder. This week, it was revealed that 30 companies and organizations received exemptions from the federal requirement to increase the minimum annual benefits for low-cost health plans. Unless they were granted exemptions, McDonald’s and other companies that offer so-called mini-med plans threatened to drop their health plans altogether — leaving employees on the government dole. The biggest waiver was granted to the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, which is a union in New York City that provides health coverage for city teachers.

According to USA Today, “Without waivers, [these] companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in [medical insurance] coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.” Of course, all this was predicted by those of us who understand basic free-market economics.

Meanwhile, in keeping with the “radical” notion that the federal government cannot force people to purchase things, voters in three states will decide this fall whether to tell the federal government to stay out of their health care decisions. If passed, the initiatives in Arizona, Colorado and Oklahoma will allow those states to opt out of ObamaCare. A similar initiative already passed in Missouri with an impressive 71 percent of the vote.

Naysayers, such as Oklahoma’s Democrat Gov. Brad Henry, call the initiative fruitless, saying that even if it “passes by 100 percent,” the feds could overturn it because federal law trumps state law. In effect, the governor is saying that ObamaCare is inevitable, so we shouldn’t even bother to fight. But this isn’t true. According to what Jon Caldara of Colorado’s Independence Institute calls that “pesky 10th Amendment,” there are several instances in which the federal government is required to yield to the will of the sovereign states. The attorneys general of 20 other states are suing on that principle.

Other opponents of the initiative argue that this collective lawsuit makes the ballots redundant and not worth the costly legal battle that’s sure to follow. However, Caldara and others fighting for health care choice point out that even if this multi-state lawsuit is successful, the federal government could then pressure states to adopt programs similar to the one in Massachusetts. The problems with that system, and its parallels with ObamaCare, are well documented.

The road to repeal hit another major roadblock Thursday when U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh, a Clinton appointee, rejected the argument that the individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. According to Steeh, the interstate commerce clause really does cover everything.

Quote of the Week

“[ObamaCare’s] march to the sea is only beginning and the trail of destruction will grow. The last six months have seen 2011 premium increases as high as 9% due to ObamaCare; multibillion-dollar corporate writedowns by Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and others; disruption in the insurance markets leading to the erasure of child-only policies and other types of specialty coverage as shown in the McDonald’s imbroglio; the Administration beginning to impose price controls on premiums; insurers withdrawing private options from Medicare Advantage; and Democratic protection of a 1099 tax reporting mandate that will slam small businesses. Republicans should be repeating all of these tangible harms in a litany, while predicting the damage to come.” —The Wall Street Journal

SOURCE