Some time ago I posted on the development that cribs were being banned. See, it appeared that 30 or so kids in the last 10 years had died while in a crib. so, well, the government being what the government is, decided to band ’em.
The sky is falling.
The latest? Well, see below.
I’m not sure what it means; I wanna stay away from the very thing I suspect it is.
I was reading though Renaissance Guy this morning when he brought up the very thing I’ve been rattling around:
…in the Fort Hood shooting there was a Muslim man who clearly considered himself part of the massive struggle that radical Muslims call jihad. In that case, however, the media darlings tried and tried to avoid reporting it.
…
in the Tucson shooting there allegedly and apparently is a lone man, deeply disturbed and incoherent, with no clearly dilineated political persuasion and no definite motive. It’s a bit too soon to tell for certain, but it appears that they [the media] were dead wrong again…
Let’s take a look.
Posted in Liberty, Politics: National
Tagged Democrat, Islam, Jihad, Leftist, Liberal, Main Stream Media, Muslim, Talk Radio, Tucson
Continuing on that compare and contrast of the middle class, both now and “then”, I began to wonder what, exactly, the middle class is.
Because the genesis of this project involved Ben over at Drudge Retort, I thought it should include what he thought:
Here’s a good definition of the middle class:
MIT economist Frank Levy believes that those in the middle class have enough money to afford the basic building blocks of a good life, including a house, a car and money to pay necessary bills. He suggests that families in their prime earning years are middle class if they fall between $30,000 and $90,000.
I like that as a working definition; simple, easy to visualize and a well understood process from taking $50-90k in today’s money and pivoting backwards to “yesterday’s” money.
However, I couldn’t help but wonder if there wasn’t another definition. Maybe something surrounding what we consider the “American Dream”. I’ve always thought that middle class was being able to have “some” nice things. Kinda like, a car, maybe two. Own your own house with the “white picket fence”. Send your kids to college.
Maybe what we need to do is identify a specific basket of goods and see how much money the middle class family has left over. Maybe both.
The bedrock principle that the authors of Obamacare used to legally justify the federal government regulating health insurance is the “Commerce Clause”. Basically, this clause states that the federal government has the right to regulate all interstate trade to ensure that the economic interests of America are met.
Except, health insurance is not allowed to be sold across state lines.
It’s not inTER-state trade. In’s inTRA-state trade.
Ahhh….but I forgot.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”) decided that, because Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.
Long ago the Leftists felt that they had the answer to the Great Depression. And they passed many laws intended to help us through this great time. However, they were illegal laws and the Supreme Court struck them down.
…sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices in order to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench.
{His} legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937 and was the subject, on March 9, 1937, of one of Roosevelt’s Fireside chats. Shortly after the radio address, on March 29, the Supreme Court published its opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish by a 5–4 ruling, after Associate Justice Owen Roberts had joined with the wing of the bench more sympathetic to the New Deal.
So, because FDR was a thief who stole the right of a citizen from growing enough wheat to feed his animals, we now have to live through a law that seeks to regulate inter-state trade of a commodity that is illegal to sell inter-state.
Nice!
Posted in Government, Liberty, Politics: National
Tagged Commerce Clause, FDR, Health Care, Health Insurance, Individual Mandate, Leftist
A favorite tactic of the Left is to create a problem, exploit it and then sell us on the solution.
Example:
We should force the government to pay for the medical care of people who have no money.
There are people in this country that are using the emergency room as their primary care physician. This costs Americans billions of dollars a year and creates inefficient emergent care facilities.
We need to pass this health care bill so that we can avoid paying billions of dollars a year and restore order to emergent care facilities.
See? Create a problem through legislation. Leverage the predictable consequences. Pass new legislation.
And here we go again; Version 1,376,892:
MINNEAPOLIS – The federal government proposed Thursday to reward farmers who use crop insurance and demonstrate good management practices that limit their losses.
Because the federal government can do what the market can’t?
The plan will cost about $75 million, but the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation said the benefits will outweigh the costs by promoting sound farming practices that reduce losses, discouraging the filing of small claims and encouraging producers to keep using crop insurance.
So, we need to spend $75 million to encourage farmers to do what they SHOULD be doing already? So tell me, why wouldn’t farmers be motivated to “promote sound farming practices that reduce losses, discourage the filing of small claims and encouraging producers to keep using crop insurance?”
Could it be….
…the savings may allow for decreases in future premium rates, reducing costs to farmers and taxpayers who subsidize the federal crop insurance program.
THERE it is.
We create a problem; we subsidize farmers.
Then we exploit the results; farmers are losing their farms and costing tax payers.
Then we pass legislation to fix those results.
How about we just quit paying farmers that aren’t able to remain competitive, let them fail and allow the great farmers to farm more and more land?
Nah.
Posted in Government, Politics: National, States Behaving Badly
Tagged Abuse of Power, Subsidy, Taxes
I’m pretty Libertarian in my thinking when it comes to drugs and alcohol. If YOU wanna do ’em, take ’em or drink ’em, you should be free to do so. However, I think that there should be some reasonable control.
Etc etc etc..
Now, in order to enforce some of the common sense restrictions, it becomes important to be able to identify the age and/or identification of the person buying or using the substance. You need to show ID. This is true of alcohol, cigarettes and even lottery tickets.
No one has a problem with this.
I also feel that similar requirements should be in place for other activities. I also think that similar requirements should be in effect for other activities, you know, like voting or being in the country. I don’t believe there’s anything more “holy” about proving you are who you say you are when you vote than having to prove you are who you say you are when you buy a beer.
But Leftists do.
So I’m surprised this got through:
People picking up certain prescriptions at the pharmacy will have to show a photo identification starting today, as new state health regulations intended to prevent prescription drug abuse and overdose deaths take effect.
Certainly this will impact the ability of the undocumented resident from obtaining the medication that Obama just passed for him; right? Or the citizen that is just TOO poor to be able to afford either:
I would like to hear the Leftist explain the contradiction that is his eternal need to protect us from ourselves vs the burden of proof that is required of citizens who live and or vote.
Only caught a little bit of the boys from Greensboro this morning. What I did hear caught me by surprise.
I’m accustomed to the typical view from the Left with a bit of arrogance thrown in for spice; that’s my breakfast. But this morning I found myself agreeing with ’em. And twice!
They began the hour discussing the House Republicans promise to reduce spending by $100 billion dollars in the first year. Since they’ve won and especially as they begin to take office, they’ve scaled that back by half, and possibly even more. Some folks have ’em saying that they’ll only be able to achieve $30 billion.
1 word for ’em:
Un-effin-acceptable.
We didn’t do what we did to get you in office to act like Democrats at worst and old-time Republicans like best. You stood there, looked us in the eye and PROMISED us you would cut spending this first year.
This nonsense that we’re half way through the budget year ain’t cuttin’ it. Either you were so shortsighted to NOT know that was the case or you DID know and know you’re just shinin’ me. Either case gives me pause for concern.
Cut the spending.
Okay, that felt good. Now, the second case we agreed this morning came during a conversation surrounding social security. We all know it’s not sustainable. A combination of all the money being spent AND the fact that we are gonna retire a ton of people in the coming years means we just don’t have the money. And we’re gonna have to change the way we pay out.
During the conversation, Britt offered the insight that no one is able to make suggestions with respect to social security because the election ads will demonize him for “cutting social security benefits”. Further, Britt acknowledged that that strategy is one that has been perfected by Democrats.
Wow. I couldn’t believe it. It was nice to hear.
Keep it up fellas!
Posted in Politics: National, Republicans Can Be Leftists Too
Tagged Brad and Britt, Budget, Social Security
I suspect that we’ll be talking about health care and the health care law, Obamacare, for some time now. And rightfully so, this is a huge issue at a time when we need to craft solutions, and quick. We simply have no money and need to solve that problem.
So, health care. This morning on the Brad and Britt Show the issue of allowing insurance companies to sell their policies across state lines came up. And Brad admitted he didn’t know why that was such a sticking point to Republicans.
Blink. Blink.
This illustrates the disconnect in the discourse today. On one hand you have a group of people who want to legislate just “whatever they want”. This is akin to passing a l aw that requires the ice cream man to deliver me ice cream before bed. Who doesn’t want THAT? And on the other hand, you have a group of people who have actual knowledge of how things work trying to legislate the “business” of government.
So, Brad, here is why allowing inter-state trade of insurance would reduce costs.
Suppose that a corporation wants to open stores in all 50 states, say, like Target. But in order to do so, they have to meet individual state mandates on the products in their store they sell. Say, for example, that Minnesota has passed legislation that says Target must sell books to children of all ages and adults who are poor for $2.00 each. Target, wanting to remain in business in Minnesota, will either stop selling books all together [selling books at $2 won’t return them a profit] or, OR….they will RAISE the price of all books such that the price of a book to a non-poor adult is enough to cover the cost of having to provide subsidized books to the poor and the young.
Or, say that South Carolina passes legislation that requires Target stores that sell groceries that when someone does buy groceries from them, the store has to deliver those groceries to the customers house. Target will either stop selling groceries in South Carolina or, OR…they will raise the price of groceries to cover the government mandated delivery service.
Is it Targets fault that they are selling books at a higher price in Minnesota? Or that they are selling groceries at a higher price in South Carolina?
No.
Now go further and say that ALL sellers of books in Minnesota must follow the same rules; likewise all sellers of groceries in South Carolina.
Overnight you have increased the cost of books and groceries in those states. And for what? For some government mandated feel good legislation. After all, why do you hate the young and the poor who want access to books? How DARE you pass laws that restrict their access to book?
And food? There are people in this world [at least on] who are home ridden and don’t have the luxury or ability of going shopping. Would you deny THEM food? Soulness, greedy capitalist pig. You are GREEDY!
So, in the name of altruism and good intentions, laws are passed that actually RAISE the price of goods while at the same time restricting supply.
As a citizen of Minnesota or South Carolina, would you like to enjoy the ability to buy a book in Iowa? Or South Dakota? Or even Mississippi if it were cheaper? Would you not like to shop for books in the same way you shop for Star Wars action figures? Or the citizen of South Carolina….would you blame her for peeking across the border in North Carolina for cheaper goods? Or Georgia? Or even, gasp, shopping on-line at Amazon? [Where, by the way, they DO deliver your groceries to you].
It is the states that make mandates that causes insurance policies to rise. Not ALL of the rise to be sure, but much of it. When Maine passes a law that requires insurance companies to sell a policy to any person, no matter how sick, as long as that person has been living in Maine for 60 days, the cost of policies is going to go up. When New York passes a law that requires insurance companies to cover acupuncture therapy, the price of that policy is going to go up. When Vermont passes a law that forces insurance companies to cover up to 14 days in the hospital no matter the ailment, the cost of policies is going to go up.
THAT is why breaking down state barriers would reduce the cost of coverage. Imagine if the Maine-ian could shop for a policy in North Carolina that covered only the eventualities and procedures that he wanted to insure? His cost would plummet. And his experience and value on his dollar would explode.
For sure Maine would see it’s insurance companies close shop nearly over night. And so, if they wanted to keep those businesses in state, they would have to remove the punitive restrictions they placed on them. And competition would force the cost down, the quality up.
That is why. THAT is why we want to see insurance sold across state lines.
Posted in Health Care, Liberty, Politics: National, States Behaving Badly
Tagged Capitalism, Free Market, Insurance, Leftist, Liberal, Politics
It’s all we hear. The RICH are getting richer while the POOR are getting poorer.
The RICH don’t pay their fair share.
The poor are being abused by the rich.
And on and on it goes.
But is that the true picture.
Consider this story:
Posted in Economics, Government, Middle Class, Politics: National
Tagged Class Warfare, Poor, Socialism