Category Archives: Government

Consumer Protection

Obama is mad that his nominee for Consumer Financial Protection boss was blocked.  But I have to ask, why do we even need such a position?

Why isn’t is possible that the consumers learn to protect themselves?

With all the buzz, Apple’s iPhone 4S tops a lot of lists this holiday season, but is it worth it? Consumer Reports testers say it is a great phone. It’s faster than the iPhone 4, and the improved camera takes better photos.

Another perk is the voice-activated personal assistant, Siri, which works well and even has a sense of humor. Ask it for the meaning of life, and here’s the response you get: “I can’t answer that now, but give me some time to write a very long play in which nothing happens.”

Even with all that, Consumer Reports says plenty of other smartphones perform just as well, or even better, than the iPhone 4S.

“Several phones we tested weigh less than the 4S and have larger screens,” Consumer Reports’ Mike Gikas said.

If we can build private organizations that help us with phones, why can’t we build organizations that help us with credit cards, or homes or cars?

 

State Taxes

We all know that if you buy goods on Amazon you get to avoid state sales tax.  Buy your whole Christmas on line and you might be able to save a hundred bucks.  Maybe two.

Should states be able to reach out to those online retailers and tax them as if they were selling goods in state:

Garner, N.C. — A group of North Carolina citizens is lobbying Congress to require companies not based in the state who sell online to start charge state sales tax.

The Alliance for Main Street Fairness, which has branches in several states, said not all companies are doing so, which creates a less even playing field for local businesses.

“People come into the store. They look at the appliances. They go online. They find it cheaper. The cheaper is (because) they’re saving $70, $80, $100 on sales tax,” Alliance for Main Street Fairness spokesman Christopher Dean said Sunday.

The issue affects businesses like Garner TV and Appliance, which doesn’t have an online store.

“It’s a huge, huge impact on our business that we worry about every day and what we can do to stop it,” the company’s Vice President of Operations, Randy Pleasant, said.

I guess it depends upon how you look at it.

If the state is simply saying that we want to generate revenue on goods sold, then yeah, online sales should be taxed.  On the other hand, you could argue that sales tax is meant to pay for infrastructure that isn’t being consumed by out of state businesses.

Either way, state governments would be wise NOT to use the sales tax as a means of “even the playing field” for business.  THAT is most certainly not the role of government.

Occupy Raleigh: Nice Insight

I got this from Occupy Raleigh’s Facebook page.

Very refreshing to see some semblance of non-partisan content.

What Is The Role Of Government

If we erect government to resolve disputes, protect from fraud and safeguard Liberty, where do we get the idea that we need to redistribute wealth?

Why do we tax from some and give to others?

Picture IDs – Morning After

Oh my!

How are we going to protect our young, poor, rural elderly Democrats from having babies?

WASHINGTON –  In a surprise move, the nation’s health secretary stopped the Plan B morning-after pill from moving onto drugstore shelves next to the condoms, deciding Wednesday that young girls shouldn’t be able to buy it on their own.

The Food and Drug Administration was preparing to lift a controversial age limit and make Plan B One-Step the nation’s first over-the-counter emergency contraceptive, available for purchase by people of any age without a prescription.

But Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius intervened at the eleventh hour and overruled her own experts.

Plan B instead will remain behind the pharmacy counter, as it is sold today — available without a prescription only for those 17 and older who show an ID proving their age.

It is clear that Democrats hate Democrats.

How To Reduce Unemployment

I have long argued that if we are going to pay people not to work, we should be allowed to dictate what we want for that pay.  For example, when I go to work, my boss is able to guide my activities.  He gets to prioritize my day and my efforts.  He gets to do this because we have entered into some agreement where I end up getting paid.

I see little difference when we provide Unemployment Benefits to folks who aren’t working.

In theory, the benefits are meant to provide some relief to the out of work individual during their time looking for gainful employment.  Even while I disagree with the program, I can understand what we’re all trying to do.  I really do.

However, if we are going to be spending all this money to help people out, I think that we should be able to watch over the program.  For example, if we want people to find a job, we should ask that they come to a “job finding office”.  That is a place where computers would be available, resume consultants and even job placement professionals.  To be sure, if someone has an interview, they would be free to attend and “time off” would be accommodated.

Further, if there is time in the day when filling out applications and constructing resume’s has ended, there must, MUST, be good work the folks could engage in in an effort to “earn” the benefit pay.  That good work could even be charity or community service; reading to kids or the elderly.  Anything.

Well, it seems as if lawmakers are reading Tarheel Red:

A Georgia lawmaker wants the unemployed to put in community service hours in exchange for their government-paid jobless benefits.

John Albers, a Republican state senator, has proposed a bill that would require out-of-work Georgians to volunteer at charities at least 24 hours every week, according to MyFoxAtlanta.com. Otherwise, they wouldn’t receive unemployment benefits.

“We want to have a society that is responsible and that is accountable,” he said.

The lawmaker, who calls his bill the Dignity for the Unemployed Act, brushed off concerns that the volunteerism would cut into valuable job-searching time. And he said the law would provide “flexibility” so that if somebody needs to go to extra interviews one week, he or she could make up the volunteerism hours the following week.

Now, to be sure, I have some issues with the good congressman.  I don’t think that we need the government to dictate charity, this sounds like Obama.  And second, I would flat out give the candidate excused time for ANY work related activities.  Got an interview?  Go, good luck and win that job!

Certainly there is room for compromise here, yes?

Government Jobs

Even as the unemployment rate is going down, and maybe more because people are opting out of the workforce, it still is true that getting a job working for the government is a good bet:

Durham, N.C. — The Durham County Board of Commissioners’ recent approval of salary increases for county employees of up to 32 percent, which has raised questions among some.

While most county employees were awarded raises of up to 4.25 percent, County Manager Mike Ruffin received a 10 percent raise and the clerk to the Board of Commissioners, Michelle Parker-Evans, got a 32 percent raise.

Nice.

Wickard v. Filburn

The Supreme Court decision that started it all.

See, a long time ago, in 1942, a small time farmer, Roscoe Filburn, grew wheat for consumption by his animals on his private property.  He was doing nothing more than growing food for his own personal use and had no intention of selling it.

This violated the government limit on wheat production per acre.  Mr. Filburn was ordered to destroy some of his crop and pay a fine.  Being a reasonable man, Mr. Filburn declined.

See, the Federal government at the time felt that one of the ways out of the Great Depression was to raise the price of wheat.  And to do that one had to control the supply; so they imposed a limit per acre.  The case made its way all the way to the Supreme Court where they decided that had Mr. Filburn NOT produced the extra wheat, he would have been forced to purchase it market prices.  Wheat, being subject to a national trade, was therefore granted regulatory viability under the Commerce Clause.

In the office I work at, we call that Un-fuckin’-believable.

And to make matters worse is the back story.

See, the Supreme Court at the time was not a Liberal court, on the contrary, it was Conservative.  However, the President was one of the worst in History; FDR.  See, he threatened the court that if they did not side with his agenda, he would simply appoint additional members to the Supreme Court until he had the majority he needed.  The Court, not wanting their power and influence diminished, gave FDR the decision he wanted.

What amount of tragedy would have been avoided had Wickard v. Filburn been adjudicated according to Liberty and law?  The horrors of dictatorial power in the hands of the gentle Left.

Food Stamp Abuse

It seems that Newt stepped in it a bit:

“Remember, this is the best food stamp president in history. So more Americans today get food stamps than before. And we now give it away as cash — you don’t get food stamps. You get a credit card, and the credit card can be used for anything. We have people who take their food stamp money and use it to go to Hawaii. They give food stamps now to millionaires because, after all, don’t you want to be compassionate? You know, the Obama model: isn’t there somebody you’d like to give money to this week. That’s why we’re now going to help bailout Italy because we haven’t bailed out enough people this week, the president thought let’s write another check. After all, we have so much extra money.”

It turns out that people can’t actually buy tickets to Hawaii with their EBT cards.  I don’t know if Newt was literally trying to make that case or if he was just making the larger point that we have fraud in the food stamp program, and, even if we didn’t, the program is bloated beyond reasonable expectations.

Anyway, I found this at Laura Ingram via:

The program works.  For sure.

Wherein Pino Was Corrected

Last night I was talking to a more Liberal friend of mine.  Both lovers of things political and dedicated to the “Ought”, we often discuss the on goings of the world, the nation and all things political.  During our discussion the topic of privatization came up.  Typical “battle lines” were drawn.  Me with my, “There is precious little the government can do well” and his “It is the role of the government”.

Well, he asked me to demonstrate one thing that the private sector does better than the government.  My answer, deliver packages, things like the mail.  Companies like FedEx and UPS do it better and they do it while making a profit.  Further, to make my point, I claimed that there is nothing that says these things have to be done by the government.  They are not specifically called out in the Constitution.

He said, “Ahhh, yes.  The Post Office IS called for specifically in the Constitution”.

I checked.

He was right.  I was wrong.

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

The Constitution DOES call for the Government to establish a Post Office.

However, even as I’m writing this, it occurs to me that the requirement is that the government establishes these post offices.  I wonder if people think that the government must actually RUN them with government employees?

For example, the same clause calls for the government to post roads.  But not all roads are government run, owned or managed.  We have roads that are in private hands.

Anyway, the point is I didn’t know that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 called out the Post Office.

Huh.