Category Archives: Liberty

#Occupy The Democrat National Convention

What a few month’s time will do.

As the end of 2011 drew near, the Occupy Wall Street movement was in full swing.  Cities across America were host to Occupy camps full of protesters willing to make the case that the greed and corporate influence in America had reached the point that they could influence legislation.  The rich and powerful would be able to craft laws that benefited themselves at the expense of everyone else.

The system was broken.  And it needed to change.

The Democrats, facing an election year of better organized Tea Party grassroots organizations, were only too anxious to look at the Occupy movement as a method to garner support.  Support and sympathy:

“I understand the frustrations being expressed in those protests,” Obama told ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper…

The President goes on to compare the Occupy movement with the Tea Party, and then expresses the need to reach out to the Occupy protester:

“The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded,” Obama said. “And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded.”

Similarly, Nancy Pelosi expressed her approval of the movement like this:

During a press conference Thursday afternoon, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi praised those participating in the “Occupy Wall Street” protests. “God bless them,” Pelosi said, “for their spontaneity. It’s independent … it’s young, it’s spontaneous, and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.”

“The message of the protesters is a message for the establishment everyplace,” said the House Democrats’ leader. “No longer will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street.”

To be sure, each side is entitled to its foot soldiers, its partisans.  And they should be expected to pander to ’em all they want.  To think otherwise is rather foolish.  But it’s interesting to see how quickly the shine has wore off:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Charlotte, which is hosting this year’s Democratic National Convention, may ban camping on city property, a move that would end an anti-Wall Street demonstration.

The ordinances would essentially end the Occupy Charlotte encampment at the old City Hall, where protesters have had a presence for months.

The Democrats don’t want the Occupy folks at the convention.  At the convention where people will be seen on TV.  Where questions will be asked and answers demanded.  It would appear, for the time being, that the Occupy movement has run its course.

State of Illinois Targetting The Young, Elderly, Poor, Minority Democrats

That is if you believe the Democrats when they say that Voter ID laws are discriminatory.  See, the logic goes like this:

The very young, poor, rural, urban, minority Democrat citizens in our nation are disproportionally unable to obtain State ID.  Further, this inability to obtain such ID is based solely on cost.  State ID’s are prohibitively expensive.

I checked.  Here in North Carolina you can obtain State ID by:

  1. You will need 2 documents from this category which provide your full name and date of birth. Listed below are acceptable documents you can use, provided they include your full name (including middle name)
    1. Drivers License from any state, territory or province of Canada.
    2. Birth Certificate
    3. Original Social Security Card
    4. School records or diplomas
    5. US Military ID
    6. Passport
    7. Marriage Certificate
    8. Court Documents
  2. Proof Of Social Security
    1. Social Security Card
    2. 1099 Form
    3. W-2 Form
    4. DD-124 Form
    5. Property Tax Form
    6. Pay Stub
    7. Military ID
    8. Medicare/Medicaid Card
  3. Proof of Residency
    1. Any document issued by the state of North Carolina or the federal government
    2. Bank statement or other corporate document
    3. Lease or housing contract
    4. Utility bill
    5. School Records
    6. Letter from homeless shelter

With some combination of these documents a resident of North Carolina can obtain a state ID.  That and $10.00.

The burden to obtain an ID is not significant or overly burdensome.

So, anyway, back to Illinois.  How is the state of Illinois now discriminating against the young, elderly, urban, rural Democrats in the state?

They are requiring the discriminatory practice of providing state ID to purchase…Liquid Plumber.  Hat Tip Dan Mitchell

CHICAGO (CBS) – A new state law requires those who buy drain cleaners and other caustic substances to provide photo identification and sign a log.

The law, which took effect Sunday, requires those who seek to buy caustic or noxious substances, except for batteries, to provide government-issued photo identification that shows their name and date of birth. The cashier then must log the name and address, the date and time of the purchase, the type of product, the brand and even the net weight.

What possible excuse could the Republicans of the state make for such discriminatory practices?

State Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) obtained passage of the new law following attacks in which drain cleaner was poured on two Chicago women, badly scarring them.

Truly unbelievable.  Democrats feel perfectly okay to require state ID to buy Draino but not to vote.

Politics anyone?

The Republican Presidential Debate

I’m watching the fellas in New Hampshire.  It’s recorded because watching the Saints-Lions game was more important.  And, even the game was delayed due to the family Harry Potter night.

Ron Paul knows he can’t win; he doesn’t wanna win.

He wants to preach.

And we should listen.

Voter Fraud and Voter ID Laws

States are passing Voter ID laws.  The stated reason is that if you have restrictions on who can and can’t vote, it’s a reasonable position to take that these requirements are validated.  For example, you wouldn’t pass a speed limit an then refuse to allow officers to use speed detectors.  You don’t require that a teacher have a license and then not allow administrators to validate that license.

If you require a thing, you must validate that thing.

Now, Democrats are crying foul claiming that Republicans are trying to prevent other Democrats from voting.  I disagree.  I think that Republicans are doing what anyone in their right mind would do; allow validation of legal requirements.  Further, Democrats will argue that fraud simply doesn’t happen; there are few cases of voter fraud.

Some thoughts:

First, the number of dead voters in Minnesota:

A review of Minnesota’s statewide database of registered voters revealed at least 2,812 deceased individuals voted in last November’s general election, according to a new report by the “traditional values” advocacy group Minnesota Majority.

After obtaining the list of voters who participated in November’s election, the group hired an independent firm who specializes in “death suppression” for direct mailing lists to review the data. The process, which involved matching names and addresses to state death records, bore troubling results.

According to Minnesota statute 201.13, the commissioner of health is to report monthly the name, address, date of birth, and county of residence of voting-age deceased residents to the secretary of state.

Presumably the commissioner of health would not issue incomplete reports (read: no motive), the blame then falls elsewhere – namely, at the feet of Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, whose partisan leanings and curious alliance with vote fraud-magnet ACORN are becoming more salient by the day.

For those of you not familiar, this is in relation to the 2008 election where Al Franken defeated Norm Coleman by 312 votes.  This was the election where votes were trucked in by the trunk load of boxes.

For even more history, this was the election that allowed the Democrats to push through the Health Care law.

Franken defeated Coleman by 312 votes.

Three Hundred.

Ten.

And two.

Almost 3,000 dead people voted.

Then, consider the testimony of an ACORN whistle blower:

Former ACORN/Project Vote employee Anita MonCrief agreed.  “It’s ludicrous to say that fake registrations can’t become fraudulent votes,” she said.  “I assure you that if you can get them on the rolls you can get them to vote, especially using absentee ballots.”

There are even reports of blank absentee ballots being distributed on election day in the Scott Brown election.

When Democrat politicians tell you that fraud doesn’t take place, they are lying.  It does take place.  And the fact that they don’t wanna address it means that the fraud is taking place in their favor.

Voter Fraud And Voter ID Laws

In June of last year our North Carolina governor Bev Purdue vetoed a bill that would have required voters present government issued ID at the ballot.  In other words, our citizens would have to prove they are who they say they are.

Bev’s comments upon vetoing this bill:

“The right to choose our leaders is among the most precious freedoms we have – both as Americans and North Carolinians. North Carolinians who are eligible to vote have a constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots, and no one should put up obstacles to citizens exercising that right.

“We must always be vigilant in protecting the integrity of our elections. But requiring every voter to present a government-issued photo ID is not the way to do it. This bill, as written, will unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise many eligible and legitimate voters. The legislature should pass a less extreme bill that allows for other forms of identification, such as those permitted under federal law.

“There was a time in North Carolina history when the right to vote was enjoyed only by some citizens rather than by all. That time is past, and we should not revisit it.

“Therefore, I veto this bill.”

I read the Constitution of North Carolina, I have to assume that Gov. Purdue was speaking about that state Constitution because she is acting as state Governor AND the United States Constitution has no “Right to Vote” language in it.  And this is what the Constitution says:

Section 1.  Who may vote.

Every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized, 18 years of age, and possessing the qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State, except as herein otherwise provided.

 

Sec. 2.  Qualifications of voter.

(1)        Residence period for State elections.  Any person who has resided in the State of North Carolina for one year and in the precinct, ward, or other election district for 30 days next preceding an election, and possesses the other qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election held in this State.  Removal from one precinct, ward, or other election district to another in this State shall not operate to deprive any person of the right to vote in the precinct, ward, or other election district from which that person has removed until 30 days after the removal.

(2)        Residence period for presidential elections.  The General Assembly may reduce the time of residence for persons voting in presidential elections.  A person made eligible by reason of a reduction in time of residence shall possess the other qualifications set out in this Article, shall only be entitled to vote for President and Vice President of the United States or for electors for President and Vice President, and shall not thereby become eligible to hold office in this State.

(3)        Disqualification of felon.  No person adjudged guilty of a felony against this State or the United States, or adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, shall be permitted to vote unless that person shall be first restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.

It is pretty clear.  You have to be:

  1. 18
  2. A citizen
  3. A 1 year resident

It is a reasonable request that an individual representing his desire to vote prove that.  Any claim that this is NOT reasonable is based in pure politics.  There are those who claim that requiring such proof would disenfranchise voters who, as it turns out, would vote for candidate of a certain political persuasion.  It can not be ignored that the desire to create a system that so easily creates conditions where people who are not who they say they are can vote is a system that is inherently and purposely flawed in order to create election day advantages.

I bring this up because the state Republicans were unable to overcome the Governor’s veto and it appears the bill will remain just that, a bill.

Veto Override Meeting: Racial Justice Act

In 2009 North Carolina passed the Racial Justice Act.  The law allows death-row inmates the ability to appeal their sentence arguing that racial discrimination was a factor in that sentence.  I’ve long argued that the death penalty is not a viable tool in our criminal justice system for just that reason.  The sentence is not applied uniformly and it disproportionately impacts minorities and the poor.

Because of this I oppose the Death Penalty and I applauded the passing of the law.

Now, however, state Republicans are meeting to discuss how they plan to proceed in overriding a governor’s veto that would have repealed much of this very important law:

 RALEIGH, N.C. — When the Republican-led Legislature considers Wednesday whether to cancel Gov. Beverly Perdue’s veto and scrap the Racial Justice Act, the outcome of the override session will depend again on whether a handful of the governor’s fellow Democrats side with the GOP.

The Republicans have it wrong.  They were wrong to oppose the bill in 2009, wrong to send it to the Governor’s desk in 2011 and are wrong now.

The idea that the government would discriminate, especially in this matter, is an assault on the senses.  Hopefully the Democrats in the House stand firm and do not change their vote to assist the veto override.

Minnesota Metro Transit Bus Drivers: Pay And Overtime

A recent analysis of bus drivers for the Minnesota Metro Transit system provided some interesting data:

  • Base pay for drivers is nearly $50,000 a year.
  • The top earner in the system made $120,000 a year.
    • He did this by working, on average, 74 hours a week.
  • Overtime in the system has jumped by 52 percent from 2008 to 2010.
  • A driver on overtime – paid at time and a half – saves Metro Transit $4 an hour on average.
    • This due to the fact that the agency would have to pay for training, additional benefits and pension.
  • A union agreement says that no more than 24 percent of Metro Transit’s workforce can be part time – prompting the agency to turn to overtime.
  • In October, 89 percent of weekday overtime assignments were during rush hour and lasted less than three hours.

The incentives are undeniable.  For a system that demands flexibility; traffic doesn’t occur in neat 8 hour blocks, the rules prohibit the proper response.  Further, regulations surrounding benefits, those benefits that include vacation, retirement and health care, make it more cost effective to work an already employed person than to hire someone else.  And lastly, being a Metro Transit driver isn’t all that bad; 50 large is a good deal of money.

Finally I’d like to point out that for at least one of these drivers, the overtime is a feature and not a bug.  And it’s a feature because of decisions HE’S made in HIS life:

Lance Wallace is happy to drive a few extra hours if it means his wife can stay home with their four children – all younger than 5.

The New Hope man is among the top 5 percent of overtime earners at Metro Transit. Picking up extra shifts and working nearly every day, he averages 60 to 70 hours a week. The $37,700 in overtime he earned last year pushed his total earnings to $86,400.

“I don’t really want to work overtime,” Wallace said. “But I do it to make up the income.”

The extra work doesn’t make him “overly tired,” Wallace said. In fact, after working two jobs before, he “feels good” to now work where he can dictate his own hours.

Mr. Wallace is a father.  A father of FOUR.  A father of FOUR in a family that has the mother stay home.  And of those FOUR kids, all are younger than 5.  And this father of four young children is happy that he’s able to work the hours he does in order to prevent having to carry two jobs.

My point?  Incentives matter.  Raising the cost of hiring means that you will see less hiring.  Wage earners will enjoy working more hours if it benefits them, not the other way around.  Government union work pays well.  People who have 4 kids in 4 years time have a more limited ability to dictate their time.

Tragedy of the Commons

The Tragedy of the Commons.

I don’t remember when it was that I came across the specific term, when I read about it.  But I resonated with it immediately.

In short, it’s the idea that a shared resource made available to the whole of the community will languish and suffer abuse in a manner that would not exist if that same resource were owned and used by a single individual.

The classic example is that of a pasture.  Multiple shepherds begin by grazing their sheep in the common pasture.  When the shepherds grow their herds, they begin to understand that the pasture will, in time, become over grazed.  However, because the pasture is communal there is no incentive to preserve the pasture; if Farmer Johnson doesn’t increase the aggregate herd size by one, surely his neighbors will.  In time, the incentive is perverse, the shepherd accelerates the growing of his herd to make sure that “he gets his.”

The tragedy of the commons.

Of course, there are two solutions to this problem:

  1. Privatize the pasture.  Assign an owner of it all or simply divide the pasture into plots.
  2. Form a government and regulate it.

I don’t wanna get into the 1’s and 2’s right now.  Rather, I’m interested in why the Tragedy occurs to begin with.  For example, if we begin the story with a single shepherd and a pasture that he alone owns, he will expand his herd to the size at which the pasture is able to sustain it.  At that point he either begins to cull the herd or expand the pasture.  Now, we can assume that this shepherd has a family, some old enough to be responsible for work and productivity.

Why doesn’t each member of the family act in the manner described above?  Why don’t individual family members engage in the destructive activities of the Tragedy?

Because they have stronger social bonds that hold them together.  A family has the ability to shape expectations, to punish members who fail to live up to those expectations.  A family can control behavior.

No one minds sharing. Hell, we TEACH our kids to share.  However, the unspoken, perhaps even unthought of corollary, is that the sharing is done among a group of people whose actions we can influence.

We are willing to share with those people who would react in the same manner should our circumstances be reversed.  That is, I am willing to share my good fortune with friends and family should they be equally willing to share in reverse.

Note, this does not mean they “owe” the sharer.  Only that, found in similar circumstances, they be willing to share back.  And should they fail, the “social” penalties would be significant.  Up to and including exclusion.

We find that socialism or communism works in the family or small groups of communities.  But when expanded to the point that social penalties lose bite, those constructs breakdown.  They breakdown to the point that people begin to act in rational ways to existing incentives.

North Carolina Gun Permit Holders

What does it mean to carry a concealed weapon in North Carolina?  It means that you are about 20x more likely to obey the law: via Coyote Blog

A front-page story in today’s New York Times tries to stir up alarm about liberalized carry permit laws, which let people carry concealed handguns if they meet a short list of objective criteria. To illustrate the hazards of that policy, the Times cites crimes committed by permit holders in North Carolina. How many crimes? Excluding traffic offenses, the Times counts 2,400 over five years, of which 200 were felonies. More relevant (since critics of nondiscretionary permit laws worry that they contribute to gun violence), “More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults.” That’s a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, “more than 240,000.” So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes “represents a small percentage of those with permits.” More like “tiny.” By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year–more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders.

I didn’t know this.  However, it kinda makes sense.  See, in order to get a conceal carry permit, you have to have a clean record.  Considering that most criminals begin young, this would seem to only include law abiding people.  Do folks suddenly have occasion to make a poor decision?  Certainly.  But not typically.

I don’t like guns.  I think they’re dangerous.  But they’re less dangerous than swimming pools and I have no problem with people having them.  I even let my kids play with swimming pools.

I also think that it’s okay to regulate guns.  No one needs a fully automatic assault rifle.  And you’d be hard pressed to convince me that we need armor piercing ammunition to take down Bambi.  We already agree that criminals shouldn’t have guns.  So it isn’t a case of “should we regulate” it’s more of a case on “where do we draw the line.”

The more I see that gun owners are safer and law abiding, the more I’m willing to push that line out a little further.

Minimum Wage

Got a bunch of baseball cards in the attic?  Beanie Babies maybe?  How about some old CD’s?

Now, say ya wanna sell ’em.  Everyone knows that if you start the bidding to high you won’t get any takers.  Bring the price down and you can sell almost anything.

Simple:  More expensive, fewer people buy.  Less expensive, more people buy.

Which makes this so mind boggling:

Eight states will ring in the New Year with a higher minimum wage, under state laws that require wage floors to keep apace with inflation. San Francisco, one of the few cities that sets its own minimum wage above the federal level, is also raising wages for the lowest-paid workers in the new year. It will become the first big city in the country to require companies to pay their workers more than $10 an hour.

The minimum wage increases in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington will be 28 cents to 37 cents an hour, according to the National Employment Law Project. That is an extra $582 to $770 a year for a full-time minimum wage worker, and resets these states’ minimum wages to $7.64 to $9.04 an hour.

At that higher end is Washington State, which will become the first state in the nation to set its minimum wage above $9 an hour. For reference, the federal wage floor for most workers is $7.25 an hour.

I get it, I do.  No one’s time should be worth so little.  However, by forcing businesses to pay more for labor than they otherwise should, they will buy less labor.  And lastly, should an individual be free to bargain for the value of his time?