The debate rages on; almost always never resolved. Do tax hikes benefit or harm economies?
On the one hand, the argument is that the State needs the income to do the People’s Business. On the other hand, taxes are a burden and a head wind for economic growth.
Who wins out?
Posted in Economics, Government, Politics: National, States Behaving Badly
Tagged Abuse of Power, Capitalism, Democrat, Illinois, Jimmy Johns, Taxes
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 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
I am learning more and more in life that if you wanna get something done:
It would appear that I’m not alone:
Posted in Economics, Liberty, Lobby/PAC, Politics: National, States Behaving Badly
Like a drum beat in the background for nearly three years now we’ve heard that we need to pass stimulus bills to fund “shovel ready infrastructure” . Somehow we have left our roads and bridges in such disrepair that failure to raise taxes to spend money on their repair is simply…is simply…is simply too much for words.
That idea has always left me a little unsatisfied. I mean, how do we budget for and then pay for the repairs of bridges and roads normally? I mean, does it take a stimulus bill to pay for this maintenance?
Look, an asteroid shower hits roads and bridges Kentucky, I’m all for a spending bill that repairs those bridges and those roads. But the routine upkeep. That CAN’T require stimulus. Right?
Federal highway programs are funded not from general tax revenue but from various highway user taxes, mostly the federal tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Legally, all those monies constitute the source of funding for the Highway Trust Fund. When Congress decides on spending for highways (and since the Reagan era, for mass transit), the dollars are supposed to come from this Trust Fund.
What the appropriations committees used to do was to approve funding for those purposes that was less than the user-tax revenues coming in. That meant federal revenues for surface transportation exceeded federal spending in that area, which made the overall budget deficit look smaller than it really was—and was manifestly unfair to the highway users who were paying the bills.
Nice.
See, they tax us on usage–which is AS IT SHOULD BE- for the infrastructure that we use. Then they don’t use that money to keep the infrastructure up. Then they claim that we need to pass massive stimulus bills to fix the infrastructure that they didn’t fix with the money they spent somewhere else.
Damn it!
Posted in Government, Politics: National, States Behaving Badly
Tagged Abuse of Power, Budget, Deficit, Roads and Bridges
Out with the new. In with the old.
So, something happened to me today that sent shivers down my spine. Something so horrible I couldn’t even bring myself to tell my family. I was left all alone, in the dark, all by myself.
Did I say I was alone?
And in the dark?
That’s cause the light bulb in the lamp on my night stand went out!
You call 911. The voice on the other end is polite, urgent and confident. “A fire?” she says “We’ll have the fire department right there! Hold on!”
And sure enough, within 7 minutes you here the sirens and the trucks roar into the yard in less than 10.
Now. You only have an 80% chance that it even matters!
China has massive problems. They are growing too fast and can’t keep infrastructure up to the increasing demands.
They have limited families to 1 child. And next on the “restricting block?”
Cars.
Posted in Economics, Politics: International, States Behaving Badly, Transportation
Tagged Beijing, China, Regulation
In the private sector, a service is something that is meant to be maximized; made better. This in an effort to lure more and more people into purchasing you r product – your service.
When the government is doing a service it take monopoly share of the market. It’s illegal for FedEx and UPS to deliver packages to a mailbox [ a mailbox that I purchase by the way ]. The government licenses cars. Issues driver’s license. The government educates our kids. All of it, they mandate .
But the service they provide turns from something that is meant to be grown and made better to something that is meant to be minimized and made cheaper.
Watch
Posted in Economics, Liberty, Politics: National, States Behaving Badly