Tag Archives: Leftist

When They Say They, They Are Really They

Reaction from the news outlets has kept me awake all night.

In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century, leaving President Obama’s health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office.

…

The loss by the once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley in the Democratic stronghold was a stunning embarrassment for the White House after Obama rushed to Boston on Sunday to try to save the foundering candidate. Her defeat signaled big political problems for the president’s party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

This is huge.  No doubt about it, this is huge.

Beer and Taxes

I can’t believe that I haven’t posted on this before.  Even my dad, a die hard Democrat had to tip his hat to this logic:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

California: Part V

Mark Perry has a most excellent post over at Carpe Diem.  The whole thing is a must read, but the highlights:

Exhibit A: California has lost more than one million jobs in the last several years, while employment levels in Texas have remained relatively stable.

Exhibit B: In early 2006, California’s unemployment was actually slightly below Texas, but is now 4.3 percentage points higher than Texas (12.3% vs. 8%).

Exhibit C:

One-way rental rates for a 26-foot truck from U-Haul:

From Dallas to San Francisco: $734
From San Francisco to Dallas: $2,116

From Houston to Los Angeles: $706
From Los Angeles to Houston: $2,051

Exhibit D: Texas kids are one to two years of learning ahead of California kids of the same age.

Exhibit E: William Voegeli tartly says that “Rome wasn’t sacked in a day, and California didn’t become Argentina overnight.”

Net/net children, it is high time to get the hell out of California.  And, now that I think of it, to get California’s mind-set OUT of Washington.

Update: become Argentina overnight!  THAT, is hil-ar-i-ous.

A Lesson in the Tender Mercies Of Organized Labor

November results for car makers:

Ford’s U.S. sales surge 33% in December

GM handed in a 6.1% sales decline

Chrysler…reported a 4% dip

Toyota Motor Corp. said its U.S. sales increased 32.3%

Gawd, it is SO nice to be right.

How Cities Benefit by Labor Unions

How does a public pension fund respond after losing more than $70 billion of its $260 billion fund?

“It is important for you to know that the current credit crisis does not directly affect your retirement benefits, which are securely protected by law, or our ability to pay benefits.”

Translation: Not to worry; the taxpayers will have to bail us out.

Excellent.

And what does it mean to tax payers when said fund loses more than $70 billion of its $260 billion fund?

In the end, taxpayers stand to pay plenty for all this, either through increased taxes or diminished public services — closed libraries and shelters for battered women, fewer trash pickups, shuttered courts, slower police and fire response times, more potholes, early county jail prisoner releases and much more — if local governments see layoffs and furloughs as their only way out.

This is your bed, California.  I really REALLY hope that only YOU have to lie in it.

Government Regulation at Work

As the Obama administration becomes more and more involved in the day-to-day business of more and more businesses, you have to wonder what his real goal is?  If it is to drive the best and brightest from the industry in question, well, then this should be seen as a sign of success:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A top executive at American International Group Inc has resigned because of pay curbs imposed by the Obama Administration’s pay czar, the insurer said on Wednesday.

Anastasia Kelly, AIG’s vice chairman for legal, human resources, corporate affairs and corporate communications, resigned effective December 30 for “good reason” and is eligible for severance pay under the terms of the company’s executive severance plan, the insurer said.

Kelly stands to be paid about $2.8 million in severance, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Kelly’s resignation comes after Kenneth Feinberg, who is charged with monitoring pay levels at companies that received taxpayer funds, imposed pay caps for AIG’s top executives.

Earlier this month, Feinberg set the compensation structures for the 26th through 100th highest-paid employees at four firms, including AIG, limiting most cash salaries to $500,000.

And she’s not the only one.  Apparently there are other top execs ready to walk:

She was among five executives reported by The Wall Street Journal to have notified the insurer that they were prepared to resign and collect severance benefits if their pay was cut sharply by Feinberg. Chief Executive Robert Benmosche separately also had considered quitting because of the pay constraints, the Journal has reported.

And the impact to the bank:

Cornelius Hurley, director of the Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law at Boston University, said no AIG employee was irreplaceable.

“We have been duped into thinking that these AIG employees have some kind of secret code that no other employee could discover if they were hired to replace them and therefore they are able to basically hold the company ransom,” Hurley said.

Imagine if the government bailed out the Minnesota Vikings.  And then, in order to make them competitive, demanded that the team could only pay their QB $500,000.  Brett Favre walks.  The Vikes finish 3-13.  As it stands today, they are the number 2 seed and a decent bet at playing in their 5th Super Bowl.

Hope for Change.

California: Part V

What do you do when you’re short money?  Do you spend less?  Go try and earn more?  Or do you go and hold your hat on the street?

California can’t t spend less.  They won’t do what it takes to earn more.  The only option left open to them is to ask you and I for money:

California’s political leaders, who are facing the daunting challenge of closing an estimated $20.7 billion budget deficit this year, are looking to Washington for help. Just don’t call it a bailout.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said he plans to head to the nation’s capital “early and often” seeking federal assistance. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger already has put the federal government on notice that he wants billions he says the state is owed. And outgoing Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County), said she would head east as soon as this month.

Awesome.  California continues to drive themselves deeper and deeper into debt and insolvency.  And then, when the well is dry, they come running to the Federal government for help.

Only in America.

What NOT to Teach Your Children

When raising children, I find that explain “mine” and “yours” is critical.  It becomes a point of strength when trying to instill charity, compassion and respect later on.  After all, you are unable to GIVE something that isn’t YOURS to begin with.

However, like many things in life, what we teach our kids are things that we don’t expect our government to live by:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The attorney general for Washington D.C. has filed a lawsuit against an AT&T Inc unit, seeking to recover consumers’ unused balances on prepaid calling cards.

The suit claims that AT&T should turn over unused balances on the calling cards of consumers whose last known address was in Washington, D.C. and have not used the calling card for three years.

“AT&T’s prepaid calling cards must be treated as unclaimed property under district law,” the attorney general’s office said in a statement.

So, I buy something from someone, choose not to use it.  Or lose it.  And the selling party has to give the money back to me the government?

How do you even begin to explain that to your kids?

Hard to See This Coming

In an effort to curb banks from “predatory lending” and “profit taking”, Washington lawmakers enacted legislation that our Dear Beloved Leader signed into law.  Basically the new law makes it harder for banks to raise rates it charges folks who fail to make payments.

First, I often find it hilarious when groups of people chastise banks or lenders for trying to make money for “selling money” or lending money to people.  Especially when these people fail to pay that money back.  Fail to pay it back either “on time” or “at all”.  As if these lending institutions exist for the sole purpose of handing out discretionary money.  At times likes these, I always ALWAYS trot out my favorite “put your money where your mouth is” argument.  { by the way, didja catch that pun?!?  money where your mouth is? }.  If someone you know, or even if it’s you in this situation, think that people, banks or institutions should lend money without regard to being paid back, go to prosper.com and lend your own money to people who can’t afford to pay it back.  This is the perfect opportunity.  You don’t have to be a fancy shmancy bank with billions of dollars.  Even a couple hundred bucks would be appreciated.

Okay, back to the point.  When banks are restricted in their ability to sell their product to a group of people, they will react by:

  1. Stop selling that product
  2. Charging the non-regulated customers more for the same product
  3. Like the force of water, work around the obstacle

In this case, the banks choose option #3:

(AP) It’s no mistake. This credit card’s interest rate is 79.9 percent.

…

Typically, the First Premier card comes with a minimum of $256 in fees in the first year for a credit line of $250. Starting in February, however, a new law will cap such fees at 25 percent of a card’s credit line.

In a recent mailing for a preapproved card, First Premier lowers fees to just that limit – $75 in the first year for a credit line of $300. But the new law doesn’t set a cap on interest rates. Hence the 79.9 APR, up from the previous 9.9 percent.

The new law restricts the fees for selling money.  So, in response, the banks just raise the rate of interest.  Awesome.

But even with these new rates, does a credit card appeal to certain people?

As harsh as First Premier’s terms seem, that could be a blow to those who rely on the card, said Odysseas Papadimitriou, CEO of CardHub.com.

“Even when the cost of credit is astronomical, for people in true emergencies, it’s much better than not having access to credit,” said Papadimitriou.

Sure.  In fact, for some people, even at these rates, the borrowed money passes the marginal value threshold.  Then again, so did the flat rates the government restricted.

"This One Time…..In Band Camp…"

I’m relatively new to really REALLY watching politics.  I guess, in the past, I didn’t care.  Mostly I was single, renting and didn’t make enough money to care about taxes.  The last decade has seen that ALL change.  I am no longer single, I have children, own a home, make more money and am seriously considering starting my own business.  I also spend more time at home than I used to spend before all the changes aforementioned.   Combine this with the very compelling story of last year’s election; first time in many years that a  President or Vice President wasn’t running, and you have good drama.  AND we would have the opportunity to see America’s first woman or black Presidential candidate.  All good political drama.

Back to my point.  I am really pretty new to political theater.  So, maybe as I say this, it’s really not so unusual.  Could even be par for the course.  But to me, this is absolutely stunning.  Not only in the hypocrisy of it all, but in the sheer ignorance of any semblance of economic thinking.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration pledged on Thursday to back beleaguered mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac no matter how big their losses may be in the next three years.

Serious?  Banks are paying BACK their TARP funds and these guys are asking for, and getting, more money?  At least they’ll have to be smart in their use of it, right?

It also jettisoned a demand that the two companies cut the size of their mortgage-related investment portfolios next year, allowing them to provide even more support in the near term for a housing market recovering from its worst slump in decades.

Nope.  Business as usual; continue to sell money to people who can’t afford it.

So, how is it that some businesses are capped and controlled and can’t WAIT to get out from under government control while others seem unable to even WANT to get out?  Is it political or is it simply a way of life?  Is it really possible that the Obama administration is giving political favors to supporters or, perhaps, does he simply think that a fascist* banking system is the most effective method by which to establish financial systems?

The Treasury’s announcement came just hours after the companies said their chief executives would be paid up to $6 million on an annualized basis for 2009.

…

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are congressionally chartered companies that buy up mortgages from banks and other originators to keep mortgage markets liquid. Some of the debt is repackaged as securities and sold off to investors, and the government has been buying an increasing share.

Sadly, for Liberty loving people, it would seem that the answer is “Both”.  Obama is both paying political favors, $6 million to the CEOs, AND feels that economic fascism is the preferred method of financial systems.

Like I said, I am new to this.  Maybe this is business as usual.  But from the cheap seats, this is ugly.

*   From wiki:  Fascists promoted their ideology as a “Third Position” between capitalism and communism.  Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which the economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level.  Fascists advocated a new national class-based economic system, variously termed “national corporatism”, “national socialism” or “national syndicalism”.  The common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.

Fascist governments exercised control over private property but did not nationalise it. They pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state or party-controlled.