Tag Archives: Liberal

I have Two Words For You

Scott ‘effin Brown.

Think Obama is going to be watching the TV tomorrow?

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.

Freedom Fries

As always, I have Brad and Britt on the radio for the morning commute.  I listen because they are local and because I need to convince myself that I listen to both sides.  As such, I normally am shaking my head at the discussion and the mind-set I get from Greensboro.

This morning was different.  The subject was France and whether or not it’s better to live in France or the USA.  Normally, the left says that the French model is better but given the choice, they don’t wanna live there.  As if they subconsciously understand that you don’t get both the “good life” France offers and the freedom and benefits of such that America offers.

Brad and Britt both agreed that it is much MUCH better to live in America than France.  Again, this isn’t surprising, this follows the leftist road map.  But as the conversation continued, I was pleasantly surprised at WHY they would not like to live in France.  For example, they idea of “strikes and riots when the price of milk goes up a by a nickel” was pure genius in its simplicity in capturing the French culture.  But it got even better.  When describing the summer break, Britt correctly wondered “who is gonna do the work?”.  And not to leave Brad out, he weighed in with this “given the chance to make a life in America vs being taken care of but tracked, I would take America ANYDAY!”

This was just a wonderful way to start the morning.  It gave me hope that we ARE a center-right nation.  That we know the chance, the opportunity, to strike out and make our way is a fundamental and uniquely American principle.  That we get freedom.  That being provided for has its price.

Yet it’s this wonderful news that frustrates me from the marketing side of me.  I am convinced that a conservative approach to finance and economics is the way to prosperity and advancement.  But the right is SO poor at spreading the message that we get painted as greedy industrialists.  And we never EVER learn from that.  No one wants to hear that minimum wage laws should be abolished.  “How greedy can you get?  Slave wages for the poor!”  It resonates.  It sticks.  Never mind that unemployment goes up, cost of goods go up and innovation and choice are restricted.

And who doesn’t wanna provide less expensive yet better medical care to everyone?  We ALL do.  The problem is, there is a wrong way and a right way.  Restricting that market is the wrong way.  Opening it up is the right way.

But we never get the message out.  We just sit back and “can’t be bothered by that”.  It’s the same reason you never see serious economists enter into debate about the most commonly accepted financial principles; because it is so basic and understood, that to debate it is beneath all serious members.  It would be akin to debating that 2 is greater than 1.

Anyway, Brad, Britt….well said.  And welcome to the center-right society!

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.

That Didn't Work Out Exactly as Planned

So, the Obama administrations latest attempt to “Talk and Communicate” with the world’s bad guys closed another chapter:

Iranian lawmakers have rejected Sen. John Kerry’s request to visit their country, saying the United States needs to change its policies toward Iran before such talks can be effective, according to Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency.

I have always maintained that discussing things like health care, the economy and terrorism are subjects that lend themselves to public debate.  While there is some gamesmanship going on to be sure, there is no real “statecraft” going on.

When it comes to international diplomacy, there is a need to be purposefully subtle about our intentions.  At times, out right deceitful.  To that end, the government can not be expected to be completely transparent when it comes to things of this nature.

It’s why I have always suspected that we invaded Iraq for reasons that none of us have even debated.  I’m pretty sure it had nothing to do with oil, WMD, terror or revenge.  Maybe it had something to do with Iran?

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.

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.

HealthCare: Price vs. Cost

I wish that I could say that I said it.  But I didn’t; Mr. Munger did:

Right now, our attempts at reform are doomed by a law of accounting physics: Insurance can’t cost less than the health care it insures.

Consider: I have car insurance. But my insurance doesn’t pay for oil changes.

Instead, I go down to the Happy Lube, without an appointment, get a diagnosis of the needs of my car, and choose services based on a price list published online. Some of these services are complex, and require large expensive machines and equipment. But I don’t have to pay a separate bill, or go wait in another line, at another office or lab.

… compare it to car insurance, for two people. Imagine neither of us has to pay for our car repairs, from accidents or engine wear. We can go to the garage as often as we like, and get whatever service we want, for free. The car repair shop can charge our insurance whatever they want, because insurance pays everything. An oil change would bill out at $600; an alignment would bill our insurance $2,200, with another $800 tacked on to pay for micro-digital wheel axis imaging.

Of course, the services aren’t really free. At the end of every year, we sum the total repair costs for both people, and each of us pays half of that total.

The cost of that free car care would be enormous, because of all the unnecessary and overly expensive charges. Of course, the government could subsidize the final bill; would that help? The answer is no, for two clear reasons.

First, having the government (meaning taxpayers) subsidize the total would do nothing to reduce the runaway cost increases. Buyers won’t shop around if they don’t know or care about real costs. Subsidies mean I don’t pay if I spend, and I don’t save if I’m frugal.

Second, let’s expand the example from two people (each paying half) to 300 million people getting free care (but paying an equal share of total costs). We have met the public option, and it is us! Once we are all paying ourselves, there is no one else to hit up to help with the costs. We are simply taking each person’s money in taxes, then giving some of it back in subsidies. There is no saving, even to individuals.

Just good stuff.

Michigan to Overcome California Soon

My only hope is that these Leftist States lead us out of darkness by their example fo what NOT to do:

Flint, Mich.

Michelle Berry runs a private day-care service from her home on the outskirts of this city, the birthplace of General Motors.

Ms. Berry owns her own business—yet the Michigan Department of Human Services claims she is a government employee and union member. The agency thus withholds union dues from the child-care subsidies it sends to her on behalf of her low-income clients. Those dues are funneled to a public-employee union that claims to represent her.

A year ago in December, Ms. Berry and more than 40,000 other home-based day care providers statewide were suddenly informed they were members of Child Care Providers Together Michigan—a union created in 2006 by the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union had won a certification election conducted by mail under the auspices of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. In that election only 6,000 day-care providers voted. The pro-labor vote turned out.

Awesome.

This woman, and thousands like her, are putting it on the line every day.  They are working.  They are sacrificing.  They are, in short, DO’ERS.  And yet, somehow, the moochers and the looters have arranged a deal in Michigan where these business owners are getting screwed.

I mean, for a sec, just for a bloody second, think about what is going on here.  Ms. Berry is the OWNER.  And she is supposed to pay into a Union?  If there were a union/employer relationship present here, it would be HER that the Union would organize against.

California or Michigan.  Michigan or California.

Which one is going to give us the clearest example of what NOT to be?