Jul 26 2011
14 trillion and a few hundred billion change is what the federal government owes, right now. It’ll be more like 15 billion by the end of 2011.
Guess who gets to pay it back? Not me. Maybe not you, if you’re middle aged or so. Here’s who will be paying it back, in cash, in kind, in trade, or in economic disaster and unemployment.
Another entry in the Powerline Prize contest.
Jul 10 2011
This is just a bit of an excellent article that I commend to you on Government and God’s People
I want to be careful not to make policy pronouncements on specific issues that the Bible does not address. I think sometimes Christians simply have to make decisions based on the results of one policy or another. People can evaluate the factual data in the world in different ways; evaluating the results of different tax policies and things like that. However, on unemployment, there are at least two principles that come into play. One is that we are to care for the poor and those in need, and the Bible frequently talks about the need to care for the poor. I think government has a legitimate role in providing a safety net for those who are in genuine need of food, clothing and shelter.
There is also a strong strand of biblical teaching that emphasizes the importance of work to earn a living. Paul commands people to work with their own hands and gain the respect of outsiders, be dependent on no one. He says if anyone will not work, he should not eat. In the book of Proverbs, it says a worker’s appetite works for him. The longer that unemployment benefits are continued, the more we contribute to the idea that some people should not have to work in order to earn a living, but we should just continue to have government support them. That creates a culture of dependency, which is unhealthy for the nation and unhealthy for the people who are dependent, year after year, on government handouts.
In the book The Battle, Arthur Brooks says that what people need is not money, but “earned success.” The example that comes to my mind is a student at the seminary here who told me that a number of years ago, he had been in jail. He was arrested for the sale of drugs and other crimes, and his life was just a mess. Later, he finally got a job at a fast food restaurant and one day his manager told him he was doing a good job of keeping the French fries hot. All of a sudden, this young man had a sense of “earned success.” That is, he was doing well at something and he felt great about it and it spurred him on to work harder, to seek to receive more managerial responsibility at the fast food restaurant, and now he is a straight-A student at the seminary and has had a number of years of successful Christian ministry already.
So we need to be asking the important questions about how we can we get the economy growing so that more jobs are available.
May 26 2011
This is the most incredible set of photos I’ve seen about the destruction in Joplin, MO, with before and after photos of neighborhoods, stores, schools, etc.
Feb 09 2011
Obama to call for $53B for high-speed rail
President Barack Obama is calling for a six-year, $53 billion spending plan for high-speed rail, as he seeks to use infrastructure spending to jumpstart job creation.
An initial $8 billion in spending will be part of the budget plan Obama is set to release Monday. If Congress approves the plan, the money would go toward developing or improving trains that travel up to 250 miles per hour, and connecting existing rail lines to new projects. The White House wouldn’t say where the money for the rest of the program would come from, though it’s likely Obama would seek funding in future budgets or transportation bills.
Obama’s push for high-speed rail spending is part of his broad goal of creating jobs in the short-term and increasing American competitiveness for the future through new spending on infrastructure, education and innovation. During last month’s State of the Union address, Obama said he wanted to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years.
At the same time he’s calling for new spending on sectors like high-speed rail in the upcoming budget, Obama also has pledged to cut overall spending as he seeks to bring down the nation’s mounting deficit.
Well, to be clear, Obama only called for a “freeze in spending”… a freeze at the ridiculously high levels he set in his first two years. Only his sycophants in the press would call not raising spending even further “a cut.”
In any case, America is not Europe, nor is it Japan. There is not now a demand for high speed rail, nor will there be anytime soon. If there was a demand for it, private interests would be busy investing in it, expecting to make money from it. Obama seems to have learned nothing from the subsidy infested mess that is Amtrak.
I propose a better way to spend the money. He should invest in research in alchemy. Turning lead into gold is probably impossible…. but maybe not. And along the way, spending 50 billion dollars is likely to accidentally result in some real science getting done, something with at least “spin off” benefits, technologically and economically.
So lets hear it for alchemy in the federal budget. That makes a LOT more sense, and is probably a better way to spend large amounts of money, than high-speed rail, which will continue to be a sinkhole for money even after it’s built, which will probably cost a lot more than anyone now projects.
Of course, we all know Obama has no actual hope of doing this. He just brought it up to play to his lefty audience, who love anything that makes people get in lines and wait somewhere. But Obama knows he has no chance of getting this through a Republican House of Representatives. He’s just talking for effect, and public relations with his base.
Still… maybe in trying to turn lead into gold, the scientists would finally discover cold fusion.
Aug 12 2010
This from BBC news:
Ryanair Review Urged After Child Falls From Plane Steps (read the entire story here)
Recently a small child fell from a loading platform while boarding a jet in London. The good news is that the little 3-year-old is fine, just a bump on the head. The bad news is that the airline will probably be sued by the mother and some all-too-eager attorney with visions of pound sterling dancing in his head. The airline, not wanting any additional bad press will probably settle with the mother out of court for an “undisclosed amount”. The airline will then probably order some reconfiguration of the boarding ramps to try and prevent a similar incident from occurring. They will then pass along the cost of the ramp retrofits to the consumer by increasing the baggage charge or perhaps initiating the first-ever rental fee on passenger jets for personal flotation devices.
What ever happened to accidents?
Why was this mother trying to handle so much all at once, especially given the multiple offers of assistance airlines give to mothers traveling with small children. Why did the mother think of handing the smaller child off to the flight attendant only AFTER the little girl fell? Why do we INSTANTLY assume negligence on the part of the airline? Why doesn’t the Air Accident Investigation Branch order all parents of toddlers to undergo a review of their plane-boarding procedures?
The answer is at least in part the phalanx of John Edwards-type lawyers all too ready willing and able to go on the attack against the party with the “deep pockets”. We have heard about how litigious our society has become and for good reason. As long as these litigators are allowed to roam free with no governors on their behavior (like a loser-pays law or a monetary limit on damages) the queue of lawyers will continue to form everywhere something like this happens.
Another answer is the loss of the concept of personal responsibility in our world. One need look no further than the body politic to see a very large group of elected and appointed government officials who virtually never take personal responsibility for ANYTHING! Liars, cheaters, plagiarists, and influence peddlers are the stock -in-trade of congress. Our prisons are full of convicted criminals who are all innocent. We have fat people who are not responsible for their weight, smokers who are not responsible for lighting up and illegal aliens who are not responsible for being here illegally. I could go on. So, why should this mother be responsible for her daughter’s accident?
I am a father. My wife and I have raised 3 children. When we got on a plane with our kids we made sure they got on the plane and in their seat. When we took them to the playground it was our responsibility to see to it they didn’t break their neck. Have you noticed the changes that have taken place at playgrounds over the last 20 years? How did any of us who are over 30 ever survive? The way we are going in another ten years all playgrounds will consist of a pile of pillows with the pillow cases depicting pictures of kids playing on REAL (but illegal) playground equipment.
Sometimes there is negligence on the part of the doctor, or lawyer or business. And when that happens there is a system in place to deal with it. But sometimes it is not the fault of the party with the deep pockets, the blame lies with the so-called “little-guy”. And sometimes it’s an accident. But even to say so invites accusations of callousness and lack of caring and concern.
But I can’t be responsible for having written this. My mother smoked while she was pregnant with me and she ate food with salt, and there was no warning label on this blog site and my English teacher in college was negligent and ….
Jul 28 2010
Here is the introduction to Andy McCarthy’s comments on today’s Arizona Immigration Decision
On a quick read, the federal court’s issuance of a temporary injunction against enforcement of the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law appears specious.
In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department’s preemption argument, i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted <the> concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can’t do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement … which is nuts.
There is much more at the link above, including references to other federal court precedents that the judge seems to have decided to ignore… presumably because they would not have led to the decision she appears to want. (She is a Clinton appointee, and presumably leans left, as essentially all of his appointees did.)
There are other federal laws, laws the enforcement of which requires local law enforcement to be directly involved, and even take initiative, on matters ranging from kidnapping to terrorism to the Mann Act to drugs, literally thousands of laws.
There is no precedent for the federal government to sue to stop a state from enforcing federal law in a constitutional way. Imagine if local peace officers were not allowed to notice if someone was selling illegal drugs (mostly federal laws), or to stop a kidnapping, or arrest someone carrying a grenade launcher (not illegal according to some state laws, but banned federally for most civilians). Imagine if local peace officers were not allowed to notice someone carrying a sign advocating the assassination of Obama, or the bombing of a federal facility?
That is the ridiculous position we’d find ourselves in, if the notion that local peace officers can’t enforce federal law ever became consistently applied, and that’s why the judge’s decision is ridiculous.
This was a PURELY political lawsuit, brought by a president who wants to buy off the Hispanic vote in 2012, even at the cost of the congress in the 2010 midterms, a president who cynically believes that Hispanic voters are in favor of illegal aliens in large numbers.
I hope he is wrong in ascribing such motives to legal Hispanic voters. If he is right, it will be interesting to see exactly how much other American citizens care about this. How many who usually don’t vote can be energized to get to the polls to avoid amnesty (official or unofficial) for illegals?
Not enough, I fear.
Jun 03 2010
If anyone is counting, this is the 1200th post on this blog. Or so says the WordPress editor.
I hate to quote only an excerpt of this piece by Mark Steyn, titled We’re too broke to be this stupid.
Back in 2008, when I was fulminating against multiculturalism on a more or less weekly basis, a reader wrote to advise me to lighten up, on the grounds that “we’re rich enough to afford to be stupid.”
Two years later, we’re a lot less rich. In fact, many Western nations are, in any objective sense, insolvent. Hence last week’s column, on the EU’s decision to toss a trillion dollars into the great sucking maw of Greece’s public-sector kleptocracy. It no longer matters whether you’re intellectually in favour of European-style social democracy: simply as a practical matter, it’s unaffordable.
………
… the easiest “solution” to <social problems of all kinds> is to throw public money at <them>. You know how it is when you’re at the mall and someone rattles a collection box under your nose and you’re not sure where it’s going but it’s probably for Darfur or Rwanda or Hoogivsastan. Whatever. You’re dropping a buck or two in the tin for the privilege of not having to think about it. For the more ideologically committed, there’s always the awareness-raising rock concert: it’s something to do with Bono and debt forgiveness, whatever that means, but let’s face it, going to the park for eight hours of celebrity caterwauling beats having to wrap your head around Afro-Marxist economics. The modern welfare state operates on the same principle: since the Second World War, the hard-working middle classes have transferred historically unprecedented amounts of money to the unproductive sector in order not to have to think about it. But so what? We were rich enough that we could afford to be stupid.
The reason I hated to quote only the excerpt is because you should really read it all.
Steyn goes on to make the case that a great deal that is publicly funded, with taxes extracted from average working people, is counterproductive, or at least subsidizes bad behavior. He is at his usual entertaining and trenchant best. Read it all at the link above.
What it boils down to is this: trying to repeal the laws of economics is a luxury for societies with lots of extra cash laying about. That is no longer the case in pretty much any society, and certainly not in western society. It’s a bit like pretending you’ve undone the laws of thermodynamics by injecting extra energy from outside the system, so that you can try to convince people that entropy isn’t really happening.
But there are some laws of economics that apply. Here are a few:
1) You will get more of anything you subsidize.
2) If you increase demand, and don’t increase supply, prices go up.
3) If you increase demand, and don’t increase supply, and don’t let prices go up, shortages and rationing come next.
4) If you decrease supply, and don’t decrease demand, prices go up.
5) If you decrease supply, and don’t decrease demand, and don’t let prices go up, shortages and rationing come next.
6) If you spend money on things that don’t lead to the production of more money than you spent, then you’re losing money.
7) Ponzi schemes always collapse eventually, usually sooner than the con artists hoped.
It may not be clear to you, but virtually EVERY regulation has the effect of decreasing supply, and so prices go up. So we had better have a minimum of regulation, sticking to only the absolutely necessary. Keep in mind that rich people who own businesses don’t pay high prices. They just pass them on to consumers. When they reach a point where they can no longer pass higher prices on to consumers (because consumers won’t pay it, or the government won’t let them raise prices themselves, regardless of their costs), they leave the business, since that means it’s no longer making money.
The single biggest Ponzi scheme in American history is Social Security. The next biggest is Medicare. If you aren’t already collecting benefits from one of them, you aren’t going to get nearly as much from them as did your predecessors. Your children will get FAR less than that. Check the economies of Greece and Spain for details.
The “tea parties” springing up around the country are evidence that the entire electorate has not lost its mind, but part of the electorate is clearly insane. Or suicidal, which may be the same thing.
The 2008 election was a prime example of hope (and apparently faith in the tooth fairy) triumphing over clear thinking based on facts and history.
As Dallas Willard says in Knowing Christ Today, people only know what they’re willing to know. So I suppose that putting this together with Mark Steyn’s observation that “we’re too broke to be this stupid,” we can say that we’re too broke to be willfully stupid.
We’re too broke to decide we just don’t want to know how we got that way.
I think some people are beginning to catch on, finally. Pray it isn’t too late.
Jun 01 2010
I’ve had comments to make before about the background of “nationalized healthcare”, what it’s problems are, and so on. Here’s Ronald Reagon in 1961, before there was Medicare or Medicaid, let alone the recent takeover of healthcare by the federal government. He was amazingly prescient, wasn’t he? He completely nailed the agenda behind Medicare, and the incrementalist approach he predicted is now historical fact.
I miss him.
May 13 2010
Health overhaul law potentially costs $115B more
President Barack Obama’s new health care law could potentially add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending over the next 10 years, congressional budget referees said Tuesday.
If Congress approves all the additional spending called for in the legislation, it would push the ten-year cost of the overhaul above $1 trillion, an unofficial limit the Obama administration set early on.
The Congressional Budget Office said the added spending includes $10 billion to $20 billion in administrative costs to federal agencies carrying out the law, as well as $34 billion for community health centers and $39 billion for Indian health care.
The costs were not reflected in earlier estimates by the budget office, although Republican lawmakers strenuously argued that they should have been.
Say it isn’t so! You mean, a newly minted government program is really going to cost more than they said it would?
I’m shocked and appalled. Mostly appalled.
Appalled that there is anyone, anywhere, who doesn’t think that the program is likely to cost 2 or 3 times as much as estimated, at a minimum… and maybe much more.
Of course, there are people in the world who know nothing of history.
