...in the midst of our jobless misery, one group of workers is truly getting "stimulated."
That's government employees. The federal government has added almost 9,000 jobs a month, and the federal payroll has spiked a whopping 10.5 percent, since the current recession began in December 2007, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
And guess what? Federal employees are also earning higher wages and benefits than private sector workers do. The average federal worker now earns $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector, according to an analysis by USA Today. "Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months," the paper reports -- and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
While the rest of the economy is reeling, government just keeps expanding. Why?
Showing posts with label government boom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government boom. Show all posts
Monday, February 15, 2010
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
A somewhat satirical look at Barack Obama's promised transformation of America
President Barack Obama disclosed Wednesday that the transformation of America he promised on the eve of his election has been transformed by the wicked refusal of voters to support his transformational proposals.
Senior citizens balked at the implicit idea that they might have to saunter off into the twilight to reduce the drain on health care services. The notion that government bureaucrats or agents would be empowered to select who is worthy of such services scared the hell out of everybody else.
The upshot: the Senate, which ordinarily loves legislation that strikes at basic American values, threatens to bottle up the health care overhaul at least until year's end.
Word is that the administration is reworking the health care bill to limit the end of life provisions to red states and congressional districts represented by Republicans and blue dog Democrats.
The Chinese also have jumped aboard the anti-Obama train. In response to efforts by global warming careerists to promote a cap and trade tax on oil and coal emissions, the Chinese government laughed uproariously and asked, "You kiddin me?"
What this means is that, if Obama again calls on the Senate to enact the cap and trade bill approved by the House, that answer is almost certain to be, "You kiddin me?"
Enactment by Congress of cap and trade would hand China a huge advantage in international trade, where the Cinese already are prospering because of their low-price advantage over American companies. It also would be equivalent to hanging a sign around the neck of every senator who votes for cap and trade - a sign that says, "Kick me, I'm stupid."
That's something many voters undoubtedly would line up to do.
China already is dumping dollars, undoubtedly heeding tha advice of western-trained economists whom it employs, economists who are telling the government that the dollar is becoming a more and more risky investment as the U.S. stumbles toward insolvency.
Meanwhile, the Office of Management and Budget has raised its estimate of cumulative deficits over the next 10 years to $9 trillion.
Given the growing apprehension that the Obama team is economically ignorant and the U.S. has run off the tracks, who is going to finance those deficits? At what interest rates?
"The transformation of America starts in five days," Obama said during the runup to the election.
Who knew the magnitude and direction of that transformation?
Senior citizens balked at the implicit idea that they might have to saunter off into the twilight to reduce the drain on health care services. The notion that government bureaucrats or agents would be empowered to select who is worthy of such services scared the hell out of everybody else.
The upshot: the Senate, which ordinarily loves legislation that strikes at basic American values, threatens to bottle up the health care overhaul at least until year's end.
Word is that the administration is reworking the health care bill to limit the end of life provisions to red states and congressional districts represented by Republicans and blue dog Democrats.
The Chinese also have jumped aboard the anti-Obama train. In response to efforts by global warming careerists to promote a cap and trade tax on oil and coal emissions, the Chinese government laughed uproariously and asked, "You kiddin me?"
What this means is that, if Obama again calls on the Senate to enact the cap and trade bill approved by the House, that answer is almost certain to be, "You kiddin me?"
Enactment by Congress of cap and trade would hand China a huge advantage in international trade, where the Cinese already are prospering because of their low-price advantage over American companies. It also would be equivalent to hanging a sign around the neck of every senator who votes for cap and trade - a sign that says, "Kick me, I'm stupid."
That's something many voters undoubtedly would line up to do.
China already is dumping dollars, undoubtedly heeding tha advice of western-trained economists whom it employs, economists who are telling the government that the dollar is becoming a more and more risky investment as the U.S. stumbles toward insolvency.
Meanwhile, the Office of Management and Budget has raised its estimate of cumulative deficits over the next 10 years to $9 trillion.
Given the growing apprehension that the Obama team is economically ignorant and the U.S. has run off the tracks, who is going to finance those deficits? At what interest rates?
"The transformation of America starts in five days," Obama said during the runup to the election.
Who knew the magnitude and direction of that transformation?
Sunday, August 23, 2009
U.S. government moves to oversee yard sales
From American Thinker
"The Bush era Congress passed the "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act" in August of 2008. It was, as most legislation, an overreaction to the Chinese toy scare.
It was designed to "require extensive testing of any toy, book, or item of clothing intended for kids under the age of 12."
But ambitious bureaucrats have taken the bill and interpreted it to mean "used" toys as well. And now it appears that CPSC enforcers are going to be fanning out across the country in search of garage sales and church bazzars that are not in compliance.
No - I'm not kidding. An agency of the federal government in Washington is actually going to reach all the way down to your neighborhood and make sure that you're following their interpretation of the law.
This handy 28-pager from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reminds the American people that, thanks to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (which I have blogged about here and here), the government is totally in charge of your yard sale..."
"The Bush era Congress passed the "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act" in August of 2008. It was, as most legislation, an overreaction to the Chinese toy scare.
It was designed to "require extensive testing of any toy, book, or item of clothing intended for kids under the age of 12."
But ambitious bureaucrats have taken the bill and interpreted it to mean "used" toys as well. And now it appears that CPSC enforcers are going to be fanning out across the country in search of garage sales and church bazzars that are not in compliance.
No - I'm not kidding. An agency of the federal government in Washington is actually going to reach all the way down to your neighborhood and make sure that you're following their interpretation of the law.
This handy 28-pager from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reminds the American people that, thanks to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (which I have blogged about here and here), the government is totally in charge of your yard sale..."
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Governments add 110,000 jobs during recession
"While the private sector has shed 6.9 million jobs since the beginning of the recession, state and local governments have expanded their payrolls and added 110,000jobs, according to a report issued Thursday by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
The report, based on an analysis of federal jobs data, found that state and local governments steadily added jobs for eight months after the recession began in December 2007, with their employment peaking last August. State and local governments have since lost 55,000 jobs, but from the beginning of the recession through last month they gained a net of 110,000 jobs, the report found, in part because of the federal stimulus program."
The report, based on an analysis of federal jobs data, found that state and local governments steadily added jobs for eight months after the recession began in December 2007, with their employment peaking last August. State and local governments have since lost 55,000 jobs, but from the beginning of the recession through last month they gained a net of 110,000 jobs, the report found, in part because of the federal stimulus program."
Monday, August 3, 2009
Government rolls out still another clunker
"The teachable moment came at midnight Thursday when the government decided to suspend the less-than-four-weeks-old Cash for Clunkers program. Congress scheduled it to last until November. But many more car owners than predicted walked into dealers to qualify for the $3,500 or $4,500 rebates for trading in their old cars for new ones with slightly (four miles per gallon) better gas mileage.
Mind you, the government hasn't yet shelled out the $1 billion authorized for Cash for Clunkers. Dealers reduce the buyers' prices and have to apply to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for the rebates and NHTSA -- surprise, surprise -- has only managed to process 23,000 of an estimated 250,000 applications. The checks, we are told, will be in the mail. Oh, there's another problem: The dealers are required to destroy the clunkers, which will reduce the supply and increase the price of spare parts for those low-income folks who can't afford to trade their clunkers in even with a $4,500 subsidy. So much for helping the poor.
Cash for Clunkers is a prime example of the unanticipated consequences of hastily drafted legislation. The House voted hurriedly Friday to transfer $2 billion of stimulus funds to Cash for Clunkers, and the Senate will probably agree next week. But who thinks Congress will stop there? There will still be plenty of clunkers on the road.
This brings to mind a similarly well-intentioned 2000 Arizona law that paid $22,000 per vehicle to owners of cars operable with alternative fuels. SUV owners began installing small propane tanks and pocketing the money; the law didn't say they actually had to use the propane. A program estimated to cost $5 million ballooned to $500 million, one-tenth the state budget. The Arizona legislature, unable to print money, repealed the law. Congress is not similarly constrained."
Mind you, the government hasn't yet shelled out the $1 billion authorized for Cash for Clunkers. Dealers reduce the buyers' prices and have to apply to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for the rebates and NHTSA -- surprise, surprise -- has only managed to process 23,000 of an estimated 250,000 applications. The checks, we are told, will be in the mail. Oh, there's another problem: The dealers are required to destroy the clunkers, which will reduce the supply and increase the price of spare parts for those low-income folks who can't afford to trade their clunkers in even with a $4,500 subsidy. So much for helping the poor.
Cash for Clunkers is a prime example of the unanticipated consequences of hastily drafted legislation. The House voted hurriedly Friday to transfer $2 billion of stimulus funds to Cash for Clunkers, and the Senate will probably agree next week. But who thinks Congress will stop there? There will still be plenty of clunkers on the road.
This brings to mind a similarly well-intentioned 2000 Arizona law that paid $22,000 per vehicle to owners of cars operable with alternative fuels. SUV owners began installing small propane tanks and pocketing the money; the law didn't say they actually had to use the propane. A program estimated to cost $5 million ballooned to $500 million, one-tenth the state budget. The Arizona legislature, unable to print money, repealed the law. Congress is not similarly constrained."
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Government provides 39 % of health care policies
"The system of employer-provided health care coverage is crumbling before our eyes, and for more Americans—and for more American insurance companies—government-funded health care is all that separates them from financial disaster.
A Gallup poll found that the percentage of Americans who say they get their health insurance from an employer has fallen from 58.9 percent in January 2008 to 56.5 percent in May 2009, while the percentage who get it from the government (Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits) has jumped from 26.5 percent to 29 percent. (The rest purchase it on their own.)
But this poll understates the case. About 17 percent of payroll jobs today are government jobs. Crunch the numbers, and it's more like 39 percent getting insurance from government sources (public programs and public-sector jobs) and about 47 percent from private-sector jobs.
Simply by doing nothing, we're slowly nationalizing health care."
http://www.slate.com/id/2223936/
A Gallup poll found that the percentage of Americans who say they get their health insurance from an employer has fallen from 58.9 percent in January 2008 to 56.5 percent in May 2009, while the percentage who get it from the government (Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits) has jumped from 26.5 percent to 29 percent. (The rest purchase it on their own.)
But this poll understates the case. About 17 percent of payroll jobs today are government jobs. Crunch the numbers, and it's more like 39 percent getting insurance from government sources (public programs and public-sector jobs) and about 47 percent from private-sector jobs.
Simply by doing nothing, we're slowly nationalizing health care."
http://www.slate.com/id/2223936/
Friday, July 24, 2009
Cap and trade, from feel good remedy to noose
One month after Democrats ramrodded cap and trade through the House, the measure is beginning to look like a noose around the necks of those who voted for it.
The list includes 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans.
The purpose of the bill was to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere, pleasing global warming alarmists who had ignored the inconvenient truth that global warming vanished a decade ago.
Then, in short order, two more inconvenient truths materialized: China, a huge and rapidly growing industrial economy, declined to participate in either global warming hysteria or the remedies, and India soon followed suit.
This means that, even if the U.S. drops cap and trade, which is unlikely, China and India will continue to undercut American producers in international markets while their economies continue to outpace ours.
That's the rosy scenario.
If the administration abandons cap and trade, it will look weak and irresolute on an issue that the Democrats created and nurtured.
The third scenario is the hellish one. It is also the one that seems most likely to materialize. Determined to stick with his agenda, Obama continues to pursue cap and trade in the Senate.
In that event, Obama will be demonstrating a willingness to cripple U.S. companies in international markets, where their products would bear the added cost of carbon control and become even less competetive on price.
The net gain for air quality? zero.
National atmospheres are not stovepipes. Seal flatulence in Greenland will eventually find its way to Florida. Air sullied by coal dust from new power plants in China will eventually make its way to Camp David.
Cleansing the air over one's own country, at great expense, while other countries continue to pollute, is a fool's errand.
The three-alarm president must now pay the price of his alarmism. Two hundred and nineteen members of the House may share the experience.
The list includes 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans.
The purpose of the bill was to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere, pleasing global warming alarmists who had ignored the inconvenient truth that global warming vanished a decade ago.
Then, in short order, two more inconvenient truths materialized: China, a huge and rapidly growing industrial economy, declined to participate in either global warming hysteria or the remedies, and India soon followed suit.
This means that, even if the U.S. drops cap and trade, which is unlikely, China and India will continue to undercut American producers in international markets while their economies continue to outpace ours.
That's the rosy scenario.
If the administration abandons cap and trade, it will look weak and irresolute on an issue that the Democrats created and nurtured.
The third scenario is the hellish one. It is also the one that seems most likely to materialize. Determined to stick with his agenda, Obama continues to pursue cap and trade in the Senate.
In that event, Obama will be demonstrating a willingness to cripple U.S. companies in international markets, where their products would bear the added cost of carbon control and become even less competetive on price.
The net gain for air quality? zero.
National atmospheres are not stovepipes. Seal flatulence in Greenland will eventually find its way to Florida. Air sullied by coal dust from new power plants in China will eventually make its way to Camp David.
Cleansing the air over one's own country, at great expense, while other countries continue to pollute, is a fool's errand.
The three-alarm president must now pay the price of his alarmism. Two hundred and nineteen members of the House may share the experience.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Fans of markets say no to Obama's socialist vision
President-for-the-time being Barack Obama has now slandered doctors and cops while making it perfectly clear that he does not give a damn about the fundamental principles that have guided the United States for 233 years - through wars, economic turmoil, numerous transfers of power, and countless generations of new technology.
What matters to Obama is his vision of how things should be. That the founders carefully constructed a system through which voters and consumers would determine how things should be does not seem to interest him.
While pursuing the "transformation" of America that he threatened during his campaign, Obama mentions what has been only to point out how deeply flawed it all is.
Now, six months into his presidency Obama's transformational projects are all in trouble as more and more rank and file citizens, as well as politicians of various persuasions, are joining the campaign to stop him in his tracks.
*His bid to revamp health care, a step toward an eventual takeover of the health care industry by government, has been delayed at least until fall. Without drastic surgery, it probably will die. Polls suggest that a majority of Americans would celebrate the death.
*His cap and trade bill, designed to curtail global warming during a period of global cooling, while also raising energy costs in the United States, has become laughable now that China has publicly rejected American suggestions that it join the madness.
If Obama resumes his campaign for cap and trade, he will be supporting a crippling of American businesses in international markets while doing almost nothing to reduce carbon emissions. Those emissions might even rise, given China's plans to add a number of new coal burning power plants to its industrial base.
If Obama's health care overhaul and cap and trade bills both go down, so will his bid to socialize the American economy.
But he'll still gain something from the experience. He'll have new fodder for the thing that seems to animate him most, grievance politics. Maybe he'll accuse all of us of behaving "stupidly."
What matters to Obama is his vision of how things should be. That the founders carefully constructed a system through which voters and consumers would determine how things should be does not seem to interest him.
While pursuing the "transformation" of America that he threatened during his campaign, Obama mentions what has been only to point out how deeply flawed it all is.
Now, six months into his presidency Obama's transformational projects are all in trouble as more and more rank and file citizens, as well as politicians of various persuasions, are joining the campaign to stop him in his tracks.
*His bid to revamp health care, a step toward an eventual takeover of the health care industry by government, has been delayed at least until fall. Without drastic surgery, it probably will die. Polls suggest that a majority of Americans would celebrate the death.
*His cap and trade bill, designed to curtail global warming during a period of global cooling, while also raising energy costs in the United States, has become laughable now that China has publicly rejected American suggestions that it join the madness.
If Obama resumes his campaign for cap and trade, he will be supporting a crippling of American businesses in international markets while doing almost nothing to reduce carbon emissions. Those emissions might even rise, given China's plans to add a number of new coal burning power plants to its industrial base.
If Obama's health care overhaul and cap and trade bills both go down, so will his bid to socialize the American economy.
But he'll still gain something from the experience. He'll have new fodder for the thing that seems to animate him most, grievance politics. Maybe he'll accuse all of us of behaving "stupidly."
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Stossel on "arrogant, presumptuous politicians"
"Now focus on the spectacle of that handful of men and women daring to think they can design the medical marketplace. They would empower an even smaller group to determine -- for millions of diverse Americans -- which medical treatments are worthy and at what price.
How do these arrogant, presumptuous politicians believe they can know enough to plan for the rest of us? Who do they think they are? Under cover of helping uninsured people get medical care, they live out their megalomaniacal social-engineering fantasies -- putting our physical and economic health at risk in the process.
Will the American people say "Enough!"?
(snip)
Who will save us from these despots? What Adam Smith said about the economic planner applies here, too: The politician who tries to design the medical marketplace would "assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/22/arrogance_97561.html
How do these arrogant, presumptuous politicians believe they can know enough to plan for the rest of us? Who do they think they are? Under cover of helping uninsured people get medical care, they live out their megalomaniacal social-engineering fantasies -- putting our physical and economic health at risk in the process.
Will the American people say "Enough!"?
(snip)
Who will save us from these despots? What Adam Smith said about the economic planner applies here, too: The politician who tries to design the medical marketplace would "assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/22/arrogance_97561.html
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
A big chunk of the "uninsured" sob story is bunk
"None of the people who are trying to rush government-run medical care through Congress before we have time to think about it are pointing to Medicare, Medicaid or veterans' hospitals as shining examples of how wonderful we can expect government medical care to be when it becomes "universal."
As for those uninsured Americans we keep hearing about, there is remarkably little interest in why they don't have insurance. It cannot be poverty, for the poor can automatically get Medicaid.
In fact, we already know that there are people with substantial incomes who choose to spend those incomes on other things, especially if they are young and in good health. If necessary, they can always go to a hospital emergency room and receive treatment there, whether or not they have insurance."
(snip)
"The point is that health care is largely in your hands. Medical care is in the hands of doctors. Things that depend on what doctors do - cancer survival rates, for example - are already better here than in countries with government-run medical systems. But, if political rhetoric prevails, we may yet sell our birthright and not even get the mess of pottage."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/21/medical_care_confusion_97543.html
As for those uninsured Americans we keep hearing about, there is remarkably little interest in why they don't have insurance. It cannot be poverty, for the poor can automatically get Medicaid.
In fact, we already know that there are people with substantial incomes who choose to spend those incomes on other things, especially if they are young and in good health. If necessary, they can always go to a hospital emergency room and receive treatment there, whether or not they have insurance."
(snip)
"The point is that health care is largely in your hands. Medical care is in the hands of doctors. Things that depend on what doctors do - cancer survival rates, for example - are already better here than in countries with government-run medical systems. But, if political rhetoric prevails, we may yet sell our birthright and not even get the mess of pottage."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/21/medical_care_confusion_97543.html
Friday, July 17, 2009
Obama is half-right on health spending claims
"We spend so much more on health care, even relative to other advances, mostly because it is worth so much more to us. Similarly, we spend so much more on computers, compact discs, HDTV, and those wonderful one shot espresso makers that make it like having a barista in your own home.
Interestingly, we also spend a ton more on these other items now than we did in 1950 because none of these existed in 1950 (well, you could have hired a skilled Italian man to live with you and make you coffee twice a day, so I guess that existed and the price has in fact come down; my bad, analogy shot).
OK, you get the point. Health care today is a combination of stuff that has existed for a while and a set of entirely new things that look like (and really are) miracles from the lens of even a few years ago. We spend more on health care because it’s better. Say it with me again, slowly – this is a good thing, not a bad thing."
http://www.stumblingontruth.com/
Interestingly, we also spend a ton more on these other items now than we did in 1950 because none of these existed in 1950 (well, you could have hired a skilled Italian man to live with you and make you coffee twice a day, so I guess that existed and the price has in fact come down; my bad, analogy shot).
OK, you get the point. Health care today is a combination of stuff that has existed for a while and a set of entirely new things that look like (and really are) miracles from the lens of even a few years ago. We spend more on health care because it’s better. Say it with me again, slowly – this is a good thing, not a bad thing."
http://www.stumblingontruth.com/
Reckless capitalists doing deals without nanny
"That lethargic patient known as the American capital market showed signs of life this week. Washington's decision to put away the defibrillator paddles and let nature take its course at CIT Group means that, finally, Beltway physicians have done no more harm. More good news came from Credit Suisse, which sold mortgage-backed securities with no government guarantees and no opinions from the credit-ratings agencies.
That's right, someone has managed to finance mortgages without putting taxpayers at risk. Just as encouraging, it turns out that investors really can analyze bonds not rated by the government-anointed geniuses at Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch. We'll get to the caveats in a moment, but first let's savor that Washington is willing to consider a new course of treatment that includes the freedom to fail, while Wall Street is showing that markets can solve the problem of opaque securities."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779737373155801.html
That's right, someone has managed to finance mortgages without putting taxpayers at risk. Just as encouraging, it turns out that investors really can analyze bonds not rated by the government-anointed geniuses at Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch. We'll get to the caveats in a moment, but first let's savor that Washington is willing to consider a new course of treatment that includes the freedom to fail, while Wall Street is showing that markets can solve the problem of opaque securities."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779737373155801.html
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Blue Dog Dems vow to block Obamacare
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."
Three House committees are slated to begin considering the $1 trillion-plus bill this week, but the Energy and Commerce looms as the biggest challenge. That's because it counts among its 36 Democratic members seven members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a fiscally conservative bloc that is opposing the House Democrats' effort.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200907151403dowjonesdjonline000758&title=centrist-dem-leaderhas-committee-votes-to-block-health-bill
"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."
Three House committees are slated to begin considering the $1 trillion-plus bill this week, but the Energy and Commerce looms as the biggest challenge. That's because it counts among its 36 Democratic members seven members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a fiscally conservative bloc that is opposing the House Democrats' effort.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200907151403dowjonesdjonline000758&title=centrist-dem-leaderhas-committee-votes-to-block-health-bill
Under Obamacare NYC' s top rate would hit 57%
"Congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul could have a job-killing effect on New York, creating a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for the state's top earners and possibly pressuring small-business owners to shed workers.
New York's top income bracket could reach as high as 57 percent -- rates not seen in three decades -- to pay for the massive health coverage proposed by House Democrats this week.
The top rate in New York City, home to many of the state's wealthiest people, would be 58.68 percent, the Washington-based Tax Foundation said in a report yesterday.
That means New York's top earners, small-business owners and most dynamic entrepreneurs will be facing new fees and penalties.
The $544 billion tax hike would violate one of President Obama's ironclad campaign promises: No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/news/regionalnews/dem_health_rx_a_poion_pill_in_ny_179525.htm
New York's top income bracket could reach as high as 57 percent -- rates not seen in three decades -- to pay for the massive health coverage proposed by House Democrats this week.
The top rate in New York City, home to many of the state's wealthiest people, would be 58.68 percent, the Washington-based Tax Foundation said in a report yesterday.
That means New York's top earners, small-business owners and most dynamic entrepreneurs will be facing new fees and penalties.
The $544 billion tax hike would violate one of President Obama's ironclad campaign promises: No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/news/regionalnews/dem_health_rx_a_poion_pill_in_ny_179525.htm
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Dems would drive out private health insurers
"Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Sarah Palin tries to do something that needs doing
So, Sarah Palin plans to campaign for conservative issues and candidates, whatever their party affiliation. Good for her. I look foreward to hoots of derision from the political hacks, self-hating king-makers, machine thugs, bribe payers and bribe takers, self-dealing vultures and laughing stocks whose reckless disregard for the national interest is sinking the American ship.
I don't know whether Palin will succeed, and neither does anyone else, which is not to say that pundits won't soon be telling you when and why she will fail.
What we do know is that pursuit of self-interest, at the expense of the national interest, by politicians has brought the United States to a point where collapse or chaos is a plausible result.
Chaos was the objective of Saul Alinsky, godfather of community organizing and mentor of President Barack Obama. To achieve it, he tried to overload whatever governmental system he hoped to defeat.
What has Obama done to overload the system?
He has advocated economically damaging remedies for global warming during a period of global cooling.
He has pushed for radical changes in health care, making the American system more like Canada's, even though Canada's is infamous for its long wait times and unavailabilities. In my neighborhood, Canadians are forming collectives to insure themsleves for care on this side of the border.
He has spent trillions of dollars, driving up the national debt and testing China's willingness to continue funding that debt. In any event, interest costs of the debt will rise, putting additional drag on a flagging economy.
Not everyone is applauding this insanity. There are conservatives in the Democrat Party as well as the Republican Party, and among independents. Can they be rallied to oppose the destruction of America?
We don't know because, until now, no one has tried except the rare, quixotic third-party presidential candidates.
If Palin can do it, even on an ad hoc basis, good for her.
Here's a slogan: "We stoppped Hitler, Tojo and Stalin. We can stop Obama."
I don't know whether Palin will succeed, and neither does anyone else, which is not to say that pundits won't soon be telling you when and why she will fail.
What we do know is that pursuit of self-interest, at the expense of the national interest, by politicians has brought the United States to a point where collapse or chaos is a plausible result.
Chaos was the objective of Saul Alinsky, godfather of community organizing and mentor of President Barack Obama. To achieve it, he tried to overload whatever governmental system he hoped to defeat.
What has Obama done to overload the system?
He has advocated economically damaging remedies for global warming during a period of global cooling.
He has pushed for radical changes in health care, making the American system more like Canada's, even though Canada's is infamous for its long wait times and unavailabilities. In my neighborhood, Canadians are forming collectives to insure themsleves for care on this side of the border.
He has spent trillions of dollars, driving up the national debt and testing China's willingness to continue funding that debt. In any event, interest costs of the debt will rise, putting additional drag on a flagging economy.
Not everyone is applauding this insanity. There are conservatives in the Democrat Party as well as the Republican Party, and among independents. Can they be rallied to oppose the destruction of America?
We don't know because, until now, no one has tried except the rare, quixotic third-party presidential candidates.
If Palin can do it, even on an ad hoc basis, good for her.
Here's a slogan: "We stoppped Hitler, Tojo and Stalin. We can stop Obama."
Saturday, July 11, 2009
U.S. losing competetive edge against Europe
"There's no question that current government policies for taxes, spending and regulation are causing the United States to lose competitiveness in the global race for capital, prosperity and growth.
Of course, China has been moving in the direction of free-market capitalism for years. To some extent, this shows the positive benefits of America's free-trade policies and its open-mindedness in helping nurture not only Chinese growth, but also middle-class prosperity worldwide.
But what's particularly galling about Obamanomics is that we may well be losing our competitive edge with Europe. While Europe is ever so slightly moving toward Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the United States is shifting toward an overtaxed and overregulated model that smacks of Francois Mitterrand. That's something no one should want to tolerate."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/11/the_road_to_economic_demoralization_--_washington_is_going_the_wrong_way_97403.html
Of course, China has been moving in the direction of free-market capitalism for years. To some extent, this shows the positive benefits of America's free-trade policies and its open-mindedness in helping nurture not only Chinese growth, but also middle-class prosperity worldwide.
But what's particularly galling about Obamanomics is that we may well be losing our competitive edge with Europe. While Europe is ever so slightly moving toward Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the United States is shifting toward an overtaxed and overregulated model that smacks of Francois Mitterrand. That's something no one should want to tolerate."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/11/the_road_to_economic_demoralization_--_washington_is_going_the_wrong_way_97403.html
Three-alarm presidency won't bring recovery
The Obama administration ordinarily operates in three-alarm mode. On its to-do list, even the mundane carries the designation "dire emergency."
On matters that bear directly on Obama's agenda of destroying American capitalism, such as cap and trade, the administration has gone to outlandish lengths, forcing the House to take up a bill that no member had read.
Still, there is room for even more alarming alarmism. The stubborn refusal of the economy to get up off the mat, combined with the approach of the 2010 election season, seems likely to put the Obamaites in four-alarm mode.
The preceding post quotes Nouriel Roubini as doubting that the recession will end this year. If the recession does extend into 2010 it is likely to affect the outcome of the 2010 congressional election by depressing contributions to Democrat campaiagns and discouraging some potential Democrat challengers from running.
Obama already is slipping in the polls. Among those with strong opinions, opponents of Obama are running 7 percentage points ahead of supporters in the Rasmussen Poll. The Gallup Poll shows the Democrats' lead in party identification shrinking, but the party still leads Republicans by nine points, 49 percent to 40 percent.
Alleged Republicans who supported Obama, such as Colin Powell, also appear to be having second thoughts. Expressing surprise at the size of Obama's agenda, Powell recently negotiated the first teeny-weeny, unserious climb-down from the Obama train. It wasn't pretty, but everything has to start somewhere.
As the failure of Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan becomes more and more obvious, the credibility of other Republican Obamaites will come into question. Will Warren Buffett ever be regarded as Warren Buffett again? Not likely.
My question is, why did Obama reject the stimlulus option that was most likely to work immediately in favor of one that may not work at all?
An immediate tax cut, perhaps including a timed tax holiday, would have put money in the hands of taxpayers immediately while also giving them reassurance that America was going on as usual despsite the bump in the road.
Instead, the administration chose the pork barrel, which persuaded many Americans that something new was afoot and they'd better hold onto every dime they had. The three-alarm Obamaites, by scaring American consumers, caused the Obama stimulus plan to fail.
How much damage will the four-alarm Obamaites cause? We'll know soon.
On matters that bear directly on Obama's agenda of destroying American capitalism, such as cap and trade, the administration has gone to outlandish lengths, forcing the House to take up a bill that no member had read.
Still, there is room for even more alarming alarmism. The stubborn refusal of the economy to get up off the mat, combined with the approach of the 2010 election season, seems likely to put the Obamaites in four-alarm mode.
The preceding post quotes Nouriel Roubini as doubting that the recession will end this year. If the recession does extend into 2010 it is likely to affect the outcome of the 2010 congressional election by depressing contributions to Democrat campaiagns and discouraging some potential Democrat challengers from running.
Obama already is slipping in the polls. Among those with strong opinions, opponents of Obama are running 7 percentage points ahead of supporters in the Rasmussen Poll. The Gallup Poll shows the Democrats' lead in party identification shrinking, but the party still leads Republicans by nine points, 49 percent to 40 percent.
Alleged Republicans who supported Obama, such as Colin Powell, also appear to be having second thoughts. Expressing surprise at the size of Obama's agenda, Powell recently negotiated the first teeny-weeny, unserious climb-down from the Obama train. It wasn't pretty, but everything has to start somewhere.
As the failure of Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan becomes more and more obvious, the credibility of other Republican Obamaites will come into question. Will Warren Buffett ever be regarded as Warren Buffett again? Not likely.
My question is, why did Obama reject the stimlulus option that was most likely to work immediately in favor of one that may not work at all?
An immediate tax cut, perhaps including a timed tax holiday, would have put money in the hands of taxpayers immediately while also giving them reassurance that America was going on as usual despsite the bump in the road.
Instead, the administration chose the pork barrel, which persuaded many Americans that something new was afoot and they'd better hold onto every dime they had. The three-alarm Obamaites, by scaring American consumers, caused the Obama stimulus plan to fail.
How much damage will the four-alarm Obamaites cause? We'll know soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
