From National Review Online.
"What’s happening in the developed world today isn’t so very hard to understand: The 20th-century Bismarckian welfare state has run out of people to stick it to. In America, the feckless, insatiable boobs in Washington, Sacramento, Albany, and elsewhere are screwing over our kids and grandkids. In Europe, they’ve reached the next stage in social-democratic evolution: There are no kids or grandkids to screw over."
...
"So you can’t borrow against the future because, in the most basic sense, you don’t have one. Greeks in the public sector retire at 58, which sounds great. But, when ten grandparents have four grandchildren, who pays for you to spend the last third of your adult life loafing around?
By the way, you don’t have to go to Greece to experience Greek-style retirement: The Athenian “public service” of California has been metaphorically face down in the ouzo for a generation."
...
"When seeking to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences, President Ford liked to say: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” Which is true enough. But there’s an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isn’t big enough to get you to give any of it back. That’s the point Greece is at. Its socialist government has been forced into supporting a package of austerity measures. The Greek people’s response is: Nuts to that."
...
"Responsibility doesn’t pay. You’ll wind up bailing out anyway. The problem is there are never enough of “the rich” to fund the entitlement state, because in the end it disincentivizes everything from wealth creation to self-reliance to the basic survival instinct, as represented by the fertility rate."
How many women of child-bearing age DON'T have kids in this country? Last I heard, it was somewhere around 30%--they won't have grandkids to stick it to, either...just like me. The ungodly tax situation in Europe is EXACTLY WHY they have declining birth rates, even negative ones in the northern European countries (and their governments offer incentives to have kids). Along with negative birth rates, they also have rising rates of alcoholism--is shows a lack of hope for the future. They've given up.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
A 19th Century Idea for Health Reform
From the NY Times.
"The simplest arrangement would award the bonus to those who did not consume more than a threshold value of medical care during a three-year period, potentially excluding preventive care. Ordinary health insurance provides a tangible benefit only when you need health care. Tontine insurance pays a cash benefit when you don’t use it, as well as covering your medical expenses when you do."
This is primarily billed as an enticement for the younger workers, but I'd be open to it.
"The simplest arrangement would award the bonus to those who did not consume more than a threshold value of medical care during a three-year period, potentially excluding preventive care. Ordinary health insurance provides a tangible benefit only when you need health care. Tontine insurance pays a cash benefit when you don’t use it, as well as covering your medical expenses when you do."
This is primarily billed as an enticement for the younger workers, but I'd be open to it.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Book Recommendation, Even Though It Isn't Out Yet
The New Good Life: Living Better Than Ever in An Age of Less by John Robbins (heir to the Baskin-Robbins fortune, but recently went broke).
There is a foreword by Vickie Robin, co-author of Your Money or Your Life. The book comes out in March.
This book would probably be more useful to the grasshoppers-turned-ants than the black-belt frugalite ants, but hey--you gotta start somewhere!
There is a foreword by Vickie Robin, co-author of Your Money or Your Life. The book comes out in March.
This book would probably be more useful to the grasshoppers-turned-ants than the black-belt frugalite ants, but hey--you gotta start somewhere!
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Veering Into Space For Just a Minute...
A friend of many years reminded me that the reason we went to space was not for the sake of space, but to demonstrate the superiority of Democracy over Communism.
In light of Obama's canceling of the Constellation program (and the successive under-funding of NASA as a whole), does this say to us that Obama is trying to demonstrate just the opposite--that Communism is superior to Democracy?
One wonders.
In light of Obama's canceling of the Constellation program (and the successive under-funding of NASA as a whole), does this say to us that Obama is trying to demonstrate just the opposite--that Communism is superior to Democracy?
One wonders.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Ending Bureaucracy
I just found some guy's blog about destroying bureaucracy, and evidently he's too young and foolish to know what bureaucracy's about. I straightened him out.
For the rest of you, bureaucracy is a system of requirements for limiting enrollment, audit-passing, and legal ass-covering. If you are lucky enough to fit stated requirements, it shows itself in forms, which require other forms, which require some sort of processing and/or filing, which require still more forms to prove the previous forms have been received, data entered, filed, and cataloged, and generate forms to inform of acceptance or rejection of the the thing applied for in the first place, because the forms (or you) either complied with or didn't meet requirements.
Paper trails are necessary for eventual audits, and passing said audits with flying colors the FIRST time (always preferred), because it says your documents and document collection will stand the legal test of scrutiny. Someday, someone will try to sue, and this paper trail is like a stone bucket of evidence either FOR or AGAINST them.
Next time you fill out a form for anything, think of it as evidence that can be used against you in a court of law.
Would you like to stop this system cold in its tracks? Don't ever fill out a form---it could become evidence against you. No form, no request for something with a lot of strings attached, no follow-on paperwork, no audit down the road, and in the end, no legal ass-covering necessary. Not only would a lot of paper-pushers be out of a job, but so would a lot of rule-makers, paper manufacturers, form designers and printers, and lawyers.
ADDENDUM: On second thought, we NEED bureaucracy--otherwise, unemployed lawyers would become politicians or TV pundits in search of their next pay checks. We already have enough of those around!
For the rest of you, bureaucracy is a system of requirements for limiting enrollment, audit-passing, and legal ass-covering. If you are lucky enough to fit stated requirements, it shows itself in forms, which require other forms, which require some sort of processing and/or filing, which require still more forms to prove the previous forms have been received, data entered, filed, and cataloged, and generate forms to inform of acceptance or rejection of the the thing applied for in the first place, because the forms (or you) either complied with or didn't meet requirements.
Paper trails are necessary for eventual audits, and passing said audits with flying colors the FIRST time (always preferred), because it says your documents and document collection will stand the legal test of scrutiny. Someday, someone will try to sue, and this paper trail is like a stone bucket of evidence either FOR or AGAINST them.
Next time you fill out a form for anything, think of it as evidence that can be used against you in a court of law.
Would you like to stop this system cold in its tracks? Don't ever fill out a form---it could become evidence against you. No form, no request for something with a lot of strings attached, no follow-on paperwork, no audit down the road, and in the end, no legal ass-covering necessary. Not only would a lot of paper-pushers be out of a job, but so would a lot of rule-makers, paper manufacturers, form designers and printers, and lawyers.
ADDENDUM: On second thought, we NEED bureaucracy--otherwise, unemployed lawyers would become politicians or TV pundits in search of their next pay checks. We already have enough of those around!
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
VAT Trap--The Inevitable Deficit Fix
From CNN/Fortune.
In case you were wondering, this is also known as the Fair Tax plan.
"...the sheer scale of the expected numbers makes it practically inevitable that the U.S. will soon adopt a big VAT. It's the only vehicle capable of raising the money to cover the gigantic projected increases in spending and deficits."
...
"...it's never gotten much support in the U.S. for two reasons. First, it's a regressive tax: Low-earning families pay a bigger portion of their incomes than the wealthy. And second, the VAT -- first introduced by a French civil servant in 1954 -- has fueled the rapid growth of government in France, Germany, and even Japan. In fact, no other country spends the kind of money we're planning to spend without a VAT. The numbers tell the story."
...
"Here's the big problem: Government spending is projected at $5.7 trillion in 2020. Total tax receipts are expected to come in at $4.7 trillion, which creates the $1 trillion shortfall. But income tax receipts, by far the government's biggest source of revenue, are projected to reach just $2.3 trillion. Hence, erasing the deficit would require a 44% increase in income tax revenues to cover that $1 trillion deficit.
But even if tax rates rose 44%, tax receipts wouldn't increase nearly as much, since Americans would flee for tax shelters or retire early. "You can't get to rates high enough to increase receipts by almost half," says Riedl.
So how big would the new VAT need to be? The short answer is very. Raising the $1 trillion needed to cover the projected shortfall in 2020 would require a 7% tax on everything we consume."
Also, there is nothing to keep Congress or the states from raising it higher from there. Hello, Socialist country!
"There are two options besides the VAT, though they're fading fast.
The first is achieving extremely high growth rates. That could hold future deficits far lower than those projected today. The rub is that big government spending tends to depress rather than boost economic expansion. The other option is to substantially lower spending. But as we've clearly seen, that option is conspicuously absent from President Obama's new budget."
Like I said--hello, Socialist nation!
In case you were wondering, this is also known as the Fair Tax plan.
"...the sheer scale of the expected numbers makes it practically inevitable that the U.S. will soon adopt a big VAT. It's the only vehicle capable of raising the money to cover the gigantic projected increases in spending and deficits."
...
"...it's never gotten much support in the U.S. for two reasons. First, it's a regressive tax: Low-earning families pay a bigger portion of their incomes than the wealthy. And second, the VAT -- first introduced by a French civil servant in 1954 -- has fueled the rapid growth of government in France, Germany, and even Japan. In fact, no other country spends the kind of money we're planning to spend without a VAT. The numbers tell the story."
...
"Here's the big problem: Government spending is projected at $5.7 trillion in 2020. Total tax receipts are expected to come in at $4.7 trillion, which creates the $1 trillion shortfall. But income tax receipts, by far the government's biggest source of revenue, are projected to reach just $2.3 trillion. Hence, erasing the deficit would require a 44% increase in income tax revenues to cover that $1 trillion deficit.
But even if tax rates rose 44%, tax receipts wouldn't increase nearly as much, since Americans would flee for tax shelters or retire early. "You can't get to rates high enough to increase receipts by almost half," says Riedl.
So how big would the new VAT need to be? The short answer is very. Raising the $1 trillion needed to cover the projected shortfall in 2020 would require a 7% tax on everything we consume."
Also, there is nothing to keep Congress or the states from raising it higher from there. Hello, Socialist country!
"There are two options besides the VAT, though they're fading fast.
The first is achieving extremely high growth rates. That could hold future deficits far lower than those projected today. The rub is that big government spending tends to depress rather than boost economic expansion. The other option is to substantially lower spending. But as we've clearly seen, that option is conspicuously absent from President Obama's new budget."
Like I said--hello, Socialist nation!
Here Come the Food Police: U.S. Government to Forbid Unhealthy Foods in Schools
From HealthDay News. (no link--part of a "news roundup")
Legislation banning candy and sugary beverages from schools will soon be introduced by the Obama administration.
Any vending machines that remain in schools would have to be "filled with nutritious offerings to make the healthy choice the easy choice for our nation's children," according to an excerpt of a speech to be delivered Monday by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, The New York Times reported.
While the bill would require that all foods offered in schools comply with strict new nutritional guidelines, bake sales, parties and other occasional offerings of sweets would be allowed.
The legislation has the support of the National PTA and a number of health and medical advocacy groups, but some local school officials are lukewarm about this type of federal control.
"Our feeling is that school boards are acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that children have access to healthy and nutritious food," Lucy Gettman, of the National School Boards Association, told The Times.
Okay--who's gonna step up and be the bad guy who determines what's healthy and what's not, and what about food allergies that may change the term "healthy" for some? Wheat is healthy, but not for me. Same for nuts, dairy, tomatoes, and a whole host of other "healthy" foods.
Rather than pick and choose what goes INTO vending machines at schools, JUST RIP THE DARN THINGS OUT COMPLETELY! I didn't have vending machines in school until I got to high school, and then it was only soda machines.
Legislation banning candy and sugary beverages from schools will soon be introduced by the Obama administration.
Any vending machines that remain in schools would have to be "filled with nutritious offerings to make the healthy choice the easy choice for our nation's children," according to an excerpt of a speech to be delivered Monday by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, The New York Times reported.
While the bill would require that all foods offered in schools comply with strict new nutritional guidelines, bake sales, parties and other occasional offerings of sweets would be allowed.
The legislation has the support of the National PTA and a number of health and medical advocacy groups, but some local school officials are lukewarm about this type of federal control.
"Our feeling is that school boards are acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that children have access to healthy and nutritious food," Lucy Gettman, of the National School Boards Association, told The Times.
Okay--who's gonna step up and be the bad guy who determines what's healthy and what's not, and what about food allergies that may change the term "healthy" for some? Wheat is healthy, but not for me. Same for nuts, dairy, tomatoes, and a whole host of other "healthy" foods.
Rather than pick and choose what goes INTO vending machines at schools, JUST RIP THE DARN THINGS OUT COMPLETELY! I didn't have vending machines in school until I got to high school, and then it was only soda machines.
Speaking Ill of the Dead
I, for one, am glad John Murtha's gone, and you should be too. Here's why:
1. The man voted for and pushed votes on (not to mention got earmarked) money to be spent on UNWANTED military hardware, mainly to appease his lobby. You want to know where the military spending waste came from, blame him.
2. He was deeply in the pocket of major defense contractors, like Boeing, Raytheon, and others, and purposely steered projects to his home state. Yes, like the congressman from Kansas, he was a MAJOR parliament whore who brought home the bacon for his state. Many of the defense contractors were home-based in his state.
3. He did his damndest to GET money for building airplanes, tanks, weapons systems, and other hardware, and he did his damndest to KEEP money and projects flowing to his state. Murtha was #2 for corruption and bringing home the bacon--behind the #1 Alaska senator Ted Stevens, who got indicted for improper use of campaign funds, moving Murtha to the #1 position.
He also did his damndest to EXTEND programs that the military tried to phase out--we're STILL producing and over-producing the KC-150 cargo ship (as well as refueling planes) from post-Vietnam, even though we no longer have a legitimate use for it. We also produced BOTH kinds of Osprey-type planes with tilt-rotor (the Osprey and its competitor) for years beyond the time it took for people to get the idea that our soldiers can't fly then correctly (since the 60's). Forty-some years later, we finally figured out how to fly and use the Osprey in battle (in an age of drones that can bomb for us, and helicopters that can drop and extract soldiers from the ground).
What I want to know is "WHERE IS OUR JOHN MURTHA FOR THE SPACE PROGRAM?" With all the money that was wasted over the years in unwanted and unneeded military hardware, we could've gotten to the moon, built a base, and then gone to Mars!
The cheapest substance with unlimited source is hydrogen...from space--it's full of it. THAT could have been our "alternative energy", but Obama put an end to that forever. Hopefully, John Murtha's passing will put an end to over-spending on antiquated military hardware and vehicles, and unwanted vehicles and hardware for the sake of bringing home the bacon.
UPDATE: Article from Slate Magazine--"Unindicted and Misunderstood"
"Murtha was "not interested" in a bribe that did not go directly to his hometown. The fictitious Abscam sheik's bribe meant nothing to Murtha unless it was an earmark for his district. That's why, try as they did for three decades, federal prosecutors never nabbed Murtha: He didn't want to be rich. He wanted to be powerful. So far, that's not illegal.
Murtha's stature within Congress was predicated on his power: his ability to turn the spigot of federal dollars on or off depending upon his goals, strategy, even his mood. He served on the appropriations committee and, at life's end, chaired its outrageously well-endowed defense subcommittee. This penchant for directing federal dollars into his district, the perennially recession-wracked 12th of Pennsylvania, annoyed reformers."
...
"If someone were to accuse him of redistributing the wealth, he'd have smiled and said he certainly was: He was sending it back where it came from."
...
"In short, to his dying day, John Murtha saw lobbyists as clerks, Washington as the bank, and himself as little more than a conduit for the flow of those dollars back to his district. For all that clarity, nobody of virtue understood him. And nobody in his district could understand why anybody beyond the Alleghenies saw him as anything other than Robin Hood with a per diem."
1. The man voted for and pushed votes on (not to mention got earmarked) money to be spent on UNWANTED military hardware, mainly to appease his lobby. You want to know where the military spending waste came from, blame him.
2. He was deeply in the pocket of major defense contractors, like Boeing, Raytheon, and others, and purposely steered projects to his home state. Yes, like the congressman from Kansas, he was a MAJOR parliament whore who brought home the bacon for his state. Many of the defense contractors were home-based in his state.
3. He did his damndest to GET money for building airplanes, tanks, weapons systems, and other hardware, and he did his damndest to KEEP money and projects flowing to his state. Murtha was #2 for corruption and bringing home the bacon--behind the #1 Alaska senator Ted Stevens, who got indicted for improper use of campaign funds, moving Murtha to the #1 position.
He also did his damndest to EXTEND programs that the military tried to phase out--we're STILL producing and over-producing the KC-150 cargo ship (as well as refueling planes) from post-Vietnam, even though we no longer have a legitimate use for it. We also produced BOTH kinds of Osprey-type planes with tilt-rotor (the Osprey and its competitor) for years beyond the time it took for people to get the idea that our soldiers can't fly then correctly (since the 60's). Forty-some years later, we finally figured out how to fly and use the Osprey in battle (in an age of drones that can bomb for us, and helicopters that can drop and extract soldiers from the ground).
What I want to know is "WHERE IS OUR JOHN MURTHA FOR THE SPACE PROGRAM?" With all the money that was wasted over the years in unwanted and unneeded military hardware, we could've gotten to the moon, built a base, and then gone to Mars!
The cheapest substance with unlimited source is hydrogen...from space--it's full of it. THAT could have been our "alternative energy", but Obama put an end to that forever. Hopefully, John Murtha's passing will put an end to over-spending on antiquated military hardware and vehicles, and unwanted vehicles and hardware for the sake of bringing home the bacon.
UPDATE: Article from Slate Magazine--"Unindicted and Misunderstood"
"Murtha was "not interested" in a bribe that did not go directly to his hometown. The fictitious Abscam sheik's bribe meant nothing to Murtha unless it was an earmark for his district. That's why, try as they did for three decades, federal prosecutors never nabbed Murtha: He didn't want to be rich. He wanted to be powerful. So far, that's not illegal.
Murtha's stature within Congress was predicated on his power: his ability to turn the spigot of federal dollars on or off depending upon his goals, strategy, even his mood. He served on the appropriations committee and, at life's end, chaired its outrageously well-endowed defense subcommittee. This penchant for directing federal dollars into his district, the perennially recession-wracked 12th of Pennsylvania, annoyed reformers."
...
"If someone were to accuse him of redistributing the wealth, he'd have smiled and said he certainly was: He was sending it back where it came from."
...
"In short, to his dying day, John Murtha saw lobbyists as clerks, Washington as the bank, and himself as little more than a conduit for the flow of those dollars back to his district. For all that clarity, nobody of virtue understood him. And nobody in his district could understand why anybody beyond the Alleghenies saw him as anything other than Robin Hood with a per diem."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
