I always find it amusing in politics that those so vo’ciferously opposed to the policies of the then current administration often make those same choices when faced with similar circumstances.
The only difference is that Bush actually consulted with Congress.
Where’s all the outrage?
Glenn Reynolds has a great Op-Ed in today’s Washington Examiner. His premise is that if you need a lawyer to figure out how to operate in a country’s economic environment, in all likelihood, the country will have limited economic upside. He cites Greece and the number of lawyers per capita and the 19th centry laws still on the books there.
I would extend this further to say this leads to black markets operating outside the legal and tax systems affording the participants therein with no protection from the very laws and regulations of the political establishment. It sets up the classic legal conundrum: how to I get my government/legal system to help me resolve an illegal contract?
If you needed any evidence that those of us who claimed the end game was to get rid of private insurance companies, you now have it. Bernie Sanders was on MSNBC, and the host asked: “Senator, how frustrating is this for you to see the bill tied up in a constitutional argument when the provisions that could have been in place, like the public option and other versions of the legislation that were rejected early on by the Democrat leadership, would not have posed any constitutional difficulties?”
Mr. Sanders responded “One of the ways I want to see it improved is to give states flexibility to provide health care to all people, maintaining very, very high standards but doing it in a more cost effective way. And in the state of Vermont, we are moving forward toward a Medicare for all single-payer system. And I hope very much to be able to get waivers from Congress and the White House in order to allow us to do so. Because I think at the end of the day if you’re gonna provide health care to all of our people in a cost effective way you’re gonna have to get rid of the private health insurance companies and put our money into health care, not profiteering, not administration, not bureaucracy.”
Mr. Sanders, instead of getting rid of, as you call it, profiteering, administration, and bureaucracy, you will instead get a bureaucracy that has no cost constraints, is politicized, is not responsible to anyone, can not be fired, and will reduce the quality of care. The healthcare insurance industry has a profit margin of only 6 percent.
Sorry, but I’ll stick with the private insurers. I can fire one and go to another anytime I want. Can’t do that when the government is in charge.
Edward Glaeser has a column in the NY Times blogs discussing green jobs. This is a surprise? The exporting of manufacturing jobs for established products has been going on for years. Peter Drucker wrote extensively about it in his book Managing for the Future.
We can decide to develop IP or we can decide to manufacture products already developed. I believe there is an advantage to IP, and we should focus on math and engineering to maintain our standing as an economic power.
Maybe the real lesson from he massacre is that we can’t ever legislate safety.
How many laws does it take to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally infirmed? All that you can pass?
While passing laws may make the politicians feel good about doing something, perhaps, they need to resist the urge next time. Remember, there is nothing that can stop the firm resolve of a person. This can be for the good or the bad.
Maybe citizens will begin to understand that legislation does not solve problems, and they will stop looking towards politicians to solve whatever ails them. People, not legislation, solve their own problems.
Daniel Oliver has a great article on Forbes wherein he likens the late 1960s today. He goes on to document some of the similarities between those times and today and the outcomes from the monetary policies of the time. All anecdotal to be sure. However, many of us have been saying for the last 10 years that the path the federal government is on will lead us to economic ruin. Well, I don’t think we’re too far away from that day. Keep an eye on commodity prices.
Finally, Nancy has be dethroned. Her tenure will go down in history as the worst of all time. During her reign of terror over the U.S., we have witnessed the greatest decline of our country’s power, wealth and fortitude.
Hopefully, this mark the end of the chickification of our society, and our nation will again grow a backbone.
Okay, and I have read many of the media reports about what the proposed compromise is on the raising tax rates on the American people. However, I don’t see tax cuts. I only see spending increases and pork.
A few points:
1. Keeping tax rates the same as they have been can’t be defined as a tax cut.
2. A one-year, 2% reduction in payroll taxes is not stimulative to the economy.
3. Keeping tax rates the same does not stimulate the economy. It keeps the economy where it is.
4. The federal government has no money other than what it legally steals from us or prints.
I’d say the Republicans are being setup just like they were with Clinton. The lamestream media continues doing the Democrats bidding and the Democrats continue to take advantage of the lack of education among U.S. citizens.
Republicans, note to self, let the calvary come in in January and solve the problem.
Since the political class is so insistent on raising our taxes, I would support the following tax increase:
– 55% of the increase in a politician’s wealth between his first financial filing at the time he was elected and that at his death is taken and used to pay for retirement and health care costs of all the current and retired politicians thereby keeping their costs off the government’s balance sheet and out of operating costs.
Since the politicians see their wealth increase so much during their tenure, why shouldn’t those of us who put them there actually benefit from this?
I was reading Paul Krugman’s column “There Will Be Blood,” and my first thought was just what a fool he is. How could this man win a Nobel Prize in Economics? Or, does the fact he won one tell you all you need to know about what winning the Nobel Prize really means?
Let’s start with his opening premise: because Alan Simpson was appointed co-chairman of Obama’s special commission on deficit reduction, he must be serious. While he studied economics, it apparently didn’t include a course in logical reasoning, but I know logic goes out the window with liberals feeling politically vulnerable.
Substantively, in this column, Mr. Krugman’s partisanship is overflowing the cup. With comments like “Republicans will try to blackmail the president…” and “The fact is one of our two great political parties has made it clear that it has no interest in making America governable…” demonstrate this. Mr. Krugman knows his readers lack logical and deductive reasoning skills and continues with invalid arguments.
Mr. Krugman, might it be that the Republicans don’t believe that the Democrats are pushing the country in the right direction? Mr. Krugman, does your definition of cooperation only include situations in which Republicans cave to the desires of the NY Times editorial staff, the president, Pelosi, Reid and you? Where is the recognition that the Republicans overwhelmingly defeated the Obama agenda in the November elections? I have yet to hear the White House say it heard the people and will change course to conform to their wishes. Instead, we hear that the messaging was wrong.
Many of us did not go to the Ivy League, but we certainly do read and analyze the data. What we know is that socialism doesn’t work. Never has, and never will. It always fails when the majority of the people decide that they can do better taking from the government than working on their own. Further, the structural issues with government employees’ pensions and post-retirement benefits at local, state and federal levels ensure that the middle class will be paying for the excesses of liberal government policies for generations.
We see the states that are bankrupt, and they are run by Krugman and his likes. The supposed intelligent have ignored facts and instead continue down paths that historically have already been traveled and proven fruitless. They learn nothing from these experiences only lament that they didn’t spend enough. Evidence has it that this whole crisis and recession was caused by policies espoused by the big-government Democrats and Republicans. Yet, the “intelligent, all-knowing” never change course because that would be admitting they were wrong, and, worst of all, relinquish power over the electorate.
If someone in congress finally stands up for us, then fantastic. If not, then there will be another wave in 2012 that throws more of the big-government crowd out. I would say it’s time to make those that caused the problem actually pay for it. I propose a special tax on the politicians equal to 55% of the increase in their net worth since being in government. After all, isn’t that really our money going to them?
Economist and weathermen are the only professions where you get paid to be constantly wrong. Using the deductive reasoning of Mr. Krugman, he’s still getting paid so he must be wrong.