The "D" Minute

Inside the raid that killed bin Laden - Yahoo! News

2011-05-02T10:17:00.000-06:00

This one is for you Ron. You are missed. I can only hope that this brings a little bit of closure to your wife and kids. You left way too early.

Pizza MF

Inside the raid that killed bin Laden - Yahoo! News

This is a good day.

Econ in a Rap

2011-04-29T10:39:00.000-06:00

Economics in a Rap

Heritage Budget Chart Book Shows Pictures of a Budgetary Disaster | The Foundry

2011-04-27T09:02:00.000-06:00

Nice little graph on the National Debt with a nice little article.

Heritage Budget Chart Book Shows Pictures of a Budgetary Disaster | The Foundry

Where Did All the Anti-War Protestors Go? « John Stossel

2011-04-25T16:12:00.000-06:00

Good question??? Where did they all go.

Where Did All the Anti-War Protestors Go? « John Stossel

What is the future of democracy?

2011-04-24T19:17:00.002-06:00

What is the future of democracy? If it a realistic option?

The problem with a Democracy is that the powers of the majority are absolute and unlimited. Many times this leads to a type of tyranny majority that rules over the minority. In a Democracy the minority does not have much to say because what they majority says is the law. Where can you go to challenge a law in a Democracy? Nowhere, in a Democracy the majority has all the power in the world, as long as votes are decided by 50% + 1 then majority rules.

A Republic on the other hand is not simply rule of the majority. It is nowhere close to what a Democracy is. In a Republic we have a government that has constitutionally limited powers that are limited by the Constitution itself. A Republic actually protects the rights of the minority, but not only the minority, it protects the rights of the individual.

What the United States of America has for a system of government is not a Democracy but a Republic.

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/outreach/Pledge.htm

As you can see the Pledge of Allegiance has the word Republic in it and not Democracy.

I believe that the biggest problem with a Democracy is the rule of the Majority. It is really easy to see in a Democracy how it can become corrupt really quickly. It would take one time that a corrupt politician was elected and then to keep himself in office he would just pass hand me downs to anybody that voted for him.

Alexander Tytler said:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

Alexander Tytler

It is real easy to see how a Democracy can is truly a bad form of government. In a Democracy there are no checks and balances.

I believe that Democracies are doomed to fail right from the beginning. There are two problems working against a Democracy. Problem number 1 is government and problem number 2 is people that depend on government. I look at government as a cancer or a leach, I don’t think I have ever seen a government program be shut down or repelled. In fact what you usually hear when a government program is not working is to throw more money into the program to make it work. This in turn leads to a very loose fiscal policy with the people wanting more money throwing more money at the politicians that will get the money to them. Sooner or later a nation will run out of people to tax or services to tax and will run out of money. When this happens you can see how things can get from bad to worse.

In short I believe Democracies will fail where ever they are tried. As soon as the majority gets a taste of what they can vote for themselves it is all downhill from there.

What is the process to develop an economic policy that provides services and sustainability?

2011-04-19T15:38:00.000-06:00

I believe that the best way to develop a Nations economic policy is by having low taxes on both income and business. I would go as far as saying that the income tax should once again be eliminated, but that could be another post. Cutting the government’s size and making it leaner and faster to incorporate new ideas or new technology would also lead to better services and better sustainability.

One of the biggest problems that I see in providing services and sustainability is the inability to predict the future. Many politicians and government agencies do a very poor job of doing research. A great example is the entitlement programs in the United States. On page 302 of our book, 6^th edition, there is a very nice table that shows how spending on the Welfare State, entitlement programs, has pretty much gone out of control, from $13 billion in 1954 to $1.9 trillion in 2008. This is called mandatory spending as referred to on page 302 in the book. Many can look at that amount and say that it is unsustainable. This number is actually way off because the federal government does not follow the same accounting rules that they make companies and state/local governments follow. According to a USA Today news article from 2007, the federal government does not have to, “count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.” What this leads to is finding out that the federal government, or the taxpayer, is now on the hook for $59.1 trillion in liabilities. As of 2007 that amount was equal to $516,348 for every US Household. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm

Another example of the government’s inability to do proper research is the CBO. The CBO, The Congressional Budget Office, is suppose to advise the government on what the effects will be with the changes that they plan to make. The problem with the CBO is that they don’t take past behavior into consideration and how tax changes can and does change a person’s behavior.

In the book Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell on page 396, Mr. Sowell writes about how predicted tax revenue increases did not come about in the state of Alaska when they tried to raise the tax rates on cigarettes:

The tax was to go into effect October 1, 1997. Smokers struck back by buying an astounding 175 million more cigarettes than usual in the three months before the tax deadline. Richard Watts of the Great Alaska Tobacco Company told the local papers that some smokers even bought sixty-carton cases-at $1,200 each-rather than pay the tax. As for Alaska’s Department of Revenue, it saw its revenue estimates go up in smoke: collections slowed 60 percent following the infamous increase date.

Another example, more specific to the CBO, that Mr. Sowell writes about is on page 397. In 1986 the CBO had advised the congress that raising the capital gains tax rate from 20 to 28 percent would increase revenues received from the tax. It was the opposite that happened and tax revenues actually fell. Mr. Sowell goes on to write, “Conversely, cuts in the capital gains tax rate in 1978, 1997, and 2003 all led to increased revenues from that tax.”

As we can tell the government is not a great predictor of future revenues. This leads me to another problem, useless and empty talk. Many times you will hear politicians and different figures in government talk about this tax increases or tax cuts. Here is the problem, telling everybody that this will be a, “$500 billion tax increase” or a, “$400 billion tax cut” is inaccurate. All that the government can do is raise or lower the tax rates and this will have an effect on the tax revenues. Nobody can actually claim that it will be a, “$500 billion tax increase” or a, “$400 billion tax cut” because they don’t know. The actual consequences of the tax cuts or tax increases will not be known until after they have been in acted.

Now here is a problem that I have noticed. Going back to the top of this post where I was talking about mandatory spending on entitlement programs, we can see how guesses and government projections have made the current system completely unsustainable. More problems arise when people stand up and try to correct or overhaul the current entitlement programs, trying to make them leaner and more efficient. This will usually bring out the fear mongers, Ahh, they want to take away your health care, they want to steal your retirement, and they want to end school funding…Blah, blah, blah, blah. So when somebody tries to stand up and correct these issues they get shut down in the media and told to go hide in a hole somewhere. That’s a big problem when programs can not be re-organized or overhauled to fit our needs of today, not the needs of the 1930’s or the 1960’s.

All of this leads me to say that in order to create an economic policy that provides services and sustainability we need to be free to reform and we need to be free of government. One of the biggest problems with government is that they try to make a one size fits all policy with everything that they do, it can’t and it won’t work. We need taxes to help the ones in need, but we need to get the government out of our lives to make any economic policy sustainable. People need to be put in charge of their health care, retirement and education among others.

Democratic senator wants Internet sales taxes | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

2011-04-12T14:39:00.001-06:00

Democratic senator wants Internet sales taxes | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

Nickel here and a nickel there. Paper cut here and a paper cut there and there and there, soon you're bleeding to death.

1% will turn to 1.5% then to 2.0% and so on...I don't think this is even for anything...it is just to make it "Fair."

Chicago school bans homemade lunches, the latest in national food fight - Yahoo! News

2011-04-11T14:53:00.000-06:00

Chicago school bans homemade lunches, the latest in national food fight - Yahoo! News

Well this is great news for all. One school has pretty much decided that parents are too stupid, for lack of a better word, to decide what their kids will be eating for lunch at school. Solution...ban all homemade lunches from school, unless you have allergies.

$2.25 per lunch * 5 days = $11.25 per week per child

Another brilliant solution brought to you by a local government entity somewhere, Chicago this time.

I really hope that someday soon a school voucher system will be instituted everywhere so parents will have the options to pull their kids out of public schools and take there money with them.

No competition = No options

How does a government facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity?

2011-04-10T11:14:00.002-06:00

I don’t think it is possible for the government to facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity. Equity is sacrificed. When you take money, involuntarily, from those that have money to pay for programs for those that don’t have as much, then we have no equity.

I think one of the biggest problems with is the word equity in this instance. According to www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equity the word equity means:

Justice according to natural law or right; specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism.

According to that definition there is zero equity in how the government currently facilitates comprehensive care. Currently, government is set up to be biased towards the rich when in need of money and biased towards the not so rich when passing it out. I bring this up only because the government is also flawed in how it helps people that need help.

As an example, let us take a family of four, two kids with parents, and both parents work. They have a combined income of $130,000 per year, because of this they are put in a higher tax bracket. Soon one working parent loses his job and their income drops to $65,000 per year. Soon after the family starts to struggle, having issues paying for a house, car, medical and food. Where can this family go for help? Not the government because they will still be considered to rich for help. So now we have a family who have paid taxes and paid for these services that are afford to those that need help but they find out that they are not poor enough yet to receive this help, even though they are in need of it. According to the book, on page 342, the poverty line for a family of four, back in 2010, was $29,326. So in order to receive the type of assistance this family really needs they would have to become poorer in the eyes of the government.

Another example of how ridiculous the government programs are run is a somewhat of a personal one. I have close friend who had a son born prematurely and was born with cerebral palsy. Her son has needed tons and tons of operations, operations that she could not pay for. So the government stepped in and helped her out a ton, still does. Here is the problem though; she has to be below a certain income level other wise all the governments medical help is gone. So she has to be below or right around the poverty line to get the help she needs. She has all ready had to cut her hours at work so she did not go over and once had to quit a job because she made too much. This makes zero sense to me. The government is helping her but also keeping her down at the same time. Why?

I’m writing about this to show how impossible it is to have equity in a system that is run one way only. A system of one size fits all. The single most important reason why the government can not have equity in how it facilitates comprehensive care is that we are all different. This country is made up of 300,000,000 plus individuals and not a single one of us have the same needs or the same wants. Just because a family make $170,000 a year does not mean that they don’t need help and just because somebody makes $25,000 a year does not mean that they do need help. We live our lives as we choose. For some it is more important to have a shiny new car then health care coverage. For others it is more important to have the latest and greatest iPhone then to sock money away in a 401k or an IRA. Making people do what they don’t want to do only makes them resentful.

I believe that the best way for the government to help ensure equity while providing comprehensive care for its citizens is to get out of the way. There is no such thing as one retirement plan that fits all, there isn’t. One person might want to save $2,000,000 for retirement while another only wants to save $500,000. They both worked the numbers and this is what they came up with, they came up with a number that suits them and not the government. Not to mention maybe one guy wants to retire at 50 while the other loves what he does and wants to retire at 90. There choice and there options.

Let’s take a look at health care coverage real quick. Everything is pooled into plans, what this means is that whether you need or want pregnancy care you are probably paying for it. Take this article from the San Francisco gate, old article, http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-02-16/news/17584231_1_health-plan-city-workers-health-insurance whether people that work for the city want to or don’t want to they are now paying for sex change operations.

People need to be free to pick and choose the types of plans that fit them the best. That is the only way for the have government to provide equity while providing comprehensive care for all. Please don’t misunderstand this that the government should not help those in dire needs, they should. Government should help all that are in dire needs, but that help can’t last forever.

federal_tax_forms: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

2011-04-10T00:43:00.000-06:00

federal_tax_forms: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

A little tax form help. Just another friendly way the government tries to help people out...bury them under piles of piles of piles of paperwork.

Looking for a form...it might be at this link...for more forms please head on over to www.irs.gov

Foreign Policy

2011-04-03T18:55:00.002-06:00

How should a nation-state develop its foreign policy in accordance to its values and in connection to the development of its domestic policy?

Nations should develop their foreign policies with the well being of the nation, USA in this case, as their top priority. One of the worst things a nation could do is conduct their foreign policies based on a world poll. I believe that protecting the nation’s assets and interests should be the top priority.

In the past I have heard people mention that we should conduct our foreign policy in accordance to our values. I believe that, that would be a great idea. An idea that would probably find this nation broke and fighting wars on all the continents in the world. Why is that, somebody might be asking? Well, the way that I see it, if one of our nation’s values is to help the poor and protect the week, then how do we go about doing that with real results all around the world?

In 2003 when the United States Military was sent into action in Iraq to dispose of a brutal dictator, one that had killed thousands of his own people who threatened the world and the region with his arsenal of weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, the US President was called a war monger, people said that Bush went their for oil, but if we went into Iraq based on a foreign policy that is based on values how can anyone complain. We helped the ones that could not help themselves. A brutal dictator was toppled. If we based our foreign policy on our values should we not also be involved in helping the people in the Darfur region of Sudan? How about North Korea, Ivory Coast, Somali and the Ivory Coast among others? I think it would get expensive pretty quick.

Before we try to conduct foreign policy based on our values, we should probably come up with solutions to our own problems first. Maybe settle on ways to help the poor here in the US. Do we give the people handouts for the rest of their lives, making them dependent of government, or do we teach and show people how they can make it on their own, not depending on government.

Another problem that I see is that when you base your foreign policy of values then it might be much harder for a nation to build a broad coalition of support in certain regions if nobody else cares about the values that you’re trying to protect.

These are just a few issues that I have if someone was to base their foreign policy in accordance to the nation’s values.

I believe that a foreign policy needs to be run with the interest of the nation first. This is even more important in today’s global economy as a conflict around the world can affect people all over the world. A nation needs to protect its citizens and its businesses. It needs to protect its investments anywhere and everywhere.

Another aspect of foreign policy that I have observed is that when the enemies to a nation perceive that nations policy to be week they will attempt to take advantage of that in any aspect and in any form. A foreign policy should also have teeth attached to it, not just strongly worded letters.

Gasoline up 100% under Obama - Washington Times

2011-03-30T23:01:00.000-06:00

Gasoline up 100% under Obama - Washington Times

And the media stays quiet. Nothing in the news, a snippet here and there. 100% in two years. Only one way to solve this issue, shut down more drilling rigs.

Obama in 2002: Toppling Brutal Dictator a ‘Dumb War’ | CNSnews.com

2011-03-30T22:55:00.000-06:00

Obama in 2002: Toppling Brutal Dictator a ‘Dumb War’ | CNSnews.com

Unless Obama is the President...then...well, it's a??????????

Sue Happy Nation

2011-03-25T14:28:00.000-06:00

This is an interesting article. Looks like we will need a definition of what low-sodium is. Let's face it though, we are all different so low-sodium for me is probably not the same as low-sodium for you!

Since people now a days can't check content on the labels, it's way too hard to flip it over and compare, suing is obviously the only other option.

Also, it regular tomato soup has 200mg sodium and the low-sodium brand has 195mg sodium, is it not lower when compared to the original. Waste of money and too much time on their hands I believe.

Judiciary

2011-03-20T19:26:00.000-06:00

What role does the judiciary system play in supporting freedom? The answer is they are supposed check and make sure that laws passed do not violate the Constitution of the United States.

I have problems understanding how the judiciary works, the whole system really. I have a hard time understanding why some cases get picked up by the Supreme Court and why others don’t. I guess I can understand this to a point. If everybody could appeal their cases to the Supreme Court then why would we need all the other Federal courts? I guess I would just like to see how or understand how the Supreme Court picks which cases it will or will not hear.

Another problem that I have, or don’t understand, is why is it that the Supreme Court does not conduct an overview or the laws that are being passed by Congress. The way that I understand this process is that a person or persons or a state have to file suit in court to challenge the law. It then has to work itself through the court system, many times taking years to have the case heard in front of the Supreme Court, for the few that get lucky and have their cases heard. It just seems like a lot of money gets wasted. Would it not be easier for the Supreme Court to make sure that legislation being passed in legal in the first place?

Take the current Health Care Law that was passed back in 2010, shortly after it was signed into law States started to sue the Federal government claiming the law was illegal. There are now 26 States involved in the suit. The last I heard, two judges had ruled the law illegal and one judge had sided with the Federal government. One judge in Florida had struck the whole law down because it forces the citizens to purchase Health Insurance. So what to do now? Does the Obama Administration continue to implement this law, while they file appeal after appeal just waiting for the case to reach the Supreme Court or should the stop implementing it and wait for a decision from the Supreme Court on this matter? Would it not have been easier to have the Supreme Court review it in the first place, before it became law, and tell congress what is and what is not legal? I believe it would have been.

This leads me to another problem with the Judiciary or Judges. The book covers this a little bit, but do the Judges really have any power to enforce the rulings they strike down? I can use the Health Care example on this again, one judge said the law is illegal yet he has zero power to enforce that ruling. The judge has to rely on Federal Government to follow his ruling.

To take this a step further, let’s assume that the Health Care Law has reached Supreme Court and the Court has ruled the law to be illegal, as it should. The Court then has to rely on the Federal Government to implement the decision. What if the current administration decided they were not going to listen to the Supreme Court and just continued to implement the law? What power does the Supreme Court then have to enforce their decision?

One last thing that I completely do not understand is how two judges or three or four or more, can look at the same case and come up with one or two or three or more different decisions. This is one that I really need help understanding.

Congress Limiting Authentic Representation

2011-03-13T09:20:00.001-06:00

Does congress limit current and/or support authentic representation as it is currently structured? My answer to this question is that congress, as it is currently structured, limits authentic representation. Today, congressmen and senators tell the people what they want to hear in hopes of winning reelection, and catching the next flight out to D.C. for another two or six years.

One of the most disturbing ways that Congress limits authentic representation is by all the back room deals that go on to pass bills.

This is from www.atr.org

Cornhusker Kickback: Perhaps the most well known in the Senate bill, the provision, included at the behest of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), ensures that Nebraska would be the only state to have the full amount of its increased Medicaid costs paid for by the federal government.

The Louisiana Purchase: The Senate bill provides extra Medicaid funding for any state in which every county has been declared a disaster area. Because of Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana is the only state that would qualify for the money. The $300 million provision for Louisiana was slipped in late in the process to persuade Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) to support the health care takeover.

Gator Aid: At the request of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl), the Senate bill includes a formula for protecting certain Medicare Advantage enrollees from billions in cuts. The formula would only apply to five states, most notably to Florida in which 800,000 of the state's one million Medicare Advantage users would be exempt from cuts.

New England Handouts: In addition to the $100 million included in federal Medicaid payments for Nebraska, the bill provides two New England states with even more money Medicaid funding. According to CBO, the Senate bill now contains about $600 million in extra Medicaid cash to Vermont, and about $500 million in additional money for Medicaid to Massachusetts, making these three states the only to receive such funding. Despite claims that these cushy extras for a few states would be scaled back, reports indicate that the White House is still making deals so these states can keep the handouts.

The Dodd Clinic: Section 10502(a) of the bill provides $100 million for construction at an unnamed "health care facility" affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in a state with only one public academic medical and dental school. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) later sent a press release saying that he was securing the money for the University of Connecticut, and then Dodd bragged that, "These provisions will bring millions of dollars to the state so that Connecticut's residents can receive quality, affordable health care."

Montana Medicare Earmark: A provision slipped into the Senate bill by Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT), Section 1881A(b)(2), specifically expands Medicare coverage for individuals who reside "in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009." The area the bill refers to is an asbestos contaminated area near Libby, Montana, for which Sen. Max Baucus has been trying to secure funding for years.

Read more: http://www.atr.org/full-list-backroom-health-deals-inbr-a4672##ixzz1GUSyue00

How can anybody who reads this list say that we have a representative Democracy and not a system of, I will let you buy my vote for this amount? This was only the health care bill and these types of things go on with every bill that comes up for a vote. Now I know that some might be saying, “What the problem, they are just doing there jobs and are trying to get there state all that they can.” No, that’s not what they are doing; they are selling themselves. More like prostituting themselves out and the sad thing is, they are doing it with your money and my money. They are voting YES on things that they might have voted NO on had they not sold their votes.

Another way that authentic representation is limited is by the filibuster rules in the Senate. No longer does a simple majority of 51 win passage of a bill. If the opposition chooses they can now use a filibuster. What is a filibuster you might be asking? According to www.senate.gov :

· filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.

So you talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and just talk and introduce motions and talk some more. Just won’t allow a vote on the matter. A filibuster can be broken up by the cloture rule, which basically states that a supermajority, 60 votes, is required to end the filibuster. Another option is what people call the nuclear option. You can read more about the nuclear option and the filibuster by doing a simple Google or Bing or Yahoo search for the two.

If you can’t stop a bill with a filibuster or anything then the new cool thing to do is to not show up for work, run away to another state and not allow a quorum to happen, so zero work can actually get done.

These are just two ways that I see congress limiting authentic representation.

Damian

State says damage to marble at Capitol could hit $7.5 million - JSOnline

2011-03-04T12:20:00.000-07:00

State says damage to marble at Capitol could hit $7.5 million - JSOnline

Well I think the state should send a bill to the Unions or bill the individuals that were there.

Ideal Democracy

2011-03-03T15:27:00.000-07:00

I’m having a hard time trying to answer the question, in what ways does the U.S. Presidency support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy?

To even try to answer that question we would have to ask the question of what an ideal democracy looks like. My ideal democracy is at odds with the ideal democracy of what the current administration envisions. The ideal democracy would be one with little to no government intrusion on the lives of people. It should be the people telling government what to do, not the other way around. If the government gets in the business of telling people how to live, what to eat, what to drive, what light bulbs to use, what to keep their heaters up to, what to keep the air conditioners down to, then they are no friend of democracy. To me democracy is about freedom. Not just freedom of speech and freedom of the press and the right to bear arms, but also freedom to fail and freedom to succeed. When the government starts using its power to pick winners and losers, then how is that democracy. Minimal government involvement leads to an ideal democracy.

Now I know the question is about the Presidency and how it can support and limit the formation of a democracy and I have been talking about nothing but the government. Well the two go hand in hand. It’s scary to see how things get done in government. When the President has put together backroom deals, with his own party that cost tax payers billions, so that he can get passage of a $1 trillion health care plan, without listening to the other side, he is limiting democracy. Where are the options? Option A: You have to have health insurance. Option B: Look back at Option A. This is limiting choice and limiting freedom and because of that it is limiting democracy.

Another way that a sitting President can support democracy is by supporting it all around the world. When people, that have been held hostage by corrupt dictators that run their countries, rise up and attempt to overthrow the dictators, they need backing and support of the leader of the free world. How does it look when hundreds if not thousands of people are being slaughtered by their tyrannical dictators, who bring out tanks, planes and the military and uses them on his own people, and the leader of the free world, the leader of the largest and most successful democracy in the world just sits by and lets it happen for seven or eight or nine days without saying a word? This is another way that democracy is limited. When democratic nations stand by and don’t do anything, but publish strong worded papers, then democracy fails.

Why Raising Debt Ceiling is bad

2011-02-25T13:06:00.001-07:00

A video to explain why raising the debt ceiling is bad.....

Political Influence

2011-02-25T11:42:00.001-07:00

This week’s question, how do individuals and groups of people influence the political process? The simple an easy answer would be, in many ways. Currently we have a great example of how groups and individuals are trying to sway or influence the political process in the State of Wisconsin.

On one side we have the unions that are trying to influence the political process by showing their displeasure at a new budget bill that will probably pass once a democrat shows up for work. We also have the democratic senators trying to influence the political process by not showing up to vote on this measure; basically they refuse to show up for work so a quorum can be reached.

On the other side we have the Governor who is trying to influence the political process by going on TV and discussing what this bill entails. Over the weekend we also had counter rallies in support of the governor and the same time that the union rallies were going on.

All of these groups and individuals are trying to influence the political process. Some are going about in different ways. Some have decided that instead of arguing the bill in the senate they will leave the state. Some have decided to completely forget what this bill is really about and are attempting to change the debate from a, how can we balance the budget for the people of Wisconsin, to a new debate of, why are you union busting?

The biggest thing that is being left out and not getting much coverage is the fact that the people of Wisconsin wanted to influence the political process in government and voted Scott Walker in as Governor because they wanted a smaller government.

So here is how I see it now. Back in November the people of Wisconsin influenced the political process by voting in a new republican governor. The public unions of Wisconsin are now trying to undermine the people that voted Scott Walker in and the people that pay their wages and benefits.

I just think that this is a real good example of how both groups and individuals are trying to influence the political process. The idea that an individual has to be a gazillionare to influence politics is just ridiculous to me.

Here is some info about what the Governor in Wisconsin is trying to fix:

http://www.scottwalker.org/news/2011/02/collective-bargaining-fiscal-issue-part-2

http://www.scottwalker.org/news/2011/02/cost-public-sector-benefits

Taxes Explained

2011-02-23T21:06:00.001-07:00

BAR STOOL ECONOMICS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

More Civility

2011-02-23T09:46:00.001-07:00

Another fine example of civility:

Democrat urges unions to 'get a little bloody when necessary'

By Michael O'Brien - 02/23/11 07:57 AM ET

Sometimes it's necessary to get out on the streets and "get a little bloody," a Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday in reference to labor battles in Wisconsin.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) fired up a group of union members in Boston with a speech urging them to work down in the trenches to fend off limits to workers' rights like those proposed in Wisconsin.

"I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going," Capuano said, according to theDorchester Reporter. "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/145627-dem-lawmaker-on-labor-protests-get-a-little-bloody-when-necessary

Merits of the new Health Care Law (ObamaCare)

2011-02-16T11:14:00.001-07:00

People should start to question the merits of the new Health Care Law (ObamaCare), when the government has to hire an additional 1,054 IRS agents at $359 million to implement it in 2012. Who needs Doctors to make health care work anyway? I know when I have some type of a medical condition I would prefer to see an IRS agent than a Doctor.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/02/15/healthcare-reform-law-requires-new-irs-army-of-1054

Not to mention this law was just declared unconstitutional by a federal judge, yet it is still being implemented. Who needs rule of law anyway.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/02/01/florida-judge-declares-healthcare-law-unconstitutional

Imagine if the governments plan to fix homelessness was to make it mandatory for everybody to buy a house, whether you wanted to or not.

Private and Government Sectors and how they Intersect

2011-02-13T17:39:00.000-07:00

The government interacts with the private sector very closely. With rules, regulations, subsidies, and side deals there is plenty of interaction going on. One of my biggest gripes with government is that it has grown too big and has too much control. Government always thinks that it has the best solutions to everything. Solutions that are so wide ranging it is almost mind boggling; Health Care, Environment, Poverty, Housing, Food, Farming, Economy, Unemployment, Education and Retirement to list a few.

The sad thing is, is that nobody ever looks at the results of the so called solutions to our Nation’s problems that government has offered. If one corporation was in charge, or tried to be in charge, of what the government tries to control, they would be deemed evil, money hungry rich people, only looking out for them, and trying to control people. For some reason many look past all this and pretend that this big corporation known as the government is really good for people. Maybe they believe this because the federal government has what seems like a bottomless wallet with a never ending supply of money. Some people like this because government can steal from the rich and give to the poor. I don’t know the reasons but people should take time to examine the results of government intervention and not just its intentions.

Many times when government gets involved in business, it starts picking winners and losers. Why were some banks rescued and some allowed to fail? Why do corn farmers receive government subsidies but barley farmers don’t? Why is the government giving incentives for citizens to purchase certain types of vehicles but not others? Why is the government allowed to run a Ponzi scheme called Social Security but they lock up Bernie Madoff in prison for doing the same thing? (Not saying what he did was correct, but why has the government not thrown itself in prison?)

Usually when the government gets involved with the private sector, as it does, it starts working on bribes. The government needs to provide over-site protection of the private sector. It needs to prevent the private sector from doing to the citizens of this country what the government is doing anyway. It needs to stop picking winners and losers and needs to give up control over many industries.

Recent Peace-Loving Progressive Protesters down in Palm Springs

2011-02-03T16:11:00.000-07:00

After the tragedy in Arizona, where hate speech was blamed. Mostly Sarah Palin, still don't know how. I would like to showcase a peaceful progressive rally down in Palm Springs. Just listen to how the tone has been toned down:

Wonder why this has not been shown on any TV Stations. Remember it's the Tea Party that's a "bunch of racists" and a "bunch of whack jobs," what you have seen will be explained and peaceful protest. 1st amendment man.