Take some time to read The Declaration Of Independence.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
Killing Capitalism - Cap and Trade
If you haven't seen Glenn Beck comment on Cap and Trade, here is a video.
HT: Liberty Pen
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Massachusetts State Sponsored Health Care is a FLOP!
You won't find this story readily available in the mainstream media:
Only 26 percent of likely voters in Massachusetts believe health care reform has been a success and just 21 percent believe reform has made health care more affordable, according to newly released poll results. The Rasmussen Reports poll of 500 likely Massachusetts voters, taken in April, also found only 10 percent said the quality of health care is getting better under the reform law rules here.
For more read Rasmussen Reports.
Only 26 percent of likely voters in Massachusetts believe health care reform has been a success and just 21 percent believe reform has made health care more affordable, according to newly released poll results. The Rasmussen Reports poll of 500 likely Massachusetts voters, taken in April, also found only 10 percent said the quality of health care is getting better under the reform law rules here.
For more read Rasmussen Reports.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Fairy Tale That is Universal Health Care
Thomas Sowell on the costs of medical care:
Just as medical care, houses and cars were all cheaper when they lacked things that they have today, so medical care in other countries is cheaper when they lack many things that are more readily available in the United States.
There are more than four times as many Magnetic Resonance Imaging units (MRIs) per capita in the United States as in Britain or Canada, where there are government-run medical systems. There are more than twice as many CT scanners per capita in the United States as in Canada and more than four times as many per capita as in Britain.
Is it surprising that such things cost money?
Just as medical care, houses and cars were all cheaper when they lacked things that they have today, so medical care in other countries is cheaper when they lack many things that are more readily available in the United States.
There are more than four times as many Magnetic Resonance Imaging units (MRIs) per capita in the United States as in Britain or Canada, where there are government-run medical systems. There are more than twice as many CT scanners per capita in the United States as in Canada and more than four times as many per capita as in Britain.
Is it surprising that such things cost money?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
What's Your Energy IQ?
Some very sobering results from an API survey on how Americans continue to underestimate the amount of oil and natural gas we'll need in years to come. Test your energy IQ here.
HT: Jane Van Ryan
Arnold Kling discusses constraints of health insurance coverage
Arnold Kling is always worth listening to especially when it comes to health care costs.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Best Posts I've Read Today
Harrison Price over at Just Politics hits a home run with his commentary on politically powerful Unions in the state of California and the burgeoning environmental energy movement:
Liberals are fond of talking about “Big Oil” as if it is supposed to mean something. Oil is “big” because the stuff it produces (oil, gas, and diesel) runs the industrialized world. But what about “Big” union? Seems as though three topics “cherished” by Democrats are all nicely colliding in the muddled state of California: unions, “green” energy (it’s green because of how much public assistance it needs), and the environment.
______________
And our old friend Bobo at The Bobo Files tells us about the middle class tax hike coming down the pike.
Liberals are fond of talking about “Big Oil” as if it is supposed to mean something. Oil is “big” because the stuff it produces (oil, gas, and diesel) runs the industrialized world. But what about “Big” union? Seems as though three topics “cherished” by Democrats are all nicely colliding in the muddled state of California: unions, “green” energy (it’s green because of how much public assistance it needs), and the environment.
______________
And our old friend Bobo at The Bobo Files tells us about the middle class tax hike coming down the pike.
Dan Mitchell on cutting the Dept. of Education on CNBC
After watching this debate, there is simply no need for a Federal Department of Education. This Carter era bureaucracy needs to end.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Higher Taxes To Come!
House passes climate bill.
Democrats 219 votes; Republicans 212 votes. The final tally.
Up to the Senate it goes. Will it pass?
Democrats 219 votes; Republicans 212 votes. The final tally.
Up to the Senate it goes. Will it pass?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Cap And Tax Vote Tomorrow!!
API has provided an updated SocialCapital widget that allows users to tell their representatives where they stand on this legislation. Do it now!!
George Will And Don Quixote
Subsidized windmills in Spain cost more than just failing to create substantial "green jobs."
Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.
Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy.
Free market advocates have been warning for years that subsidizing industries deemed environmentally friendly by politicians that pander to environmentalists will not create enough jobs to justify the taxpayer expense. Clearly, from the Spanish example cited above, the result of government investing in "green" jobs has not panned out as the rhetoric claimed. Obama rode to the White House on the promise and hope that government "investment" in green industries would spur a wave of green collar jobs. Spain has tried "green investment" and it has turned out to be a very expensive fantasy. Why should we try the same expensive and fantastical experiment?
Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.
Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy.
Free market advocates have been warning for years that subsidizing industries deemed environmentally friendly by politicians that pander to environmentalists will not create enough jobs to justify the taxpayer expense. Clearly, from the Spanish example cited above, the result of government investing in "green" jobs has not panned out as the rhetoric claimed. Obama rode to the White House on the promise and hope that government "investment" in green industries would spur a wave of green collar jobs. Spain has tried "green investment" and it has turned out to be a very expensive fantasy. Why should we try the same expensive and fantastical experiment?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill Fiasco
Jane Van Ryan brought this to my attention yesterday. It seems that two of the most liberal congressmen in America want to rush
an expensive cap and trade bill through Congress. Go figure. We've been through this before and here we go again. Cap and trade in any form is a tax increase, in my opinion. It doesn't even work to reduce emissions as promised and it threatens the economy. The Club For Growth stated:
This bill would set up several new government programs and regulations, redistribute money in the form of subsidies to individuals and for corporate welfare payments, and perhaps worst of all, it would slap "carbon trade barriers" on any country that doesn't implement a climate change scheme similar to this proposal. And, according to the Heritage Foundation, the direct and indirect taxes on a family of four would reach almost $3000 per year if Waxman-Markey passes. Heritage also reports that, in the aggregate, GDP would drop by over $9.4 trillion with unemployment increasing by 2.5 million. This bill should be vigorously opposed.
And from Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute:
As independent analysis suggests, this legislation will drive up consumer prices for gasoline and other fuels. At today’s prices, it would mean gasoline at more than $4 a gallon. It also will create huge disincentives for the production of America’s abundant natural gas resources, and force jobs and productive capacity overseas.
We know that environmentalists want higher energy prices (particularly fossil fuels) in order to make alternatives attractive...even if it wreaks havoc on our economy. E-mail your congressman today and urge him or her to vote NO on Waxman-Markey (HR 2454).
an expensive cap and trade bill through Congress. Go figure. We've been through this before and here we go again. Cap and trade in any form is a tax increase, in my opinion. It doesn't even work to reduce emissions as promised and it threatens the economy. The Club For Growth stated:
This bill would set up several new government programs and regulations, redistribute money in the form of subsidies to individuals and for corporate welfare payments, and perhaps worst of all, it would slap "carbon trade barriers" on any country that doesn't implement a climate change scheme similar to this proposal. And, according to the Heritage Foundation, the direct and indirect taxes on a family of four would reach almost $3000 per year if Waxman-Markey passes. Heritage also reports that, in the aggregate, GDP would drop by over $9.4 trillion with unemployment increasing by 2.5 million. This bill should be vigorously opposed.
And from Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute:
As independent analysis suggests, this legislation will drive up consumer prices for gasoline and other fuels. At today’s prices, it would mean gasoline at more than $4 a gallon. It also will create huge disincentives for the production of America’s abundant natural gas resources, and force jobs and productive capacity overseas.
We know that environmentalists want higher energy prices (particularly fossil fuels) in order to make alternatives attractive...even if it wreaks havoc on our economy. E-mail your congressman today and urge him or her to vote NO on Waxman-Markey (HR 2454).
On The Infant Mortality Rate
On a Disgruntled Republican, I posted this comment on the infant mortality rate:
The infant mortality rate is another misunderstood statistic that is commonly used by single-payer advocates to advance their agenda. The main issue with the infant mortality rate is how the OECD comes up with its data. In this case, the problem is the definition of “Live Birth.” The U.S. includes in its infant mortality rate extremely low-birth-weight infants (including those that will not survive) while many nations (many who score very high on the OECD list) DO NOT INCLUDE THESE SAME INFANTS. Even the WHO has gone on record and noted that across 23 European countries there are vast differences in recording and reporting live birth and fetal death within the European region. Essentially, the U.S. lands a lower ranking because it includes doomed low-birth-weight infants while many in the ranking do not. Now I ask you, how is this ranking fair and accurate? And how can anybody tie the quality of a country’s health care on this skewered ranking?
Liberals have been bashing the infant mortality rate statistic over free market conservatives for several years now with great results. But it is a faulty and disingenuous argument to say the least.
The infant mortality rate is another misunderstood statistic that is commonly used by single-payer advocates to advance their agenda. The main issue with the infant mortality rate is how the OECD comes up with its data. In this case, the problem is the definition of “Live Birth.” The U.S. includes in its infant mortality rate extremely low-birth-weight infants (including those that will not survive) while many nations (many who score very high on the OECD list) DO NOT INCLUDE THESE SAME INFANTS. Even the WHO has gone on record and noted that across 23 European countries there are vast differences in recording and reporting live birth and fetal death within the European region. Essentially, the U.S. lands a lower ranking because it includes doomed low-birth-weight infants while many in the ranking do not. Now I ask you, how is this ranking fair and accurate? And how can anybody tie the quality of a country’s health care on this skewered ranking?
Liberals have been bashing the infant mortality rate statistic over free market conservatives for several years now with great results. But it is a faulty and disingenuous argument to say the least.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Ronald Reagan and Star Wars
Harrison Price over at the Just Politics blog reminds us that it was under President Ronald Reagan that the SDI or Ballistic Missile Defense was created and established despite great opposition from Democrats. Of course, now that North Korea is saber rattling, the missle defense system frowned upon by Barack Obama is now to be used to protect America.
Competing With The Government
Cato's Michael Cannon on what the public health care option would do to the private health care market:
Enjoy That Cup Of Joe, Friends
Coffee is good!
Coffee drinkers, rejoice! The heavenly brew, once deemed harmful to health, is turning out to be, if not quite a health food, at least a low-risk drink, and in many ways a beneficial one. It could protect against diabetes, liver cancer, cirrhosis and Parkinson's disease.
What happened? Lots of new research, and the recognition that older, negative studies often failed to tease apart the effects of coffee and those of smoking because so many coffee drinkers were also smokers.
Coffee drinkers, rejoice! The heavenly brew, once deemed harmful to health, is turning out to be, if not quite a health food, at least a low-risk drink, and in many ways a beneficial one. It could protect against diabetes, liver cancer, cirrhosis and Parkinson's disease.
What happened? Lots of new research, and the recognition that older, negative studies often failed to tease apart the effects of coffee and those of smoking because so many coffee drinkers were also smokers.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
As California goes, so goes the nation
California unemployment rate at 11.5%. Ah, wishing for halcyon days.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
