Pseudepigraphic Epistemology will be re-launching with a new design next week! (hopefully)
In the mean time, here's three things to keep yourself occupied.
1. "New boss, same as the old boss" - The Who
Perhaps in honor of The Who playing the halftime show at the Super Bowl, or perhaps due to his inability to speak well when not in front of a teleprompter, Obama defended himself this week by saying (in so many words) that he's the same as Bush. Um, Mr. President, sir, I'm not sure if anyone told you, but no one liked him. That means you don't want to be like him. And, by the way, you got elected because you were the un-Bush candidate. I seem to remember something about "change" being promised, but, well, if you want to be just like Bush, you're doing a pretty good job of it.
2. Do They Understand Why This Won't Work?
The state of South Carolina now has a law that requires all "subversives" to register with the government (and pay a $5 fee to do so). I think this is supposed to target the various "tea-party movements that are cropping up across the country, and presumably in South Carolina as well, but before going into why this is a huge violation of First Amendment rights, can I just ask if anyone in the South Carolina General Assembly has access to a dictionary? Because I have to wonder what about the word "subversive" makes you think the people who can be described that way would line up and pay a fee to the government.
Also, the law states "every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States ... shall register with the Secretary of State." So they are lumping in foreign dignitaries and embassadors with terrorists. Talk about painting with a broad brush.
3. They Must Make Some Awesome Windows
Perhaps you've heard of Serious Materials, which happens to be the only window-making company to make the Obama Administration's list of green-energy companies. Both Obama and Biden have personally endorsed the company, and Inc. Magazine recently featured the company's CEO on their cover.
So what makes them so special? Well its not because they make better windows than their competitors.
As John Stossel reports, the "vice president of policy" (whatever that is) at Serious Materials is married to Cathy Zoi, who just so happens to be one of the higher-ups in the U.S. Department of Energy. Oh, and she was in charge of distributing more than $16 million in stimulus funds. What a funny coincidence that is.
--
Monday, February 8, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
44% of Americans are Libertarians
The Cato Institute reports that 44% of Americans describe themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal", which is pretty much the formula for being a libertarian.
Not only that, but Libertarians are starting to get more organized (finally). Says David Boaz:
"One encouraging point in the study: libertarians may be becoming more organized. In our 2006 study we wrote, “Social conservatives have evangelical churches, the Christian Coalition, and Focus on the Family. . . . Liberals have unions. . . . Libertarians have think tanks.” In the past three years, however, libertarians have become a more visible, organized force in politics, particularly as campaigns move online. Note the Ron Paul campaign and the heavy libertarian involvement in the widespread and decentralized “Tea Party” movement."
When Obama was elected, I cheered myself up by telling myself that this was going to bring libertarians together in opposition of the progressive control of government. Looks like we might not be too far from that.
--
Not only that, but Libertarians are starting to get more organized (finally). Says David Boaz:
"One encouraging point in the study: libertarians may be becoming more organized. In our 2006 study we wrote, “Social conservatives have evangelical churches, the Christian Coalition, and Focus on the Family. . . . Liberals have unions. . . . Libertarians have think tanks.” In the past three years, however, libertarians have become a more visible, organized force in politics, particularly as campaigns move online. Note the Ron Paul campaign and the heavy libertarian involvement in the widespread and decentralized “Tea Party” movement."
When Obama was elected, I cheered myself up by telling myself that this was going to bring libertarians together in opposition of the progressive control of government. Looks like we might not be too far from that.
--
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
I've Been Re-Posted!! Sorta.
Did a search for this blog earlier today and found something slightly interesting. Apparently, my December 7 post titled "On the Front Lines", which dealt with the so-called War on Christmas and a website that was set up to give consumers a way of evaluating stores based on a criteria of how "Christmas-friendly" they were.
Apparently, this blog decided to re-post my blog, but in an interesting way. Take a look at the original and then compare it to the re-posted version. My best guess is that it has been fed through a translator and then re-translated back into English, because a lot of the language is not only different, but downright awkward. Anyway, it's still fun to see that someone has picked up on what I wrote and decided to use it.
--
Apparently, this blog decided to re-post my blog, but in an interesting way. Take a look at the original and then compare it to the re-posted version. My best guess is that it has been fed through a translator and then re-translated back into English, because a lot of the language is not only different, but downright awkward. Anyway, it's still fun to see that someone has picked up on what I wrote and decided to use it.
--
Monday, January 11, 2010
Hiding the Costs in the "Private Sector"
Just got done listening to Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute talk about some of the secret costs that are hidden in the health care bill behind our backs.
According to a memo that was released by the Congressional Budget Office back in December, the Democrats in Congress have apparently been playing games with the CBO's rules on how the costs of the health care bill will be accounted. By requiring private sector mandates that fall just short of the 90 percent that would require it be included in the federal budget.
As Cannon put it (paraphrasing here): There is no real difference between the government requiring you to pay a tax for medical coverage and calling it a tax, and the government mandating a minimum premium that you'll have to buy and calling it a private-sector mandate. It's hardly "private-sector" or "free market" if the government is forcing you to buy something. Either way, you are out that money without making a free choice to buy.
So why are they doing it this way? Because this allows them to avoid including the involuntary payment in the CBO report on what the bill will cost, so they have been able to hide a huge amount of the costs of this bill.
Furthermore, that 90 percent amount is a purely arbitrary figure that the CBO has set.
From a recent blog post of Cannon's:
"Democrats have been submitting proposals to the CBO behind closed doors and tailoring their private-sector mandates to avoid having those costs appear in the federal budget. Proposals that would result in a complete cost estimate — such as the proposal by Sen. Rockefeller discussed in the Medical Loss Ratios memo — are dropped. Because we can’t let the public see how much this thing really costs.
Crafting the private-sector mandates such that they fall just a hair short of CBO’s criteria for inclusion in the federal budget does not reduce their cost, nor does it make those mandates any less binding. But it dramatically reduces the apparent cost of the legislation. It is the reason we’re all talking about an $848 billion Reid bill, rather than a $2.1 trillion Reid bill.
If someone sold you a house, or a car, or a mutual fund this way, we would put them in jail."
--
According to a memo that was released by the Congressional Budget Office back in December, the Democrats in Congress have apparently been playing games with the CBO's rules on how the costs of the health care bill will be accounted. By requiring private sector mandates that fall just short of the 90 percent that would require it be included in the federal budget.
As Cannon put it (paraphrasing here): There is no real difference between the government requiring you to pay a tax for medical coverage and calling it a tax, and the government mandating a minimum premium that you'll have to buy and calling it a private-sector mandate. It's hardly "private-sector" or "free market" if the government is forcing you to buy something. Either way, you are out that money without making a free choice to buy.
So why are they doing it this way? Because this allows them to avoid including the involuntary payment in the CBO report on what the bill will cost, so they have been able to hide a huge amount of the costs of this bill.
Furthermore, that 90 percent amount is a purely arbitrary figure that the CBO has set.
From a recent blog post of Cannon's:
"Democrats have been submitting proposals to the CBO behind closed doors and tailoring their private-sector mandates to avoid having those costs appear in the federal budget. Proposals that would result in a complete cost estimate — such as the proposal by Sen. Rockefeller discussed in the Medical Loss Ratios memo — are dropped. Because we can’t let the public see how much this thing really costs.
Crafting the private-sector mandates such that they fall just a hair short of CBO’s criteria for inclusion in the federal budget does not reduce their cost, nor does it make those mandates any less binding. But it dramatically reduces the apparent cost of the legislation. It is the reason we’re all talking about an $848 billion Reid bill, rather than a $2.1 trillion Reid bill.
If someone sold you a house, or a car, or a mutual fund this way, we would put them in jail."
--
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Ebenezer Scrooge - Progressive
It may already have been two weeks since Christmas, but I'm going to learn a lesson from old Scrooge and keep Christmas in my heart all year round. Or at least until today.
And speaking of the old miser, DotPenn offers a somewhat comical, somewhat truthful list of 11 Reasons why Scrooge is a Progressive. Included on the list:
"5. Afraid his majority cultural lens will drown out alternative voices, Scrooge made sure he never said "Merry Christmas." Prefers the more politically-correct "Bah Humbug."
9. Faults the success of the human species for bringing undue burden on the earth and advocates a Darwinian form of genocide to solve the problem of over-population. - 'If they are going to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population'"
An article from two years ago that appeared in The Freeman offers a more complete view of why Scrooge is a progressive for his reliance on the "prisons and workhouses" of 19th century England to take care of the poor and homeless.
And speaking of the old miser, DotPenn offers a somewhat comical, somewhat truthful list of 11 Reasons why Scrooge is a Progressive. Included on the list:
"5. Afraid his majority cultural lens will drown out alternative voices, Scrooge made sure he never said "Merry Christmas." Prefers the more politically-correct "Bah Humbug."
9. Faults the success of the human species for bringing undue burden on the earth and advocates a Darwinian form of genocide to solve the problem of over-population. - 'If they are going to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population'"
An article from two years ago that appeared in The Freeman offers a more complete view of why Scrooge is a progressive for his reliance on the "prisons and workhouses" of 19th century England to take care of the poor and homeless.
"The treadmill, poor law, and union workhouses to which Scrooge refers were all punitive government ways of either helping the poor or of giving the poor an incentive not to be poor. So, for example, anyone finding himself in poverty could enter a workhouse where he would work hard and receive some small amount of food in return. The two men who ask Scrooge for aid are not asking for higher amounts of food to be handed out by government agencies. Instead, they are asking for private, voluntary charity to those they deem worthy.
After turning them down, Scrooge goes home and to bed. In the middle of the night he sees, in turn, the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future. He sees how he has turned gradually from a loving brother into a bitter, stingy old man. He also sees how unmourned he will be in death if he fails to be generous, with himself and others, in life. When Scrooge wakes up, he realizes that indeed he can change. In my favorite scene in the movie, Scrooge dances around in his nightshirt like a kid in a candy store, celebrating his power to change. And what is the change? Does he say, “Oh, boy, now I’ll support a politician who will tax me, as well as other people less rich than me, to help poor people?” Of course not. An author or a movie producer who tried to set up such a scene would have produced a much less compelling novel or movie. Scrooge is excited because now he can change, now he can get pleasure from helping others who are worse off. In other words, the lesson of A Christmas Carol is the importance of being generous, not the importance of supporting higher taxes on oneself and others.
Indeed, the modern Scrooge, instead of asking, “Are there no prisons?” would ask, “Is there no Medicaid? Are there no food stamps?” The modern Scrooges, in short, are those who advocate government programs for the poor rather than charity for the poor."
So there you have it. Scrooge is a progressive who learns that it is better to give freely of what one has than to expect the state to hand out charity. Not only does it make him a better human being, but it proves the value of charity over the imposed brotherhood that is assumed by the distribution of welfare.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Yemen, the Next Great Threat
Since it appears that Yemen has won the "which-Arab-nation-will-America-stare-down-next" lottery thanks to a few Al-Qaeda guys taking credit for the failed bombing of a airliner in Detroit, perhaps we should take a note from Unqualified Offerings about the potential consequences in facing down yet another country that few Americans could find on a map.
"Since some dudes in Yemen have taken credit for exploding underwear that hurt nobody except the wearer, we have two choices:
"Since some dudes in Yemen have taken credit for exploding underwear that hurt nobody except the wearer, we have two choices:
1) Snicker and remind them that when you have an explosion in your pants you shouldn’t really go around bragging about it. Especially if you failed to penetrate your target in the process.
2) Start mucking around in yet another Muslim country. I mean, we’re already messing around in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, not to mention financing who the fvck knows what sort of crazy Balochi bandits in rural Iran (although I guess it’s better than undermining the serious opposition movements by offering them aid), doing something or other in Muslim areas of the Philippines, and occasionally messing someone up in the Horn of Africa. Yeah, why not get ourselves yet another mess in a Muslim country? This will work well, I’m sure."
--State and Federal Deficit Check
Sorry for light posting. A combination of the holidays, a road trip, a move across the state, setting up my new apartment, and settling in at a new job have sucked up most of my time during the past few weeks.
Here's a fun little site that allows you to see the spending and revenue of each state and the federal government. For extra fun, check out the deficits that several major states (California, Georgia, NY, etc) are running.
--
Here's a fun little site that allows you to see the spending and revenue of each state and the federal government. For extra fun, check out the deficits that several major states (California, Georgia, NY, etc) are running.
--
Monday, December 21, 2009
Best Commercials of the Decade
Continuing with the theme of really cool end-of-year countdown lists.
From the same site as the Obsolete List that I posted moments ago, I'm also enjoying a list of the 10 most awesome commercials of the decade. Although, to be fair, some of them are so epic that its hard to really call them commercials (for proof, please check out #2 and #4 on the list).
I saw a short documentary on the making of #5 in a new media class I took a few years ago. I thought it was beautiful then and I still do.
As for #7 (The Obama/Will.i.am "Yes We Can" commercial), I just have to say that I wish his entire presidency had been as good as that speech and the ad it was turned into. When he runs for re-election, and can no longer rely on such moving rhetoric and imagery, what's he going to do?
And finally, #9 is one of my all-time favorites. I only remember actually seeing it on TV once, but I've always remembered it. Also, it was apparently directed by Spike Jonze (who recently did "Where the Wild Things Are"), so that's kind of cool.
However, I'm a little sad they did not include the Nike spot that ran during last summer's Olympic Games. For the sheer feeling of that's-so-cool-it-sent-shivers-up-my-spine, it has to be one of the best of the decade. I mean, the guy at the end has no legs. NO LEGS! And he's running faster than you or I could ever hope to.
--
From the same site as the Obsolete List that I posted moments ago, I'm also enjoying a list of the 10 most awesome commercials of the decade. Although, to be fair, some of them are so epic that its hard to really call them commercials (for proof, please check out #2 and #4 on the list).
I saw a short documentary on the making of #5 in a new media class I took a few years ago. I thought it was beautiful then and I still do.
As for #7 (The Obama/Will.i.am "Yes We Can" commercial), I just have to say that I wish his entire presidency had been as good as that speech and the ad it was turned into. When he runs for re-election, and can no longer rely on such moving rhetoric and imagery, what's he going to do?
And finally, #9 is one of my all-time favorites. I only remember actually seeing it on TV once, but I've always remembered it. Also, it was apparently directed by Spike Jonze (who recently did "Where the Wild Things Are"), so that's kind of cool.
However, I'm a little sad they did not include the Nike spot that ran during last summer's Olympic Games. For the sheer feeling of that's-so-cool-it-sent-shivers-up-my-spine, it has to be one of the best of the decade. I mean, the guy at the end has no legs. NO LEGS! And he's running faster than you or I could ever hope to.
--
The Obsolete List
One of the best parts about the end of the year is all the "best of", "worst of", and "everything in between of" lists that are published. And since this is the end of a decade too (okay, maybe the decade technically goes until 2010), we get to have all those lists times ten!
One of my favorites so far, from Business Insider, a list of 21 items that have become obsolete in the past decade.
Some of them come quickly to mind (Dial-up Internet, VCRs, Fax Machines), while others are things you might not immediately think of (Pay Phones, Long Distance Charges).
In some cases the list is almost incredible to think about. For example, PDAs (with their look-at-me-I'm-so-important fake plastic pen thingys) were not really all that common at the beginning of the decade, yet have already faded well into obsolescence. (Yes, I constructed that sentence specifically so I could use that last word).
Want another example? How about paying for E-mail. Remember those disks that AOL would send you with 50 free hours of Internet if you signed up for their email? And, more amazingly, people did it. Thank you to the market for making it possible for email to be a free, ad-revenue driven service.
So have some fun and remember how much better off we are than we were ten years ago.
--
One of my favorites so far, from Business Insider, a list of 21 items that have become obsolete in the past decade.
Some of them come quickly to mind (Dial-up Internet, VCRs, Fax Machines), while others are things you might not immediately think of (Pay Phones, Long Distance Charges).
In some cases the list is almost incredible to think about. For example, PDAs (with their look-at-me-I'm-so-important fake plastic pen thingys) were not really all that common at the beginning of the decade, yet have already faded well into obsolescence. (Yes, I constructed that sentence specifically so I could use that last word).
Want another example? How about paying for E-mail. Remember those disks that AOL would send you with 50 free hours of Internet if you signed up for their email? And, more amazingly, people did it. Thank you to the market for making it possible for email to be a free, ad-revenue driven service.
So have some fun and remember how much better off we are than we were ten years ago.
--
Sunday, December 20, 2009
D.C. Cop Pulls Gun at Snowball Fight
Apparently, all it takes is a few inches of snow in Washington D.C. and all hell breaks loose.
Over the weekend a winter storm dropped some frosty white stuff over the nation's capital, and inspired a few people to start a friendly snowball fight at the corner of 14th and U streets. The first problem is that they began throwing snowballs at passing cars. The second problem is that one of those cars contained an undercover D.C. detective. The third problem is that he emerged from the car, clearly pissed off, and brandishing a sidearm (without first identifying himself either, it would appear).
Luckily, no one ended up getting shot. Also luckily, more than a few people have camera phones these days and recorded the entire absurd incident. We can only hope that Detective Baylor looses his job over this.
Obviously, the only acceptable response to snowball chucking is the threat of deadly force. If you let those hooligans get away with this, they might soon move up to throwing balled up newspaper, and then where will we be? Chaos will reign over the streets as society slips back into a Hobbsian state of nature...at least that's my guess.
My favorite moments of the video:
- At 0:20, the gun is clearly visible in his left hand.
- At 1:16, after the crowd realizes there's no immediate danger of a snowball fight turning into the O.K. Corral, they begin to lecture the cop with "You don't bring a gun to a snowball fight". Amen.
- At 1:58, even after back-up has arrived, Baylor initiates physical contact with one of the people on the corner.
- At 2:12, he ACTUALLY ADMITS that he drew his weapon. Pardon the expression, but this is the smoking gun of the whole thing. His ass is getting fired for sure.
- At 2:47, the group of snowballers takes control of the situation, getting his name and, soon after, license plate number. Good thinking, guys.
- At 3:10, Baylor (still apparently wanting to make a bigger ass of himself, charges into the crowd after someone.
- At 3:37, he emerges from the crowd with the one guy who was clearly behind the whole thing. Good detective work, mister detective.
- At 4:00, (this might be my favorite part) someone in the crowd points out that it is, indeed, snowing, which means the heavens above are just as responsible for Baylor's Hummer being covered in snow as the people throwing snowballs.
I think he's going to regret those few minutes for the rest of his short career in the D.C. police force.
--
Over the weekend a winter storm dropped some frosty white stuff over the nation's capital, and inspired a few people to start a friendly snowball fight at the corner of 14th and U streets. The first problem is that they began throwing snowballs at passing cars. The second problem is that one of those cars contained an undercover D.C. detective. The third problem is that he emerged from the car, clearly pissed off, and brandishing a sidearm (without first identifying himself either, it would appear).
Luckily, no one ended up getting shot. Also luckily, more than a few people have camera phones these days and recorded the entire absurd incident. We can only hope that Detective Baylor looses his job over this.
Obviously, the only acceptable response to snowball chucking is the threat of deadly force. If you let those hooligans get away with this, they might soon move up to throwing balled up newspaper, and then where will we be? Chaos will reign over the streets as society slips back into a Hobbsian state of nature...at least that's my guess.
My favorite moments of the video:
- At 0:20, the gun is clearly visible in his left hand.
- At 1:16, after the crowd realizes there's no immediate danger of a snowball fight turning into the O.K. Corral, they begin to lecture the cop with "You don't bring a gun to a snowball fight". Amen.
- At 1:58, even after back-up has arrived, Baylor initiates physical contact with one of the people on the corner.
- At 2:12, he ACTUALLY ADMITS that he drew his weapon. Pardon the expression, but this is the smoking gun of the whole thing. His ass is getting fired for sure.
- At 2:47, the group of snowballers takes control of the situation, getting his name and, soon after, license plate number. Good thinking, guys.
- At 3:10, Baylor (still apparently wanting to make a bigger ass of himself, charges into the crowd after someone.
- At 3:37, he emerges from the crowd with the one guy who was clearly behind the whole thing. Good detective work, mister detective.
- At 4:00, (this might be my favorite part) someone in the crowd points out that it is, indeed, snowing, which means the heavens above are just as responsible for Baylor's Hummer being covered in snow as the people throwing snowballs.
I think he's going to regret those few minutes for the rest of his short career in the D.C. police force.
--
Congress Wastes Your Money on Vacations
Remember how incensed the members of Congress were when the executives of the major auto companies took private jets to Washington to ask for a bail-out?
I'm sensing a double-standard.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Congress spent more than $13 million on travel abroad in 2008. That number doesn't even include the costs of travel within the U.S., since Congress does not have to report the amount of money spent on domestic trips.
Listen to this description of a recent trip taken by 12 Congressmen to Edinburgh, Scotland, for a NATO conference. If this is work, sign me up.
"Besides rooms for sleeping, the 12 members of the House of Representatives rented their hotel's fireplace-equipped presidential suite and two adjacent rooms. The hotel cleared out the beds and in their place set up a bar, a snack room and office space. The three extra rooms -- stocked with liquor, Coors beer, chips and salsa, sandwiches, Mrs. Fields cookies and York Peppermint Patties -- cost a total of about $1,500 a night. They were rented for five nights.
While in Scotland, the House members toured historic buildings. Some shopped for Scotch whisky and visited the hotel spa. They capped the trip with a dinner at one of the region's finest restaurants, paid for by the legislators, who got $118 daily stipends for meals and incidentals.
Eleven of the 12 legislators then left the five-day conference two days early."
Oh, and its not only the 12 representative that were making the trip on our dime, it was their spouses, aides, and military liaisons, who "carry luggage, help them through customs, escort them on sightseeing trips, and stock their hotel rooms with food and liquor".
But they were there for a conference, so at least they spent some time working, right? Wrong.
"The first day there were meetings of the NATO organization's leadership. Half of the legislators, not being in the leadership, instead traveled with a group of spouses to Glasgow. There, according to a spokesman for one House member, they met with some Scottish officials.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D., N.Y.) attended the conference in Edinburgh on Friday but left at 4:30 p.m. and went to the spa. On Sunday, the third meeting day, she spent some time in the afternoon walking around Edinburgh and shopping at the House of Fraser, a department store....
...The group had a bus and a Mercedes minivan at their disposal for touring, shopping trips and transportation to dinners and the conference. The quoted rate for the two vehicles and their drivers is $2,500 a day....
...Early Monday morning, military escorts helped the 11 who were leaving early to check out, while hotel staff loaded a truck with luggage and shopping purchases. The hotel billed the delegation $200 for hauling suitcases and suit bags, seven brown boxes, a liquor box and a large white cooler."
Why stay an extra couple of days in Edinburgh when you've already finished all your shopping?
--
I'm sensing a double-standard.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Congress spent more than $13 million on travel abroad in 2008. That number doesn't even include the costs of travel within the U.S., since Congress does not have to report the amount of money spent on domestic trips.
Listen to this description of a recent trip taken by 12 Congressmen to Edinburgh, Scotland, for a NATO conference. If this is work, sign me up.
"Besides rooms for sleeping, the 12 members of the House of Representatives rented their hotel's fireplace-equipped presidential suite and two adjacent rooms. The hotel cleared out the beds and in their place set up a bar, a snack room and office space. The three extra rooms -- stocked with liquor, Coors beer, chips and salsa, sandwiches, Mrs. Fields cookies and York Peppermint Patties -- cost a total of about $1,500 a night. They were rented for five nights.
While in Scotland, the House members toured historic buildings. Some shopped for Scotch whisky and visited the hotel spa. They capped the trip with a dinner at one of the region's finest restaurants, paid for by the legislators, who got $118 daily stipends for meals and incidentals.
Eleven of the 12 legislators then left the five-day conference two days early."
Oh, and its not only the 12 representative that were making the trip on our dime, it was their spouses, aides, and military liaisons, who "carry luggage, help them through customs, escort them on sightseeing trips, and stock their hotel rooms with food and liquor".
But they were there for a conference, so at least they spent some time working, right? Wrong.
"The first day there were meetings of the NATO organization's leadership. Half of the legislators, not being in the leadership, instead traveled with a group of spouses to Glasgow. There, according to a spokesman for one House member, they met with some Scottish officials.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D., N.Y.) attended the conference in Edinburgh on Friday but left at 4:30 p.m. and went to the spa. On Sunday, the third meeting day, she spent some time in the afternoon walking around Edinburgh and shopping at the House of Fraser, a department store....
...The group had a bus and a Mercedes minivan at their disposal for touring, shopping trips and transportation to dinners and the conference. The quoted rate for the two vehicles and their drivers is $2,500 a day....
...Early Monday morning, military escorts helped the 11 who were leaving early to check out, while hotel staff loaded a truck with luggage and shopping purchases. The hotel billed the delegation $200 for hauling suitcases and suit bags, seven brown boxes, a liquor box and a large white cooler."
Why stay an extra couple of days in Edinburgh when you've already finished all your shopping?
--
Saturday, December 19, 2009
"Cadillac Tax" Hurts Everyone
Well, the Senate Democrats reached 60 votes yesterday, so they've shut the door on the potential for a Republican filibuster to stall a vote on the health care bill. It looks like a straight-party vote could come as soon as Thursday.
I've avoided writing much about the health care debates so far, but I've got a serious problem with one particular part of the Senate's health plan: the so-called "Cadillac Tax" on high-end health care plans (which the Democrats plan to use to help pay for the higher costs of insuring everyone else).
Why? In essence, the Senate is saying that people who have these "Cadillac" plans have too much health insurance. Now, since those people are paying for their own plans with the money they are making at their jobs, who has the right to tell them that they have purchased "too much"? It's funny that they are using the metaphor of a nice car to categorize those health plans, because this is the same (from a political theory point of view) as saying to someone who owns a literal Cadillac that they have too nice of a car. Why should the rich be allowed to have Cadillacs (or Cadillac health plans) when other people have Hondas or Fords (or the equivalent vehicle-metaphor health coverage)?
I guess those evil rich people (you know, the ones who own business and employ people) just don't deserve their rich cars, big homes, and cushy health plans unless the rest of us can have them too. Never mind that they are purchasing those things from their own funds. Philosophically, this seems like a bad way to justify anything except socialism.
But wait, there's more. In reality, an excise tax on the biggest and best health plans will hurt the middle class more than the rich. Megan McArdle explains:
"Taxing their health care plans is not going to cause the executives to consume less health care; traders earning millions of dollars a year are unlikely to forgo an MRI because it might cost nearly as much as they dropped on wine last Saturday night. You might be able to get their back office folks and the secretaries to cut back a little, but those folks are pretty well paid."
The bottom line is that if you tax the rich (aka - the employers), it will mean higher costs for everyone who works below them. This is the step that the Democrats always forget about. Patricia Murphy takes a deeper look at how this plan to "tax the wealthy" will actually hurt everyone else a lot more:
"Obama said he did not want the tax to hit middle-class families, but when the bill emerged from the Senate Finance Committee in September, it proposed charging insurance companies and a 40 percent excise tax for high-dollar -- but not exactly gold-plated -- plans. The bill now calls for the tax to apply to plans exceeding $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, for the cost of combining health savings accounts, medical, prescription drugs, dental, vision, etc. The tax is charged to insurance companies, but it is widely assumed they would pass it on to employers....
...Beth Umland, the research director for Mercer (an employee benefits consulting firm), explained that although the "Cadillac tax" is targeted at high-dollar plans, the cost of insurance plans is primarily driven by the age, gender, health and location of a company's workers, not the lifestyle they enjoy.
"Plans that trigger the excise tax are not necessarily generous plans," she said. "Small employers offer significantly less-generous plans than large employers, but just as many small employers are going to trigger the tax." Plans for workers in dangerous professions, like steelworkers, also have higher-cost plans because they experience more work-related health problems."
In other words, an excise tax on business owners will be passed down in the form of lower real wages to all the employees. That means that union workers making $40,000 a year (or so) are going to get hit by those costs as well. The Democrats are trying to tax the evil rich people who own businesses, produce things, and create jobs, but they are inadvertently going to skewer the middle and working classes as well. No one wins.
On one hand, it's kind of funny that union members (who played a big role in sweeping the Democrats into power in 2006/08) are now getting screwed by the party they usually support. On the other hand, it's political suicide for the Democrats to alienate one of their major bases of support.
--
I've avoided writing much about the health care debates so far, but I've got a serious problem with one particular part of the Senate's health plan: the so-called "Cadillac Tax" on high-end health care plans (which the Democrats plan to use to help pay for the higher costs of insuring everyone else).
Why? In essence, the Senate is saying that people who have these "Cadillac" plans have too much health insurance. Now, since those people are paying for their own plans with the money they are making at their jobs, who has the right to tell them that they have purchased "too much"? It's funny that they are using the metaphor of a nice car to categorize those health plans, because this is the same (from a political theory point of view) as saying to someone who owns a literal Cadillac that they have too nice of a car. Why should the rich be allowed to have Cadillacs (or Cadillac health plans) when other people have Hondas or Fords (or the equivalent vehicle-metaphor health coverage)?
I guess those evil rich people (you know, the ones who own business and employ people) just don't deserve their rich cars, big homes, and cushy health plans unless the rest of us can have them too. Never mind that they are purchasing those things from their own funds. Philosophically, this seems like a bad way to justify anything except socialism.
But wait, there's more. In reality, an excise tax on the biggest and best health plans will hurt the middle class more than the rich. Megan McArdle explains:
"Taxing their health care plans is not going to cause the executives to consume less health care; traders earning millions of dollars a year are unlikely to forgo an MRI because it might cost nearly as much as they dropped on wine last Saturday night. You might be able to get their back office folks and the secretaries to cut back a little, but those folks are pretty well paid."
The bottom line is that if you tax the rich (aka - the employers), it will mean higher costs for everyone who works below them. This is the step that the Democrats always forget about. Patricia Murphy takes a deeper look at how this plan to "tax the wealthy" will actually hurt everyone else a lot more:
"Obama said he did not want the tax to hit middle-class families, but when the bill emerged from the Senate Finance Committee in September, it proposed charging insurance companies and a 40 percent excise tax for high-dollar -- but not exactly gold-plated -- plans. The bill now calls for the tax to apply to plans exceeding $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, for the cost of combining health savings accounts, medical, prescription drugs, dental, vision, etc. The tax is charged to insurance companies, but it is widely assumed they would pass it on to employers....
...Beth Umland, the research director for Mercer (an employee benefits consulting firm), explained that although the "Cadillac tax" is targeted at high-dollar plans, the cost of insurance plans is primarily driven by the age, gender, health and location of a company's workers, not the lifestyle they enjoy.
"Plans that trigger the excise tax are not necessarily generous plans," she said. "Small employers offer significantly less-generous plans than large employers, but just as many small employers are going to trigger the tax." Plans for workers in dangerous professions, like steelworkers, also have higher-cost plans because they experience more work-related health problems."
In other words, an excise tax on business owners will be passed down in the form of lower real wages to all the employees. That means that union workers making $40,000 a year (or so) are going to get hit by those costs as well. The Democrats are trying to tax the evil rich people who own businesses, produce things, and create jobs, but they are inadvertently going to skewer the middle and working classes as well. No one wins.
On one hand, it's kind of funny that union members (who played a big role in sweeping the Democrats into power in 2006/08) are now getting screwed by the party they usually support. On the other hand, it's political suicide for the Democrats to alienate one of their major bases of support.
--
Thursday, December 17, 2009
At Least "Global Warming" Has A Sense of Irony
No matter which side of the Global Warming debate you're on (fun fact: there's actually five sides), you have to admit that this is pretty funny. The day before Obama is supposed to arrive in Copenhagen to discuss how we can "solve" the climate change problem, the city has been hit by four inches of snow.
Maybe you're saying to yourself: four inches doesn't sound like much. Copenhagen is in Denmark, which is part of Scandinavia, and it's always cold and snowy there, right?
Not so fast. Unlike Norway or Sweden, Denmark is known for rather mild winters. According to the BBC, Copenhagen's average temperature in December is between 34 and 40 (Fahrenheit). The country has not had a "white Christmas" (as defined by the Denmark Meteorological Institute) for 14 years, and has only had seven in the past century.
Maybe you're saying to yourself: four inches doesn't sound like much. Copenhagen is in Denmark, which is part of Scandinavia, and it's always cold and snowy there, right?
Not so fast. Unlike Norway or Sweden, Denmark is known for rather mild winters. According to the BBC, Copenhagen's average temperature in December is between 34 and 40 (Fahrenheit). The country has not had a "white Christmas" (as defined by the Denmark Meteorological Institute) for 14 years, and has only had seven in the past century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
