The real class warfare: Government vs. The People

With off scripted comments like "the private sector is doing fine, it's the public sector that needs help", it is very clear exactly how Obama views both economics and politics. His incessant attack on private business and constant desire to bail out unions and local governments should lead everyone to the inescapable conclusion that this president sees government (in all its forms) as the answer to every single social and economic problem. There is no middle ground with this administration.

Chief among governments tools to control the masses are taxation, regulation and executive orders. And boy has this administration unloaded on the country with both barrels. Consider this; since Obama has taken office thousands of new regulations have been issued costing the public billions in bureaucracy and additional compliance costs. Everything from stopping the XL pipeline to putting coal companies out of business. On the tax front, now that the court has upheld O-Care, the electorate can expect no less $1.7 trillion to support ACA alone. That's on top of new taxes that will begin in 2013. Oh and don't forget the huge increase at the end of this year if the Bush era tax cuts are not extended. For more, here is a list of all the tax hikes from the One.

How does all this help the Government class? It gives them control over every aspect of our lives. Look who is benefiting during the worst post war recession. Unemployment rate for PEU is around 4% while the private sector is stuck north of 8%. On average, government workers are paid much better than their private sector counterparts with better fringe benefits. None of this is by accident. Statist like this administration and their allies in the media and congress see this as 'the right thing to do'. They are convinced that the government is right in all things large and small. The more they can intrude in individual's lives, curb individual freedoms and in effect control the masses through regulation, taxation or putting them on the dole in some fashion the easier it will be for us uneducated masses to fall in line to the progressive way of thinking.

In this utopia the all-knowing elitist sits atop the mountain while the morlocks electorate toil in the coal mines windmill farms to support their well deserved lavish life styles.

We have a very clear choice to make in November at all levels of government. If we don't put a stop to this expansion of government then we will lose our freedoms and the American Dream.

Why O-Care is destined for failure

Clearly, the cost of the program is a huge obstacle for O-Care. It was poorly thought out and the Dems used Jedi mind-tricks to get the accounting to say what they wanted.

However, what I think will be even more of an issue is how this law will affect the medical profession. Specifically, now that the SCOTUS has confirmed that it is a RIGHT for every American to have government-mandated healthcare, every doctor and nurse in the country have effectively become captured laborers (or put another way - slaves) by virtue of their profession.

Functionally, by confirming O-Care as a 'right', the SCOTUS has created the concept that one man has the 'right' of another person's labor. In a very real way the supplier of the labor has become sub-servant to the consumer.

There is no difference whether the collectivist is demanding his "right" to health care, a job, a house, or high speed internet–all of these are "rights," according to today's Left. Moreover, in order for the government to supply all of these 'rights' they will have to infringe on the rights of others and force them to provide these services to the rest of the country.

This is what scares me even more than the untenable cost of this program. Once the government can take away someone's rights to their own labor we have become little more than the Soviet Union light.

This ruling has now put 30 million more people in the market (increasing demand) without a corresponding increase in either price or supply. The point here is that by artificially gaming the market, the government has put the medical industry in a position where demand will go through the roof. In an efficient market price would have to go up and the market would find equilibrium again. But in this case, the government has artificially capped price, forcing the profession to take on greater demand without compensation.

It is this market inefficiency that will ultimately kill Obamacare from the inside out. Why? Well who will want to become doctors in the future? Or as in the UK, will we have to import our medical professionals from India? the Middle East? Africa? Further, since it is now a 'right' can the government force qualified physicians to practice medicine? Scary indeed.

My hope is that the medical profession and like minded candidates will effectively message this to the electorate before November. We are still a right-center country and most Americans would find this way of doing business appalling.

Exit question: Where is that John Galt fellow?

Charles Lane: Government shift to the right?

Charles Lane has an op-ed out today form WaPo that is worth a read. In it he makes the case that over time the electorate will go through seismic shifts in what they expect from their government. He suggests that the pending O'care decision due out Thursday is similar to the transformation the court made during FDR's attempt to enact his progressive agenda in the 30's.

He starts by describing the academics who are stunned that O'care is even being considered by the court much less on the verge of being struck down:

What, then, led the academics to misread this case?

In a sense, they resemble the conservative leaders of the bar at the dawn of the New Deal. President Franklin Roosevelt's alphabet soup of federal programs ran counter to established doctrine denying the constitutionality of economic and social legislation, state or federal. Steeped in that tradition, many legal experts recoiled in horror at FDR's plans.

Amid a Great Depression, and under tremendous pressure from a popular president and his huge congressional majority, however, this expert consensus gave way. The Supreme Court abandoned its laissez faire understanding of the Constitution's Commerce Clause (among other provisions) so as to permit New Deal programs.

I don't think this history proves that "politics, money, party and party loyalty" crassly determined the decisions of the 1930s. If that were true, why accord them precedential weight today?

Rather, what it shows is that the United States periodically redefines the role of the federal government in society, in a process that is both political and legal — and, sometimes, more revolutionary than evolutionary. In that sense, we do have a "living Constitution."

In the 1930s, expanding federal power was innovative, promising. By blessing it, the court aligned itself with the wave of the future, in this country and globally. Ditto for the 1960s. Much of the legislation that resulted — from Social Security to the Voting Rights Act — was indeed progressive.

Today, however, there is nothing new about federal intervention — and much evidence from the past 70 years that big programs produce inefficiencies and unintended consequences.

The post-New Deal consensus about the scope of federal power has broken down amid national, and global, concern over the welfare state's cost and intrusiveness — a sea change of which the tea party is but one manifestation. Obamacare itself, which has consistently polled badly, fueled that movement.

To Lane, it looks as if the pendulum has reached its limit to the left and now is headed back to the right with a vengeance. Said another way, the federal government has moved so far to the left that it has caught the attention of the electorate and this has given rise to the likes of the Tea Party and their message is hard for many not to embrace given the government's ineptitude and size.

He concludes that:

The brilliance of Obamacare's opponents lies in spotting that historical opportunity and making the most of it. The legal professoriate, by contrast, reminds me of how William F. Buckley described his arch-conservative magazine in the 1950s: "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop."

Please read it all.

Obama and the circumvention of the Constitution.

Alternate title: Should Obama be impeached?

In part, here is Article II of the Constitution granting authority to the President (emphasis mine):

Article II of the Constitution: This article gives the President authority to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, appoint people to assist in carrying out laws, negotiate treaties, and to command the military.

You will notice that the implication here is ALL laws, not just the ones you agree with.

Secondly, here is the Presidential Oath of office (emphasis mine):

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States.

Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution - NOT preserve, protect and defend the parts of the Constitution one agrees with. My point is that the executive branch of the government enforces duly passed laws by a congress elected by the people.

Presidents do not have the power to pick and choose which laws to enforce. By doing so, said President is effectively usurping the electorates' power and thereby becoming de facto nothing more than a dictator.

Why is this important? Just look at some of the laws this administration has decided NOT to enforce:

The DOJ/homeland security has cut Arizona off from their list of illegal aliens. They are also denying Florida access to voter lists so the state can purge its voter rolls. The DOJ choosing not to prosecute the new black panthers for voter intimidation.

But here's the kicker, in the Arizona case, not only is the administration ignoring federal law that the President has sworn to enforce, they proactively set up a hotline so Arizona residents can report cases of "discrimination". In other words, Obama is encouraging illegals to break the law.

This country was built on respect for the law. Not some of the laws all of the laws. If the electorate does not like certain laws they will show their dislike by voting out those who passed the laws (see 2010 mid-term election and Obamacare). What this administration has effectively done is circumvent the constitution all in the name of a few more votes come November.

Disgusting.

On that special day, nothing says love like a donation to the One!

I am sorry to say that this in not a joke

Honestly this is so Orwellian it's down right creepy. How big does the One's ego have to be that he is convinced that on one of the most important days of someone's life they are thinking about him?

E.J. Dionne is already writing O’care Eulogy

WaPo's indelible E.J. Dionne has a op-ed out today where he is trying to make the case that Obamacare is a victim of poor messaging and politics rather than whether the law is constitution. He starts with pandering to the left and whines about the conservative activist judges on the bench:

And if it [SCOTUS] throws out all or part of the law now popularly known as "Obamacare," we will need a fearless conversation about how a conservative majority of the court has become a cog in a larger right-wing project to make progressive political and legislative victories impossible.

You see what he's doing here. Rather than speak to the issues that some, albeit, conservative justices have with the law's constitutionality, he takes it on faith that the law is constitutional and anyone who challenges that is a political activist. Further, he bemoans how no 'progressive' legislation can ever move forward due to that darn right-wing conspiracy.

I do agree with Dionne that we need a 'fearless conversation' but not about the conservative majority in the court, but way back when this abomination known as Obamacare came into being in the first place. Dionne seems to forget that this legislation was written behind closed doors and was only passed in the Senate through Harry Reid's violation of established Senate procedures with ZERO republicans voting for it.

Dionne continues:

I still harbor the perhaps naïve hope that some conservative justices — Anthony Kennedy? John Roberts? — will pull back from judicial activism and allow the voters to decide the fate of the health-care law in this fall's elections.

To quote her highness Fancy Nancy P. "Are you serious? Are you serious?" (sorry couldn't resist). Quick civics lesson for you E.J. there are three count them three branches of government all equal and all have checks and balance over the others.

This atrocious law was created in a perfect storm where the democrats found themselves with total control of two branches of government. They subsequently took full advantage by passing Obamacare and now are crying foul when, to their utter dismay, some folks in black robes -gasp- question its constitutionality.

Finally after talking about all the good stuff that's in the law - pre-exiting condition, adults kids staying on their parents coverage until they are 26 etc. without letting his readers know how we are going to pay for it, Dionne gets to the heart of the problem (at least in his eyes):

For unelected judges to give the back of their hands to legislators whose job is to solve problems while accounting for competing priorities would be the height of arrogance and a flight from democracy. But all the liberal anger in the world will not make up for the size of the setback.

Hey, E.J. the reason they are unelected is so they will be untouchable. Further my friend; it is the court's job to give congress the back of their hands when it overreaches its authority as it has in this case.

Oh and by the way, where were you when Roe v. Wade was upheld? Oh wait those judges weren't activist because they supported the unerring progressive agenda.

No blogging - gone camping

My son's Boy Scout Troop is off the the wilderness and I'm a gonna go with'em! Be back the week of the 25th with more blogging.

25 years ago today…

A True American Hero

Reagan's speech to the people of Berlin
12 June 1987 
Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty four years ago, President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, and speaking to the people of this city and the world at the city hall. Well since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn to Berlin. And today, I, myself, make my second visit to your city.

We come to Berlin, we American Presidents, because it's our duty to speak in this place of freedom. But I must confess, we're drawn here by other things as well; by the feeling of history in this city — more than 500 years older than our own nation; by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten; most of all, by your courage and determination. Perhaps the composer, Paul Linke, understood something about American Presidents. You see, like so many Presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: "Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin" [I still have a suitcase in Berlin.]
 
Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America. I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East. To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, I extend my warmest greetings and the good will of the American people. To those listening in East Berlin, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.]

Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic South, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same — still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. 
Yet, it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world.
Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German separated from his fellow men.

Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar.

President Von Weizsäcker has said, "The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed." Well today — today I say: As long as this gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.

Yet, I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph.

In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find devastation. Thousands of miles away, the people of the United States reached out to help. And in 1947 Secretary of State — as you've been told — George Marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the Marshall Plan. Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said: "Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos."

In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. I was struck by a sign — the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt. I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city. The sign read simply: "The Marshall Plan is helping here to strengthen the free world." A strong, free world in the West — that dream became real. Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium — virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded. 

In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty — that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders — the German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.

Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany: busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland. Where a city's culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums. Where there was want, today there's abundance — food, clothing, automobiles — the wonderful goods of the Kudamm.¹ From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. Now the Soviets may have had other plans. But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn't count on: Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze. [Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner Schnauze.²]

In the 1950s — In the 1950s Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you."
 
But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind — too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.
 
And now — now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.
Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty — the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace.

There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev — Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent, and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So, we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides.

Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment (unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution) — namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days, days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city; and the Soviets later walked away from the table.

 
But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then — I invite those who protest today — to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table. Because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.

 
As I speak, NATO ministers are meeting in Iceland to review the progress of our proposals for eliminating these weapons. At the talks in Geneva, we have also proposed deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons. And the Western allies have likewise made far-reaching proposals to reduce the danger of conventional war and to place a total ban on chemical weapons.

 
While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur. And in cooperation with many of our allies, the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative — research to base deterrence not on the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend; on systems, in short, that will not target populations, but shield them. By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe and all the world. But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty. When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled; Berlin was under siege. And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty. And freedom itself is transforming the globe.

 
In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth. Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth. In the industrialized nations, a technological revolution is taking place, a revolution marked by rapid, dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications.

 
In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom. Yet in this age of redoubled economic growth, of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a choice: It must make fundamental changes, or it will become obsolete.

 
Today, thus, represents a moment of hope. We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East to promote true openness, to break down barriers that separate people, to create a safer, freer world. And surely there is no better place than Berlin, the meeting place of East and West, to make a start.

 
Free people of Berlin: Today, as in the past, the United States stands for the strict observance and full implementation of all parts of the Four Power Agreement of 1971. Let us use this occasion, the 750th anniversary of this city, to usher in a new era, to seek a still fuller, richer life for the Berlin of the future. Together, let us maintain and develop the ties between the Federal Republic and the Western sectors of Berlin, which is permitted by the 1971 agreement.

 
And I invite Mr. Gorbachev: Let us work to bring the Eastern and Western parts of the city closer together, so that all the inhabitants of all Berlin can enjoy the benefits that come with life in one of the great cities of the world.

 
To open Berlin still further to all Europe, East and West, let us expand the vital air access to this city, finding ways of making commercial air service to Berlin more convenient, more comfortable, and more economical. We look to the day when West Berlin can become one of the chief aviation hubs in all central Europe.

 
With — With our French — With our French and British partners, the United States is prepared to help bring international meetings to Berlin. It would be only fitting for Berlin to serve as the site of United Nations meetings, or world conferences on human rights and arms control, or other issues that call for international cooperation.

 
There is no better way to establish hope for the future than to enlighten young minds, and we would be honored to sponsor summer youth exchanges, cultural events, and other programs for young Berliners from the East. Our French and British friends, I'm certain, will do the same. And it's my hope that an authority can be found in East Berlin to sponsor visits from young people of the Western sectors.

 
One final proposal, one close to my heart: Sport represents a source of enjoyment and ennoblement, and you may have noted that the Republic of Korea — South Korea — has offered to permit certain events of the 1988 Olympics to take place in the North. International sports competitions of all kinds could take place in both parts of this city. And what better way to demonstrate to the world the openness of this city than to offer in some future year to hold the Olympic games here in Berlin, East and West.

 
In these four decades, as I have said, you Berliners have built a great city. You've done so in spite of threats — the Soviet attempts to impose the East-mark, the blockade. Today the city thrives in spite of the challenges implicit in the very presence of this wall. What keeps you here? Certainly there's a great deal to be said for your fortitude, for your defiant courage. But I believe there's something deeper, something that involves Berlin's whole look and feel and way of life — not mere sentiment. No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions. Something, instead, that has seen the difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence, that refuses to release human energies or aspirations, something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says "yes" to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom. In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin — is "love."
Love both profound and abiding.
Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront.

 
Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower's one major flaw: treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere, that sphere that towers over all Berlin, the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed.

 
As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner (quote):

 
"This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality."

 
Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall, for it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.

 
And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I've been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again.

 
Thank you and God bless you all. Thank you.

 
No Mr. President - God Bless you sir.

Rep J. Jackson war on teenagers.

Yesterday, Jessie Jackson penned an article in the Sun Times (oddly enough under the 'News' link in the banner) where he bestows the virtue of his son's heroic effort in congress to raise the minimum wage to $10/hour (emphasis mine):

Last week, legislators led by my son Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (I write with some pride) called on the Congress to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour, back to the levels it reached in 1968, and index it to inflation so it doesn't lose value over time. Republicans in Congress will block a vote on this measure. Democratic leaders can't figure out where they are on it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will unleash a horde of lobbyists to oppose it. But the reality is that this would be a no-brainer. And it is time for the president and sensible leaders in both parties to push for its passage.

Why is this a no-brainer you ask?:

Raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour would lift the wages of 30 million Americans, more than 20 percent of the work force. It would not only affect the wages of those who work for less than $10 an hour but also of those who make a little more, as employers would raise their pay to retain good workers. A staggering 40 percent of the work force falls within that range.

Hell, why stop at $10? Why not $20 or $30 or even $100? After all, at $100/per hour just think of how much better those 30 million Americans would live! The answer is of course that as we all know by now raising minimum wage standard causes layoffs. Labor wages are not arbitrary, as Rev. Jackson would have you believe. Labor is a cost to a business and most businesses in this country are small businesses who have tight bottom lines. If congress arbitrarily raises the cost of small businesses, something will have to give.

Usually that 'something' is reduction in staff, higher prices to consumers, or cutting costs in other areas like marketing. In each case, it will cause the small business to become less competitive in the market and thereby putting its very existence in jeopardy. And if the business ceases to exist there are no jobs regardless of what congress says the minimum wage should be.

In the chart above it is clear that raising the minimum wage has exactly the wrong result. So rather than lifting wages for 30 million Americans, a higher minimum wage will simply increase wages for some while the rest are out of work and put yet added strain on small businesses who are struggling right now.

As much as politicians and other advocates of the minimum wage might pretend otherwise, the laws of supply and demand (like the law of gravity) are NOT optional. 

Obama: Big Gov = recovery!

Photo: AP

This from the One's Presser on Friday:

"Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes, cuts initiated by, you know, governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government," he said. "And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments."

Help them do what exactly? Is the president really saying that in order for America to have a robust economy that we have to have hire more public employees? Seriously? Does he truly believe that there is some hypothetical balance between private sector growth and public? And by extension without the public sector sucking all the capital out of the market that the economy would somehow stall?

Ladies and gentlemen, it is my contention that government, at all levels, is fundamentally designed to impede economic growth not the reverse. There is nowhere that anyone can point to that will show government actually creating wealth. Its only purpose is to regulate business and anytime, for better or worse, by its existence it encumbers wealth creation. I am not passing judgment on the value of the various agencies rather showing that the more government you have the less efficient the wealth creators are.

So I will pay the government to keep someone from coming to my house and kicking down the door and taking my stuff. Needed Yes, a wealth creator No.

The One really stepped in it here wonder how the Sunday morning talking heads will spin it?:
 


Oh, that's how, they don't.

Recommended reading of the day

I just read an excellent column by Derek Hunter over at Rightwing News. In it, Hunter meticulously deconstructs the progressives' race baiting canard and effectively turns the table to show just who the racist in this country are. Here are a couple of nuggets from his column:

[D]emocrats, have a vested interest in preventing as many people as possible, especially minorities, from becoming productive members of society.

Productive members of society – and those who aspire to be – don't need or want government to do for them what they can do for themselves. The socialists, communists, fascists and anarchists – in other words, progressives – obviously don't have the support to win elections. They must find many votes beyond their core supporters to survive. So they attempt to manipulate minorities.

 _____________________________________________________________

In the last 50 years, progressives have become quite interested in minority votes as the popularity of their message has waned. They pushed for a web of government dependence to entangle minorities – direct subsidies of just enough money to encourage complacency, public housing that serves as a staging ground for continuing criminal enterprises, an education system that coddles and babysits but does not, no matter how much money is sunk into it, educate, and, from their leaders, the soul-crushing rhetoric of victimhood and entitlement. Utopia is only an election cycle away – if we can get rid of those damn Republicans.

Be sure to read it all

Wisconsin PEU - The John Gotti of Unions?

Just how badly did the public employee unions miscalculate in Wisconsin? About as bad as bad can be. What they accomplished:

• Spent 10s of millions of dollars in a losing cause
• Exposed their extortion scheme to taxpayers everywhere
• Put Wisconsin in play in November
• Lost membership
• Damaged their brand both locally and nationally
• Proved that they are not invincible
• Exposed their true identity (it's not all about the kids - it's about me)

Before John Gotti's rise, the mafia in New York purposefully kept a low profile because it was 'good' for business. They knew that in order to continue their various racketeering schemes they needed to keep their activities out of the eye of John Q. Public. You see the plan was simple - Bribe a few judges/politicians/police, threaten/kill any local yokel who starts to raise a stink and everything would be groovy.

Sounds like a good plan, however, when John Gotti Jr. took over the Family he made every effort to flaunt the fact that not only was he breaking the law but getting away with it as well. Because of his greed/ego more and more of the public began to take notice of the Family's activities and this forced public officials, who in the past turned a blind eye, to take notice as well.

The same can be said for the public unions in general and Wisconsin in particular. For 40 plus years, the public unions have quietly gained more and more access to the treasury. Their racket was not that dissimilar to the mob's. The dues forcibly collected from their members (read protection racket) were in part doled out to politicians sympathetic to their cause (i.e. getting more money through no bid contracts, ridiculously high tax funded wage/pension/health insurance for their members, etc.).

This scheme works out pretty well until the economy takes a downturn. That's when state and local officials have to tighten their budgets and the one glaring liability on the balance sheet is of course the lavish outpouring of taxpayer dollars to the PEU.

Ouch! Now that’s a woop’n!

WALKER WINS WI [AGAIN]...
'RECALL' DEFEAT SPELLS DOOM FOR PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS...
'PULITZER' NEWSPAPER MOCKS DRUDGE FOR INFORMING READERS...

BARRETT 40%
*WALKER 60%
[30% IN]

Hey Krugman, we found your brain would you like it back?

Krugman's off his meds again. I couldn't even get through the first paragraph of Paul Krugman's NYT column today before I shot coffee through my nose. For your reading dis-pleasure (and make sure you are not drinking anything) here it is:

What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won't notice is that that's precisely the policy we've been following the past couple of years.

SLASHED SPENDING????? WHERE???? In case Paul hadn't noticed the Debt has increased by 50% since the O has been in office. Moreover, the 'tax cuts' he's refereeing to here are the so called Bush tax cuts that were already the status quo when the O took office. There were not tax cuts! Congress just didn't let the tax rates return to their previous level. Only in Washington can one say that by not raising taxes it is a tax cut.

Oh, and by the way, if the Krugster will remember that the last three budgets that the O sent to congress couldn't even get one single solitary vote because of the incredible increase in spending the administration loaded into it. Think about that for a moment. The leader of the party sent three budget that not even Bernie Sanders could hold his nose and vote for and he's an avowed socialist.

Meanwhile the republican congress has sent several budget bills over to the senate and none of them has even come to the floor. Krugman says in his column that the gridlock in congress is due to the do-nothing republicans. Really, where is Harry Reid's budget? It's been, what, a quadrillion days and counting since the senate has passed a budget bill.

Look Krugman and his ilk are hilariously touting low spending and a very optimistic 4.5 million jobs that they say were created under Obama's watch. I won't bore you with how the claim of low spending by this administration is complete bovine excrement, I'm sure you are aware of the $900 Billion taxpayer dollars that were flushed down the toilet by now.

However, I will take issue with their claim of 'job creation'. Even if you believe in the 4.5 million number (dubious at best) I would submit that ANY jobs created in the last three and a half years are in spite of this anti-business administration. See XL pipeline, agency overreach by both the EPA (shutting down coal fired plants) and the NLRB (Boeing's attempt to set up shop in SC) for some examples of this administrations absolute disdain for fostering a healthy business environment.

If you have the stomach to read the rest of Krugman's column please do. Me I just ate and have to wish to see my ham sandwich again.

If this does not bring tears to your eyes...

Gov. Jindal Spanks Teachers Union

With all the attention focused on the recall election in Wisconsin you might have missed this from Reuters. After reading it I just had to smile:

Starting this fall, thousands of poor and middle-class kids will get vouchers covering the full cost of tuition at more than 120 private schools across Louisiana, including small, Bible-based church schools.

Every time a student receives a voucher of either type, his local public school will lose a chunk of state funding.

The hope obviously is that this policy will be cost neutral - if not favor private schooling by reducing the number of over-compensated public (unionized) teachers needed. Governor Jindal had this to say:

"We are changing the way we deliver education," said Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican who muscled the plan through the legislature this spring over fierce objections from Democrats and teachers unions. "We are letting parents decide what's best for their children, not government."

Novel thought there - letting the parents decide rather than government. Now you know this runs counter to all that liberals hold dear and I am amazed that Gov. Jindal got this through the legislature given the power of the teachers union. But it seems that the electorate agreed with Jindal that something - anything - had to be done given Louisiana's education performance is a consistent cellar dweller when it came to national rankings. The latest from ALEC has Louisiana coming in 49th out of 51!
So what does the opposition have to say?:

On Gov. Walker: I love it when a plan comes together

Maybe not as united as you think

Well maybe not how the public unions would like a plan to come together. The first rule in medicine is to do no harm. The level of self-inflicted wounds the PEU in Wisconsin have inflected upon themselves is staggering to say the least. So bad, in fact, that it may have national implications. Consider this from the Wall Street Journal's Douglas Belkin and Kris Maher (emphasis mine): 

Public-employee unions in Wisconsin have experienced a dramatic drop in membership—by more than half for the second-biggest union—since a law championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker sharply curtailed their ability to bargain over wages and working conditions.

Now with Mr. Walker facing a recall vote Tuesday, voters will decide whether his policies in the centrist state should continue—or whether they have gone too far.

The election could mark a pivot point for organized labor.

At least now we know why the unions and the democrats (both at the state and national levels) hit the panic button when ACT 10 was under consideration.

Here's how it's supposed to work - Taxpayers fund the public sector including the public union member's salaries through tax revenues. The unions then take about $2,400 (mandatory) a year per union member off the top to fund their political machine. This machine includes funding campaigns that are sympathetic to their cause (i.e. democratic candidates that will make sure that the political machine continues to roll on as it has for over 40 years in Wisconsin). Everybody wins, except of course the taxpayer who is funding this boondoggle.