Posts
Muslim Woman Banned From Parisian Public Pool for Wearing 'Burquini' - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com: "Officials say the outfit is unhygienic and potentially harmful to other swimmers."
How?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Is the GM Volt mileage claim legit? | Green Tech - CNET News
Is the GM Volt mileage claim legit? | Green Tech - CNET News: "In the EPA model GM has followed, those first 40 miles equate to 'infinite mileage,' since it was charged from the grid and no gasoline was burned. But to consider electricity as infinite fuel efficiency can be misleading given that some energy--be it coal, natural gas, or nuclear--went into the delivery of electricity to charge the batteries."
So then the Tesla gets an infinite number of miles per gallon! :-/
So then the Tesla gets an infinite number of miles per gallon! :-/
Special Front Sight Wednesday Blog: What the Gun Grabbers Hate to See…
Special Front Sight Wednesday Blog: What the Gun Grabbers Hate to See…: "The school, which sits in the middle of a prairie, was too far from law enforcement for police to come in time to fend off would-be attackers. The students and staff would be safer if on-site, trained staff members were equipped to handle a crisis at a moment’s notice, they decided."
House Dems Hide Cost Of Health Plan | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
House Dems Hide Cost Of Health Plan | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House Democrats' legislation would spend $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Yet that cost estimate is based on a tried-and-true budget gimmick that members of Congress use to hide how much of your money they want to spend.
In reality, the Democrats' health care bill is at least 50% more expensive than the $1.2 trillion estimate suggests.
President Obama and his fellow partisans want the federal government to guarantee medical insurance coverage to all Americans. According to estimates by the left-leaning Urban Institute, providing health insurance to all of the uninsured would cost just under $2 trillion over the next 10 years."
"A standard trick for making new government programs appear less expensive is to have them take effect not in the first year, but later in the budget window.
If Congress launches a $100 million program in year one, its 10-year cost will be $1 billion. If Congress launches the program in year six, the 10-year cost is just $500 million. Delaying implementation just cut the cost of the program in half, right? Not quite. The program would still cost taxpayers $100 million per year.
That budgetary gimmick lets Congress appear thrifty. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acting chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, recently said he was "very confident we can meet the president's goal of having a fully-paid-for 10-year program on health care right around $1 trillion." Of course he can! Covering the uninsured costs $2 trillion? Heck, we'll do it for half that price!"
In reality, the Democrats' health care bill is at least 50% more expensive than the $1.2 trillion estimate suggests.
President Obama and his fellow partisans want the federal government to guarantee medical insurance coverage to all Americans. According to estimates by the left-leaning Urban Institute, providing health insurance to all of the uninsured would cost just under $2 trillion over the next 10 years."
"A standard trick for making new government programs appear less expensive is to have them take effect not in the first year, but later in the budget window.
If Congress launches a $100 million program in year one, its 10-year cost will be $1 billion. If Congress launches the program in year six, the 10-year cost is just $500 million. Delaying implementation just cut the cost of the program in half, right? Not quite. The program would still cost taxpayers $100 million per year.
That budgetary gimmick lets Congress appear thrifty. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acting chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, recently said he was "very confident we can meet the president's goal of having a fully-paid-for 10-year program on health care right around $1 trillion." Of course he can! Covering the uninsured costs $2 trillion? Heck, we'll do it for half that price!"
Sotomayor and the Second Amendment | Robert A. Levy | Cato Institute: Commentary
Sotomayor and the Second Amendment | Robert A. Levy | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Technically, the Maloney panel could not overrule a previous panel of the same court. In effect, Sotomayor's panel said, 'Maybe Presser is still good law, or maybe Presser has been superseded by the Supreme Court's later incorporation cases. We three judges cannot make that decision – first, because another panel of this court has already followed Presser and, second, because the Supreme Court and not an appellate court must say when earlier Supreme Court cases are superseded.'"
"Which panel got it right? Most likely, it won't matter – because the Supreme Court will review one or more of the three Second Amendment cases; and precedent will not bind the high Court. We should have an answer shortly. Either way, the decision of the Second Circuit panel, including Judge Sotomayor, was well within the bounds of responsible judging. Perhaps the Second and Seventh Circuits were correct. Perhaps the Ninth Circuit panel had the better of the argument. It's a close call –not the kind of call on which confirmations ought to turn (or even focus).
Finally, some gun rights advocates criticize Sotomayor's Maloney opinion for stating that the right to nunchakus in the home is not a "fundamental right." But that statement had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Instead, it concerned a different claim by the plaintiff under a doctrine known as substantive due process, which pertains to unenumerated constitutional rights, not those expressly listed in the Bill of Rights. Unless an unenumerated right is "fundamental," the courts will be highly deferential to legislative restrictions. Only if the right is "necessary to [our] regime of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" will a right be deemed fundamental. The Sotomayor panel decided that the statute in question, regarding the unenumerated right to a nunchaku, not the enumerated right to keep and bear arms, did not meet those criteria."
"Which panel got it right? Most likely, it won't matter – because the Supreme Court will review one or more of the three Second Amendment cases; and precedent will not bind the high Court. We should have an answer shortly. Either way, the decision of the Second Circuit panel, including Judge Sotomayor, was well within the bounds of responsible judging. Perhaps the Second and Seventh Circuits were correct. Perhaps the Ninth Circuit panel had the better of the argument. It's a close call –not the kind of call on which confirmations ought to turn (or even focus).
Finally, some gun rights advocates criticize Sotomayor's Maloney opinion for stating that the right to nunchakus in the home is not a "fundamental right." But that statement had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Instead, it concerned a different claim by the plaintiff under a doctrine known as substantive due process, which pertains to unenumerated constitutional rights, not those expressly listed in the Bill of Rights. Unless an unenumerated right is "fundamental," the courts will be highly deferential to legislative restrictions. Only if the right is "necessary to [our] regime of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" will a right be deemed fundamental. The Sotomayor panel decided that the statute in question, regarding the unenumerated right to a nunchaku, not the enumerated right to keep and bear arms, did not meet those criteria."
Playing Good Cop, Bad Cop | Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters | Cato Institute: Commentary
Playing Good Cop, Bad Cop | Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters | Cato Institute: Commentary: "It has become clear that this health care 'reform' effort is being driven by something other than the real and urgent need to reduce the nation's growing health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office recently declared that the administration's proposed mechanism for controlling health care costs--a Medicare Advisory Committee 'on steroids'--would likely be ineffective.
What, then, explains the enormous political push to cover the uninsured? The customary justification for extending such coverage is that so many Americans simply cannot afford health insurance. Partly, this is the result of government regulations that cause segmented insurance markets. Moreover, in most insurance markets, those facing a low risk of loss prefer to forgo insurance coverage at average premium rates. It's no surprise, therefore, that a large segment of the uninsured are young individuals that are much less likely to experience health problems.
One explanation of the drive toward mandatory health insurance is the need to reinforce funding for Medicare, which is rapidly running out of revenues. The young will consume relatively few medical services, but their mandated coverage would provide a rationale for additional taxes. This is very similar to how Social Security's finances were buttressed repeatedly--by expanding coverage to additional occupations and population groups. It's the reason why the leadership of retiree lobbies is maintaining silence despite the possibility that the new program will introduce cuts in Medicare benefits."
"Note that, according to the proposed legislation, mandatory health insurance coverage will commence in 2013. Calculations based on information from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services indicates that the program's true "10-year" net cost would become almost $2 trillion through the year 2022."
So in order to make it look cheaper they make it ramp up slowly so the first 10 years are much cheaper than later decades.
"Taking an even longer view, we calculate that the permanent program would add $13.6 trillion to the federal government's total unfunded obligations in today's dollars. That is, the government would need to have that amount in the bank today, invested at interest, to fully finance the new program's subsidy costs as they come due. Social Security and Medicare actuaries estimate that these two programs' unfunded obligations under today's policies exceed $100 trillion (not billion) in today's dollars."
What, then, explains the enormous political push to cover the uninsured? The customary justification for extending such coverage is that so many Americans simply cannot afford health insurance. Partly, this is the result of government regulations that cause segmented insurance markets. Moreover, in most insurance markets, those facing a low risk of loss prefer to forgo insurance coverage at average premium rates. It's no surprise, therefore, that a large segment of the uninsured are young individuals that are much less likely to experience health problems.
One explanation of the drive toward mandatory health insurance is the need to reinforce funding for Medicare, which is rapidly running out of revenues. The young will consume relatively few medical services, but their mandated coverage would provide a rationale for additional taxes. This is very similar to how Social Security's finances were buttressed repeatedly--by expanding coverage to additional occupations and population groups. It's the reason why the leadership of retiree lobbies is maintaining silence despite the possibility that the new program will introduce cuts in Medicare benefits."
"Note that, according to the proposed legislation, mandatory health insurance coverage will commence in 2013. Calculations based on information from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services indicates that the program's true "10-year" net cost would become almost $2 trillion through the year 2022."
So in order to make it look cheaper they make it ramp up slowly so the first 10 years are much cheaper than later decades.
"Taking an even longer view, we calculate that the permanent program would add $13.6 trillion to the federal government's total unfunded obligations in today's dollars. That is, the government would need to have that amount in the bank today, invested at interest, to fully finance the new program's subsidy costs as they come due. Social Security and Medicare actuaries estimate that these two programs' unfunded obligations under today's policies exceed $100 trillion (not billion) in today's dollars."
End the Fed? A Not-So-Crazy Idea | George A. Selgin | Cato Institute: Commentary
End the Fed? A Not-So-Crazy Idea | George A. Selgin | Cato Institute: Commentary: "[T]he US spent nearly half the years between 1854 to 1913 in recession, as opposed to just 21 percent of the time since the Fed's establishment in 1913. Who would want to go back to those bad old days?
But consider: the US economy has actually grown less rapidly since 1914 than it did before. And inflation has been much worse, despite both the Civil War, which featured the nation's worst inflation, and the Great Depression, which featured its severest deflation!
What's more, the frequent downturns before 1914 were due, not to the lack of a central bank, but to foolish government regulations. Topping the list were bans on branch banking, initiated by state governments and then incorporated into federal banking law. The bans propped up thousands of undercapitalized and under-diversified banks – banks unfit to survive major local shocks, let alone macroeconomics ones. They also caused bank notes – competitively supplied counterparts of today's Federal Reserve notes – to trade at discounts whenever they traveled far from the solitary offices of banks that issued them."
"But the Federal Reserve plan proved to be a poor substitute for deregulation. By granting monopoly privileges to the Federal Reserve banks, it allowed them to inflate recklessly: By 1919, the US inflation rate, which had cleaved close to zero ever since the Civil War, was close to 20 percent! Yet the Fed was also capable of failing to supply enough money to avert crises. The first downturn over which it presided – that of 1921 – was among the sharpest in US history. Still it was nothing compared to the unprecedented monetary contraction of 1929-1933.
Would asset currency have been any better? Canada's was: Between 1929 and 1933, for instance, 6,000 US banks failed, and a third of the US money stock was wiped out. In contrast, and despite a fixed Canadian-US dollar exchange rate, Canada's money stock shrank by just 13 percent, and no Canadian bank failed."
But consider: the US economy has actually grown less rapidly since 1914 than it did before. And inflation has been much worse, despite both the Civil War, which featured the nation's worst inflation, and the Great Depression, which featured its severest deflation!
What's more, the frequent downturns before 1914 were due, not to the lack of a central bank, but to foolish government regulations. Topping the list were bans on branch banking, initiated by state governments and then incorporated into federal banking law. The bans propped up thousands of undercapitalized and under-diversified banks – banks unfit to survive major local shocks, let alone macroeconomics ones. They also caused bank notes – competitively supplied counterparts of today's Federal Reserve notes – to trade at discounts whenever they traveled far from the solitary offices of banks that issued them."
"But the Federal Reserve plan proved to be a poor substitute for deregulation. By granting monopoly privileges to the Federal Reserve banks, it allowed them to inflate recklessly: By 1919, the US inflation rate, which had cleaved close to zero ever since the Civil War, was close to 20 percent! Yet the Fed was also capable of failing to supply enough money to avert crises. The first downturn over which it presided – that of 1921 – was among the sharpest in US history. Still it was nothing compared to the unprecedented monetary contraction of 1929-1933.
Would asset currency have been any better? Canada's was: Between 1929 and 1933, for instance, 6,000 US banks failed, and a third of the US money stock was wiped out. In contrast, and despite a fixed Canadian-US dollar exchange rate, Canada's money stock shrank by just 13 percent, and no Canadian bank failed."
Congress In Fantasyland | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
Congress In Fantasyland | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "If Congress suddenly required every car and truck in America (all 250 million of them) to be immediately destroyed and replaced with new cars and trucks that got better gas mileage, would the country be worse off or better off? Those members of Congress who voted for the 'cash for clunkers' program would probably say 'better off,' even though a perfectly good auto and truck stock would be destroyed.
The congressional clunker caucus would say millions of workers would be employed to replace all of the existing cars and trucks. Yes, that would be true, but everyone else would be poorer. Those who had to buy a new car would have less money to spend on everything else, which would mean fewer jobs in the rest of the economy -- more autoworkers but fewer farmers, teachers and medical researchers -- not a good trade-off.
Congress would likely respond by proposing a tax credit for the purchase of the new car. The tax credit could only be paid for by higher taxes now or in the future, which means people would be worse off because of the dead weight loss of collecting taxes in addition to the amount actually collected.
Members of Congress would then say that we are saving gasoline by having a more efficient auto fleet -- which ignores the fact that building a new car takes far more resources, including petroleum, than could possibly be saved by the gain of additional miles per gallon.
Congressional "logic" could also be applied to housing.
Why not knock down all houses built in America before 2000 and replace them with new and more energy-efficient houses? Wait -- we already evidenced the results of that experiment -- it happened in New Orleans. Rather than the government directly knocking down the houses, Hurricane Katrina did it for us. Are the people of New Orleans better off or worse off because of Katrina? Are all of the American taxpayers who footed much of the rebuilding cost -- hundreds of billions of dollars -- better off or worse off because of Katrina?
Many in Congress argue that the reason New Orleans is still a mess is because of federal, state and local government mismanagement and corruption. Yes, but now don't they want the government to run the health care system? And these folks are telling us that their new medical system will cover more people, will cost less, give us better care and not add to the budget deficit -- hmmm. Fantasyland!"
"It is also not mathematically possible to take care of all the new spending by increasing taxes on the top 5 percent of taxpayers (those making $160,000 or more annually) who already pay 61 percent of the federal tax (or $676 billion per year). Most of these people are now paying close to the revenue maximizing rate, which means that any increase in their tax rate is unlikely over the long run to bring in much more tax revenue.
Quite simply, upper-income people have options. History shows that when tax rates are raised, many will choose to work less (leisure is nontaxable), retire earlier than they had planned and save and invest less in taxable, productive activities. Those making more than $160,000 per year would need to have their taxes roughly tripled to take care of just this year's deficit. (One merely has to look at the tax evasion practiced by the chairman of the congressional tax writing committee, the secretary of the Treasury and the former majority leader, et al. at today's tax rates to know that they and their colleagues, as well as most everyone else, will find either legal or illegal ways to avoid paying the tax.)"
The congressional clunker caucus would say millions of workers would be employed to replace all of the existing cars and trucks. Yes, that would be true, but everyone else would be poorer. Those who had to buy a new car would have less money to spend on everything else, which would mean fewer jobs in the rest of the economy -- more autoworkers but fewer farmers, teachers and medical researchers -- not a good trade-off.
Congress would likely respond by proposing a tax credit for the purchase of the new car. The tax credit could only be paid for by higher taxes now or in the future, which means people would be worse off because of the dead weight loss of collecting taxes in addition to the amount actually collected.
Members of Congress would then say that we are saving gasoline by having a more efficient auto fleet -- which ignores the fact that building a new car takes far more resources, including petroleum, than could possibly be saved by the gain of additional miles per gallon.
Congressional "logic" could also be applied to housing.
Why not knock down all houses built in America before 2000 and replace them with new and more energy-efficient houses? Wait -- we already evidenced the results of that experiment -- it happened in New Orleans. Rather than the government directly knocking down the houses, Hurricane Katrina did it for us. Are the people of New Orleans better off or worse off because of Katrina? Are all of the American taxpayers who footed much of the rebuilding cost -- hundreds of billions of dollars -- better off or worse off because of Katrina?
Many in Congress argue that the reason New Orleans is still a mess is because of federal, state and local government mismanagement and corruption. Yes, but now don't they want the government to run the health care system? And these folks are telling us that their new medical system will cover more people, will cost less, give us better care and not add to the budget deficit -- hmmm. Fantasyland!"
"It is also not mathematically possible to take care of all the new spending by increasing taxes on the top 5 percent of taxpayers (those making $160,000 or more annually) who already pay 61 percent of the federal tax (or $676 billion per year). Most of these people are now paying close to the revenue maximizing rate, which means that any increase in their tax rate is unlikely over the long run to bring in much more tax revenue.
Quite simply, upper-income people have options. History shows that when tax rates are raised, many will choose to work less (leisure is nontaxable), retire earlier than they had planned and save and invest less in taxable, productive activities. Those making more than $160,000 per year would need to have their taxes roughly tripled to take care of just this year's deficit. (One merely has to look at the tax evasion practiced by the chairman of the congressional tax writing committee, the secretary of the Treasury and the former majority leader, et al. at today's tax rates to know that they and their colleagues, as well as most everyone else, will find either legal or illegal ways to avoid paying the tax.)"
De-fund the Detroit Public Schools | Adam B. Schaeffer | Cato Institute: Commentary
De-fund the Detroit Public Schools | Adam B. Schaeffer | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Detroit is planning on spending almost $1.3 billion in 2009 on this abject failure. That's $13,500 for each student. How much more money and how many more young lives is Michigan willing to sacrifice to this diseased system?
The money for success is there, but we need to give it to parents to spend on good schools of their choice, rather than the politicians and bureaucrats that have created this mess.
With that kind of money, private schools will rush to open seats and expand capacity to accommodate them. With that kind of money, new private schools would have plenty to spend on start-up costs and deliver a good, honest education.
Michigan needs a donation tax credit program to fund private school choice for Detroit's children, like the successful programs that Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Rhode Island, Iowa, and Indiana already enjoy."
"Ten gold-standard studies, which use a method similar to medical drug trials, have analyzed the impact that school choice has on the performance of students who are offered a choice.
The results are decisive; nine out of ten studies find statistically significant positive impacts on at least some students. None finds a negative effect.
School choice also helps the kids who remain in public schools. There are 17 studies that analyze the impact of private school choice on public school performance, and again the conclusion is solidly in favor of choice. Sixteen out of those seventeen studies find that choice actually improves public schools. None finds a negative impact.
And on top of all the academic success, in state after state, study after study, we find that school choice dramatically eases the massive burden on tax payers that has been imposed by inefficient public school districts.
A fiscal analysis of the Cato Institute's broad-based education tax credit program demonstrates that it can save states billions of dollars. Illinois, for instance, could save more than $5.1 billion over the first ten years."
The money for success is there, but we need to give it to parents to spend on good schools of their choice, rather than the politicians and bureaucrats that have created this mess.
With that kind of money, private schools will rush to open seats and expand capacity to accommodate them. With that kind of money, new private schools would have plenty to spend on start-up costs and deliver a good, honest education.
Michigan needs a donation tax credit program to fund private school choice for Detroit's children, like the successful programs that Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Rhode Island, Iowa, and Indiana already enjoy."
"Ten gold-standard studies, which use a method similar to medical drug trials, have analyzed the impact that school choice has on the performance of students who are offered a choice.
The results are decisive; nine out of ten studies find statistically significant positive impacts on at least some students. None finds a negative effect.
School choice also helps the kids who remain in public schools. There are 17 studies that analyze the impact of private school choice on public school performance, and again the conclusion is solidly in favor of choice. Sixteen out of those seventeen studies find that choice actually improves public schools. None finds a negative impact.
And on top of all the academic success, in state after state, study after study, we find that school choice dramatically eases the massive burden on tax payers that has been imposed by inefficient public school districts.
A fiscal analysis of the Cato Institute's broad-based education tax credit program demonstrates that it can save states billions of dollars. Illinois, for instance, could save more than $5.1 billion over the first ten years."
'Teachable Moment' Missed Lesson on Free Speech | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary
'Teachable Moment' Missed Lesson on Free Speech | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: "There's a fine line between disorderly conduct and freedom of speech. It can get tough out there, but I tell my officers, 'Don't make matters worse by throwing handcuffs on someone. Bite your tongue ..."
"An arrest he said is justified when:
'The set of circumstances ... will lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that a crime has or is about to be committed and that the person in question is involved in a significant manner.' Handcuffs are not warranted, he added, by anything short of that."
"In May of this year, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) reported, based on police data, that New York City Police Department officers 'stopped and interrogated New Yorkers 171,094 times between January and March' - and more than 151,000 of those individuals were sent on their way without charges. Approximately 89,000 of those stopped were black, 56,000 were Latino, and 16,000 were white.
Donna Lieberman, the head of the NYCLU, added: "These New Yorkers' personal information is now stored in an NYPD database."
'The NYPD is, in effect, building a massive database of black and brown New Yorkers,' said NYCLU Associate Legal Director Christopher Dunn. Based on what information on those who are not charged? Their color!"
When there are no charges then the info should be deleted.
"An arrest he said is justified when:
'The set of circumstances ... will lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that a crime has or is about to be committed and that the person in question is involved in a significant manner.' Handcuffs are not warranted, he added, by anything short of that."
"In May of this year, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) reported, based on police data, that New York City Police Department officers 'stopped and interrogated New Yorkers 171,094 times between January and March' - and more than 151,000 of those individuals were sent on their way without charges. Approximately 89,000 of those stopped were black, 56,000 were Latino, and 16,000 were white.
Donna Lieberman, the head of the NYCLU, added: "These New Yorkers' personal information is now stored in an NYPD database."
'The NYPD is, in effect, building a massive database of black and brown New Yorkers,' said NYCLU Associate Legal Director Christopher Dunn. Based on what information on those who are not charged? Their color!"
When there are no charges then the info should be deleted.
Obama and the Continuing War on the Poor - Paul A. Cleveland - Mises Institute
Obama and the Continuing War on the Poor - Paul A. Cleveland - Mises Institute: "A mentor of mine, Clarence Carson, published a book in the 1970s entitled The War on the Poor. He took his title from Lyndon Johnson's so-called 'war on poverty.' Carson noted that actual wars are waged against real people rather than circumstances, and that if the government were engaged in a war it must be against some identifiable group of people. In his book, he identified the poor as that group by analyzing the economic impact of the various policies that Johnson pursued. In each new initiative of the Great Society, the effect of those policies was to raise prices on various products and cause the poor in America to suffer for the sake of a few special interests."
"[T]he failures of past policies are generally not pointed to as a reason for doubting current political promises."
"Whether we look at Obama and the Democrats' cap-and-trade legislation or their health care reform or their pork barrel stimulus bill, in each case they intend to raise prices and increase taxes on us all. While a few corporate interests will benefit grandly from such nonsense, the vast majority of us will be made poorer. The saddest part of all of this is that no one seems to care that the economic results will be most heavily felt by the weakest among us. The gross immorality of this oppression and tyranny should be evident to anyone who would but casually look at the situation."
"In this world there are only a few ways for each of us to obtain the things that we desire. We can produce the things ourselves starting from scratch, produce something valued by others and use that in trade for what we want, take the things from others by force or fraud, or receive them as gifts of charity. Only the first two of these are economic. Theft and charity cannot be universalized, because each can be achieved only by the prior production of others."
"[T]he failures of past policies are generally not pointed to as a reason for doubting current political promises."
"Whether we look at Obama and the Democrats' cap-and-trade legislation or their health care reform or their pork barrel stimulus bill, in each case they intend to raise prices and increase taxes on us all. While a few corporate interests will benefit grandly from such nonsense, the vast majority of us will be made poorer. The saddest part of all of this is that no one seems to care that the economic results will be most heavily felt by the weakest among us. The gross immorality of this oppression and tyranny should be evident to anyone who would but casually look at the situation."
"In this world there are only a few ways for each of us to obtain the things that we desire. We can produce the things ourselves starting from scratch, produce something valued by others and use that in trade for what we want, take the things from others by force or fraud, or receive them as gifts of charity. Only the first two of these are economic. Theft and charity cannot be universalized, because each can be achieved only by the prior production of others."
Expanding Double Jeopardy | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary
Expanding Double Jeopardy | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary: "n legal terms, this law achieves its aims through federal authority over interstate commerce. If someone assaults you by throwing a cell phone at you, what Congress has done is enabled the prosecution of the thrower as a function of the fact that the cell phone was made in Japan, and therefore must have crossed state lines."
"An equally striking feature of the law is that the federal power to prosecute is not dissipated even if the defendant is found guilty by the state. It explicitly says, in fact, that federal charges should be pursued if the state verdict 'left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.'"
"The protection against double jeopardy was put in place to prevent retrying a politically unpopular but evidentially elusive defendant until he was found guilty. Congress apparently sees this as a glitch, rather than a virtue, in the American criminal-justice system.
The power to reprosecute is not one we should grant to any government, much less one with a politicized selection of who will be haled into court. For evidence, look no further than the Duke lacrosse non-rape case a few years ago. If the trial had gone to court and ended in acquittal, would we now be in federal court for a second round? The recent Department of Justice decision not to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who engaged in voter intimidation last November illustrates the flip side of this coin. Decisions to prosecute or not based on race undermine the rule of law."
"An equally striking feature of the law is that the federal power to prosecute is not dissipated even if the defendant is found guilty by the state. It explicitly says, in fact, that federal charges should be pursued if the state verdict 'left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.'"
"The protection against double jeopardy was put in place to prevent retrying a politically unpopular but evidentially elusive defendant until he was found guilty. Congress apparently sees this as a glitch, rather than a virtue, in the American criminal-justice system.
The power to reprosecute is not one we should grant to any government, much less one with a politicized selection of who will be haled into court. For evidence, look no further than the Duke lacrosse non-rape case a few years ago. If the trial had gone to court and ended in acquittal, would we now be in federal court for a second round? The recent Department of Justice decision not to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who engaged in voter intimidation last November illustrates the flip side of this coin. Decisions to prosecute or not based on race undermine the rule of law."
Foreclosure Levels Unlikely To Fall | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary
Foreclosure Levels Unlikely To Fall | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The vast majority of mortgage defaults are being driven by the same factors that have always driven mortgage defaults: being 'underwater,' that is, you owe more on the mortgage than the home is worth, combined with a life event that results in a substantial income decline, such as a job loss. Until both of these pieces are addressed, foreclosure levels are unlikely to fall.
All efforts addressing the foreclosure crisis implicitly assume that the current wave of foreclosures is almost exclusively the result of predatory lending practices and "exploding" adjustable rate mortgages, where upward shocks on the rate reset cause mortgage payment to become unaffordable. This was true of former Treasury Secretary Paulson's HOPE NOW and of FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair's IndyMac models. The Obama administration's current foreclosure efforts are based on the same mistaken belief.
If payment shock were driving the defaults, then we would observe most defaults occurring around the reset of the mortgage rate, specifically just after the reset. But that is not the case. The vast majority of defaults occurred long before the reset. It could be that this is due to such loans being "unaffordable" from the time of origination. According to analysis done at the Boston Federal Reserve, though, the borrower's initial debt-to-income had almost no impact in terms of predicting subsequent default. Additionally, if payment shock were the driver of default, fixed-rate mortgages, where payments did not change, would display default rates significantly below that of adjustable rate mortgages. Differences in performance between these different mortgage products largely disappears once differences in owner equity and credit score are taken into account."
"The question then is, what exactly it is that homeowners with no equity are losing in the event of a foreclosure?"
"According to Freddie Mac, speculators make up about 40 percent of those foreclosed upon. An additional 50 percent of foreclosures are likely due to job loss, eliminating the income a borrower would need to put forth a repayment plan under Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code. Combining speculators and the unemployed reveals that cramdown will do little to help at least 90 percent of borrowers currently in foreclosure."
All efforts addressing the foreclosure crisis implicitly assume that the current wave of foreclosures is almost exclusively the result of predatory lending practices and "exploding" adjustable rate mortgages, where upward shocks on the rate reset cause mortgage payment to become unaffordable. This was true of former Treasury Secretary Paulson's HOPE NOW and of FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair's IndyMac models. The Obama administration's current foreclosure efforts are based on the same mistaken belief.
If payment shock were driving the defaults, then we would observe most defaults occurring around the reset of the mortgage rate, specifically just after the reset. But that is not the case. The vast majority of defaults occurred long before the reset. It could be that this is due to such loans being "unaffordable" from the time of origination. According to analysis done at the Boston Federal Reserve, though, the borrower's initial debt-to-income had almost no impact in terms of predicting subsequent default. Additionally, if payment shock were the driver of default, fixed-rate mortgages, where payments did not change, would display default rates significantly below that of adjustable rate mortgages. Differences in performance between these different mortgage products largely disappears once differences in owner equity and credit score are taken into account."
"The question then is, what exactly it is that homeowners with no equity are losing in the event of a foreclosure?"
"According to Freddie Mac, speculators make up about 40 percent of those foreclosed upon. An additional 50 percent of foreclosures are likely due to job loss, eliminating the income a borrower would need to put forth a repayment plan under Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code. Combining speculators and the unemployed reveals that cramdown will do little to help at least 90 percent of borrowers currently in foreclosure."
Section 1233 of the Health Care Bill — Cranach: The Blog of Veith
Section 1233 of the Health Care Bill — Cranach: The Blog of Veith: "Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic.
What’s more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor “shall” discuss “advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to”; “an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses” (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and “a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families.” The doctor “shall” explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).
Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable. What are “key questions”? Who belongs on “a list” of helpful “resources”? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?"
What’s more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor “shall” discuss “advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to”; “an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses” (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and “a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families.” The doctor “shall” explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).
Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable. What are “key questions”? Who belongs on “a list” of helpful “resources”? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?"
USAA app lets iPhone users deposit checks | Apple - CNET News
USAA app lets iPhone users deposit checks | Apple - CNET News: "In the latest twist on electronic banking, customers of financial services firm USAA will now be able to deposit checks directly through their iPhones.
USAA on Tuesday updated its iPhone app to allow customers to deposit checks wirelessly. By taking a photo of both sides of the check using the iPhone's built-in camera, customers can send an image of a check directly to USAA where it can be verified and deposited."
USAA on Tuesday updated its iPhone app to allow customers to deposit checks wirelessly. By taking a photo of both sides of the check using the iPhone's built-in camera, customers can send an image of a check directly to USAA where it can be verified and deposited."
Video Games and Violence - Art Carden - Mises Institute
Video Games and Violence - Art Carden - Mises Institute: "Separate empirical studies by Winai Wongsurat and Todd Kendall have shown that increased access to pornography actually leads to reductions in the rates of divorce and rape. Wongsurawat cites the availability of PO boxes, which increase access to pornographic magazines but do not have an independent effect on crime, to identify the effect of pornography on sex crimes and divorce. Kendall looks specifically at the diffusion of internet pornography and shows that access to the internet and (presumably) internet pornography is associated with reductions in sex crime. Kendall's hypothesis that this is a causal relationship is strengthened by the fact that the effect is strongest for crimes committed by the group whose consumption of pornography is most likely to be affected by access to the internet: young males who live with their parents."
Not exactly something that I want to hear but we must remember that good intentions can have unintended consequences.
Not exactly something that I want to hear but we must remember that good intentions can have unintended consequences.
Campaign For Liberty — Lessons Learned and Re-Learned
Campaign For Liberty — Lessons Learned and Re-Learned: "A classic case of good intentions meeting bad incentives. People who took advantage of the rebate were, for the most part, going to buy another car this year anyway. We just robbed $4,500 from Peter to pay 20% of Paul's new car. Worse yet, Peter hasn't been born yet, we just added the bill to his crushing debt burden.
The way the rules were written, the worst polluting cars did not qualify for the rebate.� They are still out there spewing smoke and guzzling gas.� For many classes of vehicles, the change in fuel efficiency gained from the $4,500 could be as little as 2 mpg. You can improve your fuel efficiency more than this by driving differently - you should ask for $5,000."
"Before we give government control of health care, we should remember Cash-For-Clunkers, as well as Katrina, Sub-prime loans, TARP, Superfund, and a thousand other debacles that did more harm than good and cost multiples more than we were told they would. If the government can't run a used car lot, we probably shouldn't let them try their luck at brain surgery."
The way the rules were written, the worst polluting cars did not qualify for the rebate.� They are still out there spewing smoke and guzzling gas.� For many classes of vehicles, the change in fuel efficiency gained from the $4,500 could be as little as 2 mpg. You can improve your fuel efficiency more than this by driving differently - you should ask for $5,000."
"Before we give government control of health care, we should remember Cash-For-Clunkers, as well as Katrina, Sub-prime loans, TARP, Superfund, and a thousand other debacles that did more harm than good and cost multiples more than we were told they would. If the government can't run a used car lot, we probably shouldn't let them try their luck at brain surgery."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)