Posts
How to Fix the Jobs Problem - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. - Mises Institute: "All this talk of unemployment is preposterous. Think of it. We live in a world with lots of imperfections, things that need to be done. It has always been so and always will be so. That means that there is always work to be done, and therefore, always jobs. The problem of unemployment is a problem of disconnect between those who would work and those who would hire."
"The high minimum wage that knocks out the first several rungs from the bottom of the ladder
The high payroll tax that robs employees and employers of resources
The laws that threaten firms with lawsuits should the employee be fired
The laws that established myriad conditions for hiring beyond the market-based condition that matters: can he or she get the job done?
The unemployment subsidy in the form of phony insurance that pays people not to work
The high cost of business start-ups in the form of taxes and mandates
The mandated benefits that employers are forced to cough up for every new employee under certain conditions
The withholding tax that prevents employers and employees from making their own deals
The age restrictions that treat everyone under the age of 16 as useless
The social-security and income taxes that together devour nearly half of contract income
The labor-union laws that permit thugs to loot a firm and keep out workers who would love a chance to offer their wares for less"
Friday, February 26, 2010
Chat: What do you really want to know?
Clint: Do you know if LaMoine is working from home today?
Me: Yes.
Clint: Ok, thanks
Me: So do you want to know if he is remote or do you just want to know if I know if he is remote? :-)
Clint: lol
Clint: I should have known ... is he working from home
Me: He's standing about 10' from me right now. :-)
Me: Yes.
Clint: Ok, thanks
Me: So do you want to know if he is remote or do you just want to know if I know if he is remote? :-)
Clint: lol
Clint: I should have known ... is he working from home
Me: He's standing about 10' from me right now. :-)
Book Review: Crazy Like a Fox | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary
Book Review: Crazy Like a Fox | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "AIPCS students are taught that they can't afford to give prospective colleges or employers any reason to doubt their skills or work ethic. And they learn this not merely by being told, but through the strictly enforced school rules to which all students must adhere, and their parents accept.
Students arriving late to school must sit on the floor. Chairs are a privilege, not an entitlement. Cell phones may not be used, or even seen, within the school. The same goes for jewelry. Violators see their property confiscated—not until the end of the school day, but the end of the school year. Families who want the property returned sooner have an option: withdraw their kids from AIPCS."
"Plenty of observers are appalled that Chavis embarrasses students to enforce school rules. He has no patience for such critics, whom he sees as lacking perspective. 'Some may call my use of public humiliation extreme; however, Oakland is an extreme city with a high homicide rate. I would rather embarrass them now than see my students get killed.'"
Students arriving late to school must sit on the floor. Chairs are a privilege, not an entitlement. Cell phones may not be used, or even seen, within the school. The same goes for jewelry. Violators see their property confiscated—not until the end of the school day, but the end of the school year. Families who want the property returned sooner have an option: withdraw their kids from AIPCS."
"Plenty of observers are appalled that Chavis embarrasses students to enforce school rules. He has no patience for such critics, whom he sees as lacking perspective. 'Some may call my use of public humiliation extreme; however, Oakland is an extreme city with a high homicide rate. I would rather embarrass them now than see my students get killed.'"
Obama's Faith-Based Boondoggle | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
Obama's Faith-Based Boondoggle | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "No one denies that private charities, especially faith-based ones, can transform lives and help lift people out of poverty and despair. Indeed, private charities are more effective than government welfare programs in fulfilling those roles. It seems natural, therefore, to want to encourage these groups. However, mixing government and charity risks undermining the things that have made private charity effective."
"Government money never comes without strings."
"Besides, why should faith-based charities eschew proselytizing and strictly religious functions? There is a reason for the "faith" in "faith-based charities." These organizations believe that helping people requires more than food or a bed. It requires addressing deeper spiritual needs. From their perspective, it is about God. Yet, in the end, government involvement transforms private charities from institutions that change people's lives to providers of services - government programs in clerical collars."
" If the history of welfare proves anything, it is that government money is as addictive as any narcotic. Ironically, therefore, given that many private charities are dedicated to fighting welfare dependency, government funding may quickly become a source of dependency for the charities themselves."
"Government funding is antithetical to the nature of charity. After all, the essence of private charity is that it is voluntary. Tax money is based on coercion. There is neither compassion nor love behind a grant of money forcibly taken from taxpayers who may have no desire to support the charity in question."
"Government money never comes without strings."
"Besides, why should faith-based charities eschew proselytizing and strictly religious functions? There is a reason for the "faith" in "faith-based charities." These organizations believe that helping people requires more than food or a bed. It requires addressing deeper spiritual needs. From their perspective, it is about God. Yet, in the end, government involvement transforms private charities from institutions that change people's lives to providers of services - government programs in clerical collars."
" If the history of welfare proves anything, it is that government money is as addictive as any narcotic. Ironically, therefore, given that many private charities are dedicated to fighting welfare dependency, government funding may quickly become a source of dependency for the charities themselves."
"Government funding is antithetical to the nature of charity. After all, the essence of private charity is that it is voluntary. Tax money is based on coercion. There is neither compassion nor love behind a grant of money forcibly taken from taxpayers who may have no desire to support the charity in question."
Head Start: A Tragic Waste of Money | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary
Head Start: A Tragic Waste of Money | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Head Start, the most sacrosanct federal education program, doesn't work.
That's the finding of a sophisticated study just released by President Obama's Department of Health and Human Services.
Created in 1965, the comprehensive preschool program for 3- and 4-year olds and their parents is meant to narrow the education gap between low-income students and their middle- and upper-income peers. Forty-five years and $166 billion later, it has been proven a failure."
"In fact, not a single one of the 114 tests administered to first graders — of academics, socio-emotional development, health care/health status and parenting practice — showed a reliable, statistically significant effect from participating in Head Start."
"Instead of throwing more dollars at this proven failure, President Obama might consider throwing his weight behind proven successes. A federal program that pays private-school tuition for poor DC families, for instance, has been shown to raise students' reading performance by more than two grade levels after just three years, compared to a control group of students who stayed in public schools. And it does so at about a quarter the cost to taxpayers of DC's public schools."
That's the finding of a sophisticated study just released by President Obama's Department of Health and Human Services.
Created in 1965, the comprehensive preschool program for 3- and 4-year olds and their parents is meant to narrow the education gap between low-income students and their middle- and upper-income peers. Forty-five years and $166 billion later, it has been proven a failure."
"In fact, not a single one of the 114 tests administered to first graders — of academics, socio-emotional development, health care/health status and parenting practice — showed a reliable, statistically significant effect from participating in Head Start."
"Instead of throwing more dollars at this proven failure, President Obama might consider throwing his weight behind proven successes. A federal program that pays private-school tuition for poor DC families, for instance, has been shown to raise students' reading performance by more than two grade levels after just three years, compared to a control group of students who stayed in public schools. And it does so at about a quarter the cost to taxpayers of DC's public schools."
Campaign Finance Reform: A Libertarian Primer | Robert A. Levy | Cato Institute: Commentary
Campaign Finance Reform: A Libertarian Primer | Robert A. Levy | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The Court decided in McConnell that political expression was entitled to less First Amendment protection than Klan speech, pornography, and flag burning. Each of those is constitutionally protected; but if a corporation such as, say, Random House were to publish a book with the words 'Vote for Obama' anywhere in the text, the entire book could be banned. Ditto for any book distributed via Amazon's Kindle that simply named a candidate for federal office within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary."
"Under the post-Citizens United rules, corporations and unions still cannot contribute directly to candidates; and they still have to disclose when they pay for an advertisement — so we will know who's footing the bill. But the ad itself, if it's independent and not coordinated with the candidate, can be broadcast without restriction. Further, corporations and unions will now be able to say 'Vote for [or against] Candidate X.' Before Citizens United, they had to say 'Call Candidate X and tell her you like [or don't like] her views' on a particular issue. Most of us would agree, that distinction makes little sense."
"The Court has been reluctant to grasp the notion that politics is essentially a bargain between candidates and the voters. When a candidate promises to pursue an agenda that a voter favors, it should not matter constitutionally whether the voter's return promise is to vote for the candidate, convince his friends to vote for the candidate, write letters to the editor in support of the candidate, pay for an ad that supports the candidate, or donate money to the candidate so he can pay for his own ad. Nor should it matter if the candidate's end of the bargain includes a commitment to meet with the voter, listen to his views or, to put it crassly, give him access and influence. Each of those acts has the same end in mind: getting the candidate elected. And each act operates through the same means: political speech. The exchange of speech for promises by the candidate is not corruption. It is democracy at work."
"Prohibiting less affluent individuals from pooling resources is a recipe for tilting the playing field in favor of the rich. Currently, there are no limits on how much George Soros or Michael Bloomberg can spend of their own money on political speech. Why shouldn't a few thousand others be able to match them by joining forces through an entity such as a corporation that expresses their policy preferences?"
"Notably, half of our states have minimal campaign finance limitations; yet there's no evidence that politics in those states is more corrupt. Indeed, the real reason for strict laws is not to prevent corruption, but to protect incumbent politicians who wish to be reelected. Restrict political expression and you restrict the ability of upstart challengers to defeat current officeholders.
The proper answer to large expenditures for speech is either more speech or, if the existing system proves unworkable, a constitutional amendment. As for money, it's just a symptom. We have a big money problem because we have a big government problem. By restraining the regulatory and redistributive powers of the state, we can minimize the influence of big money. Restoring the Framers' notion of enumerated, delegated, and limited federal powers will get government out of our lives and out of our wallets. That's the best way to end the campaign-finance racket, and root out corruption without jeopardizing political speech."
"Under the post-Citizens United rules, corporations and unions still cannot contribute directly to candidates; and they still have to disclose when they pay for an advertisement — so we will know who's footing the bill. But the ad itself, if it's independent and not coordinated with the candidate, can be broadcast without restriction. Further, corporations and unions will now be able to say 'Vote for [or against] Candidate X.' Before Citizens United, they had to say 'Call Candidate X and tell her you like [or don't like] her views' on a particular issue. Most of us would agree, that distinction makes little sense."
"The Court has been reluctant to grasp the notion that politics is essentially a bargain between candidates and the voters. When a candidate promises to pursue an agenda that a voter favors, it should not matter constitutionally whether the voter's return promise is to vote for the candidate, convince his friends to vote for the candidate, write letters to the editor in support of the candidate, pay for an ad that supports the candidate, or donate money to the candidate so he can pay for his own ad. Nor should it matter if the candidate's end of the bargain includes a commitment to meet with the voter, listen to his views or, to put it crassly, give him access and influence. Each of those acts has the same end in mind: getting the candidate elected. And each act operates through the same means: political speech. The exchange of speech for promises by the candidate is not corruption. It is democracy at work."
"Prohibiting less affluent individuals from pooling resources is a recipe for tilting the playing field in favor of the rich. Currently, there are no limits on how much George Soros or Michael Bloomberg can spend of their own money on political speech. Why shouldn't a few thousand others be able to match them by joining forces through an entity such as a corporation that expresses their policy preferences?"
"Notably, half of our states have minimal campaign finance limitations; yet there's no evidence that politics in those states is more corrupt. Indeed, the real reason for strict laws is not to prevent corruption, but to protect incumbent politicians who wish to be reelected. Restrict political expression and you restrict the ability of upstart challengers to defeat current officeholders.
The proper answer to large expenditures for speech is either more speech or, if the existing system proves unworkable, a constitutional amendment. As for money, it's just a symptom. We have a big money problem because we have a big government problem. By restraining the regulatory and redistributive powers of the state, we can minimize the influence of big money. Restoring the Framers' notion of enumerated, delegated, and limited federal powers will get government out of our lives and out of our wallets. That's the best way to end the campaign-finance racket, and root out corruption without jeopardizing political speech."
FOXNews.com - Tracking Your Taxes: Earmarks to Nowhere
FOXNews.com - Tracking Your Taxes: Earmarks to Nowhere: "There was the $50 million Congress handed out in 2004 for an indoor rainforest in Iowa at the behest of Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, a self-described fiscal conservative. As the local newspaper in Coralville joked, for that much money, 'we could send the whole town on a rainforest vacation.'"
"Another project that crashed and burned came out of San Diego, Calif., where an entrepreneur convinced another politician he had the idea of a lifetime: a Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) troop-carrying airplane. The military didn't want it, but Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., did. Year after year, Washington went along, appropriating more and more million-dollar earmarks. Finally, after 20 years and $63 million taxpayer dollars, the farthest the DP-2 Vectored Thrust Aircraft ever got was two feet off the ground."
"Another $70 million of taxpayer money was blown on a wind tunnel in Montana. The MARIAH project wasn't requested by the Pentagon or NASA, but Congress funded it for more than a decade, usually with a $7 million earmark requested by the Montana delegation.
'The Air Force, (the) leader in hypersonic testing and technology, lost interest in 2004, so appropriators moved the program to the Army,' said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.. 'The Army has no official requirement for this capability and published a report in 2005 stating their (lack of interest) in the program. To date, the Army has no plans to fund the MARIAH wind tunnel effort, as they have stated in their budget documents. That hasn't kept Congress from pouring more than $70 million into it, with no discernable return.'
If a project doesn't make economic sense, how does it survive year after year? The answer often lies in the power of the sponsor, and over the last 50 years there has been no more powerful appropriator than West Virginia Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd. By some accounts, Byrd himself has spent $3 billion dollars in taxpayer money. More than 40 projects in West Virginia that have been paid for with tax dollars are named after him."
"So far, taxpayers have invested almost $2 billion in the massive highway, which ends in a field. Virginia has no plans to ever actually connect a companion highway to West Virginia's 25-mile stretch of concrete, leaving the monster as yet another monument to waste, or one of the more expensive examples of how Congress works."
"Another project that crashed and burned came out of San Diego, Calif., where an entrepreneur convinced another politician he had the idea of a lifetime: a Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) troop-carrying airplane. The military didn't want it, but Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., did. Year after year, Washington went along, appropriating more and more million-dollar earmarks. Finally, after 20 years and $63 million taxpayer dollars, the farthest the DP-2 Vectored Thrust Aircraft ever got was two feet off the ground."
"Another $70 million of taxpayer money was blown on a wind tunnel in Montana. The MARIAH project wasn't requested by the Pentagon or NASA, but Congress funded it for more than a decade, usually with a $7 million earmark requested by the Montana delegation.
'The Air Force, (the) leader in hypersonic testing and technology, lost interest in 2004, so appropriators moved the program to the Army,' said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.. 'The Army has no official requirement for this capability and published a report in 2005 stating their (lack of interest) in the program. To date, the Army has no plans to fund the MARIAH wind tunnel effort, as they have stated in their budget documents. That hasn't kept Congress from pouring more than $70 million into it, with no discernable return.'
If a project doesn't make economic sense, how does it survive year after year? The answer often lies in the power of the sponsor, and over the last 50 years there has been no more powerful appropriator than West Virginia Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd. By some accounts, Byrd himself has spent $3 billion dollars in taxpayer money. More than 40 projects in West Virginia that have been paid for with tax dollars are named after him."
"So far, taxpayers have invested almost $2 billion in the massive highway, which ends in a field. Virginia has no plans to ever actually connect a companion highway to West Virginia's 25-mile stretch of concrete, leaving the monster as yet another monument to waste, or one of the more expensive examples of how Congress works."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)