Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Column: Why U.S. should cheer for Scott Walker – USATODAY.com
Column: Why U.S. should cheer for Scott Walker – USATODAY.com: 'What's more, the reforms pushed by Walker are themselves already having a beneficial effect. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was Walker's opponent in the 2010 election and later attacked his proposals to reform collective bargaining. But with the reforms on the books, Barrett used some of the bill's provisions to help reduce the city's health care bill, saying that the alternative was to cut 300 to 400 city jobs.'
The Tea Party Congress Comes of Age | Roger Pilon | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Tea Party Congress Comes of Age | Roger Pilon | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'for the first time in years, the 2012 budget of $3.65 trillion is essentially flat over the 2011 figure. For Washington, that’s progress, even though few programs were eliminated. But meager as it is, if it’s to blossom into serious checks on out-of-control government, it’s going to take a fundamental shift in popular conceptions about the very role of government, and that won’t happen overnight. Right now, we’re a deeply divided people. The 2008 “hope and change” election brought neither. The 2010 “correction” propelled huge numbers of tea party people into offices across the country, suggesting an ideological shift might be underway. But in Washington it changed only the House, leaving Congress divided and gridlocked. So look for even less coming out of the second session than the first, but that’s all right; there’s other work to be done.'
'Thus the lesson of the first session is that these budget battles, given the intransigence of the other side, cannot be ends in themselves: rather, they’re means, to be used in the real game, which is to change public opinion, to move Americans from an entitlement mindset to an independent one. Every budget battle, win or lose, is an opportunity to educate the public about the real game going on in Washington. But the game has to be played in public, not behind closed doors, as is Washington’s way. And members have to take the long view, every decision looking not only to November but far beyond. We won’t reverse course, much less restore limited constitutional government, in one session of Congress, or even over several Congresses. Indeed, the deeper political question is whether we’ve reached a tipping point, where so many people have become so dependent that it’s unrealistic to expect them to vote against their immediate interests. We shouldn’t believe that, or there’s no hope.'
'Thus the lesson of the first session is that these budget battles, given the intransigence of the other side, cannot be ends in themselves: rather, they’re means, to be used in the real game, which is to change public opinion, to move Americans from an entitlement mindset to an independent one. Every budget battle, win or lose, is an opportunity to educate the public about the real game going on in Washington. But the game has to be played in public, not behind closed doors, as is Washington’s way. And members have to take the long view, every decision looking not only to November but far beyond. We won’t reverse course, much less restore limited constitutional government, in one session of Congress, or even over several Congresses. Indeed, the deeper political question is whether we’ve reached a tipping point, where so many people have become so dependent that it’s unrealistic to expect them to vote against their immediate interests. We shouldn’t believe that, or there’s no hope.'
Broken Promise of Change: The Obama Administration's Defense Strategy and Budget | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary
Broken Promise of Change: The Obama Administration's Defense Strategy and Budget | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'An especially caustic critic is former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who ridiculed pervasive media reports that President Obama was cutting almost half a trillion dollars from the defense budget. Obama “is not cutting a single dime out of the military budget,” Armey charged. “He is actually substantially increasing military spending over the next several years. Washington has once again cleverly disguised a spending increase as a ‘cut.’”
Armey is correct. President Obama’s so-called cuts are only modest reductions from the baseline budget set by the Congressional Budget Office that projected large increases in military spending over the next decade. As Armey notes, such spending “will continue to rise under President Obama’s plan, just at a slightly slower rate.”'
'Despite the furor from those who want even more robust military outlays, the spending levels in the Obama budget are actually higher in inflation-adjusted terms than the average budgets throughout the Cold War. Critics understandably ask why that should be so when the United States no longer faces a powerful military adversary like the Soviet Union. Secretary Panetta implicitly cited the reason why spending remains at such lofty heights, when he noted that a smaller force could not sustain the missions it is assigned. He added that “if we had to do over a trillion dollars in cuts in this department,” we’d probably “have to start over” regarding defense strategy.'
Armey is correct. President Obama’s so-called cuts are only modest reductions from the baseline budget set by the Congressional Budget Office that projected large increases in military spending over the next decade. As Armey notes, such spending “will continue to rise under President Obama’s plan, just at a slightly slower rate.”'
'Despite the furor from those who want even more robust military outlays, the spending levels in the Obama budget are actually higher in inflation-adjusted terms than the average budgets throughout the Cold War. Critics understandably ask why that should be so when the United States no longer faces a powerful military adversary like the Soviet Union. Secretary Panetta implicitly cited the reason why spending remains at such lofty heights, when he noted that a smaller force could not sustain the missions it is assigned. He added that “if we had to do over a trillion dollars in cuts in this department,” we’d probably “have to start over” regarding defense strategy.'
Woman Arrested With Gun On American Airlines Plane | Fox News
Woman Arrested With Gun On American Airlines Plane | Fox News: 'The Transportation Security Administration, which operates airport security checkpoints, says that screeners detected a gun in the woman's carry-on bag, but she left the checkpoint before giving up the gun.'
What a pathetic joke! They didn't stop her or the plane?!!!
What a pathetic joke! They didn't stop her or the plane?!!!
Labor Economics with Walter Block - Walter Block - Mises Daily
Labor Economics with Walter Block - Walter Block - Mises Daily: 'the entrepreneur, the residual-income claimant, brings three things to the table that workers greatly value. First, he bears risk. If the items produced by the workers cooperatives do not sell, they are plumb out of luck; in contrast, if what the worker produces for the capitalist is rejected by the consumer, the capitalist may not come to the workers and demand back the wages already paid. Second, the much reviled businessman offers time, in the form of capital goods. If 100 workers band together in a syndicalist venture, and the product will not come off the assembly line for a year, they must feed and clothe themselves for this entire duration. As well, they must have among them enough savings to purchase the machinery, the raw materials, and the marketing services necessary for a final sale. In contrast, the entrepreneur provides all this to the workers, who, all too often, do not appreciate his efforts on their (and of course his) behalf. Third, the owner of the business firm provides leadership, in setting up the entire enterprise.'
'Why do we have unemployment? One major source is when wages are pegged at higher rates than productivity. Minimum-wage laws and union legislation are responsible for this situation. Another cause of unemployment is unemployment insurance. The more you pay for something, the more of it you will have. If you subsidize unemployment, its rate will rise. Yet another cause of it is the Fed, Ron Paul's favorite institution. By artificially lowering interest rates to virtually zero levels, this central bank leads entrepreneurs to invest in excessively roundabout methods of production for items that take a long time to produce (houses, cars, mines, etc.).'
'Why do we have unemployment? One major source is when wages are pegged at higher rates than productivity. Minimum-wage laws and union legislation are responsible for this situation. Another cause of unemployment is unemployment insurance. The more you pay for something, the more of it you will have. If you subsidize unemployment, its rate will rise. Yet another cause of it is the Fed, Ron Paul's favorite institution. By artificially lowering interest rates to virtually zero levels, this central bank leads entrepreneurs to invest in excessively roundabout methods of production for items that take a long time to produce (houses, cars, mines, etc.).'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)