Posts
Social-networking ban for sex offenders: Bad call? | Safe and Secure - CNET News: "If the law had no negative consequences, I would give it a pass. After all, who cares about the rights of people who have been convicted of sex offenses? Well, I do. Not because I think they're wonderful people but because it's in all of our interest that, if they're not in prison, they be integrated into society to the extent that they can function and be able to find and hold appropriate jobs. Keeping these individuals away from the very types of sites that can help them in their careers is counterproductive to the goal of rehabilitating them."
"Not everyone on every state sex offender list is a danger to children." ... "Citing a report from Human Rights Watch, the article says 'at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of those states, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers.'"
"Another reason to question this law is that it can lead to more than one false sense of security. To begin with, the most dangerous sex offenders aren't necessarily the ones who are registered but the many who haven't yet been caught and convicted. And if we focus exclusively on predation, we're likely to lose track of the most dangerous aspects of youth online behavior, which are mostly either kid on kid--such as bullying, harassment, and impersonation--or self-imposed risks such as sexting or posting information that could be embarrassing later in life."
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Money Matters Online: Growing up in communist Poland
Money Matters Online: "Most of the time grocery stores—if you could even call them that—stayed virtually empty with the exception of a few basic items like bread and milk. Once a week there would be a delivery of items such as meats, sugar, and flour to the stores. And, as word got out, you’d see long lines forming in front of the stores with people hoping to “catch” something.
Because the system was corrupt, being a grocery clerk was a lucrative and quite powerful position. Clerks would hoard much of the food for themselves, their family members, and close friends.
And, many who stood in those long lines would walk away empty-handed, hoping for better luck next time. Since I lived in a rural area, small farms were the salvation of many people.
You may find it humorous, but toilet paper was a hot commodity in those days. When our family members from big cities came to visit, they brought us rolls of toilet paper and we sent them back with items like meat, eggs, and flour."
This shows stark examples of government run vs. free market.
Because the system was corrupt, being a grocery clerk was a lucrative and quite powerful position. Clerks would hoard much of the food for themselves, their family members, and close friends.
And, many who stood in those long lines would walk away empty-handed, hoping for better luck next time. Since I lived in a rural area, small farms were the salvation of many people.
You may find it humorous, but toilet paper was a hot commodity in those days. When our family members from big cities came to visit, they brought us rolls of toilet paper and we sent them back with items like meat, eggs, and flour."
This shows stark examples of government run vs. free market.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Muslim Woman Banned From Parisian Public Pool for Wearing 'Burquini' - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNe
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?
How?
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.)"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)