John Stossel on the Minimum Wage

One of the most obvious ways that politicians demonstrate their economic ignorance is with minimum wage laws. No politician that supports minimum wage laws should ever be re-elected. Minimum wage laws are worst than doing nothing because they actively hurt the very people that they are designed to help.

Minimum wage laws artificially raise the costs of labor for low skill and entry level jobs. They reduce business profits (affecting all other employees and shareholders), raise prices and/or reduce employment opportunities to those that most need starter jobs.

This fits right in with the fallacy of a "living wage". A living wage is whatever you can live on. If you are single and living with mom and dad, what you can live on is much less than if you have a wife, three kids and a mortgage. Minimum wage jobs were NEVER meant to support a family. They are meant as starter jobs / supplemental income jobs. If you are unable to get more than a minimum wage job, (listen carefully here) WHAT ARE YOU DOING HAVING A FAMILY THAT YOU CAN NOT AFFORD? You have the life you can afford not the money you want to support your life. Too many people now think it works the other way around. "I have a big life/family so I deserve a lot of money." Sorry but no, you get the money you deserve and structure your life to match. Feel free to have 1 child IF you can affort to take care of a child. Feel free to have 8 kids IF you can affort to take care of 8 kids. See how simple it really is if you only use some (not so) common sense?

Evil Rich

It is even worst than what I noted in A New York State of Mind in that the tax burden on the top 1% of wage earners now exceeds that of bottom 95%. IRS data shows that in 2007 the top 1% of taxpayers paid 40.4% of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. That is just disgraceful!

The numbers break down as follows:

• The top 1% paid 40.4% of all federal taxes for 2007.
• Adding in the next 4% for a total of the top 5% comes to 60.6% of all federal taxes for 2007.
• The top 50% of tax payers account for 97.11% of the 2007 federal taxes paid.
• The bottom 50% paid 2.89%.

It is even worst than this. Not only are the bottom 50% of tax payers only paying 2.89% of federal taxes but a large number of them are actually getting federal welfare checks in the form of tax refunds for monies they did not pay in the first place.

I would bet dollars to donuts that this information is not reported by any of the major news networks (Fox excluded). This just does not fit in with the mime of evil, selfish rich.

Paul Krugman and the Canadian health care system

Now we will see if Paul stops pushing for a Canadian style health care system (yeah right). In his impromptu pole, 7 or 8 out of 8 Canadians are not happy with their system. Will enough people stand up to their congressmen before it is too late to stop this train wreck?

Anti-Card Check Ad

More ads like this please!

This is a bad idea that will only make things worst!

For anyone that does not know, going union at a company/factory is basically a two step process.

Step 1 is to canvas signatures from workers in support of a union. This is a very public activity. If higher ranking employees are in support of a union, there can be a lot of pressure on the lower level rank and file to sign the petition. When the signature collection period has ended and enough signatures have been collected, Step 2 happens.

Step 2 is a secret vote on whether to unionize or not. This is purposely done like any other election so that each person can vote their own mind without undo influence or pressure. It just so happens that in a lot of cases, step 1 will get a resounding level of support (big shock there) but will fail during the vote, when employees can perform that activity in secret and without fear of retribution.

Your wonderful Democrat controlled federal government, in a big payback move to the unions that supported them so well with money and bodies is looking to remove the requirement for a secret vote. Basically eliminating step 2. This would result in a union organizer being able to bully employees into signing the petition and as soon as enough signatures are collected, you are unionized. That would seem like something that happens in Cuba or North Korea or China, not here in America but that is exactly what they are trying to do. It should be stopped and stopped now!

Not a hate crime?

To start with, I do not believe in "hate crime" or hate crime laws. I think that they make an arbitrary distinction between crimes based on motivation. In the realm of hate crime supporters, it is a worst thing for someone to be beaten up for their race than their money. It is a worst think for someone to be killed because of their race then because you don't like their shoes. That gets to motivation and I don't think motivation is relevant. That is my opinion as it is but there are hate crime laws and as such, since they do exist, I think that they should at least be applied equally. Well as most PC things go, there is equal and than there is equal.

In this case, a brick was thrown through the window of a 4 year old's bedroom. There was racial comments on the brick. If the brick said "white is right" and the home was that of a black person or Latino, I would bet my paycheck that the police, papers and nightly news would be calling that a hate crime and would be bringing in the FBI to get to the bottom of it.

It just so happens though that in this case the 4 year old was white and the racial comments were "Keep Eastside Black. Keep Eastside Strong".

How this can not be classified as a hate crime is beyond me unless you subscribe to the school of thought that says non-whites can not be racists, in which case this is just plain old vandalism.

President talks, press listens, their fault

So the President while talking about an incident he knows little to nothing about, says that the Cambridge Police acted "stupidly", the press make note of this and report it. It blows up and is now the fault of the press for being the press ... and everyone just loved to talk about what a dummy Bush was, give me a break!

Talking Crap with Barack!

These are just some of the Obama highlights that red-lined the crap-o-meter. I am sure, like me, you have other favorites of your own that did not make it into this group.

''You're Going To Destroy My Presidency'

Well actually, I could just as easily say "You're going to destroy your presidency!" as it certainly looks like he is doing everything in his power to make that happen. Between ramming through a stimulus package that an't stimulating much, to a economy destroying "cap & trade" bill that will do little or nothing to help the climate, to finally a "take it / no option to leave it" healthcare redesign that looks to not only increase everyone's costs but also reduce service levels and impose rationing.

Obama may go down in history as the one president that manages to make Carter look good. Now that would be some feat!

Stossel on Healthcare

Yet again, John Stossel gives the straight facts on health programs and insurance. As usual, he is right, the government has never made anything cheaper, easier or more efficient than the private sector. Everywhere the government gets involved prices go up while choices and service levels go down.

More Obama-care from those that live it

Socialized Medicine Through the Eyes of a Recipient

It is one thing to hear "experts" talk about how good Obama-care is going to be, how much better a "single payer" system will be, how service will not go down, how costs will not really change and how you will be able to keep your doctor, etc., etc., etc. It is quite another to hear how well single payer systems work for those that live under them. What will be a reality for America if we continue down this path.

Obama, all of congress and the unions should be REQUIRED to use the same basic level of care that they want us to use. Though the reality is that this will be just like taxes, which are only for us little people.

Taxing "Highs"

From the July 16, 2009 "Best of the Web Today" an article in the Sacramento Bee reports:

California could see a nearly $1.4 billion per year increase in state revenues were it to legalize marijuana, the state Board of Equalization says in an analysis of pending legislation to to [sic] do that.

The bill (Assembly Bill 390) by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, is still awaiting its first committee hearing and is likely not to be considered until next year. It would impose not only sales taxes but a $50 per ounce fee on marijuana sales, which would be licensed by the state much as alcoholic beverages are regulated. . . .

"We can no longer afford to keep our heads in the sand when it comes to marijuana," Ammiano said in a statement.

It would be quite the turn of events if the draconian drug laws currently in place in this country are finally removed, not through strong citizen action but as a result of governments at all levels looking for novel ways to address revenue shortfalls.

This would actually benefit the governments in multiple ways. First there would be the additional tax revenue from sales tax and tax stamps but also a reduction in the cost of catching, prosecuting and incarcerating drug users. The government would continue their war on sellers except now it would be under the guise of tax enforcement not drug enforcement so it is unknown if there would be any savings in that area.

A New York state of mind

As noted in Power Line:

The New York Post reports that congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul would create a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for New York's top earners. Myron Magnet also focuses on New York in an article on "The obsolete New York model." Magnet notes:

It's worth recalling that when the Founding Fathers led the American colonists in revolt against British oppression, they weren't rebelling against torture on the rack or being chained in galleys or having to let aristocrats deflower their daughters. They were rebelling against taxes. To them, having to pay duties they hadn't voted for themselves was a tyrannical taking of property--theft--and, in true Lockean fashion, they concluded that since government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, a regime that does the opposite renders itself illegitimate. What would they make, then, of today's New York City, where 1.2 percent of the taxpayers--40,000 households--pay 50 percent of the income taxes, and half the households pay no income tax at all? If the tax code ensures that those who pay the bulk of the taxes are always a minority of those who vote for the legislature that imposes the taxes, isn't that taxation without representation? Isn't it also the tyranny of the majority that the Founders tried to prevent?

It is nice that they are now getting worried about New York but is this not what has been going on at the federal level for years? The majority of income taxes are paid by the top few percent of wage earners? The top 1% of wage earners pay 39.89% of all income tax. The top 5% pay 60.14%. Get that! 5% of the wage earners pay over 60% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 2.99%, that is right, not EVEN 3%. The majority have NO stake in trying to control entitlements because they are currently getting a nearly (if not actually) free ride.

Changing tracks

Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters say the country is moving down the wrong track, up a point from last week and also the highest level since February.

Well, 52% of you voted for change and boy did we all get it! Not the change you expected? Disappointed with all of this hopieness and changatood? That is what you get for wanting "change" but not taking the time to understand or listen to what kind of change was being offered. 48% of us did listen and did not want this kind of change. Welcome to the club.

Medicine, Canada style

Watch the video and get a taste of what Obama has in store for this country. This is the reality that Obama, Moore and the democrats don't want you to see.