The last thing one discovers in writing a book is
what to put first.
Blaise Pascal
Stats of the Day
Government spending as a percentage of GDP in America is about 36%—roughly the same as in Spain. The Congressional Budget Office tells us it will reach 50% by 2038. The Tax Foundation reports that almost 70% of Americans take more out of the tax system than they pay into it. Arthur C. Brooks
Never mind that the national debt has increased $6.6 trillion under Obama. Never mind the national debt is $17,263,025,875,604.41. Never mind that median household income is 4.4%, or $2,500, less since Obama's "recovery" began. Never mind that the average health insurance premium has risen $2,500 since ObamaCare became law. Never mind that the share of underemployed has climbed to 17.7%. Never mind that the payroll-to-population rate dropped to 42% from 63.5% in January 2010. Never mind that 46.5 million Americans are living in poverty. - Michael RamirezImages of the Day
 |
| Via Economic Freecom on FB |
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| Courtesy of Daniel Mitchell |
Let me paraphrase a relevant discussion on a Cato Institute event (which I am not going to promote here): you should see how tongue-tied the traditionalists were trying to defend not extending the concept of marriage to nontraditional relationships. The judges made short work of those trying to defend it based on procreation--does that mean you can ban marriage for all infertile couples?
I can't believe that I'm having to address this smug piece of faux intellectualism. First of all, marriage is not simply a government construct: it's a social construct. Second, both traditional and nontraditional relationships have co-existed, but marriage has been a heterosexual institution for thousands of years. It is hubris to explain this as historical "discrimination". Marriage and family are critical foundational constructs in promotion of a society's survival and stability. Why would you tamper with key social constructs? What about unintended consequences? The burden lies in those engaging in social experimentation, not on the proven success, across countries, cultures, and thousands of years, of these institutions.
Let's make short work of the infertile couple objection. My maternal grand-uncle, the business partner of my grandfather whom owned a mom-and-pop grocery store, and grand-aunt wanted children but were not blessed. Yes, they were really married. We obviously don't wait until the woman is pregnant to conduct the ceremony (in most cases), and certainly it's possible for a promiscuous relationship to result in pregnancy.
But when I was a kid, the pejorative use of the term 'bastard' is based on social norms: children are expected to be conceived and born into a family established through traditional marriage. A couple may or may not have children for any of a number of reasons, including genetics, health condition, and lifestyle decisions. Not every team wins the Super Bowl, but the winner has to be an NFL team.
This is not to say procreation is the only purpose of marriage; marriage also sets a socially acceptable context for intimacy and boundaries to other relationships, contributing to social stability.
But mocking for fumbling explanations for sustaining a proven institution thousands of years old? How about why I ask any married person to explain why they love their spouse? Is there any doubt that a sophist jurist could rip apart any response offered? It's difficult to describe chemistry, shared values, dreams, etc. As familiar readers know, I pointed out polygamy in the Utah territory was a major issue before Utah was accepted into the Union, and traditional marriage had been the rule in all 50 states dating back to the original colonies. So the idea that the feds, which recognized traditional marriage in legislation while all 50 states maintained a traditional standard, arbitrarily discriminated against nontraditional relationships is simply not tenable.
But let me once again pose a question to the Cato Institute hypocrites: why are you so enthusiastic about government meddling into nontraditional relationships? None of the states banned nontraditional relationships or gays calling them whatever they wanted, including co-opting the heterosexual term "marriage". It's not an issue of negative liberties, a traditional concern for libertarians.
Finally, we continue to see activist judges continuing their assault on traditional marriage, most recently in Virginia and to a more limited extent Kentucky (for out-of-state "gay marriages"). I'm frankly sick and tired of lawless politicians, principally Democrats, refusing to defend traditional marriage in court.
P.S. A sidenote on my difference of opinion with Judge Napolitano, whom sees a court striking down North Carolina's "Choose Life" license plates (NC does not offer pro-abortion choice license plates) as an equal protection/free speech issue. Why would a state not encourage its preservation, in a country like many European ones with plummeting birth rates? The state doesn't provide its opponents an equal-opportunity platform. I repeat my contention that this is more of a negative liberty/positive liberty distinction. There's a difference between suppressing pro-abortion choice sentiments (say, in a newspaper or bumper sticker) and the government doing something proactive for the expression of that viewpoint.
The People's Republic of California Applies the Plastic Glove Test
The War on
The Murder of an Innocent 80-Year-Old in His Bed
Facebook Corner
(Illinois Policy Institute). In spite of the clear wording of ObamaCare, the president on his own delayed enforcement of the employer mandate for companies with 50-99 employees until 2016. This is the second time the mandate has been postponed. It originally was supposed to take effect this year, meaning any employer with 50 or more full-time workers, or their equivalent, was supposed to provide qualified and affordable health insurance or face a possible penalty.
But there’s a catch – to qualify for the delay, employers are expected to certify as part of their tax returns that ObamaCare was not a factor in their decisions to keep their staff below 100 people. Otherwise, those employers will still be subject to the employer mandate and all the expenses or penalties. This might involve some sort of affidavit, or there may be an entry added to tax forms, but either way employers will be put in a very difficult position legally.
Which employers do you think are going to attract better employees? Ones growing their business who provide health care or those who'd cut off their nose to spite their face by laying people off for a goofy ideological reason? The employer tax credits for these smaller businesses make providing health insurance practically a no brainer. Especially if you're looking to hire and retain good workers.
For an alleged businessman "progressive" troll, you are uninformed. The relevant issue is total compensation (wages and benefits). Ignoring discriminatory tax policy, if some company shifted the mix towards salary (e.g., we'll pay you the money we were paying for your health insurance, and you handle health insurance on your own), I should be indifferent. Money is fungible. The true problem is that government intervention has exacerbated sector inflation, and those costs are outstripping gains in employee productivity.
(Catholic Libertarians). The "vulgar libertarians" website embraces its ugly name. ~ Randy England
http://freeisbeautiful.net/vulgar-libertarians-fight-back/
I think the truly "vulgar" libertarians are socialists whom try to dress the Politics of Envy with the NAP. They confuse cause and effect: cronyism and corruption are the bastard children of the State. I do not doubt that businesses can profit from spending of and regulation by the State, but there are intrinsic measurement problems: for example, how much do medical personnel gain from licensing restrictions or local restaurants get from the shutdown of child-operated concessions? If you shut down a teen hot dog cart, I won't necessarily eat in a nearby restaurant; I may brown-bag my lunch. About 60% of thefederal budget now goes towards entitlements--not common defense, infrastructure, the justice system, etc.
Our best strategy is to starve the beast--eliminate the authority of the State to manipulate the economy. You might expect the left/thick/bleeding-heart libertarians to focus more on the State's interference, say, in expanding cooperative enterprises or businesses across state lines, impediments to say food donations in NYC, instead of corporate bashing.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall |
Celine Dion, "My Heart Will Go On"
