Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
Calvin Coolidge
A Brief Comment About Readership
I don't write for the approval of others, but as someone with two pure math degrees and whom has performed statistical analyses for various projects in academia, I have always been fascinated by the readership numbers since Blogger made them available last July and counting. But my readership has collapsed since New Year's--probably half the rate of last month, slightly below my November peak. Readership had built steadily from July. But January will probably be my worst month by far, and yesterday's count was the lowest I can recall for a weekday. I don't know if it's a cyclical thing, if something has changed in terms of how Google is promoting the blog or computing readership statistics, if readers are adversely responding to provocative opinions or some other reason. From my standpoint, the quality of the posts has remained consistent.
I put a lot of work into my posts, and I've published a daily post in this format for several consecutive months, while working some gigs with long hours. This is probably unsustainable, especially if I take on certain travel or commute-intensive professional gigs. (In fact, I haven't published my nutritional blog for over a year.) It isn't so much the readership numbers; but some of my segments sometimes run longer than syndicated columns, and I will not publish for the sake of publishing. There are other writing projects I want to pursue (besides free blogs). I have no immediate plans to change my format or publishing schedule (if that happens, it will likely amount to little more than an occasional day or two between posts): to be honest, I don't see a conservative blog on the Internet with my style, humor, or perspective.
Bipartisan House Vote to Repeal ObamaCare 245-189: Thumbs WAY UP!
The unanimous House Republicans vote in favor of "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Act", plus 3 Democrats, got more votes than last year's 219-212 for the corrupt Democratic Party Healthcare Bill.
I want to make a few points. First, many media commentators are raising the same conventional talking point that the repeal is dead on arrival given a 53-member Senate Democrat majority--in any event, there are enough progressive Democrats in either house to sustain a Presidential veto. I believe I posted that prediction even before the mid-terms. But let me point out that McConnell seems confident a vote will occur, and McConnell is not one to make idle threats. I do know that the House Republicans will have a lot to say about any legislation that gets to the President (including budgets and funding for ObamaCare), the large Senate minority has the ability to block almost any legislation Reid wants to pass and to offer amendments, it's very clear that the only reason Reid would block a vote would be because he doesn't have the votes to defeat the bill, and the Senate Democrats are not doing themselves a favor by refusing a vote on repealing a bill that 4 out of 5 Americans polled agree must be changed.
Second, how long are the Congressional Democrats and President Obama going to play the boy who cried wolf? We had to pass the 2009 $787B stimulus bill or else; we couldn't allow the automakers to go bankrupt or else; we had to pass the health care bill or else. The Heritage Foundation wrote an excellent refutation today on the scaremongering charge that the health care of 1 of every 2 Americans would face issues due to preexisting conditions. In fact, this seems anomalous given the fact over 80% of Americans are covered by health insurance right now.
As the Foundation points out, over 90% of those in private health plans are in group policies where they may have health coverage from day 1 or are allowed coverage from day 1 if they could provide proof of insurance over the past year or so. In some cases, there is a waiting period for coverage for preexisting conditions if you have been uncovered or come from certain (e.g., individual) plans. In fact, I once had a minor outpatient procedure which had to be postponed because a transition between doctors, and it was done less than two months in my new position with a different health insurance plan. I never had a problem once I was able to document payment history to my former provider over the prior year. In another case I applied for an individual coverage plan and was denied, not because of my medical history, but because of my self-reported weight for my height. The insurer which refused my coverage provided me information on the state high risk pool program. The high risk plan offered lower premiums for those whom could show preexisting coverage (like me) and others had to pay a significantly higher premium for the first 6 months or so for coverage. (The latter plan was something like $200-300 more a month.)
What Heritage Foundation points out is that there were already certain protections for health insurance which existed before last year's bill passage; they argue it's more reasonable, say, to reform the individual policy market similar to the group policy market than to risk the law of unintended consequences by reinventing the whole health care sector (and/or to firm up state/region high risk pools). "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The fact is, most people are satisfied with their own health insurance coverage.
The Talking Points on China: Some Comments
We hear a lot of alarmist rhetoric on China: they hold some $900B of our debt; they are manipulating their currency at America's expense; they are rapidly building up their military forces; etc. But we need to put some balance into the discussion. First of all, the national debt is $14T, and China owns almost 6.5% of the debt. About a third of the national debt is held in the social security trust fund, and most of debt is held by domestic organizations and individuals. Whereas the best way to approach this problem is to get our own fiscal house in order, we need to also remember that China maintains a trade surplus primarily with the United States. This means if Americans suddenly lose their interest in Chinese goods, it could be a devastating effect on the Chinese economy where operating margins are thin; factories may collapse and send thousands or millions out of work. Some believe that China's own real estate market has been in its own huge bubble, and there are some shaky banks. The currency peg makes imported goods more expensive, and inflation (particularly food inflation) is growing, adversely affecting Chinese disposable income. But America has a number of advantages, too: it is the de facto world currency and instability increases the desire to hold dollars.
I am reluctant to intrude on the rights of American consumers to buy what they want--produced domestically or elsewhere. But at the same time, our issue has more to do with debt (government, individual and/or corporate) and spending far too much. We also are vulnerable by dependence on imported resources (e.g., oil and rare earths).What we need is to give Americans a reason to invest domestically--e.g., by cutting regulations, getting our government fiscal house in order (competing against industry for investment capital), lowering business tax rates and reforming tax policies favoring debt in place of saving and investment.
The Costs of Regulation: Some Comments
Gattuso, Katz and Keen note that, contrary to Democratic political hype and urban legend, the alleged "deregulation era" under George W. Bush actually added over $70B in regulatory burden (as determined by regulatory impact studies); in fiscal year 2009 (including 4 months under Bush), an above-average $13B were added, but in fiscal year 2010 (ending last September) Obama and the Democrats added an American record of $28B regulatory burden, the highest numbers since data are available (1981). The total annual cost of compliance with federal regulators is estimated at $1.75T annually--more than TWICE the amount of total individual income taxes collected. Again, this is money that is not being invested in business growth opportunities and jobs, but is collected for the benefit of federal bureaucrats.
An SBA analysis (see chart below) shows that small businesses are particularly affected by regulatory costs, being roughly 36% higher. (Especially notable: environmental regulations for small manufacturers.) So the next time President Obama, with a straight face, tells small businesses that he is on their side, he just might try streamlining their regulatory burden. And don't just stop there: that $1.75T is really a hidden type of job-killing taxation that mostly benefits career federal bureaucrats. Business costs (whether tax or regulatory) are fungible; we need more than token gestures on R&D credits or depreciation write-offs. Also, might I suggest to Speaker Boehner that not only should he consider the constitutional basis of new legislation but also its relevant tax and regulatory burdens?
 |
| Courtesy of the Small Business Administration |
There was a really awkward moment when the Chinese president met President Obama’s daughters and asked them, “So what factories do you kids work at?” - Jay Leno
[The Obama Family Unemployment Compensation Act makes it more profitable for the daughters not to work than to operate their own lemonade stand in front of the White House. Of course, the Obama's waive preexisting employment history for allowances and guarantee that the girls can continue to draw allowances through the age of 26.]
Some originals:
- Outgoing Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell called 60 Minutes correspondent Lesly Stahl a simpleton, an idiot, when she pointed out the evils and social costs associated with gambling, a favorite target of governors and legislators for raising tax revenues. Rendell was pointing out addicted gamblers will go somewhere else to get their gambling fix, like Las Vegas. True enough. In November, a lot of Nevada residents went and pulled the slot lever, and the voting machine came up straight Harry Reid terms. However, instead of paying off for voters, the machine asked the voter to donate to the 'Re-elect Harry Reid 2016' campaign via the coin slots.
- Visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao was very impressed with the White House; he noted that the jail China uses to confine its Nobel Peace Prize winner looks different than its American counterpart.
- President Barack Obama, known for his thoughtful gifts to foreign leaders, decided to give President Jintao a 25-DVD collection of President Barack Obama: The Best of 2009-2010. (It comes with a special discount coupon for the next collection.) Unfortunately, although the DVD's were manufactured in China, they don't play on the country's own DVD players. So President Jintao is going to have to set aside one of the DVD players otherwise exported to the United States...
(From Dr. Zhivago): "Lara's Theme"
Ray Conniff/Singers, hit version with vocals
