Anger is the only thing to put off till tomorrow.
Slovakian proverb
Government Employee Violation of the Public Trust
 |
| Via Citizens Against Government Waste |
Travel expense reports reviewed by the Free Beacon show former EPA official John Beale took two taxpayer-funded trips to London in 2008 and 2009, staying in a beachfront hotel in Santa Monica, Calif. and a hotel along the River Thames in London.
Beale took his first taxpayer-funded trip to London in 2008, spending $22,356.12. He flew first-class, having obtained a chiropractor’s note saying he had lower back problems. His first-class ticket cost 14 times the amount of a regular coach ticket. However, instead of flying straight to London from D.C., he first went to Los Angeles, where he stayed for three nights at Le Merigot, a four-star Los Angeles Marriott next to the “ravishing Santa Monica beachfront.” Beale then spent four nights at the five-star London Marriott Hotel County Hall. The EPA Inspector General said it determined that Beale charged the government approximately $300,000 in travel expenses between 2003 and 2011.Cool Science
Ron Paul Has a New Website
Why did Ron Paul become a medical doctor?
Most important, I became a doctor to avoid being a soldier. I knew I would be drafted, and such things as seeking asylum in another country, or becoming a conscientious objector, were out of my range of thought at that time. But if I became a doctor, I knew I would not be given a rifle and told to shoot other young men at government orders.
Though the horrible UN oath is used in medical schools these days, I still adhere to the Hippocratic Oath, and its injunction to “First, do no harm.” It’s a great, ancient libertarian principle.
Facebook Corner
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| Via LFC |
The Libertarian Republic."Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country” - Ron Paul
Foreign aid is simply morally hazardous policy on the state level.
The Libertarian Republic: "There must be no more delays of the implementation of Obamacare. The American people must be made to endure it to the full extent from here until November of 2014, until they cry out for full repeal in 2016."
The problem is that the hypocritical "progressives" don't eat their own dog food. For example, they used the economic tsunami to establish a new "consumer protection" bureaucracy. They preach against fine-print in consumer contracts, but they never disclosed that policies of guaranteed issue and community rating meant that subsidized premiums come out of the government and other healthcare consumers. It's a classic bait and switch. Personally, I don't mind stretching the bad news out. I wonder how long it will take young/healthy people on individual policies to figure out they may pay out in additional premium each month than the one year penalty?
(Bastiat Institute) Since it seems to be that representative democracy and capitalism can not co-exist, what would you rather have, "representation" by a cartel that monopolizes aggression in a geographic territory or markets free of political manipulation?
Loaded question. Do I believe in the Invisible Hand or the institution which is responsible for the very crises it uses to sustain itself? Part of the problem is that voters under economic uncertainty cast votes for illusory economic security; they lack confidence in capitalism. That's how we ended up with the bait-and-switch economically illiterate FDR and Obama Administrations. Whereas we never really had a free market (take state protections on occupational licensing, health insurance and banking regulation as a start), the real issue has more to do with design failures to constrain government expansion. I think it'll take a failure, say, of the Ponzi scheme entitlements, for the average voter to understand there's an economic price they've paid for politicians kicking the can down the road.
 |
| Via LFC |
A progressive troll writes on an Americans for Tax Reform thread demanding that the Obama Administration stop the deceptive stonewalling on ObamaCare statistics: "Ridiculous. What possible difference does it make? ACA doesn't even go into effect for two months and they have 5 months to enroll. So sick of you troll sites slinging crap. 40-50 million people will eventually end up with healthcare that they don't currently have. That's the bottom line."
This is flatly false. First, for decades hospitals cannot fail to provide emergency care on the ability to pay. Second, even the CBO estimated over 26 million will still be uninsured after full implementation of the Unaffordable Care Act. Third, the uninsured cover on average at least 40% of their costs, and charities kick in a significant amount of costs. Statistics show that users of insurance utilize more health services than the uninsured, with little evidence the additional services have improved health outcomes. The problem is that government has exacerbated healthcare costs with counterproductive policies and has made health insurance more expensive than rating on actual health risks. There are much less costly ways to provide catastrophic coverage without emulating one of the most expensive healthcare systems (RomneyCare) in the country, offering special-interest mandates and meddling in doctors' decision making.
(Learn Liberty). The public sector does ________ more efficiently than the private sector.
monopolize, waste money, bureaucratize
(Cato Institute ) Economist Jeffrey Miron of Harvard University outlines three policy reforms that he thinks would best promote economic recovery and growth in the United States: cutting entitlements, freezing regulation, and replacing the existing tax code with a flat tax on consumption.
Yes, yes, yes. I would feel better if he argued for regulation sunsetting, government streamlining/reengineering, and downsizing/decentralization/privatization.
(The Liberty Papers points out that Obama is preparing to push for a boost to the minimum wage over $10/hour.)
Because with high teen unemployment, why not make it harder for them to get a first job? Yeah, the young people are largely responsible for voting this economic illiterate into power, and he has repaid them by forcing them to subsidize the healthcare expenses of older,sicker people; the change he promised is what's left in their pockets.
(LFC). Regarding your recent Fukushima post: Ok, so I'm a huge believer in free markets. As a genuine question, how do free markets limit/prevent damage from businesses that don't care about possible long term effects (ie: Fukushima). I love the honest businessman who built a 49 foot wall. I would have preferred there to have been no regulation at all regarding minimum wall height. But obviously with or without regulation most businesses would not have built a 49 foot seawall. I'd have no idea how to argue for no nuclear regulation if a liberal put me on the spot.
Are you kidding? Tsunamis are not unknown in Japan and keep in mind the power plants for obvious reasons are near the coasts; there's no doubt that if they wanted to insure, the underwriters would require some design requirements to mitigate risk. If you live in a tornado-prone area, you build cellars or shelters; in areas prone to flooding, houses are often built on stilts. Part of this may result from private insurance terms. Now, of course, the government itself has made mistakes--consider the Katrina levee failures, bridge collapses, etc. I haven't looked at Fukushima in a while, but I think part of the problem was that the backup generators were at ground level, not elevated; I'm not sure why there was no redundancy check in the event the walls didn't hold. Well, of course, I think the tsunami exceeded those on record, and there are cost/benefit trade-offs in toughening designs. I also think that newer plants in Japan had tougher engineering standards, but I think older plants were grandfathered, not to mention multiple Japanese government regulator turf battles. The idea that in a free market there would be a race to the bottom in terms of preventive design is frankly absurd. There are economic costs to deficient designs, and companies have a vested interest to prevent against facility failures, worker injuries, etc.; they can find it difficult to attract financing, investors, workers, etc.
Laissez Faire Capitalism Nuclear power has never been profitable without subsidies. If nuclear power plant owners were really on the hook for the full insurance costs they'd need to operate, they'd go bankrupt. (Teal)
http://www.ucsusa.org/.../nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf
Don't cite anti-nuclear propaganda to support a point. Nuclear power is very competitive in terms of operational costs. I am not happy with the way that government interferes in the utility market (including alternative fuel sources), with guarantees, regulations, etc. I do think in a free market you would see other smaller scale plants emerge (e.g., http://phys.org/news145561984.html).
(LFC). "Murray Rothbard criticized people who criticized David Duke and therefore everything that he ever wrote about economics is wrong. Furthermore, because he was allegedly a racist, everything that every free market economist said is also wrong." You know what this means? It means that we are winning. They literally cannot respond to our economic arguments and instead are criticizing the dead for beliefs that had literally nothing to do with the economic policies that they are opposing.
Ad hominem arguments are pathetic, desperate. I have no doubt there are many things Rothbard said or did that I disagree with, but let's put it this way: any publicity is good publicity. They wouldn't attack him if he was inconsequential.
(LFC). With an increasing demand for cheap sources of gas and power it is inevitable that oil and electric enterprises will increase in both size and numbers. And, since profit is the name of the game, most likely these companies will cut costs as much as possible (i.e cutting corners when it comes to safety). How then, are disasters like the BP spill and Fukushima to be avoided if there is limited oversight, and the only regulations (in a self-regulated market) would come from the consumers which actually encourage such behavior?
Don't forget that in a free market the unalienable rights to life and property. You would not buy a flimsy house even though you have a vested interest in keep the purchase price low; most consumers understand a correlation between price and quality. But let's point out (I mentioned this in an earlier comment) the public sector has had more than its fair share of failures in public infrastructure.
LFC asks for reactions to a Salon piece arguing libertarians don't understand capitalism.
Social liberals/"progressives" are not only confused about capitalism but they are clueless. When a piece argues "everybody knows", they can sneak any Trojan horse through that opening. Government-dominated economies are a form of economic fascism. Although our Constitution was supposed to promote a free market among the states, we have found many forms of state protectionism (occupational licensing, banking and insurance regulation, etc.) and abuse of interstate commerce regulation. Carolene Products was all about prohibiting the sale of canned milk products across state lines (opposed by Big Dairy, local milk producers).
(Bastiat Institute) "A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police" -- Ludwig von Mises.
Virtue is a matter of moral development; there are a potentially infinite number of unethical actions. There is a high cost to prohibition, and it should be reserved for violation of unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property.
 |
| Via LFC |
Both King George and Barack Obama have hated Tea Parties. The George's and Barack have liked unfettered searches. I'm not sure I would argue Bush was far worse; he did try to implement tax reform and to give Americans more control over their social security contributions. But comparing Bush to Obama is unfair; he would never have accepted what the Democrats passed in the 111th Congress. Granted, Bush added $5T to the debt, but Obama may come close to doubling that amount. He more than doubled our casualties in Afghanistan in a shorter tenure, after running against the Iraq occupation. Obama hypocritically attacked Bush's deficits and debt increase, Bush's policies on civil liberties. But the same Obama renominated Bernanke, signed the renewed Patriot Act, etc. So don't compare Bush and Obama; Obama double-downed on Bush's failures while pretending to be a reformer.
 |
| Via Bastiat Institute |
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Lisa Benson and Townhall |
I think videos with vignettes of the economically illiterate "Cherokee Lizzie" should come with a warning label. She hasn't a clue that Europe didn't have its own Glass-Steagall or that Canada hasn't had America's record of failed banks--not allowed to diversify, say, across state lines in the past.
Musical Interlude: My Ipod Shuffle Series
Neil Diamond, "Solitary Man". There are a few acts that have cranked out great music consistently: the Beatles, Elton John, Chicago, the Beach Boys, the Rolling Stones and ABBA come immediately to mind. I was impressed how Johnny Cash put out some of his strongest material before his passing. Neil Diamond is one such performer. I love the brass touch in this iconic hit that appeals to bachelors like me--a similar theme song is BJ Thomas' "Whatever Happened to Old-Fashioned Love?"; the brass element was a big part of other iconic hits of the era like "Downtown", Dusty Springfield's "You Don't Have to Say You Love Me", and the material of Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass, Blood, Sweat & Tears and Chicago. I also like his interesting sound experimentation, e.g., "Soolaimon" and "Beautiful Noise". How do I select my top 5 Diamond hits? With difficulty, but here are some songs you will likely hear in this series: "Holly Holy", "Pretty Amazing Grace", "The Story of My Life", "If You Know What I Mean" and "Marry Me". And with the holidays coming up, his version of "Morning Has Broken" is one of my staples. Notice that I haven't picked out his biggest hits; "Solitary Man" went up only halfway on the pop charts, and I think only "Holly Holy" went top 10.
