There must always remain something that is antagonistic to good.
Plato
Images of the Day
 |
| Via LFC |
Ignorance of a Law's Unintended Consequences is No Excuse For Passing It Into Law
 |
| Via Illinois Policy Institute |
 |
| Via Anti-anticapitalists on FB |
Illinois Puts Lipstick on a Pig: Time for Real Pension Reform
 |
| Future Illinois Taxpayer Told by Dem Lawmaker What He'll Pay in Future Taxes to Bail Out Illinois State Pensioners Courtesy of the Chicago Tribune |
Mish starts out a relevant commentary featuring a "cry me a river" cover of union-sympathetic quotes:
I am sick of watching taxes go up year in and year out so that overpaid, underworked, public union workers can get taxpayer sponsored pensions and pay well beyond what private industry gets.Mish outlines an 8-point plan that I call a good start:
- Immediately kill public defined benefit plans going forward
- End collective bargaining of public unions
- Scrap prevailing wage laws
- Tax at an 85% rate all defined benefits above $80,000
- Claw back all pension-spiking
- Lower corporate tax rates to previous levels to attract businesses.
- Set long-term pension plan assumptions at 5% or the 30-year Treasury rate, whichever is lower (currently 3%).
- Default, if necessary on pension benefits above a certain level, whatever it takes to make the state solvent within 10 years, using conservative pension plan assumptions.
The idea that public employees think they do not have to share in sacrifices that taxpayers do, many (including me) whom do not have a penny in vested pension benefits (and I paid Illinois taxes for over a decade), is outrageous; taxpayers are facing a higher tax burden and reduced services while lawmakers failed to contribute adequately into the pension fund for years in favor of other budget priorities. Where were the union leaders' concerns as the unfunded liability steadily grew to $100B? Do they think that that public employees, most with job security beyond what most Illinois residents have, should, in some cases, get a public pension for life that pays more than the median working household makes?
I will say this: I have no intent of returning to Illinois until if and when there's a change for the better in state political leadership...
Facebook Corner
(John Stossel). There’s still time to vote! The topic with the most votes will be discussed by our All Star Panel. Thanks for voting! https://apps.facebook.com/my-polls/scinl?from=page_wall
The climate change executive order, although I would broaden it to consider The One's use of executive orders in general to bypass Congress.
 |
| Via Bastiat Institute |
(Independent Institute) Senior Fellow Robert Higgs: "All students of government regulation (and, to some extent, of other intervention, as well) know about Bruce Yandle’s model of bootleggers and Baptists. In this vision, a special interest with a large financial stake in a regulation joins forces politically (sometimes only covertly or simply in effect) with a religious or ideological interest group that seeks the same regulation on ostensibly less venal grounds. The latter group gives political cover and public respectability to the former group, which generally provides most of the money to carry out the politicking."
I think it's more reflective of cronyism than of Bootleggers and Baptists. I think a parallel would have been a case of Christians and silversmiths, where if St. Paul had convinced the locals to ban images of Artemis, the silversmiths could have sold statues at a premium to cultists.
(Libertarianism.org). Ilya Somin argues that the ignorance of the electorate should lead us to make arguments for limited government.
Not surprising to anyone whom has ever seen a Tonight Show Jaywalk segment and see people whom can't identify Joe Biden in a picture. It's not just voters whom lack general economic and international policy competency, but consider 2000-page bills that hardly any legislator reads. Remember when McCain, 30 years in his career in Congress, admitted he wasn't as educated on economics as in military/foreign policy? I think Somin is correct: a smaller government would be easier for voters to evaluate, but let's not forget that voters have a hard time cutting through political soundbites, e.g., the alleged GOP "War on Women", or standard pro-Statist media coverage. Not to mention historians often evaluate success by scorecards of bills passed, etc., and 'obstructionism' is used as a political pejorative, instead of a prudent check on unsustainable government.
(Reason Magazine). Timid regulators at the Food and Drug Administration stand in the way of dramatic medical progress.
When the FDA permits something that's later found to be harmful, people complain that the FDA is too quick to allow unproven meds/techniques/treatments/whatever to pass. Then when the FDA says there isn't enough proof, people complain that they stand in the way of progress. There's no pleasing some people.
How utterly clueless are you? The bureaucratic inertia of incompetent government regulators KILLS people! Let the free market handle drugs; companies in any event are liable for issues for their products, with or without regulators. Ask how many people want to work for or invest in a company that gives short shrift to patient safety. I'm not worried about the reputation of FDA parasites; I'm more worried about bureaucrats standing in the way of better health outcomes.
(Learn Liberty). 64% of Americans support drug testing for congressional representatives, according to a new poll. Do you?
This is populist claptrap, although as any government contractor whom has had to go through a clearance process (including disclosure of drug, alcohol, gambling, criminal issues and credit history) will tell you, there shouldn't be a double standard, if Congressman have access to privileged information. I do think voters have a right to know if candidates are clearable. But I'm opposed to mandates that go beyond the Constitutional requirements.
(LFC). Do you think hyperinflation is coming?
I don't think hyperinflation is likely over the next few years because of global production capacity, risks of global recession, and ongoing demand for the US dollar, particularly given global uncertainty. Furthermore, I do think the Fed learned its lesson from dealing with stagflation in the late 1970's, and I expect them to act if, say, we see escalating growth in the money supply and/or CPI figures. This is not to say that the Fed hasn't done damage with its activist monetary policy; among other things, the purchasing power of the dollar has been on the decline for decades. Inflation? Yes, possibly enough to trigger a recession. And I think the Fed is underestimating how quickly inflation can spring up and overestimating its ability to control things. But hyperinflation? No.
(The Independent Institute). Who loses the most under ObamaCare?
Everyone (except the freeloaders off other consumers): consumers and suppliers. How is it possible despite decades of failed megalomaniac, futile attempts to model and "improve on" the free market, the invisible hand, American voters were so reckless as to give the Jackass Party super-majority control of the government? How, after seeing citizens in other Western democracies cope with Statist bureaucracies, other budget priorities and life-threatening delays in treatment, could we reject a freer market, including innovation in prescription meds and treatment, in favor of a parasitic, unaccountable, remote government bureaucracy, which hardly has a stellar track record in managing Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, among other things? Meddlers imposing obsoleted, ineffectual standards on providers? Arbitrary, paternalistic restrictions on consumer choices?
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| Courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste |
This is a mandatory promotion fee, which of course will be passed onto consumers. I can just see it now: Santa asking "Got a tree?"
(Learn Liberty). We've been thinking of a lot of cool topics and concepts for new videos. Which of these issues would you be most excited to watch a Learn Liberty video about?
-Poverty
-Debt
-Environmentalism
-Drug war and criminal justice
-National security
-Jobs and unemployment
Pre-New Deal policies, antitrust, intellectual property, the black market, civil forfeiture, eminent domain, taxes, entitlements...
(Anti-anticapitalists). “But let me offer you my definition of social justice : I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree ? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why ?” -- Walter E. Williams
I also believe that social justice is better served when government gets out of the way of businesses offering lower-income, inexperienced job seekers opportunities and businesses and charities seeking to address the needs and wants of lower-income consumers.
(Learn Liberty). According to Ayn Rand, "The purpose of the law is *not* to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed." Do you agree? Tell us why or why not in the comments.
Laws are based on past experience, often unduly influenced by special interests, and contingent on the competence of legislators and regulators. What we see is more of a Hawthorne effect where the intended targets work around constraints, not to mention an unknowable, unusable regulatory burden where law enforcement becomes arbitrary and violates the rule of law.
 |
| Via LFC |
In the make believe world of academia, those who can't do, teach. Take it from a former academic.
(Reason Magazine). Would a free society be a crime-free society?
I think an economically free society would be more prosperous, with more job opportunities, and without the government prohibiting certain transactions, artificially driving up prices on the black market, there would be less economic incentive to steal. Clearly we would have fewer crimes if certain victimless transactions were decriminalized or if the State didn't have a perverse revenue incentive (think speed traps, civil forfeiture, etc.) However, individuals can have different motives (think of schoolyard bullies, bored teens, etc.), not to mention individual differences (religion, politics, etc.) Swiping a rare gold coin may be a lot easier than saving up and buying one.
Certainly the overhead of the State justice system is sustained through legal plunder (taxes). Richmond agrees with the idea that without Statist overhead, wrongdoings will not wither away with the State (a twist on the Marxist utopia). But even a thief of my rare gold coin would have a vested interest against my seeking vengeance in addition to retrieving my lost coin.
You can't prevent evil... Utopia does not exist..
Individuals can prevent evil... but central government cannot
The State can, but it's more like amputating a limb vs. treating the disease...
No Apologies
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of the original artist via Illinois Policy Institute |
Bing Crosby/David Bowie, "Little Drummer Boy/Peace on Earth". I still recall watching the original show, and reading a news story that the unfamiliar lovely "Peace on Earth" was composed on the fly. It was a very creative, contrasting the drumbeat (say, of war) against a plea for peace. I would never thought of pairing the veteran conservative crooner with the innovative rocker, but this just works as one of the best duets I've heard in any music genre the soaring chorus is just brilliant.
