Never seem more learned than the people you are with.
Wear your learning like a pocket watch and
keep it hidden.
Do not pull it out to count the hours, but
give the time when you are asked.
Lord Chesterfield
Image of the Day
 |
| Courtesy of the original artist and the Independent Institute |
Is there anyone I respect who has ever been on the MTP round table that I respect? EJ Dionne, Andrea Mitchell, etc., are so vacuous, it requires self-control to let them finish their nonsense.
Let me start on immigration, reform I have long advocated. The talking points on MTP are absurdly misleading. First, there was a propaganda line that the GOP doesn't want to give Obama a victory on immigration, that they don't trust him. Second, there's the line that immigration leads to growth and hence the GOP is anti-growth.
In response to the first point, the reason the GOP doesn't trust Obama is not personal in nature, but based on his record. Let me count a few of the ways: the Justice Department unilaterally decided it would not pursue deportations under certain conditions. This is not "discretion"--it's an abuse of authority, because the Congress makes policy, not the Executive Branch. If the President doesn't like policy, he should propose legislative remedies. But he doesn't have the right to pick and choose which policies to enforce; this is a concept known as the rule of law. Second, in response to Arizona's immigration reform, the Obama Administration made it clear that they would not enforce the law to people identified by local authorities, regardless of the merits of detention, a de facto policy of catch and release. Third, one of the Obama Administration's passive-aggressive responses to sequestration was a premature release of immigrants from detention. Finally, when the Dream Act failed to clear Congress, Obama decided to issue his own Executive Order version of the Dream Act. This is a material violation of the principle of the separation of powers and unconstitutional in concept. (I do not claim this list is exhaustive; the point is that nobody on the program listed a single substantive criticism in support of the GOP's distrust of Obama in terms of good-faith negotiation on this issue.)
Second, the GOP has been supportive of immigration, including the expansion of H1B's, citizenship paths for scientific/technical graduate program foreign student students/graduates and temporary worker programs. A lot of resistance comes from protectionists on both sides of the aisle (especially unions), worried that immigrants will drive down wages.
I think there are answers to these concerns, but it's dishonest not to acknowledge them.
Then there is the discussion of Rand Paul whom gave a quote which to many seemed to use the Clinton impeachment scandal against Hillary. Rand Paul is spot on in his criticism: the rank hypocrisy of feminists whom looked the other way when pro-abortion choice Bill Clinton sought to sexually exploit secretaries or interns working under him and misled a judge over his actions. Although the clip I saw didn't mention it, there was the famous Hillary "I'm not a Tammy Wyette 'Stand By Your Man' woman'" quote back in 1992. Oh, please; if she didn't know, after women were coming out of the woodwork claiming to know Bill in the Biblical sense, Bill was cheating on her, she lacks the common sense needed in the Presidency. In fact, she thought the Lewinsky allegation was some political smear from the vast right wing conspiracy, but when Monica emerged with her souvenir stained dress, Hillary played the victim game on the world stage, putting Bill in the dog house.
The issue was not Clinton having extramarital sex--although that does reflect on his personal character, but the "feminist"'s hypocritical violation of sexual harassment policy. And Hillary knows that. I think Rand is really trying to point that out. If Hillary had any personal integrity and pride, she would have divorced Bill years ago. Why didn't she? My guess: political expediency. She feels she gets more out of staying with Bill and the hope of the continued years of "peace and prosperity" will follow her election.
As much as journalistic hacks like Dionne want to declare the Clinton scandal as a "thing in the past", it won't be. Her divisive "vast right-wing conspiracy" rhetoric is part of the polarizing politics since the Bork nomination, and recent discussion, even on MTP, of a Hillary enemies' list in the aftermath of her failed Presidential bid. She has to find a way to contrast her Presidency from Obama's, which is nontrivial because she served in his Administration, and she needs his staunchest supporters. John McCain found himself in a similar box in 2008. He needed to tie himself to Bush to win the nomination, but that was a liability in the general campaign. I will say that I hope that Rand Paul and other GOP hopefuls go beyond a predictable campaign of running against Clinton, Obama, and ObamaCare. Predictable campaigns never go well. Hillary can be expected to run against George W. Bush, the Tea Party, etc. I think Paul's best appeal is to run against the Bush/Obama record, the failures of "progressive" politics, meddling in war-prone regions of the world, etc.
Finally, let's deal with the absurd political spin that ObamaCare is breaking workers from being locked into jobs to keep their healthcare, in response to CBO projections showing a small negative impact of ObamaCare on unemployment. Of course when you raise the costs of hiring a worker through, say, mandated insurance, you get lower employment--a simple reflection on supply and demand. As I've mentioned in past posts, government is largely responsible for sector-bound inflation through unnecessary mandates, regulations, confounding of insurance with ordinary expenses, unfair tax-favored status, and divorcing customers from purchases in the health market. Not to mention cost shifting of government programs (i.e., below market price reimbursements). ObamaCare's tragedy was a loss of faith in the fact the free market, freed from government rules and regulation, enabled across state lines, and with customers vested in efficient purchases, would yield more feasible solutions. When unnecessary products and services are available at seemingly negligible costs, they distort pricing.
About the "freedom" talking point, really, when individuals and employers have mandates, there's no real freedom. And clueless "progressive" pundits argue an entrepreneurial boom in the aftermath of ObamaCare, since people will be freed of their insurance chains to their jobs. But these are the same people whom pass thousands of new regulations every year that slowly ripple down to small enterprises. In starting a new business and hiring people, entrepreneurs still face a dilemma between overpriced insurance or a tax/penalty.
Facebook Corner
 |
| Via We the Individuals |
(Illinois Policy Institute). The proposed "soda tax" would add $2.88 to the cost of a case of soft drinks, needlessly raising prices for consumers in an already struggling economy.
The bill would also add to the already-heavy regulatory burden Illinois businesses face by requiring distributors to get a permit just to sell soda and sugar-sweetened “beverages, syrups, and powder” to retailers.
Tax the rich appropriately and end corporate tax breaks and bailouts and this wouldn't be an issue
This troll has it ass-backwards: cut spending and stop trying to shift the tax burden to other people. By and large, the people who advocate raising "sin taxes" are imposing their values on others. The troll wants to punish the economically successful, while Illinois is the mother of real bailouts. High taxes are inversely related to economic growth.
 |
| Via Bastiat Institute |
Political Humor: Your Tax Dollars at Play: Penis Pumps?
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Bob Gorrell and Townhall |
Sting, "If I Ever Lose My Faith in You"
