...the myth of socialism is far stronger than the reality of capitalism.
That is because capitalism is not really an ism at all.
It is what people do if you leave them alone.
Arnold Beichmen, Hoover Institute Fellow
NOTE: I had a 20-hour Internet outage that required me to publish this prepared post after the date (I had not scheduled the post). I was within 5 minutes of publishing the post when the outage occurred.
Image of the Day
War on Poverty?
Remy is Back Mocking Gruber
Free Offer From FEE: Are We Good Enough for Liberty by Lawrence Reed
Faithful readers know that I've sometimes embedded images and/or included FEE or Lawrence Reed posts in my FB Corner segment; I'm also a fan of their Freeman flagship publication. They are sponsoring a giveaway of up to 20 copies, including shipping with code GoodEnough, which you can use to distribute copies to friend, family or others (see link above). I highly encourage this; Reed's volume includes the immortal essay, Read's "I, Pencil".
Facebook Corner
(Ron Paul). ICYMI: I’m not that optimistic about the results of the midterm elections. It’s good to have a turnover no matter what, but I come down on the side of believing that the two-party system isn’t really a two-party system. It’s a one-party system, except for the few good members of Congress.
Sign up and tune in ––> http://bit.ly/1yMRG6g
First of all, stop being a crank. Second, you're being repetitious; was it just a coincidence the only recent balanced federal budgets occurred under a GOP-controlled Congress? Was it just a coincidence that not one Republican voted for ObamaCare? I would think you would welcome guaranteed gridlock in Washington, the GOP in control of budget reconciliation, a check on Presidential lawlessness, a Senate that will not rubberstamp activist jurists to the bench, possibly some sentencing reform, educational choice reform, business tax reform, Fed audit,...
(Reason). “Established by the State.” Those four little words could be the undoing of Obamacare.
The Democratic whores knew exactly what they were doing. They set up a teaser pitch to bribe states into taking the Medicaid expansion (with an all-or-nothing extortion pitch tied to current Medicaid that SCOTUS set aside). In the case of state exchanges, they thought they made an offer no state could refuse--set up an exchange or your taxpaying citizens won't get their fair share of subsidies they're paying into. Only trouble is, many of the states rejected the offer. My guess is they intended to patch the system later, never doubting they would keep control of the House. The GOP never had an intention of bailing out the Dems on ObamaCare.I don't see how the even 4 "progressive" activist SCOTUS jurists can explain away the "four little words": it's a straightforward application of Ockham's razor. What incentives did the states have to operate their own exchange? Why discuss state exchanges at all in the context of subsidies if subsidies were intended to be universal? I'm not convinced by the argument that simply because the legislation guaranteed a government-run exchange, it implies that subsidies apply.. Just because I'm guaranteed a seat in a theater doesn't mean I get the seat I want.
(IPI). Illinois should tax taking, not making.
That means Illinoisans should only be taxed when they spend their money, not when they earn it.
One of the best economically literate posts I've read. Spot on with regardings to dysfunctional taxation of economic productivity, savings, and investment. I would suggest that the implementation some sort of VAT system would control for pyramiding concerns. We do need to see deep slashes in state spending as well.
(IPI). Illinois’ unfunded pension liability grew to more than $111 billion this year, according to official estimates.
With a mere $0.39 on hand for every dollar needed to pay for future benefits, the state would need a three-year government shutdown just to break even.
There is a myth, even perpetuated by IPI, about the "looting" of pensions, which appears to mean that the state did not kick its "fair" share of contributions for a number of years. Where were the public unions and their lawsuits, where were their paid-for Democratic legislature and/or governors ensuring no shortchanges?
But the real issue is not so much the short-changed employer contributions as the unrealistic investment returns, the lifetime retirement tenure, and the overly generous distributions. I remember the only year of working I did not pay into social security was my 1-year visiting professor appointment at ISU. Here's the point: even if you were a millionaire paying 6%+ on your first 100K+ for decades, your maximum check if you retired at 66 was $2642. And the unfunded liability of social security is over $40T. You have many retired Illinois state employees making MULTIPLES of the maximum social security check YEARS EARLIER. Those unrealistic pension giveaways were made by political whores who talked the talk but didn't walk the walk.
Look, 401K's and their public equivalents (for us professors it was 403B plans) were basically a consequence of 1978 legislation. By 1981, IRS provided guidelines for funding through salary reductions. By 1983, half of large corporations either had or were planning them. Currently, only about 9% of companies offer a pension plan and about 94% offer 401K plans. There are actuarial reasons why companies shifted away from pension plans to defined contribution plans decades ago. If companies can't afford pension plans, what do you make of the hubris that "public servants" have "earned" million-dollar-plus payouts during their retirement at the expense of taxpayers?
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Bob Gorrell via Townhall |
Glen Campbell, "Wichita Lineman"
