All our wanting comes from needs,
thus we continiously suffer.
The intellect teaches free will,
free from suffering.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Hillary Clinton's Email Kerfuffle
The idea that somehow no one noticed or raised a concern with Hillary Clinton using a personal email account boggles the mind of anyone (like me) who has worked as a federal contractor or employee. I have a civil servant nuclear family member who went ballistic when I did a reply all to that relative's daughter's email, not realizing the federal email account was on the distribution list. The relative did not want the PC police cracking down. There are numerous policies; I've even seen federal systems that filtered out external email URL's. Even starting contractors are routinely advised of no reasonable expectation of privacy in using federal infrastructure and personal use is discouraged. Smartphones cannot be used in government facilities for obvious reasons.
I find it remarkable especially in the aftermath of the hack into Sarah Palin's Yahoo account in 2008. (As I recall, Palin may have used her account to do Alaskan state business.) Government security arrangements don't include private services; they can't guarantee access on a need-to-know basis; they can't secure messages against self-serving deletions, modifications, etc. One might argue if anyone's communications were particularly sensitive, I would say the Secretary of State's is; imagine if she had defined acceptable negotiation concessions, identified intelligence agents or written critical assessments of foreign leaders. Saying that because on some emails she cc'ed government email accounts, so those are in the system is inadequate; we are being asked to believe that she voluntarily submitted all official emails from her personal account: how do we know? What about the public's right to know? No wonder some experts are questioning whether Clinton's use of a personal email account was illegal.
Schiff Is Spot On...
I have a few differences with Stossel's take--because only a few banks like Citibank really needed TARP money; we had a bailout of the GSE's, AIG, the car companies, etc. My recollection is that they initially intended to use the TARP money to buy up troubled mortgages, etc., but Paulson, influenced by Britain, focused on shoring up banks--with mandatory loans, which many if not most banks didn't want. Separately, the Fed was looking to manage liquidity; I haven't seen a good explanation (it doesn't mean that I've seen every discussion) of we needed any fiscal policy over and beyond what the Fed was doing behind the scenes. Stossel and Schiff are right: morally hazardous public policy was at fault, and the big banks should have been allowed to fail.
Will Robots Lead to Massive Unemployment?
Facebook Corner
(IPI). Right-to-Work is one of many reforms needed to makes states more competitive, reduce cost pressures on infrastructure projects and hold down the necessity of tax hikes.
The legislation is already sweeping the Midwest, but Illinois is lagging behind.
When I started following this group there were useful suggestions to improve Illinois. Now every post is about how horrible unions are, private sector too. I would like to see you lazy folks get up out of your comfy chairs and lay steel on a highway for twelve hours per day, seven days per week in the 90 degree summer under "right to work" wages and conditions. I would actually pay to see that. Get a job where you break your back for a living, please. It will give you some much needed perspective.
Self-serving union propagandists in this thread. First of all, free market wages reflect productivity and labor market supply and demand. If you corrupt crony unionists understood Econ 101, you would know people would have to pay more to get workers willing to do the work required. The idea that unions get you more is purely delusional. Real wages went up in the Gilded Age without Big Government or unions. It was because a strong economy raised demand for labor. But when and if you get artificially high wages, there will be technological alternatives--which, unlike your badass hardbody, can work longer, more efficiently, accurately, effectively without self-righteous bitching.or getting tired.
(IPI). Former Gov. Pat Quinn contributed less than $200,000 to his retirement, but is set to draw more than $2 million in pension benefits over his lifetime.
First of all, I think Illinois would be better off paying spendthrifts like Quinn to stay out of office than have them fritter away taxpayer dollars repaying their union blosses or on crap like the Obama Library. I just think $2M is too expensive a buyout for a political whore who ran the state into the ground.
Second, I dislike populism with a passion. not to mention the inevitable partisan parasites who think they're clever by mentioning any GOP politician they can think of. Anyone who thinks the GOP is responsible for what's happened over the past decade of Dem mismanagement must have been in a coma.
Look, in terms of overall pension liabilities, the politicians are not a material portion of the overall pension mess. (Let me point out I believe in terms limits and don't like professional politicians. I agree they should be the first to switch to a defined-contribution system.) But get this straight: many politicians are wealthy--Romney, Bloomberg, others. Romney never made a penny as governor. For example, the average Congressman is a millionaire; he is more concerned with reelection than what he gets when he finally leaves office.
(Mercatus Center). Are capital gains so different from earned income that they should be taxed at a different rate? Scott Sumner and Leonard Burman debate in today's Wall Street Journal.
It's bad enough to have progressivity in taxation in the first place, because of the brackets which disincentivize income. As Sumner points out, it is better to eliminate various special-interest income exceptions and lower/flatten the tax burden. Capital gains taxes are a deterrent to investment and against transacting property from weaker to stronger hands. I am more likely to accept the idea of a low, flat consumption tax on sales of assets, and government needs to learn to function within revenue constraints. We must not disincentivize long-term investments with its risks or tax nominal gains that all or in part is not income but an arbitrary tax on capital, the proverbial second bite of the apple. I'm more inclined to consider an income classification to the retail business of inventory and sales of stocks, day trading, etc. Government also taxes capital gains/losses in an asymmetric way--it wants immediate payment of taxes on gains but limits tax deductions of capital losses. The "progressive" plunderers don't point out that property holders take the biggest hits during recessions in absolute and/or relative terms.
Weddings and Proposals
Very sweet! 10th anniversary surprise.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Chip Bok via Townhall |
Carly Simon (with James Taylor), "Devoted to You"
