Miscellany: 2/23/15

Quote of the Day
One sees great things from the valley, 
only small things from the peak.
G. K. Chesterton

Tweet of the Day

No doubt the look on the face of Fed chief Janet Yellen if Sen. Paul asked her to imagine a world without the Fed. pic.twitter.com/pDPYX6Lm8v
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 23, 2015

Chart of the Day: 77-center Hillary Clinton's Staff

Courtesy of Carpe Diem

See here

Image of the Day

Via CNBC: Janet Yellen asked to imagine a world without the Fed  #sarcasm

Rant of the Day: Justin Amash on No Child Left Behind Funding

No Child Left Behind expired on September 30, 2007, yet Congress has continued to fund it year after year. Now, there are people in Congress who want to reauthorize this big-government program.
Instead of doubling down on No Child Left Behind, Congress should stop funding it. The law expired more than seven years ago! We owe it to our children—and we have a constitutional duty as members of Congress—to return education decisions to parents and states. (via FB)

When Are Hollywood "Progressives" Going To Keep Their Politically Correct Mouths Shut?

I was just explaining in yesterday's post reasons why I don't watch the Oscars telecasts anymore. One of the specific reasons dealt with crackpot leftist rants. What I didn't realize at the time I wrote that is that one of the winning actresses, Patricia Arquette, decided to revisit the politics of the 1970's:

It is time for women. Equal means equal. And the truth is, the older women get, the less money they make. It's inexcusable that we go around the world and we talk about equal rights for women in other countries when we don't have equal rights for women in America...And we don't because when they wrote the Constitution, they didn't intend it for women. So even though we sort of feel like we have equal rights in America, right under the surface, there are huge issues that are applied that really do affect women. It's time for all the women in America and all the men that love women, and all the gay people and all the people of color that we've all fought for, to fight for us now,,,,People think we have equal rights. We won't until we pass a Constitutional amendment in the United States of America where we pass the ERA once and for all,

This is crackpot feminist ideology. If you look at the founding documents, it's fairly clear that, e.g., in the Declaration of Independence, we see references in gender-neutral terms like "citizens" and "the people"; whereas Jefferson does use gender-inclusive meanings of "men" in describing natural rights, in fact, he specifically references natural laws as applicable to the "one people" in the first paragraph. The same holds true of the Constitution, replete with "we the people", "the person" and "citizen". In fact, references to "male citizens" are relatively rare, e.g., section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment--and it is specific to the right to vote. Sections 1 and 3 specifically make reference to persons and their unalienable  rights, not just "male citizens". The intent of section 2 was to penalize states that deprived freed blacks of the right to vote. But it is notable when discussing public office itself, the term "male citizen" is not used.

In fact, Susan B. Anthony reviewed how the courts regarded, e.g., whether women were exempt from prosecution and taxation due to any gender-specific interpretation of the use of 'men', 'he', 'his', etc, in the law:

Anthony argued that the meaning of the pronoun "male" in legal statutes and constitutional law must be interpreted consistently. Citing case law, Anthony stipulated, "in all the penalties and burdens of government (except the military) women are reckoned as citizens equally with men," and that the "question of the masculine pronouns--yes, and nouns too--has been settled by the United States Supreme Court". In other words, Anthony argued that inasmuch as the law held women accountable to criminal, civil, and tax statutes that employed the pronoun "male," it also imparted to women the privileges and immunities expressly guaranteed to "male" citizens. Read consistently, Anthony pointed out that the law either excluded women from all legal responsibilities and rights, or recognized women as equal to men. Rejecting popular counterarguments regarding the meaning of the term "male" in the Fourteenth Amendment, Anthony concluded: "But, it is urged, the use of the masculine pronouns, he his, and him, in all the constitutions is proof that only men were meant to be included in their provisions. If you insist on this version of the letter of the law, we shall insist that you be consistent and accept the other horn of the dilemma, and exempt women from taxation for the support of the government and from the penalties for the violation of laws".

I don't think Anthony was right in her interpretation of  clause 2; I'm not arguing that women shouldn't have been universally allowed to vote, but I think the clause was attempting to reflect a commonality of state eligibility at the time. Azerrad further notes:

Contrary to what many civics textbooks incorrectly teach, the original Constitution did not restrict the right to vote to white, property-owning males aged 21 or older.
The Constitution defers to the states on voting eligibility in federal elections. As is plainly written in Article I, Section 2: “the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”
As a result, voting eligibility varied by state. Certain states denied blacks the right to vote—but a majority did not. And—here comes the whopper—women were voting in New Jersey at the time of the Founding! For the first time in recorded history, women voted alongside men in elections...The 19th Amendment, therefore, did not give women the right to vote. It guaranteed women the right to vote. By the time it was ratified in 1920, more than three-fourths of the states already allowed women to vote in some or all elections. 

New JOTY Nominee: DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson 

Self-explanatory fear-mongering to win a budget battle in Congress:

"I would say that, if anyone is planning to go to the Mall of America today, they have got to be particularly careful. And, as the statement you read indicates, there will be enhanced security there that will be apparent to people who are there," Johnson told CNN's "State of the Union" with Gloria Borger.

Facebook Corner


(IPI). At present, active state employees contribute about 17% of the total cost for their own coverage, as well as their dependents, which is far less than most state workers across the country pay, let alone what private-sector workers in Illinois pay.
How much do the politicians pay ??? Yes that is a big fat ZERO
Ignorant populists like the OP as usual don't know what the hell they're talking about. As per FactCheck.org: "Members of Congress have good health insurance by any standard, but it’s not free and not reserved only for them – and it’s not government insurance. House and Senate members are allowed to purchase private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees and their families."

But, you might say, this isn't Illinois state political whores. Whereas this source bettergov.org is using figures from 2012: "Health insurance: Legislators pay $684 to $1,014 annually for a single premium depending on salary and type of plan." Now, of course, those figures are dirt-cheap compared to households paying on their own up to $10K or more. But it's not free.

Instead of shooting off your mouth and exposing your ignorance, try researching the topic you're writing about. It took me less than 10 minutes to debunk your garbage.

Choose Life: The Unexpected Blessing of Children

The couple in this clip had a firstborn son but struggled to have a second child; the wife had been diagnosed in the interim with PCOS, a medical condition which is a leading cause of female subfertility. The clip is a few years old; the wife subsequently gave birth to a healthy baby girl.



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

James Taylor, "Don't Me Be Lonely Tonight"

Miscellany: 2/22/15

Quote of the Day
I run great risk of failing. 
It may be that I shall encounter ruin 
where I look for reputation and a career of honor. 
The chances are perhaps more in favour of ruin than of success. 
But, whatever may be the chances, 
I shall go on as long as 
any means of carrying on the fight are at my disposal.
Anthony Trollope

The Oscars and Glen Campbell's "I'm Not Gonna Miss You"

To be honest, I don't recall the last time I've been to a movie theater; it's been years. I've never known most of the nominees' performances, and the Oscar's show itself can be excruciating to sit through; the acceptance speeches are full of acknowledgments that bore me silly, and the occasional leftist political nonsense is enough to make me turn the TV off. I did have a sentimental favorite, though, in the Best Song category: Glen Campbell's tune from his recent autobiographical film which focuses on his career-ending Alzheimer's. Since Glen was unable to perform his song in person, the family asked Tim McGraw (whose song "My Little Girl" is a personal favorite) to substitute. The intellectual property rights issue is affecting relevant videos on Youtube; when an authorized video is available, I'll embed it. I first read a Billboard post on tonight's story whose embedded video was disabled by the IP police; I have seen one listenable copy of the performance off someone's TV, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was also disabled by the time the reader sees my post.

Unfortunately, Glen's song didn't win the Oscar; that went to John Legend's "Glory" from the Selma movie.

Tweet of the Day

It's time to abolish the FCC. The Statist power grab using pushing-on-a-string, exaggerated "net neutrality" fears will deter innovation.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 23, 2015

Image of the Day

Muslims host a ring of peace outside Oslo synagogue AP photo via The Telegraph

Via Rand Paul

Sophie Scholl was part of the domestic anti-Nazi resistance
and beheaded by the regime. For more, see here.

Via Independent Institute

The Fallacy of Net Neutrality

HT: Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek. I have repeatedly opposed "net neutrality" (as if you didn't notice my widget on the blog over the last several weeks appearing in the top right corner). This is basically dysfunctional government regulation in search of a problem; in fact, we have had an open Internet without incompetent government bureaucrats freezing innovation through feckless pushing-on-a-string regulation, and Hazlett points out in this WSJ op-ed this is not the first time we've seen an attempt by competitors to try to control private companies; back during the Clinton Administration, companies were trying to persuade the government to give them regulated access to cable lines: the same fear-mongering garbage about cable companies using their "monopoly" privilege to promote anti-competitive services at a price. (In fact, the issue has more to do with generic issues of bandwidth capacity and very large file transfers--like streaming video. The network tried to cope with say exploding demand for streaming video within its hardware capacity. It is concerns with efficiently handling blobs of content which has nothing to do their origin or the nature of their content.) Hazlett then points out that the complaints of cable operator preferences are all but nonexistent--and primarily anecdotal in nature. He notes that the complaint against Metro PCS, whiched has offered an inexpensive "all you care to use" access of data, voice, and text: with an exception for streaming video because of limited capacity. Metro PCS had one exception for streaming content: Google's Youtube videos. This had nothing to do with payola; Google provided a proprietary compression technology which reduced the impact of its videos on Metro PCS' network. I have no doubt if other content providers provided similar technology, Metro PCS would have provided likewise access. But it was hardly "discriminatory"; it initially excluded all streaming video for resource reasons. In fact, Hazlett additionally points out that the FCC isn't needed to mitigate anti-competitive fears since the government already has antitrust laws on the books.

Incidentally, I know the very first thing the net neutrality fascists argue is that anyone opposing their Statist agenda is being paid off by the broadband industry. I am hardly a shill for the cable industry; in fact, for years in the 2000's, I never subscribed to cable (if anything, a major cable company still owes me money from my return of equipment when I moved from Maryland a year ago); I have never worked for or invested in a cable provider; I've never been contacted by a cable provider concerning my stance, and I've never gotten so much as a penny from them. My opposition is fully based on and consistent with my pro-liberty perspective, and a large percentage of libertarians (including all the sources I frequently reference in general on liberty issues) express similar skepticism of State involvement with the Internet.



Guest Post Comment: Washington State Florist

Okay, how come you guys don't realize that the CURRENT case is that a Washington State judge has ruled against Stutzman? I posted a commentary on that in my Friday post.

Dondero is correct on the slavery analogy. A transaction from a liberty perspective is voluntary. As I pointed out in my post, Stutzman simply declined the opportunity to do the floral arrangement for a "gay wedding". Does that mean if a local business declines to carry suits in my size, I can sue them for "discrimination"? Why can't Stutzman say that she specializes in traditional wedding arrangements? If gays and "progressives" can boycott Stutzman because they consider her a "homophobe" or disagree with her religious beliefs, why doesn't Stutzman have the commensurate right to refuse business from them?

The first commentator is not pro-liberty on first principles alone. If I'm a business owner, I reserve the right not to transact with you--my right does not depend on whether the Statist judge respects my spoken or unspoken reasons. Stutzman is acting from religious conviction; isn't it amazing that the government accepts conscientious objections to wartime service but not for floral arrangements that compromise the concept of traditional marriage?

Facebook Corner

(IPI). A new proposal would place a penny-per-ounce excise tax on high-sugar beverages in Illinois.
It's morally outrageous to charge anything of or beyond a uniform low consumption tax simply to punish people making certain politically unpopular purchases offending some special-interest group or shifting a tax burden to the target group. These are particularly obnoxious because the taxes are highly regressive in nature, e.g., many lower-income people make those purchase decisions. I have no dog in this fight because I don't drink sugary drinks or smoke--but the tax policies are intrinsically unjust.
and I will stock up on Diet Coke in Mo. and In. when I go buy my smokes!!!
did they change the law to make it more of a crimminal offense for going to missouri to get cigarettes?
Well, as to the Statist commenter, there's a use tax which you would likely have to pay on your state return. What are you going to do--put up a roadblock into Illinois searching for a load of cigarettes? It would be more expensive than it's worth. As for me, the savings probably wouldn't be worth the gas and my time to save a few pennies. Are Chicago cops just as likely to kill someone for selling allegedly untaxed cigarettes as in NYC? I wouldn't doubt it could happen. For health reasons, I don't drink sugary drinks, but I find it morally reprehensible to shift the tax burden to people making that decision.

(IPI). Agency fees are wrong because they force people to pay for services they may not want or find beneficial, and compel people to pay for union political speech, in violation of their First Amendment rights
Isn't that statement true about taxes? People are forced to pay for services all the time that they do not want or find beneficial.
Apples and oranges. The government is a monopoly that in theory is justified for limited purposes like protecting individual rights, common defense, etc. If and when government goes beyond its legitimate mandate, it risks rebellion and/or noncompliance. To a limited extent, we have the right to migrate, e.g., to another locality, state or country, or can operate on the grey/black market (e.g., IPI's recent pieces on cigarette smuggling).

The problem here is that union monopolies are empowered by the government monopoly. Most pro-liberty people accept the concept of unions as voluntary associations; 'voluntary' includes the right to opt out. Mandatory union fees are like de facto third-party taxation. Agency fees are an option of allowing unions to recoup a prorated portion of the costs of their exclusive collective bargaining privilege from non-union members. As IPI points out, unions not only are insisting on de facto taxation without representation by requiring agency fees as part of collective bargaining, they are basically exploiting non-union members for their own corrupt purposes: the agency fee option is being used to pass on costs that are not directly related to the collective bargaining process. It thus violates First Amendment rights, not to mention property rights of non-union members. As IPI has repeatedly pointed out, the union needs to persuade workers to its ends, not use corrupt legal privileges to exploit those exercising their right to work.

Choose Life

This is my favorite new song in a line of favorites of Elton John's "Blessed" and Dan Hill's "Unborn Heart": a father's unconditional love and acceptance of his preborn son. I have been known (as an amateur songwriter myself) to gently criticize certain songs, even ones like this brilliant track. I'm not completely sold on the verse "if you get stuck in the mud I'll pull you out". I would prefer to substitute something like "if you run and fall, I'll be there to pick you up". Of course, I'm never earned a dime in the music industry, and Sam Martin has written some highly successful singles for other artists. Note that he included clips of his wedding day and the ultrasound of his son's heartbeat in the video below.



Proposals









Political Cartoon

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

James Taylor, "Your Smiling Face". This ranks among my top three Taylor hits ("Fire and Rain", "You've Got a Friend"); I love bouncy upbeat songs (remember Katrina and the Waves' "Walking on Sunshine", Nash's "I Can See Clearly Now"?)

Miscellany: 2/21/15

Quote of the Day
Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.
Henry David Thoreau

Chart of the Day

Courtesy of MacKinac Center 

Tweet of the Day

The (Spendthrift) One doesn't care about unsustainable liabilities because sperm aren't voters (rephrasing Boettke). http://t.co/QszRRblnOc
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 21, 2015

Audit the Fed!Audit the Pentagon! Require the government to publish financial statements on GAAP principles, including unfunded liabilities.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 21, 2015

"Progressives" and members of the Fed are engaging in a disinformation campaign on the "Audit the Fed" bill. Policy must be transparent.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 21, 2015

Central planning in monetary policy is just as delusional as in fiscal policy, whether it's activism of a central bank or the Congress..
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 21, 2015

The $700B TARP bill was scrutinized by Congress but not Fed transactions of $16T including loans to foreign entities. http://t.co/WISaCyWiiv
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 21, 2015

Image of the Day

Via Rand Paul

Against Forced Unionization Exploitation of Home Workers



Facebook Corner

(Reason). "It's very good for the country to see somebody [like Rand Paul] who's not just saying, 'I want to limit the government in the areas where it's bugging *me* but I want to expand it if I can make *you* live the way that I want you to.'"
 is anyone else confused as me with this quote? who said it?
Nick Gillespie. I guess they forgot to post the link: http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/21/nick-gillespie-talking-rand-paul-on-npr
(separate)
Mr. Starrick's opinion is correct; the limited government piece does not apply to any "progressive" except perhaps on certain civil liberty issues and anti-war. Many conservatives are fairly good on economic issues but "tough on crime" (less worried about violations of the fourth amendment), oppose immigration liberalization, are less tolerant of self-destructive, morally dubious behaviors (like drug or gambling addiction, pornography/prostitution, etc.) and are less fiscally conservative and more proactive when it comes to defense matters.

(Rand Paul 2016). Lindsey Graham wants to run for president because he’s scared of Rand Paul
Read more at http://rare.us/story/lindsey-graham-wants-to-run-for-president-because-hes-scared-of-rand-paul/#QOjIc8mRdTvSowqy.99
The GOP must acknowledge issues with the Bush presidency in both domestic and foreign policy. Graham does not add anything new to the field that the American people haven't already rejected in the McCain and Romney candidacies. Neo-cons are the rule, not the exception in the prospective field; Rand Paul has a more restrained view of foreign policy with a more balanced, Constitutionally-based view of the line between the Congress and the Presidency. If Graham wants to argue that we can spend another trillion plus thousands in American lives and casualties with a nearly insolvent federal government, he is out of touch with reality and millions of moderates and independents who voted against such intervention in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Rand Paul is the least likely to replicate George W. Bush's mistakes.

(Rand Paul 2016). Here’s how serious Rand Paul is about passing Audit the Fed
Read more at http://rare.us/story/heres-how-serious-rand-paul-is-about-passing-audit-the-fed/#ASHj23KjgV8Tqk10.99
 I like Rand Paul, the Fed will never be audited, it is owned by Rothshild/Morgan/Rockefeller of Europe, those who have tried to do this before were Abraham Lincoln, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jackson, past presidents. They even own the Vatican's money and the Bank of England, all of the Royals money.
Crackpot bullshit. Not to mention the Fed didn't exist for nearly 50 years after Lincoln was killed.

(IPI). The unemployment rate for black men is 1.3 percentage points lower in Right-to-Work states, and 2.3 percentage points lower for Latino men.
Read more: http://illin.is/1AuHeWv
Yeah and they make $7/hr less in those right to work for less states.

We must declare our self worth as greater than republicans and corporate America would declare.
More economic garbage statistics from a crony unionist. Your misleading statistics fail to adjust for the cost of living which is generally lower in right to work states. Not to mention any worker in right-to-work states is much better off unemployed people in a forced unionization state. http://www.mackinac.org/18216

(Cato Institute). "With the introduction of bills in both the House (H.R. 24) and Senate (S.264) allowing for a GAO audit of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, officials at both the Board and regional Fed banks have launched an attack on these efforts. While we should all welcome this debate, it should be one based on facts. Unfortunately some Fed officials have made a number of statements that could at best be called misleading. "
All these stupid Ron Paulish lies about auditing the Fed...
The Fed is one of the biggest banks in the world, if not the biggest, it cannot be operated without continual internal and external audits, and both are mandated by law. 

And the man who had the legal authority to audit anything in the Federal Reserve from 2012 to 2012? Ron Lying Paul.
Idiot arrogant OP! We are talking about auditing policy, not finances. You don't happen to recall the one-off Fed audit Ron Paul managed to push through the 111th Congress--which revealed $15T in foreign bank loans and $2.5T to Citicorp? To quote Ron Paul, whom you've obviously never read: "The argument that the Fed is already audited is purposely misleading. Yes there is a minor financial audit of day-to-day expenditures of the Fed, but there has never been a full audit of the policies and the privileges passed out to the special interests. That is what remains secret – especially all foreign transactions."

(FEE). In the short term, robotics will cause some job dislocation, but in the long term, they make everyone better off by decreasing costs and increasing productivity.
 Excuse me, but have we considered how many jobs we have lost to the Big Trucking industry?

These giant corporations drive things to and fro, burning fossil fuels and losing millions of jobs.

What happened to the days of building a human chain from New York to Los Angeles? This automobile displaces millions of human chain workers. It's time to get rid of technology. It's time for the stone age.
The funniest sarcastic thread I've seen in a while. .. I'm surprised no one has suggested that our once largely agrarian economy has dwindled to about 2% of the workforce--imagine all the farms jobs generated by returning to plowing with oxen...

(IPI). Gov. Rauner’s initial pension proposal helps him achieve his goal of a balanced budget without tax increases.
But if Illinois wants to solve the pension crisis once and for all, it will take a comprehensive 401(k)-style reform plan.
Some of the ways that pension participants use to juice their pensions are being eliminated. Hurray!!! But the damage is done, So Starting July 1st, 401k for all.
Somewhat dated, but during my one-year visiting professor ISU appointment in 1990-1, there were no social security deductions--the only year in my work career going back to my college work-study days. I did have a 403B--which is a public sector version of 401K. I worked for 3 other state universities, the first as a grad student, and they all deducted payroll taxes. The Illinois set-up was definitely curious. I recall reading some teacher's comment in a forum--not sure if it was IPI--a few years back about an Illinois state teacher desperately wanting to enroll in social security and he was told that he couldn't. He knew that the Illinois pension system is a house of cards and was afraid the system would go broke before he was ready to retire.
(separate comment)
Pete, I'm somewhat confused by your opening comment. unless you're saying that's your hope for the eventual policy. My read of the IPI piece says none of the employees are being mandated 401K-like plans (it's what IPI argues, but that's not the Rauner proposal). From what I understand older pension plan employees will be merged into the newer pension plan with deferred payments of post-July pension benefits at 67; the older pension plan employees will be allowed the option to cash out their accrued benefits into a defined contribution/401K plan. The IPI piece says it's not clear if any current newer pension plan employees will be given an opportunity to cash out into a 401K.

I remember arguing in an IPI thread a few weeks back that things would have to be optional to get it past the liberal Illinois courts. I said if it was my money I would jump on a 401K conversion because I would rather control my retirement future than depend on the empty promises of political whores .

I'm somewhat disappointed because I don't see in the details discussed where they are clamping down to say a maximum distribution of $40K a year, a cap of tax-free benefits, means-testing of benefits, age-based deferments. It looks like Rauner is mostly tweaking around the edges, saving some money from merging the pension plans and putting an end to gameplaying near retirement. But anyone thinking this makes up for underfunding by both employees and employer for decades and unrealistic investment returns is in a state of denial. IPI is right--the only real solution is to move to a 401K style system; how you do that given a state-of-denial Illinois court system is difficulty to see.

A final note: Rauner's special consideration of public safety unions is not so surprising. There's been an alliance of sorts between law and order conservatives and public safety; in part, this explains Gov. Walker's separate treatment of unions during collective bargaining reform and NYC Mayor de Blasio's problems with the police in the aftermath of the Eric Garner case. If you recall, national labor leaders heavily pressured the Wisconsin public sector unions, arguing Walker was playing divide and conquer; to a large extent, the Wisconsin unions publicly rebuked Walker.

We Are the World



More Proposals

This lengthy clip impressed me with the sheer logistics--and asking for her hand in the very spot where her folks were engaged--really nice touch.


Skip ahead one minute: he's waiting for his girlfriend to enter the room on her own.






Choose Life



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of the original artist via the Libertarian Catholic

Courtesy of Bob Gorrell via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

James Taylor (with Simon & Garfunkel), "Wonderful World"

Miscellany: 2/20/15

Quote of the Day
People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them Benjamin Franklin said it first.
David H. Comins

Tweet of the Day

Protectionism is anti-consumer and does little more than address the symptoms rather than the disease of failing business models.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 21, 2015

Image of the Day

Minimum Wage Policy: Morally Bankrupt Prohibition or Limitation of Voluntary Gainful Employment of the Least Skilled/Experienced of Prospective Workers



Bad Judge of the Year Nominee: Washington State Judge Alexander Ekstrom

Forty-year florist Barronelle Stutzman recently declined the opportunity to provide floral services for a "gay wedding" on religious grounds; note that the businesswoman was willing to sell other products and services for the gay couple. Now note: if the gay couple decided to boycott Ms. Stutzman because they disagree with her religious views, the fascist state government wouldn't have a problem with it. So apparently some parties to a voluntary transaction are "more equal" in the "judge"'s warped mind. Do what extent does a florist have a right to reject service? What if the gays called Ms. Stutzman a "homophobe" or had engaged in misconduct while in Stutzman's place? What if there were other reasons--e.g., she was already booked that weekend, she was short-handed, she had vacation plans, etc. Oh, it's different because she admitted that she had stated a reason. (Suppose she was an atheist "homophobe" looking for a plausible excuse...) The point is a voluntary transaction is just that; if Stutzman has the right to reject service to any couple for no or any reason, it's not the government's business. If gays or their "progressive" sympathizers have the right not to do business to Stutzman, why doesn't she have the right to lockout gays and "progressives" from her shop? (I obviously am not persuaded by the public access argument.)  The idea that a gay couple can force a florist to service them by declaring "discrimination" is morally outrageous: it basically enslaves a florist to the whims of any politically favored constituency and violates the very concept of the rule of law.

I have no use for the morally corrupt state attorney general who is persecuting Stutzman or the supporting ACLU, which has not exactly been an advocate for religious or economic liberty. The florist industry is very competitive; I'm sure that there are gay florists who specialize in gay weddings and a number of national chain or other florists willing to take anyone's greenbacks regardless of the circumstances, even the arranged marriage of your dog and horse. What the state attorney general and this judge-in-name-only are really doing is criminalizing politically incorrect behavior.

Choose Life: 8-12 Week Preborn Girl Jumps/Plays in Her Mommy's Womb



Facebook Corner

(IPI). From the The Wall Street Journal: "Critics of capitalism promote the myth that businesses will always pay the lowest wage they can get away with. But it’s more accurate to say smart capitalists pay the wages they need to keep employees productive and contributing to growth and higher profits.

More often than not this means regularly raising pay to avoid losing the best workers."
We should not be surprised that Big Business loves to impose high costs on less affluent competitors; when they endorse related policies from government, it's an intrinsically corrupt concept called crony capitalism. I'm not sure if Wal-Mart's move was motivated for business reasons like turnover or unfilled vacancies or more of a PR move: what I do know is that the increased costs will be passed onto its shoppers and it'll be harder to get hired at Wal-Mart.
 Employers or capitalists will pay as little as possible to retain a workforce to keep their pockets lined. I don't think the government has any business regulating a minimum wage. Instead they should focus on creating an environment that promotes keeping production and services within our borders. The current policies promote part time jobs and overseas jobs. Supposed trickle down economics is misleading. It should be called trickle up. No matter what happens the money flows up. If our government actually gave a damn about the poor and WORKING class they would introduce a maximum wage and tax foreign goods and services to make it more expensive to ship the jobs over seas. But they don't care. Big corporations and politicians especially care about nothing more than making themselves rich. Walmart pays so low that many employees qualify for taxpayer funded welfare programs. So glad almost 50% of my income is stolen from me then used to supplement low wages paid by corporations and enable the people at the top of these corporations to make ridiculous amounts of money.
What a freaking moron! Occasionally you have a glimmer of truth in there (second statement). Let's start with the first one: if this is true, explain why 98% or so of jobs are NOT minimum wage. Employers with high turnover (and I think this is a factor in Wal-Mart's announced increase) also have higher training costs, etc. They have an incentive to pay up to the point your work has value to the business; this reflects your skills and knowledge you bring to the employer that enables him to achieve business objectives. If you pay an uncompetitive wage, you'll lose him to a competitor; on the other hand, if you want pay above what you're worth to a business, it'll never happen.

No, retard, your pay is not being stolen to supplement low wages--what fascist source did you get that bullshit from? Listen, retard, a number of these jobs are held by spouses and children of middle-income families who don't need government assistance. And let's agree that we should BAN the social welfare--or you're just an opportunistic, unprincipled bastard trying to make a talking point about a policy you actually support. A subsidy would be the government paying Wal-Mart to hire workers, by making them cheaper than their market wage. Wal-Mart is not a charity (I don't know where you "progressives" seem to think you have a freaking right to decide what other people earn--it's none of your business); it's paying a going wage or you wouldn't take the job--nobody is holding a gun to your head to work for Wal-Mart. Whether you're some teen looking for spending money or a single mom raising kids, it has nothing to do in terms of operating a cash register.

Finally, are you so uninformed that you don't know why France recently dropped its 75% income tax on high earners? The country's key businesses couldn't find talented executives willing to reside in France. "Maximum" wages are just as retarded as minimum ones. The former results in scarcity--jobs go unfilled; the latter results in surpluses, i.e., unemployed low-skilled labor.

This is something you won't learn from the lips of The (Incompetent) One--the Depression was exacerbated by a trade war in large part due to high tariffs passed under Hoover--there are many American jobs supporting exports. Your idiotic policy would throw those guys out of work. The way you grow an economy is by lowering taxes on investment and on income and reducing the government's stolen property and regulatory overhead.
The market should determine wages not the government.
As Marc points out, we have an imitation market. The real market would strive and sustain fair wages if it weren't for policies and regulations that undercuts our business and labor. How can we compete with China and countries that dont have to abide by our emissions and labor laws? Besides outsourcing and opening our borders? Either require other countries to live up to our standards or reduce the standards to compete with them. So far the only thing that I have seen reduced is our labor force, it's quality, benifits and salaries.
I'm sorry to see the OP's fundamentally sound economics attracting the adversarial views of economically illiterate fascists. Sweatshops, capital controls, regulations imposing our failed policies on non-suicidal economies: you fascists are really starting to bore me. First of all, the sweatshop bogeyman has long been debunked; sweatshops often provide higher than area average compensation in areas with low costs of living and are voluntarily staffed. Second, Fascist Alan's predictable anti-trade trite talking points ignore compelling economic evidence in favor of free trade and are fundamentally elitist and anti-consumer at its core, lowering the standard of living to others deprived of a wider variety and price-competitive goods and services; mercantilism is morally bankrupt and indefensible. He is also woefully ignorant, assuming wage differentials are the only salient factor of production; you often have higher logistics costs and less control over production processes. For example, the fascist conveniently overlooks noncompetitive tax and regulatory costs. He is also ignorant of the fact that the economy has been far more service-oriented since the time The (Incompetent) One was in diapers, and we cannot compete globally on high-cost semiskilled commodity labor.

(IPI). Union officials complain about “free riders,” who will opt out of the union yet still benefit from the perks of contract negotiations.But what the union bosses fail to mention is they are the ones who fought for exclusive representation rights to begin with.
What I don't think IPI emphasized enough is the government's granting of monopoly privileges to unions. This is why unions aren't as plentiful as blackberries. If you felt your compulsory union was unrealistic in its negotiations, enough to put your livelihood at risk, you had no alternative. If, say, I was a great math/science teacher but my union refused to allow incentive merit pay or market-based compensation, I have little alternative in the tyranny of the majority: not only that, but I'm often having to bust my behind, while incompetent slackers get the same reward and job protections at the expense of younger workers.

The issue, as IPI attempts to point out, is the unions present a false choice: you accept our policies and political agenda or find other work. There is no counter-union offering you no-frills bargaining with lower dues and no involuntary political expenditures and activities. The employment zones, even without unions, have to provide competitive compensation packages insofar as their business models allow. There are only so many jobs available at say some artificially high union-based costs. The law of supply and demand still holds: at higher prices, there's less demand for labor, more demand for labor substitution (e.g., technology). It's like dysfunctional minimum wage policies: prohibitions of voluntary work contracts at a market-clearing rate do not help the unemployed worker. You can't force an employer to pay you more than your work value to the employer. Unions intentionally look to manipulate labor markets to limit the supply of workers, precisely because of the law of supply and demand.

The governor is fundamentally sound from an economics standpoint: if you are trying to grow economic development and the jobs along with it, you need as little government or government-protected labor monopolies as possible to get in the way.
What amazes me is that no one seems to have learned from the lesson the UAW taught American industry and consumers after striking Ford in 1968 and GM in 1970: companies unavoidably raised prices, consumers resented both the UAW and the car companies, and took their purchasing power to where it brought more, even though it meant "buying foreign." Eventually, "Buy American" went out the window; it isn't coming back.
What the auto companies did was to cede lower-margin vehicles which basically couldn't sustain union contracts and maintain a reasonable return. (There have been management issues, too: long design cycles, mediocre vehicle reliability, etc.) So they tended to focus on higher-margin SUV's, trucks, and luxury models. Of course, other competitors with more realistic business models who could build profitable, reliable small and intermediate cars could also go after Detroit's lucrative market niches. Competition forced Detroit to compete on price in their last remaining niches, and the auto unions were in a state of denial. Bankruptcy was inevitable.

I don't know if "buying American" is out the window. I do think to be successful in the global market your costs have to be in control, you have to know your consumers, and you have to be at the bleeding edge of innovation in terms of products and services. Protectionism is fundamentally anti-consumer and does little more than address the symptoms rather than the disease of a failing business model.

More Proposals

I really had no plans to start an extended series of proposals. I know I had an extended series around the time one of my nieces got married last year and more recently two nephews and one niece have become engaged. I originally intended to do one for Valentine's Day, but for some reason I've been finding other videos. This run will continue so long as I find enough fresher clips to make it worthwhile; it may well be this is the last in the series or it could go on for a few more days or even weeks. (I suspect sooner than later.)









Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Jerry Holbert via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

James Taylor, "Up on the Roof"

Miscellany: 2/19/15

Quote of the Day
To dream magnificently is not a gift given to all men, 
and even for those who possess it, 
it runs a strong risk of being progressively diminished by 
the ever-growing dissipation of modern life and by 
the restlessness engendered by material progress. 
The ability to dream is a divine and mysterious ability; 
because it is through dreams that man communicates with the shadowy world which surrounds him.
But this power needs solitude to develop freely; 
the more one concentrates, the more one is likely to dream fully, deeply.
Charles Baudelaire


Intellectual Property and Fashion



Anti-Competitive Public Policy in Nevada



More Proposals









Facebook Corner

(IPI). From ABC 7 Chicago: "According to state pension records, there are dozens of retired state workers with pensions of more than $200,000 per year, several at more than $300,000, and two atop the list at more than $400,000.
The tax-free money is subsidized by taxpayers."
So lets HEAR who these State workers and, WHAT their monthly slaries were. Their salaries and pension payouts are NO WAY REMOTELY CLOSE to what a normal everyday State employee like myself would get. ONLY the Executives, Administrators are the ones receiving huge salaries and pensions and THAT INCLUDES the lawmakers and Governors and NOBODY says a DAMN thing about the exuberant salaries the lawmakers get for part time work and after 8 years can retire with a FULL pension
Only a populist retard thinks that the pensions of a few dozen legislators are causing the current pension crisis; by the way, from what i've seen, the average pension for lawmakers is something like $49K, less than half of what Illinois judges make. I think IPI notes that the 30-year Illinois teacher clears over $70K a year, and the average figures touted by the unions are misleading because people who work less than 30 years are included in those numbers.

What is particularly nauseating over you populists is instead of targeting $400K a year in pensions to double-dipper Abraham, you are going after a politically convenient target. Make no mistake---I don't think lawmakers should make pensions, but then again I don't think any public sector worker should be getting a pension either.

(Reason). "Having them overseeing the Internet scares the shit out of me." -Mark Cuban, at the Re/code conference in California.
When you think of great service, do the words "public utility" come to mind?
Agreed. A public utility or anointed monopoly is less competitive, efficiently reliable, more costly. As Tom DiLorenzo and others point out, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, and market dominance is always subject to tomorrow's radically cheaper innovation. In terms of the Internet, we see initiatives like Google Fiber, balloon, satellite, wireless, or fusion technologies like dark fiber buildouts to neighborhoods with wireless distribution.

As if further evidence of how dysfunctional government meddling in Internet services can be, you might want to look at the city of tech-savvy Seattle, which wanted to use dark fiber already under Seattle streets to connect fiber to the home. Their chosen vendor suddenly went out of business.

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Robert Arirail via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

James Taylor, "Handy Man"

Miscellany: 2/18/15

Quote of the Day
The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.
Muhammad Ali

Rant of the Day: An Open Letter to The (Incompetent) One

From The Kelly File on FB, Clara Trivino:

Dear Mr. Obama:
I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me. We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements. We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here So, would you mind telling your buddy, the President of Mexico , that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking Government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican Government forms in English.
4. I want my grand kids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grand kids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grand kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put US. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I'll need income tax credits so that although I don't pay Mexican taxes, I'll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Government pays $4,500.00 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.

Excerpt of the Day

So in France in the six weeks since the Charlie Hebdo massacre, far-right ideologues have been arrested for the crime of anti-Semitic speech, and three people who wrote homophobic tweets have been convicted of committing a hate crime. In Copenhagen just four months ago, an art exhibition was cancelled on the basis that it was racist: the Danish penal code forbids any speech that threatens or simply insults or degrades a group on the basis of its race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or faith. Was it the Koran that gave the Copenhagen cafe shooter the idea that any slur against his faith was an intolerable crime, or was it the insult-punishing law of the land in which he was born and brought up? His own nation sent him the message that anyone who degraded his faith deserved to be punished.

Image of the Day

Via the Independent Institute

New Scumbag Public Servant of the Year Nominee:  Riviera Beach FL Police

90-year-old woman found her home wrecked by the police given a drug-related search warrant, that of course came up empty. Here is the official response:

Riviera Beach Police said the search warrant was executed at the correct address and while the resident may not have had any knowledge of drugs being sold from her home, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Expletive deleted. Some people will never admit that they screwed up.

What? The Gray Lady Admits Phony Talking Point: the Rich Get Richer 

Now, granted, for most midde/lower-income households struggling since the Great Recession, hearing that the highest income earners dropped by half from about $40M to $20M before recovering to about $30M is likely to get a 'cry me a river' response. But the point is they still are 25% below where they were, which is more  than the decline of lower-income (see plot below). And federal support programs like unemployment compensation, food stamps, etc., have buffered the lower-income workers to a greater extent (which, even if they were eligible, would have a negligible impact on higher-income compensation). And whereas the stock market has risen robustly since 2009, some companies have done better than others; consider even on a nominal level, the Nasdaq is still far below its 2000 peak.

Make no mistake: the columnist is far more "liberal/progressive" than I am; he finds redeeming value in the social welfare net, with which I disagree. But people who held stock market assets took severe losses, at least on paper, during the last two bubble crashes. People who cherrypick during the markets' 2009 low to the present forget the huge drop since October 2007. Many income stocks froze, reduced or dropped their dividends during that period. No doubt some people have improved their lot since 2007, but the idea that only the middle/lower got hurt and the wealthy made out like bandits during and after the crisis has neen debunked.

The Rich Have Gotten Poorer Since 2007

Since the financial crisis and recession began, the incomes of the highest-earning households have fallen even more than the income of others.

Change in average pretax income of different percentiles, since 2007

%

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

Bottom 90

Top 10

Top 1

Top 0.01

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Income includes capital gains and is adjusted for inflation.

Source: Analysis of Emmanuel Saez data

                                        Courtesy of The New York Times

More on the IRS Structuring Scam

Over the last week or two, I've focused this issue over unknowing depositors who deposit amounts just under $10K, which is reportable to the government; the IRS is seizing bank accounts of those who make deposits that they believe is working around the reporting rule. This is basically looking at a rule for the sake of a rule; the intent of the rule is to flag things like money laundering operations. In a number of cases, like the one cited below, the IRS knows the depositors are running legitimate businesses, but they are seizing the assets anyway. The law all but puts the burden of proof on the property owner.



Facebook Corner

(Reason). Hate speech laws legitimize violence against those who offend.
I think the primary issue here is the rank hypocrisy of hate speech laws in an allegedly liberal republic. It's not only the conceptual issue of drawing a line in what constitutes free speech, but the arbitrary, divisive nature of enforcement and the violations of the rule of law: why, for instance, is a "homophobic'" tweet more offensive than a cartoonist's provocative caricature of someone's faith? I have no doubt in the minds of many devout, peaceful Muslims, Denmark was discriminatory in its handling of hate speech.
If we give up free speech, we give up our best nonviolent defense to having all our other rights taken away.
If and when left-wing authoritarians manage to compromise your liberty, why are your other unalienable rights not also at risk?
Free speech means nothing without the right to offend people
Bullshit! Tolerance does not mean acceptance. The bigger issue is whether the State should prohibit free expression, even of intolerant perspectives.

(Reason). Are reformicons the future of conservatism?
Well, you don't even have to look far for other relevant "reformist" examples--take the ubiquitous "repeal and replace" ObamaCare talking point. Part of the problem is exactly the sort of populist nonsense that prevented branch banking for most of American history. States impose barriers to entry, e.g., mandated policies (guaranteed issue and community rating) and special-interest benefits. Instead of being faithful to the free market ideals of interstate commerce as per the Constitution, we have seen things like prohibiting distribution of products across state lines (e.g., Carolene Products). We should see from Congressional conservatives more emphasis on devolving funding and regulatory authority to the states, privatization, etc.

I won't even read the other comments in this thread, because so help me if I read one more trite assertion that there's no difference between the parties, I'll puke--I challenge any one of those fools to find a fiscal hawk in any federal Democrat or any supporting a balanced budget amendment, etc., the likes of a Rand Paul or Justin Amash. Cutting spending is easier said than done; look at how Paul Ryan, who has proposed modest reforms on entitlements, was portrayed, pushing Granny over the cliff. It can be politically suicidal to take on popular, but unsustainable government programs.

Finally, I think the author is confusing conservatism with right-wing populism. For example, many right-wingers consider themselves vested in social security/Medicare over decades of payroll taxes.

(IPI). The current health-benefits package provided to state workers contains much richer benefits than the average Illinoisan might receive, while state-government employees pay a much lower price.
State workers are underpaid study
Wow, a real "surprise": the ruling class finds some crackpot "study" to argue they are "undercompensated". I don't even need to look at the "study" because they are typically garbage--to give an example, trying to compare apples and oranges. For example, public sector teacher unions never target private sector teachers (who actually make less) but some "and some magic happens" comparison of degreed professionals in the private sector. Other studies focus on only part of compensation--say, salary--vs. fungible benefits, which are much higher. 

There is actually a very simple test as to judging empirically whether state jobs are "undercompensated"--like do public jobs go unfilled or have waiting lists? The last time I checked, the corrections department wasn't even accepting new applications for trainee positions--and I don't consider these positions "dream jobs". We might start believing the crackpots when state/local workers give up their retirement benefits to join the rest of us struggling in the real economy.

(IPI). Cut government spending and the sky is falling. Take $31 billion from Illinois taxpayers and it’s just another day at the Statehouse.
Its ok to cut the spending. Just remeber its going to have an impact somewhere. Plowing, street repair, emergency services. Somewhere......
Of course, the fascists will always argue that budget cuts will come out of essential services--remember, the Occupier-in-Chief screamed like a squealed pig over the same sequester agreement he signed onto--and the feds did everything they could under his "leadership" to make unpopular cuts get on the news with nonsense like closing down national parks, suspending DC tours, etc. If you honestly believe out of nearly a $4T budget that the bulk spending comes out of the national parks, you are hopelessly gullible and retarded. The pension crisis, not to mention unsustainable state debt, has more to do with future cuts for essential services. Of course, there are a lot of parasites who will squeal at any budget cut, but I'm not worried about self-serving bureaucrats.

(IPI). Governor Bruce Rauner's proposed budget relies on no tax increases or borrowing.
Yeah. He plans on stealing it from hard working people. Keep it classy republicans!
What a fascist parasite! As if stealing from other people's pockets to pay for your own corrupt state government is any more worthy...

(The Hill). "They knew where Bin Laden was. I don’t think they really wanted to catch him because he was used as the excuse for us, you know, invading various countries and building up the military." - Ron Paul. 
As much as I admire Ron Paul from a policy standard, this is a crackpot conspiracy theory. Do you honestly believe George Bush wanted to let Barack Obama get the political credit for getting UBL? In fact, Ron Paul is being inconsistent here given his blowback thesis: did the US really want to make a "martyr" of UBL? Reprisal attacks could then be used to justify further interventions. So UBL is a useful idiot dead or alive for the interventionists. Notice that getting UBL didn't stop Obama from meddling in Libya, Syria, and going back to Iraq, even cynically trying to use two obsolete authorizations for force that he himself claims that he wouldn't have supported, to do that.
Don't use the buzz word crackpot like the media used to please. Your argument is so weak. Maybe they had to pretend they caught him because US citizens were getting restless and were starting to give up on this BS war on terrorism. They needed a victory to get the people behind them. I think your mistake is assuming that the parties are different. The parties the same.
I figured that the crackpot Ron Paulists wouldn't like what I had to comment. "Weak" argument? The parties are the "same"? Talk about state of denial. Let's point out that the Dems controlled the full Congress 2007-2010 and had run against the wars. Obama not only did not improve on Bush's negotiated exit from Iraq but failed to negotiate an extention; he doubled down on Afghanistan, more than doubling American casualties in less time than Bush's 8 years. Obama ran for reelection on "getting us out of Iraq" and for killing UBL--which for most Dems was the embodiment of terrorism.

As for your weak argument that the natives were getting "restless", they had been restless since the 2006 election. Avenging the 9/11 attack on the homeland had broad, bipartisan appeal, with or without nation-building; this includes non-interventionists like me. But Ron Paul has overused the blowback nonsense one too many times, most recently in discussing the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Still More Wedding Proposals









Political Cartoon

Courtesy of the artist via Carpe Diem

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

James Taylor, "Shower the People"