According to the Democrats, America wants Obamacare. They know this because Barack Obama was re-elected. They have a point. At least 50% of us must want Obamacare, or we would have voted for a presidential candidate that would repeal it.
All that being said, we are apparently willing to turn over control of this important part of our lives to the federal government. If it's going to happen, then we might as well do it right. So everyone should turn over every bit of information about themselves to the federal government. Since they are providing health care, at least in part, for the poor and lower middle classes, the government is going to want to tell you how to live your life. They won't want you taking risks.
Do you like rock climbing or sky diving or base jumping? That might be frowned upon by your health care provider. What about auto racing? Do you ever drive above the speed limit? Maybe the government should install a GPS and speed tracker that will let them know if you drive too fast. Do you drink too much alcohol? Are you a smoker? Do you eat too much beef? Are hot wings one of your favorite foods? Have you bought your monthly quota of cookies already at the grocery store? I hope you don't like fast food. Are you a gun owner? Watch out, they may be coming for your guns.
Is your family using too much electricity, natural gas, or gasoline? Do you meet the green standards for each American? Don't worry, there's a bureaucrat that will tell you how much you can use. They could automatically control your thermostat remotely. The technology certainly exists. They know what temperature is right for you. How would you like having the thermostat set to 67 degrees in winter. Maybe 77 degrees is cool enough in summer. People didn't even have air conditioning that much in the 1940's and 1950's. If they could live without it back then, we can survive without it today. Maybe you should hang the clothes on a line to dry; you don't need that dryer.
You know, today the retailers can get information about your purchasing habits from credit card activity and rewards programs. Maybe the government needs to issue each of us a social security card with a magnetic strip on the back. It could be used to monitor all of your purchases if retailers are required to scan it every time you buy something. The EPA and Health and Human Services will be able to figure out if you owe a penalty for violating the government imposed standards. If your home is bigger than average, maybe you could take in a homeless person or family. I'm sure you can afford to feed them and clothe them too.
Does this all sound crazy? Yes, it does. It's not something that will happen overnight. It's something that will come about one step at a time. Once you figure out that America isn't a free country anymore, it will be too late. Vote for freedom. Vote for candidates that will support the constitution, not the MessAPolitico.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
The Obamacare Roll Out - a Lesson in Incompetence
It has been reported that our government spent $500M on the enrollment website programming. It also has been reported that the programming was done by a Canadian company. I guess they couldn't find an American company that could screw it up this bad. Of course, I can't say whether the problems were caused by the contractors or the project management team in Health and Human Services. In any case, this software roll out has come after a multi-year development effort. I wonder what the original budget was. Was the original quotation for $500M, or did mismanagement create opportunities for the contractor to increase the billings? Was there scope creep? Did the original request for quote provide a clear definition of the desired operation of the software? Have the bureaucrats added a bunch of features at the last minute?
When private companies roll out a website, do they have problems like this? Rarely. Do they generally spend $500M for their website design and information systems? I doubt it. Does this Obamacare website have any earth shaking innovations that held things up? Not likely -- at least, unless you consider making the website virtually impossible to figure out, redundant, slow, and riddled with problems an innovative strategy.
Contrast this MessAPolitico with a private sector website introduction. The private sector would generally be finished on-time, fully tested for security and ease of use. The private company would want to make their website as easy to use and customer friendly as possible. After all, they are competing with other companies, and a user friendly website might entice some customers away from the competition. If the private company already had your name, address, and financial information, they would likely share the data between divisions and allow you to streamline the process of buying their products.
Everyone knows that the government has all of our data in multiple databases. Of course, the IRS has our name, address, income, etc. stored under your social security number. They see your tax payments sent in by your employer or by you quarterly. If you already receive welfare, food stamps/SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, VA benefits, etc., why can't the data be transferred across? Better yet, why can't all government entities share one database that contains all of the information they need when you sign up for any program?
The simple answer is that bureaucracies just don't work that way. Why should they? They have no interest in efficiency, because profits aren't necessary. They are spending tax dollars, not their own investment. The boss doesn't see you spending his money on some wasted efforts. Duplication of effort means more jobs. Making a project long and complex means job security. Why fix a problem when that might eliminate the need for a department and jobs.
Look at the war on poverty that was started with LBJ in the early 1960's. That war has been fought for about 50 years, and today there are more people living in poverty than ever. When did the war on drugs begin, and has it been won? If the military had as much trouble winning wars as these government agencies, we would still be fighting the revolutionary war.
So, this inept government of ours is running our health care now. How great is that? Health care is so important to all of us. Eventually, all of us will need it. The government is taking the incentive to excel away from our health care providers. The cost of medical training is higher than ever, yet providers are being squeezed financially with stifling regulations when the graduate and enter the workforce. Medical device innovators are being punished with higher taxes that will eventually run them out of the country. We can look forward to having lawyers decide for us and our doctors about what health care is right for us.
I think this health care MessAPolitico was intended to bring health care to some tens of millions of people that had no insurance. I'm not really sure anymore, but it seems that I was told everyone has the "right" to health care. There was a lot of debate about how many Americans were uninsured and whether they were truly Americans or illegal aliens. However, I keep hearing reports that we haven't managed to insure all of these folks AND a bunch of other Americans have now lost their health care as a result of the PPACA. Some employers have cut back employees hours because they don't want to pay the rising costs for everyone. Others are electing to pay the tax/fine and drop employee coverage. Small companies are avoiding the high costs by not hiring.
There is an important lesson here. Never look to the government for improvements in efficiency or effectiveness. Don't look to the government to solve problems. The only thing we should ever ask of government is to get out of the way.
When private companies roll out a website, do they have problems like this? Rarely. Do they generally spend $500M for their website design and information systems? I doubt it. Does this Obamacare website have any earth shaking innovations that held things up? Not likely -- at least, unless you consider making the website virtually impossible to figure out, redundant, slow, and riddled with problems an innovative strategy.
Contrast this MessAPolitico with a private sector website introduction. The private sector would generally be finished on-time, fully tested for security and ease of use. The private company would want to make their website as easy to use and customer friendly as possible. After all, they are competing with other companies, and a user friendly website might entice some customers away from the competition. If the private company already had your name, address, and financial information, they would likely share the data between divisions and allow you to streamline the process of buying their products.
Everyone knows that the government has all of our data in multiple databases. Of course, the IRS has our name, address, income, etc. stored under your social security number. They see your tax payments sent in by your employer or by you quarterly. If you already receive welfare, food stamps/SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, VA benefits, etc., why can't the data be transferred across? Better yet, why can't all government entities share one database that contains all of the information they need when you sign up for any program?
The simple answer is that bureaucracies just don't work that way. Why should they? They have no interest in efficiency, because profits aren't necessary. They are spending tax dollars, not their own investment. The boss doesn't see you spending his money on some wasted efforts. Duplication of effort means more jobs. Making a project long and complex means job security. Why fix a problem when that might eliminate the need for a department and jobs.
Look at the war on poverty that was started with LBJ in the early 1960's. That war has been fought for about 50 years, and today there are more people living in poverty than ever. When did the war on drugs begin, and has it been won? If the military had as much trouble winning wars as these government agencies, we would still be fighting the revolutionary war.
So, this inept government of ours is running our health care now. How great is that? Health care is so important to all of us. Eventually, all of us will need it. The government is taking the incentive to excel away from our health care providers. The cost of medical training is higher than ever, yet providers are being squeezed financially with stifling regulations when the graduate and enter the workforce. Medical device innovators are being punished with higher taxes that will eventually run them out of the country. We can look forward to having lawyers decide for us and our doctors about what health care is right for us.
I think this health care MessAPolitico was intended to bring health care to some tens of millions of people that had no insurance. I'm not really sure anymore, but it seems that I was told everyone has the "right" to health care. There was a lot of debate about how many Americans were uninsured and whether they were truly Americans or illegal aliens. However, I keep hearing reports that we haven't managed to insure all of these folks AND a bunch of other Americans have now lost their health care as a result of the PPACA. Some employers have cut back employees hours because they don't want to pay the rising costs for everyone. Others are electing to pay the tax/fine and drop employee coverage. Small companies are avoiding the high costs by not hiring.
There is an important lesson here. Never look to the government for improvements in efficiency or effectiveness. Don't look to the government to solve problems. The only thing we should ever ask of government is to get out of the way.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Was the Shutdown Planned?
Was the whole the shutdown planned and orchestrated to come down the way it did? I think it was. I don't think the Republicans wanted to "win." I believe they planned to make a show of trying to stop Obamacare, but then giving in to the Democrats after waiting just long enough to give us all hope. The Republicans were seemingly negotiating with themselves when they offered up alternative after alternative. This was all done while the Democrats sat back and repeated their mantra of "we won't negotiate about this."
After waiting for a couple of weeks, the Republican leadership just woke up one day and said they had lost the battle. Is that true? No. They just gave up. Do the Republicans really believe that a government shutdown would eventually result in a government default?
I believe that the default is more likely to come from not fixing the spending problem we have in America. If you ran your household like the federal government, how long would it last. Our federal government has been spending about 40% more than it takes in ever since Obama took office. Imagine if your annual household income was $60k, but you were spending $85k. After 5 years, you would have $125k in credit card debt. Think of all the interest you would pay every month on the credit cards. That would be an expense that would grow every month, because if you don't reduce any of your other spending, you would need to borrow more every year as the interest cost rises.
If your home is like the federal government, you would go to your boss and demand a raise. After all, he's a rich guy that makes more money than you; he can afford to pay you more. You can't reduce your spending. Why should you have to drive a Chevrolet? It's not fair that a rich guy can have a Lexus, and you can't. Just go out and get the Lexus and demand a raise.
What happens to your interest payments if the interest rates start to rise? That could happen because no one wants to give you a credit card when you have $125k in credit card debt. You're not a very good credit risk when you owe more than your annual income. This is especially true when your credit history doesn't show that you are responsible with credit.
Of course, there is the economic reality that interest rates today are as low as they will ever be. In fact, the Federal Reserve has taken many steps to try and "jump start" the economy, and the slow economy is the reason interest rates are so low. What happens if the economy ever takes off? There will be excessive inflation unless the Federal Reserve takes steps to limit economic growth. One of the primary levers they have for reining in the economy and inflation is to raise the interest rates. Are you old enough to remember the 1980's? Interest rates for home loans were well into the teens. My first home loan had an adjustable rate of around 14%, and I bought it after the peak had passed. I was on my third home in 1988 before I had a fixed rate mortgage and one with an interest rate below 10%.
Right now, we are in the tenuous position of wanting the economy to take off, but fearing the inflation that will result. Imagine what happens to the interest payments on the national debt if interest rates were to triple. At least the tax revenues would rise if the economy took off. The question is whether revenues would rise more quickly than costs. Historically, the government has grown spending faster than revenues, growing the MessAPolitico.
Additionally, we will pay higher interest rates on government debt instruments if the markets downgrade our bond rating. Is that going to happen because Congress is trying to get the government spending under control? No. It is more likely to happen because Congress keeps kicking the can down the road and does absolutely nothing to control spending.
America, it is time to wake up to the MessAPolitico that is before us. Vote for freedom. Vote for fiscal responsibility. Vote for reducing government regulations that stifle our economic growth. Vote to kick the establishment out of power in the federal government.
After waiting for a couple of weeks, the Republican leadership just woke up one day and said they had lost the battle. Is that true? No. They just gave up. Do the Republicans really believe that a government shutdown would eventually result in a government default?
I believe that the default is more likely to come from not fixing the spending problem we have in America. If you ran your household like the federal government, how long would it last. Our federal government has been spending about 40% more than it takes in ever since Obama took office. Imagine if your annual household income was $60k, but you were spending $85k. After 5 years, you would have $125k in credit card debt. Think of all the interest you would pay every month on the credit cards. That would be an expense that would grow every month, because if you don't reduce any of your other spending, you would need to borrow more every year as the interest cost rises.
If your home is like the federal government, you would go to your boss and demand a raise. After all, he's a rich guy that makes more money than you; he can afford to pay you more. You can't reduce your spending. Why should you have to drive a Chevrolet? It's not fair that a rich guy can have a Lexus, and you can't. Just go out and get the Lexus and demand a raise.
What happens to your interest payments if the interest rates start to rise? That could happen because no one wants to give you a credit card when you have $125k in credit card debt. You're not a very good credit risk when you owe more than your annual income. This is especially true when your credit history doesn't show that you are responsible with credit.
Of course, there is the economic reality that interest rates today are as low as they will ever be. In fact, the Federal Reserve has taken many steps to try and "jump start" the economy, and the slow economy is the reason interest rates are so low. What happens if the economy ever takes off? There will be excessive inflation unless the Federal Reserve takes steps to limit economic growth. One of the primary levers they have for reining in the economy and inflation is to raise the interest rates. Are you old enough to remember the 1980's? Interest rates for home loans were well into the teens. My first home loan had an adjustable rate of around 14%, and I bought it after the peak had passed. I was on my third home in 1988 before I had a fixed rate mortgage and one with an interest rate below 10%.
Right now, we are in the tenuous position of wanting the economy to take off, but fearing the inflation that will result. Imagine what happens to the interest payments on the national debt if interest rates were to triple. At least the tax revenues would rise if the economy took off. The question is whether revenues would rise more quickly than costs. Historically, the government has grown spending faster than revenues, growing the MessAPolitico.
Additionally, we will pay higher interest rates on government debt instruments if the markets downgrade our bond rating. Is that going to happen because Congress is trying to get the government spending under control? No. It is more likely to happen because Congress keeps kicking the can down the road and does absolutely nothing to control spending.
America, it is time to wake up to the MessAPolitico that is before us. Vote for freedom. Vote for fiscal responsibility. Vote for reducing government regulations that stifle our economic growth. Vote to kick the establishment out of power in the federal government.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Republicans Headed for Irrelevance
I am sorry to say that this headline is coming true before our eyes. Their are some Tea Party Republicans that are certainly relevant, but the establishment Republicans that are running the party are not. These Republicans get re-elected over and over, just like the establishment Democrats. The voters see them as the lesser of two evils. More and more, I see them as nothing but the same evil in a different package. This package says "I'm conservative," but it votes and acts like a liberal. They are too afraid to shake things up much, and they cower around the halls of Washington in fear of the media and their buddies in the Democrat party.
I have always seen a conservative or libertarian third party as nothing but a help to the Democrats in getting elected. Now, I can see that voting third party against an establishment "RINO" as a necessary evil. If there isn't a strong enough Tea Party challenger in the Republican primary, then why even show up to vote in the general election? Does it really matter whether you vote Democrat or "RINO?" I'm afraid not. When I see discussion boards where liberals are singing the praises of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, how can I see that as a reason to vote for their kind in the next election? I'm casting my votes in hopes of electing someone that will represent my point of view and ideology in Washington, not that of the liberals.
Unfortunately, I believe this recent government "shutdown" was an orchestrated show by the Republicans. They knew they could hold out a couple of weeks and then let the big liberal machine run over them. Their goal isn't to stop Obamacare. They very simply want to say they want it stopped. Hopefully, implementation of Obamacare will be traumatic for the people, and a good recession to end Obama's second term would be very helpful to the Republican election cause. With a result like that, the Republicans would expect to take back both the White House and the Senate!
This is a sorry state of MessAPolitico that we are in today. We the people have created it. We are the ones that re-elected these folks over and over until they believe now that we want the MessAPolitico. I don't want my Congressional leaders doing what is best for them. I want them to do what is best for our country and tell the truth about all situations we are facing. That's what it will take to restore my faith in our American government.
I have always seen a conservative or libertarian third party as nothing but a help to the Democrats in getting elected. Now, I can see that voting third party against an establishment "RINO" as a necessary evil. If there isn't a strong enough Tea Party challenger in the Republican primary, then why even show up to vote in the general election? Does it really matter whether you vote Democrat or "RINO?" I'm afraid not. When I see discussion boards where liberals are singing the praises of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, how can I see that as a reason to vote for their kind in the next election? I'm casting my votes in hopes of electing someone that will represent my point of view and ideology in Washington, not that of the liberals.
Unfortunately, I believe this recent government "shutdown" was an orchestrated show by the Republicans. They knew they could hold out a couple of weeks and then let the big liberal machine run over them. Their goal isn't to stop Obamacare. They very simply want to say they want it stopped. Hopefully, implementation of Obamacare will be traumatic for the people, and a good recession to end Obama's second term would be very helpful to the Republican election cause. With a result like that, the Republicans would expect to take back both the White House and the Senate!
This is a sorry state of MessAPolitico that we are in today. We the people have created it. We are the ones that re-elected these folks over and over until they believe now that we want the MessAPolitico. I don't want my Congressional leaders doing what is best for them. I want them to do what is best for our country and tell the truth about all situations we are facing. That's what it will take to restore my faith in our American government.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Why Does Everyone Operate on the Extremes?
From time to time, I participate on discussion boards online. I've noticed that the responses of disagreement to folks can be pretty nasty. The conservatives tend to call the liberals socialists or communists. Several days ago, I made a simple comment that I had written my Senator after he voted to fund Obamacare, and I had told this Senator that I would vote against him in the primary. I had written and warned all of my representatives in the House and Senate that anyone voting to fund the PPACA would never get my vote again.
A couple of people responded to my comment and suggested that I was a fascist and that I should move to Mexico. Now a fascist is a person, more specifically a leader, that is so far to the right that they are almost back to the extreme far left position. Facism is marked by a totalitarian government that forces it's right-wing ideology on the people. My point of view is not that I want to force anything on anyone. Quite to the contrary, I see Obamacare and other left-wing rules and policies being forced upon me.
Those of us in America that want our health care and our freedoms left alone are not practicing fascism. In fact, it is the will of the liberal elitists in this country to force their brand of socialized health care down our throats. Most Americans would be far more receptive to an expansion of Medicaid that provides better options for the poor. However, we don't want the politicians to force us to change our medical insurance in the process. Let's face a couple of facts with Obamacare. Firstly, my health insurance premiums will go up by about 82% in 2014. My insurer has told me so. Secondly, providing me and my family with health care under this insurance plan will not cost the insurance company any more next year. However, that extra $550/month will be used to pay for the health care of others, not in my family and not covered under my individual plan.
I'm certainly not against charity. I give money at church every month. However, I don't like being told by the government that I have to give what they say I will give to whom they say I will give it. There are too many people that put forth no effort at finding employment. I saw a YouTube video several days ago showing an unmarried woman with 15 children and a boyfriend that was in jail. She wanted to know who was going to pay for her children. She obviously thought they were someone else's financial responsibility. Although I feel sorry for the kids, I just don't understand how she deserves any sympathy or tax dollars.
This is the MessAPolitico we are in, and I don't really see the people electing politicians that have the stomach to fix it. We need drastic actions in Washington to turn this thing around. The wimpy little actions like the sequester, just won't get it done. We may be past the tipping point politically. Not economically yet, but the politics are such that we won't even slow down the progression toward the tipping point. This is a grim statement, but unfortunately, I think it is a realistic one.
A couple of people responded to my comment and suggested that I was a fascist and that I should move to Mexico. Now a fascist is a person, more specifically a leader, that is so far to the right that they are almost back to the extreme far left position. Facism is marked by a totalitarian government that forces it's right-wing ideology on the people. My point of view is not that I want to force anything on anyone. Quite to the contrary, I see Obamacare and other left-wing rules and policies being forced upon me.
Those of us in America that want our health care and our freedoms left alone are not practicing fascism. In fact, it is the will of the liberal elitists in this country to force their brand of socialized health care down our throats. Most Americans would be far more receptive to an expansion of Medicaid that provides better options for the poor. However, we don't want the politicians to force us to change our medical insurance in the process. Let's face a couple of facts with Obamacare. Firstly, my health insurance premiums will go up by about 82% in 2014. My insurer has told me so. Secondly, providing me and my family with health care under this insurance plan will not cost the insurance company any more next year. However, that extra $550/month will be used to pay for the health care of others, not in my family and not covered under my individual plan.
I'm certainly not against charity. I give money at church every month. However, I don't like being told by the government that I have to give what they say I will give to whom they say I will give it. There are too many people that put forth no effort at finding employment. I saw a YouTube video several days ago showing an unmarried woman with 15 children and a boyfriend that was in jail. She wanted to know who was going to pay for her children. She obviously thought they were someone else's financial responsibility. Although I feel sorry for the kids, I just don't understand how she deserves any sympathy or tax dollars.
This is the MessAPolitico we are in, and I don't really see the people electing politicians that have the stomach to fix it. We need drastic actions in Washington to turn this thing around. The wimpy little actions like the sequester, just won't get it done. We may be past the tipping point politically. Not economically yet, but the politics are such that we won't even slow down the progression toward the tipping point. This is a grim statement, but unfortunately, I think it is a realistic one.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Is Birth Control Hurting Our Economy?
I've never seen or heard anything that broaches this aspect of this subject. There are many liberals, especially tree-huggers, that say that the expansion of the human race is going to destroy the Earth. They believe that the planet can't sustain the increasing population. If you don't use birth control, you will kill Mother Earth.
Certainly, you could look to the expansion of the population on our planet as causing changes in the ecosystem. More people or animals means more oxygen is inhaled and more carbon dioxide is exhaled. More people require more food and homes and roads and stores and factories. That means forests are cleared away for farmland and for homes and other structures where the people will live, work, and shop. Fewer trees are then available for converting the carbon dioxide we exhale back to oxygen. More people means we burn more fossil fuels as well, and that also produces carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and more. There is argument about whether the greenhouse effect is real, but I don't think there is any argument about the presence of air pollution in population centers worldwide.
So, does birth control really solve these problems? In reality, I don't believe it has much effect at all when it comes to saving the planet. In fact, the world population continues to grow in spite of the world having access to very good methods of birth control these days.
Birth control does have a negative effect on the economies of the western world though. If you have ever read the book The Bell Curve written by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The authors present and interpret data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth. They use this data to prove that many aspects of life outcomes are a function of a person's IQ. This includes work success, need for welfare and public assistance, salaries, number of children, propensity to commit crimes and be incarcerated, and bearing children outside of marriage. The book also presents the conclusion that IQ is largely inherited.
Since low IQ parents produce more children than high IQ parents and the IQ of the offspring is similar to that of the parents, the average IQ of the world's population tends to drop over time. More low IQ children are born every year than high IQ children. Birth control simply exacerbates this effect or maybe allows the high IQ parents to make this happen. The high IQ parents would possibly want to limit the time they spend rearing children to devote more time to their careers.
The end result for the western governments like ours here in America is difficult. More low IQ children create an expanding sector of the population that is dependent on government assistance. These folks are habitually unemployed or underemployed. They are a great drain on the government budgets. These folks also don't contribute by paying taxes. They aren't creating wealth or value for our economy.
People that earn less have less to spend. We have population growth in the United States, but the economy doesn't grow proportionally. The population grows, but the employment numbers don't. The lower IQ workers in the economy don't earn as much when they work either.
We have fewer workers paying premiums for Social Security today. We have been told repeatedly that we have a problem with Social Security. The cause is the mass retirement of the baby boomers and their increasing life expectancy. If we were producing another baby boom from the high IQ parents, there would be a new round of workers paying into the Social Security system.
Maybe the answer to fix this MessAPolitico is to get the upper socioeconomic classes to produce more children. Instead of having only one or two children, it would be great for this segment of the population to have three children. If my wife and I had it to do over, I believe we would have had another child. We could have afforded another one. Our children have both graduated from college and are productive members of society. Please consider this sociological theory when you are planning your family. The answer isn't to make the affluent among us pay a higher tax rate. It is better to have more affluent people paying taxes.
Certainly, you could look to the expansion of the population on our planet as causing changes in the ecosystem. More people or animals means more oxygen is inhaled and more carbon dioxide is exhaled. More people require more food and homes and roads and stores and factories. That means forests are cleared away for farmland and for homes and other structures where the people will live, work, and shop. Fewer trees are then available for converting the carbon dioxide we exhale back to oxygen. More people means we burn more fossil fuels as well, and that also produces carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and more. There is argument about whether the greenhouse effect is real, but I don't think there is any argument about the presence of air pollution in population centers worldwide.
So, does birth control really solve these problems? In reality, I don't believe it has much effect at all when it comes to saving the planet. In fact, the world population continues to grow in spite of the world having access to very good methods of birth control these days.
Birth control does have a negative effect on the economies of the western world though. If you have ever read the book The Bell Curve written by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The authors present and interpret data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth. They use this data to prove that many aspects of life outcomes are a function of a person's IQ. This includes work success, need for welfare and public assistance, salaries, number of children, propensity to commit crimes and be incarcerated, and bearing children outside of marriage. The book also presents the conclusion that IQ is largely inherited.
Since low IQ parents produce more children than high IQ parents and the IQ of the offspring is similar to that of the parents, the average IQ of the world's population tends to drop over time. More low IQ children are born every year than high IQ children. Birth control simply exacerbates this effect or maybe allows the high IQ parents to make this happen. The high IQ parents would possibly want to limit the time they spend rearing children to devote more time to their careers.
The end result for the western governments like ours here in America is difficult. More low IQ children create an expanding sector of the population that is dependent on government assistance. These folks are habitually unemployed or underemployed. They are a great drain on the government budgets. These folks also don't contribute by paying taxes. They aren't creating wealth or value for our economy.
People that earn less have less to spend. We have population growth in the United States, but the economy doesn't grow proportionally. The population grows, but the employment numbers don't. The lower IQ workers in the economy don't earn as much when they work either.
We have fewer workers paying premiums for Social Security today. We have been told repeatedly that we have a problem with Social Security. The cause is the mass retirement of the baby boomers and their increasing life expectancy. If we were producing another baby boom from the high IQ parents, there would be a new round of workers paying into the Social Security system.
Maybe the answer to fix this MessAPolitico is to get the upper socioeconomic classes to produce more children. Instead of having only one or two children, it would be great for this segment of the population to have three children. If my wife and I had it to do over, I believe we would have had another child. We could have afforded another one. Our children have both graduated from college and are productive members of society. Please consider this sociological theory when you are planning your family. The answer isn't to make the affluent among us pay a higher tax rate. It is better to have more affluent people paying taxes.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
A Fix for Social Security
Social Security was originally sold to the American people as a government run insurance policy. I remember when the deduction on my pay stub was called FICA, which was an acronym for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. The program was intended to help out the poor and middle classes to allow them to retire with some income. The premium was and is a percentage of your salary, but only the amount of your salary up to a cap. Rich people that make high salaries or receive their income from dividends, interest, or capital gains don't need this program, so only the first salary dollars you earn up to the cap are used to figure your premium due. For 2013, the cap is $113,700 of salary or self-employment income.
I have purposely called the Social Security tax a premium, but I realize that any mandatory payment like this that is a percentage of your income is certainly an income tax. However, I'm not willing to let the government off the hook since they want to call it an insurance policy for your and my retirement. If this is going to really be an insurance policy, then why not make it act like one.
Insurance companies are "for profit" enterprises. If an insurance policy holder is doing an activity that increases the risk and causes the insurance company to lose money, what will they do? That's right; they will increase the premiums for new policies or renewals. Why can't Social Security do the same thing?
I don't remember ever signing a policy when I started working that guaranteed me a certain benefit or explained how much my premiums would be throughout my career. It seems that the Social Security system could change the rules any time. We have all signed on to this insurance policy with our first job at 16 years of age or whenever you first worked. Were we given any rules? No. Was this policy optional? No. Did we have any choice in the type of policy we purchased? None whatsoever. I guess there was some sort of implied contract that our Congress has written into an unsustainable MessAPolitico.
I think Congress should raise the premium to the real cost of providing Social Security as the current law was written. We should all have the option of accepting a reduced benefit that is the value you would buy with the current premium amounts. In other words, we would have two choices:
I have purposely called the Social Security tax a premium, but I realize that any mandatory payment like this that is a percentage of your income is certainly an income tax. However, I'm not willing to let the government off the hook since they want to call it an insurance policy for your and my retirement. If this is going to really be an insurance policy, then why not make it act like one.
Insurance companies are "for profit" enterprises. If an insurance policy holder is doing an activity that increases the risk and causes the insurance company to lose money, what will they do? That's right; they will increase the premiums for new policies or renewals. Why can't Social Security do the same thing?
I don't remember ever signing a policy when I started working that guaranteed me a certain benefit or explained how much my premiums would be throughout my career. It seems that the Social Security system could change the rules any time. We have all signed on to this insurance policy with our first job at 16 years of age or whenever you first worked. Were we given any rules? No. Was this policy optional? No. Did we have any choice in the type of policy we purchased? None whatsoever. I guess there was some sort of implied contract that our Congress has written into an unsustainable MessAPolitico.
I think Congress should raise the premium to the real cost of providing Social Security as the current law was written. We should all have the option of accepting a reduced benefit that is the value you would buy with the current premium amounts. In other words, we would have two choices:
- Keep you Social Security premium the same percentage it is today, but with lower benefits upon retirement.
- Keep your benefits the same as they are under the current rules, but pay a higher premium that covers the cost of these expensive benefits.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Will They Hold Out?
Why would the Republicans back down now? Any damage done to their reputations at this point is already done. The support of people who believe that Republicans should stay the course would also be lost if they give in before achieving their goal.
I have written before that I think many of the Republicans are afraid to stop Obamacare. This is a similarity to Democrats. Democrats prefer to show compassion for the downtrodden, poor, or other needy souls of the world. They don't want to fix the problems, and saying that they care seems to be enough. Now the Republicans prefer to say that they can't kill Obamacare because they only control the House. They believe that Obamacare will be bad for America and will kill jobs and the economy. The Republicans can use these failures when they are running for election or re-election.
This is exactly the kind of thing that creates such hatred aimed at politicians. These career politicians don't give a damn about America -- at least, not unless giving a damn helps them politically. Too many Americans just don't seem to get it. They buy all of the bull that politicians spew. Politicians believe that enough Americans are gullible and stupid and will believe all of the spin. Apparently they are correct. The key to proliferating the MessAPolitico is to simply get enough of the lower half of the IQ scale to put forth the effort to go to the polls. Before Barack Obama ran for the presidency, people that didn't have a command of the issues didn't bother voting.
The big question for the future of America is whether this trend will continue after Barack Obama has completed his last term as President. Will the future candidates motivate the huddled masses to continue voting, or will these voters just return to their caves? Another big question is how long it will take for the MessAPolitico to destroy the greatest country on Earth.
I have written before that I think many of the Republicans are afraid to stop Obamacare. This is a similarity to Democrats. Democrats prefer to show compassion for the downtrodden, poor, or other needy souls of the world. They don't want to fix the problems, and saying that they care seems to be enough. Now the Republicans prefer to say that they can't kill Obamacare because they only control the House. They believe that Obamacare will be bad for America and will kill jobs and the economy. The Republicans can use these failures when they are running for election or re-election.
This is exactly the kind of thing that creates such hatred aimed at politicians. These career politicians don't give a damn about America -- at least, not unless giving a damn helps them politically. Too many Americans just don't seem to get it. They buy all of the bull that politicians spew. Politicians believe that enough Americans are gullible and stupid and will believe all of the spin. Apparently they are correct. The key to proliferating the MessAPolitico is to simply get enough of the lower half of the IQ scale to put forth the effort to go to the polls. Before Barack Obama ran for the presidency, people that didn't have a command of the issues didn't bother voting.
The big question for the future of America is whether this trend will continue after Barack Obama has completed his last term as President. Will the future candidates motivate the huddled masses to continue voting, or will these voters just return to their caves? Another big question is how long it will take for the MessAPolitico to destroy the greatest country on Earth.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Is Any of It Essential?
The President and the other Democrats in Washington have said that they don't care if the shutdown lasts for months. They've also been quoted as saying that the shutdown is dangerous and will harm the economy. So what is going on here? That's pretty simple. The Democrats are either disingenuous or they don't care about the American economy. They don't care if the economy goes down the tubes, as long as the problem can be blamed on the Republicans. In fact, if the economy was to take a turn for the worst in the near future, my crystal ball says that the Democrats in Washington can use this shutdown to blame the economic problems on the Republicans. The Democrats don't care about you or me or even the Democrat voters. Maybe they prefer us to be unemployed and dependent on them for everything in our lives.
I wonder if the Democrats have miscalculated the results of their actions. You see, most Americans can see through the liberal tactic of trying to intensify the pain of each and every cut in federal spending. The press is busy telling these politicians what they want to hear. The press says the Republicans have shutdown the government. More and more of us have recognized the MessAPolitico that is going on in Washington though. We are fed up with the lies and manipulation. We don't want anymore of this political stalemate inside the Beltway. Our politicians are paid a very healthy salary to represent their constituents on the floor of Congress. The voters are giving all of them poor grades on everything. That's right, all of them get failing grades.
As the shutdown continues, I haven't noticed any consequences personally. Have you? You would think that we would eventually realize that most of the money we spend to fund all the government agencies is a total waste. Not only do we spend $100s of billions on all of these things, but we also get stuck with the unintended consequences of these agencies. This is the essence of the MessAPolitico. I say keep it shutdown for months and months and months. Then, take a look at how bad or good things are. I believe things will be just fine. Then we can tell the liberals that we don't need to fund all that stuff their pushing.
I wonder if the Democrats have miscalculated the results of their actions. You see, most Americans can see through the liberal tactic of trying to intensify the pain of each and every cut in federal spending. The press is busy telling these politicians what they want to hear. The press says the Republicans have shutdown the government. More and more of us have recognized the MessAPolitico that is going on in Washington though. We are fed up with the lies and manipulation. We don't want anymore of this political stalemate inside the Beltway. Our politicians are paid a very healthy salary to represent their constituents on the floor of Congress. The voters are giving all of them poor grades on everything. That's right, all of them get failing grades.
As the shutdown continues, I haven't noticed any consequences personally. Have you? You would think that we would eventually realize that most of the money we spend to fund all the government agencies is a total waste. Not only do we spend $100s of billions on all of these things, but we also get stuck with the unintended consequences of these agencies. This is the essence of the MessAPolitico. I say keep it shutdown for months and months and months. Then, take a look at how bad or good things are. I believe things will be just fine. Then we can tell the liberals that we don't need to fund all that stuff their pushing.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Poor Little Liberals
I've heard a lot of complaining from politicians about how our lives would end when the government shutdown happened on October 1st. That's the same thing they said would happen when the "sequester" kicked in. I don't know about you, but I can't tell the difference. The ones that are telling us how essential every facet of the federal government is to our daily lives, have been trying very hard to make this painful. Still, I'm just not feeling it.
I heard that Michelle Obama had to quit "tweeting" because of the shutdown. Isn't Twitter free? And, by the way, who cares? The national parks and museums were shutdown. Awww. Some folks will have to go somewhere else on vacation. The EPA is almost completely shut down. Why can't we shut that all the way off? Congress won't be getting their toilets cleaned either. Maybe they'll be more full of crap than usual. Is that even possible? Isn't it sad that the elevator attendant will not be there to press the buttons for our members of Congress. I guess they'll have to figure out what floor their offices are on and figure out how the buttons work with no expert assistance. Some of them may not even be qualified to operate an elevator, because they probably passed a regulation requiring operation by trained, union members only.
Doesn't it just gall you to hear these stories? The liberal politicians oppose fixing our horrendous budget and debt problems, so they are looking for ways to make every cut seem as bad as possible. Any little petty difficulty they can create will be done. These folks just love it when the press finds a group of girl scouts that couldn't visit the capitol building, and it can be blamed on those Republicans that think they should get their way.
Up until now, Obama and the Democrats have gotten 100% of everything they have wanted. The Republicans just laid down, and the liberal steam roller flattened them. Now, the Democrats have decided that it is wrong and totally unreasonable for the Republicans to expect to get anything they want. In fact, it's considered uncivilized for them to even try to get anything for the folks that elected them.
Obama won the election, and now we get everything we want. Naa Na Na Na Naa. The American people have spoken, and all of them wanted all of the Obama agenda to completely come to pass. The Democrats always liked to look at popular vote totals when Bush won elections, and it seems to me that Hillary might have said that we need an amendment to eliminate the Electoral College system for presidential elections. So, let's look at the popular vote in the last election. Barely 50% of the American people voted for or agree with Obama. If you look at polls, about 60% of us DO NOT want Obamacare. Those mean old Republicans are simply doing what we elected them to do -- represent us. I just hope they hold out until we get something we want for a change.
The MessAPolitico must be stopped. I'm willing to leave this thing shutdown as long as it takes. At what point do we decide to make some of these shutdowns permanent? 100's of billions of dollars could be eliminated if we shutdown all of the non-essential government programs and departments. Leave it shutdown long enough to make the American people realize how we don't need to spend trillions to keep our lives intact.
It also galls me to hear that most of the furloughed federal employees will get back pay after this thing is eventually resolved. Some of them that live paycheck to paycheck will endure a short time of hardship, but in the end, this will be nothing but extra paid vacation days. The rest of us in the real world wouldn't get paid for time off if we were called back from a layoff. In fact, most of us would never get called back from layoff at all. And a business that is forced to lay people off when the economy turns down, won't try to make things difficult for their customers or whine. They will do everything in their power to maintain service levels and keep the customer happy.
When the economy turns down, tax revenues drop similarly to sales revenues in a business. Under these circumstances, the business will begin cutting costs. They will cut back on business travel or eliminate the employee picnic or Christmas party. The overtime would be eliminated, and some employees might be asked to take a week or two off without pay. How do these actions compare with our government? Well, the government will start spending like crazy to "get us out of the recession" or to "prevent another great depression." The feds will just run up the debt or print money and keep on expanding.
I'm thrilled that the Republicans are taking some action to check the liberal policies that are keeping us in this lingering recession. Please, please, just hang in there. Stay the course. End this MessAPolitico before it's too late.
I heard that Michelle Obama had to quit "tweeting" because of the shutdown. Isn't Twitter free? And, by the way, who cares? The national parks and museums were shutdown. Awww. Some folks will have to go somewhere else on vacation. The EPA is almost completely shut down. Why can't we shut that all the way off? Congress won't be getting their toilets cleaned either. Maybe they'll be more full of crap than usual. Is that even possible? Isn't it sad that the elevator attendant will not be there to press the buttons for our members of Congress. I guess they'll have to figure out what floor their offices are on and figure out how the buttons work with no expert assistance. Some of them may not even be qualified to operate an elevator, because they probably passed a regulation requiring operation by trained, union members only.
Doesn't it just gall you to hear these stories? The liberal politicians oppose fixing our horrendous budget and debt problems, so they are looking for ways to make every cut seem as bad as possible. Any little petty difficulty they can create will be done. These folks just love it when the press finds a group of girl scouts that couldn't visit the capitol building, and it can be blamed on those Republicans that think they should get their way.
Up until now, Obama and the Democrats have gotten 100% of everything they have wanted. The Republicans just laid down, and the liberal steam roller flattened them. Now, the Democrats have decided that it is wrong and totally unreasonable for the Republicans to expect to get anything they want. In fact, it's considered uncivilized for them to even try to get anything for the folks that elected them.
Obama won the election, and now we get everything we want. Naa Na Na Na Naa. The American people have spoken, and all of them wanted all of the Obama agenda to completely come to pass. The Democrats always liked to look at popular vote totals when Bush won elections, and it seems to me that Hillary might have said that we need an amendment to eliminate the Electoral College system for presidential elections. So, let's look at the popular vote in the last election. Barely 50% of the American people voted for or agree with Obama. If you look at polls, about 60% of us DO NOT want Obamacare. Those mean old Republicans are simply doing what we elected them to do -- represent us. I just hope they hold out until we get something we want for a change.
The MessAPolitico must be stopped. I'm willing to leave this thing shutdown as long as it takes. At what point do we decide to make some of these shutdowns permanent? 100's of billions of dollars could be eliminated if we shutdown all of the non-essential government programs and departments. Leave it shutdown long enough to make the American people realize how we don't need to spend trillions to keep our lives intact.
It also galls me to hear that most of the furloughed federal employees will get back pay after this thing is eventually resolved. Some of them that live paycheck to paycheck will endure a short time of hardship, but in the end, this will be nothing but extra paid vacation days. The rest of us in the real world wouldn't get paid for time off if we were called back from a layoff. In fact, most of us would never get called back from layoff at all. And a business that is forced to lay people off when the economy turns down, won't try to make things difficult for their customers or whine. They will do everything in their power to maintain service levels and keep the customer happy.
When the economy turns down, tax revenues drop similarly to sales revenues in a business. Under these circumstances, the business will begin cutting costs. They will cut back on business travel or eliminate the employee picnic or Christmas party. The overtime would be eliminated, and some employees might be asked to take a week or two off without pay. How do these actions compare with our government? Well, the government will start spending like crazy to "get us out of the recession" or to "prevent another great depression." The feds will just run up the debt or print money and keep on expanding.
I'm thrilled that the Republicans are taking some action to check the liberal policies that are keeping us in this lingering recession. Please, please, just hang in there. Stay the course. End this MessAPolitico before it's too late.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
How Does the Government Kill the Economy?
Maybe the question should by "why does the government kill the economy." I guess the answer to that one is that our government is either run by idiots or by folks that don't care about the economy. I believe that too many politicians would do things that hurt the economy if they could be blamed on the other party. If that isn't the case, then maybe we should get these folks some training in macroeconomics.
In any case, I would like to discuss how the government can have a very negative effect on the economy. Firstly, I would like to talk about excessive taxation. Many of us remember when Ronald Reagan talked about supply-side economics. Supply-side economists believe that eliminating impediments to production in the market will support economic growth. An economist named Arthur Laffer has had his name attached to a theory that states, in essence, that there is an optimum level of taxation. More specifically, raising tax rates will only raise revenue up to a point. If the tax rates are set too high, people and businesses will see a disincentive to earning more profits and the economy will slow down. Therefore, if tax rates are raised beyond the optimum level, the revenues will actually be lower. "Supply-siders" believe that taxation is a huge impediment to economic growth.
Of course, there are a lot of other impediments to growth, most of which ultimately raises the cost of producing a good or service. The law of supply says that raising the cost of production reduces the amount that will be produced. If you look at corporate taxes, there is a more common sense way of understanding their effect.
Now the government is stopping a privately funded pipeline that is to be built on private land from Canada to the Gulf Coast. That is limiting the supply of oil from our neighbor, Canada. If the pipeline isn't built, the oil will be transported by rail car across the same areas at higher cost. Why? Because our government wants the cost of fossil fuels to rise, reducing demand. Of course, the demand has been reduced over the past five years, because of the higher energy costs. Today, fewer people are driving to work. Also, fewer manufacturing facilities are located in the U.S. and using energy. Does the EPA really think that this will clean up our planet? Will the new factories in China or Mexico have low emissions like the U.S. plants? Do you remember the views of Beijing from the summer Olympics a few years ago? How clean did that air look?
The big problem with the MessAPolitico is that everything they do hurts the economy and, ultimately, all of us that participate in it. We all participate in the economy as workers, consumers, and often as investors. The economy is damaged and the political goal is never even reached. Generally, the problem to be solved by government intervention only gets worse. Then the MessAPolitico loves that, because they can blame the other side for making things worse and run for re-election on a new, undefined fix. What's the fix? It's another MessAPolitico that makes things just a little bit worse again.
In any case, I would like to discuss how the government can have a very negative effect on the economy. Firstly, I would like to talk about excessive taxation. Many of us remember when Ronald Reagan talked about supply-side economics. Supply-side economists believe that eliminating impediments to production in the market will support economic growth. An economist named Arthur Laffer has had his name attached to a theory that states, in essence, that there is an optimum level of taxation. More specifically, raising tax rates will only raise revenue up to a point. If the tax rates are set too high, people and businesses will see a disincentive to earning more profits and the economy will slow down. Therefore, if tax rates are raised beyond the optimum level, the revenues will actually be lower. "Supply-siders" believe that taxation is a huge impediment to economic growth.
Of course, there are a lot of other impediments to growth, most of which ultimately raises the cost of producing a good or service. The law of supply says that raising the cost of production reduces the amount that will be produced. If you look at corporate taxes, there is a more common sense way of understanding their effect.
- When capital is invested in a business, the investors expect to get a return on their investment that is commensurate with the level of risk they are taking. Taxes reduce the return on investment, thus making some borderline investments losers.
- If businesses really pass the taxes on to their customers in the form of higher prices, then that causes inflation. The higher prices reduce the demand, so there won't be as many machines or workers employed in producing the products.
- If taxes raise the cost of domestically produced goods relative to imports, the trade deficit will grow and unemployment will grow.
- If consumers pay more in taxes, they will have less money to spend in the economy. This is true whether the consumer is rich, middle class, or poor.
Now the government is stopping a privately funded pipeline that is to be built on private land from Canada to the Gulf Coast. That is limiting the supply of oil from our neighbor, Canada. If the pipeline isn't built, the oil will be transported by rail car across the same areas at higher cost. Why? Because our government wants the cost of fossil fuels to rise, reducing demand. Of course, the demand has been reduced over the past five years, because of the higher energy costs. Today, fewer people are driving to work. Also, fewer manufacturing facilities are located in the U.S. and using energy. Does the EPA really think that this will clean up our planet? Will the new factories in China or Mexico have low emissions like the U.S. plants? Do you remember the views of Beijing from the summer Olympics a few years ago? How clean did that air look?
The big problem with the MessAPolitico is that everything they do hurts the economy and, ultimately, all of us that participate in it. We all participate in the economy as workers, consumers, and often as investors. The economy is damaged and the political goal is never even reached. Generally, the problem to be solved by government intervention only gets worse. Then the MessAPolitico loves that, because they can blame the other side for making things worse and run for re-election on a new, undefined fix. What's the fix? It's another MessAPolitico that makes things just a little bit worse again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)