Gun Control is Out of Control

It appears the Supreme Court will finally weigh in and interpret the Second Amendment. The question that will be answered is did the Founders intend for individual Americans to own fire arms. To me it is very clear. Of course they did. Here is the second Amendment:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the Founders had intended for only the Militia to own fire arms, then the last half would have read, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms,....

Legislators and Federal Judges have been trying to twist the meaning of the Second Amendment for many years. In fact, officials did infringe on the Right to Bear Arms when they restricted the right of DC residents to own firearms in 1976. Obviously that move did nothing to keep violence under control. DC is regularly one of the most violent cities in the US.

Gun control laws keep law abiding citizens from owning fire arms. There are laws against battery, theft and hundreds of other things, but that does not mean those crimes do not exist. Evil people will always find ways to harm others. Laws won't stop it, even gun control laws.

There is usually one common theme when violent crime occurs, one party has a significant advantage in strength or armament. Most of the time it is the bad guy. Fire arms are the great equalizer. The more people that are armed, the safer our society will be.

Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University were both gun-free areas. That did nothing to stop two insane people from killing way too many people. If the bad guys know guns are not allowed, doesn't that create an incentive to attack those areas? What if our entire society is a gun free zone? I doubt either one of these incidents would have occurred if the perpetrators knew that even a small percentage of students carried a concealed hand gun.

It would be a sad day in American history should the Supreme Court decide that Americans cannot bear arms. Americans would lose the freedom to protect themselves. What will be taken from Americans next, free speech or trial by jury?

A picture is worth a thousand words...

A Bureaucracy to Eliminate Bureaucracy

I heard the craziest thing I have ever heard on my way home last night on the Sean Hannity talk radio program. Sean was interviewing Tom Daschles (former Democratic Senator from South Dakota). In his interview, Daschle was talking about how he would reform health care. His plan to save health care is to get government involved since over 30% of all health care costs are not health care related. To put it in context, Daschle was referring to the costs associated with insurance companies and Medicare dealing with paper work. He then quoted that in most countries (none mentioned) this cost was typically less than 15% (source not quoted).

So Daschle proposes there be a Federal Reserve-like board that oversees health care. This board would be independent, like the Fed, and be immune to influence from politics. Now what he did not propose was how the new bureaucracy would actually eliminate 15% of health care costs related to paper work. Just that an independent bureaucracy like the Fed could use its power to force lower costs.

There are a couple of problems with this. One, the Fed is not perfect. The most recent example is the Housing Crisis we are in right now. The Fed's cheap money policy created this run up in prices that was unsustainable with current wages. Now we are paying the price. Would a healthcare Fed be any different?

Another problem is the 30% that insurance companies spend on paper work is what keeps costs down. The profit motive is what gives insurance companies the incentive to reduce waste in their system. This means carefully monitoring what doctors and hospitals are charging. This oversight will not go away with more bureaucracy. It most likely will raise health care costs as their will be more, not less, regulation. Regulation means more costs for businesses and most likely, more paper work. Banks are not paper work-free institutions.

If insurance companies cannot provide a product that people can afford, or that people find valuable, they will move on to another provider or product. The market will provide the solution, not another government bureaucracy.

Here is an example of Health Care Innovation in Wichita, Kansas.

Health Care Innovation at Work

We thought it was a good idea.....

The US Government will essentially be banning all incandescent light bulbs in 2012. Of course with any government action, there are undoubtedly the unfortunate consequences and this light bulb mess is no exception. The element mercury is present in all florescent bulbs. The same funny looking bulbs that are going to save the environment and let humans occupy the plant for a few more centuries are dangerous.

There are starting to be news reports about the problems and dangers of the new bulbs, most of which are related to mercury. The problems range from mercury contamination in landfills, broken bulbs resulting in mercury inhalation (especially children), not to mention how many 12 volt florescent bulbs are on the market (for your car).

Keep in mind that government action ususally has nasty side-effects with most, if not all of their actions. It is nice to have good intentions, but good intentions are not an excuse (at least a good excuse). Think what would happen if they were in charge of health care. It sounds like a great idea, but if the government is involved it is highly unlikely.

Dealing with Mercury

Lower Tax Rates=More Money for Everyone...including the Government

The Cato Institute just realeased their second video on the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve essentially illustrates how lower tax rates (to a certain point) mean more revenues for the government.

Billary and B Hussein could both use some Laffer education. The damage they cause to industries all over the country will resemble the problems Bush I caused with the Yacht industry.

Laffer Part II

Endorsements Matter

Looks like B Hussein Obama locked up another key endorsement. Fox News is reporting that B Hussein has secured the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam Leader. Farrakhan is calling B Hussein the "Hope of the World."

I am full of hope, but more of the kind that hopes B Hussein is not our next President. This latest endorsement is the cake topper for me.

Porker of the Year Named

Looks like the votes are in and Murtha (D-PA) wins in a land slide. This is the case, from an earlier blog, where people need to replace their representative. Is it not another state, it is in YOURS PENNSYLVANIA!

Citizens Against Government Waste

Keep the Government Out of the Bail Out Business

This article in the New York Times is enough to make any responsible American angry. Politicians think they need to come up with a solution to "fix" the mortgage problems of many Americans. What a joke.

The functions of government do not include bailing out people (or companies)that are irresponsible. No matter what the government does, it will not in any meaningful way change the market. It will only prolong the problems associated with people borrowing more than they could afford. Furthermore, it will waste my tax dollars.

As someone that put more than 20% down on my house, took out a mortages that was less than 2.5X my annual salary, I feel I owe these people nothing that put no money down on their homes and borrowed 3, 4 even 5 times their annual salary. These people are not only stupid, but greedy and self-absorbed.

I understand that high rates of foreclosure effect me and the value of my property. However, I knew that buying real estate was a risk when I bought my home. That's exactly why I bought a home I knew I could afford regardless of short-term market conditions.

When I hear that people lost jobs or got sick I do feel bad for them. But what did they do to prepare for such circumstances? Build their skills, purchase disability insurance, or save money in a rainy day fund? No, they spent like there was no tomorrow. Surprise, there is a tomorrow and you should be prepared for it. Don't ask the responsible people to subsidize your indulgent life style.

We all cannot live live rappers, movie stars and pro athletes. Stay within your means so you stay out of my pocket.

Rescues for Homeowners in debt Weighed

The Cost of Getting Elected.

There is a great story in the New York Times today about the cost of the democratic primaries. With B Hussein and Billary both spending in excess of $105 Million, talk is certianly not cheap.

Unfortunately it looks like Billary might actually be wasting money. If they waste money to get elected, I see habits that would be no different than if they were in office.

It is true that money cannot buy love....from voters.

Clinton Donors Worried by Campaign Spending

Russ Roberts strikes again!

Professor Roberts is a very gifted economist and writer. His piece today is certainly no exception.

Selling anchovy ice cream

The forked, silver tongue.

Ken Blackwell writes a great article today on Townhall.

Townhall article

Experience Matters

Experience maters. The same press that grilled Dan Quayle in the 80's is not using the same tactics on Billary or B Hussein Obama. Look at the numbers:

Dan Quayle was elected to the the House in 1980 (at age 29) where he served 4 years before beating a Democratic incumbant for the Junior Senate seat in 1984. Then in 1988, Bush I selected him as Vice-president. So by my count, VP Quayle had 12 years of actual government experience before running for President in 2000.

No let's look at Billary. She graudated from Yale at age 25. Billary went on to work at the Rose Law Firm where she learned how to make money in shady real estate deals and turn $1000 in cattle contracts into hundreds of thousands. Then it was on to the White House where she served in the official capacity of "First Lady." In 2000, Billary conveniently re-located to New York in time to win her first elected post, Senator of New York. She was re-elected in 2006. By my math, she atually only has 8 years of experience. However, I am not sure you can count the last two as she has barely found her chair in the Senate Chamber in order to cast a vote. So by my math she has 6+2-2=6 years of experience. She keeps talking about her 35 years of experience, but at age 60 does that imply the everything she has done since age 25 qualifies as experience?

How about B Hussein Obama? He was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 where he served until winning a seat in the US Senate in 2004. Of course he has 5 years of work experiece at a law firm specializing in Civil Rights work. So the math again shows that B Hussein has served in a Federal office for 3 years. Again though, the last two years he has been campaigning and rarely showed up in DC for votes. I am not even sure he got unpacked. So the math would be 3-2=1. One year of actual work at the Federal level.

They both talk about change, but how do they know what needs to be changed? Neither one of them seem to spend any time in DC in order to figure out what needs changed. They certainly do not have the experience, if that is important (as the press pointed out for us in the 80's with Dan Quayle).

I think one could argue that it is experienced politicians that are the ones that created many of the problems we have today with government. So maybe experience doesn't matter. Dan, I think your time has come.

small man...smaller brain.

Once again Robert Reich shows that he is not only vertically challenged, but mentally challenged as well.

Robert Reich in New York Times

1. Real Total Compensation is up substantially over the last 30 years. When the cost of benefits is added to wages, the American worker is much better off today. Lower taxes have also meant the American workers gets to keep more of their money. Thanks President Reagan.

2. You cannot spend your way to prosperity. The idea that consumer spending makes us more prosperous as a nation is a little flawed. Yes the rich have everything they want, but it is their investments (Savings) that allow new ideas to be commercialized into the products we all want to buy. Without money for investment, we all (most) live at a subsistence level. Fortunately the rich do save as most Americans save nothing. You cannot have a prosperous society without savings and investment.

3. Schools do not need more money. They need to spend what they have more wisely. Today many schools have as many administrators as they have teacheres. Cut the bureaucry and you can use that same money to improve education. Private schools are able to educate children with better results and less money. Why can't public schools? Maybe competition would help? It might also help if parents actually cared about their childrens' education.

Reich is the typical Berkely, CA government talking head. This is the same type of person that says Marines are not welcome in their city. How can you trust people that don't want Marines!

Free Healthcare Really Does Have Costs

I got this email this morning from an anonymous person that supposedly lives in Canada. I would much rather allocate health care on price and the free market rather than government rationing the number of operations. If we adopt the Canadian system, where will the Canadians go for good health care? The below is very interesting...

Free Health Care in Canada......... I saw on the news up here in Canada where Hillary Clinton introduced her new health care plan. Something similar to what we have in Canada . I also heard that Michael Moore was raving about the health care up here in Canada in his latest movie. As your friend and someone who lives with the Canada health care plan I thought I would give you some facts about this great medical plan that we have in Canada . First of all:
1) The health care plan in Canada is not free. We pay a premium every month of $96 for Shirley and I to be covered. Sounds great eh What they don't tell you is how much we pay in taxes to keep the health care system afloat. I am personally in the 55% tax bracket. Yes 55% of my earnings go to taxes. A large portion of that and I am not sure of the exact amount goes directly to health care our #1 expense.
2) I would not classify what we have as health care plan, it is more like a health diagnosis system. You can get into to see a doctor quick enough so he can tell you "yes indeed you are sick or you need an operation" but now the challenge becomes getting treated or operated on. We have waiting lists out the ying yang some as much as 2 years down the road.
3) Rather than fix what is wrong with you the usual tactic in Canada is to prescribe drugs. Have a pain here is a drug to take- not what is causing the pain and why. No time for checking you out because it is more important to move as many patients thru as possible each hour for Government re-imbursement
4) Many Canadians do not have a family Doctor.
5) Don't require emergency treatment as you may wait for hours in the emergency room waiting for treatment
6) Shirley's dad cut his hand on a power saw a few weeks back and it required that his hand be put in a splint - to our surprise we had to pay $125. for a splint because it is not covered under health care plus we have to pay $60. for each visit for him to check it out each week.
7) Shirley's cousin was diagnosed with a heart blockage. Put on a waiting list Died before he could get treatment.
8) Government allots so many operations per year. When that is done no more operations, unless you go to your local newspaper and plead your case and embarrass the government then money suddenly appears.
9)The Government takes great pride in telling us how much more they are increasing the funding for health care but waiting lists never get shorter. Government just keeps throwing money at the problem but it never goes away. But they are good at finding new ways to tax us, but they don't call it a tax anymore it is now a user fee.
10) A friend needs an operation for a blockage in her leg but because she is a smoker they will not do it. Despite paying into the health care system all these years. My friend is 65 years old. Now there is talk that maybe we should not treat fat and obese people either because they are a drain on the health care system. Let me see now, what we want in Canada is a health care system for healthy people only. That should reduce our health care costs.
11) Forget getting a second opinion, what you see is what you get.
12) I can spend what money I have left after taxes on booze, cigarettes, junk food and anything else that could kill me but I am not allowed by law to spend my money on getting an operation I need because that would be jumping the queue. I must wait my turn except if I am a hockey player or athlete then I can get looked at right away. Go figger. Where else in the world can you spend money to kill yourself but not allowed to spend money to get healthy.
13) Oh did I mention that immigrants are covered automatically at tax payer expense having never contributed a dollar to the system and pay no premiums.
14) Oh yeh we now give free needles to drug users to try and keep them healthy. Wouldn't want a sickly druggie breaking into your house and stealing your things. But people with diabetes who pay into the health care system have to pay for their needles because it is not covered by the health care system.

I send this out not looking for sympathy but as the election looms in the states you will be hearing more and more about universal health care down there and the advocates will be pointing to Canada . I just want to make sure that you hear the truth about health care up here and have some food for thought and informed questions to ask when broached with this subject. Step wisely and don't make the same mistakes we have.

Life is good for a US Senator.

US Senators pull in $169,300 in salary plus benefits every year.  Not bad for a government job.  However, the real benefit is you do not even have to show up for work to get your pay check.  Take Sam Brownback for instance.  He rarely made an appearance while he was on the campaign trail.  Therefore, he was leaving the citizens of Kansas with very little in the way of representation  during this time.  

Now we have 3 US Senators left running for President.  None of them can seem to find their way back to DC very often.  This is a problem because they do not disclose their true feeling about issues because they have no vote to critique.  None of these candidates seem prepared to resign their office during the campaign.  Seems like they are short changin their constituency.  Is that the type of person we want running the country?  

I will give it to McCain, he did make it back for the FISA vote.  The Democrats did not.  In general, it appears McCain is slightly better on his voting record attendance.  Clinton is basically giving no representation to New York.  Maybe that is a good thing.

To all B Hussein Obama supporters...please read.

This is a great article from John Hawkins.

Lost Opportunities

The Republicans blew a real opportunity to help reform ear mark spending by electing Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to the Appropriations Committee. Instead, they appointed a cronic spender like Jo Bonner from Alaska.

There are only a few really good guys like Jeff Flake in Congress and the Republicans snubbed him. No wonder the Democrats control congress. They cannot make a good decision to save the GOP.

Robert Bluey writes a good piece today from the Heritage Foundation. Also check out the Citizens Against Government Waste website (see recomended websites on the right). I am sure they will have a hey day with this appointment as they campaigned hard for Jeff Flake.

I guess my letters to Tiahart were of no help....again.

Pelosi and Special Interests 1, Soldiers 0 - Time out for 12 days...

Looks like Nancy and the Trial Lawyers are at it again. Doing all they can to undermine the safety of our country and our Troops. Rather than passing the FISA legistlation that would grant the Government access to communications companies' wire tapping abilities and then protecting those same companies from law suits did not pass the House before Nancy decided to recess for 12 days. 12 Days!? What do these people do besides grandstand Spygate and Steroids?

The communications companies are under assault from Trial Lawyers who are licking their chops at the opportunity to sue for illegal wire taps. Due to the pending legal action, these companies have had to tell the government they can no longer take the risk of being sued and support President Bush's anti-terroism campaign.

Robert Novack writes a great piece today about the issues involved.

I really did not need another reason to dispise trial lawyers, but I got one. You also have another reason not to vote for a Democrat, the party that selected Nancy Pelosi to be Majority Leader.

Does this election matter?

Tyler Cowen writes a very good article in the New York Times this weekend. It is sad to say (or hear), but I think he might be right.

New York Times by Cowen

The Government to the Rescue!

I would encourage everyone to write their elected representatives and tell them to keep their mitts off the sub-prime malaise.  Here is why:

1.  Housing has to correct in some markets.  It is unsustainable to have home prices appreciating 20-30% per year with real incomes rising 2-4%.  This is a bubble that has to break.  The question is, do you want the pain spread out over years (with government interference) or do you want to get it over with quickly (no government interference).

2.  With only 15-20% of the population able to afford the average price house, falling prices will make it more affordable for many families.

3.  No corporate bail outs are needed.  Let them take their losses.  The government cannot be an insurer to private business with no premiums.  They took the risk, they must face the consequences.  

4.  Real Estate speculators made the money for years, now they need learn that prices can move both ways.  Mowing the yard and painting the walls does not create $100K in value.

5.  As with most programs, the government's good intentions usually lead to some unforeseen consequences.  Just like the legislation passes several years ago (during the Clinton Administration) encouraging lenders to lend money to riskier clientele.  Yes, Congress started this mess.

Are Democrats admitting that lower taxes are good for the economy?

Billary and B Hussein Obama are both saying that the new economic stimulus package will be good for the economy. It is getting money into the hands of people who need it (notice it does not say people who earned it). So aren't they essentially saying that lower taxes are better for the economy? I mean after all, the "rebate" is really the same as paying lower taxes (as long as you are one of the 95% of tax-paying (and a few non-tax paying) Americans that will actually be getting a rebate). So if $150B is good, wouldn't $300B or $500B be even better?

Economic Stimulus Nonsense

Several questions need to be answered about the recently passed legislation to "refund" a portion of the taxes paid to the US Treasury. Let's begin:

1. If the government is running a deficit, where does the money come from?

Answer

The government borrows the money. Assuming the government never actually pays off this debt, it will cost tax payers over $168 Billion in interest over the next 30 years (at 3.75% interest today). So the total that my kids will have to pay off is over $318 Billion.

2. Why is it called a rebate if people that pay no taxes get money back?

I have no idea, but I guess this is what happens when politicians use taxpayer money to buy votes. So the unemployed (or non-working) get their cash and can easily make it to the ballot box.

3. What are the 2nd and 3rd order consequences?

*It is $150B that business cannot borrow to actually grow the economy since the government is using it
*It is $150B that the US Government will owe foreign governments (China, Saudi, Abu Dabi, etc)
*It is $150B that will not all be spent to boost retail sales. Some will be saved, some will be used to pay existing bills, and what is spent will most likely be spent on something made oversees. So the Chinese will get some of the money back, but we still pay interest to them. What a deal!

John Stossel can write much better than me. See his article on townhall.com

Stossel Article

What is 3.1 Trillion?

1. The size of the budget requested by Dubya for 2009
2. $10,333 spent for every man, woman and child in the US.
3. $8.5 Billon spent every day (i.e. the annual revenues collected by Starbucks are about $9.5B)
4. $22,267 spent for every American that is actually working. (From 2000 US Census)

The really sad thing is, this does not include money to fight the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The link below is a great article from the Mercatus Center.

Mercatus Center Publication

11% approval...

Many news outlets have reported that Congress has an 11% approval rating.  How can this be?  Well, we all think the problem rests with some other State's congressional delegation.  Truth is, it is yours.   So when you go to the voting booth, remember that your 10-term congressman is the problem too.  Yes the one that voted for all the earmarks in your district.  There are 535 people (100 Senators and 435 Representatives (and maybe one President)) that created the mess in D.C.  Funny thing is we keeping voting them into office?

Time to read again...

The Myth of the Rational Voter

>I give the book an okay rating (first 3 chapters are good), but the cover is a perfect 10.  The Sheepeople cover is very appropriate.

Farmers get what?

Interesting data from the Environmental Working Group. Want to know how much farmers in your area get, just look them up. About $20 Billion per year. All this so we have stable food prices according to many Midwest congressmen. Gee, $13/bushel wheat (normally around $3), $5/gallon milk (normally around 2.50), sugar that is 3 times the world average per pound, and corn that is hovering around $4/ bushel (normally around $2) does not sound like the congressmen are getting what they bargained for. Check it out, it will shock you.

http://www.mulchblog.com/

I am sure this falls under the category "It sounded so good at the time....." As with most congressmen, they fail to understand 2nd and 3rd order consequences of their actions.

Bad wine anyone?

Here is a great article published on Townhall.com. More empty rhetoric from B. Hussein Obama.

Obama old wine, new bottle

The angry white man.

Great article on the voter most politicians are overlooking.

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324

The Government in Sports

I sent a letter to all three of my congressmen (Tiahart, Brownback, and Roberts) this week asking why the US Governement felt compelled to get involved with Major League Baseball and the steroids issue. I am sure the reply letters will be interesting.

In a time when we are dealing with foreign wars, a slowing economy, health care (another subject the government should leave well enough alone), and a whole host of other things they get involved with the Spygate Scandal of the NFL and Steroids with baseball. The thirst for TV is driving our politicians to waste our money. I bet these "investigations" are costing us tax payers millions.

The Government Helping Out?

Good article about how government's attempt to help has created a situation where the average family cannot afford the average home. Unfortunately this is typical in many very expensive areas of the US like the West Coast and the Northeast.

Seattle Times Article

Make sure you scroll to picture 3 in the article to observe the data.

Thomas Sowell's new book, has some great commentary on this topic.

Economic-Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell

I love this...