Perhaps some perspective.
Perhaps some perspective.
Why is this election cycle so controversial and heated? President Obama, in his infinite wisdom, has an answer:
Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country’s scared.
Translation for us lowly voters: We’re dumb. This, unfortunately, is an all-too-often excuse for failure used by those who still believe they are wiser than most other people. It’s also a fairly common sentiment from progressives with a lot of formal education and little real-world experience.
[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=obama+fundraiser&iid=9954900″ src=”http://view2.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/9954900/president-barack-obama/president-barack-obama.jpg?size=500&imageId=9954900″ width=”234″ height=”176″ /]Imagine the type of arrogance it takes to claim that those who oppose you oppose you because their mental faculties are essentially compromised; they don’t want to listen to facts and science. If only they were to be guided by your rational arguments and adherence to facts, they would support you and your wise policies.
Professor Obama went on to note that the job of his political party was to “break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling.” Another translation: We need to make them comes to their senses.
[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=climate+change&iid=2265183″ src=”http://view3.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/2265183/report-blames-human/report-blames-human.jpg?size=500&imageId=2265183″ width=”234″ height=”154″ /]A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had the authority to regulate certain greenhouse-gas emissions. But those environmentalists excited about the dramatic and beneficial effects such regulations would have on global ‘climate change’ (the newer, more politically acceptable name for global warming) make want to take heed of the EPA’s own recent analysis.
A recent CNS News report notes the following:
Tough new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency restricting greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the global mean temperature by only 0.006 to 0.0015 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100, according to the EPA’s analysis.
Self-proclaimed protectors of the planet may be a little disappointed by this revelation, but even more worrisome is the predicted effect these rules would have on the already struggling economy:
Here is an informative link I ran across in the last week: http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx . It is an interactive timeline from the Kaiser Family Foundation displaying the implementation dates for the changes brought about by the health-care ‘reform’ law.
[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=health+care+law&iid=9840211″ src=”http://view4.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/9840211/first-obama-health-care/first-obama-health-care.jpg?size=500&imageId=9840211″ width=”234″ height=”156″ /]Several provisions took effect a few weeks ago, and we’ve already seen some of the unintended consequences of the law — from some insurers refusing to write new children-only policies to large companies signaling that they may have to drop their insurance plans for employees. If these ‘reforms’ are going to cause all of these unintended consequences, it will be important to note when they take effect.
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
– Murray Rothbard
John Stossel’s latest column from today covers much of the same issues that I blogged about last week. The column, titled “Congress Can’t Repeal Economics,” laments the fact that the new health-care ‘reform’ law attempts to ignore the basic realities of economics, leading to perhaps unintended, but predictable, consequences.
Here is an excerpt:
When Obamacare was debated, we free-market advocates insisted that no matter what the president promised, the laws of economics cannot be repealed. Our opponents in effect answered, “Yes, we can.” Well, Obamacare has barely started taking effect, and the evidence is already rolling in. I hate to say we told them so, but … we told them so. The laws of economics have struck back.
Read the column here.
“Collectivism doesn’t work because it’s based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person’s ‘fair share’ of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.”
— P. J. O’Rourke
Spending is something politicians in Washington rarely grow tired of, despite any amount of soaring debt. Perhaps that explains President Obama’s recent push in a letter to congressional leaders to appropriate more money (the government doesn’t have) to go toward preventing supposed “massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters.”
The president’s use of the word “emergency” to characterize the need for these “additional measures to spur job creation” is the typical rallying cry of all government intervention. That job creation, however appears to be mostly in government — much to the detriment of the majority of taxpayers working in the private sector.
[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=obama+economy&iid=9030727″ src=”http://view.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/9030727/president-obama-speaks-the/president-obama-speaks-the.jpg?size=500&imageId=9030727″ width=”234″ height=”149″ /]Though Obama urged the expansion of small-business loans and tax credits, he was also concerned about the effect of the economic downturn on state and local government employment. He even used as part of his argument for increased funding to public employment the costs that would be needed to help those axed government employees look for work, seemingly justifying a larger expense (the cost of full employment) by warning of a lesser expense (the cost of helping those former government employees find future employment).
Former Reagan economic adviser Arthur Laffer recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “incentives matter.” He was specifically referring to the incentive businesses and individuals have to shuffle their income earnings to this year instead of next when the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire.
As he notes, “People can change the volume, the location and the composition of their income, and they can do so in response to changes in government policies.” What this means, he argues, is that income for this year will be inflated making it look like the economy is improving. But, when taxes go up next year, economic productivity will go back down.
Businesses are incentivized to invest and produce when they keep more of their money thanks to lower tax rates. Increased tax rates decrease that incentive.
Similarly, something Laffer didn’t address in his piece is that increased regulation or uncertainty about what regulations government will soon implement also serve as disincentives for businesses to invest and produce. As such, the current climate in Washington doesn’t bode well for the prospects of a booming economy.