Friday, August 20, 2010
Pensions and the AG
Somehow it is a surprise to AG Cuomo that government workers are milking the NYS and municipal pension systems. Public sector jobs are paid 50% more than private industry in salary and benefits and this has been going on for years. They don’t contribute anything to their pension plans and can pad them at will before retiring. He also missed the part about the incredibly high percentage of them that retire as “disabled”. If someone is hurt on the job they deserve whatever they get, but when 99% of LIRR employees retire with a disability there is a problem. Or perhaps I underestimate the danger of injury from the ticket punching.
Really easy money
The Fed and the Administration want to provide more money to banks to lend to small businesses. One question needs to be asked before determining whether this makes any sense. Will the lending guidelines that will be forced upon the banks be the same as the government’s (almost non-existent) mortgage lending guidelines that created the current economic situation? Banks are supposed to lend to businesses that have an expectation of paying the loan back. Giving away money will not help anything. That does not mean they should not lend to small businesses or do so without risk. It means reasonable lending criteria. Some things are easy – like not giving mortgage credits to people in jail – but the government couldn’t manage to avoid that. Some are made harder with government interference, quotas and set asides. Banks have money; the government just has to create the situation where they can lend and small businesses can expand. Immediate write-off of capital expenses would be a start; dropping all the expenses for a new employee would be a good follow up.
Parties
Political parties are not clear indicators of anything, there being dopes on both sides. We should all be concerned with the basis of the economic message that the two groups are preaching.
Obama’s message is an appeal to class envy – the long time Democratic strategy to convince people that if the other guy has a dollar that is a dollar that you don’t have. They promote this as “fairness” since “they” have something that “you” don’t. Obviously, they do not consider this as fair. Their solution is to take it away from them (tax ‘em) and give it out. They understand that Redistribution is popular - as long as it is the other guy’s wealth that is redistributed. The Dems think that not only should “the rich” pay more in dollars because they have it, they should pay more at a higher rate because they can. Their balancing act is to convince people that anyone who makes more than they do is rich and the target of these policies.
In this model, the symbol of all things evil is Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich”. So, Obama promises to repeal that and cut taxes for everyone else. But half the people don’t pay any taxes. So, the O man gives them money from the Stimulus (Google Making Work Pay) and calls it a tax cut. That is what he means when he says he cut taxes for more than half the people. He borrowed money, gave it away to people who don’t pay taxes in the first place and called it a tax cut - an average of $8 a week for everyone involved. Anyone remember getting that? Can anyone figure out what that stimulates?
The other message is simple - economic freedom - you make what you make and you get to keep it. The premise is that economic growth and wealth creation is a good thing – even if some people make a profit (Oh the horror!) while doing so. Profits mean jobs, some jobs that make more than others, but jobs are created none the less.
Obama’s message is an appeal to class envy – the long time Democratic strategy to convince people that if the other guy has a dollar that is a dollar that you don’t have. They promote this as “fairness” since “they” have something that “you” don’t. Obviously, they do not consider this as fair. Their solution is to take it away from them (tax ‘em) and give it out. They understand that Redistribution is popular - as long as it is the other guy’s wealth that is redistributed. The Dems think that not only should “the rich” pay more in dollars because they have it, they should pay more at a higher rate because they can. Their balancing act is to convince people that anyone who makes more than they do is rich and the target of these policies.
In this model, the symbol of all things evil is Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich”. So, Obama promises to repeal that and cut taxes for everyone else. But half the people don’t pay any taxes. So, the O man gives them money from the Stimulus (Google Making Work Pay) and calls it a tax cut. That is what he means when he says he cut taxes for more than half the people. He borrowed money, gave it away to people who don’t pay taxes in the first place and called it a tax cut - an average of $8 a week for everyone involved. Anyone remember getting that? Can anyone figure out what that stimulates?
The other message is simple - economic freedom - you make what you make and you get to keep it. The premise is that economic growth and wealth creation is a good thing – even if some people make a profit (Oh the horror!) while doing so. Profits mean jobs, some jobs that make more than others, but jobs are created none the less.
Progress
Progress is a pretty good thing. The range of things that make life better and easier is constantly expanding. People invent stuff and other people improve on inventions and find new applications for products. Who could argue? Well, there is one group that has been fighting progress for hundred of years. Once they were called guilds, now they are unions. Whatever the name, their main aim is to stand as a roadblock to progress.
The union stance is that they are insuring quality products by making sure that only qualified people do whatever the job it is they are protecting. “Qualified people” of course means members of the union.
There is no doubt that the stronger the union the higher the level of wages/benefits that can be obtained from the evil capitalist employer. That is good for the union members – in the short term – and bad for everyone else.
The bottom line is that jobs change over time. Most of jobs that people have now did not exist in 1900. Had the Amalgamated Buggy Whip Makers and the United Horseshoemen of America existed you can be sure they would have been violently opposed to the automobile. That would fit their purpose but it would not help. The examples are as numerous as the inventions. Setting up organizations whose primary focus is to make sure that they oppose change thwarts the creation of new jobs, blocks efficiency which distorts the market wages and prices. All this makes progress and job creation even harder to achieve.
The union stance is that they are insuring quality products by making sure that only qualified people do whatever the job it is they are protecting. “Qualified people” of course means members of the union.
There is no doubt that the stronger the union the higher the level of wages/benefits that can be obtained from the evil capitalist employer. That is good for the union members – in the short term – and bad for everyone else.
The bottom line is that jobs change over time. Most of jobs that people have now did not exist in 1900. Had the Amalgamated Buggy Whip Makers and the United Horseshoemen of America existed you can be sure they would have been violently opposed to the automobile. That would fit their purpose but it would not help. The examples are as numerous as the inventions. Setting up organizations whose primary focus is to make sure that they oppose change thwarts the creation of new jobs, blocks efficiency which distorts the market wages and prices. All this makes progress and job creation even harder to achieve.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Obamanomics again
The First Dope announces yet another plan that is supposed to help small businesses. As usual the idea is to call the program something that everyone agrees is a good idea. The actual plan is somewhat different.
He wants to give the Small Business Administration $12 billion to states (?) to provide loans and provide banks with under $10 billion in assets another $30 billion dollars to make small business loans. The basis of the idea is to “ease the terms for loans”. Brilliant!! Another program that is designed to give money out to people based upon no known lending standards. And the money would not have to be repaid to the government based upon how many small business loans were made. Another $30 billion down the drain.
The double whammy is that they want to lower the loan standards and at the same time reward the banks for making the loans with low standards. Sound familiar? This is exactly what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae did to mortgage lending that cause all the problems in the first place.
Keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Definition of an Idiot.
He wants to give the Small Business Administration $12 billion to states (?) to provide loans and provide banks with under $10 billion in assets another $30 billion dollars to make small business loans. The basis of the idea is to “ease the terms for loans”. Brilliant!! Another program that is designed to give money out to people based upon no known lending standards. And the money would not have to be repaid to the government based upon how many small business loans were made. Another $30 billion down the drain.
The double whammy is that they want to lower the loan standards and at the same time reward the banks for making the loans with low standards. Sound familiar? This is exactly what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae did to mortgage lending that cause all the problems in the first place.
Keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Definition of an Idiot.
Trials & Tribulations
After years of investigation, preceded by lots of mudslinging, the Obama Justice Department has determined that it has no case against former Representative Tom Delay. The guy was hounded out of office and the Obama DoJ that would obviously love to pin something on this guy, admits they have no case. When the mud was being slung, this was prime media news. The decision to drop the case rated a few lines in the back of the paper.
The same Obama DoJ dropped the charges against the late former Ted Stevens (R. Alaska). Another guy the slandered – which was the point a few weeks before his reelection bid? They did what they wanted and he lost the election. They don’t care about the charges and just drop them. Hear that in any of the coverage of his death?
The smears that Sarah Palin was forced to defend herself against fall into exactly the same category. People on the other side generate unproven rumors about “federal investigations”. This hits the papers and the initiators are quoted as “proof”. There were no federal investigations, there were no local investigations, and there were only rumors and what turned out to be frivolous lawsuits that she had to pay personally to defend. No charges no DoJ case. Think Obama and Holder would have pursued this if there was anything there? But they didn’t.
Then we have Rangel and Waters. A Democratic House is brings these two up on charges. Note, a Democrat controlled House. That tells you something about how bad this must be. They want a speedy trial so that the Democrats still have a majority when they face their jury.
The same Obama DoJ dropped the charges against the late former Ted Stevens (R. Alaska). Another guy the slandered – which was the point a few weeks before his reelection bid? They did what they wanted and he lost the election. They don’t care about the charges and just drop them. Hear that in any of the coverage of his death?
The smears that Sarah Palin was forced to defend herself against fall into exactly the same category. People on the other side generate unproven rumors about “federal investigations”. This hits the papers and the initiators are quoted as “proof”. There were no federal investigations, there were no local investigations, and there were only rumors and what turned out to be frivolous lawsuits that she had to pay personally to defend. No charges no DoJ case. Think Obama and Holder would have pursued this if there was anything there? But they didn’t.
Then we have Rangel and Waters. A Democratic House is brings these two up on charges. Note, a Democrat controlled House. That tells you something about how bad this must be. They want a speedy trial so that the Democrats still have a majority when they face their jury.
Technology
There is a great deal of interest and approval for the requiring the installation of breath activated ignition locks on the cars of DWI offenders. Using technology to solve a problem, add to the safety of the public and reduce crime is a good thing. The same approval is not seen regarding the cameras that take pictures of people going through red lights and stop signs.
Complaint One seems to be that the cameras are a way for municipalities to raise money. So what? People who do something that they should not do are fined. Good. We need more of that.
Complaint Two acknowledges that the cameras lower the more violent T-Bone accidents but note that cameras increase rear end accidents. That would be because many people assume a yellow light means “speed up and go through it” and as a result they hit the guy who in front of them who actually stops. Rear end accidents are the fault of the guy in the back. You are supposed to be far enough behind the car in front that you can safely stop no matter what. In addition, if we cannot rely on the other guy to drive properly - things like stopping when appropriate, staying on the right side of the road, not tail gating and speeding – we are all at risk.
Complaint Three is astounding. A former judge is suing on Constitutional grounds because his wife got several tickets and he cannot cross examine the camera. He is wasting tax money.
Complaint One seems to be that the cameras are a way for municipalities to raise money. So what? People who do something that they should not do are fined. Good. We need more of that.
Complaint Two acknowledges that the cameras lower the more violent T-Bone accidents but note that cameras increase rear end accidents. That would be because many people assume a yellow light means “speed up and go through it” and as a result they hit the guy who in front of them who actually stops. Rear end accidents are the fault of the guy in the back. You are supposed to be far enough behind the car in front that you can safely stop no matter what. In addition, if we cannot rely on the other guy to drive properly - things like stopping when appropriate, staying on the right side of the road, not tail gating and speeding – we are all at risk.
Complaint Three is astounding. A former judge is suing on Constitutional grounds because his wife got several tickets and he cannot cross examine the camera. He is wasting tax money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
