I had the opportunity to attend the Douglas County (GA) Tea Party, but opted to not go.  Douglas County is on the opposite side of traffic-burdened Atlanta from me, and the event started just one hour after work.

Today, I found out that I should have braved I-285’s daunting traffic corridor.  At the end, I’d have been treated to this:

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Indeed, this verse describes precisely what conservatives are on about.  Particularly the line, “Then conquer we must, when our cause is just.”

It describes our fight against Islamic terrorism.  It describes why we take the positions we do with nations like Iran and North Korea.  Why Americans have fought and died along the hills and valleys and in the forests and deserts of six continents and throughout the world’s oceans and seas.  It’s why we’re fighting to stop the spread of socialism and overbearing government into our daily lives.  This is why we support liberty and freedom and oppose tyranny: Because the cause of liberty is just.

This fantastic performance by a man America now knows only as “Lewis”, a former Marine, reminds us that our cause is just.  We will–no, we must win back the House in 2010.  We must win back the Senate and the White House in 2012.  With men like this to remind us of what we are fighting for and strong, truly conservative candidates, we can stop the Left from its aims of destroying everything we hold dear about America.

Originally posted at The Minority Report.

March saw the strongest job growth rate since May 2007, but the White House is warning Americans that we still have a “long way to go” before the unemployment rate gets back down to levels we’ve become accustomed to in the past three decades. According to Fox News:

Obama’s chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers said on a pair of talk shows that a year after the passage of the stimulus bill, the U.S. economy still has “a long way to go.”

Summers said pushing the unemployment rate down from its current 9.7 percent level won’t be easy.

No, it won’t be easy, particularly since the Democrats and the President have absolutely no interest in taking the steps necessary to encourage economic growth.

As the Democrats and President Obama add more and more spending programs, “claw back” the incomes of financial managers, tax more and more productive activity and create more regulations they place a greater financial burden on everybody in the economy. While the Democrats think that they are only taxing corporations and the wealthiest Americans, they are actually taxing everybody. The taxes applied to corporate profits are actually being paid by the owners and employees; and those owners and not merely high-income individuals, but middle-class Americans who own stock through their 401(k), IRA and mutual fund accounts. Employers who might otherwise hire additional workers or give existing employees greater paychecks or bonuses for their labors instead have to pay that money out as tax.

The Democrats are also spending more Federal dollars every day. The intent was to improve the economy, but deficit spending only works when the government is paying out of its cash reserves. Simply borrowing or taxing the money out of the system only to spend it on government programs just adds a layer of bureaucracy and cost, reducing economic efficiencies and destroying wealth. Printing more dollars just to cover government spending is even worse; without real growth in wealth, the new dollars simply depress the value of all dollars, leading to inflation.

Add to this the economic effects of government choosing economic winners and losers: When the government has a centrally directed Command Stimulus as we had last year, it usually puts the money into economic losers: That is, it attempts to “stimulate” companies that have failed or are in the process of failing. We saw this with the takeover of General Motors and prior to that the bailout of AIG. The government does this for the political purpose of “saving” jobs. Unfortunately, the net effect is that the resources that could be going to growing, successful business is instead being thrown down a rabbit hole.

Worse, the successful businesses and their owners paying their taxes are the ones funding the bailouts of the failures. Instead of looking for ways to expand, the successful businesses are left looking for ways to cut costs to offset the cost of the additional taxes and regulations. Labor is a huge component of their costs. Cutting hours and headcount, expecting greater productivity from the remaining workers is an easy way to cut costs.

Instead of picking economic winners and losers based on politics and adding cost and bureaucratic layers to the system, the government must pull back and allow entrepreneurs and private citizens to enjoy the fruits of their labors. We have already allocated $1.5 trillion dollars for bailouts and stimulus, and we are worse of than before. It is time to get the government out of the way and release the free market. Only when businesses have a stronger incentive to grow their business than they have to merely cut their costs will we see the jobs return.

Cross-posted at The Minority Report.

Wait, what?

Yes, it seems that the people who supposedly want a “state or society without government or law” are very upset at the racist, homophobic, libertarian, anti-Semite, Alex Jones conspiracy theorist, Ron Paul supporting, fascist, conservative, gun freak, militia men, constitutionalist Tea Partiers.  Why?  Because these anarchists don’t want to lose their government entitlements.

Huh?

Let’s ignore the contradictions and lies about the Tea Parties (racist, homophobic and Alex Jones followers?  Please!).  Let us also ignore the fact that fascism (the economic construct of privately owned property directed by an omni-present socialism-enforcing government) is what the Tea Parties are fighting.

Let’s instead focus on the most obvious contradiction:  That anarchists don’t want to lose their government-paid social programs.

Anarchy is defined above.  It is a state where there is no government, no social order, no political structure.  Anarchists are people who want to overthrow the existing social and political order without any plan or consideration for a new socio-political order, and indeed would not want any new social or political order to develop.

A real “anarchist” would not have any desire for government programs, because their real desire is to destroy all structures of authority and live without them.

A careful review of the website’s articles displays their true colors:  The are “progressive”, “liberal” and “anti”.  It’s not about anarchy, it’s about co-opting the most basic ideals of anarchy (tearing down the existing structures), but at that point they depart true anarchy and become statists:  They want to impose their own social order after the existing one is destroyed.

In what world would a true “anarchist” demand a “living wage” for “artists”, for example?  That isn’t anarchy; rather that is an socio-political and economic structure called socialism.  In what world does an anarchist care about treaties with Native Americans?  After all, the whole point of anarchy is that there is no political structure to make treaties in the first place.  The cognitive disconnect of these people is astounding.

Like so many on the Left, these people ignore the real meaning of words (anti-Semite, fascist, anarchy) and apply their own meanings to meet their own scurrilous needs.

Cross-posted at RedState.

With sweeping federal health care reform now on the books, business owners are scrambling to make sense of a new range of tax breaks, coverage responsibilities and potential pitfalls by turning to benefits consultants, accountants and insurance brokers for advice and perspective.

Although the $940 billion legislation alters the way small businesses buy and supply health insurance, many of the changes won’t kick in until 2014. And clear answers are at a premium today.

“Small business owners will have more choices and greater accessibility to affordable health insurance, which will help them to attract and keep a talented workforce,” said Kevin Galvin, owner of Connecticut Commercial Maintenance Inc. in Hartford. He says small businesses like his will be the big winners under health care reform.

In fact, in the entire article, only one opponent to the legislation is quoted. Four proponents are interviewed, and two of those are from advocacy groups specifically in favor of the legislation. One more is a health insurance executive, and even Mr. Galvin quoted above, a small business owner, is also an organizer of a pro-legislation political organization.

No independent small business owners were interviewed. No attempt to actually look at the cost of the mandates. It’s largely Democrat talking points in the guise of an article.

The Small Business Health Options Programs, known as “SHOP Exchanges” — essentially a purchase pool that gives employers buying power and pools risk — will create healthy competition among insurance carriers, which will help control costs, said Galvin.

While it is probable that the SHOP Exchanges will help a few small businesses already struggling with providing health insurance coverage, other businesses whose business model is built upon having the lowest costs will not be helped. And if pooling resources is what these small businesses want to do, why not allow them to pool together independently instead of creating a costly new government bureaucracy?

It’s nice to say that every employer in America should provide health insurance. It makes us feel good that we’re “helping people,” but the fact is that some businesses simply cannot survive that way and will be either driven out of business or forced to cut employment. Why place this economic road-block on these businesses?

Particularly hard-hit will be new start-up businesses. Many of these firms simply do not have the resources to provide health insurance. The “sexy” start-ups that lead to big Wall Street IPOs get all the news media attention, but the vast majority of new businesses are home-based or in small storefronts or workshops and have only the owner’s savings or a small business loan for support. This kind of start-up will now face an even higher hurdle before it can achieve profitability and later seek to expand. Either they pay for insurance, or they start paying penalties; either way, the mandate makes it harder for them to succeed and grow.

This type of mandate is wrong for many reasons, but the economic reasoning isn’t hard to follow. The higher the costs for business, the greater the difficulty that business will have to make a profit. Business owners will not operate at a loss indefinitely, and so they will eventually cut costs somewhere.

This Health Care Takeover will cost American jobs. It will ruin the businesses that are already teetering on the edge of destruction. As more businesses fail, more people will come crawling to the government for help.

It’s the wrong solution at the wrong time, pure and simple.

Originally posted at RedState.

In the filing, AT&T added, “As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health care benefits offered by the company.”

So much for helping to rebuild our economy. The tax implications of this bill are already having a detrimental effect on employee compensation and retiree benefits. Before the legislation was even passed, Caterpillar, Inc. sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to vote against this bill, which they estimated would cost the company over $100 million per year. Because America didn’t know fully what was in the bill before it was passed, both small and large businesses are only just now able to start coming to grips with what the legislation really means for them.

Even with thousands of eyes focused on the bill, small bits are only now being discovered. Last week a tax on tanning was the big news among the provisions, apparently inserted due to the increased incidence of skin cancer among people going to tanning salons. This tax will be passed on to consumers who already have less money to spend on luxuries like tanning beds. That fact was apparently immaterial to the Democrats. Tanning salons will have to cut back on costs like employee hours, possibly laying off some workers, to compensate. The owners themselves will likely be working longer hours away from home in order to make ends meet, or they’ll be cutting back on personal spending. Either way, more money goes into government coffers and the private economy shrinks just a little bit more.

According to the Democrats, the legislation will help small businesses. Clearly tanning salons, whose profit margins are already low and in this economy are already suffering, are not helped. Lots of other small businesses that might otherwise not have offered health insurance will now be forced spend that money. How are these businesses “helped” by this bill? Certainly Leftists will expound upon the “social contract” and other warm-n-fuzzy emotional ideology, but the Cold Hard Fact is that people are going to lose their jobs as both a direct and indirect result.

The tanning tax, in the grand scheme, is merely symptomatic of why the Health Care Takeover legislation is both poorly written and a bad idea for our economy. Taxes on health insurance plans and the additional regulation of the health care industry are both going to add costs to the system. The cost of compliance is never discussed by politicians, but billions of dollars are going to be spent trying to understand what this legislation means to each employer; billions more will be spent each year trying to maintain compliance with and administrate the program. Penalties on individuals who do not have health insurance will reduce their ability to spend money on other products.

The American People are beginning to understand that we can’t simply have everything we want and continue to put it on the government credit card. As with our personal spending, public spending has reached its limit. This bill is too big, too expensive, too intrusive. It’s too much. We’ve had government bailouts, government incentive programs, government mandates and government solutions time and again to what are private industry problems. It hasn’t worked yet, it won’t work and it’s past time for this power-drunk government to take a back seat and let the private sector drive for awhile.

Cross-posted at The Minority Report.

Ignoring the fact that the United States had not yet forced Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown in 1780 (and hence, no Articles of Confederation, let alone a Constitution, had been ratified), the line of reasoning by the author is sophomoric at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Nowhere in the constitution does it authorize the Federal Aviation Administration or the Center For Disease Control either, so I guess they’re out too. The fact that the founders weren’t psychics or time travelers is a real problem for us, apparently.

Ian Millheiser from CAP pointed out that if you used this logic, then Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional as well. Pilon agrees, saying that the entire New Deal is unconstitutional. So, there you have it.

Um, no, not exactly. You see, there were no airplanes, no aviation industry in 1780 (or 1781, when the Articles were signed, or 1787, when the Constitution was ratified).  There were doctors at the time.  The health care industry, tiny as it was, did actually exist.  MRIs may be a modern convenience, but physical examinations have existed since time immemorial.

That’s hardly relevant, however, since the aircraft owned by airlines largely travel across state lines (that is, “interstate commerce,” which the Constitution expressly grants the Federal Government the authority to regulate).  In fact, when Southwest Airlines began operating solely within the state of Texas, they fought (and won) a court battle with other airlines who had argued Southwest as subject to regulation by the Civil Aeronautics board (or CAB, the precursor to the FAA).  Southwest Airlines argued that because their aircraft did not travel across state lines, the CAB could not regulate their routes or set their fares as it did other airlines.  The Supreme Court agreed, and Southwest started the airline industry on the route to deregulation and the discount airlines of today.

As for CDC, their mandate is to deal with disease outbreaks that can or do spread across state lines.  Epidemics and pandemics, that sort of thing.  One could argue with the constitutionality of the research, but fighting diseases would be hard without the knowledge of how they work.

This argument by the author at Hullabaloo is the same specious reasoning that has liberals arguing that, because there were no “assault rifles” when the Second Amendment was passed, those weapons should not be protected by that Amendment.  So let’s extrapolate this reasoning:

• Computers did not exist in the 1790s.  Therefore, they should not be subject to the Fourth Amendment restriction against search without a warrant.
• The internet did not exist in the 1790s.  Therefore, web pages are not subject to freedom of speech or press under the First Amendment.

Now, reverse the reasoning to match the Hullabaloo post:

• Television did not exist in 1780, but Americans need to be informed in order to make decisions.  Therefore, the government should provide every American with a television so they can get the news.
• Air conditioning did not exist at the founding of the nation, but hot summers can be hazardous.  Therefore, the government should provide every American with an air conditioning unit so they will not be overheated.

So what happens when we divorce the mental construct from the issue of health care?  The argument does not have merit.  A person could die if they don’t get an MRI that could diagnose some treatable disease, but they could just as easily die without a television to warn them of an approaching disaster or from heat stroke during a heat wave.  Only the most ardent communist would argue that the government should be providing televisions and air conditioners.

The argument that because MRIs didn’t exist in 1780, the Constitution doesn’t cover the issue of health care is false.  The Constitution gives the Federal Government certain enumerated powers; beyond that, its power is supposed to be limited or non-existent, with all other power being vested in the various States, or in each individual citizen.  If the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the power to do something, that is by design, not by an accident of evolving technology.

Economics is called the “Dismal Science.” I think this has less to do with predictions of Doom and Gloom, as many people claim, and more to do with Economist’s obsession with abstract ideas, like Utils (a unit of measurement for “utility,” an economic concept that can’t actually be measured). Indeed, until I learned to apply these abstract concepts to real-world situations, I was as lost as anyone who supported this bill.

Fortunately, Thomas Sowell wrote an engaging (for an economist, at least) book called Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy, which anyone with an interest in understanding economics should read. It is a long book, so if you’d rather have something shorter and a bit more fun, check outCommon Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Poverty, by Gwartney, Stroup and Lee. Both books paint the picture of economics, but pull away from the abstract and focus more on the real-world.

Now class, time to explain the basics of why the Health Care Takeover will be certain to raise prices for health insurance and health care in the long run.

Go back to your high school economics class. Do you remember the Supply-Demand Graph every economics teacher is required to draw on the chalk board? The one that looks like the graph in algebra with an “X” on it. Remember how you didn’t really understand it when they were done? It’s probably because they didn’t understand it either, but it’s really quite simple, and I’ll be able to explain in just five or six paragraphs what your text book and teacher took three chapters and six weeks to try. I’ll start from the beginning as if you’ve never had it explained to you before. Because in reality, you probably haven’t.

First, that’s not an “X” on it. It’s two sloped lines, usually represented as concave curves. The one sloping down to the right is the “Demand” curve. The one sloping up to the right is the “Supply” curve. Knowing which one is which and how they react is paramount to understanding economics. The point where the meet, where the “X” crosses, is called the “Equillibrium Point.” I’ll explain more on that in a moment.

The up-down axis (Y-axis for you math geeks) measures price. The left-right axis (X-axis) measures number of units. So, get out a piece of paper and draw your graph: Two intersecting curves on a chart. Got it? Good! Just for now, label the Demand curve and Supply curve; as you become more familiar with it, you’ll remember which one is which without labeling them. Now, where the X- and Y-axis meet, put a zero. This means the bottom of the graph is zero dollars, and the left of the graph is zero units. At the top of the Y-axis, label 100, and at the right of the X-axis do the same, so that the maximum of the graph is $100 and 100 units. Now, at the top of the graph put “PEACHES”. This graph represents demand for bushels of peaches, let’s say in a small town somewhere. We’ll never be able to accurately draw this graph for a real life situation, but it helps us to understand what is going on.

At the far left of the supply curve is its lowest point. Let’s say for the sake of argument that it’s at (5,5), or 5 units for $5.00. The farmers who grow peaches are willing to supply 5 bushels of peaches at $5.00 each. At the top-right, we’ll say it’s at (85,90). This means the farmers are willing to supply 85 bushells at $90 per bushell. The demand curve is the reverse of the supply curve. The demand curve is highest to the left, let’s say at (5,95), or 5 bushels at $95. On the right it’s at its lowest, at (90,8), or 90 bushels at $8. The curves themselves represent the intermediate points: How many bushels people will buy at a certain price, and how many bushels the farmers will supply at a certain price.

This is where the equillibrium point comes in: That’s the point where the buyers (townspeople) and the suppliers (the farmers) meet. In this case, let’s label it (55,28), or 55 bushels at $28 per bushel. This is the point where the most people are happy. The farmers could try to raise prices, but they would sell fewer bushels. The townspeople could choose to buy more bushels, but they will have to pay a higher price. This is the essence of free market economics, whether the product demanded is peaches, pizza, housing, gasoline or health care.

Now, draw a line parallel to the demand curve and just a bit to the left. Draw an arrow pointing from the first curve to the second. This represents demand having decreased. If you redrew your demand curve correctly, the equilibrium point should be to the left and below its previous position, even though the highest and lowest points on the curve haven’t changed. Let’s say the new equilibrium point is at (47,23), or 47 bushels at $23. With less demand (demand shifted to the left), prices fall. So now, do the opposite: Draw a curve slightly to the right, with an arrow from the first demand curve to this lastest one. Demand has increased. Once again, your equilibrium point has moved: This time up and to the right. Let’s say it’s now at (60,35), or 60 bushels for $35. With greater demand (demand shift to the right), prices increase.

This same principle applies to the supply curve as well, but in reverse: Move it left (decrease supply) and prices rise. Move it right (increase supply) and prices fall.

Do you understand? It’s really that simple. If you’ve got it, you’re better off than most people in the world. If not, don’t worry: A lot of those Ivy League guys in Congress, the Department Executive offices and in the White House don’t either. They have high-powered degrees from the “best” universities the worldhas to offer, and they don’t understand what’s going on.

So now go back to your graph. Cross-out “PEACHES” and write “HEALTH INSURANCE”. Now take a critical look at the graph: This Health Care Takeover law is forcing everybody to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. More people buying premiums. More demand. It is artificially shifting the demand curve to the right.

Knowing what you’ve learned today about the Supply-Demand Graph, what happens when you shift demand to the right?

Yup.

Someone said this was supposed to lower health insurance prices?

Cross-posted at The Minority Report.

The New York General Assembly is at it again. They’re looking out for the health of the people of New York, legislating behavior for the betterment of all. Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn) has proposed a new law that would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation for including an additive in their meals that has been linked to heart disease and other health problems when it is consumed in excess.

That additive is salt.

“No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises,” the bill, A. 10129, states in part.

Never mind that uncounted recipies require salt. Do you like fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies? Forget those and their added salt. How about corned beef? That’s cooked in a brine. French fries? Sure, you can have them without salt, but who would want to?

Did you notice that “salt in any form” wording? Think of how many pre-made spice and other mixes include salt. Chain restaurants in particular are once again going to have to alter their recipies to fit New York State’s agenda, increasing their costs and reducing the flavor appeal of their dishes even as the economy struggles to regain its footing.

In fact, unless they make everything from scratch, every restauranteur will be exposed to the possibility of a $1,000 fine for each customer it serves just because they bought ingredients from an out-of-state restaurant supplier. I have read the bill. Its nebulous language doesn’t include any exceptions for this type of occurence. Rather the “in any form” wording seems to specifically include these products. The wording could easily be interpreted such that each food item in a meal is a separate infraction, resulting in multiple fines per customer!

Then there are grocery stores with prepared food sections. Since there aren’t many groceries of this type in Mr. Ortiz’ home district of Brooklyn, I’m sure he didn’t think about them as he crafted his legislation. Are these legally considered restaurants, and therefore do these stores need to stop selling prepared foods and groceries that include salt? Will these stores be exempted from the legislation because they are not traditional restaurants? My reading of the bill says no, unless New York’s statutes have existing examptions for them. What about beverages? Could these be included in the ban on salt? Selling Gatorade in a restaurant could become a crime. Twelve ounces of Coca-Cola has about 40mg of sodium; is this a back-door to banning soft drinks? The poor wording of this legislation opens the door to judicial nightmares and a quagmire of heavy fines and class-action lawsuits.

The impractical and the unenforceable nature of the bill should send it to quick defeat, hopefully in the General Assembly or later in the courts. Unlike trans-fats, which are a manufactured substance, salt is a naturally occuring product that merely needs to be collected or mined. As an electrolyte small to moderate amounts are a requirement for a healthy diet, particularly for healthy and active children and adults. It is found in a large number of food products for its flavor-adding and preservative values. Yet the wording of the legislation opens the door to the State doling out fines for simply using, for example, pre-manufactured bread dough.

What this legislation illustrates more than anything is the desire to legislate behavior that is common to almost all politicians and in particular to liberals. When they control our health care, when they control what we can and cannot eat and how we maintain our own bodies, what liberties do we really enjoy?

“The consumer needs to make their own health choices. Just as doctors and the occasional visit to a hospital can’t truly control how a person chooses to maintain their health, neither can chefs nor the occasional visit to a restaurant,” said Jeff Nathan, the executive chef and co-owner of Abigael’s on Broadway. “Modifying trans fats and sodium intake needs to be home based for optimal health. Regulating restaurants will not solve this health issue.”

Health cannot be legislated. The State simply can’t do enough to force people to actually be healthy. Eliminating salt from resttaurants is not going to magically make people healthier, it’s just going to harm restauranteurs. The Nanny State is not going to make us healthy. It is our individual responsibility to maintain our own health.

Cross-posted at The Minority Report Blog and RedState.