Blue Collar Muse

I started out commenting on a Lefty blog which strenuously disagrees with me on my stand that Obama is not my President. A commenter took exception to my contention

… Obama will be the President; but he will never be my President. Obama wants what he is unwilling to give. To get the job, Obama divided us. Now on the job, he yearns for unity’s strength. But leopards don’t change their spots. As he ran, so will he govern.

As proof of Obama’s unifying ability, the commenter, Ice, offered

“Obama divided us” — patently false, since Obama united us into a majority, the first majority to elect a Democrat since ‘76. Also demonstrably false, in that Obama’s rhetoric was uniting, and his plans and specifics were both appealing to the majority and specifically aimed at the majority.

I responded with the following and thought to bring it back here to get my readers’ take on the matter. I have edited my comment to keep it relevant to the discussion at hand. The offer I make Ice is open to any reader who disagrees with me. Any parties interested in adding support to my contention are welcome to do so as well. Discussion to take place in Comments. Please abide by the rules as outlined in the post.

Ice -

As far as Obama uniting or dividing us. I will grant you that he won the election. He even did so by being the first Democrat in 50 years or so to win with over 50% of the vote. Nice to finally have a majority on your side for once, I’m sure. But a 52-48 victory, while a majority is hardly evidence of Unity. It is still true that almost half of the country did NOT vote for him – tens of millions of people.

The reasons they did not, with apologies to your completely unsupported assertions that 5% of those voting against BO (more in some states) did so because of race, are grounded in issues and policies. It is here that Obama divides America. That divide is a scary one because a large portion of it is a divide between the “Producers” and the “Give me what you Produce-ers”.

Obama’s clearly Socialist leanings driving his “Spread the Wealth” ideology are divisive. And unnecessary. This is America (for a little while longer, anyway). Anyone can be whatever they want – isn’t that part of Obama’s draw? Why then shoot for the brass ring of “I’ll take whatever Government can coerce from Ken to give to me” and ignore the far more valuable gold ring of “I’ll work hard and make my own way and enjoy the fruits of my own labor”? Isn’t that what Barack, your hero, did? Why not emulate him, and by extension the Right wing principle of self reliance? Unless you believe the Left wing principle that you are not capable of succeeding on your own and have to be propped up by Government taking from your betters to support you in your inability.

I don’t happen to believe that. So many of BO’s supporters do. They voted “Gimmes” for themselves without considering the meaning of their vote. Or worse, because they actually agreed with the meaning of their vote.

Success is a heady thing. Once you’ve had a taste, it lingers for a while. You begin to play the “What if?” game. “I’ve done well in THIS area. What if I do as well over there? Or over there?” It is Obama that doesn’t want you thinking that way, not me or the Right. We want you taking counsel of your dreams! We want you to think about what could be instead of what is! We want you to be unsatisfied with your current state and strive for something better – as much better as you can imagine. We just think you should do it yourself – and then enjoy the fruits of your efforts knowing that you earned and deserved your success. It wasn’t taken from someone else who earned it and deserved it and given to you who has not.

To put forth effort, successful or not, to draw people to yourself based on that premise, sows division within the country that may take years or generations to wash out. Unlike most you may encounter, I am more than willing to debate you – on the issues, on the facts. I won’t be disrespectful or dismissive to you unless you treat me that way first. You interested? Be careful – the truth is not really on your side, here.

I’ve outlined one issue by which Obama has divided us. You can respond by showing how this is not divisive. But stick to the issue of how taking what is mine by force to give to someone else who has not earned it is not divisive. I’d be even more fascinated to see you turn this into something unifying.

Once we’ve finished this one, you can choose a point on which you believe Obama has brought unity to the country and we can debate that. Fair enough? (Editor’s note: This offer was made to Ice, elseblog. If this post generates intelligent debate without snark, I’ll extend that offer to some here.)

No more assumptions about my motives, no more making unsupportable claims, no more emotional responses with no factual foundations … just a discussion of the issues. If you think you can do that … I LOVE that sort of thing. I have to say it’s because most people end up finding they prefer the end results of Conservative principles more than Liberal ones. That’s not my fault … It’s just the nature of the discussion …

You game?

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 42% [?]

Robert Romano at Americans for Limited Government has an excellent piece on the effectiveness of Obama’s proposed tax plans.  You’ve been bombarded with TV ads telling you Obama will cut taxes - even more than McCain.  It’s only necessary (and fair) to raise taxes on the top 5% of earners to generate enough Government revenue to effectively “spread the wealth around.”  The question, ‘The $5 Trillion Question’, is, will it work?  Let’s see Bob’s take on the issue …

THE $5 TRILLION QUESTION
-by Robert Romano,
Editor ALG News Bureau
Americans for Limited Government

A lot of attention has been placed in recent days to Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes on the top 5 percent of wage earners. The Illinois Senator assures the American people that he, as President, will not raise taxes on everybody else—just those at the tippy-top of the income spectrum.

Never mind that upwards of 38 percent of Americans do not even pay income taxes. Or that the top 5 percent of wage earners are employers and investors who contribute significantly to the economy.

Let’s simply consider the claim that, somehow, only the top 5 percent are going to have their taxes raised. As my favorite arithmetic teacher would say, “Let’s do the math.”

The federal budget for Fiscal Year 2008 wound up being $2.98 trillion, with a deficit of $454 billion. For the sake of argument, let’s add to that the $850 billion bailout package that Congress enacted on October 3rd. After all, it was conveniently passed just three days after the annual deficit was calculated.

Again, hypothetically, let’s also assume that the Treasury makes no money back on the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Then the total budget for the year would jump to $3.93 trillion, with a deficit of $1.3 trillion.

Let’s also assume that, for the sake of argument, the budget does not shrink next year. After all, the federal government did just acquire about $5 trillion in risk from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It stands to reason that in these troubling times, some of those debts are going to go sour, and there will be more bailouts next year. So, let’s assume the same amount just to keep things simple.

Now, methodology aside, Senator Obama is proposing approximately $1 trillion in new federal spending. You know, all those new welfare entitlement programs. Whammo. The budget then jumps to $4.93 trillion—nearly a whopping $5 trillion!

So here’s the $5 trillion question: Where does the Senator think he’s going to get the money to pay for all of that new spending?

Read the rest of Bob’s excellent piece at ALG …

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 85% [?]

Paulie, a friend from Chicago and one of the handful of non-Obama Kool-Aid drinkers left in Cook County, has a great post up at Paulie’s Point on the results of Chicago’s recent efforts at generating revenue. I don’t know how many times it will need to be said before Democrats and the Left will get the message, but I’ll keep it up. Here goes …

Raising taxes is not a successful strategy to pursue if your goal is to end up with more money! Raising taxes will only result in less consumption of or participation in whatever is being taxed. That reduction usually far outstrips the revenue gained via the increase.

Cook County raised its sales tax to 10.25%, making it the highest in the nation. Paulie spills the beans that The Illinois Department of Revenue reports in the first month the increase went into effect, revenue plummeted nearly 12%!

A partial explanation is that a huge percentage of Cook County lies within easy driving distance of both Indiana and Wisconsin, not to mention other Illinois counties with lower sales taxes. Quick trips over a border to avoid ignorant, asinine and ineffective taxes are just part of the “We should have seen this coming!” reality obvious to anyone but Democratic Big Tax, Big Spenders.

To make matters worse, the flight outside Cook County does more than just hurt the city’s coffers. Business people and service providers lose revenue, too. Why should I buy gas or groceries in Cook County when I can drive 5 miles and save 10% or more? Over the course of a year, that’s serious savings for me and serious loss for businesses. When businesses lose money the cutback or close. That means even more revenue loss for the county as there are fewer working taxpayers and those that remain pay less because they make less. But Cook County Democrats don’t see that. Actually, most Democrats everywhere don’t see that.

At this point, they seem to only have two choices. They can demand people buy their highly and arbitrarily taxed goods, not because the price is good for the consumer but because Cook County REALLY needs the money. Or they can follow Tennessee’s lead and make criminals out of their citizens who have the sense to shop at places that are working for them and not against them.

Higher Taxes … just another bad idea from Democrats, Socialists and other Central Planners …

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 86% [?]

Normally, I don’t mind someone making themselves look silly. The entertainment value is high and I’m on a budget so I find my entertainment where I can.

But when someone both looks silly and tries to drag me into the entertainment by association, if I have the time I’m generally disposed to comment. Which brings me to Russ McBee’s post ‘Slapped by the Invisible Hand’ wherein he blames Libertarians for the SubPrime crisis and the resultant problems. While not a Libertarian, I am a Free Market guy.  From my perspective, Russ doesn’t understand how we got into the mess in the first place nor has he a clue as to how we’re getting out. As a result, like most Liberals, he is incapable of preventing it from happening again.

Per McBee, the subprime housing crisis is entirely the fault of Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand and anyone else tarred with a Libertarian brush, even lightly. Ditto the failure of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide. It would appear McBee believes adherence to Free Market Economics automatically results in the worst possible human behavior from others. People don’t choose their behavior.  The mere proximity of a Libertarian means bad economic choices.

But Libertarians and Free Marketers are brutally Darwinian economically.  They believe businesses behave in their own best interest and won’t willingly destroy geese laying big, golden eggs. For instance, they will take less profit over 50 years and remain viable as opposed to going for huge profits for 5 years to then collapse. Such was the case with the vast majority of businesses which did not speculate in subprime paper, or, if they did, did so in a properly balanced portfolio. Libertarians and Free Marketers look to self interest to regulate the market.

That’s not ignorant or unrealistic as Russ surmises.  Free Marketers understand all too well that despite the warnings, the data and historical precedent which counsel otherwise, some businesses think they can ignore proven Market wisdom and get away with it. They can even point to the odd exception proving the rule.  They abandon self interest for self destruction. They abandon sound fiscal rules and practices; it catches up with them; they pay the price. Well, they did until recently. More on that in a moment.

Free Market, Libertarian self interest is simple. Don’t spit into the wind! Bad things will happen if you do. It should be obvious to McBee, but isn’t, that that is exactly what happened to Countrywide and others. The market self policed and self corrected.  In a serious manner.  Total destruction would seem a fairly high price to pay, but pay it they did.  I’d say the Market did an excellent job of teaching, training, warning and finally policing itself. And I’d be correct.

Except the Market hasn’t been allowed to work it’s magic for years. It won’t correct the bad behavior everyone, McBee and me included, doesn’t like because when business screws up, Government rides in like a White Knight to save the day. Such White Knights used to be other businesses who played by the rules and now snapped up the competition at bargain prices. Today Government bureaucrats sweep in to position cushy, white pillows so a fall from grace is as soft and painless as possible.

McBee evidently sees this as a good thing. He says

How telling it is that the abject failure of the bankrupt and corrupt libertarian mindset requires what amounts to socialism to bail it out when its superficial, simplistic, and naive world view inevitably collapses.

Excuse me? The Market is working exactly as the “libertarian mindset” wants it to. It does not desire or require Socialism to bail it out. In fact, Libertarian thought isn’t being bailed out at all, it is being proven correct. The only “superficial, simplistic and naive world view” is the one saying you can remove consequences from bad behavior and trust you won’t get more bad behavior! When the Market punishes it’s economic apostates, the next guy thinks twice. He sees the smoldering wreckage of CountryWide and Lehman Brothers and pauses to consider a different course of action. The system, if allowed to, will work just like Libertarians and Free Marketers say it will.

Socialism is the option which needs bailing out. Championing a few people experiencing pain from a few business failures, Socialism practically guarantees far worse pain for far more people when their meddling causes an Economy to fail. There is a reason for the non-existence of even a single long-term Socialist success anywhere in the world. Government started bailing out a few failed businesses years ago.  Today, more and more failures need bailing out and at higher and higher costs.  You get more of what you pay for.  Yet another Economic reality Libertarians and Free Marketers understand that Socialists don’t.  Properly dealing with painful realities now prevents future pain of greater intensity and scope. McBee would have us abandon responsibility to chase the Socialist dragon, numbing ourselves with the opiate of Government largesse until the entire house of cards comes tumbling down.

Trading proven, Free Market, Libertarian wisdom and experience for Socialist, pie-in-the-sky, Kumbaya, hand holding is precisely the sort of change Russ McBee, Democrats and Barack Obama want for our country. My response is one gaining daily popularity with Americans:  “No thanks, Obama - Keep the Change!”

Blue Collar Muse

PS: By the way, I didn’t forget the examples of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or AIG. I ignored them as they’re irrelevant here.  I guess Russ doesn’t understand Fannie and Freddie are failed Government programs, not Private sector efforts. Libertarians and Free Marketers would never have allowed the Government into the Market like that. That’s what Socialists are for. AIG is an insurance company still sorting out the factors behind its failure. While the subprime market may have played a part, so did the insurance industry losses in the wake of 9/11, Katrina and other large disasters. Including these in efforts to pile on Libertarians is either ignorant or disingenuous. Either way Russ loses …

Popularity: 33% [?]

The LA Times reports the budget impasse faced by California for over 75 days will be resolved today. Facing a $15 billion+ shortfall for this year’s budget alone, the legislature has been unable to close the fiscal gap before now because Republicans in the legislature did something amazing. They kept their word. Prior to the budget spat, all GOP members of the legislature save one signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge not to raise taxes.

Thus, the GOP refused to consider any solution that raised taxes on Californians. It only took the Democrats 11 weeks to cave and pass a budget without tax increases.This is all the more amazing because of the GOP’s solidarity in such a liberal state. ATR posted video last week of the response from some lawmakers. Noteworthy are two who cannot grasp raising taxes isn’t the only solution to budget woes.

Cutting spending is always available but seldom availed because it means doing without or scaling back. While painful, this is reality based and often necessary. There is not a single law or regulation anywhere demanding we increase spending each and every year to fund each and every program eternally. If we do so, it is an intentional choice! It is the choice of those believing government should coerce revenue collection for the spending they deem needful. GOP legislators wanted a different choice. They asked government to choose between this program and that as opposed to between this new tax and that.

Unfortunately, they didn’t get what they wanted and the compromise struck will magnify the problem while postponing it until next year. The legislature didn’t raise taxes. But they didn’t cut much spending either. They played fast and loose with the books. While there will be cuts under the compromise, the bulk of the shortfall will be made up by accelerating collection of currently approved taxes. Moving collection to the front of the fiscal year permits California to pay the bills that are past due and meet current operating costs. That’s the upside.  The downside is it simply moves this year’s budget crisis to next year.  It’s not a solution at all, just postponing the inevitable.  The LA Times Evan Halper reports

Legislative leaders announced Sunday that they had reached a deal on a no-new-taxes state spending plan, bringing the longest budget impasse in modern California history nearly to an end.

Their proposal would increase spending for education and healthcare, though not enough to avoid cutbacks in services. It would borrow against the state lottery. And it relies heavily on maneuvers that would push the state’s financial problems into the future at a time when economists have little hope that revenue is on the rebound. …

The tax-related measures, which [Senate President Pro Tem (D-Oakland) Don ] Perata called revenue “accelerations,” would affect businesses and individuals in several ways, beginning in coming months.

Withholding of state taxes at the workplace would increase by 10% for families with two wage-earners and for all taxpayers with income from investments. The state could use the extra $1.5 billion generated by the scheme to reducethe budget gap; it would send those taxpayers extra refunds later.

Taxpayers who file quarterly would have to pay more of their taxes earlier in the year. And those who earn more than $1 million and experience a big jump in income would no longer have extra time to pay taxes on the increase. These measures, according to legislative staff, would generate $3.8 billion in the current fiscal year.

Limited liability companies would have to prepay fees that normally would not be due until the next fiscal year. The state would give tax cheats amnesty to encourage them to pay what they owe. And tax write-offs for business losses would be suspended temporarily. These measures would generate $2.7 billion this year.

In one sense, it’s a creative solution. In reality, it’s a nightmare merely delaying inevitable hard choices. Arguably the largest experiment in Socialist governance in the US, California is merely the canary in the coal mine for rising threats to the rest of the country owing to years of bi-partisan spending on unconstitutional earmarks and entitlements. Barack Obama promises to make it worse by openly advocating for increased taxes. While many question if McCain will be better, his rhetoric promises tax cuts and responsible Government spending.

A couple of things seem clear.  The budget crisis California is heading towards will simply be the latest, and in the US the most spectacular, failure of Socialism’s flawed economic model.  There is a limit beyond which citizens will not voluntarily be taxed regardless of the societal benefits touted by those proposing new taxes. Hopefully, Democrats will take advantage of the reality they’ve faced for 75 days and plan now for the cuts necessary next year to avoid the same problems.

If they don’t and California’s government defaults, I have only one thing to say - No Bailouts!!

Blue Collar Muse

SEE ALSO:

Taking “Yes” for an Answer by Chuck DeVore at FlashReport.

Popularity: 30% [?]

When unexpected good things happen, we call it Serendipity. Not so with unexpected bad things. The Law of Unintended Consequences, abbreviated LUC and pronounced “luck” as in “If it weren’t for bad LUCk I’d have no LUCk at all!”, is perhaps the most famous non-scientific Law. No need to be a rocket scientist to recognize no matter how hard you try to avoid it, bad things will happen which you did not foresee and did not intend.

BCM’s corollary to LUCk postulates the larger the pool of original actions from which to derive consequences of any sort, the greater the odds of realizing a Spontaneous Unintended Consequence, abbreviated SUC and pronounced “suck” as in, well, you’re likely way ahead of me here! All of which puts Democrats, with their emphasis on more regulation, bigger Government and expanding bureaucracy at huge risk for SUCking on a regular basis.

News reports this week show Dems SUCking in 2 ways which don’t bode well for Americans. As always, in November, remember who got you into this mess.

Both instances of Democratic SUCking stem from their Energy policy which refuses to acknowledge both the value of drilling for American oil and of increasing our ability to refine oil we are able to acquire from any source. While Democrats publicly pretend to hate high prices for items impacted by oil costs, privately they are jubilant.  High fuel prices are  particularly joyous as they force Americans to drive less thereby ushering in the long awaited dream of planetary salvation. But just here, things start to SUCk for the country.

World Net Daily reports BusinessWeek is running a story on a new Ford, the Fiesta ECOnetic. It gets a stunning 65 mpg, but the carmaker can’t sell it in the US. Only Europeans will be able to buy the ECOnetic.

“We know it’s an awesome vehicle,” says Ford America President Mark Fields. “But there are business reasons why we can’t sell it in the U.S.” The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.

Automakers such as Volkswagen (VLKAY) and Mercedes-Benz (DAI) have predicted for years that a technology called “clean diesel” would overcome many Americans’ antipathy to a fuel still often thought of as the smelly stuff that powers tractor trailers. Diesel vehicles now hitting the market with pollution-fighting technology are as clean or cleaner than gasoline and at least 30% more fuel-efficient.

Yet while half of all cars sold in Europe last year ran on diesel, the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline. Add to this the success of the Toyota Prius, and you can see why only 3% of cars in the U.S. use diesel. “Americans see hybrids as the darling,” says Global Insight auto analyst Philip Gott, “and diesel as old-tech.”

Higher taxes, higher production costs and decades of irresponsible environmentalism - all thanks to Democrats - leave Americans out of fuel, walking on the roadside. Meanwhile, world citizens in Europe reap benefits from American technology, manufacturing jobs and the economic benefit of both.

The second instance of Democrats as LUCky charms also comes via World Net Daily, this time pointing to an ABC News story that the Highway Trust Fund, in which monies are held to be disbursed to the several states for infrastructure upkeep and repair, will run out of money at the end of this month.

… the Transportation Department said that this month it is expecting to bring in $2.7 billion in gas tax revenues but anticipates needing $4.4 billion to reimburse states for their highway and road projects. The department said it will start the upcoming fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 with no money in the trust funds if patterns continue as is.

Why? The story reports that Americans are driving less due to the high cost of fuel. A lot less. Try 10 billion miles less in May of ‘08 than in May of ‘07. Music to Democratic ears. But wait. The Highway Trust Fund is kept chuck-full-o-bucks by fuel taxes. Less driving means less fuel purchases. Less fuel purchases means less revenue to the Fund. And less Fund revenue means that “…starting next week [The Transportation Department] will begin delaying payments to states …” for the projects they are working on. Oooops, the favorite Democratic tactic of raising taxes to generate income doesn’t work yet again!

The solution? Democrats want yet another $8 billion in tax money for the Fund. Is there no end to the SUCkiness? The Bush administration recently opposed that plan. Democrats merely criticize the President, pointing to projects that will suffer if the Fund stops paying. Leaving alone, for this post anyway, the waste inherent in sending money from the states to the Feds to be sent back to the states, another factor is at work here. Railing at the GOP, Democrats conveniently forget another truth.

In this highly charged political season, Transportation Secretary [Mary] Peters blamed the financial crisis on earmarks included in the last transportation bill, which she said amounted to $24 billion in pet projects.

The last transportation bill, the one passed by a Democratic Congress, the Congress with a 9% approval rating, contained enough Pork to fund the Highway Trust Fund for almost 6 months! But it’s the GOP who is wrong for not simply ponying up another $8 billion. Democrats in control of purse strings don’t have to exercise fiscal constraint or oversight. If Bush and Co. won’t go along, open fire on the GOP. If the Right continues to balk and Dems need another few billion dollars for something, they’ll just raise another tax.

But which candidate is campaigning on reforming the earmark tradition so taxpayers get the most for the money taken from them in taxes? And which Party wants to reduce the size of Government so it doesn’t continue to cost Americans 54% of every dollar they make just to fund some level of Government? Which leads inexorably to the crucial question, “Who offers realistic hope to Americans that their SUCky LUCk can change?” How you answer that question on November 4th will have a profound impact you both of our lives. Choose well.

Wondering if that’s enough talk about the Economy for Senators Obama and Biden …

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 47% [?]

I was fascinated by a recent article in The Miami Herald on a modern day exodus that is happening below the radar.  It seems that between 2000 and 2006, a full 5% of the population of Puerto Rico has left the island for the United States due to inflation, recession and rising crime.  That works out to 200,000 people leaving a population of just 4 million!  According to a study done by the University of Puerto Rico, that exodus continues at a rate of 65,000 annually! They leave behind a workforce of 1.3 million people to provide for the needs of the population. Each worker is now responsible for 3 people, himself and 2 others.

”We are committing collective suicide,” said Elías Gutiérrez, who runs the graduate school of planning at the University of Puerto Rico. “This is going to become a country of elderly and poor people.”

If Gutierrez’s comment is true, one would think there would be a bit more helpful information given in the article. Unfortunately, there’s not. Titled ‘Recession Drives Educated Puerto Ricans to South Florida’, the piece is filled with information on 4 of the 5 ‘Ws’ of good reporting while skimping on the most important one, the one that would help us fix the problem in Puerto Rico and other places where it occurs, including right here at home.

The ‘Who’ is clearly seen. This is a disastrous drain on the skilled and highly skilled middle and upper class demographic of Puerto Rico. The people leaving are professionals. Doctors are specifically mentioned but the list includes Teachers, Nurses, Civil Servants, Sales and Law Enforcement. As Puerto Ricans are US citizens and a high percentage speak English, companies and governments alike are assisting the exodus by actively recruiting skilled, bi-lingual professsionals.

The ‘What’, ‘When’ and ‘Where’ are basic facts and are also easily found. These people are leaving in droves, from Puerto Rico to the States and, while that happens all the time, the last 8 years have been particularly harsh.

But the most important ‘W’, the ‘Why’ is basically left unaddressed. It’s a shame because if one doesn’t know what causes a problem, one cannot even begin to formulate a solution. There are a couple of hints, however.

Taxes. The legal status of Puerto Rico makes for some interesting relations. Taxes fit into that category. Puerto Ricans living on the island pay some Federal taxes and Federal Payroll taxes but they do not pay US Income Tax. The island has its own income tax. They also have their own sales tax. According to the article, two years ago the government faced a budget crisis and was forced to shut down for several weeks and furloughed many employees for that time. In a very brief mention, the article states that, when it reopened, it promptly instituted an increase in the sales tax to as high as 7 percent in some places. It is unmentioned whether or not there were also corresponding spending cuts (beyond the money government employees weren’t paid while the government was shut down). Raising taxes as the government’s solution of first resort, especially in the midst of a financial crisis among the people, is generally a bad move on government’s part.

Jobs. Also buried in a comment near the end of the article is this clue. “…the island has seen at least 55,000 manufacturing jobs go away in the past eight years, just after losing federal subsidies for corporations.” I’m unclear whether or not these subsidies came from the government of the US or Puerto Rico. But the situation as described is a great object lesson. Taking care of the goose which lays golden eggs is wise. Taking care of the corporations which pay the workers which pay the bills is a good thing. But it is possible to do good things in bad ways. Subsidies are a horrible way to provide incentive. Tax breaks work much better but they are SO politically incorrect and SO market driven that governments and the people they represent tend to hide them. In addition, tax breaks, unlike subsidies, tend to be contractual in nature. Corporations know what they’re getting and under what terms and for how long. No surprises. Subsidies? Not so much. Poor planning in the arena of employment and how to attract and retain it doesn’t sit well with citizens.

These are the only two ‘Whys’ given. They are not explained, amplified upon or put in context. They are meaningless facts added as fill in a story on the plight of Puerto Ricans in the States and at home. Unfortunately for news consumers, they are the most important facts. Thus, when the paper refuses to explain what caused the problem and merely reports that there is one, no constructive dialogue can be entered into; no solutions can be proposed; no thought goes into the process and no change can be put into place.

Make no mistake. This is an important issue buried in a human interest piece. America has 50 states which each function more or less like the government of Puerto Rico. Bad choices made in any of these 50 laboratories plus the one on the island will produce bad results and can be teaching moments for us all. Beyond providing the States with a solid core of well educated, bilingual professionals, the island is providing us a couple of other clues for fiscal health. The question is are we willing to study hard enough to learn the lesson?

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 28% [?]

If you’ve ever loved a list of quotes that rocks your world with the philosophy it espouses but breaks your heart with the shortness of its length, despair no longer. Eric Odom has put together The Ultimate Libertarian Quote List at his blog. Or as I’m sure it will come to be known in the years ahead, the MOALQ.

My favorite (about half way down the list) is from P. J. O’Rourke,

We’re told cars are wasteful. Wasteful of what? Oil did a lot of good sitting in the ground for millions of years. We’re told cars should be replaced with mass transportation. But it’s hard to reach the drive through window at McDonald’s from a speeding train. And we’re told cars cause pollution. A hundred years ago city streets were ankle deep in horse excrement. What kind of pollution do you want? Would you rather die of cancer at eighty or typhoid fever at nine?

Take a half hour and enjoy the rest of the quotes.

Blue

Popularity: 25% [?]