The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom
and individual liberty
"There is but
one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From The Phony President - Obama: Immigration reform
would boost value of homes
President Obama on
Tuesday argued that enactment of the Senate’s immigration reform bill would
boost home values across the country. “It’s pretty simple: when more
people buy homes, and play by the rules, home values go up for everybody,”
Obama said during a speech on home ownership in Phoenix. Obama conceded that
immigration was “something you don’t always hear about when it comes to the
housing market,” but he said the two things go hand in hand. “According
to one recent study, the average homeowner has already seen the value of their
home boosted by thousands of dollars, just because of immigration,” the
president said. Cecilia Munoz,
the director of the White House Domestic Policy council, tweeted during Obama’s
speech that it was a “fact” that immigration reform “will substantially
increase home values.” Really? Low
skilled workers, sneaking across the border, taking minimum wage jobs are going
to boost housing in the U.S. That and
Unicorns will be flying around the moon.
~~~~~~
“We Have Plenty Of Money If We Just
Loot More People” by Mark
Horne
The words came from
Democratic Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota: “The bottom line is we’re
not broke, there’s plenty of money, it’s just the government doesn’t have it.” You
couldn’t ask for a clearer portrayal
of the ethics of plunder. “We” are the government and “we” are not broke
because all the government needs to do is to take money from other people.
Ellison was advocating for his “Inclusive Prosperity Act.” He explained, “The government has a right,
the government and the people of the United States have a right to run the
programs of the United States. Health, welfare, housing – all these things.”
The looting mechanism proposed in the
“Inclusive Prosperity Act” is a sales tax on every sale/purchase of a stock,
bond, or derivative. This would arguably be destructive to the economy, but
I’ll leave that argument to the side. Instead, let me ask, if
everything turned out as rosy as Ellison pretends, would we be better off?
Ellison claims his new tax would rake in $300 billion a year. I have no idea
how realistic his assumptions are. Is
he assuming that there would be no reduction in sales of stocks, bonds, or
derivatives? Whatever. Pretend he is right and we get $300 billion a year
coming into the government. What does he want to do with it? The Bill itself says the money will be used
to “fund international sustainable prosperity programs such as health care
investments, AIDS treatment, research and prevention programs, climate change
adaptation and mitigation efforts by developing countries, and international
assistance.” I’m not going to address the value of these goals, or if
they are based on hallucinations, in some cases, or not. We don’t need to go
into all that. The essential point
here is that Ellison is questing for more government spending. The best
you can say about him is that he doesn’t admit that he wants to increase the
national deficit. But what was that deficit? For 2012 the national deficit was
over a Trillion dollars for the fourth year in a row. So the man who is telling us that “we have plenty of money,” even if we
assume he really can get all the revue he claims he can get, year after year,
is powerless. $300 billion wouldn’t even cover a third of the national
deficit if we didn’t spend it on anything else. So, even by these wildly optimistc claims, we are still just a larger
version of Detroit heading toward inevitable collapse and bankruptcy. Ellison
would loot more people to simply make our financial situation even less safe.
He is living in a dream world.
~~~~~~~
10 Cities That May Face Bankruptcy After Detroit By: Stephen Moore
Think Motown is the only major U.S. city in a
boatload of financial trouble? Think again.
Detroit's bankruptcy filing sent shivers down the spine of municipal
bondholders, government employees, and big-city urban residents all over the
country. That's because many of the 61 largest U.S. cities are plagued with the
same kinds of retirement legacy costs that sent Detroit into Chapter 9
bankruptcy this summer. These cities have amassed $118 billion in unfunded healthcare liabilities.
These are legal promises to pay healthcare benefits to municipal workers beyond
the employee contributions to finance those funds. This is a giant fiscal sink
hole — and because of defined benefit
plans, the hole keeps getting deeper.
Detroit may be the largest city in American history to go bankrupt, but it is not alone. The city raced to the financial insolvency finish line before anyone else in its class. Keep an eye on "too big to fail" cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York. According to an analysis by the Manhattan Institute, several Chicago pension funds are in worse financial shape than the worker pensions in Detroit. One is only 25 percent funded, and where the other 75 percent of the money will come from is anyone's guess. And there are about a dozen major California cities having systemic problems paying their bills.
Here is my worry list, based on bond ratings and other data, of the top 20 cities to watch for financial troubles in the wake of the Detroit story:
1. Compton, Calif.
2. East Greenbush, N.Y.
3. Fresno, Calif.
4. Gulf County, Fla.
5. Harrisburg, Pa.
6. Irvington, N.J.
7. Jefferson County, Ala.
8. Menasha, Wis.
9. Newburgh, N.Y.
10. Oakland, Calif.
11. Philadelphia School District, Pa.
12. Pontiac, Mich.
13. Providence, R.I.
14. Riverdale, Ill.
15. Salem, N.J.
16. Strafford County, N.H.
17. Taylor, Mich.
18. Vadnais Heights, Minn.
19. Wenatchee, Wash.
20. Woonsocket, R.I.
The stock market rally in the first half of 2013 has helped many of these cities as they invest pension contributions and get higher returns. But another market downturn could send these teetering cities back into the red. And the states can't bail them out because Illinois, California, New York, and Pennsylvania face their own money challenges. Republicans in Congress have been insistent that Washington, D.C., won't be tossing a life-preserver to troubled cities, either. The view among conservatives in Washington is that a federal bailout would only reward cities for their own bad behavior. But that won't stop the unions from trying. What do most of these ailing cities all have in common? Well, consider that the vast majority are located in states with forced unions, non-right-to-work states. "Right-to-work laws attract people and businesses," says labor economist Richard Vedder of Ohio University. "Non-right-to-work states repel them." His statistics show that cities in states with right-to-work laws have sturdier tax bases and higher employment levels. Unions control state legislatures and city halls in non-right-to-work states, so it can become politically paralyzing to try to fix the problem of runaway labor costs. Another common trait of financially troubled cities: years and years of liberal governance.
For at least the last 20 years major U.S. cities have been playgrounds for left-wing experiments — high taxes on the rich; sanctuaries for illegal immigrants; super-minimum wage rules; strict gun-control laws (that actually contribute to high crime rates); regulations and paperwork that make it onerous to open a business or develop on your own property; crony capitalism with contracts going to political donors and friends; and failing schools ruled by teacher unions, with little competition or productivity.
Starting in the 1970s, Detroit became inhospitable if you wanted to raise a family and send your kids to good schools. Criminal predators also made cities like Detroit unlivable for families with children. Businesses that provide jobs often faced citywide income taxes that were layered on top of state income taxes. "Declining cities are jurisdictions that levy local income taxes," a Cato Institute report concluded. Detroit levies a 2.5 percent income tax; New York's is 5 percent.
Another problem has been the decline in family structure that has become acute in so many big cities across the country, from Los Angeles to New York. In many cities, as many as two out of three children are born to a family without a father. As Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute has warned, "Single-mother families are a recipe for social chaos."
They are a major factor in high-poverty levels of many U.S. cities, again with Detroit being exhibit A. Welfare reforms have helped, but much work needs to be done to reinstall a culture of traditional two-parent families in urban areas. This would lead to less crime, fewer school dropouts, more businesses, and more social stabilization.
But for all these problems, cities could see a potential renaissance. More empty-nesters in their 50s and 60s are moving back into central cities like Chicago and Boston, New York and Washington, D.C., because of the cultural amenities — fine restaurants, the theater, sports, fashion, and river or lakeside condominium properties. As baby boomers retire, cities may see new populations moving in. But this creates a Catch 22 for American cities trying to recapture their glory days and attract new residents. Who wants to pay taxes for retired city workers when they don't provide any services?
These legacy costs are a fiscal millstone. They put cities in a service decline spiral, because current taxes go to retired teachers and other municipal retirees, while city managers and mayors are forced to lay off firefighters, police, and teachers. Detroit has three retired city workers collecting a pension for every two currently working. The Vallejo, Calif., city manager once told me when that city couldn't pay its bills several years ago, "You have no idea how bad it is here. We are now paying for three police forces: one that is working and two that are retired." Given that payment of the benefits are often legally guaranteed contracts, bankruptcy may be a salvation for some cities. It is a way to hit the reset button and erase those costs so cities can start over.
So can America's great and iconic cities make a financial and population comeback? The answer is certainly yes, if they can erase from their books the mistakes of 50 years of labor-union political control. Bankruptcy, strangely enough, may not be the end for cities, but perhaps the dawning of a new urban revival. - Stephen Moore is senior economics writer and member of the editorial board for The Wall Street Journal.
Detroit may be the largest city in American history to go bankrupt, but it is not alone. The city raced to the financial insolvency finish line before anyone else in its class. Keep an eye on "too big to fail" cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York. According to an analysis by the Manhattan Institute, several Chicago pension funds are in worse financial shape than the worker pensions in Detroit. One is only 25 percent funded, and where the other 75 percent of the money will come from is anyone's guess. And there are about a dozen major California cities having systemic problems paying their bills.
Here is my worry list, based on bond ratings and other data, of the top 20 cities to watch for financial troubles in the wake of the Detroit story:
1. Compton, Calif.
2. East Greenbush, N.Y.
3. Fresno, Calif.
4. Gulf County, Fla.
5. Harrisburg, Pa.
6. Irvington, N.J.
7. Jefferson County, Ala.
8. Menasha, Wis.
9. Newburgh, N.Y.
10. Oakland, Calif.
11. Philadelphia School District, Pa.
12. Pontiac, Mich.
13. Providence, R.I.
14. Riverdale, Ill.
15. Salem, N.J.
16. Strafford County, N.H.
17. Taylor, Mich.
18. Vadnais Heights, Minn.
19. Wenatchee, Wash.
20. Woonsocket, R.I.
The stock market rally in the first half of 2013 has helped many of these cities as they invest pension contributions and get higher returns. But another market downturn could send these teetering cities back into the red. And the states can't bail them out because Illinois, California, New York, and Pennsylvania face their own money challenges. Republicans in Congress have been insistent that Washington, D.C., won't be tossing a life-preserver to troubled cities, either. The view among conservatives in Washington is that a federal bailout would only reward cities for their own bad behavior. But that won't stop the unions from trying. What do most of these ailing cities all have in common? Well, consider that the vast majority are located in states with forced unions, non-right-to-work states. "Right-to-work laws attract people and businesses," says labor economist Richard Vedder of Ohio University. "Non-right-to-work states repel them." His statistics show that cities in states with right-to-work laws have sturdier tax bases and higher employment levels. Unions control state legislatures and city halls in non-right-to-work states, so it can become politically paralyzing to try to fix the problem of runaway labor costs. Another common trait of financially troubled cities: years and years of liberal governance.
For at least the last 20 years major U.S. cities have been playgrounds for left-wing experiments — high taxes on the rich; sanctuaries for illegal immigrants; super-minimum wage rules; strict gun-control laws (that actually contribute to high crime rates); regulations and paperwork that make it onerous to open a business or develop on your own property; crony capitalism with contracts going to political donors and friends; and failing schools ruled by teacher unions, with little competition or productivity.
Starting in the 1970s, Detroit became inhospitable if you wanted to raise a family and send your kids to good schools. Criminal predators also made cities like Detroit unlivable for families with children. Businesses that provide jobs often faced citywide income taxes that were layered on top of state income taxes. "Declining cities are jurisdictions that levy local income taxes," a Cato Institute report concluded. Detroit levies a 2.5 percent income tax; New York's is 5 percent.
Another problem has been the decline in family structure that has become acute in so many big cities across the country, from Los Angeles to New York. In many cities, as many as two out of three children are born to a family without a father. As Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute has warned, "Single-mother families are a recipe for social chaos."
They are a major factor in high-poverty levels of many U.S. cities, again with Detroit being exhibit A. Welfare reforms have helped, but much work needs to be done to reinstall a culture of traditional two-parent families in urban areas. This would lead to less crime, fewer school dropouts, more businesses, and more social stabilization.
But for all these problems, cities could see a potential renaissance. More empty-nesters in their 50s and 60s are moving back into central cities like Chicago and Boston, New York and Washington, D.C., because of the cultural amenities — fine restaurants, the theater, sports, fashion, and river or lakeside condominium properties. As baby boomers retire, cities may see new populations moving in. But this creates a Catch 22 for American cities trying to recapture their glory days and attract new residents. Who wants to pay taxes for retired city workers when they don't provide any services?
These legacy costs are a fiscal millstone. They put cities in a service decline spiral, because current taxes go to retired teachers and other municipal retirees, while city managers and mayors are forced to lay off firefighters, police, and teachers. Detroit has three retired city workers collecting a pension for every two currently working. The Vallejo, Calif., city manager once told me when that city couldn't pay its bills several years ago, "You have no idea how bad it is here. We are now paying for three police forces: one that is working and two that are retired." Given that payment of the benefits are often legally guaranteed contracts, bankruptcy may be a salvation for some cities. It is a way to hit the reset button and erase those costs so cities can start over.
So can America's great and iconic cities make a financial and population comeback? The answer is certainly yes, if they can erase from their books the mistakes of 50 years of labor-union political control. Bankruptcy, strangely enough, may not be the end for cities, but perhaps the dawning of a new urban revival. - Stephen Moore is senior economics writer and member of the editorial board for The Wall Street Journal.
~~~~~~
Obama Has Temper Tantrum on World Stage
So it’s ok to talk to
Iran with no preconditions, but to talk with Russia just because Snowden has
embarrassed Obama by revealing his domestic spying program is not allowed?
Obama is showing what a baby he is in the world of international affairs. This
temper tantrum will be laughed at by those in power.
In a rare diplomatic rebuke, President Barack Obama on
Wednesday canceled his Moscow summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The decision reflected both U.S. anger over Russia’s harboring of
National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden and growing frustration within
the Obama administration over what it sees as Moscow’s stubbornness on other
key issues, including missile defense and human rights.
Obama will still attend
the Group of 20 economic summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, but a top White
House official said the president had no plans to hold one-on-one talks with
Putin while there. Instead of visiting Putin in Moscow, the president will add
a stop in Sweden to his early September travel itinerary. White House deputy
national security adviser Ben Rhodes said Russia’s decision last week to defy
the U.S. and grant Snowden temporary asylum only exacerbated an already
troubled relationship. And with few signs that progress would be made during
the Moscow summit on other agenda items, Rhodes said the president decided to
cancel the talks.
~~~~~~
"Cherish,
therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be
too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once
they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and
Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves." --Thomas
Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, 1787
No comments:
Post a Comment