Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα government. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων
Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα government. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων

Παρασκευή 5 Απριλίου 2013

Big Government and High Taxes Definitely Didn't "Save" California


SACRAMENTO – Ever since
California’s voters approved the Prop. 30 sales- and income-tax
increase on the November ballot, liberal commentators have been
gloating about the resurgence of the Golden State after many years
of predicted doom and gloom. Their evidence: Higher taxes seem to
have cleared up the state’s budget deficits.


As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote
recently, “California isn’t a state in which liberals have run
wild; it’s a state where a liberal majority has been effectively
hamstrung by a fanatical conservative minority that, thanks to
supermajority rules, has been able to block effective
policy-making.”


Krugman blames the “radical right-wing” for California’s
problems, claims that the school system – which captures 40 percent
of the state’s general fund plus local bond initiatives – is
insufficiently funded (thanks to those evil right-wingers again)
and believes that all is well now that “Mr. Brown [is] free to push
an agenda of tax hikes and infrastructure spending … .”


It’s odd to blame Republicans in a state where they have had
only miniscule power for at least a decade and even weirder to
suggest that California’s milquetoast GOP is beholden to the
radical right. The real questions: Has California been saved? Are
higher taxes, more regulations and massive debt spending on public
works the answer for the rest of the country?


California still has a great future, but we need to be realistic
about its problems rather than embrace this “California is
resurgent” myopia from ideologues pushing a big-government, union
agenda.


For starters, California is far from being saved. All that has
happened is a temporary elimination of the deficit on paper. That
can quickly change and the state is still living off of borrowed
money. Longer term, many businesses will move. They’ll probably
leave their headquarters here because this is where the CEOs like
to live, but job growth and expansion will take place elsewhere.
That's already happening.


California’s dominant Democrats can now raise taxes, float debt
and expand government at will. Republican “obstructionism” forced
the state’s liberal leaders to control themselves, but that control
is over. Every hare-brained idea will have at a high likelihood of
passing. Democrats already are pushing a host of new taxes and
proposals that will make it easier for local officials to raise
taxes, also. So the taxing and spending has just begun.


Of course, to Krugman and other leftists, that’s the goal. As
William Anderson of Frostburg State University in Maryland writes,
“The fact that California has the highest taxes in the country, has
a virulent anti-business governmental culture, and has rules that
increase the cost of just about everything has nothing to do with
it. After all, in Wonderland, higher costs translate into more
spending, and more spending creates more wealth, so these ‘problem’
to which Krugman refers actually are opportunities for more
government spending, which means a brighter future.”


Note that these massive infrastructure projects – most of which
are needless – will saddled the state with a crazy level of
debt. Gov. Jerry Brown, who during his first time as governor
adopted a “small is beautiful” approach that halted infrastructure
projects, is now pushing obscene projects such as High Speed Rail,
which is now even opposed by the author of the rail initiative
because the project doesn’t live up to its original promise. Brown
also is pushing a Delta tunnel project – something that will cost
tens of billions of dollars to change the flow of the Delta to save
a tiny endangered baitfish known as the Delta Smelt.


Krugman skirts over the obvious bigger issues. The state’s
public schools are poor performers thanks to the lock that the
California Teachers Association has over the school system. There
used to be a time when liberal writers cared about poor kids, but
no more. They rather defend the bureaucrats and the union officials
that put their job protection above education.


Krugman claims that the right wing has invented a “new line of
attack” – i.e., claiming that “liberal big spending and overpaid
public employees were bringing on collapse.”


But look at bankrupt Stockton. That city is decrepit largely
because it spent most of its money on absurd levels of compensation
for its workers and could no longer provide crucial services.
Stockton may have taken it further than most, but it exemplifies
the situation throughout California, which faces a
half-trillion-dollar unfunded pension liability according to
Stanford (obviously run by right-wingers!).


Then there’s that little thing called freedom. California ranked
as the 49th freest state in the union in a new
Mercatus Center study. As the authors noted, “California not only
taxes and regulates its economy more than most other states, but
also aggressively interferes in the personal lives of its
citizens.”


This isn’t to say that California is hopeless. I have no
intention of leaving. But despite some good news on the revenue
front, the state has abundant problems that need to be addressed.
California may be a model for those who believe that most other
states have not sufficiently copied the unsustainable welfare-state
models of Western Europe, but it should offer warnings for everyone
else.

Steven Greenhut on Why Big Government and High Taxes Haven't "Saved" California


Ever since California’s voters approved the Prop.
30 sales- and income-tax increase on the November ballot, liberal
commentators have been gloating about the resurgence of the Golden
State after many years of predicted doom and gloom. Their evidence:
Higher taxes seem to have cleared up the state’s budget deficits.
But as Steven Greenhut notes, all that's really happened is a
temporary elimination of the deficit on paper. That can quickly
change and the state is still living off of borrowed money.

View this article.


4 More Ways Obama's Gun Control Speech Sows Mistrust


As I
noted
earlier today, President Obama professes to be worried
about a lack of trust and empathy in the gun control debate, even
as he accuses his opponents of blocking life-saving legislation out
of sheer partisan perversity. Here are a few other ways in which
Obama's speech in
Denver sows mistrust:


He conflates a failed background check with stopping a
criminal from obtaining a gun.
 "Over the past 20
years," Obama says, "background checks have kept more than 2
million dangerous people from buying a gun." That claim is based on
two faulty assumptions: 1) that everyone who fails a background
check is dangerous, which plainly is not true, given the
ridiculously broad categories
of people who are legally barred
from buying firearms, and 2) that a criminal intent on obtaining a
weapon will give up if he cannot get it over the counter at a gun
store, rather than enlisting a straw buyer or turning to the gray
or black market.


He falsely equates "assault weapons" with military
guns.
 Obama inaccurately calls one of the guns used
in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, massacre an "assault rifle," which is
a military weapon capable of firing automatically. He calls the
guns he wants to ban "weapons of war," again implying that they
fire continuously, when in fact they fire once per trigger pull,
like any other semi-automatic firearm.


He says there is no logical connection between
"universal background checks" and gun registration.
"We're
not proposing a gun registration system," Obama insists. "We’re
proposing background checks for criminals." But there is no way to
enforce a background-check requirement for every gun transfer
unless the government knows where the guns are. Federally licensed
gun dealers are readily identified and can be required to keep sale
records. Individual gun owners who might dare to sell their
property without clearance from the government cannot be identified
unless the government compiles a list of them. Hence Obama's
assurances amount to saying, "Don't worry. We will make a big show
of passing this new background-check mandate, but we won't really
enforce it."


He pooh-poohs the idea that there could ever be anything
adversarial about the relationship between Americans and their
government
:



You hear some of these quotes: "I need a gun to protect myself
from the government." "We can't do background checks because the
government is going to come take my guns away." 


Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you.
(Applause.) They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am
constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders
put in place. It's a government of and by and for the people.



One of the constraints on the federal government is the doctrine
of enmuerated powers, which says every act of Congress must be
justified by a specific constitutional grant of authority. Where is
the clause that empowers Congress to say how many rounds you can
put in a magazine or whether your rifle can have a barrel shroud?
Furthermore, as Obama surely has heard by now, there is this thing
called the Second Amendment, and it is hardly frivolous to argue
than an arbitrary and capricious piece of legislation like the
"assault weapon" ban Obama supports would violate the
constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yet to Obama's mind,
anyone who makes such an argument is one of those "people who take
absolute positions" and therefore can be safely ignored. After all,
the government is us. 

Πέμπτη 4 Απριλίου 2013

Sunstein's 'Simpler Government' Is Legally Suspect, Overly Secretive And Politically Unaccountable

Few people even know OIRA exists; in fact, the adjective that most often appears in descriptions of this small office is “obscure.”


Read More...

raw_feed?d=yIl2AUoC8zA raw_feed?i=xZDooKOMm8Q:aZqVpbTWY1M:F7zBn raw_feed?i=xZDooKOMm8Q:aZqVpbTWY1M:V_sGL
xZDooKOMm8Q

4 More Ways Obama's Gun Control Speech Sows Mistrust


As I
noted
earlier today, President Obama professes to be worried
about a lack of trust and empathy in the gun control debate, even
as he accuses his opponents of blocking life-saving legislation out
of sheer partisan perversity. Here are a few other ways in which
Obama's speech in
Denver sows mistrust:


He conflates a failed background check with stopping a
criminal from obtaining a gun.
 "Over the past 20
years," Obama says, "background checks have kept more than 2
million dangerous people from buying a gun." That claim is based on
two faulty assumptions: 1) that everyone who fails a background
check is dangerous, which plainly is not true, given the
ridiculously broad categories
of people who are legally barred
from buying firearms, and 2) that a criminal intent on obtaining a
weapon will give up if he cannot get it over the counter at a gun
store, rather than enlisting a straw buyer or turning to the gray
or black market.


He falsely equates "assault weapons" with military
guns.
 Obama inaccurately calls one of the guns used
in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, massacre an "assault rifle," which is
a military weapon capable of firing automatically. He calls the
guns he wants to ban "weapons of war," again implying that they
fire continuously, when in fact they fire once per trigger pull,
like any other semi-automatic firearm.


He says there is no logical connection between
"universal background checks" and gun registration.
"We're
not proposing a gun registration system," Obama insists. "We’re
proposing background checks for criminals." But there is no way to
enforce a background-check requirement for every gun transfer
unless the government knows where the guns are. Federally licensed
gun dealers are readily identified and can be required to keep sale
records. Individual gun owners who might dare to sell their
property without clearance from the government cannot be identified
unless the government compiles a list of them. Hence Obama's
assurances amount to saying, "Don't worry. We will make a big show
of passing this new background-check mandate, but we won't really
enforce it."


He pooh-poohs the idea that there could ever be anything
adversarial about the relationship between Americans and their
government
:



You hear some of these quotes: "I need a gun to protect myself
from the government." "We can't do background checks because the
government is going to come take my guns away." 


Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you.
(Applause.) They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am
constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders
put in place. It's a government of and by and for the people.



One of the constraints on the federal government is the doctrine
of enmuerated powers, which says every act of Congress must be
justified by a specific constitutional grant of authority. Where is
the clause that empowers Congress to say how many rounds you can
put in a magazine or whether your rifle can have a barrel shroud?
Furthermore, as Obama surely has heard by now, there is this thing
called the Second Amendment, and it is hardly frivolous to argue
than an arbitrary and capricious piece of legislation like the
"assault weapon" ban Obama supports would violate the
constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yet to Obama's mind,
anyone who makes such an argument is one of those "people who take
absolute positions" and therefore can be safely ignored. After all,
the government is us. 

"Anti-Government" Couple on Run After Kidnapping Their Own Children From Court-Appointed Guardian


This story probably isn't going to end well:
Joshua Michael Hakken and his wife Sharyn Hakken are on the run in
Florida after kidnapping their own two children from Sharyn's
mother this morning. Patricia Hauser has had legal custody of her
grandchildren, four-year-old Cole and two-year-old Chase, since
2012, when Joshua and Sharyn lost custody for displaying pot in
front of their sons at an "anti-government rally" in Louisianna.

ABC Action News has more
: 



Investigators say Joshua Michael Hakken, 35 entered the home of
Patricia Hauser at 14040 Shady Shores Drive around 6:30 a.m. Hauser
is the maternal grandmother of Chase Hakken, 2, and Cole Hakken, 4.
It's believed Hakken's wife, 34-year-old Sharyn Hakken was waiting
outside.


Investigators did not know if the children were taken at
gunpoint and it was not clear if the mother was directly involved
in the abduction.


Reporters were told at a Wednesday afternoon news conference the
State of Louisiana took away the parents' parental rights and gave
Hauser temporary custody. 


Joshua Hakken tied up Hauser, took the children and fled in
Hauser's 2009 silver Toyota Camry, which was later found a few
blocks away.   


According to investigators, the couple lost custody of the two
boys after an anti-government rally in Louisiana. The father was
charged was possession of marijuana in the presence of the
children.


Afterward, Joshua Hakken tried to take the children, reportedly
at gunpoint, from a Louisiana foster care facility, but was
thwarted, according to the sheriff's office.



There aren't a lot of details out there right now, so it's
possible that the Hakkens really were a danger to their kids. But
it will be just so goddamn awful if all of this is the result of
them using some marijuana at a rally in front of their
kids. 


According to the Tampa Bay Times, the Hakkens run an
engineering firm in the Tampa area. Their parental rights were
terminated by a Louisiana court yesterday. 


Update: More on Hakken's June 17, 2012 drug
charge that may have gotten his kids taken away,
from the Time-Picayune police blotter
: "Joshua M.
Hakken, age 34 of 3609 S Sterling Avenue, Tampa, FL, was arrested
for Possession of Marijuana, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and
Possession of a controlled dangerous substance in the presence of a
minor."


Update II: Florida media outlets are really
playing up the anti-government angle. This is at the top of the
Orlando Sentinel's home page.


For the Children: Break Up the Corrupt Government School Monopoly System!


School failureIn today's Washington Post, columnist
George Will has a terrific column indicting the diversity
propaganda complex in government elementary and secondary schools,
but the most
disheartening part
of his column is his recitation of these
facts:



Today, the school systems in 20 states employ more non-teachers
than teachers. The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice
reports that between 1950 and 2009, while the number of K-12
students increased 96 percent, full-time-equivalent school
employees increased 386 percent. The number of teachers increased
252 percent, but the number of bureaucrats — including
consciousness-raising sensitivity enforcers and other non-teachers
— increased 702 percent. The report says states could have saved
more than $24 billion annually if non-teaching staff had grown only
as fast as student enrollment. And Americans wonder why their
generous K-12 financing (higher per pupil than all but three of the
34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations)
has done so little to improve reading, math and science scores.



Consider also the fact that per pupil
spending
has increased (in real dollars) from $4,600 in 1972 to
$10,700 in 2009. On the other hand, SAT scores have not budged:



Sat scores



And it's not just poor American kids whose academic performance
lags. A new report released earlier this week compares U.S.

middle class student achievement
with that of other developed
countries. The news is not good:



America Achieves today released new data showing that America's
middle class schools have a long way to go to be best in the world.
 The report is based on new analyses of math and science data
disaggregated by economic and social advantage from the 2009
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).  U.S.
students in the second to top quarter of socio-economic advantage
lag behind their international peers—significantly outperformed by
24 countries and regions in math and 15 in science. 
Previously published results show that U.S. students in the second
quarter of economic advantage lag significantly behind 10 other
countries in reading.



Although those countries also run government school monopolies,
they are not yet strangled by the sort of bureaucratic overgrowth
cited by Will.


Transparency International defines
corruption
as...



Generally speaking as “the abuse of entrusted power for private
gain”. Corruption can be classified as grand, petty and political,
depending on the amounts of money lost and the sector where it
occurs....


Political corruption is a manipulation of policies, institutions
and rules of procedure in the allocation of resources and financing
by political decision makers, who abuse their position to sustain
their power, status and wealth.



Not only are students and parents being betrayed by the
politicians who maintain the system of government monopoly schools,
but so too are the hard-working teachers who are coerced into
conforming to the corrupt norms of that system. For the Kids -
break up the government school monopoly.

Τετάρτη 3 Απριλίου 2013

You Can Love Nature and Still Hate the Tyranny of Environmental Regulations


Environmental activists and politicians would like you to think
that we must love their regulations -- or hate trees and
animals.


I love trees and animals.


But you can love nature and still hate the tyranny that
environmental regulations bring.


The Environmental Protection Agency just announced it will boost
gas prices ("only" a penny, although industry says 6 to 9 cents) to
make another minuscule improvement to air quality.


In New York City, my mayor wants to ban Styrofoam cups, saying,
"I think it's something we can do without."


Congress already dictates the design of our cars, toilets and
light bulbs.


Originally,
environmental rules were a good thing. I love the free market, but
it doesn't offer a practical remedy to pollution. I could sue
polluters for violating my property rights, but under our legal
system, that's not even close to practical.


So in the '70s, government passed rules that demanded we stop
polluting the air and water. Industry put scrubbers in smokestacks.
Towns installed sewage treatment. Now the air is quite clean, and I
can swim in the rivers around Manhattan.


But government didn't stop there. Government never stops. Now
that the air is cleaner, government spends even more than it spent
to clean the air to subsidize feeble methods of energy production,
like windmills and solar panels. Activists want even more spending.
A few years back, the Center for American Progress announced they
were upset that "Germany, Spain and China Are Seizing the Energy
Opportunity ... the United States Risks Getting Left Behind."


In this case, we're better off "left behind." After spending
billions, those European governments made no breakthroughs, and now
they're cutting back.


The Endangered Species Act was another noble idea. We all want
to save polar bears. But now the bureaucrats make it almost
impossible for some people to improve their own property.


Louisiana landowner Edward Poitevent wants to build homes and
offices north of Lake Pontchartrain. He could provide safe
high-ground housing to people eager to move away from areas that
were flooded during Hurricane Katrina. But he is not allowed to
build because the government decided 1,500 acres of his land should
become a preservation area for a threatened species called the
dusky gopher frog. None of these frogs currently live on his
property. Poitevent told me, "The Fish and Wildlife Service has
certified that the frog has not been seen in the state of Louisiana
since 1967."


Fish and Wildlife Service officials said they were "not
available" to talk with me about this. Instead, they posted a video
on YouTube that says they work "with" landowners: "The Service has
many voluntary partnership-based programs that can provide
technical and financial assistance to manage species."


That sounds nice, but the government's handbook on
how to work with them is an onerous 315 pages
long.


The environmentalists so torment those who resist their schemes
that some landowners tell each other, "If you find an endangered
species, shoot, shovel and shut up!" That's mostly a joke. But it
does happen, and it's one more way government regulations
backfire.


Throughout the world, most reductions in pollution have been
achieved because of capitalism, not government control.


Fracking for natural gas reduced greenhouse gas emissions.


Even much-hated coal and oil provide benefits. Science writer
Matt Ridley says, "Burning of fossil fuels is helping the
rainforest in the Amazon to grow."


Ridley also points out modern industrial farming allows people
to grow more food on less land, and so people cut down fewer trees.
"New England used to be 70 percent farmland -- it's now 70 percent
forest."


You can even see the difference between areas that get greener
and ones that don't from space: The Dominican Republic is
noticeably greener than its immediate neighbor, Haiti, mainly
because the Dominican Republic uses fossil fuel instead of burning
wood from its forests for fuel, as Haiti does.


Industry and technology, not regulations, are humanity's
greatest contribution to the environment. Leave people their
freedom, and they come up with new, smarter, more efficient and
thus cleaner ways of doing things. Stifling that process with
regulation isn't "progressive."

Τρίτη 2 Απριλίου 2013

Climate Scientist Quits NASA To Testify Against The Government

NASA Climate Scientist James Hansen Arrested

Now that NASA scientist James E. Hansen is retiring, he will finally be able to pursue a longtime passion: helping climate activists suing the U.S. government.  

For 46 years Hansen was a pioneering climate researcher for the government and one of the first scientists to warn the world about the causes and effects of a warming planet.

Hansen has tilted further toward activist in recent years, earning him both the ire of opponents and the concern of colleagues who think his protests undermine the value of scientific neutrality. As you can see in the picture in this post, he's been arrested a few times at protests.

Being a NASA scientist for 46 years, though, has prevented him from doing what he has felt his research has compelled him to do: Force the government to adopt stricter controls on greenhouse gas emissions.  

"As a government employee, you can’t testify against the government,” he said in an interview with Justin Gillis of The New York Times.

"If we burn even a substantial fraction of the fossil fuels, we guarantee there’s going to be unstoppable changes" in the climate of the earth, he said. "We’re going to leave a situation for young people and future generations that they may have no way to deal with."

Even when he couldn't accuse the government of crimes against the climate, Hansen has been arrested for protesting mountaintop mining, and the Keystone XL Pipeline.

"At my age," which is 72, "I am not worried about having an arrest record."

Please follow Science on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

mf.gif

a2.imga2t.img

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=F34zZ9nIGE8:Qo2H6PZOxY businessinsider?i=F34zZ9nIGE8:Qo2H6PZOxY businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=F34zZ9nIGE8:Qo2H6PZOxY
F34zZ9nIGE8