Radioactive Communist Zombies

Mandating Unemployment

Why is Washington State, with 9.3% unemployment going to raise the minimum wage?  Because it's the law (and a stupid law at that).

Way back in the booming '90s there was a ballot initiative to tie the state's minimum wage to inflation in Seattle.  As if inflation in Seattle is representative of inflation in Republic.  Unfortunately, this quickly resulted in Washington State having the country's highest minimum wage.  And now it is set to increase to $9.04 in 2012.

There's an immutable law in economics that if raise the price of something people will demand less of it.  Raising the minimum wage increase the price of labor.  So businesses will now demand less labor.  Even business that don't pay the minimum wage will have to raise wages in order to attract good workers.  And poor, unemployed, and inexperienced workers will be priced out of the market.  As Thomas Sowell said, the true minimum wage is zero, because that's what you'll be earning if you aren't worth to an employer what the mandated minimum wage is.

Washington State's minimum wage is just the worst example.  Any mandated minimum wage is going to increase unemployment and hurt business, especially the unskilled or entry-level employee and small businesses.  It's bad policy and most importantly, bad economics.  And it hurts people.  That should be enough to abolish it.  Unfortunately, the Washington State Democrats, who pretty much run the state, are beholden to the labor unions who like the minimum wage because it decreases competition for their over-paid jobs.  So don't hold your breath.

This is Getting Ridiculous

According to my Twitter timeline, Mike Huckabee might be thinking about running.  Heck, it may be too late!  According to The Wall Street Journal (Hat Tip: The Primary Event), Florida will move its presidential primary to (wait for it) January 31, 2012.  Which means if Iowa and New Hampshire plan to remain "first in the nation" they'll have to move theirs into earlier in January.  The Iowa Caucuses are currently scheduled for February 6 and New Hampshire primary for February 14.  That means the Iowa Caucuses could be as January 9, 2012 (I assume they wouldn't want to do them on the 2nd).  That's 101 days from today (less than 15 weeks).

Of course everyone wants an early caucus or primary because they want to have a say in who's the nominee (it's ridiculous that Iowa and New Hampshire have so much influence).  But this is getting asinine.  What's going to happen in 2016?  Everyone will move into January so Iowa will move to December 2015?

What we need is one, single, nation-wide primary in say, June.  And if it weren't in violation of the First Amendment and my libertarian principles, ban campaigning until May.  The system we have now is crazy and disenfranchise anyone who isn't in an early primary state (I remember voting for Mitt Romney last year as the lesser of three evils over the slim pickings of him, Huckabee, and McCain).

Unfortunately, the early-voting states don't want to give up their power to choose the president.  And I don't know (I doubt it) if it would Constitutional for the government to mandate it.  But something needs to be done before the 2020 Iowa Caucus is in 2018.

How to End Unemployment Now

I know how to solve the unemployment problem.  And I can do it a way that Paul Krugman would be proud of.  We need to recreate the great pyramids of Egypt outside Area 51 in Nevada.  But not just recreate them, but recreate how they were built: with back-breaking manual labor.  No modern machines.  No electricity.  No horses even.  Why we could employ a million slaves, I mean workers.  Couldn't pay 'em much but, hey, they'd be employed.

What?  There's more than a million unemployed people?  Well then, let's build pyramids all over the country.  And since we're not paying much, it won't cost nearly as much as Obama's jobs program.

Oh, you don't like that?  Well then, how about banning mechanized farming.  It'll take millions of people to grow the food America needs.  Okay, the pay will be lousy (or food will cost more than your house payment), but that's a small price to pay for full employment.

You know, that $1 trillion stimulus isn't looking so bad now (even though it didn't stop unemployment from hitting 10%).  Of course, we should have made it $2 trillion, then we'd really be in a hole.

Or here's a better idea: get government out of the business of creating jobs and let the economy do it and do it right.  You know, jobs that actually create wealth instead of sucking it up?  Now that will be a multiplier effect. 

Why Should Blacks Support Obama?

President Obama went to the Congressional Black Caucus . . . gathering? and affecting almost a "street" accent, urged the CBC to fight for him.  My question is, why?  Why would any black person support this man for president?  Look at black unemployment under Obama.  it currently stands at 17.0% and has never been below 13.4% during his administration.  And what has Obama accomplished to improve that number.  Look at  the following chart (click for a full view):

 

Obama's three signatory achievements are the Stimulus, Obamacare, and the Dodd-Frank banking regulations.  When the Stimulus passed, black unemployment was 13.8%.  Since then it's been as high as 17.3%.  And from the chart it's easy to see that neither Obamacare nor Dodd-Frank improved unemployment among blacks.  In fact, it appears the Obama Administration has been a disaster for the black community.

So why should blacks support this president?  I can only think of one reason: he's black.  And wouldn't that otherwise be labeled "racism"?

Don't Let the Imagined Perfect be the Enemy of the Electable Good

Last night Chris Christie, to the disappointment of many judging from my Twitter timeline, apparently announced he will not run for President.  Thus dashed the hopes of many pundits who are not happy with the current Republican line up of presidential candidates.

Perry was supposed to be the guy, but then he was sorta soft on illegal immigration (but not as soft as some have tried to paint him) and there was the whole HPV virus vaccine debacle.  Now that he's won the Florida straw poll, some are looking to Herman Cain (hey, I liked Cain before it was cool).

It seems there are a lot of folks out there looking for the perfect candidate to go against Obama.  I hate to break the news to them, there is no perfect candidate.  Even Ronald Reagan wasn't perfect.  Perry was supposed to be that candidate, but he wasn't.  Christie was supposed to be that candidate but he a) isn't running and b) isn't perfect.

We on the right need to pick the best candidate who can defeat the Obama Machine.  It won't be easy.  The election of 2012 is going to make mudslinging into bloodslinging.  However we nominate, better be ready for the MSM and Democratic oppo research anal exam of a lifetime.  Obama has only one way to win the election after his failure of a presidency: destroy his opponent.  And he'll try along with the lick-spittle MSM doing all they can.

We shouldn't let the imagined perfect be the enemy of the electable good.  Which is way I'm still leaning toward Perry.  Or Cain.  Or maybe Bachmann.

Obama's Wants to Destroy the Economy, Apparently

There are those that believe Obama is a plant to destroy the United States.  I know, I've gotten the forwarded emails.  I still don't believe it but with the latest news about his jobs program I'm starting to think he's purposely trying to destroy the economy.  Either that or he's so beholden to the trial lawyers lobby he'll do anything to please them.  From The Lookout by Zachary Roth (links original):

The job creation bill that President Obama sent to Congress earlier this month includes a provision that would allow unsuccessful job applicants to sue if they think a company of 15 more employees denied them a job because they were unemployed.

So, you're a business owner and you're thinking of going on a job search to hire someone.  But if you don't hire the unemployed you'll get sued?  "Hmmm, maybe I can automate that position."

If there was any dumber action the President could take, I'm not sure what it is ($ trillion stimulus excluded).  Why do Democrats always decry unemployment when they make employing someone such a risky business?  Make hiring easier, guys, and maybe you'll see unemployment come down.

No, I don't think Obama is a plant to destroy our country.  And I don't think he's purposely destroying the economy.  I just think he's an idiot.

Millionaires Pay Taxes . . . A Lot of Taxes

One thing you can always count on desperate Democrat politicians to demagogue is taxes.  The rich, they say, don't pay their fair share.  This is, of course, like most Democrat/progressive talking points, bovine scatology.  Veronique de Rugy has a post in The Corner explaining how much millionaires pay in taxes (emphasis added):

In 2009, millionaires made up 0.1 percent, or just fewer than 240,000, of the 140 million tax returns filed that year. Despite their small demographic imprint, the magnitude of their contribution in paid taxes is hard to overlook. Over the past ten years, millionaires have paid 17 to 28 percent of total income tax returns per year.
 
The 233,435 taxpayers who reported earning seven digits or more in 2009 brought in a total of $702.2 billion, received $77.2 billion in personal exemptions and total deductions, and paid 25 percent ($176.4 billion) of their income in taxes overall. As you may recall, the top 1 percent of income earners pay 38 percent of income taxes and earn 20 percent of income, which makes our tax system highly progressive.

So why is Obama and others lying about this? Because it feeds the jealous and the petty among us (and there are far too many of them).

So what is a fair tax?  How about we take the federal budget, divide it by the number of taxpayers, and send them a bill.  Unfortunately, with a budget of over $3 trillion that would mean each household would have to pay over $22,000 per year in taxes.  And most couldn't afford that.

So next time you are enjoying a government service (like, oh, police protection), thank a millionaire.  He or she paid part of your share of the cost.

Health Insurance Costs Soar

Remember when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was passed and signed into law? Some people (such as me) call it "Obamacare." Now do you remember? Well, anyway, I don't know about the "patient protection" part but the "affordable care" part isn't panning out.  A short AP story says that health insurance costs increased a lot this year . . . unexpectedly:

A new survey shows that the average cost of employer-sponsored health insurance surged this year, snapping a trend toward moderate growth, but experts say increases may slow again in 2012.

A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation says annual premiums for family coverage climbed 9 percent compared to 2010, when they rose only 3 percent.

Why?  No explanation is given.  But let me toss out some ideas.  1) Dealing with massive new regulations that come out of Obamacare, 2) Having to cover "children" up to age 26, 3) Insurers getting in price hikes while they can before Obamacare becomes completely in force, and 4) as always, the lack of market forces in the health insurance market keeping out competition that Obamacare not only doesn't address but makes worse.

The unforeseen consequences of trying to regulate a huge part of the economy from Washington D.C. are just starting.  Wait until the "patient protection" part becomes a lie, too.

Follow the Money on Global Warming

(Hat Tip: Planet Gore)  Why are some people fanatic about global warming climate change?  Because they stand to make millions.  Others aren't so lucky. Like the 8-year-old boy burned to death when his village in Uganda was "peacefully" cleared to make room for a carbon-credit tree plantation.  The New York Times (!) has the story:

According to the company’s proposal to join a United Nations clean-air program, the settlers living in this area left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner.

People here remember it quite differently.

“I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”

Other villagers described gun-toting soldiers and an 8-year-old child burning to death when his home was set ablaze by security officers.

“They said if we hesitated they would shoot us,” said William Bakeshisha, adding that he hid in his coffee plantation, watching his house burn down. “Smoke and fire.”

According to a report released by the aid group Oxfam on Wednesday, more than 20,000 people say they were evicted from their homes here in recent years to make way for a tree plantation run by a British forestry company, emblematic of a global scramble for arable land.

What's going on? Companies sell "carbon credits" to susceptible, gullible people concerned about climate change.  The companies promise to grow trees to "offset" carbon emitted.  But to grow the trees, they need land.

The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.

The company involved, New Forests Company, grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon-dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad. Its investors include the World Bank, through its private investment arm, and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, HSBC.

The company expects to make $1.8 million per year selling carbon credits and planting trees.  And who gets in the way, including poor villagers, are just so many eggs to make an omelet.

I guess we can add all that to the damage climate change is doing.  Not the environmental damage, but the havoc trying to stop it (while it may be natural) is wreaking on our economy.

Red Light Camera Tickets on Green Light

Various jurisdictions have installed red-light cameras to automatically ticket scofflaws who run red lights and improve safety raise revenue. The traffic lights are supposed to be infallible and in some cases are only cursorily glanced at by a human.

So how come they ticket people not running red lights? In Texas a man was ticketed for basically running a green light (Hat Tip: Instapundit and links origianl):

Based upon my review and inspection of the recorded images, I state that a violation of ordinance #S-1-08 did occur,” the ticket stated just above [Port Lavaca Police Sergeant Kelly] Flood’s signature. “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Texas the foregoing is true and correct.”

On September 6 at 12:04pm, Price drove his grey 2009 GMC pickup through the intersection of US 35 and Travis Street. He was making a left-hand turn, with turn signal active, at 17 MPH. According to the red light camera, the light had been red for more than a minute. According to the photographs (view first photo, view second photo), and the video evidence, the light remained green throughout his turn.

So the ticket was canceled. But that's not good enough for Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras who want the whole program scrapped:

This is one of the reasons that we’d want to shut down the program,” group co-founder Dwayne Buehring told The Newspaper. “We don’t know how many people have paid tickets without looking at the video. Because of the scare tactics they use, some people are just going to pay. This cop down there is just mailing them out to everyone.”

These cameras are simply revenue raising devices. They are sold to the public as safety systems but in fact have been shown to increase accidents as drivers slam on their brakes to avoid the possibility of getting a ticket (guilty as charged). But they are cash cows for jurisdictions (along with artificially low speed limits) so good luck getting rid of them.