In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Well, this might be the best Chris Christie-tells-off-pubic-employees video yet. In part because in this case the poor policeman doesn’t come off as arrogant, and also because Christie does his best to level with the guy and respect him. But that doesn’t keep Christie from flinching when it comes to leveling with the guy. Money quote: ““Here’s the thing: You’re getting a paycheck. And there are 9% of the people in the state of New Jersey who are not.”:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something likethis:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.”I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10! “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
Even though this anecdote has been around for awhile, it is a great example of how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Something I like to do when I meet with groups is to hand out copies of Frederic Bastiat’s “The Law”. This is one of my favorite books, and I encourage everyone to read it at least once. The folks over at FEE (Foundation for Economic Education) have done a great job making selected writings available online for free.
I just recently wrote about the squalid conditions in Haiti mostly bereft of any substantive results, despite billions in aid and donations flowing into Haiti.
This report on the one-year anniversary of the Haitian earthquake disaster confirms my belief that a majority of the donation funds are being misused. Highlights, from the article:
A year later, Americans are still seeing images of Haitians living in tents and wondering why. Their $10 dollar text donation may have helped pay for those gray tents with the black stripes. But Ben Smilowitz from The Disaster Accountability Project (www.disasteraccountability.org) says if donors want to know, they should ask.
His watchdog group did just that, asking 200 aid organizations operating in Haiti to detail how much money they raised and how they are spending it. Only 38 of them responded to the survey. Those 38 collectively raised 1.4 billion dollars and say they’ve so far spent about 700 million of it. However, Smilowitz says many refused to state clear goals and provide a breakdown of how they are spending donor money. He says transparency among aid groups is key to evaluating success in Haiti, but realizes it could also point out some flaws.“Flaws could lead to less donations. Do we want honesty and a more effective relief effort? Or do we want groups to amass just huge sums of money and not spend half of it?”
High taxes are also a hindrance to helping hands. Haiti tacks a 40 percent import tax on to everything that crosses the country’s border, from eggs to automobiles. That often forces aid groups to make the hard decision between importing much needed medicine and the means with which to deliver it.
Adam Marlatt of Global DIRT (Disaster Immediate Response Team, www.globaldirt.org) says he’s seen brand-new, fully donated pick-up trucks designated for aid groups sitting idle at the airport for so long, weeds grew up to the windows. The aid groups the trucks were sent for can’t afford, or choose not to spend, the thousands of dollars they would have to pay the Haitian government to use them. It’s like winning a free car, but you can’t afford to pay the taxes on it.
Aid groups are eligible for a tax exemption, but obtaining the exemption is a long and lengthy process. A year later, few who were not operating in Haiti before the quake are eligible for the tax break.
Ben Smilowitz says paying what it takes to operate – and accounting for it – will make a difference. “If these organizations don’t spend the money they have, then what kind of urgency is it for countries to give more?”
The Haitians don’t need any more monetary donations; they need, and deserve, a restructuring of their government and its leaders.
The criterion for charitable giving in recent years has become based on emotion rather than responsibility. An glaring example of this trend is the millions of dollars blindly poured into US and UN charities in response to the Haitian earthquake disaster. Never mind that most of these organizations are racked with corruption. Those who support their continued existence are implicitly liable for compounding the misery that still exists in Haiti nearly a year later.
The recent fraudulent elections – held just a month ago – have perpetuated another cycle of abuse. But where is the current outrage about the results among those who purport to care about the misfortune of the Haitian people? It’s easy to for Americans to donate to a faceless organization and feel good about helping, yet ignorant generosity has unintended consequences.
The government of Haiti and the organizations that prop it up are racked with dishonest leaders; the monetary contributions that flow from misguided donors only serve to feed their corruption. Haitians must strive to purge the body politic – but this can only be achieved by severing the financial support systems currently in place.
Mary O’Grady’s recent article in the WSJ highlights the graft running rampant in the import business being conducted at Port-au-Prince. Yet the US and UN have turned a blind eye to the devastating effects the extortionists have on the business and economic growth. Is it any wonder then, that the response to reports of election fraud by the Clintons, Valenzula, or the UN have been equally and exceedingly lackluster?
Examining the state of the Haiti recovery effort, one can only conclude that by and large, the US and UN aid organizations are in collusion with the current depraved governing body in Haiti. Billions of dollars in contributions have only lined the pockets of the leadership while keeping the Haitian people in involuntary squalor.
I have proudly not contributed to Haiti because I believe in the idea of responsible giving. Sadly, the consequences of Haitian donations have been severe. Starving the Haitian government of monetary aid is the only opportunity to cripple their fraudulent behavior, weaken their power, and give dignity and hope back to the Haitian people. People who truly wish to aid and not exploit those whom they seek to help would do well to know the history and politics of the organizations and their leaders before they contribute.
A recent Op-Ed in the New York Post by John Faso, discusses the shrinking population in New York State and its implications for the future.
Faso surmises that New Yorkers are fleeing the state — most famously Rush Limbaugh — because of high taxes and dismal job prospects. Our state is nearly bankrupt and has been increasingly burdensome and hostile to businesses in recent years. The population decline means a loss of two more seats in the House of Representatives. More importantly, this means that New York is no longer as powerful as it has been in terms of policy.
Faso reminds us about the challenges we as New Yorkers face and what we can do to surmount them.
