By around Election Day, the total debt of the United States will be $16,394,000,000,000.00 ($16.394 trillion).
Last time, we marked the 1000 days without a budget.Now it’s 1200 days. Did you know that Obama’s term as President is officially 1461 days? Almost the entirety of his administration has been operating without a budget.
I hope Mitt Romney will hammer this point home today during his VP rollout.
UPDATE 8/11: It’s Official — Romney/Ryan. At least I came close with the Virginia angle yesterday long before the VP site and time announcement was made. I’ll take that. And I’ll take a Romney/Ryan ticket.
Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia is Romney’s VP pick. You heard it here first! Here’s my Top 10 List why:
The contest to meet Mitt and his VP ends at 23:59 on August 10.
Romney will be in Virginia with McDonnell on Saturday, August 11
Romney needs Virginia to win, and Virginia also has a crucial Senate seat (George Allen) to win
Virginia is the third-best state to do business: a robust, low-tax state — a must-have for Romney and the economy
As a Governor, McDonnell is more expendable than someone in the Senate or House
McDonnell has the leadership skills as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association
There you go! UPDATE: It’s confirmed Mitt will announce at 9am in Norfolk, VA. No planes needed for transporting the elusive VP pick. Kicks off a multi-state tour, with several stops in Virginia. And, check out www.mittromney.com. See who is on the front page — it’s not Paul Ryan.
UPDATE #2: Nothing from Bob McDonnell’s Twitterfeed for 9 hours now.
UPDATE #3: Rubio, Portman, Pawlenty all ruled out. Nothing about Bob McDonnell still and it’s after 1am
UPDATE #4: Bad storms in Virginia. Not good airplane weather
“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.
The new Socialist President, Francois Hollande, announced the latest “get rich quick” scheme for France: impose a 75 percent tax on the portion of anyone’s income above a million euros ($1.24 million) a year. Under the guise of Patriotism, Hollande is seeking that the rich “pay extra tax to get the country back on its feet again.” Parliament will consider the initiative next month as a means to improve France’s finances as the Euro crisis rages on in Europe.
Unfortunately, this should come as no surprise to France’s wealthiest. Mr. Hollande has matter-of-factly stated, “I don’t like the rich”, and now he has a measure to put money where his mouth is. As the NYTimes reports:
Taxes are high in France for a reason: they pay for one of Europe’s most generous social welfare systems and a large government. As Mr. Hollande has described it, the tax plan is about “justice,” and “sending out a signal, a message of social cohesion.”
Outrageous.
While some support Hollande’s proposal, others are rightly concerned with the Laffer Curve effect; namely, that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will be counterproductive for raising further tax revenue. Indeed, such a result was seen most recently in England this past spring; as a money-grab measure, the highest tax margins were increased to a 50% tax on the wealthy. I wrote about this last month, when income tax and capital gains revenue receipts were down after the implementation of the controversial measure — and much of England’s leadership was surprised at the result.
Thomas Sowell observed quite aptly: “I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you’ve earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money”.
Yes, Hollande’s attitude and tax plan will drive away more businesses and investors from France’s already fledgling economy, because the highest income earners will have had enough. The last time a socialist was elected President in France — Monsieur Francois Mitterrand in the 1980’s — there was some flight of the wealthy from the country. Expect to see the same result if such a crushing and counter-productive piece of legislation passes in September.
In that case, let the capital flight commence to the USA!
A great piece by John Nolte on Tuesday documents the coordinated attack on Romney’s wealth in an attempt to insinuate some sort of financial impropriety.
Nevermind the fact that Romney has unequivocally been squeaky clean in releasing and documenting every bit of his finances.
Nolte goes on to discuss how both the Washington Post and Politico coordinated with Obama’s campaign to hint at potential indiscretions with Romney’s money while covering a pro-Occupy article in Vanity Fair.
Though both Politico and the Post lie through the act of omission by not telling their readers Romney has complied 100% with financial disclosure requirements, what both are doing here (and you can expect the rest of the media to pile on) is laying the foundation for a media-narrative that will demand more disclosure from Romney. The tactic is an old one, for the media knows that the simple act of demanding this kind of information is in and of itself a way of making Romney look slippery and dishonest — you know, like a rich jerk with something to hide — which is exactly how the Obama campaign (and therefore Politico and the Washington Post) intend to define Romney.
Not only is this an attempt to discredit Romney, it is also part of a larger Obama anti-rich campaign narrative. We’ve heard them before: “the rich need to pay their fair share”, “millionaires and billionaires“, “Buffett Rules” and other class-warfare rhetoric. Painting Romney as a rich shyster allows the campaign to continue to push the idea that Obama is one of us…not a big-bad-rich-guy.
Yet, back in January, when Romney disclosed his taxes, the media story then was similar too; Romney paid only about a 15% tax rate — which means (according to their playbook) he didn’t pay enough. Interestingly however, was one aspect of the tax return that went wholly unreported by many news outlets, and not just the overtly liberal ones either (remember in January, Romney was one of several potential GOP candidates). Having reviewed Romney’s returns, I noted that he paid taxes on more than $1 million worth of income that existed on paper only, due to the nature of hedge funds, IRS deduction rules, etc. You can read that report here. Yet no less than five news agencies — liberal and conservative — chose not to cover and discuss a story that had Romney paying “more than his fair share of taxes”. That wouldn’t sell. That didn’t fit the rhetoric. Would have it been different if the returns came out now, now that he is our nominee — and therefore we are more unified against Obama?
Reflecting on that, one thing is certain: we can expect more of these baseless, factless attacks on Romney from the leftist media as the summer marches on. Thankfully, articles like Nolte’s help to expose and dispel the bias and campaign mouthpieces that are indeed active.
The sage Don Boudreaux share the following quote this morning on his website, Cafe Hayek:
“[S]ince profits and losses reflect the success or failure of the entrepreneur in adjusting production to consumer demand, the profits of a competitive (in the Austrian sense) industry can never be “too high” or “too low.”
Followed by his spot on commentary:
Right. To disparage profits earned in competitive markets is to disparage success at arranging for resources to serve consumers well; and to disparage unusually high profits is to disparage success at arranging for resources to serve consumers unusually well.
Put differently, to disparage unusually high profits is to imply that society is harmed whenever entrepreneurs and businesses rescue it from uses of resources that are especially wasteful compared to new, highly profitable uses.
Sadly, though, because such disparagement scores political points with many who are economically unaware – or who embrace envy as a sound justification for public policy – there’s always an abundance of politicians willing to issue such disparagements.
Not much more needs to be said. Boudreaux succinctly captures the essence of free-market enterprise and the benefits of profit to society, the individual, and businesses. To punish success, as our government seeks to do, does irreparable harm to the economy and stifles creativity, investment, growth.
There are a few good aspects of the Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the ObamaCare mandate as a tax. Among them are 1) the deception by which Obama’s administration passed ObamaCare in Congress; 2) the preservation of the Commerce Clause; 3) the ease at which ObamaCare can now be repealed and 4) the invalidation of the Medicaid expansion, which upheld State’s rights and may ultimately undermine the entire efficacy of ObamaCare.
For the first time in history, a major piece of legislation passed Congress as an intentional deception of the American electorate. The only way this law was passed in March 2010 was the result of a clear and patent lie by the Obama Administration. ObamaCare supporters, including the President himself, repeatedly and emphatically denied that ObamaCare was a tax, and instead pointed to the Commerce Clause to validate its existence. Then, in front of the Supreme Court, the Obama Administration argued that ObamaCare was a tax. “Taxation Without Representation?”. This bait-and-switch tactic must be relentlessly hammered home between now and November. Between Obama’s aggressive use of the Executive Order and now this clear example of deceit, the American citizens must be continuously reminded that Obama will use any tactic to get what he wants — and is a tax-raiser too.
That being said, the Supreme Court opinion gave us five clear votes that this law would not have passed muster under the Commerce Clause. Thus this ruling clarified, strengthened and protected the Commerce Clause while establishing a precedent from further Congressional usurpations. The Supreme Court has now firmly stated Congress does not have the power of commerce coersion. It also upheld the separation of the three branches of government – that it was not the Supreme Court’s job to prevent Congress from passing a bad law (and thus a check against overt judicial activism); rather its function was solely to interpret the constitutionality of said law. ObamaCare however, is still bad law.
Furthermore, ruling that ObamaCare is a tax creates the opportunity for a simpler repeal than if it was considered valid under the Commerce Clause. Here’s how: the ObamaCare mandate is now a constitutionally established tax to be levied. It becomes revenue provision of a budget, and therefore can be subject to the Budget Act’s reconciliation process. During such a process, the number of votes necessary to appeal it is a simple majority: 51 votes. Ironically, this reconciliation process was the same procedure that the Democrats used to pass the bill in Congress. Ultimately then, an ObamaCare repeal would not be subject to the filibuster process.
Finally, the Medicaid provision may be the lynchpin for undermining ObamaCare’s efficacy. Remember, the reason so many states sued the Administration was because the Medicaid expansion program would have caused severe fiscal distress to the states while simultaneously creating expansive and coercive Federal spending power over States Rights. Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled that the such an act was unconstitutional. Therefore, this established that not only can the federal government not compel the states to participate in expanding Medicaid, it also cannot withhold existing funding for it as a punishment. States can now decline to participate. So, what happens if enough states do just that?
Even though ObamaCare was not struck down in its entirety, the rulings on various parts of the law had some positivity. It preserved the integrity of the Commerce Clause while simultaneous restricting the federal government’s ability to coerce spending onto states. Firmly establishing ObamaCare as a tax greatly enhances its probability for successful repeal, and also stamps Obama and its Congressional and political supporters as tax hikers for the November election. All in all, not an entirely bad outcome for a very bad piece of legislation.
The act of defiance of our President against our Constitution and Congress is the latest in a string of executive activism that defines Obama’s administration. The content of the Dream Act is, in and of itself, not that controversial. What Obama announced was a policy very similar to Mark Rubio’s undrafted legislation that was expected to enter Congressional debate very soon. Instead, the controversy lies with Obama’s blatant disregard for the proper function of our government.
The astonishing thing is that Obama didn’t even try to work with Congress. Remember, Obama was the guy who was supposed to bring everyone together – and he just ran roughshod over everyone. Now compare Bush to Obama. I’m not much of a fan of Bush in general; however, he did try to get his somewhat unpopular ideas passed through Congress – and a fairly hostile Congress at that (remember Social Security reform, immigration reform, etc). Yet Bush didn’t circumvent our Constitution – andhe wouldn’t have even considered the idea. Obama, on the other hand, did precisely that, with no attempt to work together, and no notice that the Executive Order was coming other than a few hours prior to a press statement.
With this action on a very volatile and polarizing issue, Obama is purposely catering to a particular voting bloc in order to gain for himself the election in November. He attempted this with his HHS mandate, expecting the majority of women to support his initiative…which he found was not quite the case. What’s next? Speculation has it that it will be marijuana legalization in October, mainly to bring independents, youths, and libertarians to the voting booth.
It is not the issue itself –immigration — that is the problem in this case. Rather, it is the willful disregard for our Constitution for the sake of an election power grab. Obama has demonstrated that he is willing to toss aside our founding document on a major and specific issue as a means to sway a large segment of the population. If Obama can cheapen the presidency by begging for donations vis-a-vis gift registries, and if he can imperialize the presidency through his continued unchecked actions, this country is in grave danger for November. Obama doesn’t have to commit blatant voter fraud anymore; he merely has to Executive Order it done.
The basic premise that everyone should be protected in case of serious illness or injury with appropriate insurance is not an unsavory idea. But the concept of an individual mandate does nothing. Not only does it not help with that problem of encouraging everyone to carry coverage, it confuses the entire idea of what “health insurance” is or is supposed to be — so much that it affirmatively discourages or reduces the likelihood that people will have insurance. I propose that the concept of health insurance should only really be related to major medical situations, like other true “insurances”.
The individual mandate is both unconstitutional and ineffective because it leads to a poor allocation of resources. In order to understand why, it requires an understanding between the difference of real health “insurance” and what currently counts as health insurance (a broad medical coverage plan).
Insurance, by definition, is a payment of a premium to cover the very unlikely event that would result in high economic consequences. Therefore, it has the effect of relatively low premiums to protect against that economic possibility.
In contrast, what counts as medical insurance in this country is a small portion of real insurance, but is largely pre-paid medical care: you pay your monthly premium which you get back every time you go to the doctor because you’ve already contributed x so many dollars a month which covers the doctors’ fees (minus a “co-pay” or “deductible”). It’s not an efficient practice, however, nor a cost-effective one. It gives the false impression that going to the doctor is cheap, when in reality, you’ve already paid in advance for doctor visits – that you may or may not have.
This is in contrast to other types of true insurance. I submit it is necessary to remodel the health insurance system after other insurance sectors – such as life, fire, or home insurance. For instance, it is both accepted and reasonable that you will pay more for life insurance at the age of sixty than at twenty-five. The reason for this practice is the understanding that the risk is higher.
Likewise, people buy fire insurance because the economic loss is from a fire is extraordinarily great and the cost for coverage is relatively low. But even with fire insurance, you pay more if you home is made of wood and not brick, and if you live farther from a fire station than closer — that is the matter of risk.
Everyone should have routine doctor visits. If everyone paid for those out-of-pocket, it would be more economically viable, because one would only be paying for what he needed – and would probably result in more healthy citizens who have an economic incentive to take better care of themselves. Instead, the government intentionally combines and obfuscates the meaning and definition of insurance to include medical coverage or routine costs. The only people who truly need that are the same people who can’t afford anything — and should be treated like those who can’t afford routine food.
You don’t need insurance to go to a doctor. That is welfare. For the average person who pays 15-20K a year of medical coverage, a very large percentage of the cost is not insurance – it’s the prepaid care for a larger pool of people. Therefore, individuals are really overpaying when it is set up this way because the real insurance part is intentionally combined with health care so you can hide the cost of those with higher risks, i.e the cost is buried within premiums.
The term “individual mandate” is intentionally confusing. The individual mandate — as the administration would describe it — is a requirement that everyone buy their own health insurance. The basic concept of everyone having their own health insurance is not, in and of itself, terrible — if health insurance were actually insurance in the same way life or fire insurance are. Obama Care, however, is not and therefore the individual mandate is not a mandate to buy health insurance as we’ve been told — it’s a mandate for universal and pre-paid medical care.
Since people of different ages, medical conditions, pre-existing situations, etc have different anticipated costs, the purpose of an individual mandate has nothing to do with getting people to buy their own insurance. It is the forcing of individuals to buy into a system that makes people pay for medical treatments that are not theirs, support welfare, and overpay for services in order to create a coverage that is similar for all person. That is legal plunder and anti free-market. The health care industry would best serve our citizens if Obama Care and the individual mandate was rescinded and if it restructured health insurance as a ‘true insurance’.
