August 10, 2010
Take a look at this article by Angelo Codevilla. It’s a great discussion of the divide between America’s “Ruling” and “Country” classes.
The ruling class is loath to recognize any limits to its power. Here are a couple of vivid examples. First, courtesy of HotAir, we have Pete Stark (D-CA), aka Pete Stark-raving-mad, admitting that he sees no limits to the power of the feds to run our lives. What is their justification? Well, it’s the concept of “social costs.” Here we can see Christian Dorsey of the Economic Policy Institute promoting this view. It can be argued that there are social costs to almost any human activity. If that is truly the case, what are the limits of government action and who sets these limits?
April 27, 2010
Found this PowerPoint presentation courtesy of KOA’s Mike Rosen. I’ve converted it to video to make it web-friendly.
Are we following in Argentina’s footsteps?
April 27, 2010
A little palate cleanser for all the righteousness surrounding Earth Day. Profanity warning!
April 17, 2010
While attending the Fort Collins TDTP, one of the speakers mentioned the movie I.O.U.S.A. (view the short version here). After watching this, it is shocking how much has changed since the film was made (2007 or 2008). The deficits the movie predicts to occur in the 2030s now appear to be arriving around 2020. This is not good news.
While many tea party supporters would like to see smaller government and lower taxes, history tells us it simply is not going to happen short of a catastrophic event that breaks the link between the governments at all levels and those dependent on the dole.
Here are options on the table for paying for government programs, ranked in descending order of political palatability (as I see it):
- Tax increases
- Cutting services
- Cutting benefits
Let’s look at these separately.
Read the rest of this entry »
April 3, 2010
Check out this column. When Moody’s announces that the US is approaching the point of losing its AAA bond rating, you would think the implications of this would be headline news. The government is facing the prospect of paying much higher interest rates to refinance the current debt and borrow even more. Of course, there is always the option of selling the debt to the Fed and stoking the fires of hyperinflation. It’s going to be a fun ride!
April 2, 2010
Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL) is the epitome of a progressive. This is what to expect as we become a nation of men, not a nation of laws.
April 1, 2010
Most of the comments in reply to my Coloradoan editorial amount to little more than bashing of one side or the other. Here is one I felt it would be worth responding to:
Mr. Anderson, You should get the correct facts before you post. I know that is impossible for the right, but at least give it a shot.
OK, I’ll bite. Here’s your chance to refute what was in the article, if you can. Are you capable of debating a topic without resorting to insults? Time to put up or shut up.
It will be interesting to see if BlogOut can respond without foaming at the mouth!
Update #1: No reaction so far, so I’m guessing that the Coloradoan site doesn’t contact posters about replies. I sent the following to BlogOut via private message:
In reply to my editorial, you assert that I didn’t check my facts. I have issued a public challenge in the comments for you to state what you think I have gotten wrong. Have at it!
Update #2: BlogOut responds!
I was so unimpressed with your post, I don’t even remember what it was about. Sorry.
What a wanker!
March 26, 2010
Here is a concrete example of the clash between negative and positive rights. The new health care legislation has set up a very interesting conflict: creating ‘health care’ for roughly 30 million people while at the same time a number of doctors will likely be leaving their practices. Let’s look at implications of this.
Progressives believe that everybody has a ‘right’ to health care. Furthermore, they believe that those with the resources to pay for health care must be taxed to pay for those who don’t. The net result of this will be an increased demand for health care. There will more and more folks that expect that they will be able to get the care they want when they want it.
Now look at the supply of health care. There will be a decreased number of doctors to treat an increased supply of patients. This will result in wonderful things like rationing and long wait times, that is, if you can even find a doctor (as is happening in Canada).
Those doctors who leave practice while still able to provide care are a ‘resource’ that can be used to help address the supply-side problem. Additionally, many of these doctors were trained with public subsidies. Progressives would argue that these doctors ‘owe’ society their services. The free market solution to the lack of doctors would be to allow prices to rise enough to entice the doctors back into practice. This isn’t going to happen under the controls being imposed by Washington.
This leads to my challenge to any progressive readers out there: Should doctors who no longer wish to practice be compelled to provide their services to patients in our reformed health care system? Why or why not? Remember, if there is a right to health care, patients have a right to the services that doctors provide.
Hopefully this scares the daylights out you, the reader. How can liberty possible survive? Talk about a brave new world!
March 24, 2010
Update: The Coloradoan did publish the letter on Saturday, Mar 27. Kinda fun. I notice most of the commenters think that debate amounts to hurling insults back and forth.
Here is a letter I sent off to our local paper, the Fort Collins Coloradoan, in response to Betsy Markey’s rationale for her ‘yes’ vote on the health care bill. Now to see if they’ll print it!
Kudos for Betsy Markey for explaining her ‘yes’ vote for the health care bills in spite of the overwhelming opposition to the legislation within her district. Unfortunately, her explanation falls short on several counts. Let’s examine a few of her claims. Read the rest of this entry »