August 9, 2006
Wictory Wednesday Presents Steve Laffey for US Senate
This week Wictory Wednesday presents Steve Laffey for the US Senate for Rhode Island. Steve is running against well-known *insert appropriate adjective here* Republican incumbent Senator Lincoln Chafee. The reasons to vote against Chafee are many, but as a rule, we should casts votes for something.
A vote cast for Laffey is a vote cast for fiscal restraint. Laffey understands that the federal government spends other people's money and that pork projects are an egregarious example of government waste and corruption. He also is against raiding the Social Security Trust fund (yeah, I know, it's a joke) and corporate welfare. It is a national disgrace that our tax system cannot be understood by even the enforcers of that system, the IRS, and that such a system is an oppression and shackle against the American family. He supports simplifying the system so that the average person doesn't need to hire a team of professionals to figure out what their "fair share" of taxes is.
Laffey is a strong economic growth candidate supporting policies that will keep the economy moving forward. He supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent and will work to introduce additional tax cuts. He understands that tax cuts also need to come with spending cuts. Laffey is an experienced politician who, as mayor, lead his town from having a near junk-bond rating to financial solvency and has overseen some of the greatest economic renewal Cranston has seen in decades. The Club for Growth has endorsed his campaign recognizing that he will move the nation forward and avoid the recession-prone policies of the Democrats.
Please consider contributing or volunteering for Steve Laffey's campaign for the Senate.
This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 8, 2006
Hollywood to America: You Much Watch Our Smut
A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them of gratuitous nudity, over-the-top profanity, and puerile violence. For years, Hollywood has found ways to insert into otherwise coherent storylines scenes of nudity, sex, profanity, and violence.
In what seems like a simple compromise, a company would pay for the video, sanitize the content for those who request that service, and then sell the video to the consumer. In these cases, Hollywood gets paid for the price of the movie.
That apparently is not enough.
It isn't enough for Hollywood to get paid for their trash, consumers must watch the garbage in unedited form to make sure that viewers either have to manually fast-forward or otherwise endure pornography that is completely irrelevant to the storyline. Hollywood says that editing their films destroys the "creative intent" of movie producers.
Exactly what does a nude Kate Winslet add to the storyline of Titanic… well, besides masturbatory material?
Christians and other groups have responded to the trend of Hollywood being barely able to make a movie without some B-rate actress flashing the audience by setting up companies to siphon out the irrelevant content. Again, in cases where people buy these movies with the cleaned content, Hollywood gets paid full price. They make exactly as much as they would if someone bought the unedited film some place else.
There is simple economics involved. This is a free country, if people demand porn; they can get porn (despite the clear objectification of women and harm it does to society). However, if people want movies without the extraneous and non-plot enhancing nudity, violence, or profanity, that is something that presents a clear and present danger to our nation. In this case, we cannot allow supply to meet demand.
Here's the interesting feature, by pursuing this line of litigation with firms like Clean Flicks, Hollywood is causing direct harm to their bottom line. Instead of allowing consumers to buy the films edited to their standards, it generates a conflict. Consumers are now faced with the choice to either buy the film that they object to as-is, or to not buy it at all. This litigation has made the voice of the American Family Association, Coral Ridge Ministries, and the like that much louder. Ever better, it gives a catalyst to help propel the nascent efforts of a Christian movie-making industry into a viable movement.
The ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy (or more accurately, murder their child) is celebrated. The ability to choose the gender of one's sexual partner is hailed. The ability to choose to have sexual relations outside marriage (or adultery for that matter) is elevated to civil right. In all areas of American life, the right to choose whatever one wills is held up as the central and united ideal. That is, until someone chooses to express their Christian values in their economic activity. (Or for that matter, if they dare utter the name of Christ in anything that can be labeled a "public square".)
Hollywood, in rejecting a compromise that allows everyone to benefit, has chosen to bring the culture war to the forefront and fired the opening volleys. They believe that their monopoly on American moviemaking gives them the right to dictate what society's values should be. As a result, they've directly attacked one their streams of revenue.
Hollywood has the right to produce trashy films, or to attempt to integrate trashiness in films that can stand on their own without it. However, the consumer has the right not to buy such trash.
With the incredible success of films like The Passion of Christ, Lord of the Rings, and other family-friendly films one would think that the movie industry would see that there is an untapped market to be exploited. Instead, they've chosen against their financial interest and decided to alienate that market. In a free market, businesses that tell their customers that their values don't matter tend to not do well in the long term. Time will tell how long it will be until another entity fills the void.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
June 14, 2006
FairTax Blogburst: A Really Voluntary Tax Structure
Here's this week's FairTax blogburst.
by Terry of The Right Track
There are many reasons to support the FairTax. I managed to do a little research, and found some rather unique points of view that I had not previously considered, and was reminded of some previously-covered ideas that are still worth mentioning.
- For the most part, the FairTax is voluntary. If you want to pay the tax, purchase a new house, car, motor home, etc. If you want to avoid the tax, purchase a used house, car, motor home, etc. The tax only applies to new items.
- No one will ever need to take out a loan to pay taxes, interest, or penalties again, as can all too often happen under our current system.
- Drug dealers and other criminals, as well as anyone else currently paid "under the table", will pay taxes if they purchase new items. Ever seen a drug dealer driving a used car? Ever seen a pimp shopping at Goodwill? I didn't think so.
- Lower income families working multiple jobs get a fantastic incentive to work now, knowing that zero Federal taxes will be withheld from their paychecks. Most of the money from the second job can be applied to whatever previously unaffordable luxury they wish -- perhaps including, for the first time, a home of their own?
- With the abolition of the death tax, homes, farms, and land which might previously have had to be sold to satisfy the government's unquenchable thirst for money can now be retained and kept in the family. In cases where the property has been in the family for multiple generations, can you imagine the gratitude of the family?
- Friends and family can now actually help each other out with tax-free assistance, since the gift tax will be abolished.
- Businesses can actually lower their cost of doing business since they won't be paying the current 7.65% matching FICA tax for each employee.
- It's even a good deal for the environment -- think of all the paper we'll save by not having to file taxes!
But even with all this, we must remember that the FairTax initiative is a grassroots effort. If your Senator or Representative does not support the FairTax, find out why. Then let them know that you do support it. Make phone calls, write letters. Let your friends and family know the details of the FairTax, and why you believe it is such a good deal for Americans. Only through the diligent and concerned efforts of ordinary citizens will these bills ever make it through to the floors of the House and Senate.
The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry or Jonathan. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.
TD
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:36 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 4, 2006
The Economics of Life
The pro-life movement is celebrating victories that after over 30 years of Roe v Wade, the scourge of abortion, at least public support for it, has waned and is now the minority position. South Dakota passed an outright abortion ban believing the time was right to challenge the law. Poll after poll demonstrates that the public knows that conception is the "moment that changes everything" where a new life is created and begins its journey to birth. Are we a pro-life nation then? The answer to that question is still no.
It seems a contradiction to say that while most oppose abortion that it does not follow the nation has become pro-life. That is, until you take a look at the new battlefields of the pro-life movement. Terri Schiavo is the most popular example.
An unbiased observer would certainly be taken aback at the concept of the individual making decisions for Terri was her husband that has since gotten engaged to another woman and had two children with her. There is an obvious conflict of interest there. However, the public was largely unconcerned with that.
The point where support for Terri fell the most was when the cameras showed images of Terri Schiavo to the world. The public saw someone who was unmistakably alive but unmistakably having a "low quality of life". Most felt that it was not worth being alive in those circumstances. Suddenly, it didn't matter what Michael Schiavo's motivations were or his conflict of interest. He was making the "right" decision to end a life not worth living.
It is known that the abortion movement grew out of the eugenics movement and it should come as no surprise that the husband of the lawyer who litigated Roe v Wade lobbied Bill Clinton to approve RU-486, not for easy access to abortion or women's rights, but because "twenty-six million food stamp recipients is (sic) more than the economy can stand." It isn't about life, it is about a productive life (in Ron Weddington's case, where the financial output is greater than the input).
This can also been seen in the recent burst of "futile care" cases (where hospitals unilaterally decide who should die independent of the families wishes or objections). While few would argue that those who are alive only with the help of life support equipment (i.e. respirators, not a feeding tube) can be "unplugged", futile care laws have been used to try to kill children, including a child perfectly able to heal, the uninsured, and Katrina evacuees that were "no worth moving". With talk of universal health care, one wonders if that will finally put complete control on whether (poor) patients should be left untreated.
One could argue that doctors know best and if they determine care is futile, then it really is. However, in the case of Haleigh (the girl who recovered above), doctors can and are wrong. Medical advances developed a year later may have helped Terri Schiavo recover. Then there is the case of just using futile care law to avoid dealing with poor and uninsured patients and leaving them to die legally. After all, more is going in to them than is coming out.
Going back to the original premise, it can be seen that the nation isn't becoming more pro-life, per se. What has lead to the downfall of support of abortion is the realization that unborn children have the potential to be productive citizens save some external force that prevents them. The rise of an anti-abortion culture is the convergence of pro-life forces with those who believe that the potential of productive life should be allowed.
Where the pro-life movement has yet to engage in is the rising notion of reducing human life to matters of economics. Taking whatever subjective equation is used, if someone comes out having a "negative" balance they can be killed. If they have a positive balance, they can live. This quantification system, even if it aligns with those against abortion, is decidedly not pro-life, usually because the poor and minorities (however they are determined) tend to cluster on the "negative" balance side of the equation.
The value of a human life has been determined. The problem is that those subjective measures mean that the most vulnerable in society will be the ones most likely to be considered "without value". Fighting against the valuation of life is the next big pro-life challenge.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 29, 2006
FairTax Blogburst: The FairTax Rally
This week's Fair Tax Blogburst is written by fellow blogger and friend Ms. Underestimated.
This is not just an idea anymore…it’s a movement! The Fair Tax movement.
What else do you call an event about something as dull and boring as the U.S. Tax Code that draws almost 7,000 to a rally? About 4,500 people got inside the doors, which had to be closed due to the 50,000 square foot Gwinnett Convention Center being at capacity at SIX THIRTY P.M.! The rally didn’t start for another hour, yet another almost 3,000 had to be turned away. People drove from Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and all over the southeast. Hindsight being 20/20, I’ve heard some of them express disappointment over radio because they only heard the broadcast en route to the rally, and at 6:30 they weren’t even in Georgia yet. They knew they had to turn around and go home, but every single one said that next time, they’ll come a day or two in advance! Some who were turned away simply went to their cars and “tail-gated” with fellow Fair Taxers so they could all listen to the rally as WSB Radio broadcast it live.
After all, who knew there would even be a thousand that would attend? Neal Boortz, the co-author of the Fair Tax Book, certainly didn’t think so himself. In fact, when Neal took the stage at about 8PM, the old curmudgeon was visibly moved. But that’s just where it all begins. Let me take you inside the event in my memory.
I left my office at 3PM, drove 35 miles through horrific Atlanta traffic, and was about the 1,500th person in line. You could feel the passion in the air as attendees clutched their books, displayed their buttons or signs, or signed petitions that were being passed around. We slowly made our way into the Convention Center, and it was packed already. The setup was fantastic, with huge screens dangling from the ceiling above just about every seating section, so everyone was guaranteed a good view of what was going on on the stage. Neal has some fantastic pictures at his site. Here’s a couple of them.
(Photos by Carrie Carden)
Here’s what the inside of the Convention Center looked like, and above is what a portion of the line looked like just to get inside. I am not even a SPECK at the end of this line!
These are just a few of the supporters waving their signs of support inside the center.
Once I got inside, I hunted down a t-shirt, but to no avail - sold out. I did get a signed book, well, two actually, and a “fairtax.org” stamp for money:
What the heck… I figure if I stamp all of my bills, at least ONE of them might prompt someone who knows nothing about HR25/S.25,HR5 to at least look at the bill they’ve just been given from the store clerk, go “what’s fair tax?” and then go to the internet to read about it. Oh, well... back to the rally...
Neal was first up, and spoke to a rousing applause. He told us of how awed he was by the turn-out, and that it spoke volumes to him of just what this had become. He was actually surprised because he thought people wouldn’t come because it was the night of the American Idol finale (oh, please!). He also let us know that not only did the Gwinnett Convention Center DONATE the facility and time, but the stage, lighting, sound equipment, video screens, etc., were also all donated for the cause!
Neal spoke about the Fair Tax, then introduced Congressman John Linder. They both engaged the audience in rapt attention, raucous applause, and cat-calls when the IRS was mentioned. Then, as we’d been promised, Congressman Linder came bearing good news. In the past week, Hastert’s office had been in contact with Linder’s office, and Hastert has set aside a one-hour block of face-to-face time for Congressman Linder to discuss the Fair Tax (HR25) with President Bush! That eclipsed the other good news we would receive by video from Sen. Saxby Chambliss later on, that finally Sen. Johnny Isaakson has signed on to co-sponsor the bill with Sen. Chambliss!
Then Sean joined the fray. Sean came prepared with written questions he’d gotten from his listeners that day as he broadcast from Neal’s studio at WSB Radio. Sean proposed the questions to both Congressman Linder & Neal, and you know that Neal brought the most howls with his wry sense of humor.
As they talked up the Fair Tax, Congressman Linder reminded us that before the Revolutionary War, a clear 2/3 of the people didn’t want to have anything to do with a battle against the British Crown. But due to the hard work and persistent of a few determined people who yearned for their liberty, they fought all rationality and the majority who were okay with the status quo, and forged ahead to secure that very freedom that we have today. If it weren’t for those determined few, who knows what our America would be like today? Many thanks go to them.
Sean had to hurry off to do Hannity & Colmes from the Atlanta Fox affiliate, so he came in specifically to be with us for that 20-minute period of time. Sean really gets it. Next up, former senatorial candidate, Herman Cain.
For those of you who’ve never been blessed enough to hear Herman Cain speak, you have no idea what you’re missing. I am really sorry he lost out that campaign to Johny Isaakson in GA, because Herman Cain is TRULY a dedicated REAGAN conservative Republican, and he is wholly behind the Fair Tax. In fact, he sits in for Neal on his show when Neal’s out. Neal’s affiliates will accept NO OTHER substitute except for Herman Cain. Otherwise, they prefer to just run a “best of” in Neal’s absence.
Herman regaled us with anecdotal stories about his grandfather, who was a poor Georgia dirt farmer. He remembered that going into town, his grandfather used to say to the kids “them that’s goin, get in the truck.. them that’s stayin, GET OUT OF THE WAY!” The audience went WILD! He reminded us that those who want to forge ahead and make change in the world should use that analogy in our lives if we want to affect change. He had the audience, at the appropriate times, shouting “GET OUT OF THE WAY!” A lot of people were yelling “AMEN, REV. CAIN!” I don’t know if he’s a reverend or not, but he definitely moves me. In fact, the gentleman next to me said “Lord, if he keeps this up, I’m gonna start speaking in tongues!” That was not only humorous, it was also true. Herman Cain is riveting. He didn’t stop there.
He continued stories about his grandfather, about when all the potatoes had been pulled from the ground and loaded on his truck, that all the kids would load in the truck with him. He said his grandfather didn’t take the smooth, already-dug grooves in the road.
Rather, his grandfather drove over every bump, rock, rut, etc., and when they came to the market, he asked his grandfather, “why didn’t you just take the regular road instead of making the ride so rough?” He said it was then he noticed that back in the truck bed, all the big potatoes had risen to the top; and all of the little potatoes had settled at the bottom. Then he turned his attention directly forward, and forcefully shouted “.. and YOU people ARE THE BIG POTATOES!”
My God, I though it was the second coming! Would the roof stay on? Or would the trembling of the building turn out to be just be the response of the crowd? Either way, it was absolutely electrifying! And talk about feeling empowered.. WOW! I have goosebumps just remembering it as I write! He definitely had the crowd motivated, and that’s what made us feel so good. That we ARE the ones who want change, and are determined enough to see it through. There was also a tangible sense of camaraderie in the building, as if we have all just been reminded of our mission, and accepted the challenge.
John Stossel of ABC also came to speak for a few minutes, and he gave us this amazing tidbit: 1% of the people of this planet affect change; 9% of the people watch change being affected; and the other 90% wake up one day and say “what happened?” We ARE that One Percent!!!
I’m sick to death of those people who support the Fair Tax, but don’t participate in these events or even sign petitions because of their defeatist attitudes. “Oh, it’s a good idea, but it will never happen,” or “well, it won’t really work because of XYZ.” If our founding fathers had had that attitude, then… well, I don’t even want to ponder that lunacy.
If the patriots of the revolutionary war can do something as monumental as they did, then can’t this bunch of “potatoes” do even less? Let’s do it, everyone… let’s get rid of the IRS, and get the government out of our lives!
Folks, I’m here to tell you; after what I witnessed at the rally, I cannot and will not be defeatist about it. Everything good or bad that exists today in our country was brought about by grassroots movements. And if there’s one thing I learned last Wednesday, it is this: IT’S POSSIBLE!
The Fair Tax Book : Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
Buy the book TODAY (click the above link). Heck, buy 2 or 5, and send them to friends! And many thanks to
the Americans for Fair Taxation, who sponsored the event. Group President Ken Hoagland (right) also spoke to a roundly appreciative crowd.
If you have Comcast cable, you may be able to see video of this rally free from Comcast’s On-Demand service. Details are here.
The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry or Jonathan. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 1, 2006
Toward a Living Wage
After attending the annual ISI Leadership Conference in Indianapolis, one of the things I thought about was a living wage. Since the topic was Friedman it did come up that he wasn't a fan of welfare programs. The argument by many of the participants was that the best way to lift people out of poverty and provide a living wage was a robust economy. Basically trickle down economics. Even Thomas Woods' talk which had a religious character had this general idea. In fact, when he was asked to reconcile St. Peter's teaching on obedience to the government with disagreement on welfare policy, he largely fumbled the question in my opinion (my response to that question is here).
The problem with talking about the living wage is that it always talks about the problem from only one end of it. Either you have to artificially raise wages or trickle down will raise wages. This only talks about the problem from the aspect of raising the amount of money getting paid. There is another way to get to a living wage… decrease the cost of living so that current wages are sufficient.
Increasing wages by raising the minimum wage is an unsatisfactory solution by itself. There is a finite amount of money going around and all things being equal a business will offset increased costs by cutting costs elsewhere. In the realm of employment, they will usually not hire as many people or not pay people above the minimum wage as generously (i.e. stagnate wages at the minimum wage line). It presents an intractable problem. What is better, 90% employment at 80% of a living wage, or 80% employment at 90% of a living wage? Costs could be cut elsewhere but businesses already have the incentive to do that, creating a burden is unlikely to help them be more efficient. This skips past that difficultly of setting a living wage (for what type of living arrangement) and that some people shouldn't be paid a living wage (high school students, college students, temp. workers).
This also can lead to inflation because any cost a business incurs will be passed on in its prices. Those increased labor costs will get passed on again and again to the only entity that is unable to pass off costs. We'll call that person "the consumer". We could theoretically determine a living wage at some snapshot in time and mandate that all workers be paid that wage. Even if there is no additional unemployment, that increased labor cost will result in increased prices across the board. This translates to an increased cost of living and makes the living wage insufficient once the costs pass through the system. Even if you could control the rate of employment, there is no way to set a living wage such that it would increase the cost of living and make that living wage insufficient again.
The solution to this problem is to stop focusing on the size of the paycheck and to start focusing on the cost of living. There are several components that make up the cost of living. There is food, and the sales tax to buy that food. There is housing, and the property tax levied against that property. There is medicine, government fees, income tax, etc.
One way to cut the cost of living directly and immediately is to cut taxes. This can be accomplished be getting rid of wasteful and unnecessary government spending which is always inefficient and bleeds money away from the economy. Even welfare payments bleed money off that remains in the black-hole of Washington DC.
Another way is to decrease transaction costs for people doing business. For instance, the legal and insurance systems allow for businesses to not only prepay their future lawsuit settlements, but provide a nice way to compartmentalize those costs and pass them on to the consumer. The dirty little secret about suing companies is that they aren't the ones paying… society is. And in fact, you've already paid.
Likewise, property tax gets passed down to renters in the form of higher rents. Sales tax raised prices for consumer goods. Higher business taxes make for higher prices. Increased regulation makes for higher regulation costs and higher prices.
To effectively reduce the cost of living, every regulation, every tax, and every wasteful or unnecessary government spending initiative needs to be stopped. There are important regulations and things the government should tax and spend money on. However, it will always spend money inefficiently and bleed money away from the economy when they do it. This needs to be minimized.
Productivity gains, increases in efficiency of production and distribution, and new technologies will also help (as it always has) increase the quality of life of all workers. This is where trickle down is most helpful. However, it's only part of the solution.
The more the cost of living can be reduced by reducing the bleeding effect of government spending and regulation will be more people living above poverty.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
St. Peter, the Government, and Social Justice
At a recent conference that discussed economics, a question was posed to a speaker on reconciling a vehement disagreement with welfare policy with St. Peter's teaching (1 Peter 3:13-17) on obedience to the Government. The general idea in the conference was that "trickle down" economics was preferable in lifting people up.
The response was underwhelming, namely he hemmed and hawed about the difficulty in Biblical exegesis and left it at that. This is my attempt to answer the question (with the caveat that I don't think trickle down is the sole solution to the problem). (To be fair, he made parts of the point at varying points during his talk, but had a good opportunity to bring it together in response to one question and it didn't seem like he did.)
Disagreeing with the government is not an act of "insubmission" to the government. You can think the government's policies are wrong and not transgress here. This is especially true because there is no way really to manifest disobedience to welfare laws except perhaps by not paying taxes (which is obviously wrong on many levels). In this case, we aren't talking about disobedience but disagreement.
We have a right to disagree with our government, and particularly, to petition our government for a change in policy. This is a right external to our governmental system but it certainly helps that our government does explicitly recognize it in the First Amendment. In short, there is nothing wrong and much to be encouraged in petitioning the government for different policies. I don't think any politician would have a problem with participatory democracy, at least they wouldn't say they do if they want to keep their job.
Lastly, the obligation to "feed the hungry", "clothe the naked", etc. is mandatory. No Christian can be in good standing and not care about the poor. This obligation is personal and direct on all believers. How those believers go about it is a matter of personal discernment and individuals may focus on some aspects and not others because of their personal talents and opportunities. However, each person according to their state has a binding moral obligation to do something.
The answer to this question is that as Christians we are obligated to advocate for the poor where appropriate. In participating in democracy, we should use our voice to advocate those policies which we believe to best help the poor. The expression of ideas contrary to conventional welfare wisdom isn't disobedience to authority or contrary to Christian belief. They are mandatory acts in which we use our freedom to advance our fellow man according to what we truly and honestly believe is best (with all due research and investigation into the options and which is superior).
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 12, 2006
Book Review: Within the Market Strife
During the 2004 election cycle there was much discussion on the Catholic vote and which way it would go. Are Catholics more liberal or more conservative? Where do Catholics stand on economic and social issues? These questions had no real answers to them.
Schmiesing's book provides some insight into these questions by looking to a period when Catholic thought in America started to come into its own. The book proceeds systematically from the period beginning with Rerum Novarum and ending with Vatican II showing the diverse schools of thought between many of the prominent Catholic thinkers of the time. What is immediately noticeable is that there was rarely complete consensus about what policies to adopt despite coming from the same theological viewpoints in a time where "theological dissent" was properly defined as heresy.
The book is very approachable to those who do not have a great understanding of economics or theology and expounds on the views held at the time in a manner that is easy to digest and understand for the non-practioner. He goes generation by generation describing the views of the principal players about the big discussions of the time. One can understand what could motivate those with the same general moral viewpoints to diverge on issues like right-to-work laws and the living wage.
At a time when it seems that all parties are reevalutating their beliefs, it is helpful for Catholics to go back and see where we have come from and the development of social and economic thought that has occurred. This book provides an excellent point of reference from which to begin to move towards applying Catholic principles to present-day problems.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 26, 2006
Universal Health Care and Euthanasia
There are two events that should give people pause when considering universal health care. First is Hurricane Katrina and several facilities euthanisizing patients not because of terminal illness, but because they didn?t think they could move them. Second is Charlotte Wyatt who doctors want to euthanize (or more accurately let die) because they don?t think she is worth saving. A court has rules that the doctors can make this decision even though it is contrary to the will of the parents. In the first case, it is people making mistaken practical judgments. In the second case, it?s little more than outright eugenics.
It is one thing to let some one commit suicide because they've lived a full life and have little hope of recovery. It is another to mandate death to people because they aren't worth taking care of. The first case can be called "right to die". The second case is more properly called the "right to kill". Confusing the two makes it easier for the "right to die" crowd to be a "right to kill" crowd.
Right now it is particularly difficult for people to be put to death against their stated (or their family members) will in the United States; that is until universal health care is introduced (and hopefully it never will be). To summarize, the government can't be trusted to know which phone calls belong to terrorists and which belong to moms planning on getting their kids to soccer practice. The government can't be trusted to get industry advice and not sell out to the rich. The government can't be trusted even to hold prisoners captured on the field of battle. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TAKE ALL MY MEDICAL RECORDS AND HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER MY HEALTH CARE!!!
The problem comes in that the government uses different priorities to make decisions than people do. For instance, the Irish Health Service had other priorities in mind when deciding on health care for the elderly. Or stateside, an Illinois pension fund seems to be operating under different priorities then actually keeping pensions around for teachers. Bureaucrats like wasting money, when they waste too much there isn?t enough to take care of business. Apply this to health care and it means people without money who have come to rely on public health care will get screwed.
What happens when people get screwed by the health care system? Well they'll be euthanized more often than they are now. New Orleans medical professionals decided that it was too much effort to try to keep them alive so they killed them. Not because they were terminally ill. Not because they were in incredible pain. It was because they assessed the situation and didn?t think it worth trying to find a way to help them. The difference is when they aren't the government, they'll be prosecuted. When they are operating with a government imprimatur, they'll get away with it more likely than not. The government will decide who is worth treating and who should die based on some dollar calculation.
If the NSA can't be trusted to listen to some phone calls, what makes people think that this health care calculus will be honest?
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 28, 2005
The Economy - By the Numbers
Holiday Sales up 22% From Last Year
Which is it? Both can't be true at the same time. Either sales are up or sales are down. Looking at the articles and all the associated articles, it appears that sales are up (20+%) across the entire market. The negative numbers are specific sectors or sub-sections (enclosed malls). It appears that the negative articles are written such as to indicate that the market and economy are doing much worse than they really are. This isn't the first time.
There is a significant amount of "talking down" of the economy. You can see this in the housing bubble theories, companies not doing enough, and the dire predictions of a weak holiday season (since proven untrue).
Unemployment is at 5.0%, despite two hurricanes. This is roughly half the rate of unemployment throughout most of Europe. Current income is up, GDP is growing (3.8%), and the stock market is up. Despite this, pundits insist that doom and gloom is coming even though economic indicators will continue to show increases.
Let's be honest a moment, it isn't the Republicans campaigning on a bad economy, it's the Democrats. It's in their campaigns that the economy is in the tank and everyone is suffering despite the complete lack of any evidence to support it. Income is up. Home ownership is up. Unemployment is down. Home values are up. Almost every traditional indicator shows that the economy is growing, yet the perception is fostered that we are heading towards the Great Depression.
This trend in reporting shows two things. Democrats are beyond using facts to scaremonger voters about the economy. Instead of coming up with a platform to better America, they spend their time telling America how bad things are. Facts be damned. Second, it shows that the press, once again, is in the tank with the Democrats agenda and is carrying the water for them. The story is a roaring economy, but they search and scour for some shred of evidence to talk it down. Objective reporting or campaigning? I think the answer is clear.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 7, 2005
Carnival of the Capitalists - 11/7/05
Welcome to this week's Carnival of the Capitalists. This edition has NOT been brought to you by Insight Broadband who's crappy cable modem was off and on all night last night. That being said, sorry for being late. Here it is...
Economics
Owen at The Sharpener presents Brand value - for whom? on the efficiency case for taxing brands and corporate advertising.
Big Picture Guy at Big Picture, Small Office presents We Sail in Paper Boats. He take you sailing through the budgeting process in the Small Office, a painful, drawn-out exercise that always begins with everyone trying to play it safe.
Michael Cale of Financial Methods presents I-Bonds Yield Higher Than Treasuries. With a current yield of more than 6.5%, inflation-protected US Savings Bonds (I-Bonds) have a higher yield than Money Markets, CDs, and US Treasuries. The rate is adjustable, so it may not last. But with short term rates returning to normal and a Fed that is diligent on inflation, cash is no longer trash.
2¢ Worth presents Climbing an Elongating Tail. The Long Tail, The Big Moo, Million Dollar Home Page and Viral marketing rolled together. Examining the progress of the Million Dollar Homepage as a Long Tail business with viral marketing pushing it up the Tail. A quote from the Big Moo triggered off this observation piece.
Steven Towns of The Japan Stock Blog presents Further Discussion on Jesper Koll's "Japan is Back, For Real This Time".
LC of Latent Capital presents Too Much Entrepreneurship. Imagine that entrepreneurship is just another class of investment, so too much enthusiasm for it can bring down its returns.
Mick Weinstein of The Consumer Electronics Stock Blog presents Dell Warns On 3Q05 - Reactions and Implications (DELL).
David Jackson of The Internet Stock Blog presents Priceline Discusses Its European Travel Business (PLCN 3Q05 Conf Call Quotes).
Mark of SportsBiz presents Olympic Sponsorship: What's It Worth?. Discussion of the value of the becoming an official Olympic sponsor and whether "halo" marketing really has the desired effect of increasing sales.
Harvey Multani of Fiscal Times presents Despair on the role despair plays in investing.
Barry Welford at The Other Bloke's Blog presents Before-Internet and After-Internet - the millennium changes
Michael H. of Chocolate and Gold Coins presents Entrepreneurs Needed. Sometimes a market waits a generation for an entrepreneur to create a new product. Pumpkin carving kits weren't there in my childhood but they could have been.
Ferdinand T. Cat at Conservative Cat presents The Curse of Inventory Profits
Tom McMahon at Tom McMahon presents Baby Bells
David Porter at Pacesetter Mortgage Blog presents Will Home Equity Prevent the Retirement Dreams of Baby Boomers?
Henry Stern, LUTCF at InsureBlog presents On the Case... Steve Case casts his eyes on healthcare solutions.
Abnormal Returns presents Emerging markets hoopla. Emerging market equities have performed well in 2005 and have received a fair amount of good press. One common reason given for this outperformance is their higher economic growth in the emerging markets. However, academic research has shown that higher economic growth does not necessarily lead to higher equity returns.
Mastiff at Critical Mastiff presents Comparative Advantage in a Changing World. To maintain our economic preeminence in the face of rising competitors, we need to change our regulatory environment and education methods to cultivate small businesses and creativity.
Josh Cohen at Multiple Mentality presents The Future of Media: Not now, but soon!. A series of three posts that combines market forces and technological changes into a look at the future of media, including news and on-demand television. Part 2 and Part 3.
Advice
Never work alone presents Caught in the middle of wanting everything on setting goals and resolving the conflict between getting every customer and keeping every customer.
JLP of AllThingsFinancial presents Start Planning Your Taxes Now saying that Now is the time to start planning your taxes for next year. JLP's post will help get you started.
George of Fast Pitch Financials presents 30 Days to Becoming a Better Investor - Day 5 (Economic Mental Models). It is important to develop a good set of mental models for evaluating various business scenarios. George at Fat Pitch Financials points to some excellent resources to help you develop your basic knowledge of economics.
Wayne Hurlbert of Blog Business World presents
Articles: Trading Your Way To The Top.
Joe Kristan of Roth & Company Tax Updates presents IME to Harvest the Fall Tax Deductions. By mid-November, most taxpayers can have a pretty good idea what their income will be, and we still have six weeks or so to do something about it. Where to start? Think AMT and charity.
Adrian Savage of Slow Leadership presents Dealing with Distractions. Since instantaneous contact is now expected, so are instant answers. Not only do people interrupt you on a whim, they want an answer or an opinion on the spot. This may be the new norm for the media, who have people available to "analyze" an event or a speech before the echoes have died away, but does it make sense for leaders who take their job seriously?
Deputyheadmistress at The Common Room presents Selling Books: Getting to the Post Office
Jim Logan of JSLogan presents Another Business Lesson From One Of My Kids - Daddy's Little Girl On Training Customers. Things you do out of the norm often become expected. When you stop giving, you encounter the danger of ending something that wasn’t supposed to be a norm in the first place. Your generosity became your trap.
Ankesh Kothari of Marketing eYe presents How to Spark Sales in a Slump. The story of a person who sold 47 unsold boxer puppies during a market slump for big bux (and how you can use his ideas to increase your sales).
Jack Yoest presents Doing Business in a Values Vacuum
David Porter at Pacesetter Mortgage Blog presents How to handle a complaint with a Mortgage Lender or Mortgage Broker
David Danies of Business & Technology Reinvention presents Value Creation Principles. 10 simple value creation principles to help companies grow.
Les Jones presents Google AdSense Click Fraud and how to prevent it.
Skip Angel of Random Thoughts from a CTO presents Do you have passion for what you do?. Do you or your co-workers seem lifeless, and only go to work to pick up a paycheck? If so, chances are that you have lost (or perhaps never found) your passion. This post explores what passion is and what you need to do to find it (again).
Michael Pollock of Small Business Branding presents Are Passion and Profit Mutually Exclusive?. The are two schools of thought when it comes to the idea of monetizing your blog. One says that blogs are about passion rather than profit. The other school says blogs represent a premier business model that marries the two. Be careful which philosophy you adopt for yourself.
Jeff Cornwall of The Entrepreneurial Mind presents To Partner, or Not to Partner?. Entrepreneurs often approach the issue of entering into a business partnership much too casually. This post explores the "Why?", "What?", "How?", and "Who?" issues for building a new venture team.
Jane Dough of Boston Gal's Open Wallet asks "I need HOW MUCH for retirement?" It may not be as bad as her crystal ball is telling her...
FMF at Free Money Finance presents Tough Financial Choices, Part 1: Investing versus Paying Off Debt. Start of a series that compares and contrasts two competing financial choices.
Lucy MacDonald at R.E.A.L. Marketing presents Niche Marketing: The Little Black Dress Example.
Triple Pundit presents Going Green in Business Without Scaring Off the Customer. One of the problems with "green marketing" is that, ironically, appearing "too green" can scare away a sizable segment of the market. Beauty Engineered Forever is a brand of safe, effective
cleaning products that manages to send a pro-environmental message without being heavy handed, or looking like a bunch of hippies.
Rosanna at The Virtual Assistant Connection presents Building Your Professional Network
The Consumer
Mike Pechar of Interested Participant pesents recalled Consumer Products. Without any fanfare, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recently announced a record number of product recalls for the fiscal year 2005. In protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from consumer products that cost the nation more than $700 billion annually, the CPSC recalled 397 products in 2005.
Dan Melson at Searchlight Crusade presents The Ultimate Consumer Horror Story
Barry Ritholtz of The Big Picture presents
DRM Crippled CD: A bizarre tale in 4 parts.
Steven Silvers of Scatterbox presents Wal-Mart uses political campaign tactics to win consumers. Or not.. Concerned that increasingly well-organized critics are ruining its chances with middle-income shoppers, Wal-Mart has created a “rapid response public relations” war room lead by Ronald Regan spinmiester Michael Dever and staffed by political campaign veterans from both parties. But consumers aren’t voters. And the typically aggressive, discredit-the-opposition political strategies being used by Wal-Mart’s new PR war room may in fact be contrary to what is still a consumer marketing agenda.
Ironman of Political Calculations presents Boarding Ahead of the Rest. Ironman at Political Calculations spotlights an entrepreneur who has found a market in helping Southwest Airlines' passengers score the carrier's coveted 'A' boarding passes.
Yvonne DiVita of Lip-sticking presents Jane Wears Herself Out. Jane talks about being a girl...and how the customer is always right still works.
Politics
Warren Meyer of Coyote Blog presents Politicians and Prioritization. If managers at corporations prioritized spending like politicians, they would be fired.
Mike Landfair of Mover Mike presents What is the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act, H.R. 4155?. "The Family Research Council (FRC) is opposed to tax breaks to the gaming industry to help them get back on their feet after the damage of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita."
Brandon Berg of Catallarchy presents At Least Take off Your Nobel Prize When You Say That. Brandon Berg of Catallarchy asks Joseph Stiglitz to at least take off his Nobel Prize when criticizing the strawman of "perfect market economist".
James Hamilton of Econbrowser presents Oil Company Profits. Why aren't the big oil companies reinvesting their huge profits?
Steve Conover of The Skeptical Optimist presents Fill in the blank: "Tax cuts for the ______.". Like Pavlov's dog, we've been successfully trained by our politicians how to fill in that blank. But we have chosen the wrong word for completing that phrase.
Ogre at Ogre's Politics and Views presents Byron Dorgan: A Translation. An exposure of one who truly hates capitalism.
Warren Meyer of Coyote Blog presents Libertarians Adrift. Republicans officially cast aside the libertarian wing of the party. Post includes a refresher on why its impossible for the government to be "positive but not overbearing", as David Brooks describes the new Republican goal.
Misc.
David Foster of Photon Courier presents A *Real* Cowboy Capitalist. Can childhood experiences on a cattle ranch contribute to the development of a successful CEO?
Douglas Sorocco of Rething(IP) presents Blackballed - You Are the Brand. Do your people get you blackballed? Our people are our "brand" - I know what branding message I want to be sending, and it isn't what we saw on that flight. Are your employees/associates/team members getting you blackballed?
Adrian Savage of The Coyote Within presents To Dream... The Impossible Dream. It’s entirely possible to hold on to two sets of values simultaneously that cancel each other out. That’s why people can dream and still find it acceptable to take no action.
Clyde Smith of ProHipHop presents The Source Continues its Downward Spiral. Clyde Smith puts recent news of lawsuits against the hip hop magazine The Source in the context of an ongoing series of disasters at this major music publication.
cehwiedel at Kicking Over My Traces presents Last Quarter Website Review
Elisa Camahort at Worker Bees Blog presents High-risk Corporate Blogging-gettng a message out that your customers may not want to hear. A company considers banding together with its competitors to blog truth to power. Could it work? Or would they all go down in flames together?
neelakantan of interim thoughts... presents Is your plate heaped?. A short post on the visual effect of plenty used while serving customers.
Mark A. Rayner at The Skwib presents The Gruntwerx Paradigm. Corporate censorship goes public and Gunter goes postal.
Steve Pavlina at Steve Pavlina's Personal Development Blog presents Million Dollar Experiment
Phil Hunt at The Sharpener presents Kiva: where microcredit meets P2P on suggesting improvements to the world’s first peer-to-peer, distributed microloan website.
That's it. Next week will be at The Entreprenurial Mind
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:16 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
September 10, 2005
Hurricane Katrina: A Case for Affirmative Action
Now that it seems the evacuation is more or less complete in New Orleans, talk has begun on rebuilding New Orleans. It’ll be rebuilt, hopefully with an above sea level plan, if for no other reason out of American pride. The question I ask is not whether or not to rebuild, but who should do the building.
Off the top, the highly technical aspects of fixing and operating the pumps, elevating the city, repairing the levees and the like should be done by experts. This deals more with rebuilding houses, apartments, stores, and the bulk of the actual structures. As someone who is not a fan of affirmative action, I think the work of the actual building should go to the poor minorities who were displaced.
Yes, they’ll need to be trained and yes it will slow down the process. But let’s look at the alternatives for a second. You have a hundred some odd thousand very angry, upset people who were less than impressed by the overall response to the disaster. And they are upset for good reason. These are people who were beat down and pushed down by “the man” all their lives. Many are unemployed; many are unemployable, because they lack training and education in solid skills. These are the people that are standing around in the tens of thousands at various football fields near you and they’re going to have nothing to do for months while carpetbaggers head to New Orleans to rebuild it.
Instead, I propose letting those who want to make $30-40/hr that are physically capable to go back to New Orleans to build. One, it would help them out financially obviously. Two, they would get bona fide on the job training and experience in building, something they can reuse once the building is done. Three, it would give many of them something to do instead of sitting around a football field waiting for Red Cross to bring them their next meal. Four, and most important, it will help break the cycle of poverty by getting them work and a job skill that can be used even if they never go back to New Orleans. It will help them become self-reliant.
One of the lessons that Hurricane Katrina brings, that no matter who is in power or what governmental form there is, if you rely on the government to help you, most of the time you’ll be left hanging. This is a truth that thousands of years of human history have taught. If you can provide for yourself, you’ll do fine. If you need the government, you’re screwed.
As the old saying goes... give a man to fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in the boat all day drinking beer... or something like that.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 29, 2005
Misuse of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
With rising oil prices and Hurricane Katrina, there are the usual calls for tapping the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Sen. Schumer asked Bush to release oil to "ease higher prices" which shows that he doesn't understand the point of having the reserve to begin with.
The reserve was established in 1975 after the Arab oil embargo as a means of protection when countries decide to hit us in our oil supply. Taking that protection away now would make any such efforts much greater in effect and much more appealing. The SPR was never intended nor should be used as a means of price manipulation of the gas markets in the United States.
First, let's say you get a 20 cent reduction in gas prices by tapping the reserve. Would it even be politically feasible to back off until the reserve was gone and bring that 20 cent reduction back? Doubtful. Gas prices have been inflated for a long time now and it is not likely that the price is going to come down that much in the near future, not until regulators allow the construction of more refineries.
Second, it takes 15 days from the order until the oil starts to hit the markets. The SPR can only sustain its highest rate of drawdown for 90 days and will be completed depleted in 180 days. The price affect is negligible during periods of drawdown and there are no instant real effects (save psychological). What the SPR is good for is dealing with supply cutoffs, not dealing with price manipulation. Maximum drawdown would only supply the United States with a maximum of 20% of its oil consumption per day. That would be good for dealing with a disruption of oil supplies by a hurricane not to counteract long-term market pressures.
With Venezuela threatening an oil embargo and the situation as it is in Iraq, tapping the only source of protection to our oil supplies by foreign manipulators is only encouraging them to go ahead and attack our oil supplies.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 27, 2005
The Left's War on Home Ownership
One of the top articles on Drudge is a link to an article that said Greenspan warned the US is heading for a housing price crash. The problem is this is somewhat of a wild mischaracterization of what Greenspan said. You can read the text of Greenspan’s speech here. Here is the appropriate quote from Greenspan:
The developing protectionism regarding trade and our reluctance to place fiscal policy on a more sustainable path are threatening what may well be our most valued policy asset: the increased flexibility of our economy, which has fostered our extraordinary resilience to shocks. If we can maintain an adequate degree of flexibility, some of America's economic imbalances, most notably the large current account deficit and the housing boom, can be rectified by adjustments in prices, interest rates, and exchange rates rather than through more- wrenching changes in output, incomes, and employment.
Here is what the Times Online characterized this as:
WALL STREET shuddered yesterday after Alan Greenspan, the United States’ central banker, warned American homebuyers that they risk a crash if they continue to drive property prices higher. He said that the US house-price spiral had become an economic imbalance, threatening stability like the country’s trade gap or its budget deficit.In a pre-retirement speech to fellow central bankers at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Mr. Greenspan said that people were investing in houses as if they were a one-way bet, not allowing for the risk of price falls. He said “history had not dealt kindly” with investors who kept ignoring risks.
Those on the left are quite literally hoping for a housing crash so that they can gloat. They are wishing misery on their fellow man. And we have a British media outlet toeing the party line. There are those waging a war against middle class people owning homes. Is it because they cannot succeed when people become affluent? You make the call.
The quote about ignoring risks was in a section of his talk having nothing to do with housing. This very liberal interpretation of his talk is nothing but scare-mongering intended to talk down the economy.
However, no where in his speech does he mention a housing price crash. Adjustments sure. Markets go up and down. What the impression that those on the Left are trying to generate is to make people afraid that if they buy a house at $100,000, it’ll be worth $15,000 after a crash. Isn’t going to happen. Housing is too essential of a resource where it can become worthless. The market will fluctuate, houses may become more difficult to sell but there isn’t a housing crash coming. Even if housing prices take an extremely unlike 20% hit, what does that mean? People will continue to pay on their mortgages and the market will go up again giving them their value back.
It pays to remember that the much celebrated dot-com bust happened just a few years ago and the market is about at where it was before that crash. If you invested in a Dow Jones Index fund in 1928 before the Great Depression and stayed in the market 30 years, you still beat inflation. The sky is not falling, people just need to be reasonable about their debt loads which is something to take greater concern in.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:26 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
