I have always supported the idea that economics needs to be taught more often and at an earlier age. I think it is criminal that we treat "the dismal science" with such contempt (As if it is dismal!)When people graduate from high school, it is assumed they have a "basic" education. After all they will have had something close to 12 English classes, more than 10 years of math and an equal number of assorted science classes, almost none of which will be in economics. To me it makes no sense because economics plays such a large part in your everyday life. And most political contests are nothing less than a vote on competing economic plans. But for some reason we don't seem to think that's important enough to actually go out of our way to make sure the electorate has a basic grasp of economic principles. We have this delusional concept that people already understand, although I have no idea why anybody would think that. You can get a PhD and never set foot in an economics classroom. I have a friend who got her bachelors degree in Political Science without ever taking economics.
But recently I saw a post on the web where a friend of mine, who I consider to be well above average intelligence, wrote about the current flapdoodle concerning public unions in Wisconsin and included his thoughts on the, now notorious, Koch brothers, of Koch Industries. They are the current whipping boys for the liberals, having been sufficiently demonized to the point that they are now the focus of all that is evil. But that is just standard fare for the left. What struck me was how naive he was concerning the brother's wealth and what their motivations were in using that wealth to further their political beliefs. There were several mentions along the lines of "How much money is enough, for one (or two) person?" Then there was a bit of fantasizing about how a "good" person would use that money. I suppose that was to show by contrast that the Koch brothers must be evil and greedy since they were not putting it all in the bank and giving just the interest to pay teachers better. Of course their assumption was that this was an actual alternative for their combined fortune of $72 billion. And there is no doubt that even a very modest rate of return on $72 billion would be a huge number. But as silly as his ideas were, they revealed some even sillier notions about how an economy actually works. He is apparently under the impression paying interest is it's own reward. Seems that bankers are willing to take any amount of cash you have and pay you for the privilege of sitting on it. Of course bankers WILL pay you to hold your money, but only if they then do something even better with it, and that does not include just loaning it out at a higher interest rate to have somebody else sit on it. Eventually somebody has to do something productive with it to make any sense out of paying interest. It can't just be a giant chain letter. Somebody has to take that money and build a pipeline, drill an oil well, buy a truck, pay a driver and ultimately, MAKE A PROFIT!!!
You know profits don't you? They are the evil things that drive greedy men such as the Koch brothers. A common lament of these socialists is their bewilderment at the reasons why these men want to simply make the pile higher. That's their complete assessment of motives and alternatives. Now to be fair, he probably understands that the $72 billion is not in cash (even though that's the way he talks about it.) But it doesn't seem to occur to him that the vast majority of that $72 billion is in the form of hard assets that are keeping more than 80,000 people gainfully employed and paying taxes. This is not something that they will ever view as being for the common good. It's far more likely that they will view it as the Koch brothers exploiting the labor of others so that they can just add to their pile.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The Number That Really Matters
In the "debate" that is going on in Wisconsin, the unions have produced TV spots that make the argument that thay have conceded the benefit adjustments that Walker has proposed, so he should not try to take away their collective bargaining "rights" (they aren't rights.) But the amount of money state wokers will lose was never their comncern in the first place. If you want to understand what this fight is about, you only need know one number, and that number is $100 million. That is the ANNUAL amount that Wisconsin's public unions deduct from their member's paychecks in the form of dues. The workers have no choices in this, whether you are talking about joining the union in the first place, or paying the dues. Both are mandatory to get these state jobs. The union bosses are more than willing to allow their members to take pay cuts and/or get laid off. But they are not about to give up that gravy train.
Friday, February 18, 2011
A Random Point
For several days now Wisconsin has been in the national spotlight due to the protests here in Madison against Scott Walker's Budget Repair Bill. Facebook is full of Madisonians supporting the protestors and they have some legitimate gripes. But one thing that keeps getting put out there is that Walker is stripping workers of their "rights." The problemn I have with that, is they are referring to his desire to repeal Collective Bargining by public unions. That is not a right. A right is something that is inherent. You are born with it. You don't have to do anything to get them, and nothing in the way of action is required from anybody else in order for you to exercise your rights. The only duties imposed on others is to not interfere with the exercising of your rights. So, for instance, if you want to exercise your right to free speech, it is only incumbent upon me to not interfere with your speech. I do not have to give you a microphone or buy you TV time.
The ability of public unions to collectively bargin, was granted by the state legislature in 1959. They can bestowe it, and they can take it away. It is NOT a right, it's a privledge, just like driving a car. But be aware, that just pisses them off when you say that.
The ability of public unions to collectively bargin, was granted by the state legislature in 1959. They can bestowe it, and they can take it away. It is NOT a right, it's a privledge, just like driving a car. But be aware, that just pisses them off when you say that.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
RFK Jr. Drives Stake Through Heart of Kennedy Mystique
For the first time in something like 60 years, there will be no members of the famous Kennedy political dynasty serving in congress. The "Lion of The Senate," Ted Died in 2010 and his congressman son Patrick, chose not to run for reelection in Rhode Island. To be honest, the mystique that the family once had, certainly diminished over the past few decades. The very public tragedies that seemed to follow them around took on more of a scandalous flavor. Instead of political assassinations they were visited by more mundane scandals and tragedies brought on by reckless behaviour. Their political advantage evaporated. Caroline was laughed out of the room when she toyed with the idea of being crowned Senator. (Of course she had no interest at all in running for office. "Hey, if you're handing out Senate seats Mr. Governor, I could stick around for a while.")Ted's seat went Republican less than 3 months after he died.
But in the wake of the tragic shootings in Arizona, RFK Jr. has come forth to finally put an end to any association between the Kennedy family name and serious political discussions. He wrote this piece for the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/post_1548_b_807713.html
The gist of the piece is the outright lie that his uncle, JFK, was killed by the forces of right-wing intolerance. Of course this myth has been around ever since Jaquelyn Kennedy openly suggested it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This is a despicable smear. The man has manufactured a history to fit this myth. He even included the long ago discredited story about school children in Dallas cheering at the news that JFK had been shot, and tells it as fact. The story was born when Dan Rather (little more than a cub reporter at the time) ran with the story even though he knew it to be false. What had happened was that one principal had decided to dismiss classes for the day because of the shooting, but didn't want to upset the children, so he didn't tell them about the assassination. They did what any other schoolkid under the circumstances would do. They cheered because they were going home early. Rather had been told it did not happen, but ran the story anyway. Surely Mr. Kennedy cannot be ignorant of this. Ironically, this whole column reminds me of the Dan Rather/Texas National Guard story that cost him his job at CBS. During that one, when it was becoming obvious that the documents he had were forgeries, he retreated and declared that even though the documents were phony, he thought the story was still true. Sometimes, a story is so good you just can't let the facts get in the way.
In the RFK column, he insists that the atmosphere of right-wing intolerance in Dallas was at the crux of his uncle's assassination. Just like Arizona, the problem was the "rage" and "craziness" unleashed by this toxic atmosphere. Dallas had become "the center of the extreme right wing." He even points out that the mayor of Dallas at the time, Earl Carroll, helped co-found the John Birch Society. Only the mayor of Dallas at the time was Earle Cabell and he was not a co founder of the John Birch Society. Documentation of just how radical Dallas was comes mostly from a historian by the name of Manchester. It's not surprising he would quote this man since the Kennedy family bought and paid for that history. Mr Manchester was commissioned by Jacquelyn Kennedy to write the book and apparently she even censored it, demanding that certain passages be deleted, and not because they weren't true. Publication was delayed until she got her way.
But the real problem is that Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist sympathizer and dedicated leftist. He was not just a member of Fair Play for Cuba, he defected to the Soviet Union at one point. (Warning: I will not dignify wacko conspiracy theories about the "true" killers. LHO did it, end of story.) Seven months before he shot JFK, Oswald had made an attempt on the life of Major General Edwin Walker, a right-wing zealot who had been relieved of his command for handing out right-wing literature. The bullet matched the gun he used to shoot Kennedy in November. JFK was a cold warrior who had just overseen the Bay of Pigs invasion.
RFK Jr.'s column is strange, though. It's like he's saying the right-wingers created the atmosphere of hate that then prompted left-winger LHO, to go out and kill? Have I got that? And you know, maybe he actually did refer to his mother as "mummy" but I don't think we need to hear that. Reading this crap was infuriating. But reading the comments that followed it was even more sickening. the guy is fabricating history in order to smear his political opponents. He refers to conservative commentators as hate mongers, and this is how the sycophants at the Huffintgton Post responded:
"I so admire who you are and what you do."
"Very moving, poignant article."
"Violence is keeping this brilliant guy on the sidelines, I postulate. Too bad, we could use him. But I understand."
And the one that me quit reading,
"Those who do not study history...."
Indeed. But if it's true that those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it, then what is the fate of those who make up their own history?
But in the wake of the tragic shootings in Arizona, RFK Jr. has come forth to finally put an end to any association between the Kennedy family name and serious political discussions. He wrote this piece for the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/post_1548_b_807713.html
The gist of the piece is the outright lie that his uncle, JFK, was killed by the forces of right-wing intolerance. Of course this myth has been around ever since Jaquelyn Kennedy openly suggested it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This is a despicable smear. The man has manufactured a history to fit this myth. He even included the long ago discredited story about school children in Dallas cheering at the news that JFK had been shot, and tells it as fact. The story was born when Dan Rather (little more than a cub reporter at the time) ran with the story even though he knew it to be false. What had happened was that one principal had decided to dismiss classes for the day because of the shooting, but didn't want to upset the children, so he didn't tell them about the assassination. They did what any other schoolkid under the circumstances would do. They cheered because they were going home early. Rather had been told it did not happen, but ran the story anyway. Surely Mr. Kennedy cannot be ignorant of this. Ironically, this whole column reminds me of the Dan Rather/Texas National Guard story that cost him his job at CBS. During that one, when it was becoming obvious that the documents he had were forgeries, he retreated and declared that even though the documents were phony, he thought the story was still true. Sometimes, a story is so good you just can't let the facts get in the way.
In the RFK column, he insists that the atmosphere of right-wing intolerance in Dallas was at the crux of his uncle's assassination. Just like Arizona, the problem was the "rage" and "craziness" unleashed by this toxic atmosphere. Dallas had become "the center of the extreme right wing." He even points out that the mayor of Dallas at the time, Earl Carroll, helped co-found the John Birch Society. Only the mayor of Dallas at the time was Earle Cabell and he was not a co founder of the John Birch Society. Documentation of just how radical Dallas was comes mostly from a historian by the name of Manchester. It's not surprising he would quote this man since the Kennedy family bought and paid for that history. Mr Manchester was commissioned by Jacquelyn Kennedy to write the book and apparently she even censored it, demanding that certain passages be deleted, and not because they weren't true. Publication was delayed until she got her way.
But the real problem is that Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist sympathizer and dedicated leftist. He was not just a member of Fair Play for Cuba, he defected to the Soviet Union at one point. (Warning: I will not dignify wacko conspiracy theories about the "true" killers. LHO did it, end of story.) Seven months before he shot JFK, Oswald had made an attempt on the life of Major General Edwin Walker, a right-wing zealot who had been relieved of his command for handing out right-wing literature. The bullet matched the gun he used to shoot Kennedy in November. JFK was a cold warrior who had just overseen the Bay of Pigs invasion.
RFK Jr.'s column is strange, though. It's like he's saying the right-wingers created the atmosphere of hate that then prompted left-winger LHO, to go out and kill? Have I got that? And you know, maybe he actually did refer to his mother as "mummy" but I don't think we need to hear that. Reading this crap was infuriating. But reading the comments that followed it was even more sickening. the guy is fabricating history in order to smear his political opponents. He refers to conservative commentators as hate mongers, and this is how the sycophants at the Huffintgton Post responded:
"I so admire who you are and what you do."
"Very moving, poignant article."
"Violence is keeping this brilliant guy on the sidelines, I postulate. Too bad, we could use him. But I understand."
And the one that me quit reading,
"Those who do not study history...."
Indeed. But if it's true that those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it, then what is the fate of those who make up their own history?
Thursday, December 23, 2010
The Millionaire Next Door
For as long as I've been reading the moonbat left that is The Capital Times, they have been villifying those who succeed economically. They haven't just been trying to confiscate their wealth (although they ARE trying to do that too.) The past few years they have been running a campaign that is designed to make sure that everybody hates them. The path they have chosen to accomplish this, is to smear them and their motives. The primary charge is greed. This is an exceedingly easy charge to make. If you, a rich man, is not willing to cough up more and more in taxes, then it must be due to greed. After all, you've got lots of money right? And if you aren't enthusiastic about turning over everything above what a liberal considers to be a "reasonable" income level, then there is no other explanation.
They have been nothing if not consistent in promoting this caraciture. The thing is, I do know a few people who actually are wealthy. The people I'm talking about are millionaires, some, several times over. And there are other millionaires that I "know." They don't know me, of course. I'm talking about those people that I know something about through their public persona. Not neccesarily a Donald Trump type of profile, but "famous."
The thing is all of those people are anything but greedy. When it comes to charitable giving, there are two things they seem to have in common. They are more generous than I would be, and they tend to give annonymously. Admittedly, some do seem to enjoy the recognition. There is one of several high profile philantropists in Madison, who obviously likes the naming rights when he gives, since his name is on everything that doesn't move. But when you consider the amount of money he has given, I am not inclined to quibble over that.
But where are all these modern day Mr. Potters? Where is this guy who just keeps piling up the cash for the sake of having a bigger pile of cash? I've never seen or met him. Maybe you could point to a Bernie Madoff or an Alan Stamford, but aren't those guys in jail/under indictment? The point being they aren't getting away with it. But as far as The Cap Times is concerned, you can't be rich AND caring unless you've called for higher tax rates.
They have been nothing if not consistent in promoting this caraciture. The thing is, I do know a few people who actually are wealthy. The people I'm talking about are millionaires, some, several times over. And there are other millionaires that I "know." They don't know me, of course. I'm talking about those people that I know something about through their public persona. Not neccesarily a Donald Trump type of profile, but "famous."
The thing is all of those people are anything but greedy. When it comes to charitable giving, there are two things they seem to have in common. They are more generous than I would be, and they tend to give annonymously. Admittedly, some do seem to enjoy the recognition. There is one of several high profile philantropists in Madison, who obviously likes the naming rights when he gives, since his name is on everything that doesn't move. But when you consider the amount of money he has given, I am not inclined to quibble over that.
But where are all these modern day Mr. Potters? Where is this guy who just keeps piling up the cash for the sake of having a bigger pile of cash? I've never seen or met him. Maybe you could point to a Bernie Madoff or an Alan Stamford, but aren't those guys in jail/under indictment? The point being they aren't getting away with it. But as far as The Cap Times is concerned, you can't be rich AND caring unless you've called for higher tax rates.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Those Darn Voters
Once again, the post election story line is how stupid, uninformed, gullible and downright crazy the electorate is. It's just amazing how the regular guy out there pulling the lever is so susceptable to every assinine TV commercial that the opposition runs. And why is it only the opposition commercials that they take to heart? They never seem to even hear "our side's" commercials, which are just as mean and negative (but truthful!) It just seems that they go out of their way to "vote against their own interests."
Of course they have no explanation as to why things went totally their way two years ago. Apparently, that year, voters were paying close attention and thinking straight.
Lots of complaining about the money that Ron Johnson spent winning the Senate seat over Russ Feingold. He bought the seat. The problem with that scenario is that Ron Johnson lead in the poll done by Rassmussen on July 13th and in every single poll done after that date. And on July 13th Ron Johnson had yet to secure the Republican nomination and not yet run a single commercial. His name recognition was below 50% at the time. And it turns out that Russ spent about $16 million on his campaign this year whlie Johnson only spent $10 million.
Of course they have no explanation as to why things went totally their way two years ago. Apparently, that year, voters were paying close attention and thinking straight.
Lots of complaining about the money that Ron Johnson spent winning the Senate seat over Russ Feingold. He bought the seat. The problem with that scenario is that Ron Johnson lead in the poll done by Rassmussen on July 13th and in every single poll done after that date. And on July 13th Ron Johnson had yet to secure the Republican nomination and not yet run a single commercial. His name recognition was below 50% at the time. And it turns out that Russ spent about $16 million on his campaign this year whlie Johnson only spent $10 million.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Election Day 2010
Can't ever recall my marking a ballot for two Democrats and a Green Party candidate, but I did so today. The Green Party was a vote for Ben Manski because he's running against liberal pinhead Brett Hulsey, who I have despised for years. He's one of those there-is-no-solution environmentalists who would like for us all to ride bikes, trains and wind powered busses. One of the Dem votes was for Sheriff because I know the guy and it's not really a political job anyway. Plus he won't give in to the liberals who want him to stop reporting the illegal aliens that are arrested, to ICE.
But I have to admit the other Dem vote might surprise you. I voted for Russ Feingold, even though he will probably lose. It's the first time I've ever voted for Russ. (I may have even contributed to his opponents in the past.) So it was a surprise to me that I began to question voting for Ron Johnson last night. Russ has been an annoying liberal for the past 18 years, but he has gotten credit from me several times due to his principled voting. 12 years ago, he was the only Dem in the senate to vote for impeachment against Bill Clinton. Ten years ago he was the only Dem to vote to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General, saying that Bush should have the AG he wants and that he hoped others would do the same should he (Russ) ever get appointed to such a post. Respect. But he has been so very liberal over the years that I had a hard time marking the ballot. In the end I decided that if there was ever just one Democrat left in the senate, I would want it to be Feingold. And Ron Johnson is kind of creepy.
But I have to admit the other Dem vote might surprise you. I voted for Russ Feingold, even though he will probably lose. It's the first time I've ever voted for Russ. (I may have even contributed to his opponents in the past.) So it was a surprise to me that I began to question voting for Ron Johnson last night. Russ has been an annoying liberal for the past 18 years, but he has gotten credit from me several times due to his principled voting. 12 years ago, he was the only Dem in the senate to vote for impeachment against Bill Clinton. Ten years ago he was the only Dem to vote to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General, saying that Bush should have the AG he wants and that he hoped others would do the same should he (Russ) ever get appointed to such a post. Respect. But he has been so very liberal over the years that I had a hard time marking the ballot. In the end I decided that if there was ever just one Democrat left in the senate, I would want it to be Feingold. And Ron Johnson is kind of creepy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)