Click on WORD or PDF for full content
David Warren discusses Arthur Laffer’s article featured in Pickings on Wednesday.
…In a recent piece for the Wall Street Journal, this same Laffer predicts that the American economy will go into tailspin at a predictable date: Jan. 1, 2011. This is the day the Bush tax cuts expire, and U.S. rates return to much more destructive levels.
It’s worse than that for, as Laffer explains, people do have options for earning and declaring income, and every motive is in play to artificially raise this year’s financial results. The statistical drop in economic activity should be memorable; and the psychological effect will compound the damage. …
All this should be obvious, but isn’t. As another WSJ piece showed just this week, there is a direct relation between ability to grasp economic realities and political outlook. According to a Zogby International poll, the further to the left people are (by self-identification), the worse they do in spotting elementary economic relationships between cause and effect. …
Mark Steyn revisits one of his favorite topics.
…There is no precedent in human history for increased prosperity on declining human capital, even before you factor in the added costs of propping up a bunch of other nations facing even worse socio-economic arithmetic. Can mass immigration save you? No. You can never import enough people fast enough: according to Armin Laschet, “Integration Minister” of North Rhine-Westphalia, already 40 per cent of the children in the Fatherland’s cities are ethnically non-German, and thus the future of those cities will be non-German, too. …
…This is the crisis of our times, and the first Western nation to figure out a way around it will have a huge advantage in the decades to come. When Barack Obama started redistributing American wealth, a lot of readers dusted off Mrs. Thatcher’s bon mot: “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” But European social democracy has taken it to the next level: they’ve run out of other people, period.
NY Times reminds us what it is like to have a grown-up with conservative principles in the White House.
WITH a controversial Israeli attack in the news, I have thought back to another controversial Israeli attack, one that took place 29 years ago today: the strike on the Osirak nuclear reactor under construction in Iraq. The daring, risky bombing dealt a fatal blow to Saddam Hussein’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon. I was then President Ronald Reagan’s national security adviser, after having been his chief foreign policy adviser for several years. …
In the WSJ, Arthur Brooks discusses the temptation of easy jobs and easy money.
…The increasing size of the federal work force is an early indication of what lies ahead. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in the last year the federal government added 86,000 permanent (non-Census) jobs to the rolls. And high-paying jobs at that: The number of federal salaries over $100,000 per year has increased by nearly 50% since the beginning of the recession.
Today, the average federal worker earns 77% more than the average private-sector worker, according to a USA Today analysis of data from the federal Office of Personnel Management. To pay for bigger government, the private sector will bear a heavier tax burden far into the future, suppressing the innovation and entrepreneurship that creates growth and real opportunity, not to mention the revenue that pays for everything else in the first place.
If these trends are not reversed, it is hard to see how our culture of free enterprise will not change. More and more Americans, especially younger Americans, will grow accustomed to a system in which the government pays better wages, offers the best job protection, allows the earliest retirement, and guarantees the most lavish pensions. Against such competition, more and more young, would-be entrepreneurs will inevitably choose the safety and comfort of government employment—and do so with all the drive that is generally thought to be “good enough” for that kind of work. …
David Harsanyi has a surprising opinion on Helen Thomas’ forced resignation.
…Of course, I am not suggesting that Thomas has a birthright to sit in the front row at a White House press conference (a situation that hasn’t made sense for at least three decades), or that anyone has an inalienable right to pontificate about the world for a newspaper chain or anyone else.
And, no, I can’t mourn the loss of Helen Thomas’ detestable opinions. But, at the same time, I can’t help but feel some trepidation about the ease in which some voices — in this case, one voice that is probably more honest than others of similar ideological disposition — can be expelled from the conversation simply for offending.
John Stossel writes about Milton Friedman.
…That’s from Friedman’s PBS TV series “Free to Choose,” which aired 30 years ago and became the basis of his No. 1 bestseller by the same name.
The title says a lot. If we are free to make our own choices, we prosper. That was a new idea to many back then. At the time — when inflation and interest rates were in double digits and unemployment approached 10 percent — people thought a wise government could ensure economic growth, guarantee full employment and eliminate poverty. Friedman explained that the opposite was true, that bigger government had brought us “burdensome taxes, high inflation, a welfare system under which neither those who receive help nor those who pay for it are satisfied. Trying to do good with other people’s money simply has not worked.”
No, it hasn’t. So why, 30 years later, is America doing so much more of it? …
James Capretta discusses more bad news about ObamaCare, and the watchdog organization that has been created to track it.
…The truth is, the more we learn about ObamaCare, the worse it gets. It’s filled with budgetary gimmicks and flawed assumptions that will bankrupt the U.S. treasury. Its taxes will force deep cuts in employment in the medical device and other industries. Restaurants and other employers will have strong incentives to avoid hiring workers from low income households in order to lessen the burden from the law’s mandates and penalties. It will disrupt insurance for millions of Americans who are perfectly happy with the coverage they have today. And the government’s clumsy cost-cutting efforts will undermine the quality of American medicine.
Most Americans already instinctively understand all of this. But it’s also clear that the administration and its allies will spend millions trying to persuade them that up is down when it comes to health care. We have launched this web site to set the record straight. ObamaCareWatch.org pulls together all of the best evidence and analysis about the legislation, as well as relevant news items and commentary, in an accessible and searchable format for anyone to use as they need to. Our aim is to provide Americans with the facts so that they can hold those who sponsored and passed ObamaCare accountable for what they have done.
In Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler highlights some underhanded dealings by some businesses that cannot compete with Wal-Mart on the up and up.
Today’s WSJ has an interesting and eye-opening article on corporate-funded opposition to proposed Wal-Mart stores disguised as local community activism. When I saw local busybodies try to stop the opening of a Wal-Mart in Cleveland — a Wal-Mart that did not receive any local subsidies nor require the use of eminent domain — I realized that union groups backed the effort. What I was not aware of at the time was that grocery stores and large supermarket chains have become substantial funders of anti-Wal-Mart activism.
The article focuses on the activities of the Saint Consulting Group and its founder, P. Michael Saint, and their astroturf efforts on behalf of SuperValue, Giant and other supermarket chains.
For the typical anti-Wal-Mart assignment, a Saint manager will drop into town using an assumed name to create or take control of local opposition, according to former Saint employees. They flood local politicians with calls, using multiple phones to make it appear that the calls are coming from different people, the former employees say. …