Author: admin

Sanctuary cities

Frankly, I’m surprised at the existence of sanctuary cities. Keep in mind that if you or I acted in this manner we’d be guilty of a crime (8 U.S. Code § 1324) and would be facing federal prison time. Why then are the city leaders of Chicago not going to prison?

When  illegal aliens are sheltered, hid from the law, encouraged to work in defiance of federal law, and allowed to consume public resources (like public schools paid for by legal inhabitants) it both consumes precious tax revenue and encourages additional violations of immigration law. Note, too, that by encouraging and protecting illegal immigrants these same city officials are also encouraging businesses to hire the same, resulting in yet another violation of federal law. Such actions cannot be condoned by any public officer; it’s simply not right to flout federal immigration law and expect the federal government not to react accordingly.

We are a nation of immigrants, not illegal immigrants. No civilized country in the world has the effectively open borders produced by not enforcing federal immigration law.  There is a reason for this: It would be economic suicide. In a nation with significant social resources provided by tax dollars, the influx of a large number of potential users of these limited resources would overwhelm the system. The purpose of immigration systems – such as those in the U.S., or even Canada or the EU –  is to make sure that the immigrants entering the country overall do not produce a net negative drain on the system so as to preserve its integrity.  Take a look at the immigration requirements for Canada, the EU, Australia – you’ll see that most illegal immigrants simply would not be accepted due to their low levels of education and skills; they would produce a drain on the system. If Canada, Australia, Britain, and other countries can all reject these illegal immigrants, why can’t we?

Perhaps a guest worker program would be helpful, as would a revised immigration system. But open borders? Maybe in the year 1900, when social programs were not part of the mix, and everyone pulled their own weight. Now? Not so good of an idea….

Ben Carson and HUD

I like Ben Carson for the same reason that I like (a relative term) Donald Trump – neither are career politicians or bureaucrats. As proof, witness some of the common-sense responses to confirmation questions. For instance, when asked how he could help people on public housing assistance, Carson’s response was “Get them off of it.” My kind of HUD secretary….

For too long the HUD section 8 “public” housing program has subsidized rent for low-income households. However, it may well be these subsidization systems that are responsible for the high rent and low income that makes subsidization necessary. Think of it – if you can afford the rent (because of the subsidy), what incentive is there for landlords to lower rents? Also, if a low-income household can already afford the rent (again, because of the subsidy) what pressure is applied to employers to pay an “affordable” wage for the area? After all, what they pay is an affordable wage – thanks to subsidized housing.

Public housing is an income redistribution “racket” where the government (and all their crony friends) skim from the top. Instead of landlords developing properties to support lower rents or employers paying higher wages, taxpayers foot the bill. Without public housing, the market would adjust on its own resulting in lower (rather than subsidized) rents and higher wages, with the cost born by landlords and employers instead of the taxpayer.

Go get ’em, Ben… I’m with you. Let’s make allowing people to get off of public housing assistance the primary and immediate goal of HUD.

About that picture….

There has been quite a ruckus about the student picture hung at the capital depicting police as some sort of warthog or pig [Fox News] [Eugene Volokh]. I agree that such a painting is inappropriate for the capital of our country, as it serves to divide rather than unify. However, the most important point is being missed: the people of this particular congressional district in Missouri are so disenchanted with their police departments that this is how they view their officers. Perhaps this, rather than where the painting hangs, is the more important issue to resolve.

Government-provided healthcare vs. freedom

One of the potential concerns regarding health care as an entitlement is that it gives the government the (apparent) right to control and limit our activities. Think of it: if the taxpayer is “on the hook” for your health care, then why shouldn’t they be able to limit activities deemed as potentially expensive (from the perspective of health care costs)? For instance, if alcohol consumption creates a potential for increased health care costs, then why shouldn’t the government be able to limit this activity? How about inherently dangerous physical activities, such as skydiving, motorcycle riding?  Or even higher-risk activities, such as illicit drug use or unprotected sex with strangers?

If you think that this is hogwash, think again. This article from the Times [UK] shows the potential for government oversight of your health-effecting activities.

The Illinois political machine

An interesting article on the patriarch of Illinois’ democratic machine, and the result of their 43 years of service: Moody’s lowest ranking among the 50 states, a pension system that is only 40% funded, rampant nepotism and cronyism.  Sounds more like a soap opera than a state legislature.

I hope California is paying attention – the coming demise of Illinois should be a powerful wake-up call for them and other states following Chicago’s playbook.

Taxing the “rich” ….

The chickens have come home to roost.

People in Philadelphia are outraged at the effect of their new “sugary drink” tax. The cost of sodas, energy drinks and sports drinks are now subject to a 1.5 cent per ounce tax, increasing the cost of some drinks by nearly 50%. However, the city council and mayor are sticking to their guns, blaming the rich, greedy beverage distributors for the public’s dilemma. This quote from a Philadelphia spokesman [Fox News] says it all:

“The Philadelphia Beverage Tax is a tax on the distribution of sweetened beverages intended for retail; it is not a sales tax to be paid by the consumer and collected by the retailer,” spokesman Mike Dunn said  …. “Since it is not a sales tax, distributors … do not have to pass it down to their customers, the dealers,” Dunn said. “They could choose to slightly lessen their seven-figure bonuses, for example.”

Did he really think that the $91,000,000 of soda tax revenue expected in 2017 would come out of the profits earned by the distributors? In fact, part of it will; this is the natural result of diminished demand due to an effective price increase. However, the bulk of any tax – in the end – is paid by the consumer. Unfortunately, the consumers who voted for this tax made the assumption that the “rich” distributors would be stuck with the bill. Oh, well… welcome to Economics 101.

Taxpayer-funded donations?

One more “Why I won’t move to Seattle” story.

Seattle voters  have approved a new program that provides vouchers to residents that can be used to make political donations (and can be used for nothing else). However, the vouchers are funded by increased property taxes. Sound good so far, right? A forced income redistribution system for political causes funded by property owners?  The expectation is that the program will encourage donations to campaigns/causes, albeit at taxpayer expense. You can read more about this program (in 15 different languages) here.

Wait; it gets worse. So Seattle is expected to raise about $3M annually from the tax – but they intend to give out $100 in vouchers to each of 500,000 registered voters. Note that this equates to $50M in vouchers – not the $3M anticipated from the new property tax. Didn’t someone get an accountant involved in this fiasco? In their defense, they don’t expect everyone to use their vouchers (they hope).

So what can go wrong? Well, I anticipate politicians actually campaigning by ASKING for the vouchers, since they are now “free” (ha ha ha!) to the recipients. Hell, I would expect some donation aggregators to actually go to poor neighborhoods and offer to buy the vouchers. At 50 cents on the dollar, it would be a win-win for the politician and voucher holder (but a lose-lose for taxpayers).

But wait – there’s more! Remember, any time you get the government involved in redistributing money they take a cut – and it’s usually a big slice off the top. This case is no different; while they expect to bring in and redistribute $3M per year from the new property tax, they expect to have program costs for staff and support in the amount of $800,000 this year. That amounts to a 27% overhead TO PRINT SOME VOUCHERS!!!!  I’m not kidding… you can’t make this stuff up.

Never underestimate the destructive power of stupid voters.

Don’t shoot!

A Georgia waitress has been fired for discharging her firearm during a robbery of her workplace (after she recovered the firearm from her car). While I’m a big fan of the 2nd amendment, I’m afraid she was not justified in her use of a firearm in this case and endangered others by her actions. I’ll have to support her employer on this one.

From Fox News, a quote:

“I safely fired a round in the air in an attempt to scare the robbers who were in the process of getting in their vehicle…”

Two problems here (pay attention, now…!):

  1. They were leaving… not the best time to begin shooting. While someone is within their rights to defend themselves and their property, they must consider the potential impact on others before discharging a firearm.  Her actions could have started a shootout that she was in no position to win, and would also have endangered many other individuals. She should have simply let them go and called the police.
  2. Firing into the air is NOT safe. What goes up must come down, and falling bullets can be deadly.

Sorry – can’t give my support here. In fact, I would say that this type of firearms usage scares the anti-gun crowd as much as armed criminals do the rest of us. Her actions will actually hurt the pro-2nd amendment movement by showing just how dangerous insufficiently trained civilians can be.

Remember – if you or those around you are not in immediate physical danger, leave it holstered and live to fight another day. Don’t endanger others by your actions.

And take an NRA safety class, will you??

Gun ownership rates

OK, so here’s the headline:

American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years

What’s funny is that this claim is made when gun sales have been increasing for decades, based on background check statistics from the FBI.

Note from the article that the claim of low gun ownership is based on survey data. Get my point? If not, think Trump election polls. No one wanted to admit for the pollsters that they were voting for Trump, but come election day….??  I see the same issue here: people don’t want to admit to gun ownership, possibly because they don’t trust the anonymity or purpose of the polls. The only reasonable explanation for the dramatic increase in purchases with the low admitted rate of ownership is that the polls – as they were for Trump – are wrong.

Want proof? Who controls the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, and most state governments? Gun control advocates, or 2nd amendment supporters? Yeah, I thought so…