Category: General

There is no right held by any individual to immigrate or travel to the nation of their choice; to confer such a right would defy the rights of a sovereign state to manage its borders and its immigration priorities. By the same token there is no right to demand refugee status in the nation of one’s own choice. Thus the suspension or cancellation of visas for foreign nationals and the suspension of granting permanent resident status – if in support of the security of the United States – is a reasonable action.  However, I believe that President Trump has gone too far in suspending entry for foreign nationals who have already been granted permanent resident status.

I hope he sees his error and makes a suitable correction. If not, the voters can issue their own correction come 2020.

A recent article recalling the poem “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus pined for an America of the past that welcomed any and all who reached her shores. However, things have changed since this poem was penned and as a result so has our immigration policy – and rightfully so.

“The New Colossus” was written in 1883; the America of this period was substantially different than it is today. In 1883 there were no social welfare programs run by the state; if you wanted “life, liberty and happiness” you could find it in America, but you would have to earn it on your own. Such is not the case today, and those that immigrate to the U.S. now are in many cases eligible for social welfare assistance that is paid for by American taxpayers. In addition, due to the disparate application of taxes that disfavor those who are more productive than others,  the system allows for the case where a working immigrant – even one who pays taxes – can reap benefits from the system greater than they have generated into the system. If a country were to allow unlimited immigration of this type it would quickly result in economic suicide. Such a policy would not act to pull everyone (including the immigrants) up to a higher economic level, but would instead pull the existing productive inhabitants down. This is why so many 1st world countries (such as Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand, and many others) with extensive social welfare systems place stringent standards on people seeking to immigrate to their countries.

America, too, has now moved in the direction of a social welfare state and as a result it is simply not possible to return to the old America with respect to immigration. We are no longer the America of Emma Lazarus’ era. Live with it.

The claim has been made that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are rights that exist independent of the state. However, I would argue that without the civil structure of the state such “rights” would disappear or be made subservient to other natural rights or laws. For instance, outside of the state you do not have a “right” to your life or property; survival of the fittest rules, which allows any thug(s) who are stronger, more numerous or better armed than you to relieve you of your life, liberty and property (and it seems sans life, liberty and property that happiness would suffer, too). As a result one should be able to conclude that the state is necessary to protect these rights, and that these rights actually stem from that protection.

It is also important to note that as the state protects your rights, it protects the rights of others. You can no more steal the life, liberty or property of others than they can steal yours. This implies that the property you seek to protect must be yours, acquired by willful trade with another or produced by your productive effort. It also implies that the life you seek to sustain must be maintained by this same productive effort; you have no claim on the productivity of others, even to sustain your life.

This results in the identification of an unstated postscript that should have followed the enumeration of the rights outlined above and upon which they are entirely dependent: by your own effort. It is the failure to state this postscript that has allowed the distortion of these rights such that people now claim the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness at the expense of others. This is a dangerous precedent that must be vigorously opposed. Towards that end I propose the following re-written portion of our Declaration of Independence be promulgated at every opportunity:

“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness by their own effort;”

There; that’s better.

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.

Rosie O’Donnell has decided that she would prefer martial law – control of the country by what amounts to a military dictatorship – over having Donald Trump ascend to the presidency [Fox News].

Wow. And she claims Trump is unstable? Look in the mirror, Rosie

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.

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.

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.

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…