Category: Entitlement

The end of law and order

The mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler, has apologized to the occupiers of the “Red House on Mississippi”, a home in the Humboldt neighborhood of Portland, Oregon. He has also agreed not to remove the occupying family while they negotiate with the current owners of the home, who purchased it during a foreclosure sale.

The story behind the foreclosure of this home is much different than that being presented by the protestors/occupiers: the simple (alleged) truth is that the prior owners obtained a mortgage on the property to pay legal defense expenses for a relative, but failed to pay it back. It’s not a race issue; it’s not a gentrification issue; it’s not an indigenous peoples issue. They simply didn’t pay their mortgage, and – just as would happen to you or I under the same circumstances – the home was foreclosed.

Mayor Wheeler’s refusal to enforce a court-ordered eviction and protect the property rights of the new owner is contrary to establish law and the principles of our nation. His failure to enforce the law lends credence to lawlessness, and will only embolden those who are in foreclosure proceedings to establish their own “occupation” to prevent seizure of bank-owned properties.

I wonder how banks will alter their lending practices in Portland when they realize that the local government will no longer enforce court-ordered repossession of collateral property associated with secured loans.  Will real estate or vehicle loans come with additional costs associated with the more difficult repossession process in Portland, or will banks simply refuse to make secured loans based on local law enforcement’s unwillingness to secure the property interests of the lender?

Below are additional articles that may shed some light on the motivation and true purpose regarding the occupation of the “Red House on Mississippi”:

‘Incoherent’ Court Filings Reveal Bizarre True Story Behind Portland’s Now Infamous ‘Red House’ Protests

Anti-fascist, sovereign citizen tactics combine at Red House

Vandalism near Red House exposes ‘troubling disconnect’

This again?

A recent National Review story makes the claim that Biden is now contemplating the forgiveness of $50,000 in student loan debt. Are you kidding me?

Schumer: Biden ‘Considering’ Forgiving $50,000 in Student Loan Debt via Executive Action

According to the story cited above:

“[Schumer] said they are calling on Biden to take executive action to administratively cancel up to $50,000 in student loan debt for federal student loan borrowers with an income below $125,000, and to do so in a way that the borrowers would have no tax liability when they receive the forgiveness.”

Wait a minute – these students are making up to $125,p000 per year only because the American taxpayer loaned them the money to attend college. So now they want a nice Beemer to impress the ladies/gentlemen, but they can’t afford to pay back the student loan that made it all possible? Really?

I’d like to make a few salient points:

1) If we don’t collect this money from the students who benefited from the loans – money that was collected as taxes from hard-working Americans, money that we are counting on to replenish the accounts from which it was taken – then from whom will we collect? I know it’s easy to see this as “government money”, but it’s not – it’s your money. And without the return of these funds, the government won’t have the money to spend. That means they’ll need to tax you to make up the difference due to this obscene liberal vote-buying scheme.

2) What incentive do students have to work hard and finish college quickly, if staying a few extra years on the government dole will simply be forgiven?

3) What incentive do students have to choose a useful but difficult degree, like something in the STEM disciplines, if they don’t have to repay their student loans? What incentive do they have to NOT fulfill their pet desire for a “college” degree in a subject of great interest (or ease) to them, but of no or limited value to society?

DO NOT forgive these student loans, Mr. Biden. To do so will be an insult to American taxpayers and will incentivize poor decisions by college students. Is the lesson that we are not to be held accountable for our actions, that the government is always there to bail you out, really the message we want to send to today’s youth?

Oh, yeah – I guess it is. How else can we make sure that the next generation is dependent on the government (and thus politicians) for their daily alms?

Silly me…

A new mantra

When government politicians buy votes with taxpayer money via wealth redistribution, they incentivize people to become dependent on the government (and thus these same politicians) for their daily alms. Unfortunately, this also has the effect of dis-incentivizing productivity.

We are products of nature, which tends towards efficiency. What animal works to be more productive than is necessary to meet their desires or needs, and why should people be any different? What do you think will happen when people are rewarded without concern for their relative productivity? Do you really think that they’ll become more productive members of society, or less? And what will be the impact on you when hard work becomes a blank check written against your life for the benefit of others?

I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: The only way we’ll all have more is if we produce more. It does not matter how much money you redistribute to those willing to spend it on their own needs – if we increase the available money supply (by taking it from investors and giving it to spenders) without producing more then the price of what is already produced will simply increase. If we instead increase production without increasing the money supply (i.e. increase our productivity) then more will be available at a lower cost. We must reward productivity, not idleness, if we all want to have a better life and more “things”.

My fear is that under a government-mandated wealth redistribution scheme people will not work hard to be productive (or at least as productive as required to meet their desires/needs) , but will instead fight to become the least productive with the highest total (government “benefits” + salary) earnings. The goal will be, simply put, to get more out of the system than one puts into it. Those foolish enough to be overly productive will simply have their “excess” productivity looted for the benefit of those less productive.

How will this end? The productive will give up; the lazy will give in. They will each chant a new mantra, one attributable to a long-time friend of mine: “I will become a burden upon society, because society has become a burden upon me.” (copyright BDawg 1991)

Hallelujah!

More “free” money…

The far left continues to demand student loan forgiveness – and Biden has indicated a willingness to comply. For example, from a recent Fox News article:

“Immediate $10,000 forgiveness of student loans, helping people up there in real trouble,” Biden said Monday. “They’re having to make choices between paying their student loan and paying the rent. Those kinds of decisions.”

But what about people who have over-extended their credit cards? Or purchased a vehicle they couldn’t afford? Or a home beyond their means? What about every bad financial decision anyone has ever made – wouldn’t relieving any or all of these help people ‘…in real trouble…”? Then why don’t we help them, too?

We don’t help them because, in America, you alone are responsible for your own failures – just as only you reap the benefit of your success (well, except for taxes). To suggest that every time someone makes a mistake that it’s the rest of the population that must bear the brunt of their failure  – well, that’s just un-American.

Refusing to hold people accountable for their poor decisions only encourages bad behavior, and government intervention to “help” these individuals will only result in people expecting the government to bail them out whenever they make a bad personal decision. Borrow more money than you can afford because you really wanted that worthless degree? It’s the government’s fault for loaning you the money, and thus they should forgive your debt! Live in a flood zone, but refuse to carry flood insurance? Don’t worry! The government will pay to rebuild your home! Live in a high fire area, but carry no or inadequate fire insurance? No problem! The government will send funds to rebuild your home (and sue the power company, too!). Too many people in jail? It’s not the criminal’s fault,  but instead it is the fault of the police. Let’s defund the police! I’m sure that will work out just fine…

It’s time to stop the idiocy and return to our American roots of freedom and individual responsibility. Put on your big boy (or girl) pants and deal with your errors on your own. You’ll be a better person for it.

“Government” money

Scammers commit unemployment fraud, stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the State of California Employment Development Department. But not to worry; it’s “state” money:

Financial losses were suffered by the state, not individuals, the Daily Breeze of Hermosa Beach reported.

Where the hell does the Daily Breeze think the state gets its money? Leprechauns? This is what’s wrong with Americans today: they forget that the government doesn’t actually have its own money. They get their money by picking our pockets via taxes.

Free college… Free housing… Free health care! We’ll just use GOVERNMENT money!

My response: “Bah! Humbug!”

Wrong problem

It annoys the daylights out of me when people whine about their student debt:

Saddled With Student Loans, Bestselling Author Worries, ‘I Don’t Want To Die Poor’

The typical complaint is how they can’t make enough money to pay off their college loans. How is this different than any other bad financial decision, and why should it be of any concern to others? If someone paid more for a house than it was worth, would you congratulate them on their poor decision and offer to pay off their loan? Or just pity them for their lack of common sense?

If you chose a degree that will not pay for itself, maybe you chose the wrong degree (or the wrong college). Maybe you should have contemplated the return on your investment before incurring the debt. It costs approximately $48K/year to go to Howard University, the school attended by the subject of NPR’s article; maybe they should have selected one of the many excellent and low-cost public schools instead. But the reality is that it’s not the loan that is the problem; it’s the decision to pay more for an education than it’s worth.

Maybe they should ask for a refund…?

The seizure of private property “for the good of the people”

Here’s how the downward spiral begins: The government claims the right to effectively seize private property for the benefit of some to the detriment of others:

Coronavirus bill to ‘cancel rent’ gains support in hard-hit NYC

Once this ball’s rolling, what will stop it? Why not seize people’s bank accounts for those who have no money? Have a spare room? Not any more – you must let this homeless person live with you rent-free. Have food in the refrigerator? There are hungry people on the street; why should you have something to eat when they don’t?

I know it sounds harsh, but the reality is that we help no one by seizing private property for use by another. In addition, it violates core concepts of liberty (true liberty is dependent on personal property rights) that are essential to our free-market economy.

If the government wants to pay the rent of the people impacted by government-mandated shutdowns, so be it. But they should tax the people – all if them, not just landlords – to pay this bill so that the people can decide when they’ve had enough. Effectively taxing the landlords, who as a block have little voting impact and whose industry is highly regulated in NYC, is tantamount to a tyranny by the majority.

Editor’s  note: The sad reality is that if NYC didn’t already have extensive rent control this situation would self-correct. Think about it: NYC landlords under some rent control ordinances are perversely incentivized to evict people (it can reset the rent to market rates). But what if the rents were not government-controlled? What would landlords do then? Evicting a tenant under these extreme conditions might leave the landlord with no tenant at all. Which is better: a partial payment or no payment? I would think that eviction-caused vacancies would increase availability and thus lower rents. Now landlords would have to fight to keep otherwise good renters temporarily burdened under these extraordinary circumstances. This would lead to just and justified negotiations over rent between landlords and otherwise good tenants, by mutual consent to mutual advantage. No government intervention necessary.

Universal Basic Income

A fundamental concept is that for something to be consumed it must first be produced. A corollary is that if we want to have more to consume, we must produce more. Yet Andrew Yang admits (actually, touts) that his UBI (universal basic income) will allow some to stay home instead of being productive members of the workforce. The result: less is produced, thus there is less to consume. How is that going to make our lives better?

Andrew Yang says UBI can empower women to leave ‘exploitative’ jobs, relationships

Of course some really like the idea, like the hosts of The View:

Yang faced questions about his UBI proposal during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Monday, where hosts appreciated the idea that stay-at-home or single mothers could essentially get paid for the work they perform.

Ok, but here’s a significant concern: Why should the public pay for them to be a stay-at-home or single parent? Isn’t it their own responsibility to maintain their home and children? After all, if it is their choice to have children then why should they be my responsibility to raise? If they hired a maid to raise their children instead, should we all pay for that, too? Where would it end?

The Declaration of Independence proclaims the right to “…Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…”. But the founders considered these inalienable, or natural, rights; as such they exist independent of government or society. Governments are instituted to secure these rights against the trespass of others, not to fulfill them. You must sustain your own life; you must exercise your own liberty; and you must provide for your own happiness. To assert that the fulfillment of these rights are the responsibility of government or society is ludicrous – as is the idea of a UBI.