What they don’t tell you

Yes, the jobs report was “bad” last month. Only 210,000 new jobs added. But that is only half the story:

Hiring slowed sharply in November, even before omicron, with 210,000 jobs added

The truth is that there are plenty of jobs – the JOLTS report (which reflects jobs open rather than filled) indicates there are more than 10 million available jobs at the end of September. So why were only 221,000 filled? Good question.

It turns out that the number of people in the workforce has dropped. It is currently 61.8%; pre-pandemic it was 63.3%. This means that roughly 4 million people are sitting out the recovery. A big reason might be the $300/month/child parents are being paid to … well, be parents. I know, I know – by itself the $300/month/child doesn’t seem like much, but when added to child care cost savings it will tip the scales towards staying home. Not a problem, if I wasn’t expected to pay for it.

Average day care per child is running about $200/week. This amounts to about $800/month. Assuming 3 children, that’s $2400/month. Add to that the child tax credit currently paid monthly, $300/month/child x 3 children = $900. Now we’re up to $3300/month in child care savings and government payments for a family with three children – that’s nearly 40K/year to stay home. Now, I don’t mind people staying home to raise their children – I just don’t want to pay them to do it. Not my child, not my pageant. Raise your own damn children. BTW, this increase in the child tax credit (it’s not so much a child tax credit as it is a tax on childless couples) was originally part of COVID relief legislation, but Biden’s “Build Back Broker” plan wants to make it permanent. The BBB plan includes “…permanent refundability for the Child Tax Credit…“, further incentivizing people not to work.

Now, again, I don’t mind people staying home to raise their children. And it’s fine that they remove themselves from the workforce to do so. But paying people to stay home and not work will only result in inflation. Think about it: money added to the economy (that we borrowed, no less) when less is being produced – the only possible outcome is inflation (unless our politicians balance the budget – fat chance of that ever happening…!).

And don’t give me any crap about how these parents are doing “valuable work” raising their children and thus should be paid; I’m not buying it. The work has value ONLY TO THEM, and thus it is only they who should pay for the work. Their circular argument goes something like this: I can’t afford to pay for a gardener, so I’m going to do my own gardening. But gardening is productive work, so I want to be paid for it – and thus the government should pay me. But the bullshit part of this argument is that the person who benefits from the labor is the one who should pay – in this case, the homeowner benefits from the work. They are free to pay themselves what they would have paid a gardener, but the result will be a wash. They did the work, they benefited from the work. Account closed. Get the hell out of my wallet!

The alternative is that the parents not be paid to stay home, and only reap the benefit of the child care savings. This would be fine – and since it introduces no new (unearned) money to the economy, inflation is not affected. Former childcare workers could actually go on to do other productive work. All is good with the world.

If we want the economy to improve, we must stop incentivizing people to not be productive, and – more importantly – we’ve got to stop paying them for non-productive (to the rest of the world) work like raising their own children. Only then will the workforce participation rate return to normal and inflation be tamed.

It’s not a democracy (you idiot!)

Stephen Colbert’s right. We don’t live in democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. And if we had more charter schools, Stephen, our citizens might actually understand the difference and significance of our form of government over a pure democracy.

Stephen Colbert declares ‘we don’t live in a democracy’ as right-leaning SCOTUS considers abortion case

F*****g moron.

Instead of insulting Supreme Court justices (“He knows it’s his job to interpret the Constitution, right?”), try reading the Constitution yourself, Stephen. Oh, and their “job” is NOT to interpret the Constitution according to the will of the majority – if that were the case our Constitution would be worthless and we’d be just another banana republic (which we very nearly are now thanks to morons like you, Stephen).

And, by the way, I don’t give a damn if a majority of the people “want” something – it’s NOT the domain of the Supreme Court (or its justices) to provide it. The reason we have a Constitution is to protect us from the tyranny of the such “majority” whim. Without the Constitution protecting our INDIVIDUAL rights over the demands of the masses we would all be at the whim of whatever morons happened to make up the majority at any given point in time. Think about that for a moment, Stephen, before you start whining about not living in a democracy.

Any why aren’t you blaming Congress, Stephen? All that would be required to put an end to this political charade (and charade it is; the only purpose behind abortion and gun control laws is to punish the opposition) is for Congress to pass a law legalizing abortion. That’s it. Call your congressman and complain instead of blaming the Supreme Court, Stephen.

And if you really want to try living in a democracy where the majority (or at least the majority in power) rules, I’d recommend you try the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. I’m sure they’d appreciate your humor – right up until your execution.

F*****g moron.

So it’s not…

Psaki says root cause of organized retail crime is the COVID-19 pandemic

So it’s not:
1) Inflation, brought on by Biden’s government aid programs (pronounced “free money”)?
2) The “defund the police” movement, which has emboldened criminals (ever wonder why the White House’ answer to this problem is more police funding)?
3) The “no cash bail” movement, which means criminals are released almost immediately? What message do you think this sends to criminals?

But instead of looking inward and blaming the failed policies of this administration, Psaki blames a liberal favorite – guns and gun violence (even though most organized retail crime that she is addressing does not involve firearms) – and throws COVID under the bus while she’s at it. Good job, Jen.

Well, I’ve got news for you – guns don’t make law abiding people into criminals. And to commit gun crimes, by definition you have to be a criminal. So it’s the CRIMINALS, Jen – not the guns or “gun crime”.

And just exactly how is COVID responsible for the rise in crime? Unemployment rates are back to pre-pandemic values. There are more than 10.4 million jobs available at the end of September 2021, and only 4.8  million unemployed. Do you get that? There are TWO TIMES as many job openings then there are unemployed! Unfortunately, free money and government assistance programs (think child tax credit, stimulus payments, eviction moratoriums, etc.) have made many realize that they can just stay home and not work (job quit rates are high – check the JOLTS report). This results in a smaller, less productive workforce that fuels even greater inflation.

So yeah, Jen – it’s guns and COVID… yeah… that’s the ticket… yeah…

More [fill in blank] control laws!

When Darrel Brooks drove his Ford SUV into a crowd of Christmas revelers, did anyone blame the vehicle and call for more “vehicle control laws”? No; of course not. We blamed the criminal, and the courts that freed him on bail.

When more than 10,000 people were killed in 2019 due to alcohol-impaired drivers, did anyone blame the alcohol and call for more “alcohol control laws”? Or blame the automobiles and call for more “vehicle control laws”? No; of course not. We blamed the drivers and called for higher DUI penalties

When a student obtains his father’s firearm and allegedly attacks classmates at his high school, did anyone blame the firearm and call for more “gun control laws”? Yes; of course they did. No need to blame the perpetrator, or the parents or school officials who failed to intervene.

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald made the following statement after the arrest of Ethan Crumbley, the 15-year-old suspect in the Oxford High School shooting in Michigan:

McDonald added that the “the only thing I can do as the prosecutor is ensure that I will do everything I can to prosecute this case and pursue justice for these victims.”

“But also to speak out and say that we need better gun laws,” she said. 

Really, Karen? You fail to cite any relevant facts regarding how this young man acquired his father’s firearm or what caused his behavior, but you are certain that additional gun laws would have prevented this tragedy? Just what new gun law would you suggest, Karen, given the lack of facts surrounding this case? What if the firearm was acquired in violation of an existing law – a law that was simply ignored by the perpetrator? How would an additional gun control law have impacted this tragedy under those circumstances, Karen? It would be really nice if gun control pundits like Karen McDonald would actually investigate root causes before blaming the inanimate object used in the commission of a heinous crime.

While few details regarding this crime have been released, some are critical and suggest that additional gun control laws would have had little impact. For instance, it has been alleged that the shooter posted photos on social media of the firearm purchased just days earlier by his father,  referring to the gun as “…my new beauty…”.  The implication is that it was purchased for him by his father; this is bolstered by additional comments made by law enforcement officials:

Bouchard said: “It’s my understanding that this was a recent weapon purchased, that he had been shooting with it and had posted pictures of a target and the weapon.”

My question would be: is this a legal possession? Can a father buy his 15 year old son a semi-automatic pistol in Michigan, and if not isn’t that a violation of existing gun laws? If this turns out to be the case, wouldn’t charging the father with a violation of such an existing law be more productive than claiming – without any facts to support the claim – that “…we need better gun laws…”?

Other details leading up to the shooting raise additional concerns. For instance the alleged shooter’s parents were called to the school just hours before the shooting:

Sheriff Mike Bouchard later told reporters that the boy’s parents had been summoned to the school  just a few hours before the bloodshed. Bouchard wouldn’t discuss details of the behavior school officials were concerned about.

This suggests that the cause of this tragedy might have behavioral roots. Perhaps the school could have done more to recognize the threat or the circumstances leading up to the shooting. Perhaps laws concerning school actions with respect to or reporting of behavioral issues would be more beneficial than blaming the firearm.

The firearm was only the tool used to express the rage this young man felt. Before we blame the inanimate tool and demand more undefined “gun laws”, let’s investigate the root cause of this tragedy. At least then we’d be in a position to make fact-based decisions.

It’s the criminals, stupid.

Philadelphia recently suffered its 500th homicide:

55-year-old woman becomes Philadelphia’s 500th homicide victim

Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney has chosen to blame firearms:

He also called on lawmakers in Harrisburg to allow the city to pass more restrictive gun laws to keep weapons off the streets.

Uh… by definition, criminals do NOT follow the law… So how will more gun laws stop the criminal use of firearms? Won’ t such laws only impact law-abiding citizens?

“There are people making money selling these guns, making these guns, and the legislature, not the people behind me, don’t care. They don’t care how many people get killed. It’s ridiculous. And cities like Boston and New York that are not dealing with this problem the way we’re dealing with it, there are strict gun laws…we need to have some semblance of that.”

Blaming guns (and a profitable firearms industry) for gun violence in is like blaming cars (and a profitable automobile industry) for drunk driving deaths. It’s just plain stupid. If we really want to have an impact on so-called “gun crime”, then we need to lock up the criminals who use guns – same as we did for drunk drivers. This includes criminals awaiting trial for violent crimes involving firearms.

Bail is not only to ensure that those accused appear at trial; it is also to protect the public. Thanks to the Bail Reform Act of 1984 (upheld by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Salerno, 1987), bail may be denied for defendants awaiting trail for felonies involving firearms or whose release would otherwise endanger society. Criminals who use firearms in the commission of a crime should be considered dangerous to public safety – particularly repeat offenders. Low bail – or no bail at all – for these defendants is absurd.

Let’s make and enforce laws that actually impact criminals. How about we try that for awhile before we attack the firearms industry as a whole, or the rights of our law-abiding citizens?

WTF?

So, punish otherwise law-abiding citizens for even having the gall to own firearms, but when criminals use a firearm to commit a crime they get a walk? AYFKM??

California Democratic lawmakers look to remove penalty for possessing firearm during crime

Here’s a couple of examples – taxing law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals:

San Jose mayor rolls out new gun control proposal days after railyard mass shooting

Chicago reinstates gun and ammunition tax after court deems it unconstitutional