Filed under: Capitalism, Conservatism, Domestic Policy, Economy, History, Immigration, Liberalism, Media Bias, Politics, Progressivism, Statism | Tags: Changing Word Meaning, Leftist Propaganda, Slogans and Bumper-Stickers
The administration has determined that in the current immigration crisis we should not use the word “illegal”, so demeaning, you know. We must be more compassionate.
Words, however, have meaning that is not determined by the Democratic party, but by the dictionary. In this case — Merriam Webster:
illegal, il•le•gal, adjective: not allowed by law.
……………………………….not according to or authorized by law. …………………………………………
That’s pretty straightforward, and descriptive. The meaning is plain, solid fact. Do you see anything demeaning there?
alien, noun: a person who was born in a different country and is not
……………….a citizen of the county in which he now lives.
……………….a foreign born resident who has not been naturalized ……………….and is still a subject or citizen of a foreign country.
The administration has said that we must not use these terms, although there are no others that accurately describe the situation. We’re supposed to go for “unaccompanied children” though “minors” more accurately describes the situation, and the majority of the illegal alien “children” are between the ages of eleven and 18, and many are members of Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13, a violent street gang already infesting many of our cities, whose members are mostly between age 11 and 21.
This is one of the great problems in our nation’s political battles. The Left spends a lot of time on words, slogans, bumper-stickers, and phrases. They believe if they can get the words right, they can control the narrative. Different words evoke differing emotions, and the right choice can compel people to do what you want.
The Right is so concerned with how a policy or program works and what it means and how it will play out. We worry about cost and incentives, the economics and probable effect—and seldom notice that they are manipulating us with clever use of words. Our minds are just off in a different direction, and we aren’t very good at slogans anyway. Propaganda works!
Filed under: Capitalism, Conservatism, Economy, Law, Liberalism, Media Bias, Politics | Tags: Business Isn't About Feelings, Emotion Versus Economics, Redefine Words And Definitions
Conservatives need to borrow a page from the
Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, who casually change the names of things when the previous name becomes unworkable. The whole concept of a minimum wage needs both a new name and a new definition. The present terminology is simply confusing everybody.
“Minimum wage” is defined by Conservatives as a beginner’s wage. Absolute beginners in the world of work need a place to start, where the person who hires them will train them in the job so that they can become productive. The wage must be low, ideally there would be no minimum. Haven’t you heard people advise those who can’t find a job to offer to work for free just to show what they can do?
[Somewhere in here we need to mention that the White House does not pay their interns, so they must be the children of those who can afford to feed and house them in the nation's capitol. It becomes a prestige internship, for some, an unlucky choice for others.]
Around the beginning of the twentieth century, child labor laws were gradually passed, along with laws to keep children in school. A child under 12 years of age may not be employed, between 12 and 16 — allowed occupations and limited hours. There are exceptions for parents, newspaper delivery, but kids with lemonade stands may run afoul of the law, depending on the town.
An absolute beginner in the workplace is all cost, little productivity. Employers must be willing to train the beginner into a productive worker. The minimum wage for a beginner must be low enough to entice an employer to take a know-nothing on in the hope that he/she will eventually develop into a desirable employee.
Liberals think of the minimum wage as a wage to support a poor, unfortunate family. Obviously, if you think of it that way, a wage must be higher than a “minimum.” They speak of a “living wage,” and think of themselves as compassionate and concerned and their argument becomes as much about feelings as about economics.
Statistics show that most minimum-wage workers get a raise within 6 months, which confirms the training-to-productivity theory, and most minimum wage workers belong to families where the household income is over $50,000 a year, which casts doubt on the idea that the minimum wage supports a family. But clearly you have two sides in the debate who are not talking about the same thing at all.
In my community, the minimum wage is $9.25. The City of Sea-Tac, which is small, containing the Seattle-Tacoma airport, strip malls, bars, motels, and not much else, voted in the last election for a $15 minimum wage, which probably doesn’t affect many at the airport. The last election also elected a Socialist to the Seattle City Council, who is campaigning for a $15 minimum wage, so it is a subject of considerable debate here.
We badly need to separate, re-name, and probably lower the wage for beginners to entice businesses operating on narrow margins to take on absolute beginners. ObamaCare has thrown a monkey wrench into that with an incentive for employers to cut workers back to 30 hours or less, with ObamaCare regulations.
The unemployment rate for teenagers is 16.3 percent, measured in July which is the period of highest youth employment, but 28.2 percent for black youth. How about calling it “Beginner’s Wage?” That might help those who have learned to be a cheerful and productive worker, with skills, to move on to a better job. We never expected anyone to stay at the minimum wage, but to climb the ladder to success. Conservatives believe in growth and mobility.
Filed under: Capitalism, Conservatism, Domestic Policy, History, Liberalism, Politics, Regulation, Statism, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: $1.7 Billion Maintainance Costs, Empty and Abandoned Buildings, Federal Government Property
“The boarded up building in the photo sits a mere 6 blocks from the White House on prime real estate, but it’s been empty for 30 years! What’s the problem? The building is owned/controlled by the Federal government which often doesn’t even know what it owns, lacks the incentive to control costs and whose bureaucratic strictures make selling difficult even when motivation exists.”
A Google search suggests that most articles have picked up on a 77,000 number, as the number of empty or underutilized buildings owned by the federal government—as a proxy for you and me. The “federal government” is simply the representative of us—a fact that is worth remembering.
Other numbers range from 45,000 to 100,000 and 300,000 which really points out that they have no idea how many empty, underutilized, abandoned buildings or properties there are across the whole country. Missile sites are included, as are buildings so abandoned that trees are growing through the roof. Taxpayers own them, and even when they are vacant—they are still expensive.
The Office of Management and Budget estimates that these buildings could be costing taxpayers $1.7 billion a year. Even empty, someone has to mow the lawns, keep the pipes from freezing, maintain security fences, or pay for some basic power, except when it doesn’t. The only known centralized database that the government has is the inventory maintained by the General Services Administration called the Federal Real Property Profile and it’s not reliable.
Doing something with these buildings is complicated—even when an agency knows it has a building it would like to sell, bureaucratic hurdles limit what they can do. No federal agency can sell anything unless it’s uncontaminated, asbestos-free and environmentally safe. Expensive fixes.
Then the agency has to make sure another agency doesn’t want it. Then state and local governments get a crack at it, then nonprofits—and finally a 25-year-old law requires the government to see if it could be used as a homeless shelter. No wonder many agencies just lock the doors and say forget it.
These publicly owned properties are managed by the federal government for the benefit of the people. There are also enormous amounts of public lands. Military bases: Fort Hood, Texas, now sadly in the news, is 340 square miles in size.
There are National Parks and National Monuments, National Forests, and land ‘managed’ by the Bureau of Land Management. Trillions of dollars worth of land. And I am undoubtedly neglecting other jurisdictions. My brief Google search made it clear that we are not alone. It is a common governmental problem. I did find one article on “how to squat in abandoned property,” (probably British) and of course, reference to the empty cities of China.
I emphasize taxpayer ownership because President Obama, for political reasons, chose to shut down what he thought of as “government land” under his purview, during the “government shutdown.” The Constitution clearly says “We the People.” Bureaucrats, far too often, forget just who is the boss. They may prefer to think of themselves as enlightened public servants. They are the hired help.
This is one reason why Republicans believe in smaller government, but they aren’t much better at property management. It’s bipartisan.
Filed under: Capitalism, Conservatism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Liberalism, Politics, Regulation, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: "The Ruling Class", How They Corrupted America, What We Can Do About It
Back to Angelo Codevilla:
“Our ruling class is a machine. That is, it lives by providing tangible rewards to its members. “Machine parties” around the world often provide rank-and-file activists with modest livelihoods, and enhance mightily the upper level members’ wealth. Because of this, whatever else such parties might accomplish, they must feed the machine by transferring money or jobs or privileges—civic as well as economic—to the party’s clients, whether directly or indirectly. …
Hence, our Ruling Class’ first priority in any and all matters, its solution to any and all problems, it to increase the power of the government—meaning of those who run it, meaning themselves. Secondly it is to recompense political supporters with public money, privileged jobs, contracts, etc. That is why our Ruling Class’ solution, not just for economic downturns and social ills but also for hurricanes and tornadoes, global cooling and global warming, has been to claim more power for itself. A priori, one might wonder whether enriching and empowering individuals of a certain kind can make American kinder and gentler, much less control the weather. But there can be no doubt that such power and money makes Americans ever more dependent on those who wield it.
By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, our Ruling Class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty. …By endowing some in society with the power to force others to sell cheaper than they would like to, and forcing others yet to buy at higher prices—or even to buy in the first place—modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are. Whatever else government may be, it is inherently a factory of privilege and inequality. “
Reason said: “Few essays attracted as much attention from right-wing readers this summer as “America’s Ruling Class—and the Perils of Revolution,” an extended argument that an incestuous social set “rules uneasily over the majority of Americans.” Written by Angelo Codevilla of the Claremont Institute and first published in The American Spectator, this very long article has now been expanded into a very brief book, called The Ruling Class.”
I’ve found the book fascinating because there are so many good arguments to ponder. Real food for thought about just where we are and what we might do about it. Recommended
Filed under: Conservatism, Cool Site of the Day, Politics | Tags: Christmas, conservatives, Gifts, Presents, Republicans, Stocking Stuffers
The perfect gifts & stocking-stuffers for the Conservatives on your Christmas list!
Not just t-shirts, but Hoodies, Campaign Buttons, Stickers, Mugs, Pajama sets and much, much more! ALL ITEMS are 30% today (use promo-code “HoHo”), with plenty of time to get there by Christmas! Here are just a FEW of our many available designs:
UPDATE: All items 50% OFF until 9PM. Use code “CANE”:
Filed under: Capitalism, Conservatism, Economy, Election 2014, Freedom, Health Care | Tags: Competition Improves Everything, Researching Health Care, Understanding Your Rights
If you are becoming alarmed by ObamaCare—and who isn’t—where do you go for more information? The Left claims that Republicans just criticize, and don’t have any ideas, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Let’s start with “The Empowering Patients First Act” a bill introduced by Representative Tom Price, MD (R-GA). Dr. Price worked as an orthopedic surgeon for twenty years in private practice. Then he had a career teaching medicine at Emory University Medical School, served in the Georgia Legislature, and was elected to Congress in 2004. You can read or download the bill at his website.
- Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis*, by John C, Goodman. (ncpa)
- How Medicaid Fails the Poor, by Avik Roy (Manhattan Institute)
- The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Care, by Dr. David Gratzer (Manhattan Institute)
- The Cure for ObamaCare, by Sally Pipes (Pacific Research Institute)
- Replacing Obamacare, by Michael Tanner ( Cato)
The Think Tanks:
- The Heritage Foundation: www.heritage.org
- American Enterprise Institute: www.aei.org
- The Cato Institute: www.cato.org
- National Center for Policy Analysis: www.ncpa.org
- Pacific Research Institute: www.pacificresearch.org
- The Manhattan Institute: www.manhattaninstitute.org
- The Hoover Institution: www.hoover.org
- Kaiser Health News: www.kaiserhealth news.org
Did you know that there are something like 600 think tanks in this country? I thought 8 were plenty to list, and all are doing important studies on health care and how to reform it, in a patient-centered, free-market way. Many have email lists where you can sign up for regular information. And check your local public library.
ObamaCare may seem to be imploding, but Democrats will not give up on their prospective single-payer health care plan, and if you want to understand where that is going, go to any British newspaper online and enter NHS in the search function.
The federal government does few things well, and health care is not one of them. The American people want no part of it, and the more they learn the more they want out. Democrats have sold their effort with a pack of lies and misrepresentation. If we hope to defeat them, we must be well-informed.
Filed under: Capitalism, Conservatism, Economy, Politics, Taxes, The United States | Tags: A Hot Research Topic, The Dallas Fed, The Uncertainty Debate
I’ve written often about the effects of policy uncertainty on business, based on comments from businessmen. Now it has become a significant issue among economists who are doing serious academic research on the topic. Business in the private sector is risky. When do you take a chance on starting a business? When do you add a new product? How much do you have to worry about your competition? Can you add a new building, expand the office, hire more employees? Imagine how many businessmen are needing more help but reluctant to hire in the current uncertainty about health insurance.
The Dallas Fed held a Conference back around the first of October on the Causes and Macroeconomic Consequences of Uncertainty. Richard Fisher, President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas summed it up nicely: “Uncertainty matters a lot.” Business, he said, “is the process of managing under conditions of uncertainty, and business executives organize their teams and resources to minimize uncertainty of factors under their control; and they develop contingencies and operating tactics and strategies for factors over which they have no direct control.”
If there is one thing that you can confidently assert, it is that the Obama administration has been an outstanding generator of a vast fog of uncertainty, even as they claim to want to create jobs. Economists have been hearing from their business contacts, but “until quite recently the economists who study business cycles and monetary policy paid scant attention to the effects of uncertainty on aggregate job and output growth.” Their standard models assumed that people and businesses could insure away individual risk.
Gut feeling may work for ordinary people, but economists dealing in macroeconomics give direction to governments and help set policy and the distribution of shocks is currently far from normal. In his post John Taylor has listed the academic papers presented — with links, if you’re interested. It is a good thing that the profession has taken interest in the effects of uncertainty, and is trying to understand and quantify the reality.
Filed under: Conservatism, Domestic Policy, Freedom, Law, Liberalism, Politics, The Constitution | Tags: A Constitutional Amendment, Congress Should Not Be Immune, Everybody No Exceptions
Rand Paul is pushing for a new Constitutional amendment stating:
Congress shall make no law applicable
to a citizen of the United States
that is not equally applicable to Congress.
The amendment also contains two provisions that apply that same principle to the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch of the federal government, according to a press release put out by the office of the Kentucky senator on Monday.
I suspect the voters would go for this — big time. Getting it through Congress might be something else entirely. Congressmen Salmon and DeSantis proposed a similar idea in the House of Representatives last August. One would assume that the Founders would be horrified to discover the extent to which our elected officials have exempted themselves from provisions they are happy to stick us with. Might make them think twice about some of the laws they devise.
Filed under: Capitalism, Conservatism, Economy, Freedom, Politics, Progressivism, Taxes | Tags: Budget talks, Glenn Hubbard, Stepehen Moore
Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University has some sage words to bear in mind as budget talks approach. From his preface to Stephen Moore’s, Who’s the Fairest of Them All:
Not since the 1930′s has the issue of class warfare been more front and center in policy debate in Washington. President Obama is seeking higher tax rates on capital gains, dividends, estates, small business owners and “the rich.” He is not promising these ideas to enhance economic growth—but to advance the concept of fairness. If economic growth isn’t the goal, we shouldn’t be surprised if this agenda doesn’t guarantee it. But it is worse than that—unless it is reversed, this agenda will set in motion the largest tax hike in decades beginning January 1, 2013, and I know of no economic theory that would predict this policy will make America more prosperous.