Fixing Urban Decay

I ran across an interesting and excellent web series on reason.tv entitled REASON SAVES CLEVELAND WITH DREW CAREY.  The sub title is "How to Fix 'The Mistake On The Lake' and Other Once-Great American Cities."  As anyone who knows anything about Drew Carey knows, he's from Cleveland.  This series looks at the problems of a city that was once the sixth largest city in the country and considered one of the best places to live to a blighted, failing "mistake on the lake."  They also look at best practices of other cities that could be used to help revitalize Cleveland.  The video below introduces the series.






Cleveland officials seem to have succumbed to the same malady common to so many government bureaucrats- insanity...continuing to do the same things over and over and expecting different results.  I think it was Rush Limbaugh that said, "Liberals never think they do anything wrong...they just think they haven't been able to do enough of it yet."  This certainly seems to be true of the people running Cleveland.

This series points out problems that exist in many declining urban centers such as Cleveland...like Pittsburgh, Detroit and others...and common sense ways to revitalize these areas.  The failures of their past policies are on display in their current failures.  Many of these policies are the same kinds of central planning initiatives that the Federal government has adopted over the years...and they too are failing.  Cities are a microcosm of economics and government.  A lot can be learned from their successes and failures.  Enjoy.

Drive more...Save the Planet

Looking at a document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entitled National Air Quality Status and Trends Through 2007, I came across the data represented by the chart above.  After listening to the environmental doomsayers all these years, I was shocked at what the data revealed.  It is, in fact exactly opposite from what we have been told.

From 1990 to 2007 the Aggregate Emissions of six common pollutants tracked by the EPA (Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of Nitrogen and Volatile Organic Compounds) were reduced by 41%.  This happened while the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country grew by 63%.  Population grew by 21%. Energy Consumption was up by 20% and Vehicle Miles Traveled was increased by 45%.

How can this be?  All of those things are bad for the environment...right?  I mean aren't we evil capitalist/consumer pigs who are polluting the world more and more through our thoughtless use of "fossil fuels" and technology?  That's what they tell us...but it seems that air quality in this country has actually gotten better.  So...therefore...let me think now...if we drive MORE...the air should get even cleaner, right?  If we really care about clean air, like we say we do, we need to produce more, have more babies, use more energy and...DRIVE MORE.  Yeah...that must be it.  Because, the more we drove and did all of these other things, the cleaner the air got.

I also found out that according to a 1999 report of the US Public Interest Research Group that "From 1992 to 1997, the number of SUVs and other light trucks on the road grew from 54 million to 68 million. Today there is one light truck for every 3.9 Americans. If current growth continues, there will be an estimated 133 million light trucks on the road by the year 2020. Given population growth projections, this would be one light truck for every 2.4 people."  So this must mean that SUVs are also good for the air quality...not bad.

This is very upsetting.  Everything I thought I was supposed to know is now in question.  If you can't believe liberal, tree hugging environmentalists...who can you trust?

What's that?  You say you aren't too sure of my logic?  There are other factors at play here, you say.  Driving more miles can't really improve air quality, you contend.

Well, I don't know.  It's the same kind of logic used by the proponents of so-called "Man Made Global Warming."  The global temperatures are rising...human industrial activity is increasing...so, therefore, we are going to burn up the planet.  But wait, we say...it has been warmer on earth in the past...even before the industrial age.  And, there's the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) of the oceans that causes global climate to warm and cool in cycles.  There is the fact that one decent sized volcanic eruption emits more "greenhouse gasses" than the whole industrialized world does in a year.  And, what about the fact that the global temperatures on Mars were increasing at the same time as they were on Earth...due, we believe, to solar activity.  There's no industry, or SUVs, on Mars.  Those are just a few of the many factors that we are told to ignore.  "The planet has a fever," and it's our fault, we are told.

Well, if the Climategate crowd can ignore other factors, so can I.  And until you can convince me that their factors are different than mine...I'm going to drive my SUV more.

Paranoia or Justified Suspicion

They say that you're not really paranoid if someone is out to get you.  That's how I feel about the current Federal government. I don't think they are out to get me personally, mind you...I'm not that paranoid.  But remember, the big debate at the founding of this country was between those who wanted a limited government (the Federalists) and those who wanted an even more limited government (the Anti-Federalists).  The Anti-Federalists were afraid that even with all of the limits, checks and balances being discussed by Madison and others, that the central government would become too large and powerful.  As Patrick Henry said before the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 5th, 1788, "suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds."   

The current issue that exemplifies the reason for suspicion is the health care debate.  Look, even if you believe that our current health care system is hopelessly broken, you have to be suspicious of the manner in which the Democrats and this President are conducting themselves.  From the very beginning they have sought to deceive the public and subvert the process of government to get what they want.

First of all, the Democrats have completely created a "health care crisis" where none existed.  A large majority of people in this country have said over and over that they are generally happy with their health care.  Yes people are worried about costs rising and believe that there's some room for improvement...but generally, they are happy.  Using data from the last Census, the Democrats told us that nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured.  But this number wasn't quite what it seemed.  Out of this total 10.2 million are non-citizens. 8.3 million are between 18 – 24 years old, a group that typically chooses not to spend their money on insurances. And  9.2 million are households with incomes of $75,000/year or above. This leaves us at less than half of their original number.  These people may truly be in need of help...but for this, they tell us, we need to completely overhaul the health care system for the other 270 million or so Americans.

Then there is the constant parade of poor unfortunate souls who don't have health insurance and are in dire straights. The latest was trotted out by President Obama in a speech he made in Ohio on Monday, March 15th.  Natoma Canfield, of Medina, Ohio is a cancer survivor who has been in the Cleveland Clinic.  Natoma, the President told us, might lose her house.  But this, like so many things he says, just isn't true.  The Cleveland Clinic, who is providing her with treatment,  has already said that they are not going to place a lien against her house and that, in fact, she is already receiving charitable assistance and is eligible for aid. Don't get me wrong, I hate to see anyone have to go through cancer or any other serious illness, but these anecdotal examples are not sufficient evidence that the best health care system in the world must be completely overturned.  They have created a crisis and played on the fears and emotions of the people to try to get them go along with the program.  This tactic is truly despicable, in my opinion, and shouldn't be used by either side.

Then, after promising to post any new bills on the Internet for public review, they initially tried to get Congress to vote on a bill that was not even written yet...so no one was even able to read it...not even the congressmen.  Then they they tried strong-arming, pleading and out right bribing...remember the so called "Corn Husker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase" where sweetheart deals were made with some states in return for votes?   They have told fellow democrats in the face of overwhelming voter opposition to the bill, that even if they lose their seats in Congress, they need to sacrifice their political careers on the alter of health care and vote for this take over of one-sixth of the American economy.

And now the scariest move yet...the so-called "deem and pass" maneuver.  Since with all of the arm-twisting and and bribery they haven't even gotten enough votes to pass this bill using reconciliation...because if they had the votes it would already be done...they are floating the idea of just passing it without a vote at all.  This is a maneuver that is rarely used, and as I understand it, is meant for trivial matters of procedure, not to be used on bills that will have a major effect on a part of our economy that is larger than the entire economies of any other of the G8 countries.  This is obviously a statement that the current Democratic leadership has no  regard whatsoever for the will of the people or the rule of law.

This is a naked power grab.  Politicians do not normally lay down their careers willingly to go against the overwhelming will of voters...even if they think the cause is right.  Even for those who believe that health care reform is a top priority, you must realize that this "the ends justifies the means" approach of the Democrats is dangerous to our republican freedoms.  If they can subvert the democratic process and force the health bill into law against strong voter opposition...they can do it with other bills.  You may want to see this bill passed, but what about the next one...one that you may be as strongly against as you are for this one?  It will be too late then, you will have lost your voice...and a very large portion of your freedom.

So yes, I am suspicious and afraid of this government.  I think my fears are justified, and I believe that I am in good company with my my suspicions of centralized power...the Founding Fathers.  Even if you're for health care reform, you should let your congressmen know that you don't want it done in this way...you don't want it done in an unconstitutional, totalitarian way.

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body..." - Thomas Jefferson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.  Suspect every one who approaches that jewel." - Patrick Henry

Tax Rates, Revenues and The Economy

There was a very interesting and straight forward article at The American Thinker that explained the real effects of the Bush tax cuts on the deficit and the economy.  Particularly interesting was the explanation of The Laffer Curve, which has been around for a long time (1974) and has proven true since.  Simply stated, the Laffer Curve illustrates the effects of raising tax rates on revenue received by the government.  There is a point of maximum revenue, shown as the Equilibrium Point (EP) on the chart below, where either raising taxes or lowering taxes will have a negative effect on revenue.  You could also think of the EP as the "point of diminishing returns."

When tax rates exceed the rate of Equilibrium, lowering  taxes actually increases revenue to the government.  This has been true whether it was done by a Democrat icon (St. John of Camelot), or a Republican icon (Ronaldus Maximus), or by that "big idiot" George W. Bush.  Also, raising taxes lowers revenue, as when FDR did it and as it will if Obama does.

But, this is just part of the story.  We must ask ourselves if revenue maximization is, or should be the goal.  Lowering taxes, whether on the low or high side of the EP has positive effects on the economy, jobs, investing and the GDP.  These things benefit the average citizen far more than whether the government bureaucracy is properly funded or not.

Certainly government, even a Constitutionally-based federal republic, has roles and responsibilities that require a certain amount of tax revenue.  But do they need all the revenue possibly available to meet these responsibilities?  The Federal government has long used its revenue excesses to bribe and coerce States (federal pork projects) into acting in certain ways or doing certain things. Most times, these bribes were in areas where the Federal government has no Constitutional mandate.  In this way they have slowly usurped State sovereignty, centralized their power and destroyed the checks and balances designed into our federal form of government.  Too much money, like too much power, in too few hands is a dangerous thing.

“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison; Federalist No. 47.

 Another question we must ask is, if revenue maximization and deficit reduction is really the goal...and it has been proven that lowering tax rates help meet this goal...then why would the Democrats want to raise taxes?  I propose that it is because this has never been the goal.  The tax code has long been used as a tool of power by the Federal government.  They raise taxes on areas they want to discourage and lower them for things they wish to encourage in the economy.  They also use it to manipulate special interests and voting blocks.  If you want to eliminate a majority of special interest groups in Washington, support a flat tax structure where there is no way to manipulate and lobby for loop holes.  I'd bet that Washington D.C. would empty out by half in a short amount of time.  But Congress, Republicans or Democrats, won't even consider such a thing because it diminishes their power.

Another issue to be considered is spending.  If spending continues to exceed revenue, which it always seems to,  then you will never eliminate the deficit...it's as simple as that.  It doesn't matter if you are at the EP, above or below it.  Federal spending MUST be reined in and controlled.  There should be a mandate...maybe a Constitutional amendment...to balance the budget except in times of war or extreme national emergency.  These exceptions to a balanced budget should be narrowly defined and guidelines should be set on when the budget must be restored to balance after the events.

I believe that if the Federal government were kept to its rightful, Constitutional roles, and spending is controlled, taxes could be considerably lowered (even below the EP) and the government could still run a surplus.  Now, to meet some of the requirements of the roles dropped by the Federal government, State governments may have to raise their rates somewhat.  But there is a lot of fat in State governments also and this would at least bring the power closer to The People.

HYPOCRICY!

The level of hypocrisy in politics never ceases to amaze me...especially on the left.  The latest example though is quite stunning...but not surprising.

In 2005, George W. Bush asked the Republican lead Senate to use reconciliation, which was dubbed "the Nuclear Option," to pass judicial appointments with a simple (51 vote), rather than a "super" (60 vote) majority. The Democrats were livid and compared this with the destruction of the republic (see video).

Now, however, It's all good because they want to use it...oh, and it's not the same thing now either, they say, even though first Senator Obama and then President Obama said that health care passage should absolutely require a super-majority (not in this video).  Of course that's when they had a 60 person majority or thought they could get some Republican votes.

Stunning.

Random Thoughts On The Health Care Debate...

>> What in the history of big-government welfare programs gives anyone confidence that another big-government program will make things any better?  While it is generally agreed that some changes are necessary, I believe that many if not most of the current problems with our system are directly and indirectly caused by government interference...more big government will not improve things...it will make them worse. But having said that, there are efficiencies and reforms that can be implemented to help reduce the costs...Once again I ask, does anyone really equate big-government and efficiency?

>> "There's no such thing as a free lunch."  The best health care system in the world isn't cheap..."you get what you pay for."   The axioms above used to be considered "common sense."  Now, we want to ignore common sense and just get bailed-out if we make unwise choices.

>> The Federal Government CANNOT afford to pay for health care...we are already BROKE. 

>> When corporations or municipalities are in default or nearing default of their obligations, they have to submit to the ruling and control of bankruptcy courts and oversight committees to regain their footing and get their obligations met.  They have to make hard choices, reign in spending and cut fat.  I say the same should happen with anyone who chooses to live off the public dole...including free health care. Someone should take over their finances and make sure that they are not spending money on cell phones, cable TV, alcohol, junk food, game consoles, cigarettes, etc., etc., etc., before they say they "can't afford" health care.  We must be held accountable for our decisions in life.  I personally know people who constantly complain that they can't pay their bills and yet they go on vacations every year and sit and spend their money in bars.  Let's see how many would submit to that kind of control.

>> The Democrat's desire to push their health care bill through, despite the fact that a majority of Americans are against it, shows that they view themselves as the "Ruling Class" rather than "Public Servants."

>> America is prosperous enough to provide a safety net for the truly needy.  But this needs to be defined narrowly and not be allowed to include those who are just too lazy or stupid to make the right choices.

>>  Illegal aliens are NOT Americans and do not deserve any free services from our taxes.

>> Okay, let's require that insurers can't deny coverage for preexisting conditions...but how do we keep people from not paying for insurance until they get sick?  This is worth some hard thought.

>> Cheap health care cannot include the ability to run to the doctor...or emergency room...for free every time we have a sniffle.  See above (you get what you pay for).