When Will They Stop Calling it Obama-Care?

The mainstream liberal press coined what it hoped would be the derisive term 'Reaganomics' when it first encountered Reagan economic policy.   But as Reagan later said,  "I could tell our economic policy was working, when they stopped calling it 'Reaganomics.'"

 

Likewise the term 'Obama-Care' was coined by the liberal press, but in this case to pay tribute to the man who finally put a "successful" National Health Care plan on the map.   According to Larry Elder,

 

A LexisNexis search turns up what might be "ObamaCare's" first use in print. An April 4, 2008, enthusiastically supportive article in the Salt Lake Tribune said: "Obama's national health insurance program, let's call it 'ObamaCare,' provides Americans with affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles."

Unfortunately for Obama the term quickly became a derisive term.  Why?, because it was seen for what it is-- a stupid, wasteful, counterproductive policy.  

Will we be able to tell that Obama Care is working when they stop calling it Obama-Care?   Well don't hold your breath.

Best Wishes,

Bernie 

Why Public Sector Unions Must Go

In a perceptive article, Jonah Goldberg indicates that the actions in Wisconsin to reign in unions  don't go far enough.

 

While union supporters charge that Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker is engaging in "union busting" Goldberg says, "If only".

 

So what about public sector unions? 

 

Well here are some facts highlighted in the article:

 

* Public Sector Unions were illegal until 1962 when John Kennedy lifted their ban by Executive fiat.

 

* Civil servants were making decent salaries and encountered generally good working conditions before that time.  And of course in 1962 public service employees were not marching for better working conditions.  They weren't getting black lung from their water cooler breaks, or mesotheleoma from shuffling papers at their desks.

 

* The main impetus for allowing public service unions to bargain collectively is that it harnessed the political allegiance of public workers, via their unions to the Democrat Party-- a perpetual feed back loop of  worker support and money given by politicians to unions in exchange for financial and political support for the party--- and all conveniently paid with taxpayer dollars. **see Michael Barone quote below 

 

* Unfortunately  this political feedback loop allows public sector unions to by-pass the public interest in getting the most for its taxpayer dollars, thus subverting the protection of property which should be government's first concern.

 

* Over the long term, and especially during fiscal crisis, the "generosity" of liberal Democratic union patrons, dishing out someone else's money has created fiscal insolvency in several of our states.

 

But here's the good news for Ohio---- our Senate Bill #5 goes further than the Wisconsin Proposals.

 

Here's what another perceptive commentator had to say....

 

Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.
Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers' money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees -- against the taxpayers, who aren't allowed to be part of the negotiation. This is why the head of New York's largest public union in the mid-'70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, "We have the ability to elect our own boss."   

 

Click the article below:  

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2011/02/23/public_unions_must_go

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

 

** Michael Baron Reports on Obama: Obama said Governor Walker was waging "an assault on unions and added that "public employee unions make enormous contributions to our states and our citizens."
 
Enormous contributions, yes -- to the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign. Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.

Ohio's Senate Bill #5 and Merit

The first, and perhaps main provision of Ohio's Senate Bill #5 -- click below to see-- is to install and instill the principle that pay should not be merely a function of years of service, but also of effectiveness.

 

http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/fiscal/fiscalnotes/129ga/sb0005s1.pdf

 

In other words, pay should be, even in the public sector, based on merit.   That isn't the case now.  Instead, everyone is treated with dreary socialist uniformity.

 

What do you mean Iven?  Can you give us an example?  

 

Sure, when I taught at Whitehall Schools, here in the Columbus area,  I was looking forward to my second year teaching social studies at the high school.   The second year is a wonderful time, because you can take your notes and lessons, and rather than starting from scratch, you have the opportunity tweak and craft your lessons to be even more effective.  

 

It was during a contemplation of my second year that I received news that I no longer had a job at the high school. 

 

Had I performed so poorly during my first year that they were letting me go?  Of course not, union rules mean that you'd have to do something disgustingly stupid to actually get fired as a teacher.  Even incompetence doesn't cut it.  Besides, while I was certainly not a master teacher, I was well liked by students and well-regarded by my peers.

 

So what had happened?   Well it seems, that due to declining enrollment, the one of the two gym teacher positions was being eliminated.   So which gym teacher was to be eliminated?   Not necesarily the least effective of the two, but the one who had the least seniority.   That's how it works.   Well it turns out that this eliminated gym teacher, who had 11 more years of service than I,  also had a college minor in social studies. 

 

True, he hadn't studied social studies for 12 or more years.   True, he had never taught social studies.  True, he would have rather kept a postion in phys ed. True, he had only a bachelors in the subject of social studies while I had a masters.  True, he had only minored in the subject, whereas it was the central focus of my studies.   Still, he had seniority and so the job was his.  

 

I was as they call it "bumped" from my job.  

 

Now I have no animus toward the gym teacher.  I suppose he was doing what he felt he had to do... and as luck would have it, a position opened at the middle school the next year.   Still, I ask you, was this the best move for the kids?   Of course not.   But did you think that teacher's unions really care about the kids?   Come on, wake up and smell the faculty lounge coffee.

 

When you do, it will be clear why as the Cato Institute's, Michael Tanner reports, that while federal spending on education has increased 188% since 1970 test scores among students remain abysmal.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie   

Do you have a minute to make a difference?

I wrote a letter to our Ohio State Senate Representative, Kevin Bacon. Have you written your senator too, to urge him/her to support Senate Bill 5?  You can do it quite easily.  

 Feel free to use any of my wording if you'd like, or write yours from scratch.   It will only take a few minutes, but it may be a crucial difference in turning our state toward fiscal responsibility, or keeping it on track to join blue states as their citizens flea to more sane states. 

Write your Senator today!

Best Wishes,

Bernie Iven

-----------------------------

Dear Mr. Bacon,

I just wanted to take a moment to urge you, and encourage you, as you  already are, to support Senate Bill 5 to reform Collective Bargaining. 

With the state in a fiscal crisis, and 8 billion dollars in debt, it's time the public sector too, made some sacrifices.   Many of their perks and benefits were leveraged by unions seeking concentrated benefits, while the public is unable to react to its disbursed harms.   But those harms add up-- especially during tough economic times.  Also, unions have taken advantage of situations where their liberal allies are in office, and where they can offer to trade votes in exchange for additional benefits.  

It then falls on Conservatives to pay the bills after the liberal politicians are long gone.  Sure, we're willing to stand up and take responsibility We'll have to pay the bills, but it makes sense to put into place systems that restrain the future bills, so that we get our money's worth. The paymaster for the public sector unions are the taxpayers, and as taxpayers we demand that our money is spent responsibly.  We, as the boss, would like to have some slim control over how our money is spent.

Yet unions recklessly ignore our pleas.  They'd rather see the entire state in fiscal turmoil than make the modest adjustments that would save the very jobs of their own membership.   And why should state employees be forced to join unions?   Unions support many causes that the rank and file oppose, and unions dictate uniformity and banal equality on work.  They demean the dignity of work.  To them, it's not how hard you work (or poorly) that determines your pay, it is only how long you've served.  Let's replace this socialist paradigm with a system that tips its hat to merit.  

Then, and only then, will the taxpayers have an efficient public sector work force that earns its keep

Please support Senate Bill 5.

Best Wishes,

Bernie Iven

Columbus Ohio

Safely Home

Here is my review of Safely Home by Randy Alcorn.  

 

It's a great book (fiction, but based on true life) about the persecuted church in China.

 

I highly recommend it.

 

Click here for the review>>>

 

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/146404644

Public Service Unions, Wisconsin, Ohio and the Kos

It's good to know what big government liberals are up to....  I get updates occasionally for Soros funded Move-On.org, the WhiteHouse.gov, the Daily Kos, and Soros' Open Society Institute.  

 

Right now, the Kos is spurring on public sector monopoly unions to storm the Wisconsin State Capital.   It's not that hard to do... because there is the threat that the tax payer funded money spigot might be turned down just a bit.   In contrast, Tea Party crowds, while concerned about the money being taken from them, make their stand on principle.

 

You may know that recently the number of people who are members of public sector unions has exceeded those who are members of private sector unions.   The reason for this is fairly simple.  Public sector unions have a monopoly on the services they provide.   Indeed in most cases private concerns are not even allowed to offer the same services.   So the deal is often, either you pay public sector workers what the union says they want, or you don't get the service. Of course many public service employees work hard and are not even interested in being a part of the union.   Too bad though, they don't get a choice.  That's the way it was when I used to teach.  I was forced to pay dues to the NEA whether I wanted to or not, and even though the NEA was supporting various liberal political causes that I was opposed to.  Meanwhile the NEA representative that taught at the same school as I did spent dozens of days per year on paid leave, and with the district also paying for a substitute so she could attend union meetings that were conveniently scheduled during the middle of school hours.   I bet that made her an especially effective teacher. 

 

Another problem with public service unions is that when they make demands, politicians, especially liberal ones, say sure, we'll pay you that benefit, or this salary, knowing its not their money anyway and that in a few years, they'll be out of office and some other politician down the line will have to pay the bill when it comes due (if he can still afford it).  

 

The result is the kind of ballooning debt that we are seeing now in states like California.  They are bound by contract to pay salaries, but if they do they will also be bankrupt.  Be on the lookout for pleas for blue state bailouts coming soon.  Still, as I understand it, collective bargaining by public sector unions was illegal until 1960.   Why?  Because such unions have a monopoly on the services they provide.  In the private sector, employers and employees set the wage through the market.  If an employee doesn't like the wage, they are free to look elsewhere.   And of course for the employer unwilling to pay a competitive wage, he is loses top notch talent.  So if a deal is struck its generally a win-win.

 

But for state employees it's often win-lose.  The employee wins, because he gets what he wants, but the employer, the taxpayer, loses because he has to pay more then necessary.   Sure, a state employee should have a fair wage, but tax-payers deserve only to pay a fair wage, not an exorbitant one.   And that's why Ohio has recently introduced Senate Bill 5 to eliminate collective bargaining in government jobs.  It's only fair.  If the government wants top notch talent, it will have to pay for it, but it WON'T have to overpay for it. 

 

So see what the liberal Kos has to say.   Kos director, Chris Bowers knocks the Koch brothers, who have indeed donated to Conservative causes (just like Soros has to statist causes), but Kos implies that they own the tea party, even going so far as to put the word "grass roots" in quotations.  Nothing could be further from the truth. Ask 20 tea-partiers who the Koch brothers are and I'd bet you you'd be lucky if even one could tell you.  And that's because in reality the people who finance the tea parties are actually tea partiers.  And that really is grassroots. And the reason the tea partiers rally is because they believe passionately in the great cause known as America.   Meanwhile, the liberals paid to bus people from out of state to the Obama's speech when he came to Columbus.  And last year they paid union activists to stage a counter protest to the one against former liberal representative Mary Jo Kilroy.   Of course the union guys left right on the hour mark after they clocked out.

 

When Obama and the Democrats came to power in 2008 he noted that "elections have consequences" as they went on to force government health care on the country.  But now that the public has come to see what the liberals are really about and turned the tables on Democrats, even at the home of "progressivism"  in Wisconsin in 2010.  Now the big government politicians ignore their own words in the idea that elections have consequences, as all 14 Democratic Senators have fled the state to prevent a quorum from occurring.  All this to thwart the people's will through their representative to get public service employees to accept modest cuts in wages and benefits so that Wisconsin will not be forced over the brink.   

 

In the Obama economy the private sector has had to make many sacrifices and suffered job losses, but the public service unions would rather see the government go into bankruptcy than make even the smallest of sacrifices.

 

But you won't read that in the Kos... To the Kos, these cowardly Senators are heroes.  

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

Bike Snobs

Here's my review of the book, Bike Snobs.

 

Please click below...

 

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/120236108?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rating

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

One in Four Americans Need Permission to Work

Once a year, a bureaucrat from the Department of Bedding and Upholstery stops in to see us at my work in a fabric showroom here in Columbus Ohio.   They want to make sure we have a tag that we are required to put on the bottom of our upholstered items.   Why do we have to put a tag on the bottom?  I don't know.  I suppose, so that the consumer can check to see who upholstered it if they ever forget.   I guess I can hang with that, even though it seems a bit silly. I have a bunch of the tags in the back room.

 

  But then the weird thing is they also make you give them, once a year a piece of each of the materials you use in upholstering--- some foam, some polyester batting, some burlap, some deck pad, some decking fabric.   They charge you a fee--- I think it was $65 last year to test the foam, batting, burlap, deck pad, and decking certify that it is really foam, batting, burlap, deck pad and decking.    You then get a certificate that you can show to customers--- as if anyone was interested.   My question is why we have to do that?   If they are worried that the foam we use is not really foam, shouldn't they be asking for a sample from the supplier that we get the foam from?   And what if we decide to switch suppliers because another one has a better price--- would we have to get it re-certified?  I suppose so.  

 

So why do they REALLY want you to put tags on your furniture and get your foam certified?   Because, in the old days, if you were an upholsterer, you might want to limit competition.   If you could show that the guy/gal working down the street, or out of his house was not certified, I suppose you could keep him from competing with you.    I suppose, I should even be in favor of the annual hassle from the Ohio Bedding and Upholstery Dept.    After all, we do enough upholstery that we can afford the tags and the fees.   Then when Jane, who does a little upholstery out of her home because her husband recently lost his job due to additional government regulation tries to upholster her neighbor's wing chair, I could report her and drive her out of business and into the welfare rolls.  But hey, more business for me.

 

But will this help the consumer?  Will this help potential business-people who want to help themselves?  Of course not. 

 

How about we compete in a free market, appealing to what the CONSUMER wants, or doesn't want?  Wouldn't we all be better off for that?  And wouldn't Ohioans be better off if they didn't have to pay taxes for the government to engage in such useless regulation?  Couldn't Ohio very easily eliminate this yearly hassle and save its taxpayers thousands?  

 

Of course, but that's not what is happening, according to the article below, quoting the Wall Street Journal, one in four Americans need government permission--- that is, a state license--- in order to work.

 

What are your thoughts?  Do you see this, as I do, as a negative trend?

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie Iven

http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/one-in-four-americans-needs-permission-to-work/

Why the Obama Stimulus Didn't Stimulate

Stimulus packages are essentially Keynesian programs that governments like-- because it increases their power--- but which never work.  In other words, they stimulate government, but rarely the economy. 

 

A new report from Stanford University economists John Cogan and John Taylor says, "There was little if any net stimulus," resulting from President Obama's $862 billion package.

Worse, say the authors, the White House should have known it would not work.  "The irony," they write, "is that basic economic theory and practical experience predicted this would happen."

But why the stimulus didn't work is a little more complex.  The authors break down the three kinds of Keynesian stimulus packages.

• In one, government gives money to consumers and hopes they spend it.
• In another, the federal government directly buys goods and services, ranging from computers to building infrastructure.
• In the third, government hands money to state and local governments to spend.

The $862 billion stimulus package passed by Congress and signed into law by the president tried to do all three things.  Unfortunately, none of them worked, says Investor's Business Daily.

• In the case of money handed over to consumers, "It went to pay down some debt or was simply saved rather than spent on consumption."
• At the federal level, the stimulus generated just $20 billion in added government purchases, about 3 percent of the total spent;of that amount, only $4 billion was spent on infrastructure.
• Then there were the grants to state and local governments, which were expected to get local economies revving again, but were unsuccessful, according to Cogan and Taylor.

Source: "The Economic Stimulus That Wasn't," Investor's Business Daily, January 25, 2011.
For text:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=560910&p=1

Why Obama Loves Reagan

On February 7, Time Magazine released their issue entitled "Why Obama Loves Reagan".   You can see the disgustingly photo-shopped cover if you click below>>>>

 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20110207,00.html

 

Two great Conservative Republican Presidents with whom Obama has erroneously compared himself to, Lincoln and Reagan, were great Communicators.  They used humor, insightful stories backed with unswerving resolve to communicate essential American values.   And Americans responded.

 

Some say Obama is a great communicator.  Not me, but some do.   But here's the thing.... being able to effectively communicate is a very important thing, but amounts to little if you can't combine it with real leadership, and a consistent Conservative philosophy that affirms our Constitution.   In other words, it's not enough to communicate, to be a great President, you also have to be right.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie 

 

PS.  If you have a bit more time click below to see Larry Kudlow's discussion of more profound differences between Ronald Wilson Reagan and Barack Hussein Obama>>> http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/LarryKudlow/2011/02/12/obama_=_reagan/page/2

The Constitution: An Anti-Redistributionist Document

In an interview on Superbowl Sunday, the President, being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, strongly disavowed (despite much evidence to the contrary) that his is a redistributionist agenda.  

 

Later, MSNBC, interviewing former Presidential Candidate and former head of the DNC Howard Dean, says that Obama was "mousetrapped"..... after all, said Dean, "Redistribution is what Government's Do".  

 

You can see the interview by clicking below.   To see the specific reference I'm talking about click ahead to 4:20, near the end of the interview.  >>> http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/howard-dean-redistribution-weath-what-gover

 

Howard Dean is right.   

 

Redistribution is exactly what traditional governments do.  That's because governments are generally about oppression.  Witness the billions in aid that went to Haiti after the terrible earthquake there.   Where did the money go?   Well not much actually got to the victims of the earthquake--- but you and I have an idea where it ended up.   Egypt also receives billions in aid from the US.... but it hasn't been seen to have been of much help to the people.  

 

In 1776 after years of re-distributive abuse by Americans who had their hard-earned money sent back to the "Mother Country" in the form of oppressive taxes, we decided that we had had enough of redistribution.   After successfully claiming our God-given rights to liberty and gaining our Independence, we eventually put into place an astonishingly Revolutionary document that enshrined our anti-redistributionist sentiment.   In fact, for the first time in world history, our Constitution made the government, not the agent of the redistribution of property, but the PROTECTOR of property.   

 

It is WE who are the revolutionaries.   And it is today, again WE THE PEOPLE, who must stand up against the redistributionist counterrevolutionaries---- people like Barack Obama and Howard Dean.

 

What do you think?

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie 

 

PS. Just for emphasis, you can click below to hear Dean speaking in 2010 about how Obama Care is essentially a form of redistribution.  The exact quote comes in about 6:25>>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o9BfrcOWgQ

I'm Not a Press Secretary

Here's funny video of Robert Gibbs, President Obama's outgoing press secretary.  As many have said, he will be missed as he has been one of the most entertaining press secretaries in recent memory.

Best Wishes,

Bernie

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/08/video-why-well-miss-robert-gibbs/

Debate Competitions Develop Better Thinkers

On Friday, I went once again to judge debates from High School-Aged home-schooled students from Ohio, Kentucky, Indian, Pennsylvania and Michigan as they debated the 2011 topic: Resolved: The United States should substantially change its trade policy toward India and/or China.

 

These students had to prepare a plan for when they were on the affirmative team--- the team proposing a plan--- and had to be able to defend against any plan that was presented if they were on the negative team-- the team opposing the plan.    And, if they were on the affirmative, they had to be on the negative side in the next round!    

 

The preparation that the two-person teams go through has to be very rigorous if they hope to win.   They've got to be on top of their game in both presenting a plan and responding to the thrusts of the other team.  And they must present well, with strong voices and positive eye-contact. 

 

And I had the pleasure of making evaluations and declaring winners in the four rounds I judged.

 

Now here's the thing.   Sports are great.   They can help you develop confidence.... leadership skills... etc.    But not everyone can be an athlete.   But anyone can think... and anyone can become a better thinker!   But it takes a bit of humility... a willingness to honestly look at the strength of one's position, and the strength of other positions.    And that's what debates can do.   Getting in front of people, speaking and being successfully persuasive...well there's nothing better to boost a young person's confidence.  And I'd encourage any young person to give it a try. 

 

Interestingly, the first affirmative team I encountered wanted to put into place policies that would put additional restrictions on Chinese intellectual property piracy.   Things like copy rights.    Sometimes the students were humorous, like when someone said that in China they interpret the copy right as a right to copy.   And they even brought up the stolen Top Gun film sequence that Chinese reporters stole to portray Chinese fighter jets.   If you didn't see it, click below.  

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110131/ts_yblog_thecutline/chinese-air-force-drill-looks-awfully-similar-to-top-gun

 

Still, they didn't win, because they didn't give enough evidence to show that their proposals would be an effective and substantial change from current policy... and their opponents pointed out many problems with their plan.   Still, you had to admire them for trying.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

Top Gun Goes to China

Check out the video, especially the convincing second one that indicates that a Chinese news story on their fighter jets uses a scene from the movie Top Gun, posting it as an actual event in China.

 

Oops...... Busted.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110131/ts_yblog_thecutline/chinese-air-force-drill-looks-awfully-similar-to-top-gun

 

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

Obama Care's Individual Mandate

The individual mandate included in the 2700 page "Obama-Care" legislation is a linch-pin whose removal can collapse this house-of- cards monstrosity.   Why? because the individual mandate is clearly un-Constitutional. If the federal government can force you to purchase something on the thin basis that it thinks it is "good for you", then we no longer have any semblance of limited government.  We have arrived at full time nanny-state socialism.  If it were to stand then if Michelle talked her husband into it, he could theoretically force you to eat and consume Brussels sprouts, since everyone says they're good for you.  (personally I love Brussels sprouts, but why would I force you to eat it, I'd rather keep more for myself  )

 

So far three federal courts have agreed.  The latest, in a ruling in  a Florida federal court by justice Roger Vinson goes a step further in indicating that because the individual mandate is not "severable" the entire law must be scrapped.

 

Interestingly enough, President Obama-- at the time candidate Obama-- agrees also. In an interview with Ellen Degeneres during the campaign he says that unlike Hillary, he opposed an individual mandate.  He likens it to passing a law forcing everyone to buy as house so as to cure homelessness.  He actually makes a good point.   Click below for video >>>>>

 

http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care/2011/02/01/ellen-degeneres-interview-will-haunt-president-obama

 

Funny how he forgot his opposition when he signed the bill with a flourish.  What's a little memory loss amongst fellow left wingers?

 

As it stands now, many say that the rulings will wind their way to the Supreme Court around 2012 to, I think, the great detriment of again Candidate Obama.

 

Still, Ohio could make Obama-Care a non starter even sooner.  The Ohio Project has been, for the past year and a half, gathering signatures for a referendum to the November 2011 ballot that would in effect, allow Ohioans to opt out of Obama Care.  Called Ohio's Health Care Freedom Amendment, it basically says that in Ohio, a person can not be forced to purchase health insurance, and nor can he/she be punished or fined if they do not. It's simple and a honest interpretation of our Constitution's neglected 10th amendment which says that any powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states or to the people respectively.   Now that's  freedom baby!

 

 A number of states have already passed, through their legislatures, provisions that allow states to opt out of the individual mandate.   But because the Ohio House, and Governors Office has until recently, has been dominated by Democrats, we have had to pursue the more arduous process of ballot initiative.   Some of you have helped to collect signatures.  The results have been positive, and we are close to the votes needed, with 5 more months to go.   Now the good news is that, with a new Republican house, A joint senate and house resolution (SJR1) has been introduced to mirror the objectives of the Ohio Project.  But it must be passed by a difficult to get 3/5 of both houses. 

 

As a safeguard, the Ohio Project continues to collect signatures, and indeed has called for greater urgency in doing so.   And you can help!  Educate yourself... or collect signatures to get it on the ballot

 

You can find out more by going to www.theOhioProject.com

 

Best Wishes,

Bernie

Regulation Everywhere: Roman Shades

On December 3, 2010, the WCMA, Window Covering Manufacturing Association, in conjunction with government regulators, has put into place restrictions on the construction of Roman Shades.  I know this because I am the owner of a fabric showroom.  What has the industry done?  Well they have mandated "safety compliant" hardware for Roman Shades constructed after Dec 3.   

 

What has changed?   Well Roman shades may no longer be made in the manner they have been since, well probably the time of the Romans.   The cords must now be eliminated or encased.   Why?  because, unfortunately there are a handful of deaths each year in the United States by infants who become entangled in the cords, while their parents are out of the room.  And because, if the Association had not voluntarily enacted these new standards the hot-to-regulate federal government likely would have forced the issue.

 

So the infants benefit by the new rule but who else does?   Large hardware manufacturers who produce the new safety compliant equipment. 

 

Who suffers from the new rules?  

 

Consumers, including those who don't even have children because they will have to pay more for Roman Shades regardless.

 

And small mom and pop workrooms who lose businesses because they can't get the new hardware, or their customers won't pay the increased cost.

 

Is the change worth it?   I can't say. Could a reduction in deaths have been accomplished through voluntary public education-- you know, putting a tag on conventionally made shades and urging parents to supervise their children?  Probably, but I can't say for sure.   But I can say that the new regulations are indeed costly.  I can also say that as citizens, we should carefully look at the cost/benefit analysis of any new safety measure.  You hear some saying about proposed safety measures, "it's worth it if it saves even one life" just before they place some new restriction on your life.  But is that really true?   Putting the speed limit at 20mph everywhere will undoubtedly save thousands of lives every year (including many children) but is that what we want to do?  Is it worth it?  

 

Something to think about.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

Ronald Reagan's 100th Birthday!

Sunday, February 6 is the superbowl of course, but more importantly, it is the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan.  I thought you might enjoy some of his humor, represented below in the following videos.  Also below you will see his great wisdom, as represented in his quotes. 

 

A movement is afoot in some circles to make comparisons between Ronald Reagan and Barak Obama.   This is always the way.  Roosevelt tried to make favorable comparisons, and tie himself to that first great Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.   Obama tried this too, but I think got no further than that they had both once lived in Illinois. 

 

Obama has also been compared to Roosevelt.   Time magazine showed him in the likeness of Roosevelt for example.  In his handling of the economy, I'm happy to give him that.   Roosevelt, like Obama was an economic buffoon who exacerbated and dragged into a depression a normal downturn that ordinarily, like 1921, would have quickly dissapated.  He then used that depression to build the foundation of our modern day welfare state, making some Americans dependents instead of citizens.

 

Sure, Obama read a book about Reagan over his Christmas vacation this year.  But they are, these two decidely different creatures, as any honest cursorary examination will show.  I hope you enjoy the below.   Let me know what you think.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

 

PS.  Want to know what Reagan was really about?  The place to start is Reagan in His Own Words.   I highly recommend this book on the actual writings of Ronald Wilson Reagan.  Here we see the true Reagan a man of highly refined principle and great intellectual vigor.  I read it a few years ago, but I need to read it again.  Maybe you do too  Click here for a summary>>> http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/574832.The_Uncommon_Wisdom_of_Ronald_Reagan

 

Reagan was always ready with his humble, self-deprecating humor.  But this time this humor zings back against his opponents.   19 sec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc&feature=related

 

 

A summary of the wit and humor of Ronald Reagan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X39dGQmBEww&NR=1

 

 

Reagan was beaten mercilessly by the press for his lack of diplomacy when it came to telling the truth about socialism.  Still he didn't back down.   You'll love these soviet jokes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN3z3eSVG7A&feature=related

 

 

Reagan and patriotism--- pure Reagan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS4yf723kmY&feature=related

 

 

rr snl skit.  somewhat flattering, somewhat typical liberal fare, but very funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skQuhoG7fFM

 

 

Here's some great Reagan quotes....

 

Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.

 

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.

 

All great change in America begins at the dinner table.

 

Coersion, after all, merely captures man. Freedom captivates him.

 

Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.

 

- Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

 

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

 

I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.

 

I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting.

 

If you're afraid of the future, then get out of the way, stand aside. The people of this country are ready to move again.

 

No arsenal ... is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.

 

Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.

 

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

 

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.

 

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

 

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

 

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.

 

There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination, and wonder.

 

Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.

 

To sit back hoping that someday, someway, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last--but eat you he will.

 

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

 

History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.

Amazing Young Talent

Rail Travel: Antiquated Technology

From David Haranyi regarding President Obama's State of the Union Speech on January 25th.  Thought you'd enjoy this....

 

Can you say high-speed rail? The president can. He mentioned railroads six times, because how else are we going to win the 19th century back?

 

Actually, this fixation with building an extraordinarily expensive, outdated and tax-funded rail system is a great example of why central planning undermines progress.

And by the time the president's promise of high-speed Internet for everyone comes to fruition, we'll probably be teleporting like Sulu. But at the very least, let's not re-fight the battles of the early 20th century. Someone already invented airplanes and cars, which, unlike trains, can be pointed in any direction we want, whenever we want, as often as we want.

Best Wishes,

Bernie

Our New "Sputnik Moment"

In his recent State of the Union Speech, talking on supposed the race for "green" technologies, between China and the US, President Obama, thriftily recycling the term from a December speech, called for a new "Sputnik Moment".  

 

Leaving aside the quite obvious lack of analogy between the launch of Russia's Sputnik satellite and the US/USSR space race, lets look at China.  Has China indeed launched a "green" technologies sputnik with the goal of economically surpassing the United States? Or was the President's analogy  an effort make palatable in the name of international competition,  new money wasting "investments" in American green technology paid for by the overburdened American Taxpayer? 

 

Derek Scissors, research fellow in economic policy at the Heritage Foundation's Asia Studies Center, gives us some facts on China...

 

* Over the past decade, the US has increased its energy efficiency by 2.5% annually, while China despite its superior coercive powers, has raised its only 1.7%

 

* Coal, generally considered a less clean energy source constitutes less than 1/4 of US energy consumption, while in China it is 2/3

 

*According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Chinese greenhouse emissions were 50% greater than the US.... and this with an economy that is only 40% the size of the United States!

 

* The Chinese government has acknowledged that much of its investment in wind power is an effort to keep up employment.

 

* The Chinese target for nuclear power is only 5% of electrical capacity.

 

* Less than 5% of China's solar panel production is used in the internal market.

 

If there is a Sputnik here, it is China attempting to react to a Sputnik launched from the US market.

 

If green technologies were cost effective, or were in the future to become cost-effective over other sources of energy, would the United States government need, via our tax dollars, to "invest" in it?   When private investors make a bad choice they lose a little money and get out of the market.  When the government begins a program it's forever--- even if that means pouring our money into a hole.

 

Here's some more statistics:   In the US, coal costs $78 per megawatt hour, while wind runs $150 and solar is pushing $400

 

Right now, green energy, is a poor investment. Says Scissors:

 

Nobody knows this better than the renewable-energy lobby itself, which is why it constantly clamors for subsidies, special tax credits, and guaranteed market shares.  

 

In his speech, the President also called for a removal of tax subsidies to oil companies.  This is an excellent suggestion.  Let's let ALL energy production stand on its own feet and let the market determine the winners.   That of course would include not handicapping domestic oil production by putting the Gulf of Mexico and ANWAR off-limits, and not enacting proposed dramatic new restrictions on our coal industries.  

 

Meanwhile, the American citizen will be able to enjoy abundant energy while keeping some extra dollars in his pocket to make his own investments.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie Iven

 

PS.  It shouldn't be surprising that China's energy situation is much less efficient than the US.  Though they have a semi-capitalist market, energy is controlled wholly by Bejing.  Socialism always fails.   Free markets bring efficiency.  And this is what we see over and over.  Want cleaner air, more efficient cars?--- root for the market.  And this is the theme of an excellent book on this issue, The Improving State of the World by Indur Goklany.  I invite you to check it out.  To learn more, click here>>>

 

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/409789.The_Improving_State_of_the_World

The Roots of Obama's Rage

I just finished reading Dreams from My Father, 1995 by Barak Obama.   The book indeed does closely follow the themes outlined in a book about President Obama by Dinesh D'Souza.   Why does Mr. Obama do what he does?  What motivates him?  How can we understand him?  This book goes a long way to explain these things, and I highly recommend it.  Thanks to my friend Bill for recommending it.   You can read my review/summary by clicking below:

 

A Book Review by Bernie Iven: The Roots of Obama's Rage by Dinesh D'Souza

 

Please click here>>>>  http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/127081842

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

After you read the review, below is an analogy between the Obama way of thinking and the American Conservative habits of thought.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Check out this photo.  It's a photo of the world at night.   From it, you can see the developed parts of the globe because of the lights.   

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~ina/images/infographics/lights_earth.jpg

 

There are two ways to look at this photo. 

 

In the anti-neocolonialist vision, the world is finite, and it not being fair that some parts of the world have lights and others don't, then what needs to happen is for the developed world to use less energy, so that the world will be equally dark, equally powerless.

 

In the free market vision, the world is continually surpassing limits.... and... gee, there sure are a lot of dark places in the world.   What can we do to bring light and power there too?

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

 

PS.  Did Obama actually write this book?  I don't know.

The President's Jan 25, 2011 State of the Union Address

Last night's State of the Union Speech was notable in the  unusual disposition its audience; Democrats and Republicans sitting together rather than across the aisle in separate sections.  

 

I suppose that was nice.  

 

But what is important is not where one sits, but where he stands.

 

President Obama and the Democrat legislators stand for unlimited government, the diminishment of liberty, exemptions for privileged groups, unending spending (investment as Mr. Obama repeatedly and euphemistically called it) the restriction of the production of wealth in the free market, welfare state reliance, business regulation and control, opaque government operations, and abortion on demand.

 

Our new Conservative legislators in the House of Representatives stand for Limited Government, Liberty, the rule of law, fiscal responsibility, a relatively unrestricted market, entrepreneurship, transparency in government, self reliance and the sanctity of life.   We put them in office, because we believe in these American values too. 

 

We need to keep supporting them when they uphold those values and correct them when they stray.

 

Two years ago, when President Obama came into office, he promised an end to earmarks.   One of the first bills he signed (ARRA, the stimulus bill) contained over 6,000.

 

Last night, as if the previous promise never happened, he pledged to eliminate earmarks.  A bold repetition of an empty promise.

 

The federal deficit was high at the end of the Bush administration.    Under Obama it increased nearly exponentially.

 

But now he's realized the error of his ways and  made during his speech a "commitment" to fiscal responsibility.   He's promised some $40 billion of cuts in government spending over the next 10 years.  Sound like a lot, but given our nearly $14 trillion deficit, this amounts to  about 1/28 of the debt, or if my calculator is working right, a reduction of less than 3.5%.   Some commitment.

 

It'd be nice if we could hold our breaths until 2012 but that's not practical.  So let's take deep breaths and continue the struggle.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

Creative Destruction in the Manufacturing Sector

From Bernie:

 

The United States is the world's number one manufacturer.   But you wouldn't know that by hearing the way many people talk.  What's been confused is the actual amount of manufacturing (maybe we should manufacture more, but we're still tops) and the actual number of people working in manufacturing.  Manufacturing employment has gone down, just like agricultural employment, because we've gotten more efficient... more productive.  Here's an excerpt from a recent article by Economist Walter Williams that does a good job of explaining what is going on...

 

How about this statement:  "The United States got to where it is today by making things." "There's nothing made here anymore." "One-third of the nation's manufacturing jobs have vanished in the past decade." These statements suggest that we are no longer the world's top manufacturer; we have all but turned into a nation of "hamburger flippers."
According to data assembled by Dr. Mark Perry, in his article in The American (12/23/2009) titled "Manufacturing's Death Greatly Exaggerated," "For the year 2008, the Federal Reserve estimates that the value of U.S. manufacturing output was about $3.7 trillion." If the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy, with its own GDP, it would be tied with Germany as the world's fourth richest economy. The 2008 GDPs were: U.S. ($14.2 trillion), Japan ($4.9 trillion), China ($4.3 trillion), U.S. manufacturing ($3.7 trillion), Germany ($3.7 trillion), France ($2.9 trillion) and the United Kingdom ($2.7 trillion).

U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent, and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink. Because of automation, the U.S. worker is now three times as productive as in 1980 and twice as productive as in 2000. It's productivity gains, rather than outsourcing and imports, that explains most of our manufacturing job loss.

U.S. manufacturing is going through the same kind of labor-saving technological innovation as agriculture. In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture. What would you have had Congress do in the face of this precipitous loss of agricultural jobs? Should Congress have outlawed all of the technological advances and machinery that cost millions of agricultural jobs and made our farmers the world's most productive? Also, had Congress done something to save those agricultural jobs, where would we have gotten the workers to produce the millions of things we enjoy that weren't even around in 1790? We would have been poorer.

Let's not stop with agriculture. In 1970, the telecommunications industry employed 421,000 workers, in good-paying jobs as switchboard operators, handling 9.8 billion long-distance calls yearly. Today, the telecommunications industry employs fewer than 60,000 operators, and they handle more than 100 billion long-distance calls yearly. That's an 85 percent job loss. The spectacular advances in telecommunications, which raised productivity, made the cost of long-distance calls a tiny fraction of what they were.

What we're witnessing in many of our industries is what economic historian Joseph Schumpter called "creative destruction." The adjustment to it can be painful, but to stand in its way will make us a poorer nation.

Resilient America

People are frightened of China.  With their economic growth rate and voracious appetite for new business opportunities they will soon be overtaking the US, think many.  

 

I've always thought this was bunk.  It's the old trap many fall into that current trends will extend indefinitely into the future.  

 

In the 80's we thought the same thing about Japan.

 

The truth is, there is likely to be a correction. 

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about China's growth--- especially when it translates into a more aggressive military, and financial control resulting from their US investments.   I'm just saying that they will meet many roadblocks shortly which will alter the track they are on.

 

In the below article, Victor Davis Hanson understands the resilience of America well.

 

Bernie

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/VictorDavisHanson/2010/12/31/the_american_21st_century

Hi-Speed Rail is not Transformative

A perceptive person, commenting on my opposition to government financed hi-speed rails in Ohio and other states told me that ideologies can lead one astray.  True enough.  But they can also serve as a guide.   I thought thusly:  no matter how close to truth an ideology, slavish fidelity to it can in the end produce destructive enterprises.   Ideologies are only a guide and each individual case should be looked at in light of the facts of its particular situation and applicability. 

 

That was my mumbo-jumbo way of saying that while its a generally good rule of thumb to say that government programs are wasteful and mostly counterproductive, we should still look at individual cases..... such as..... proposals for slow or high speed rail programs. 

 

I have many objections to the specific slow-speed program that was planned for Ohio, but below is an excellent article  that addresses the general problems even with high speed rail .

 

While I might concede to you that certain intra-city rail transportation,  might have some positive (as well as negative) transformative effects for a city, this article notes that this is generally not the case.  Rather, most people utilizing rail travel will only be substituting rail for other modes of transportation.  This is not transformative... just costly.  The article also points out that train travel is by far the most expensive mode of travel, costing some 5 times per passenger mile than the automobile.  Also, existing high speed trains in Europe and Japan, despite the hype. are grossly underutilized, except of course by tourists, who very much impressed, advocate these financial sink holes for America.  

 

Transformative modes of transportation have always been lead by private industry.  High speed rail promotion is being lead by government.  That alone is enough reason to pause.

 

Of course, it would be a wonderful opportunity for politicians to attend grand opening ribbon cuttings, but wouldn't be money be better spent more boring things like maintaining and upgrading existing road systems?   Apparently not.   As mentioned, when Kasich inquired of the Obama administration as to whether Ohio might keep the $400 million offered by the Feds and use it for more appropriate transportation projects, he was rebuffed.   Instead the money will go to  lackey states  willing to follow orders from the boss.  These will no doubt be blue states already drowning in red ink like NY, CA, and IL.

  

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

click for article below>>>>>>>>

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12188

A Train Wreck

Here is a letter that I wrote to the Columbus Monthly regarding the proposed idea of building a high speed rail system in Ohio. The letter was later published in the same magazine.  Kasich elected Governor in Nov 2010, weilded his power to end the foolishness, but for sometime, it was a much talked about issue......

Re: Columbus Monthly, January 2011, "A Train Wreck" by Molly Willow

In “A Train Wreck” Molly Willow makes a stupendously inane analysis of Kasich’s decision to ditch the proposed 3-C rail line.  

She makes no mention of its projected average speed of 39 miles per hour;  No discussion of whether a slow-speed train could actually attract customers, much less pay for itself; No projections as to how the state will fund its yearly maintenance;  No disclosure of Kasich’s request to use the $400 million for legitimate state obligations, or that at least that the feds apply the funds to reducing the deficit.

No, indicates Willow , Kasich’s decision was wrong because he had “overlooked one central point: Trains are cool.” Shall we surmise that she never got that Christmas train-set she’d always wanted?   

Bernie Iven

Geography of a Recession

Check out this unemployment map.  Press play, for a graphic geographical look at the changes in unemployment in the United States from 2007 to the present.

http://www.latoyaegwuekwe.com/geographyofarecession.html