Over at The Corner, Rich Lowry has posted an e-mail giving one heck of a good reason why those among America's seniors who are all for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, are acting contrary to their own best interest:
And I do not want the government paying for my drug therapy! Because when the government decides what they will pay for, I am precluded from other therapies that the government hasn't approved.
This is already a problem with non-drug therapies under Medicare and Medicaid. Of course it will be a problem under the drug benefit too.
Blue Healer (see this item) played at Cafe Blu again last night. They had played there two weekends ago but we were out of town. They'll be there again next Saturday. Things seem to be looking up for the band.
I've started putting together a website for them, but so much content needed for the site has yet to be provided that I'm not going to link it yet. Also, some of my comments about the songs on "Blue Healer: The Demo CD" tend to kind of betray my lack of real knowledge about music. I'm part of that "I know what I like" crowd that couldn't possibly write a decent music review for money. Fortunately I'm not getting paid for the website.
(Hey, wait a minute. What's fortunate about that...?)
Further ruminations on my Fairbanks tax vote post below have led me to come—for the umpteenth time—to the conclusion that Alaska is on its way to an unavoidable fiscal collapse that will reverberate throughout the state’s fragile economy and have repercussions far and wide and for many years.
In Alaska, the interests of the body politic have been totally and permanently distorted by a structurally irrational economic system that funds state government with revenues derived entirely outside the polity—that is, from corporations almost entirely owned outside the state. At first blush this seems like a great bargain for Alaskans themselves; they get a full plate of government services without having to pay taxes for them. This is an even more extreme than the situation at the level of the Fairbanks North Star Borough, where only property owners pay taxes directly to the borough, leaving non-property owners under the impression that they get government services for free.
Of course anytime locals pay taxes directly, the burden permeates the economy as the cost is passed on—businesses, of course, raise their prices to cover any increase in tax payments, and consumers who see their tax bills rising look for pay raises or find ways to cut back on their spending, with different but equally relevant results on the economy as a whole. Still, if those who pay for services are not substantially the same as those who use them, the result is a political division that sees one group fighting either to reduce the tax burden or to make the non-taxpayers share it, while the other side prefers the status quo and fights both to preserve it structurally and to increase the benefit they derive from it.
At the state level, the cost of government is borne by those who, in a proper understanding of a republic, don’t “own” it. This is not to say they have no political clout; their lobbyists actually benefit from the isolation of the state’s capital in virtually inaccessible Juneau; few of the state’s 600,000-plus residents have the means to attend legislative deliberations in person, and although the state provides extensive teleconference opportunities the impact of a disembodied voice simply doesn’t compare. And the state’s residents do not constitute a true fiscal constituency for the simple reason that they do not pay direct state taxes. Indirectly, the costs of government affect their livelihood (which is why the state’s economy is so fragile in the first place) but are so diffuse that they are only perceived in the abstract, and then only by a very few who are of such an inclination.
Therefore, although the body politic has consistently expressed a vague conception that state government costs too much, it has been unable to prioritize spending items, nor to direct legislators to prioritize spending items in an effective manner to bring about meaningful spending control. The state costs more per capita than nearly every other state in the union, and undoubtedly if the residents had to bear that cost there would be spending cuts on a massive scale in fairly short order.
The current “crisis” stems from the fact that the fiscal take from Alaska’s longtime cash cow—oil—is winding down. Congressional Democrats are resisting efforts to revive the oil industry in Alaska because of their allegiance to the environmental kook Left, and the capital outlays needed to inject new energy in other sectors (linking Alaska’s rails to the Lower 48 leap to mind) are prohibitive in the absence of massive new revenues. In fact, I expect that if ANWR were opened and those massive new revenues were to be forthcoming, Alaska would piss it away just like the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, bumper-stickers to the contrary notwithstanding. The whole fiscal structure up there discourages longterm planning for a cash-reduced future.
There are other problems up there that I remember from my years as an Alaskan, but I believe the root cause is the disconnect between benefiting from government spending on one hand, and bearing the burden for that spending on another. Outgoing Gov. Tony Knowles spent his two terms promising a “soft landing” for Alaska, but that’s simply not possible. He blames the failure to produce one on the Republicans to whom voters have entrusted the Legislature for the last ten years, and Republicans blame Knowles. Both are right, but what they get right is immaterial. Both are wrong, because they simply don’t think beyond the immediate problem. There could never be a soft landing for a state whose fiscal system is utterly irrational.
As for my throwaway comment below that maybe Joe Vogler was right, I must retract it. Independence for Alaska might have worked if it had been achieved in 1958, but if it happened today the result would be Third World chaos sooner rather than later.
That's what the voucher decision will lead to -- and it's a good thing.
Huh?
That's right. It's an improvement on the status quo, in which the government owns most schools outright. If rather than schools we were talking about, say, steel mills, or airlines, or telecommunications companies, the ownership of the means of production by government -- on behalf of the people -- would rightly be called Communism. Well, what, then do we call it when the means of production of educated children are owned by the government?
Vouchers, on the other hand, represent socialism. The government in effect redistributes income so that those of poorer economic means have access to a better quality of product than would otherwise be the case. It's still not good market-liberty practice, but it's a step in the right direction, bringing private competitors into the market to try to win customers from the dominant, near-monopoly government provider.
When an industry moves from the extreme Left to a position slightly less extreme, it's progress. Now while the freedom to use a voucher system is considered for adoption by an increasing number of jurisdictions, thinking market-liberty adherents need to start envisioning the next model for improvement -- moving from socialism to whatever will move education closer to the home.
SAN FRANCISCO, California – In a stunning blow to the already staggering US economy, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that all US currency is no longer legal tender, as every coin and bill has the unconstitutional phrase "In God We Trust" engraved or printed on it.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that exchanging currency was a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state and amounted to government endorsing religion.
If it stands, the ruling means that all US currency -- at least in the nine Western states covered by the court – has zero value.
SAN FRANCISCO –– A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools.
That’s the headline on this Fairbanks Daily News-Miner article reporting the results of yesterday’s Fairbanks North Star Borough special election on a 2¢-per-gallon fuel transfer tax that—according to supporters—would have meant $24 million in property tax relief for borough residents (most of that alleged relief would come from taxing fuel that municipalities are prohibited from taxing by state and federal law). The tax idea was voted down 62% to 38% in favor.
Supporters are of course embarking immediately on other new tax schemes to ease the property tax burden, including a sales tax, which borough voters have considered and rejected six times already. The fact is that borough expenditures have skyrocketed over recent years far in excess of either population or economic growth. The answer to a crushing property tax burden is not to replace it with a crushing multi-basis tax burden, but to reduce expenditures so as to reduce the tax burden overall.
Also, the arguments appearing in the normal forum for local political debates in Fairbanks—the News-Miner’s letters to the editor—made it obvious that the firmest support for the fuel transfer tax was based on animosity for one oil company in particular because some locals think their gasoline costs too much.
It does, but throwing an additional 2¢-per-gallon tax on the price of fuel is no way to lower it. A good rule of thumb for considering taxes on businesses is this:
Anything that raises a business’s cost of doing business, is going to raise your cost of living.
Seems to me about two-thirds of those voting on that tax yesterday already understand that.
UPDATE, 6/28, 10:00 a.m. EDT: A friend from Fairbanks who has served as an officer for the Interior Taxpayers Association tells me the organization got a reading of the law on local taxation of jet fuel that suggested the borough would have prevailed in a lawsuit. That disagrees with the impression I got, and I would not have supported gambling on a judge’s interpretation of the law, even before the 9th Circus nonsense of the other day. As I replied to my friend, if the tax were enacted and the tax on jet fuel were found to be pre-empted by prior law, the result would have been only about $5 million in fuel tax revenue. In any event, as she says, it’s all moot now.
Taxpayer advocates in the Fairbanks North Star Borough are understandably frustrated; they have been keeping a cap on borough expenditures by renewing an initiative every two years, yet the borough has managed to ratchet up its budget far in excess of population or economic growth all during that time. This argues convincingly that the borough would have porked up even more without the cap, but the political will among the voters apparently only extends to renewing the cap, not to forcing real controls or electing true fiscal conservatives to borough office.
It may very well be that the only way to get a majority of voters on the side of deep cuts is to get more of them paying the tax burden—but non-property owners in the borough know they have a good thing going with all these unnecessary services and no tax bill, and they won’t be easily persuaded to chip in as long as the overall cost of the government is as high as it is. So my friends are in a Catch-22.
Ismael who owns one of the stores on Manhattan Avenue carefully explained, "We will give up the Post very soon because there is no big demand for it." He would only give me the real reason after I proved to him that I was not a spy from the Post. "Actually, I only sell this paper because they deliver it to my store. The Post writes badly about us and our stores. They put us in the same bag with the extremists who destroyed the World Trade Center. It hurts because each nation has its black sheep and it's wrong to generalize. The editors have a bias against Muslims. They are extremely pro-Jewish. Personally, I have nothing against Jews but they have a lot against me. Jews don't like anybody--us, Americans, Poles. Wasn't it the Jews who crucified Jesus? And he was the best man in the world," Ismael said.
"Wasn't it the Jews who crucified Jesus?" No, the actual driving of the nails was done by pagan Romans, but certain particular Jews did agitate to have it done. Jews whose power derived from religion, and who saw that power threatened by new ideas.
Sort of like the mullahs running madrassas in the Middle East...
Ipse Dixit tells of a blogger who has found a strange game one can play with Google. You type in the search string (quotes included) "[your name] is" and see what comes back.
Here's a partial collection:
McGehee is an equal opportunity employer and a drug free workplace.
McGehee is a master at adding texture to fabric.
McGehee is convinced the newly installed soft walls at Indianapolis Motor Speedway are a good idea.
McGehee is ready to roll.
McGehee is a small delta town.
McGehee is pleased to announce a relationship.
McGehee is also looking to ascertain if the Red-billed Tropicbird mates for life.
McGehee is continuing this school of thought.
McGehee is hitting a robust .542
McGehee is famous for sewing with innovation and style.
McGehee is on crutches.
McGehee is back!
McGehee is a product of Denton, TX.
McGehee is board certified.
McGehee is excellent.
McGehee is a command pilot with a total flying time exceeding 7,000 hours.
McGehee is also scheduled to sign autographs.
McGehee is one of only 6.
McGehee is a taut psychological drama that lingers.
McGehee is opposed to the Unit System.
McGehee is inviting year round.
McGehee is so COOL, he's gotta' wear shades.
McGehee is approximately 4,997 (1990).
McGehee is a solid, if not flashy, driver.
McGehee is now Tech's kills leader.
McGehee is truly a remarkable ass- et.
McGehee is raring to go.
McGehee is used to tooling around.
McGehee is a coalition of animal protection groups...
It's time somebody made warning labels that could be put on places like Berkeley City Limit signs, the DNC building, and pretty much every Muslim madrassa on earth:
A lethal encounter in the desert. With a bullet in his back, Caleb fights for his life against the elements, a determined killer, and his own fading strength.
In this, the first of the exercises mentioned here, the challenge is to write a 600-word story from the first-person point of view, but severely limiting the use of the first-person pronoun. The “I” nevertheless has to be important to the story.
Having recently seen I, Robot, I’ve been inspired to write something based on what I see as a more likely evolution of existing technology—one in which robots as conceived by Asimov don’t quite exist.
An attempt to write about my Clearwater characters closer to the present day than in “Play Rough, Fight Dirty.” Much of Wiley’s backstory from this effort translates into “PRFD,” but some is a little different, and I’m not sure whether I want to finish this story.
Prior to the release of Serenity, the studio-hosted Browncoats website hosted a number of contests, including one calling for fans’ versions of the vows said by Zoë and Wash when they were married. I couldn’t settle for merely writing vows—I had to write the whole scene.
_medium.jpg)
