Pelosi and Rangel Take Note: This is how you do it
Convenience store operator 7-Eleven Inc. is dropping Venezuela-backed Citgo as its gasoline supplier at more than 2,100 locations and switching to its own brand of fuel.
The retailer said Wednesday it will purchase fuel from several distributors, including Tower Energy Group of Torrance, Calif., Sinclair Oil of Salt Lake City, and Houston-based Frontier Oil Corp.
A spokeswoman for Dallas-based 7-Eleven said its 20-year contract with Citgo Petroleum Corp. ends next week. About 2,100 of 7-Eleven's 5,300 U.S. stores sell gasoline.
Citgo is a Houston-based subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, and the foreign parent became a public-relations issue for 7-Eleven because of comments by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Chavez has called President George W. Bush the devil and an alcoholic. The U.S. government has warned that Chavez is a destabilizing force in Latin America.
7-Eleven spokesman Margaret Chabris said that, "Regardless of politics, we sympathize with many Americans' concern over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made by Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez."
Chabris said a boycott of Citgo gasoline would hurt the 4,000 employees of the U.S. subsidiary, who have no connection to Venezuela.
7-Eleven had been considering creating its own brand of fuel since at least early last year. Company officials said at the time they had spoken with independent fuel distributors.
Posted by Aaron at 03:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
But I thought we were running out?
I thought there was no more oil:
Tests of a deep-water well in the Gulf of Mexico could indicate a significant oil discovery, three companies announced Tuesday, in the first project to tap into a region that reportedly could boost U.S. oil and gas reserves by as much as 50 percent.
...The Wall Street Journal reported in Tuesday’s editions that the region where the well is located could become the nation’s biggest new domestic source of oil since the discovery of Alaska’s North Slope more than a generation ago.
The Journal said Chevron and Devon officials estimate that recent discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico’s lower-tertiary formations hold up to 15 billion barrels of oil and gas reserves, a total that would boost the nation’s current reserves by 50 percent.
Posted by Aaron at 12:00 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
But what about their dignity???
Check out this realistic assessment of poverty in the United States. Here are the key graphs:
Housing: In 2001, only about 6 percent of the country's poor households lived in "crowded" dwellings (homes with more than one inhabitant per room), compared with more than 25 percent in 1970, according to the Census Bureau. Today's poor households are more likely to have telephone service and television sets than even non-poor households in 1970; they are much more likely to have central air conditioning than the typical American home of 1980, and almost as likely to have a dishwasher. Moreover, according to a Department of Energy survey in 2001, most poverty households have microwaves, VCRs or DVDs, and cable television -- conveniences unavailable in even the most affluent homes at the time the poverty rate measure was first released.
Autos and motor travel : In 1973, a majority of the households in the bottom fifth of income earners did not own a car. By 2003, nearly three-fourths of all poverty households had a car, truck or van, and a rising fraction owned two or more such vehicles.
Health care: For the affluent and the disadvantaged alike, life expectancy in America has risen significantly since the nation's poverty measures were first developed. The CDC's National Center for Health Statistics has found a broad improvement in national health conditions over the past four decades. Since 1965, for example, the U.S. infant mortality rate (the risk of death in the year after birth) has dropped by more than 70 percent. And regardless of the availability of health insurance, access to medical treatment has risen markedly for poorer Americans: Children in poor families are more likely today to have an annual medical visit or checkup with a doctor than even non-poor children did just 20 years ago.
Posted by Aaron at 10:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Socialist Programs Destroy Government Finances
I am sure that USA Today wanted to write a piece to give Democrats a talking point regarding runaway spending. Of course, the Republicans are completely guilty of acting like pigs at the trough and should be whipped into shape by CONSERVATIVE PRIMARY CHALLENGES--not by voting for Democrats.
The piece actually shows what the problem is: not war, not the defense department or earmarks, not tax cuts. It is entitlement spending (of course)...
The federal government keeps two sets of books.
The set the government promotes to the public has a healthier bottom line: a $318 billion deficit in 2005.
The set the government doesn't talk about is the audited financial statement produced by the government's accountants following standard accounting rules. It reports a more ominous financial picture: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If Social Security and Medicare were included — as the board that sets accounting rules is considering — the federal deficit would have been $3.5 trillion.
So the deficit was actually $3.5 trillion, then SS and Medicare caused a $2.75 trillion. The war against Islamic Naziism and the defense department budget was (in total) about $600 billion. So all the socialist programs advocated by the leftists cost this nation six times more than all the money spent on "Bush's Wars and Bush's Bombs."
The article goes on to show the lie about the "Clinton Surplus..."
The government has run a deficit of $2.9 trillion since 1997, according to the audited number. The official deficit since then is just $729 billion. The difference is equal to an entire year's worth of federal spending.
Congress and the president are able to report a lower deficit mostly because they don't count the growing burden of future pensions and medical care for federal retirees and military personnel. These obligations are so large and are growing so fast that budget surpluses of the late 1990s actually were deficits when the costs are included.
The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion.
I will give Clinton credit. The deficit was much lower during his administration, but he also was able to lower the rate of growth of the deficit with the "peace dividend" and the "dot-com bubble."
All that said, an important point is made in the article: Social Security and Medicare can be cut at any time when the bill comes due. It is only authorized annually.
Now, if people were allowed to invest their Social Security and Payroll taxes in mutual funds. When the government finally says we cannot pay (which will happen sooner or later), you would still get to keep your money!
That is the fantasy that the Dems perpetuate--that privatizing social security means it becomes less secure.
Posted by Aaron at 12:43 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Surprise, Surprise...Not!
Why is everything a surprise to liberal economists?
An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
Granted, the article also states that the revenue grew twice as fast as they predicted. What is more important is that whenever taxes are cut, the revenue to the government increases. Moreover, the article points out that most of the money is coming in from the...are you sitting down?...the wealthy.
Bush Lied, the Rich Tithed!
Posted by Aaron at 09:49 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Bill Gates announces retirement in two years
He is making his announcement on Fox News now...
Posted by Aaron at 04:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Coastal State Gas Tax
It is very unrepublican of me, but after reading that coastal representatives killed a bill that would have permitted offshore drilling for natural gas, I think a coastal gas tax is in order:
The House late Thursday rejected an attempt to end the quarter-century ban on oil and natural gas drilling that has been in effect for 85 percent of the country's coastal waters from Alaska to New England despite arguments that new supplies are needed to lower energy costs.
Lawmakers from Florida and California, who led the fight to continue the drilling moratorium, said they feared energy projects as close as three miles from shore could jeopardize multibillion-dollar tourism industries in their states.
"People don't go to visit the coasts of Florida or the coast of California to watch oil wells," Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., said.
Offshore waters are territory of the United States--not individual states--and its resources belong to all Americans. This is also why the Electoral College and the Senate are important--to keep large populations on coasts from dictating energy policy.
And anyone who has been to Long Beach at night knows that the Oil Rigs are very surreal and look like stars in the water ;-)
Posted by Aaron at 09:27 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
More Jobs Outsorcing
Yep, this economy is in the tank:
Honda Motor Co. will build new plants in Japan, the United States and Canada to boost production amid soaring demand for its vehicles, the company's president said Wednesday.
And Democrats never mention this:
The U.S. plant will cost an estimated $400 million and will employ 1,500 workers, Fukui said. That plant would boost the company's North American production capacity from 1.4 million to 1.6 million vehicles per year.
The U.S. plant is Tokyo-based Honda's sixth in a region that accounts for about half the company's annual global sales.
Honda sold 1.65 million units in North America last year, including Mexico and Canada, and forecasts sales to rise to 1.72 million units in the current year. Honda's current 1.4 million unit production capacity
Posted by Aaron at 08:25 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Tax Cuts Vote Today
More of this, please.
Posted by Aaron at 05:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Energy Secretary doing OK on MTP
I've never seen our Energy Secretary before. He is coming across like a smart man. His best line was after Durbin went into this long diatribe about Big Oil gouging consumers. The Secretary said Durbin was too smart of a man to believe what he just said.
He did just bumble through a question he should have hit out of the park. When shown a clip of Governor Bush in 2000 deriding Al Gore's call for President Clinton to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gas prices in an election year, Tim Russert tried to play "gotcha" by saying that President Bush is now doing the same thing.
Bush is not.
There is a BIG difference between suspending the filling of the reserve (which Bush has done) and opening the reserve to bring down the price. The Secretary should have hit that out of the park. He did make a good point that the Dems whined and moaned to open the reserve last year and now oil is 75 dollars a barrel. How much would that cost the tax payer to buy back the gas we sold at 60 dollars a barrel at 75 dollars?
Posted by Aaron at 11:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
I Blame Republicans for Inaction
NRO points to this great press release Energy and Common Sense: Both in High Demand, But in Short Supply; Resources Committee to start hearings on supply from federal lands...again
"If America was facing shortages of milk or water, Congress would certainly take steps to increase supplies," Pombo continued. "But as soon as we start talking about oil and natural gas - the lifeblood of our economic and national security - liberals in Congress turn the simple principle of supply and demand on its head in ways that defy logic and common sense. Opposing everything accomplishes nothing, except high prices and economic vulnerability for Americans."
As developing nations like India and China increase the use of energy to improve the quality of life for their people, global demand for energy continues to rise with prices in tow. Fortunately, American taxpayers own roughly 2 billion acres of federal lands and the massive energy resources that lie beneath them. Putting Americans to work producing this energy is the key to lower prices and a strong economy.
"While some in Congress chain themselves to the door of supply - keeping the resources of the ANWR, the deep ocean, and other federal lands under lock and key - many Americans today are struggling to get to work because of high gas prices. This country has made incredible strides in conservation and efficiency, and we must continue to improve, but Americans cannot conserve their way out of an empty tank of gas. Democrats must join Republicans to increase supply. There is no silver bullet in solving this side of the equation, but a billion barrels here, and a billion barrels there, and pretty soon we are talking about real energy."
Posted by Aaron at 12:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Quarter of a Million Jobs created in February
This is the worst economy since the Great Depression!
Posted by Aaron at 08:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ben Stein on Oil Company Profits
Ben Stein tries to knock the sense in to Senators and others who are bemoaning the profits being made by oil companies:
I don’t get it. Why are we angry at the oil companies? Is it because of high gas and heating oil prices ? But wait: The oil companies don’t set the world price of oil. That’s set in trading rooms in banking houses in New York and London and Hong Kong by young guys who make zillions each year. There is absolutely no evidence that the oil companies are colluding to fix prices at artificially high levels. Those prices are set, again, by traders with Ferraris, not by John D. Rockefeller, who has been dead for many years.
Yes, the price rose a lot after Katrina, but that’s because producing and refining capacity fell off drastically after the storm damage and thus the traders, sensing shortage, drove up the price. The oil companies benefited from this rise in price, but there have been plenty of times when the price has plummeted and the oil companies have taken it on the chin. The oil companies do help set the price at the pump and they set it based on the world price–which, again, they do not set-- to replace the oil they use up. That is a standard way of setting prices and not at all a conspiracy. When the world price of oil falls, pump prices fall too and they have fallen dramatically since Katrina.
The best part of the piece is this:
I have the sneaking suspicion that this hatred of the oil companies is largely for the reason that teenagers hate their parents: because they are so dependent on them, they respond with anger. But Senators are not supposed to be teenagers and neither are newspapers.
Bravo! But I don't expect certain Senators and their MSM pals to grow up any time soon.
"Bueller? Bueller?"
Posted by Pam at 01:14 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
11,000!
Poor Nancy Pelosi:
The Dow Jones industrial average rose above the psychologically significant 11,000 point mark for the first time since June, 2001 Monday as stocks continued their recent rally.
The Dow Jones industrial average was up 42.51 points, or 0.39 percent, at 11,001.82, after climbing as high as 11,003.50 just after 1 PM EST. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was up 3.18 points, or 0.25 percent, at 1,288.63. The technology-laced Nasdaq Composite Index was up 12.24 points, or 0.53 percent, at 2,317.86.
In 2005, the Dow failed three times to break through the psychologically significant 11,000, a level not breached since June 13, 2001 when stocks were falling.
This is going to upset the Democrats.
Posted by Aaron at 01:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Just the Facts #2587
Well...
Posted by Aaron at 12:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Just the Facts #1,573
Polipundit graphs the effect of the "tax cuts for the rich."
Posted by Aaron at 01:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Remember, Its the Worst Economy since the Depression
The economy grew at a lively 4.3 percent pace in the third quarter, the best showing in more than a year. The performance offered fresh testimony that the country's overall economic health managed to improve despite the destructive force of Gulf Coast hurricanes.
Posted by Aaron at 09:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"Season's Beatings"
That's what Drudge is calling this and this:
A fellow shopper reaches down to help Josephine Hoffman, 73, as the crowd behind her pushes through and rushes past security guards. Several people went down during the commotion. Crowds gathered at Brandsmart at the Sawgrass Mills Mall where the doors opened at 6 a.m.
I guess that Democratic memo that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression didn't get out to these shoppers.
To those who hurt people for a damn'd XBox 360, SHAME!
Posted by Aaron at 04:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Online Ordering Down at Bestbuy
Well this sucks!
Posted by Aaron at 10:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
I'll Take It
Senate approves $38 billion budget cut.
Posted by Aaron at 06:59 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Remember all that Belly-Aching over the Euro?
Remember how our economy was on the verge of collapse and everyone was rushing to change dollars to Euros?
Hmmm.
Posted by Aaron at 03:03 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Breaking News: 0.25% of Americans Are Homeless
This is outrageous. In a country like ours to have one quarter of one percent of all citizens living without a home is totally unacceptable.
In a country of almost 300,000,000 and we have close to 800,000 people homeless is a travesty of justice and shows the intrinsic evil associated with our capitalist society.
That means, when you look around today, one in every 400 people you encounter will not have a home to go to.
Posted by Aaron at 01:03 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Line Item Veto
Even though I was in the fifth grade, I remember seeing the Bush/Clinton/Perot debates in 1992. And I still remember Bush discussing a line item veto and he held up his pen showing him zapping the fat of bills. Its funny the things one remembers...
I just bring that up because of this:
Senators Jim Talent (R., Mo.) and George Allen (R., Va.) are holding a press conference tomorrow announcing that they are going to introduce a constitutional amendment to create a line-item veto.
Posted by Aaron at 02:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
The Rising Price of Gas: Having Our Cake and Eating It Too
As we all know, gas prices have literally jumped within the past week due to Katrina. In my town, the cheapest price for regular unleaded is currently at $3.29, up about 30 cents from last week.
A few days ago, I was forwarded a petition to President Bush to lower gas and diesel prices in the U.S. I won't sign it, and here are the reasons I passed on to the person who sent it to me:
-As they industrialize, China and India are using more gasoline, therefore putting more of a strain on the existing supply--the old supply and demand thing. OPEC isn't going to look a
gift horse in the mouth!
-More recently, the damage to oil rigs and refineries after the hurricane means reduced immediate supply in the U.S., again affecting supply and demand. I believe there is some gouging going on, but it's not pandemic. The more "reasonable" increases were inevitable in the aftermat of Katrina.
-We could be drilling up in ANWR country, but as you know, certain folks won't have any of it. Because we continue to depend so much on Middle Eastern oil while ignoring our own supplies, how can we complain about the prices? (Let's leave the "alternate fuel supply" argument aside for now.)
-Finally, many people continue to insist on driving gas-hogging SUVs, trucks and minivans. And I haven't seen much of a drop in the traffic in my area this past week. Yeah they're nice cars, but they are really hard on the wallet. It's a free country, drive what you want--but don't complain to me when you can't afford to fill up. As it is, my little Geo Prizm (10 years old and over 113,00 miles on it) is now costing me over $30 to fill, up about $10 from last week!
Frankly, all of the petitions in the world aren't going to stop gas prices from rising. I'm not an economist, and don't pretend to have all of the answers. If you want an expert opinion, I suggest you read this and this by economist Thomas Sowell.
In the meantime, I do have a few suggestions. Cut down on your drive time if at all possible by combining errands, carpooling with friends for your kids' activities, etc. How about purchasing a car that gets better gas milage? How much offroading do you do with your SUV anyway? Walk or ride your bike as much as you can--the exercise will do you good too. If you can't or don't want to do any of these things, then I suggest you make your budget cuts elsewhere and suck it up.
I don't usually like to compare us with Europe, but they've been dealing for high gas prices for a lot longer than we have, and they still seem to enjoy life. For once, we might consider following their example.
*Cross-posted on BlogMeister USA.
Posted by Pam at 01:24 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Gas Prices: What Companies Can Do to Lower Prices
One thing I haven't heard mentioned on the news is telecommuting. Many companies already do it, but the amount of gas that could be saved (especially out west) if companies started liberalising their telecommuter programs.
Just a thought.
Posted by Aaron at 09:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Just the Facts Part 1,528
Hmmm...
Posted by Aaron at 12:37 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
It's Like the Great Depression
Yet another report comes out that proves the liberals assertion that we are living in depression era times spending our days in soup lines.
U.S. manufacturing activity increased in July, as automakers revved up production.
The Institute for Supply Management on Monday said its manufacturing index rose 2.8 points to 56.6 in July, the best reading of the year and topping forecasts.
Readings over 50 indicate factory activity is growing.
After last week's strong durable goods and Midwest manufacturing reports, the ISM confirmed a brighter outlook for factories — and economic growth overall.
"The latest few reports suggest that the industrial side of the economy is reaccelerating," said Manufacturers Alliance Chief Economist Daniel Meckstroth.
The ISM's new orders index rose 3.4 points to 60.6, also a 2005 high. The production subindex shot up 5.6 points to 61.2, the highest since September.
Manufacturers have worked down inventories and are pumping up production to meet continued strong consumer demand.
How would Polipundit put it? Hoverville?
Posted by Aaron at 06:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Wal-Mart Welfare
What happened to the drumbeat by liberals about jobs? This bill has the potential to ruin the lives of 10,000 employees in Maryland. If I were Wal-Mart put in the position to fund MDs medicare laws, I would close every store in Maryland because of this bill. I don't think I am very far from what the management at Wal-Mart thinks. Personally, unemployment aside, I hope Wal-Mart does close up shop in response to the law. Only then will Marylanders see the error of their Blue State, socialist ways. Check out Rush's take: RUSH: (Story) "Governor Robert Ehrlich of Maryland vetoed a bill yesterday that would have forced Wal-Mart to pay a mandatory amount of employee health insurance or potentially cancel plans for a distribution center with 1,000 jobs." Now, we spoke about this way back when the Maryland legislature passed this bill. They passed legislation that said any company with 10,000 or more employees has to pay at least 8% of their revenues into healthcare and if they pay any less than that, they have to give the balance to the state so the state can hand it out. At the time they passed the legislation, there was one company that had more than 10,000 employees in Maryland and that was Wal-Mart. So it's clearly targeted at Wal-Mart, and this is a great way of Maryland's to drum up business in the state, is it not? This is a great way to act as a magnet for other businesses. So Ehrlich promised to veto this, but everybody said, "Well, the Maryland legislature has the votes to override."
Marylanders are going to regret any support of democratic state senators and state house representatives after the Wal-Mart bill mandating socialism in this state is passed. The headlines today about Governor Ehrlich vetoing this bill were quickly erased by the MSM to replace it with the fact that he also vetoed a bill on same sex marriage and a minimum wage increase of one dollar per hour.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Well, nevertheless, Ehrlich did veto the bill yesterday. He said, "'The reason I'm going to veto this bill is it threatens the economic health of this terrific county.' The Republican governor told about 200 people in Somerset County, which has the state's second highest unemployment rate, 7%. 'This is a tax bill disguised as a health bill and everybody understands that.' The so-called Wal-Mart bill officially titled the Fair Share Healthcare Fund Act [laughter] would have forced the company to either spend at least 8% of its payroll on employee healthcare benefits, contribute an equivalent amount to the state's Medicaid fund, or pay a $250,000 fine. The legislation is being watched by law makers in other states aiming to crack down on Wal-Mart stores. Similar bills have already been proposed in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In Maryland, the bill and the veto likely will remain a key political issue through next year's elections, with Republicans portraying the bill as anti-business and Democrats saying the veto was anti-worker. State lawmakers could override the veto when they return to Annapolis in January. Donna Edwards, the secretary and treasurer of Maryland and D.C. AFL-CIO, was among about two dozen union protesters at the event. She said, 'Wal-Mart has a moral obligation to pay more of its employees' healthcare premiums.'"
You know, there was a piece in the New York Times not long ago related to this: Wal-Mart, why don't you pay more? Why can't you pay more? And of course everybody says, "Well, yes, why can't Wal-Mart pay more?" I'd like to turn it around. New York Times, why don't you pay your people more? Washington Post, why don't you pay your people more? Newsweek, why don't you pay your people less? Why doesn't everybody pay their people? Of course, it sounds absolutely wonderful. Wal-Mart you can pay more, why don't you pay more? This is the liberal under-girding of everything. Of course everybody can pay more except them. They'll fight to the hilt to maintain their own tax breaks at the New York Times company, as they continue to purchase and gobble up smaller properties. Anyway, I wanted to pass this on to you because this is a good guy, Ehrlich, and he's doing the right thing here and we'll see if in January -- we'll keep track of this, folks. We don't forget things on this program. We will see if they do, indeed, override the veto.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Chris, Charlottesville, Virginia. Nice to have you on the program, sir.
CALLER: Yes, hi, Rush Limbaugh. Just a quick point on the Wal-Mart healthcare issue in Maryland. I heard you mention the fact that the Democrats are complaining that Wal-Mart has a "moral obligation" to give healthcare to its employees.
RUSH: Yes.
CALLER: But yet they want to do it through the legislature and they always say that you "can't legislate morality," which I think is some kind of double standard there.
RUSH: Yes, I would agree.
CALLER: The other thing is that I'm not sure if the legislature has the votes to override the veto, but Ehrlich is actually standing up, putting his political capital on the line, and I think that the Republicans in Washington should take a look at that with this filibuster issue, seeing that, you know, it's about doing the right thing. It's not about political power.
RUSH: Well, let's be easy on the Republicans in Washington on the filibuster. We're a lot closer to this than many of you thought we ever would be. There's just a gang of six. Call it a "gang of 12." That's what the Washington Post calls them today. Six Democrats, six Republicans. But the Republicans in there, they're no surprise. Lindsey Graham, John McCain, you name it. They're all there -- and, by the way, Chuck Hagel came out yesterday and said he thinks they all deserve a floor vote. So Hagel is not in the gang. Good move for Senator Hagel and I applaud Senator Hagel for this. We love Senator Hagel here -- and he wants to run for president. I think he's understanding who it is that's going to vote for him in the primaries if he is to secure the nomination. Nevertheless, we're a lot closer to this than many of you ever thought we would be. The Republicans, I think, are hanging tough. Just the usual suspects, the usual moderates, the Olympia Snowes and the Susan Collinses and the McCains and so forth are in there trying to gum up the works for themselves and just please the media. Can we be honest? They want a bunch of "attaboys" from the media. Let's just be honest about it. Lindsey Graham is in the works. John Warner. As to your thing about the Maryland legislature, it's a nice throwback to these clowns on "you can't legislate morality" but let me set the table here.
It's not that Wal-Mart does not pay healthcare benefits. It's that according to the Maryland legislature, they don't pay enough. So they're demanding this legislation, demanding that Wal-Mart pay 8% healthcare benefits and if they don't, then they must pay whatever. You know, if they pay 6%, then they must make up the difference from 6% and 8% and pay that to the State of Maryland. If they say, "Screw you," then they get a $250,000 fine. They also have another course of option. They can move or they can reduce their stores to 5,000 employees and make them change the legislation that way. Any number of options Wal-Mart has. But in terms of saying that it's legislating morality, it's a good point. I understand it, but I think there's a better way to express this. Legislating socialism. They are legislating socialism. This is the government -- in this case, the state government -- telling a private business how it must run its affairs. Now, some might even call that a vestige of fascism. Some might say you're getting very close to fascism here when the government starts telling everybody in business at an increasing rate how they have to run their business, allocate funds, and so forth. It's almost extortion to boot, because if Wal-Mart doesn't do what the legislature says, then Wal-Mart must pay the legislature. So they're legislating socialism at the Maryland legislature.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Cliff in Vacaville, California. Hi, Cliff. Welcome to the program.
CALLER: Hey, good to talk to you, Rush.
RUSH: Yes, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: I'm responding earlier to the topic of Wal-Mart legislation in Maryland.
RUSH: Yes.
CALLER: You went so far as to give the impression that anytime government attempts to legislate pride of business, that's, you know, bordering on fascism and socialism, and I would argue that in a lot of cases, that legislation is more protectionism of us, the American people, and I've never heard you say that in the 15 years on your show. In particular, I'm referencing, you know...my education. I learned about, you know, business practices at the turn of the century through reading -- you know, required reading in my liberal education of the book Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," and what I got out of that book is business unchecked -- which it had been at that time -- after 20 or 30 years of laissez-faire, basically didn't care about the consumer or the American person and was in it just for the money.
RUSH: Yeah. But the market is what legislates other businesses. The market does this in a free market system. Now, I will agree with you that there are always going to be examples in business, just like in politics or just like in your neighborhood, where there are some people that go to extremes and violate the natural rules of order and they have to be dealt with. But this is the Maryland legislature targeting one business! And it's extorting money from this business. If it doesn't spend the money on its employees the way they say it should, they've got to pay a fine or pay the balance of the money to the state of Maryland. This is not a regulation.
CALLER: Rush, you know, you've made me happy as I've ever been listening to you. I don't know the facts of the Maryland case, and I would not -- and in general, I would specifically agree that telling a business what benefits to pay seems to be overstepping. And I'm not disagreeing on that. I'm just happy to hear you say that -- and I've never heard it in 15 years -- that, hey, sometimes government regulation of business has a motivation where it does, in fact, help the American consumer and the American person and it's not all fascism and socialism -- and I think I heard you say that a minute or two ago.
RUSH: You did. I'm not going to take it back. I said it's "vestiges of fascism." I didn't say it's fascist. Look it up. So many people throw fascism and communism and Nazism. Fascism has a specific definition that the left has now broadened to include a whole -- basically Fascism is conservatism, if you believe the left. But go look it up and you will see that I'm right. This is dangerously close to it. It's not it yet. But you say in 15 years that you've never heard me come out in favor of regulation. It was just two weeks ago that I said, "We've got all these corporations losing tons of billions of dollars and these corporations paying themselves, these CEOs paying themselves millions and multiple millions of dollars," and I said, "If they don't do something about this themselves they're going to invite government control over it, and that's not good." This is just another first step, by the way. If the Maryland state legislature can tell you how much you have to pay in healthcare benefits to your employees, they might then decide how much you have to pay them, period. You know, you talk about a slippery slope? I mean, this is the kind of thing that is a slippery slope.
END TRANSCRIPT
Posted by Aaron at 08:37 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
To Tax or Not to Tax
On my own blog today, I discuss the group called Responsible Wealth, and how these wealthy business people, academics, etc. believe that taxing the rich is the way to financial health for everyone. Joe-six-pack over at Geosciblog also discusses taxes today, but he takes on some of the myths surrounding the proposed National Sales Tax (which would replace an income tax). Check the posts out and see if you agree with their assertions.Posted by at 12:12 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Other Ways to Reduce the Budget and Grow the Economy
In 2003, the most recent year for which there are data, tort costs gobbled up $245.7 billion, or 2.23%, of U.S. GDP, according to Tillinghast-Towers Perrin.
Both numbers are records and, as the chart shows, tort costs are growing much faster than the economy. Obviously, some of the money is deservedly levied against companies for faulty products, negligence or poor environmental stewardship.
Yet, the soaring growth of lawsuits acts as a tax that hinders job creation, capital formation and economic growth. For 2004, tort costs equaled nearly 30% of after-tax corporate profits a heavy burden for shareholders to bear, and one that's getting heavier.
Put another way, litigation costs now total about $3,200 per year per family, according to the Institute for Legal Reform, because it's consumers, not businesses, who ultimately pay the litigation tax.
Posted by Aaron at 09:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack