You are browsing the archive for 2013 July 04.

Avatar of admin

by admin

Washington Times Op-Ed: Celebrating American independence while abetting tyranny

July 4, 2013 in Politics & Elections

One of the acts that would eventually spark the War for American Independence was when the British government authorized Writs of Assistance to British officers in the colonies. This gave government the power to search any residence or business without any warning, supervision or rules. Soldiers were allowed to walk from door-to-door, house-to-house, searching and confiscating property to their hearts’ content.
As is always the case with government power, this policy was widely abused. When the Founding Fathers drafted and ratified the U.S. Constitution, they included the Fourth Amendment – the prohibition of search and seizure – to guarantee that no such affronts to liberty would happen again.
That is, if we follow the Constitution.
Today, we see a government agency that thinks its has the power to search citizens by going from phone-to-phone, gathering any-and-all data to examine to their hearts’ content. The National Security Agency phone scandal is precisely the sort of government action the Founding Fathers fought a revolution to stop and why we celebrate the Fourth of July holiday.
We also have an Internal Revenue Service that targets political dissidents, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment. A Department of Justice that seizes journalists’ phone records without a warrant, which is a violation of both the First and Fourth Amendments.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence would be appalled.
Another reason we fought the revolution was to prevent government oppression of protest, with perhaps the Boston Massacre being the most famous example.
In Egypt, protest is met with tear gas, manufactured in America and paid for with American taxes. When Egyptians protest, they protest against their government and also America for subsidizing that government.
Despite the fact that Mohamed Morsi recently convicted 16 Americans of political crimes in a show trial, the Obama administration still sent them over $2 billion this year.
American tax dollars flow no matter which despot rules.
Hosni Mubarak brutally suppressed protest over three decades of martial law. Yet, we sent him some $60 billion, much of which was stolen by Mr. Mubarak and his family.
Mr. Mubarak abused his citizens and his own power, yet we gave him billions of dollars and advanced weaponry, including F-16 jets. Mr. Mubarak would eventually use those jets to intimidate the protesters who would eventually end his regime.Today, we give the same billions and fighter jets to Mr. Mubarak’s successor, Mr. Morsi, who the protesters now see in the same light as …read more

Source: RAND PAUL

Avatar of admin

by admin

Employer Mandate Delay Spells Trouble for Obamacare

July 4, 2013 in Economics

By Michael D. Tanner

Michael D. Tanner

The dominoes are falling.

The administration’s decision to postpone implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate until after the 2014 midterm elections is just the first to fall. More will be falling soon thanks to the administration’s belated recognition that the health care law will be a job-killing burden on business.

In fact, this is actually the second major part of Obamacare to be postponed in the past few months. This spring, the administration announced that the ACA Small Business Health Option Program (SHOP) would be postponed until at least 2015. That program was designed to help small employers provide their workers with a choice of health plans. But in April the administration had to pull back and admit it couldn’t provide those options.

Any delay in opening the exchanges would further complicate the government’s ability to provide subsidies, and make enforcement of the individual mandate all but impossible.”

Or perhaps we should call this the third major part of the law to fall apart. In 2011, the administration was forced to permanently postpone implementation of the CLASS Act, Obamacare’s long-term care program. That program was formally repealed in 2012.

Significantly, the administration’s decision to postpone the employer mandate may make a bad situation worse, at least for workers. The postponement affects only the mandate that employers (with 50 or more workers) provide insurance. The individual mandate remains in place, requiring nearly all Americans to have insurance or pay a fine. Individuals who would otherwise have gotten insurance through their employers may now be forced to purchase their own insurance.

It increasingly looks as though that insurance will be very expensive, especially for the young and healthy. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, some consumers “could see insurance rates double or even triple when they look for individual coverage under the federal health law later this year.”

Earlier this year, a study in the American Academy of Actuaries’ magazine found that 80 percent of young adults aged 18–29 not eligible for Medicaid will face higher costs, and that 20- to 29-year-olds on the individual market not eligible for subsidies will see their premiumsincrease 42 percent.

New federal subsidies are supposed to offset rising premiums to some degree. But it is now an open question as to whether those subsidies will be available in 2014. For the system to work, the administration needs to know which workers are eligible for subsidies. Workers who are being offered affordable insurance …read more

Source: OP-EDS

Avatar of admin

by admin

Keynesian Economics in a Nutshell

July 4, 2013 in Economics

By Peter G. Klein

Hayek on Keynes:

The decisive assumption on which Keynes’s original argument rested and which has since ruled policy is that it is impossible ever to reduce the money wages of a substantial group of workers without causing extensive unemployment. The conclusion which Lord Keynes drew from this, and which the whole of his theoretical system was intended to justify, was that since money wages can in practice not be lowered, the adjustment necessary, whenever wages have become too high to allow “full employment,” must be effected by the devious process of reducing the value of money. A society which accepts this is bound for a continuous process of inflation.

From Sudha Shenoy’s excellent 1972 compilation, A Tiger by the Tail: The Keynesian Legacy of Inflation (p. 68).

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE