Archive for March, 2009

Cheap shot of the weak

March 29, 2009

Tom

ANDREW SULLIVAN ON POT:

The dismissiveness toward the question of ending Prohibition as both a good in itself and a form of tax revenue is, however, depressing. His answer was a non-answer….  As for your online audience, Mr president, have you forgotten who got you elected?

Obama has not forgotten who elected him but the stoners will soon forget who they voted for.  Or whether they voted.

Ouch. 🙂

Liberals have no judgment

March 12, 2009

All through the Bush years, a common scene played out: Republicans would point out that a particular left winger was a blithering idiot, proposing lame brained polices that simply could not achieve their stated goal. The leftie, unable to defend the policies, would respond “Don’t question my patriotism!” The Republicans would respond that “we’re not questioning your patriotism, we’re questioning your judgment.” The leftie would ignore this and keep on whining about patriotism.

With the advent of the Obama Administration, we now see lefties constantly criticizing Republicans’ patriotism (“Republicans just want to destroy the country” is my favorite so far), especially on the issue of going after Obama’s nominees (Megan McArdle’s post spurred me to write this, but Thomas Friedman’s whine in the NYT was a fine example of the genre). Some thoughts on the matter:

  1. Barack Obama is a big-government, high-tax leftie, and that’s the kind of Administration he’s running.
  2. If you want me to pay lots of taxes, then you damn well better be paying all of your taxes. That’s called reciprocity.
  3. IF you think the government should be big, and therefore taxes on other people should be high, but you think it’s perfectly fine for you to cheat on your taxes and not pay your “fair share”, then we are now deeply into issues of character and judgment. Those are issues that must be considered when judging a nominee.
  4. Another issue that should be judged is your willingness to follow the rules, and the law.  “The rules for thee, but not for me” is not the attitude I want to see in anybody in government.
  5. If the laws are so unworkable, change them.  Tell us why those laws are such a bad idea, and get them repealed.  I see no evidence of the Obama Administration being willing to do that.  In fact, I see the opposite.
  6. “Oh”, you say, “I just couldn’t find a nanny for my kids who was willing to be paid ‘above the table’.” Bullshit. Let’s say your nanny was willing to accept $30,000 / year under the table. Then you could pay her $45,000 – $50,000 / year and that would give her $30,000 / year take home pay. She’s better off because she’s working legally, you’re better off because you’re now living according to the rules and principles you wish to force on everyone else.
  7. What’s that you say? You don’t want to have to pay an extra $15,000 – $20,000 / year in taxes to the government? Neither do I. You’re the one who wants to work for the guy who wants to raise my taxes. You going to tell him it’s not right to force people to pay more to the government? No? Then I guess you should have paid the government everything it was owed, rather than keeping the money for yourself by paying your nanny under the table.
  8. Clinton had the same problems in 1993. President Bush did not have the same problems in 2001. So I’d say the real problem here is that Democrats are crooks, hypocrites, and your basic all around scum. People who favor the rest of us paying high taxes, but only because they have scams that let them get out of paying those same taxes themselves.

In short, I feel no sympathy for Obama, his nominees, or Democrats in general. You want a big government, then you damn well better be willing to follow all of its rules. If you can’t, then stop trying to force them on the rest of us.

The Nixon Obama Administration continues

March 7, 2009

Not only do they have an enemies lies, but they’re probably using the IRS to attack their opponents.

Sitting around in the same waiting room

March 6, 2009

I usually have a great deal of respect for Mickey Kaus.  He’s a lefty, but an honest one.  And his analysis is usally not too far off the mark.  But the other day he wrote something that’s just fantasticly dumb.  He’s talking about why he thinks “universal health care” will decrease social inequality (which he things is a good thing):

But they don’t erase invidious financial difference the way actually sitting around in the same hospital waiting room does.

What’s so stupid about this?

Well, let’s consider the list

  1. Does he really think we’re going to adopt a British style health system where it’s illegal for people to get their own insurance / pay for things out of pocket?  If not, “the rich” are still going to be going to their own doctors, and they’ll be better ones than the rest of us see.
  2. Does he really think it’s a good idea for people make $100, $200, $500, or $1,000+ an hour to be wasting the same amount of time in a doctor’s waiting room as someone who makes $10 an hour?  Does he really think the higher end people won’t pay extra so they can avoid having their time wasted?
  3. Everyone in the broad middle waits in the same waiting rooms right now.  How will “Universal Health Care” change that?
  4. Does he really think the politically connected are going to be sitting in the same waiting rooms as the rest of us?  Why?  This is the real world, not fantasyland.  And in the real world, when the government controls something, those in the government get better than the rest of us.  Just as “The Friends of Angelo.”
  5. The main effect of “Universal Health Care” will be to screw the upper middle class, and maybe the middle class.  If the real rich have to fly out of the country to get good medical care, to get the things that the US Government has decided not to pay for, the get private rooms, and good service, they’ll do that.  The politically connected with get access to treatment here in the US that the rest of us wont have access to.  It’s those of us how aren’t rich enough to pay $100,000 out of pocket for surgery who will be forced to spend a lot of time waiting for access to the few health care providers that the government deigns to fund.  Why does Mickey see that as a good thing?

In short, if you really want more social equality, support school vouchers, to let poor kids escape from crappy schools.

But the only way to do that is to vote Republican.