The fact disclosed by a survey of the past that majorities have usually been wrong, must not blind us to the complementary fact that majorities have usually not been entirely wrong.
Categories
You have no doubt heard about Obama’s recent “gaffe” about “the private sector’s doing fine.”
The private sector, of course, is not doing well, not at all — and it’s suffering from a public sector gone mad: Bailouts, increased spending, increased debt, increased regulation.
But our beleaguered and benighted president was trying to make the point that it’s our public sector that’s doing badly.
And there is something to be said — carefully, with much caution — about public sector jobs. In many states and locales, government jobs are not increasing in number. Well, at least not increasing as fast as bailout mania might lead you to think.
And Josh Barro knows why. Public sector jobs are in decline because public sector compensation has been skyrocketing, depleting resources from state and municipal governments, preventing job increases.
San Jose, for instance, used to have 7.5 employees per 1,000 residents. Now the city’s down to 5.6 employees per thou, “with further cuts expected next year.” Why?
[C]osts for a full-time equivalent employee are astronomical and skyrocketing. San Jose spends $142,000 per FTE on wages and benefits, up 85 percent from 10 years ago. As a result, the city shed 28 percent of its workforce over that period, even as its population was rising.
Blame it on pensions, grossly over-promised.
It’s a problem politicians have: They like to dole out favors. And pensions are something they can promise without funding fully, making “future politicians” (uh, taxpayers) pay (like, uh, now). It’s the scandal of the age.
But I wonder if Obama would ever ’fess up to the real nature of the problem
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Categories
Václav Klaus
We must say openly that the present economic system of the EU is a system of a suppressed market, a system of a permanently strengthening centrally controlled economy. Although history has more than clearly proven that this is a dead end, we find ourselves walking the same path once again. This results in a constant rise in both the extent of government masterminding and constraining of spontaneity of the market processes. In recent months, this trend has been further reinforced by incorrect interpretation of the causes of the present economic and financial crisis, as if it was caused by free market, while in reality it is just the contrary – caused by political manipulation of the market. It is again necessary to point out to the historical experience of our part of Europe and to the lessons we learned from it.
Categories
Samuel Butler
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but a little want of knowledge is also a dangerous thing.
Categories
The Real Whopper
“Today, government at all levels consumes 37 percent of the total economy, or GDP,” Mitt Romney said earlier this month. “If Obamacare is allowed to stand, government will reach half of the American economy.”
Glenn Kessler’s Fact Checker column at the Washington Post slapped that statement with four “Pinocchios,” the worst possible condemnation for telling “whoppers.”
Yet, Kessler acknowledges Romney’s point. In 2011, local, state and federal “government expenditures amounted to 37.34 percent of the gross domestic product.” That percentage is expected to climb to just over 39 percent by 2020.
“But Romney goes way too far,” writes Kessler. Romney counts private medical expenditures, which will supposedly account for 10 percent of the projected 2020 economy. Romney’s campaign spokesperson argues Obamacare in part mandates that spending and thus the 10 percent is part of government’s “reach.”
Of course, the vast majority of all private payments for medical care — the 10 percent — would happen with or without Obamacare. So Romney’s figure does exaggerate. Still, government commandeering 37 or 39 percent of our economy seems a whopping amount.
Moreover, in making his case against including private health care spending, Kessler argues, under Romney’s notion of government reach, “a wide variety of industries, such as banking or housing, should also be counted as part of this government-controlled economy.” Well, yes. Government spending accounts for nearly 40 percent of America’s GDP. Plus, government heavily regulates and interjects itself into major parts of the private sector.
Kessler thinks Romney’s statement is a real whopper, but Romney is on to something. What’s really whopping is government’s full reach, which includes over-reach.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Categories
Townhall: Winning the Lottery
This weekend on Townhall.com — it is Father’s Day!
Winning the lottery
Paul Jacob
June 17, 2012
My dad was trained as an accountant. So, why didn’t he just do the math?
According to the Department of Agriculture, it costs those American families categorized by Uncle Sam as “middle income” a whopping $234,900 to rear a child from birth to age 18. Families with household incomes of less than $59,000 supposedly spend $169,080 per kiddo; wealthier families (those earning more than $102,870 per annum) will fork out $389,670 per heir.
Wow. Mom and Dad had six kids. That’s almost $1.5 million.
Apparently the price tag has been greatly inflated since my parents’ day. Which naturally conjures up the next question: how have my wife and I financed our three?
It gets worse. These sticker shock numbers don’t even include the cost of pre-natal care, the birth itself or, on the back-end, putting the youngsters through college. And remember, college costs have increased ten-fold from when I went to school. Add another $50,000 to $80,000 to child-rearing if college costs are included . . . and the student chooses a less expensive university.
Of course, birthing in bulk creates some economy of scale. “Families with three or more children,” the Los Angeles Times reports. “spend 22 percent less on each child than parents with two or fewer.”
Be thankful, of course, that these are government statistics, which must be ingested with a healthy skepticism… (click here for the complete article)
And here are some links to the column in question:
- “Cost of raising children up 3.5%, U.S. says” — Los Angeles Times
- “A Good Father” — Common Sense
- “Benefits Are Priceless” — Common Sense
It is simplicity that makes the uneducated more effective than the educated when addressing popular audiences.
Categories
Video: John Stossel on Goofy Warnings
This week, on Stossel:
It is absurd to hold that a man ought to be ashamed of being unable to defend himself with his limbs but not of being unable to defend himself with speech and reason, when the use of reason is more distinctive of a human being than the use of his limbs.
Party politics is often underhanded.
Many of our country’s founders knew this all too well, and tried to avoid the factionalism of party politics. But still, two political factions emerged, and our politics has been dominated by two parties ever since.
And believe me, the two insider parties work mightily to rig the system in their favor. The presence of “sore-loser laws” is a case in point.
Now, political parties are private entities. They can choose whomever they want. Ideally, the ballots wouldn’t even list party affiliation. But “sore-loser laws” stretch in the other direction, preventing individuals from running in one party after losing a primary as a candidate for another party.
In this way, the parties use the law to secure their own positions. It has nothing to do with “democracy” or “voting rights,” everything to do with privilege.
In Michigan, whilom New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson ran in the primary as a Republican candidate for the presidency. Now, the Secretary of State is disallowing him from running as a Libertarian. You see, he’d filed some paperwork withdrawing his candidacy three minutes too late last November.
An amusing work-around may be in the offing, with a Texas businessman named Gary Johnson being groomed for the Michigan nomination. Take that, partisan insiders!
But regarding the Secretary of State’s ruling, the Libertarians smell a partisan rat, and are suing. It turns out they may have precedence on their side, since John Anderson had technically run afoul of the same law back in 1980, but nothing had been done to exclude him.
This time, Johnson’s more feared than Anderson was then. And, this time, the Secretary of State is a Republican.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.