Tag Archives: political parties

Minimum Wage Revisited

Posted on by
Reply

Kevin Williamson, at National Review, had a thought that’s only now percolating to the surface of thinking Americans and that still is avoided by the American Left.

Properly understood, raising the minimum wage—and having a minimum wage at all—is camouflage, something to talk about and fight about while we’re not talking about and fighting about the more important underlying issue.  Declaring that all American workers shall be paid at least $15 an hour is not the same as ensuring that all American workers produce $15 an hour worth of value, and, eventually, the disconnect between those two considerations must make itself felt.

That part is well understood, and that’s a part that is deliberately ignored by the Left.  But there’s this, too.

Krugman, Clinton, Sanders, et al., have a backward and primitive view of government.  For them and for their fellow Hobbesians, the Middle Ages never really ended, and the role of the sovereign is to distribute benefices and issue decrees.  Unhappy with your wages?  Petition the prince to decree that they shall be otherwise, and dare any gimlet-eyed economist to point out that the imperial tailor is skimping on the ermine.

Yeah.  Minimum wage mandates are just an excuse for governing by fiat, for substituting rule by law for rule of law.

Williamson took a more gentle position on that; he suggested that it’s a lack of understanding by minimum wage proponents of the facts of economics and of human complexity.

I don’t think the leadership of the Left is that ignorant, or that naïve.  They know full well the facts of economics and of human complexity.  That’s why they carefully elide those things enroute to their rule by (Left’s) law: minimum wage mandates are a tool, not a goal.

Saviors

Posted on by
Reply

Don Boudreaux, at Cafe Hayek, had some thoughts on this sort of folk.  Here’s one:

Saviors need victims who need saving.  And if such victims are not real and readily available, the saviors conjure them up by convincing themselves that this or that group of people are helpless victims eager to be raised from the muck of their misfortunes by the saviors.  Sometimes the saviors convince even the groups they seek to save that they—the members of these groups—are indeed mired in a muck from which they can be extracted only by the saviors.

This much is true, but I think Boudreaux missed a couple of other characteristics of these saviors.

One is that these become addicted to their saviorism: the addiction of needing victims is the saviors‘ desperate need for the ego rush of their helping, whether that help is real or a figment of the pseudo-benefactor’s imagination.  This sort of savior cannot get along without the dependency of others on their own largesse.

The other missed characteristic is pure, raw power.  That dependency of other on these ones’ handouts is, for these, nothing more than an enhancement of their own personal power, whether political, economic, or social.  The dependent ones represent votes, or tools for gathering donations from third parties (a significant fraction of which goes to “overhead”), or prestige among peers and credulous acquaintances and strangers.

One way by which we readily can discriminate such saviors from legitimate benefactors is the nature of the benefaction.  The latter offers hands up, temporary aid, means by which the beneficiary can get back on his own feet and become/resume independence and personal responsibility.  The former gives handouts, which serve only to maintain the “beneficiary’s” dependency on his savior.

Who Enrolls in Obamacare?

Posted on by
Reply

What’s the effect of that on costs under Obamacare?  The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association rudely conducted a study of the matter, and they found

  • New enrollees in individual health plans in 2014 and 2015 had higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, depression, coronary artery disease, HIV and Hepatitis C than those enrolled before ObamaCare.
  • New enrollees received significantly more medical care, on average, than those with individual or employer-based plans.
  • New enrollees had more inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, prescriptions filled and emergency room visits.
  • Medical costs for new members were, on average, 19% higher than for employer-based members in 2014, and 22% higher last year. Average monthly medical spending for those newly enrolled members also rose at a higher rate in that period.

And

A recent Daily Caller examination of annual reports from insurers also found storm clouds on the horizon of the exchanges.  It found that 8 of the 11 remaining exchanges may fail this year, despite assurances from the Obama administration.

All of which will lead to rising costs.  That increased use of medical care and health coverage plans, paid for with OPM, will drive health plan providers’ costs and so their premiums charged the customer (read: the government/your tax money).  The greatly reduced ObamaMarts will drive costs to the health plan provider customer, since subsidies—OPM—will be lost to them, also.

A report from Freedom Partners earlier this year showed premiums on the individual market are rising by double digits in most states.

Didn’t President Barack Obama (D) promise the contrary?  Both the current Democratic Party Presidential candidates are promising to extend this even further, too.

Elections have consequences.

A Timid Administration

Posted on by
Reply

Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

And in response, President Barack Obama (D) once again bowed to Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, who personally delivered the threat, and virtually to King Salman bin Abdulaziz.  Obama then responded to the Saudi threat, meekly.  He

has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties….

This timidity is a part of what Democratic Party Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) insist they will perpetuate, should they be elected.

Elections have consequences.

Tax the Rich for the Benefit of the Rest of Us?

Posted on by
Reply

The Left—Democratic Party Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT), for instance—want the rich to pay their fair share in taxes.

What is their fair share, you ask?

(…), Clinton and Sanders answer.

Here’s what the rich are paying today, according to our very own IRS, via AEIdeas:IncomeTaxShares

Notice that.  The hated 1% already are paying nearly 40% of the income taxes being paid—that includes Warren “I’m Not Paying Enough, but Don’t Ask Me to Donate to Treasury” Buffet—even though they earned less than 20% of the total income.  Meanwhile, the poor, downtrodden, and abused bottom 50% aren’t even paying 3% of the total.

Hmm….