Four Ways to Spend Money

Economist Milton Friedman (may he rest in peace), on the four ways to spend money:

Who Elects These People??

Just another reason for people to pay more attention to elections, otherwise you get people like this in charge:



Doesn't know where Arizona is, but is making policies to boycott the state?

If that weren't entertaining enough, she got a letter from Senator Jon Kyl:

Senator Jon Kyl Instructs Supervisor Peggy West in Geography

Hilarious Headlines

#1:

Obama's Stimulus Visit Results in Lost Payday for Construction Workers

A public relations (PR) stunt to promote the failed stimulus--designed to create jobs--ironically resulted in several construction workers missing out on a day's worth of pay. Say they work an eight hour day at $20/hr. That's 160 bucks they missed out on. As a poor college student, I can relate to these blue collar workers who are trying to make ends meet as well and pay their bills. One hundred sixty dollars goes a long way when you're struggling to pay rent, phone, and utility bills! Democrats for the little guy. Riiiiiight....

#2:

Obama to agencies: Don’t pay dead people

Ahh, government efficiency at its best. I challenge anybody to find me an example of a private business having issues like this. OBVIOUSLY dead people shouldn't receive pay, but government is usually the kryptonite to common sense. I commend the administration for trying to find ways to be more efficient, but step one in saving money: DON'T SPEND SO MUCH!

What Do Katrina and the Oil Spill Have in Common?

Ok. Regardless of how much you pay attention to the news, I'm pretty sure you're aware the worst oil accident in United States history is going on in the Gulf of Mexico, right?

Many are saying this is Obama's equivalent of George Bush's hurricane Katrina, where there was slow national/federal governmental response to the worse natural disaster in U.S. history. Both presidents, regardless of political affiliation, have been accused of a lax response to a huge disaster.

What has annoyed me, in conservative circles, has been the accusation of Obama of a slow response to the oil spill. Sure, his responses have been lame, such as skipping out on speaking at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day in favor of vacationing in Chicago and getting serenaded by Paul McCartney while the disaster continues--but that's beside the point.

True conservatives, like myself, realize that the national/federal government simply by its nature is inept when dealing with problems, regardless of party. Not to say either Obama/Bush are disingenuous, lazy, or poor leaders; simply the nature of top-down government is inefficient, wrought with red tape and tied in how quickly needed resources get delivered. Local governments know what they need, when they need it, and in what quantities better than anybody. Bobby Gindal is begging for resources, but national governmental red tape delays what is needed and dictates what the locals can do. The same was true post-hurricane Katrina.

Both Gulf Coast situations are less of a statement about leadership, but rather case examples of how smaller government closer to the people is much more effective.

Arizona and Immigration

Sorry for the recent hiatus on blogging...semester was ending and things are getting crazy on the campaign trail. But summer is here, and having fewer distracting (but awesome) friends around gives me a chance to punch out some more social commentary.

Oooo, things are getting so fun on the national level. Then new Arizona immigration law has a small minority of the country up in arms in disagreement to the bill. The rest of us realize that the bill explicitly states that lawful contact (speeding, etc.) must be made first prior to asking a suspected illegal immigrant for their documentation (which is required by law anyway if you are not from the U.S.). I know the illegal immigrants/open borders crowd would love to let illegals roam freely about, but this bill is a godsend for law enforcement and the families on the border trying to live lawfully in peace and not feel threatened or possibly shot on their own property. Local law enforcement can uphold the national immigration laws already on the books, which will help cut down on illegal immigration.

Some other thoughts.

1) I love immigrants. America's history IS immigration; that's how our nation was settled. Great minds from around the world flock to the United States for the freedom and opportunity allowed in our country. I have nothing wrong with having more legal immigrants and even raising the quotas of new immigrants allowed in, but the key word is legal. Not only are we a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. In the U.S. citizenship test that legal immigrants have to take, they are asked "what is the Constitution of the United States?", to which the correct answer is "the Supreme Law of the Land." We are provided with the ability to protect our borders within the Constitution and outsiders must respect the process for which we welcome people into our country. Do we really want to accept millions of people into our ranks whose first acts as citizens are to break the law to get here in the first place? I would prefer all who come here to be law-abiding citizens every step of the way.

2) Some try to make this a racial issue, which is a completely fallacy-ridden argument. It is important for the integrity of our country to know who is here and why. Simply because the propensity of illegal immigrants are from Mexico--which happens to have a large Latino population--does not mean immigration enforcement is inherently racist. What if it were the same situation, but Mexico was mostly people of white European dissent? The problem would still exist. Apparently I can only be pro-immigration enforcement if the individual in question is white.

3) Mexico's close proximity to the U.S., coupled with a corrupt government/country offering few opportunities helps explain the flood of illegal immigrants in the south. If Canada's citizens had zero chance of a good life, they would be flooding over our border as well, in which case, it would be important to have strict immigration enforcement policies in Canadian border states as well. Illegal Canadians should be deported just as much as any Mexican, and under the Arizona law when the illegal Canadian cannot show a valid U.S. drivers license or provide visa documentation for their right to be here, they will also be caught as an illegal.

4) The argument I hate most from liberals in the immigration debate is the "they do jobs Americans don't want to do" argument. I've never heard anything more dehumanizing and degrading in my life. So liberals are fine with illegal immigrants being used for all our farm, landscaping, and house cleaning labor in our country? This is nothing short of elitist snobbery under the false claim that no American will do these jobs. At its very least, this is just shoddy economics. It's called a labor market. If a farm or maintenance company needs a job done, someone will fill that job, and if no one is willing to, the company will offer a higher wage in order to entice someone to do the job. It might be a lower wage job, but there are people out there willing to do it for each wage rate. I'd make a fancy economics model, but I don't want to bore you.

Imagine this:

Southern California's schools are in terrible shape, with unruly students, astronomical dropout rates, etc. Picture a different California where these hard-labor jobs were filled with high school students in their first job wanting to earn a little extra money. Not only would they have something to occupy their time instead of gang warfare, they might learn a thing or two about work ethic! I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe it might carry over into the classroom and help get the schools back on the right track. Rather than illegal immigrants being paid under the table sub-minimum wage, high school students could earn minimum wage (or more) and also bring some character back to the younger populations.

This is just an example, but it shows how there will be someone to fill these jobs. Just watch an episode of Dirty Jobs on the Discovery Channel. People will fill unpleasant job positions--for a price. It just looks like they're jobs Americans won't do because illegals can be paid under minimum wage. With our minimum wage laws, those of us willing to do nasty jobs for cheap are not allowed to do so because employers would run into legal trouble. Since illegals are more under-the-radar, they can fill those positions for a lower wage rate while the Americans willing to do the job for the same wage are snubbed.

5) Are you a legal immigrant to this country? How does that make you feel that you went through the process and followed all the rules, yet illegals are protesting against immigration enforcement to make others go through the same process you did to be here?

6) America is a melting pot, but in order for that to happen, you must be willing to melt. Over our history, people did not come here to recreate Ireland or Germany or Russia in the United States, people came and still come here for the freedom and opportunity to maximize their lives as they saw fit. Of course immigrants settled in Irish or German communities, but their expectation was not to make everyone else honor Irish or German traditions in everyday life. The beauty of America is that we take the best from all cultures and hodge-podge it all together in a new, unique culture that is completely unpredictable--essentially the definition of American culture. Taco pizza combines three cultures in one!

We all come from different backgrounds, but Americans and the immigrants that comprise our nation all have common values that unite us. Love of freedom, appreciation of the best the world has to offer, creativity, exceptionalism, neighborliness, entrepreneurship, charity, opportunity, and hard work are just a few ideals that we all hold close, regardless of what hyphenated-American you are.

Reality Trumps The Onion for Insane News

Tourism is a human right. Now I've heard everything. Why can't we be entitled to everything? Then none of us would have to worry about anything!

Health care has already been deemed a human right in Europe, so logically the next step in universal entitlements is subsidized tourism. Can't wait for the government (aka, rich taxpayer dollars) to buy me a vacation, then I don't have to work for it!

In America, we don't have the right to happiness, we have the right to pursue happiness.

From the U.K. Times:

AN overseas holiday used to be thought of as a reward for a year’s hard work. Now Brussels has declared that tourism is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their travel subsidised by the taxpayer.

Under the scheme, British pensioners could be given cut-price trips to Spain, while Greek teenagers could be taken around disused mills in Manchester to experience the cultural diversity of Europe.

The idea for the subsidised tours is the brainchild of Antonio Tajani, the European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry, who was appointed by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister.

The scheme, which could cost hundreds of millions of pounds a year, is intended to promote a sense of pride in European culture, bridge the north-south divide in the continent and prop up resorts in their off-season.

Tajani, who unveiled his plan last week at a ministerial conference in Madrid, believes the days when holidays were a luxury have gone. “Travelling for tourism today is a right. The way we spend our holidays is a formidable indicator of our quality of life,” he said.

Tajani, who used to be transport commissioner, said he had been able to “affirm the rights of passengers” in his previous office and the next step was to ensure people’s “right to be tourists”.

The European Union has experience of subsidised holidays. In February the European parliament paid contributions of up to 52% towards an eight-day skiing trip in the Italian Alps for 80 children of Eurocrats.

Tajani’s programme will be piloted until 2013 and then put into full operation. It will be open to pensioners and anyone over 65, young people between 18 and 25, families facing “difficult social, financial or personal” circumstances and disabled people. The disabled and the elderly can be accompanied by one person.

In the initial phase, northern Europeans will be encouraged to visit southern Europe and vice versa. Details of how participants are chosen have not yet been finalised, but it is expected the EU will subsidise about 30% of the cost.

Officials have envisaged sending south Europeans to Manchester and Liverpool on a tour of “archeological and industrial sites” such as closed factories and power plants.

Tajani’s spokesman said: “Why should someone from the Mediterranean not be able to travel to Edinburgh in summer for a breath of cool, fresh air; why should someone from Edinburgh not be able to travel to Greece in winter?”

The idea is based on a project in Spain in which holidays in the winter off-season are subsidised by the government for European residents aged 55 and over. Spain calculated that for every €1 it spent in subsidies, €1.6 was gained for its resorts.

Reputation Tarnished; Not Good Enough for Headhunters

Toyota today agreed to pay more than $16 million in penalties because of the faulty gas pedal fiasco, representing the

Although it sounds good to stick it to a company that has hurt its customers, an investigation and penalty like this (a favorite pastime of headhunters like Henry Waxman) is a redundant penalty unnecessary to keeping companies honest and consumers protected in a free market.

Why? Reputation. Toyota has already lost millions in sales from its tarnished reputation. It has lost the faith of its consumer base, and millions of people in the next few years will think twice before buying a Toyota, which is a much larger cost than any arbitrary penalty anti-business congressmen can think up.

As economist John Lott puts it in his book Freedomnomics:

"...future profits are what a firm stands to lose if it cheats its customers. The potential loss of profits stemming from the loss of a good reputation helps keep businesses honest. This holds true so long as a business is concerned with its future profits."

How many moms out there do you think will be buying a Toyota any time soon?

To get a little more conspiratorial, it's interesting to note that General Motors (Government Motors) is more than 50% owned by the government, so perhaps the government is simply trying to kick the legs out of its non-union worker automaker competition?