http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/26/that-other-issue/

Worth a read. Guns are not the problem. Unstable and mentally ill people are.

Singles Voters Make the Difference

Hat tip to John Mauldin referencing a piece by Gary D. Halbert:

"As a surging percentage of US voters, singles are a game changer. They see the world differently in terms of their own personal security and the future – or at least that is how they vote.

To get a sense of how powerful the marriage effect is, not just for women but for men, too, look at the exit polls by marital status. Among non-married voters – people who are single and have never married, are living with a partner, or are divorced – Obama beat Romney 62-35. Among married voters Romney won the vote handily, 56-42."

Thomas Sowell: Fiscal Cliff Notes (Part II) — Frontiers of Freedom

Part II of Thomas Sowell's rational analysis on the political charade that dominates Washington these days. The nation has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, a fact that the media fails to fully examine. Instead, they buy the Democrat political spin.

Thomas Sowell: Fiscal Cliff Notes (Part II) — Frontiers of Freedom: "The bottom line is that Barack Obama’s blaming increased budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts is demonstrably false. What caused the decreasing budget deficits after the Bush tax cuts to suddenly reverse and start increasing was the mortgage crisis. The deficit increased in 2008, followed by a huge increase in 2009.
So it is sheer hogwash that “tax cuts for the rich” caused the government to lose tax revenues. The government gained tax revenues, not lost them. Moreover, “the rich” paid a larger amount of taxes, and a larger share of all taxes, after the tax rates were cut.
That is because people change their economic behavior when tax rates are changed, contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office and others seem to assume, and this can stimulate the economy more than a government “stimulus” has done under either Bush or Obama."

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/12/05/creators_oped

Washington Times, Thomas Sowell: Fiscal Cliff Notes (Part I), 12/4/12

Thomas Sowell is right about politics dominating any serious discussion publicly about the trillion dollar deficits and mounting debt from TeamObama. The hand-wringing about recession and the fiscal cliff is steeped in politics and not serious negotiations to right the nation's fiscal ship.

Washington Times, Thomas Sowell: Fiscal Cliff Notes (Part I), 12/4/12“All the political angst and moral melodrama about getting ‘the rich’ to pay ‘their fair share’ is part of a big charade. This is not about economics, it is about politics. Taxing ‘the rich’ will produce a drop in the bucket when compared to the staggering and unprecedented deficits of the Obama administration.”"

'via Blog this'

Arthur Brooks: America's Dangerous Powerball Economy - WSJ.com

When will people wake up to the fact that we have a spending problem with a host of consequences that are bad for the nation. Meanwhile, the media and most Americans, I fear, have bought the spin that we have a revenue problem. President Obama's war on the rich is, sadly, working.

Arthur Brooks: America's Dangerous Powerball Economy - WSJ.com: "It is a simple fact that the United States is becoming an entitlement state. The problem with this is not just that it is bankrupting the country. It is that the entitlement state is impoverishing the lives of the growing millions dependent on unearned resources. The good news is that we have a golden opportunity to rein in entitlements, for the first time in many years.
But there is bad news, too. President Obama argues that the real problem is undertaxing the public, not overspending on entitlements. He is currently asking Congress for $1.3 trillion in tax increases over a decade but less than $1 trillion in spending cuts—largely deferred, meaning much of that may not even take place. A study by Ernst & Young shows that Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes would force small businesses to eliminate about 710,000 jobs."

Welcome to Saudi Albany? - NYTimes.com

Welcome to Saudi Albany? - NYTimes.com: "If there is an uneasy equilibrium, right now, between environmentally concerned citizens and pro-fracking industrial groups, what will the political balance be like in a decade? What pressures will be on state legislatures and regulators if the projections are true and the millions of workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and maybe New York will owe their jobs to fracking. There will be trillions of dollars of new wealth. Will environmental and health concerns have any chance against that juggernaut?"

Some pretend that the producers should pay the full price of the fracking revolution  Consumers always pay the cost of goods and services. That's the way it should be in our economy. 

It's to everyone's benefit to keep these costs rational and consistent with environmental and health protection but not bloated by unnecessary constraints and huge new government bureaucracies.

The 2,000-Year-Old Wonder Drug - NYTimes.com

The 2,000-Year-Old Wonder Drug - NYTimes.com: "...Everyone may want the right to use tobacco products and engage in other behaviors that are unequivocally linked with disease — or have the right not to wear a seat belt and refrain from other actions that may protect their well-being. But, if so, should society have the obligation to cover the costs of the consequences?..."


While I endorse the use of a daily aspirin dose and take one myself, I don't endorse the underlying ideology this author suggests early in the piece that certain substances be banned by political fiat as Bloomberg is doing in New York.

For sure, I agree that people should be encouraged to participate in a healthy lifestyle and educated about the negative consequences of certain foods and substances, but banning these for all people is an abridgment of freedom and liberty. This is a very difficult area, I know, particularly for those substances that are not highly addictive or gateways to addictive substances that are damaging to health and society, e.g., hard drugs and the crime that follows their use.

I agree with the author that society should not have to bear the consequences of stupid or self-damaging behaviors by individuals who abuse their freedom and avoid responsibility and accountability. A reasonable way to accomplish that is by society and government condemning such behavior and making it very expensive monetarily for people to participate in it. The high taxes on tobacco products is a case in point.  Another way is for insurance costs for people who abuse themselves with dangerous substances or behavior to be higher. Fairness and reasonableness demand there be a price paid by individuals for their risky behavior.

This is not meant to be mean or unforgiving of people who cannot control their lives, but those who can and won't should not be able to ride free on society's largess.

Facts and Bias in a Social Media News World

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/europe/20iht-letter20.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y&_r=0

Spin vs. facts in a Twitter and Facebook era. Yes, electronic media complicates the traditional journalist's, editor's and government roles, but governments have always spun the facts into propaganda when they thought they could and the news media have always held biases. I believe a very important bias is what is chosen NOT to be reported by traditional media, either through deliberate choice or lack of resources. Social media, though often tough to fact-check, allow little to go unreported.

The burden is on us, the consumers of news, often ill-equipped to sort and sift often clouded by our own biases.

The Unemployment Rate is Not the Best Measure of the Economy or a President

A friend sent me and many others this email :

"To: anyone who will listen.....
Since I've been trying to pay attention to the spin by both sides as we approach Nov. 6, (I've already voted, btw---for Obama), I went to the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and found the following eye-opening chart. It clearly shows the decline in the unemployment rate during the Bush years, then the precipitous climb (a loss of 2.5 million jobs) during his last year in office. The trend continued when Obama took over the mess, and, since '09, a steady, gradual decline in UNEMPLOYMENT.
What I'd like to know is why this clear picture isn't being plastered ALL OVER for everyone to see......let's get going!!!!!"

Accompanied by this chart :

My response to her (Using BLS data):

The unemployment rate and the way it is determined tells only part of the economic story and is relied on far too heavily by the sound-bite media.

The reality is that in August 2012, we had about the same non-farm payroll (133,244,000) as we did in January of 2005 (132,453,000). In Jan 2008 it was 138,023,000. In January 2009 it was 133,561,000. Meanwhile, the population has grown from 295,753,000 to 314,159,000 or 18,406,000 since January 2005. So, Obama spin claims to have created 5 million jobs, yet the number of people working has not increased since he took office.

This also means that the number of working Americans is essentially the same as it was 7 years ago while the population has increased by 6.2%.

Meanwhile the median household income (inflation adjusted) looks like this:
2005 $53,371
2008 $52,546
2011 $50,054
Change = -6.2%

So, looking at the economy from the data about workers and population and household income, shows a very weak economic recovery, one that does not provide sufficient good paying jobs for our people, many of whom have dropped out of the workforce and/or stopped looking for work These people are not included in the unemployment rate determination. Some estimate the true unemployment rate to be closer to 11-12%.

I’d love to talk more about this with you, but Obama’s positive contribution to the economic ‘recovery,’ such as it is, is de minimus, despite he and the Congress increasing the debt by ~ 6 $Trillion to stimulate it.

All spin aside, the media and we give far too much credence to the power of a President over the economy. Congress is the real player, albeit heavily influenced by the President, when it comes to fiscal and economic policy and their record is dismal. For example, the Senate has not passed a budget in more than three years.

Romney’s approach makes more sense to me than another 4 years of Obama.

New York faces most intense storm in history - Outside the Box - MarketWatch

New York faces most intense storm in history - Outside the Box - MarketWatch:
A nasty confluence of forces seem to be converging on the NY-NJ area. This is a Friday, 10/26/12 forecast so a lot can happen before the storm hits in a few days.

"...For those south of the center, the storm’s circulation will actually be pushing flooding seas away from shore, lessening potential impacts.
Right now, the most reliable model tracks have clustered in a relatively tight range from Delaware to New York City. Counter-intuitively should the center of the storm make a direct strike on New York City, the city may actually be spared some of the more serious coastal impacts from the storm.
Should the storm continue on its current path (the National Hurricane Center’s most likely landfall is now in southern New Jersey), all bets are off for the five boroughs.
The latter scenario — the one that now appears most likely — would have many feet of ocean water funneled into New York Harbor over a period of up to 36 hours. Unlike Irene, which quickly transited New York City last year as a weakening tropical storm, Sandy may actually be in the process of strengthening when it makes landfall.
The result could prove incredibly damaging for coastal residents and critical infrastructure. Keep in mind that Irene was only inches away from flooding subway tunnels in Lower Manhattan. Storm-surge forecasts for this scenario haven’t been officially released yet, but six to 10 feet in the city is not out of the question in a worst-case scenario.
That result would put about 700,000 people’s homes underwater, according to a Climate Central interactive analysis. Add to that waves of 10 to 20 feet on ocean-facing shores, and an additional foot or so of tidal influence from the full moon, and we could be dealing with quite a mess on our hands.
With National Geographic reporting that sea level rise is already accelerating at three to four times the global rate in the Northeast due to climate change, impacts are expected to be worse than if the same exact storm would have hit several years ago.
Should Sandy veer further north of its current track and make landfall right over the city, storm surge could be dramatically lessened, though the city could receive about double the amount of rainfall — up to a foot or more.
For these reasons, if I were a resident of New York right now, I’d be rooting for a direct hit. If given a choice, I’d take 12 inches of rain over six feet of coastal flooding any day.

'via Blog this'