Plastered on just about every news site is the President's determination to increase the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 per hour. One only needs to go to CNN.com or MSNBC.com to see how this is seen as a courageous act and something that is necessary for the stability of our economy. How great will it be knowing now that janitors can make $2 an hour more than before!! Talk about stimulus! One of the justifications for this increase is to increase morale of low wage workers and to reduce employee turnaround. My question is, why would we want to?
First, by increasing minimum wage laws for government contractors this means more money from the taxpayers. The government needs to pay the contractors expenses which will increase due to wage increases, so the government will need to come up with more money aka taxes. Simple enough.
But it's not just that. If someone is a janitor for some federal contractor, why would you want them to have their morale in that particular position go up? Why would you want to reduce turnaround? The purpose of those jobs, besides the obvious, is that they are starting points for many. Also, wages reflect skill. For janitorial type work, it requires little specialization and skill. Turnaround is healthy for a company. Either the person in that position seeks employment with another company for a higher wage or advances to a higher pay grade in the same company. Maybe they change positions all together. Then, some other low skill worker will come along and fill that vacancy. Turns out voting isn't the only thing you can do with you feet, you can negotiate wages too!
Also, does anyone find it fair that a janitor for a government contractor gets paid more than someone working for a private company not making a living off the feds?
This stunt is to just get the ball rolling for when the President pushes for a minimum wage hike for all workers. He is testing the waters and already many Republicans are saying that Obama must not go around Congress. According to Jay Carney, the White House puppet, “You can be sure that the president fully intends to use his executive authority to use the unique powers of the office to make progress on economic opportunity, to make progress in the areas that he believes are so important to further economic growth and further job creation." Interesting, I don't remember that part in the Constitution.
We need to realize that this new found executive authority is unconstitutional. Once we abandon the framework of checks and balances we lose the constraints on federal power. We need to be willing to stand up to those who break the oath they swore on their inauguration. As long as the President has his supporters and the people don't stand up to him, what's to stop this expansion of authority?
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Monday, January 13, 2014
Shocker! Politicians/Governments Abuse Power!!!
Is anyone really surprised when a story breaks about a politician that abuses power? Or how about when a government agency begins targeting various political interest groups? It seems like every few months a politician falls from their position of power.
Chris Christie is the latest politician to fall into scandal. Before him, the mayor from Canada who was smoking crack.Not long ago, IRS targeting, and the state departments negligence in Benghazi and the cover up that followed. If there is one thing to take away from these events it's that people abuse their power and will spin a story to make themselves look innocent.
In the case of Chris Christie, I'm not sure if he did in fact know of the shutdown of the George Washington Bridge, but he might have known. What's amazing is that Democrats defended Hillary Clinton and President Obama in the Benghazi debacle saying that they didn't know and that other people are in place for those types of situations. But when a scandal comes out of a Republican administration the Democrats immediately reject that same defense.
The only thing to take away from all this scandal is that politicians are going to abuse their power. It doesn't matter if they are Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians. There is only one way to reduce the temptation to abuse power, downsize the government. It's precisely because the government, at the state and federal level, is so large that abuse occurs. This isn't to say that there will be no scandals with small government, but it's less likely.
If the state of NJ privatized the roads and gave the authority of them to private companies, Chris Christie's office never would have been able to shut down those lanes. If the IRS didn't have such broad authority and power there wouldn't have been any political targeting.
As the government grows larger, so does the abuse. At the current rate of government expansion, expect to see many stories like these.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Affordable Care Act's Lie
The implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been nothing short of a disaster. Not
only has the website not worked for those trying to sign up, but people who
have their own insurance are being notified that they will have to change
policies. In 2009, President Obama said "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care
plan." For many this has been true, since most people have insurance
through their employer. However, for many people, they have purchased their own
insurance plans, which includes myself. In my previous job I had an insurance
plan through my employer because the benefits were good. Then I changed jobs
and joined an employer that doesn't offer as good insurance and the rate is
amazingly high. Also, because I was a new employee I wasn't eligible for
insurance anyway for the first 90 days. This led me to explore insurance
options. I was given the number to an insurance agent who explained to me some
of the coming changes and told me that the insurance I was looking for wouldn't
be legal next year.
I decided to purchase the
insurance plan because it was inexpensive. The plan is more of a disaster
insurance. I am young, healthy and have no pre-existing conditions. So, for me
I don't need many services because I've never had health issues. These types of
plans are no longer legal with the Affordable Care Act the law of the land.
I've read plenty of stories in
the news about people being sent notices that their insurance plans are being
cancelled. Many fell short of actually 'blaming' the Affordable Care Act for
the cancellation of policies. But then I was sent a notice from Anthem saying
directly that because of the Affordable Care Act my insurance plan will no
longer be offered. The sad thing is that on the notice they say there will be
options that suit my needs, but the current plan I'm paying for is what suits
my needs, that's why I chose the plan!
Next year when I am required to
choose a new health plan, my insurance rate is going to go up. By how much,
that I don't know. Hopefully it will not increase at the rate of people who
live in California. According to the LA Times, rates there are doubling[1].
The Affordable Care Act has
been a disaster from the beginning. The people were promised that this bill
would slow cost of insurance and that those who liked their coverage would be
able to keep it. So far none of that has happened. Prices are going up and
people, like me, are being told they can no longer keep their own insurance
plan. The problem now is because insurance premiums are going up, the government
is going to subsidize part of the premiums so it doesn't hurt the average
household as much. This is creating a structure that will addict people to this
law. Once a subsidy has been put in place and people rely on it to make their
own budgets work it will become an untouchable subject. If it's possible for me
to make ends meet under the new ACA legislation without needing the government
subsidy (I'm sure I will qualify as I'm married with a low income)I will not
accept the government subsidy. That "free" money is addicting and a
government subsidy isn't something any American should rely on.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Hybrid Tax
I am currently in the market for a very, very cheap used
car. I work at a car dealership so my eyes and ears have been open to new
vehicles people are trading in to see if one is suitable for me. I live less
than two miles from work so something small works just fine. A few days ago I
noticed a small 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid was traded in at work. When I talked to
the used car manager of the dealership he mentioned that it sounds like it
would be a good fit. All my driving is "city" driving so the hybrid
would be the best option. As I have been thinking about this decision it was my
wife who brought to my attention that many states are instituting hybrid car
taxes and that I should check in VA. Well, after a quick Google search I
discovered that VA does in fact charge people who own Hybrids $64 per year in
extra fees. This is all part of an effort to regain revenue lost by those who
drive hybrids because they will not be buying as much gas as a regular gasoline
powered vehicle. I must say that this has practically turned me off from buying
a Hybrid car. Not only has the state discouraged people from buying hybrids,
they are penalizing those who are trying to save money and/or protect the
environment. My main motive here is to just save money.
I can understand the motive behind passing the tax, when
people buy more fuel efficient cars they buy gas less, which reduces the
governments revenue. So in order to recuperate that loss we need to throw in
another tax to prevent the drop in revenue. The problem with it is, it is
penalizing only one particular type of car. Since this law appears to only
apply to hybrid vehicles, if a vehicle were to achieve the same mpg as a hybrid
but run on gasoline alone, would that car be taxed too? It seems that there is
a sort of discrimination against hybrid vehicles. As an example, my current
beater car gets about 40mpg because it's small and has about 90hp. A new Honda
Civic Hybrid is rated at 44mpg. So, with this very slight mpg difference, the
hybrid owner is subject to an additional tax and I am not. Also, hybrid cars
have higher MSRP and have a higher risk because not only is there a gas motor,
there is also an electric motor with a battery that is hugely expensive to
repair.
This right here is an example of a government going too far.
While in one hand they are encouraging people to drive more fuel efficient cars
and on the other penalizing those who drive more efficient cars. It is
currently in law that by 2025 cars must achieve an average of 54.5 mpg[1],
but by driving more fuel efficient cars they lose money so taxes of another
sort will follow. When the American public save over $1.7 trillion at the pump,
the government will institute additional taxation to recover that lost revenue.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Conversation with an Insurance Agent
I wanted to do this blog not because of any news story I've
seen, but because of a conversation I had with a health insurance agent. I
wasn't aware of some of the changes that were happening because of Obamacare.
Since I have changed jobs, I am currently not covered by any health insurance
because I have not been in my current job long enough to be eligible for their insurance.
As I spoke to people at work they said it would be a good option to try and just
buy insurance outright because the plan offered through work was expensive and
had services I wouldn't need. I was then given a number of an insurance
agent.
I called to see what sort of rates I would be able to get. I
am a healthy and active adult with no preexisting conditions. During the
conversation the agent said that under the current system I would need to take
a survey of about 100 questions to determine my health. After he laid out two
different options he then proceeded to tell me I could only have insurance for
1 year. When I asked why, he responded, Obamacare. Under the new law, if I am
to purchase insurance by myself privately right now because it's cheaper and
more customizable than my employer, that coverage will disappear after one year
and be replaced by new insurance options that conform to the Obamacare rules.
What he then proceeded to tell me was that as of right now they do not know how
much each plan will cost but enrollment in the government plans will start in
the coming months. Also, because I am a young and healthy adult, I will likely
have to pay more for that government
insurance plans than the private plan I am looking at now. Because Obamacare no
longer allows for questions regarding preexisting conditions, young people like
myself will need to subsidize the cost of others with health problems. Also,
under the new government plans I will be required to have services I do not
want or need.
Now, for many the preexisting conditions exception sounds
wonderful. But it will make millions of people like me have to pay more. I will
be penalized for living a healthy lifestyle and taking care of myself. Also,
when talking to the agent he laid out a scenario for me. There are 3 versions
of me, identical in almost every single way. One is me, healthy and active. The
second is exactly like me but does heroin. The third is exactly like number
one, but smokes cigarettes. Under the
current system, me and the heroin addict will pay the same for health insurance
but the smoker will pay 1.5 times more than me. For a law that removes preexisting
conditions, this seems to be a problem. Insurance agents are not allowed to ask
any questions other than your basic info (name, address, SSN..etc) and "do
you smoke." Now if we are eliminating questions regarding obesity or drug
use, why do smokers get penalized? Also, why am I getting penalized? I am
healthy, I am active, I eat organic foods, but when it comes to my insurance I
will pay the same amount as an overweight drug addict. Insane.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
The Syria Mistake part 2
Ever since the reported gassing of Syrian civilians,
President Obama has been mulling over the idea of military intervention. After
the speech about the 'red-line' crossed by the Assad regime from a few months
ago, Syria was sort of put on the back burner. Now, it's back to being front
page news.
Now, Secretary of State John Kerry has come out and said
that Sarin gas was in fact used in the chemical attack[1].
Since this revelation, members of congress and the President have been
advocating for strategic military strikes to deter Assad from using chemical
weapons again. One major issue with this assessment is the assumption that it
was in fact Assad who used the gas. There have been reports that it was
actually the rebels who used the gas, as well as having committed other
horrific atrocities. According to some
at the UN involved in the investigation of the sarin gas attack, it was the
rebels who used the nerve agent[2].
Given the ties between the rebels and Al-Nusra Front it wouldn't be surprising
that the rebels are the ones behind the attack. It's unclear what sort of
evidence the President has that contradicts the UN and affirms that it is Assad
using chemical weapons.
Since the President is sure it is the Assad regime, he has
been threatening force over the past few days. As usual, he went to the UN to
find support, but Russia and China voted against military action in Syria and
have warned the US to not get involved in the region[3].
Now that the UN has been essentially
ruled out, the US was looking to its closest ally, Britain. A few days ago, Britain
held a vote on joining the US in action against Syria, which was struck down[4].
Once the reports came from Britain that they would not strike Syria, the
President started thinking about taking action alone. The President led on that
he would strike even if he didn't have support from congress and other nations.
Now, Obama is saying that congressional authority is something he wants to
carry out their strikes.
Since this sort of flip on the issue, war hawks like Senator
McCain are blasting his decision and saying that Assad is "Euphoric"
about the President's decision. Many of the war hungry representatives are
unhappy with the president's decision. They are seeing it as a sign of weakness
that will make the US look like it is now unable to commit to military action.
While it does make the US seem unwilling to strike, it's the
right decision. When making the choice to fly planes to a foreign country and
destroy targets as well as kill people, Congress needs to be consulted. The
authority of "Commander-in-Chief" has gone WAY overboard in the
modern era. We have become to comfortable with war presidents. War is something
that shouldn't be decided to easily. With the advanced technologies we possess
and the ability to separate the personal experience of war we seem to make the
decision more lightly than usual. For the US, sending boots on the ground is
hard, a drone is easy because it poses almost no risk to us. But to the people
of Syria, it's still the same outcome. They still will see it as the big
policeman of the world, the US, has bombed innocent people who were never a
threat in the first place.
Another issue with the proposed intervention is Syria is
that there is no real end goal. The President claims that the strikes will make
it so Assad will not use chemical weapons again. But can some strategic strikes
really prevent anything indefinitely? Even if the gassing stops, the Assad regime
will still be in control and there will still be a war raging between the
government and the rebels. We will only be adding to the destruction.
Now that the president has decided to seek the approval of
congress, let's hope they listen to the people and vote against furthering the
destruction Syria is experiencing.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Foreign Policy
In a recent article from the Cato Institute, scholar Justin
Logan responded to claims made by Charles Krauthammer regarding 'Isolationism'.
For those who don't know what Isolationism means, it is the view that the US
needs to start minding its own business and stop getting involved in conflicts
across the globe. Krauthammer is
considered an Internationalist, while Logan would be considered an
Isolationist.
According to Krauthammer[1],
freedom across the globe isn't something that occurs naturally. It is stabilized
by a strong power. Britain was once the dominating world power, but now the
United States is burdened with keeping peace. He believes that without the
protection of the United States, chaos would follow. And with recent events
like radical Islam, North Korea, and terrorist cells across the globe this may
in fact be true.
In Logan's article, he first criticizes the term
"Isolationist" because it was used as a smear word for those opposed
to military intervention. According to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Walter
McDougall, America’s “vaunted tradition of ‘isolationism’ is no tradition at
all, but a dirty word that interventionists, especially since Pearl Harbor,
hurl at anyone who questions their policies.”[2]
Also, with ongoing wars and issues in Egypt, Syria and other countries,
Americans are starting to ask, why are we getting involved? It is through
excessive spending and casualties that Americans appear to be turning to a more
Isolationist view.
Now, back to the Internationalist view. They claim that if
the US were to withdraw forces from around the globe chaos would follow. Terror
threats would increase and attacks would occur more often. They claim that
isolationism doesn't work and the only logical thing to do is to engage in
foreign conflicts. The issue with their belief is that America has never
embraced isolationism, making it impossible for someone to say that it doesn't
actually work. Internationalists typically point to the time period when the US
was reluctant to join WWII, but is that one period of reluctance proof that
isolationism doesn't work? Also, when the US gets involved in a civil war in a
foreign country, one side will always come out our enemy. The more fights we enter, the more enemies we
will make.
I am not saying that the US is responsible for its enemies.
It is of course the choice of those who oppose us to act. But when we are
flying drones into Pakistan to kill 'militants,' and civilians are killed,
people have a reason to be angry. According to Columbia University[3],
between 75 and 155 civilians were
killed in Pakistan in 2011 by drone strikes.
If the world does in fact need a global leader, why the
United States? With the economic burden we have today, the US cannot continue
on its path as being the peace keeper across the globe. Ever since WWII, the US
has been spending more money on defense and been has known few years of peace. In
the graph above, the red dashes indicate wars the US has been engaged in, while
the blue line indicates defense spending (as percent of GDP). In the 68 years
since WWII the US has been involved in 5 wars. In the previous 152 years before
the US was a global superpower, we engaged in 5 wars. That averages to every 13.6 years the US is
in a war in the modern era, compared to every 30.4 years before superpower
status.
It appears that the internationalist position held by
Krauthammer doesn't really work. The US may in fact be able to stabilize
certain countries, but ever since we have achieved this status, chaos has
followed us. So much for ensuring global stability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)