Frankly, I’d find this a lot funnier if I weren’t the fish who will soon own a bicycle.
Archive for the ‘US government’ Category
The health care special (1)
November 10, 2013A former workmate sent the letter below about someone he knows with an attitude. (I’m keeping him anonymous for obvious reasons.)
I think he’s a little over the top predicting an economic death spiral, especially from one observation. Anecdotes aren’t data, after all. On the other hand, who knows how prevalent this attitude is? It certainly applies to other things than health care benefits. So he may be right that it’s a harbinger of disaster.
In any event, the attitude he describes is bad cultural juju. Taking ‘free’ government benefits that you could buy for yourself strikes me as a violation-by-proxy of the Golden Rule. Give your fellow citizens a break, people (even if some of them are wealthier than you).
I have to add that I’d feel a lot better if his acquaintance with the attitude were a 20-something rather than a 50-something. That’s the scariest part IMO.
I have a close acquaintance who shall remain nameless. Single and in his/her mid 50s. While s/he seems to be in good health, s/he is a functional alcoholic; drinks all day long, every day.
S/he had several jobs in IT in Silicon Valley area back in the ‘80s and 90’s but decided it wasn’t his/her cup of tea. Now s/he supposedly run a seasonal small business in the northern Midwest. S/he hires day laborers only and pays them in cash each day. S/he only buys business insurance when required to show a active policy to bid on bigger commercial jobs.
In the winter s/he closes down the operation up north and heads to the south to spend winter. The winter business apparently is not as productive (due to lack of demand) so s/he does all sorts of odd jobs to supplement income. I have no idea what his/her annual income is and suspect that s/he operates on cash basis as much as possible to avoid paying FICA, Medicare, state and federal income tax. And of course s/he has no medical insurance.
A few days ago I was watching the news and of course the segment was on the Obamacare debacle.
S/he walked in and stated that s/he was looking forward to Obamacare so s/he could afford medical insurance. S/he then described how the high deductible medical insurance s/he retained for a few years was “a complete waste of money.” So apparently s/he did not get sick or injured often/seriously enough to meet the deductible. S/he said “This was a total waste of $10,000.” I asked if the medical plan was $10000/year (which seemed extraordinarily high). “No. That’s what I paid over 8 or so years.” So when s/he had insurance s/he paid about $105/month for coverage. S/he went on about how greedy insurance companies are and how much better the Obamacare exchange plans will be. Note I said “will be” as s/he had not yet bothered to try and sign up.
And part of the reason s/he had not explored his/her options under Obamacare was the extensive reports of the web interface failure. The other stated reason was s/he wanted to know where s/he would get the “best deal.” In the northern mid-western state or in the southern state (that also has no income tax).
So I asked why s/he had not at least checked to see what the cost/options were as there are plenty of other resources, short of signing up, where s/he could get preliminary estimates? Answer: Website problems (missing my point) and the fact that the deadline is weeks/months away. I dropped the discussion at that point.
A week or so later the subject came up again and s/he stated “Well its most likely I’ll just pay the $95 fine.” When I asked if s/he got monthly cost estimates, s/he just reiterated s/he would “go with the fine and then pick up insurance if/when s/he needs it or just file bankruptcy like everyone else does.”
So my acquaintance enjoys a life where s/he can afford to spend the winter in the south, in an apartment loaded with electronic toys (LCD TV, PCs, iPad, iPhone), drink all day long, and work when it is convenient or perhaps necessary when cash flow tightens.
And s/he wants everyone else to pay their medical care going forward because doing paying their own way would effectively deny him/her the lifestyle they have selected.
I am betting my friend’s approach is going to be replicated by millions of other folks.
The ‘sick’ may get better deals and they’ll likely take advantage of them.
Many of the able will remain uninsured until the last minute, because they can.
An economic death spiral is inevitable.
Nitwittery nailed again
November 6, 2013The New York Times published this last Sunday:
Under Health Care Act, Millions Eligible for Free Policies
By REED ABELSON and KATIE THOMAS
Published: November 3, 2013Millions of people could qualify for federal subsidies that will pay the entire monthly cost of some health care plans being offered in the online marketplaces set up under President Obama’s health care law, a surprising figure that has not garnered much attention, in part because the zero-premium plans come with serious trade-offs. […]
Don Boudreaux nails them in his typical fashion in a post at Cafe Hayek:
Here’s a letter to the New York Times:
Your headline today reads “Under Health Care Act, Millions Eligible for Free Policies.”
More accurate wording would be “Under Health Care Act, Millions Eligible to Free Ride at Other People’s Expense.” That the people actually paying for all this “free” health insurance are faceless does not make them unreal – only invisible. And being invisible, the people footing the bill are ignored by Pres. Obama and other politicians preening publicly over their faux-generosity in spending other people’s money to bribe voters with promises of “free” health insurance. […]
Seriously, what are these people (Abelson and Thomas) thinking? That there’s such a thing as Money For Nothin’?
H.T. Jeff G.
Paranoia strikes deep
October 19, 2013Via Reason, here’s the opening of an interesting article at the ACLU blog wondering whether Congressional representatives are being blackmailed by the NSA.
On the Prospect of Blackmail by the NSA
Sometimes when I hear public officials speaking out in defense of NSA spying, I can’t help thinking, even if just for a moment, “what if the NSA has something on that person and that’s why he or she is saying this?”
Of course it’s natural, when people disagree with you, to at least briefly think, “they couldn’t possibly really believe that, there must be some outside power forcing them to take that position.” Mostly I do not believe that anything like that is now going on.
But I cannot be 100% sure, and therein lies the problem. The breadth of the NSA’s newly revealed capabilities makes the emergence of such suspicions in our society inevitable. Especially given that we are far, far away from having the kinds of oversight mechanisms in place that would provide ironclad assurance that these vast powers won’t be abused. […]
There has already been prominent speculation about this threat. David Sirota explicitly mulled the subject in this (paywalled) piece, as have writers at Firedoglake and TechDirt. Whistleblower Russell Tice has also alleged that while at the agency he saw wiretap information for members of Congress and the judiciary firsthand. Such fears explain why it is considered an especially serious matter any time elected or judicial officials are eavesdropped upon. The New York Times reported in 2009 that some NSA officials had tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant. Members of Congress (and perhaps the judiciary) surely also noted a Washington Post report based on Snowden documents that the NSA had intercepted a “large number” of calls from the Washington DC area code due to a “programming error.”
Close the parks first!
October 2, 2013The always worth reading Coyote blog has an open letter from Warren Meyer (the blogger) to his Congressional representatives. Mr. Meyer runs Recreation Resource Management, a company that operates state and national parks on a private basis, replacing government management and staff. You probably won’t be surprised to learn that some states actually save money by letting a private company collect the fees and operate the park.
Meyer’s letter is about the National Park Service shutting down sites that cost it nothing to run. Seems purely punitive, doesn’t it? Naturally, that type of action doesn’t do Mr. Meyer’s business (or his competitors’) any good.
Read the letter My Plea to Stop the White House From Closing Privately-Funded, Privately-Operated Parks. Then scroll on for more recent posts about how the government is dealing with its shutdown and about how the mainstream media are describing it.
For years, Meyer has been pointing out that when government is publicly forced to make cuts, it starts by cutting the highly-visible, popular services like parks while avoiding little-known expenses that no one would care about.
Update: Coyote’s not the only unhappy park operator. From Reason’s blog:
Privately Run Park Director Again Calls Out Feds Over “Illegal” Closure
Anna Eberly, Managing Director of the privately run, funded and staffed Claude Moore Colonial Farm is taking no prisoners in her war with the National Park Service over the politicized closure of a park on which the federal government spends not a penny and with which it is involved in no way other than the ownership of the land. Eberly’s first email on the subject referred to the NPS’s position as “utter crap.” Her latest elaborates. It reads, in part:
[…] We are critical of the National Park Service because we think they have closed us down illegally according to the terms of the agreement we signed with them in 1981. The agreement states that we will operate the Farm and open it to the public and the only thing they will provide is police protection if needed. Many years ago, we decided that calling the Fairfax County Police if needed (they have joint jurisdiction) worked better for our situation. And because of our proximity to the Central Intelligence Agency, we have probably the best security on earth. The CIA has also treated us with great decency and respect and we value them highly as our neighbors.
The reason that it is so important that we remain open is because of the income we receive from Pavilion rentals, admissions, sales and program fees. We have had to cancel every event at the Farm this week so we have already lost more than $15,000 in operating income because October is the busiest month of the year for us. When the Federal government reopens, as it inevitably will, they will be funded by all of us. The Farm may never reopen again if we cannot open soon because we don’t have any other source of revenue except that which we earn for ourselves.
Misplaced priorities
October 2, 2013Here’s a good video about the practical effects of the War On Drugs. It seems like a good argument to me, even for those who disagree with legalizing drugs on principle.
Via Carpe Diem
When injustice becomes law (1)
September 26, 2013The IRS seized Mr. Dehko’s cash because he was suspected of the crime of "structuring." He wasn’t charged or convicted, mind you — only suspected. So the Feds didn’t sue Mr. Dehko; instead they sued his $35,651.11. I’m sure that makes sense to some lawyer somewhere. To me it just sounds like a license to steal.
Thank Heaven for the Institute for Justice. If you want to lend a hand, here’s how.
United States v. $35,651.11
Feds Seize Family Grocery Store’s Entire Bank AccountCan the government use civil forfeiture to take your money when you have done nothing wrong—and then pocket the proceeds? The IRS thinks so.
For over 30 years, Terry Dehko has successfully run a grocery store in Fraser, Mich., with his daughter Sandy. In January 2013, without warning, the federal government used civil forfeiture to seize all of the money from the Dehkos’ store bank account (more than $35,000) even though they’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. Their American Dream is now a nightmare.
Federal civil forfeiture law features an appalling lack of due process: It empowers the government to seize private property from Americans without ever charging, let alone convicting, them of a crime. Perversely, the government then pockets the proceeds while providing no prompt way to get a court to review the seizure.
On September 25, 2013, Terry and Sandy teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight back in federal court. A victory will vindicate not just their right to be free from abusive forfeiture tactics, but the right of every American not to have their property wrongfully seized by government.
Update from the Institute:
IRS Backs Down:
Michigan Forfeiture Cases Voluntarily Dismissed
Government Will Return Seized Money to Small-Business Owners; Federal Lawsuit Continues Over Right to Prompt HearingWEB RELEASE: November 15, 2013
Arlington, Va.—Just hours after the Institute for Justice announced it was joining another civil forfeiture lawsuit in Michigan against the federal government, the IRS filed motions to voluntarily dismiss two forfeiture actions against innocent Detroit-area small-business owners. Terry Dehko of Fraser, Mich., and Mark Zaniewski of Sterling Heights, Mich., will each get back all of the money seized without warning from their business’s bank accounts (over $100,000 in total) by the federal government.
While today’s victories vindicate the property rights of Dehko and Zaniewski, they do not solve the nationwide forfeiture problem. […] A separate federal lawsuit filed in September by the Institute for Justice on behalf of Terry Dehko and his daughter, Sandra Thomas, seeks to reform civil forfeiture law to protect the constitutional rights of property owners. That lawsuit will continue.
“The IRS should not be raiding the bank accounts of innocent Americans, and it should not take a team of lawyers to put a stop to this behavior,” said IJ Senior Attorney Clark Neily. “We are thrilled that Terry, Sandy, and Mark will finally get their money back, but their fight does not end today. Our constitutional lawsuit against the federal government seeks to rein in the shameful practice of civil forfeiture.”
You can check out any time you like
August 30, 2013Don’t Fly During Ramadan is Aditya Mukerjee’s essay about his recent experience with the TSA. It’s a long post but worth your time; here’s a short snippet.
At this point, I didn’t mind having to leave the secure area and go back through security again (this time not opting out of the machines), but I didn’t particularly want to get the cops involved. I told him, “Okay, fine, I’ll leave”.
“You can’t leave here.”
“Are you detaining me, then?” I’ve been through enough “know your rights” training to know how to handle police searches; however, TSA agents are not law enforcement officials. Technically, they don’t even have the right to detain you against your will.
“We’re not detaining you. You just can’t leave.” My jaw dropped.
“Either you’re detaining me, or I’m free to go. Which one is it?” I asked.
He glanced for a moment at my backpack, then snatched it out of the conveyor belt. “Okay,” he said. “You can leave, but I’m keeping your bag.”
Randy Barnett on the NSA and secret courts
August 21, 2013Here’s Matt Welch interviewing Randy Barnett last month in Las Vegas.
This is the Wall Street Journal op-ed by Barnett that Welch mentioned at the start.
What we need is separation of Market and State
August 14, 2013Via Coyote blog, here’s an NBC News report about how the PPACA (Obamacare) is affecting the job market.
Businesses claim Obamacare has forced them to cut employee hours
Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers’ hours below 30 a week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
“To tell somebody that you’ve got to decrease their hours because of a law passed in Washington is very frustrating to me,” said Loren Goodridge, who owns 21 Subway franchises, including a restaurant in Kennebunk. “I know the impact I’m having on some of my employees.”
Goodridge said he’s cutting the hours of 50 workers to no more than 29 a week so he won’t trigger the provision in the new health care law that requires employers to offer coverage to employees who work 30 hours or more per week. The provision takes effect in 16 months. […]
The White House dismisses such examples as “anecdotal.” Jason Furman, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, said, “We are seeing no systematic evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having an adverse impact on job growth or the number of hours employees are working. … [S]ince the ACA became law, nearly 90 percent of the gain in employment has been in full-time positions.”
But the president of an influential union that supports Obamacare said the White House is wrong.
“It IS happening,” insisted Joseph Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has 1.2 million members. “Wait a year. You’ll see tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced and their incomes reduced. The facts are already starting to show up. Their statistics, I think, are a little behind the time.”
Read Coyote’s post for more on the whole topic. He’s a small business owner himself and knows what the costs of Obamacare will be.
Update (8/23/13)
In the same vein, here’s an interesting post at Reason’s Hit & Run site: Obamacare Will Cost Delta Airlines $100 Million Next Year.
100 things John hates
June 30, 2013John Stossel posted the list below at Twitter with the comment:
Sorry I am not yet furious about NSA surveillance. I AM furious about much of what gov’t does: pic.twitter.com/Gfdt8WVKw6
Follow the link or click the image below to read John’s list.
Res ipsa loquitur
June 25, 2013I’ve often thought that citizenship should require an examination, like the one immigrants are required to pass. But if we can’t have that, at least we ought to make people running for office pass an exam on the Constitution.
From The Agitator.
When Congress Voted Down The Fourth Amendment
Earlier this month [May, 2013 – JHC], President Obama nominated North Carolina Rep. Mel Watt to head up the Federal Housing Finance Authority. Here’s a fun little nugget about Watt that has little relevance to the job he’s seeking, but has lots of relevance to the current debates over leaks, press investigations, wiretapping, and such:
Back in early 1995, the new Republican majority set out on its “limited government” agenda with a bill to chip away at the Exclusionary Rule, the policy that says evidence found in the course of an illegal search can’t be used against the suspect at trial. (Though there are some exceptions.) During the debate, Watt introduced the following amendment to the bill:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That of course is the exact language of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The House killed Watt’s amendment by nearly a 3-1 margin.
Show us yer e-mails!
June 19, 2013FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe Asks Senator Lindsey Graham for His Email Password
Washington, DC- At a press conference today, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe addressed the growing list of civil liberties violations that have surfaced in recent weeks, and extended an open invitation to South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham to walk the walk implied by his casual dismissal of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. If he has “nothing to worry about,” he should be willing to publicly release his email password. The petition can be found at www.LindseysPassword.com.
In a Fox and Friends interview last Thursday, Senator Graham defended the National Security Agency’s (NSA) warrantless surveillance of American civilians, telling the show’s hosts, “I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.” Senator Graham then went one step further, concluding that he was “glad” the warrantless surveillance activity was happening in the NSA.
Kibbe commented […] “Respectfully, Senator, we ask you to lead by example and make your email account password available to the American people. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. Right?”
Damn Obama, you scary (2)
May 25, 2013I don’t spend a lot of time bashing sitting Presidents. Too many people do that at the drop of a hat and in readers’ eyes it just becomes one partisan’s potshots against another’s. That’s the impression I frequently get, at least.
Those who take President Obama to task for not knowing military protocols (or other minor infractions) and the folks who propagated the canard about President Bush and the upside-down book only damage their own side’s arguments in a serious reader’s eyes. Grow up and get a clue, people: avoid the temptation to score a cheap shot.
The better course in most cases is to praise public figures who do the Right Thing rather than to condemn ones who do the Wrong Thing.
But in some cases the errors are too threatening to let pass. When the current administration acts like a gang of Chicago mobsters, we need to raise hell about it.
Here’s the opening of a recent NYT opinion piece that was by James Goodale. Mr Goodale represented The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case and he’s a First Amendment lawyer and author of “Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles.”
Only Nixon Harmed a Free Press More
The search warrant filed to investigate the Fox News reporter James Rosen proved as many had suspected: President Obama wants to make it a crime for a reporter to talk to a leaker. It is a further example of how President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom.
The government’s subpoena of The Associated Press’s phone records was bad enough. But the disclosure of the search warrant in the Rosen case shows President Obama has delved into territory never before reached by previous presidents.
The Justice Department obtained Rosen’s e-mail by using a search warrant in which it alleged that Rosen was a co-conspirator with a government adviser named Stephen Kim.
This conspiracy, as imagined by the Justice Department, commenced as soon as Rosen started e-mailing or talking with Kim. But reporters have the right to talk to anyone, under the First Amendment. Obama’s theory of conspiracy therefore strikes at the heart of that amendment.
Rand Paul on a rant
May 23, 2013The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations summoned Apple’s CEO to Washington, basically because Apple minimized its US tax obligations in ways that are legal under the US’ overly complex corporate tax code. It struck me as a fairly transparent bit of grand-standing; or what you should expect from the Congress, in other words.
Senate Subcommittee Accuses Apple of Tax Gimmicks
Apple avoids billions in U.S. taxes through creative, unique tax structures, and even negotiated a special corporate tax rate of less than 2% with the Irish government, according to a report released by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, ahead of its Tuesday hearing featuring CEO Tim Cook.
Rand Paul took his colleagues to task for their investigation and rightly so.
Update: Thomas Sowell chimes in with his usual plain talk.
Federal Government Exercises Its Bullying Pulpit
We have truly entered the world of “Alice in Wonderland” when the CEO of a company that pays $16 million a day in taxes is hauled up before a congressional subcommittee to be denounced on national TV for not paying more.
Apple CEO Tim Cook was denounced for contributing to “a worrisome federal deficit,” according to Sen. Carl Levin — one of the big-spending liberals in Congress who has had a lot more to do with creating that deficit than any private citizen has.
Update 2: A funny cartoon (via Carpe Diem).
Nothing new under the sun
May 16, 2013Update:Via Carpe Diem, I came across this image which fits here quite well. 
Probity for thee, but not for me
April 30, 2013News from Techdirt:
Congress Quickly And Quietly Rolls Back Insider Trading Rules For Itself
In November of 2011, the TV show 60 Minutes did a big expose on insider trading within Congress. While everyone else is subject to basic insider trading rules, it turned out that members of Congress were exempt from the rules. […] Of course, after that report came out and got lots of attention, Congress had to act, and within months they had passed the STOCK Act with overwhelming support in Congress to make insider trading laws that apply to everyone else finally apply to Congress and Congressional staffers as well. […]
Of course, here we are in 2013 and, lo and behold, it is no longer an election year. And apparently some of the details of the ban on insider trading were beginning to chafe Congressional staffers, who found it hard to pad their income with some friendly trades on insider knowledge.
So… with very little fanfare, Congress quietly rolled back a big part of the law late last week. […]
Because the best way to rebuild trust in Congress, apparently, is to roll back the fact that people there need to obey the same laws as everyone else. That won’t lead the public to think that Congress is corrupt. No, not at all.
Time for tar and feathers yet?
April 26, 2013To see the Congress considering exempting itself from the burdens of a law it passed is just adding insult to the injuries imposed on us by the PPACA.
But that’s just what Politico reports.
Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption
Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.
Read the whole thing and you’ll see that members of Congress aren’t dummies. They can see the costs of PPACA as well as any business person can.
The difference is that the people in Congress weren’t smart enough to vote against PPACA when it came time to vote on it.
Update
Ezra Klein at The Washington Post writes that the Politico article was inaccurate:
No, Congress isn’t trying to exempt itself from Obamacare
There’s a Politico story making the rounds that says that members of Congress are engaged in secret, sensitive negotiations to exempt themselves and their staffs from Obamacare.
Well, they were secret, anyway.
The story has blown up on Twitter. “Unbelievable,” tweets TPM’s Brian Beutler. “Flat out incredible,” says Politico’s Ben White. “Obamacare for thee, but not for me,” snarks Ben Domenech. “Two thumbs way, way down,” says Richard Roeper. (Okay, I made the last one up).
If this sounds unbelievable, it’s because it is. There’s no effort to “exempt” Congress from Obamacare. No matter how this shakes out, Congress will have to follow the law, just like everyone else does.
Based on conversations I’ve had with a number of the staffs involved in these talks, the actual issue here is far less interesting, and far less explosive, than an exemption. Rather, a Republican amendment meant to embarrass Democrats and a too-clever-by-half Democratic response has possibly created a problem in which the federal government can’t make its normal contribution to the insurance premiums of congressional staffers.
No Truce With Kings 