There were a couple of questions last night about healthcare; both candidates were in favor of repeal. Ken Buck acknowledged that Congress, even with conservative majorities in both houses, could not repeal Obamacare over a presidential veto; Jane Norton said we need to pull it out by the roots. Ken gave some options to deal with it in the short-term by not funding it and then going for the repeal in 2012. Jane, reflecting her background in the Department of Health, gave practical alternatives to Obamacare such as the kind of tort reform we have in Colorado. Both favored a balanced budget amendment. So far, so good.

Later, Jeff Crank asked a question about budget cuts: with $13 Trillion of debt, what five programs and two agencies would they eliminate? It was a tough question which appeared to have caught both candidates a bit flat-footed. Ken mentioned a few pieces of low-hanging fruit and described how education should be pushed down to the state and local level; Jane said that cutting spending was “the absolute reason” she’s running and gave examples of foolish spending on the part of government. No real specific examples, though.

Jeff was not satisfied and with the aid of modern technology when it came his turn again he said that the amount of cuts Ken had suggested off the top of his head amounted to “only” $6.7 billion—the amount, Crank said, that the federal government spends in 2 ½ days.  Sobering. Jane began by saying that we should abolish the Department of Education and block-grant the money to the states. However, since 80% of the department’s budget is already going directly to the states, this is no savings at all. She also mentioned Social Security and Medicare saying that we wouldn’t touch 55+ but would revise it for those under that age. Ken mentioned cutting the Department of Energy and said we should look hard across the board.

I don’t think either of them had great answers; the questions highlighted just how serious the budget crisis is and how much must be cut. I’ve mentioned before the Cato Institute’s Downsizing the Federal Government site for a great analysis, department by department, of how cuts can be made. The House GOP has also started the You Cut! program which highlights five wasteful programs every week.

These are all great ideas but the problem is that this administration is spending so much, so fast, that it will be very difficult to fix. Just wait until they lose in November: see how much pork they can pass between November and January. That’s exactly the way the Democrats want it.  Obama has already dared us to cut. We’ll see how serious you are, he said.

He’ll find out. We’re dead serious.

We are not obligated to, and do not, collect Colorado sales tax.  Your purchase is subject to Colorado sales tax unless it is specifically exempt from taxation. The purchase is not exempt merely because it is made over the Internet or by other remote means.  The State of Colorado requires that the taxpayer file a sales/use tax return at the end of the year reporting all of the purchases that were not taxed and pay tax on those purchases.

Well, now: what’s that all about?

Some customers have asked why these new requirements exist. We are required to provide the notice and the reports described above are based on a Colorado law (HB 1193) enacted in February 2010 over our strong objections.

One of the Dirty Dozen that our tax-and-spend Democrat liberals in the state legislature gave us. You may remember the people who testified against the bill and that Amazon did (as they wrote) strongly object and ended up closing their Colorado operations in the wake of the bill’s passing. More lost jobs for Colorado.

So how do you figure out how to pay your tax?

Details of how to file this return may be found at the Colorado Department of Revenue’s website, www.taxcolorado.com.

Thank you, Representatives Pommer, Benefield, Hullinghorst, Judd, Labuda, Merrifield, Frangas, Kagan, Ryden, Schafer S.; and Senator Heath who co-sponsored this bill and to all the Democrats in the legislature who voted for it–which almost all of them did.

By the way, Rep. Mike Merrifield is from El Paso County and since he’s term-limited in his present position, he’s decided he wants to be the County Commissioner from District 5. I think I’ll vote for Peggy Littleton. You’ve done enough damage to our Colorado economy already, Mikey.

Be sure to thank them all on November 2nd.

The idea that anyone in the government–whether it is Obama or Colorado’s own John Salazar–did anything to cause it or can do anything to fix it is pretty silly. Sure the president’s daughter may have asked him whether he fixed it yet, but we ought to be more mature in our understanding.

As usual, the Cato Institute has a very perceptive piece on  the subject called “Do Something, Superpresident!“

Maybe he could Nuke that Slick! There’s even a video from Russia Today on how to do it. The irony of getting advice from the former Soviet Union is rich, especially considering the statist tendencies of the present government.

Imagine what the environmentalists would say about that! But that idea was floated around May4 so I’m thinking Mr Hope ‘n’ Change is just going to hope for the best while vacationing in Chicago and then change things so that  the Evil Capitalists never, ever drill for oil again!

This morning I went to the orthodontist to have a plastic retainer re-made. Everyone was friendly and helpful. They made a plaster impression of my upper teeth and I had a choice of flavors in the plaster. Wow! Never had that before. I was expecting 2-3 minutes for the plaster to set but a new plaster sets in only 30 seconds. They made the retainer right then and there so I didn’t have to come back. On the way out I was looking for the restroom and the receptionist not only told me where it was, she almost jumped out of her chair to get up and point the way.

Next I went to the printer to have some books printed. The owner, seeing his sales staff were busy, came over to help me out. In the process, he invited me to an open house they were having on Saturday to celebrate their move to a new office building and to raise money for three local charities including the high school booster club. They weren’t sure whether they could have the books ready for me by tomorrow afternoon but later in the day I got a call saying they were ready–ahead of schedule.

Then I stopped by the bank–Wells Fargo.  You know, the one that didn’t want the TARP money. They greeted me as soon as I walked in the door as they always do. (Does that ever happen at the DMV?) Then a teller, who had been doing something else, waited at the window while I filled out the deposit slip.

These are all local businesses (or a local branch in the case of Wells Fargo) and they know I can take my business elsewhere. They appreciate my patronage and make me feel as though I want to come back again.

Customer service, innovation, quality work: when was the last time you experienced that at any government agency?

Thank God for the half of the economy that isn’t government-controlled. Come November, let’s liberate some more!

The left howled with indignation.  I cited the Huffington Post in my previous article; this time the HuffPo was factual, not taking a stand either way.  Good for them.

And why shouldn’t a corporation be able to defend itself in a situation like this when it is being demonized by both the left and the right?  I think this is a good example of why the Supreme Court made the right decision.

As to the HB 1049 itself, it “would allow ousted dealers to recover their franchises and their most recent improvement costs more easily.” according to the Denver Business Journal.  The bill had bipartisan support in the Colorado House–and why not?  Republicans could support it as being pro-business (the local dealerships, that is) and the Democrats because, well, it attacks big evil corporations.  Win-win.

Or is it?  The Democrats oppose the GM ads in part because GM receives taxpayer money.  Another example of how taking that money leads to ever-greater government control.  And from the Democrat’s position, deceptive as well: while they now appear to side with the ousted dealers, it was widely rumored (but denied) that party affiliation and campaign contributions had a lot to do with which dealerships were cut in the first place.  Republican support is no better: people don’t like the Republicans giving special favors to business any more than they like the Democrats giving special favors to labor unions.

My position is this: show me where there is support in the Colorado constitution for this bill.  Was a contract between GM and its dealers broken? Take it to court.  Let the legislature stay out of it.

Tells a pretty compelling story, right?  The evil red lines on the left contrasted to the pretty blue lines on the right.  And the source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics–what could be more non-partisan?

No so fast.

The graph is deceitful and misleading in a number of ways. First is the labeling of the chart.   “US Job Loss” doesn’t show overall unemployment numbers as you would typically assume–but rather the rate of change in unemployment.

To use an automobile analogy: If your accelerator gets stuck and you car runs off I-25 at 75 mph, you’re in trouble.  If the car stops it’s rapid acceleration at around 85 mph (what this graph is really showing), does that mean you’re safe?

There’s a big difference between slowing down the rate of unemployment and lowering the actual total. Here are the overall unemployment numbers from the BLS:

Whoops!  Doesn’t look so good for Plouffe’s home team.  This goes all the way back to the beginning of the Bush Administration.  Notice the overall low unemployment rate and the rapid rise in the last year.  I’m not showing the same thing that Plouffe does, am I?  Let’s look at the BLS net change in unemployment, monthly, since 2000:

This is the same data that Plouffe shows–but he’s only showing the last two years.  And he’s flipped the graph upside down for dramatic effect.  Further, he’s replaced the see-saw reality of this chart which plots monthly data points with thick bars that enhance his conclusion that we’re on the road to an Obama-induced recovery.  Good thing they released this chart already–figures this week show the numbers going in the wrong direction again.

But beyond the mere playing with numbers, there are hidden assumptions that totally blow anything he might be trying to say.

It is not the president and his administration who spend money and attempt to influence unemployment–it’s Congress.  And since 2006, the Democrats have controlled both Congress and spending.  So if they’re going to take credit for reducing the rising rate of unemployment then they also have to take the blame for creating it.

In reality the government–neither Congress nor the administration–cannot create jobs and sustained economic growth.  That’s Keynesian economics and it has been proven wrong time and again.   If one looks further at types of jobs, it will be apparent that all the government has “created or saved” are union and government jobs.

To return to the car analogy: If you’re slowing down, does that mean you’ve been able to apply the brakes or that you’re running through brush? If you have regained control, are you back on I-25 and the road to recovery? Or the frontage road leading to socialism?

it’s only down in the fifth paragraph where the [New York] Times notes that “The estimated $250 billion in savings over 10 years would be less than 3 percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional deficits the government is expected to accumulate over that time.”

The way this stuff is reported is downright criminal.  Author Jason Kuznicki points out:

Spending increases that were planned all along aren’t considered increases at all and do not make the news. Unplanned increases, those over and above the planned ones, are reported as though only the unplanned parts were increases. Large spending increases get extra praise for boldness. Reductions in the rate of spending growth are called “spending cuts.” Real though tiny cuts are described as draconian measures.

I remember the howls of protest when Reagan merely slowed the rate of spending growth.   And here is Obama raising spending by $9 trillion and then announcing cuts of a mere $250 billion–pure Alinsky.

To put the numbers in perspective, that’s $250 billion out of $9,000 billion.  (Yes, a trillion is a thousand billion)  And today, Reuters reports:

U.S. President Barack Obama will freeze the salaries of senior White House officials and other top political appointees for savings of $4 million in fiscal 2011, a senior administration official said on Tuesday.

This is likely to be mentioned in the State of the Union address.  Really?  The largest, most expensive White House staff in history and he’s going to save $4 million?  That’s such a small number as a fraction of the budget my calculator can’t even figure the fraction without using scientific notation.

This little episode explains a lot about why Ronald Reagan said government is not the answer–government is the problem.  If Congress passes its health care take-over bill, this little scene will be replayed all over America countless times.

The first problem is that this man had absolutely no experience outside of government.  He really couldn’t comprehend the value of the efficiencies I would bring to his organization from private enterprise and the free market.  Cabinet appointees in the Obama administration have a shockingly low amount of experience outside of government:

Yet by virtue of his government position this man felt he had the ability and the right to judge whether I am an expert in my field or not.   My field has certified me as an expert, but that wasn’t good enough for him.  Imagine now that bureaucrat judging whether you need a certain medical procedure or not.  Doesn’t matter whether your doctor–an acknowledged expert in his or her field–has said you need it.  It’s the government’s opinion that matters.

The second–and perhaps more serious problem–was his attitude that he would be paying my salary.  He wouldn’t: the American taxpayer would be.  People in government soon forget that they hold their positions in trust to the people and that the resources they have are not theirs.  Government as a whole soon begins to believe they have a right to the taxes they levy and can dispose of them as they wish.  That worked for Louis XIV, but we call that tyranny.  Louis XVII lost his head over the question; King George III was lucky to lose only his colonies.

A third problem is that he wanted the solution to be so universally applicable that it could be used anywhere.  There is this streak in government–socialist or not–for one size fits all solutions.  In America with its Christian heritage, we believe that all mankind is created equal–but they we are all uniquely endowed by our Creator with different strengths and weaknesses.  One size doesn’t fit all except in the dream-world of a socialist utopia.

But perhaps the biggest problem is this: today I am independent with my own business and customers.  I make my own choices, I choose my own destiny and I live with the consequences.  This is Liberty.  If I go to work on this project, pretty soon my customers will find other business partners and I will become dependent on the government.  That’s the way it will be with health care.  Today we have choices but as we go to a government “option” gradually the other options will fade away.

That’s how we lose our liberty and why we must defeat health care “reform.”

A good understanding of Progressivism can be had from American Progressivism, ed by Ronald J. Pestritto and William J. Atto.  It’s a collection of the writings of early 20th century Progressives–I’ve briefly reviewed it and highly recommend it.

It seems to me that progressivism is really composed of different strains.  One theme was about making parties and politicians more responsive to the people.  Ideas such as the caucus, the initiative, the referendum, and direct election of senators are progressive ones.  The Constitution is silent on parties (“faction” as they were then known) and these reforms have generally been good.

Another strain believed in progress itself–that society is always improving.  That idea is as American as apple pie.  As it applies to government, however, it begins to diverge.  Progressives thought that if you got the right experts together you could solve any problem.  That’s American, too, isn’t it?

In the free market of ideas it works.  Who’s to say your experts are better than mine?  Competition does.  The market decides who’s got the best mousetrap.  The market is each of us acting in the way we think best.  It’s a familiar economic argument and it works.

James Suroweicki, in The Wisdom of Crowds, goes one step further.  He writes convincingly that the crowd, collectively, is smarter than the experts.  From counting jelly beans in a jar to managing traffic patterns, experts can’t match the inherent wisdom of large groups of people.

The implication for the progressive or socialist theories of government are damning.  The government-appointed “experts” will never come up with the best solution.  Worse, they will use the coercive power of government to enforce that solution.

And as night follows day, there goes liberty.

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.

A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000  miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per  year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles were traded in the clunker program – so that’s 224 million gallons per year saved.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels of oil is a little over ¼  of one day’s US consumption.

5 million  barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at  $75/bbl. (Today the price is only $70…)

So-o-o-o, we all contributed $3  billion of our hard-earned tax dollars to save $350 million.

How good a deal was that?

AND…there are very  likely 700,000 ‘really legitimate air-polluting clunkers’ still on the road  being driven by folks who could not afford to take on the debt of trading it  in for a new government-subsidized car–even with a $4,500 rebate.  The  so-called clunkers that were destroyed could have been given to these needy  families, real clunkers would have been gotten off the roads, and we  would all be breathing cleaner air.

We still have all the  pollution.  We taxpayers are out $3 billion and the car dealers who signed up for this have yet to receive their payments.

It took me less than a half hour to check the math on a cheap 4-function calculator I got for free and do the fact-checking on the Internet from government sources.  Did no one in Congress do this?

And we are being asked to trust them on a nationalized healthcare  plan!  The cost/benefit calculation there is orders of magnitude more complex.  Why, they might even have to use a spreadsheet or two.

Kids: do try this at home.

Math Teachers: this is a great practical math exercise.  The numbers are big enough that you could introduce the notion of scientific notation.

Science Teachers: You could create a spreadsheet to show how changing the assumptions changes the results.

Social studies Teachers: This exercise could include how to do research on the Internet, the relative merits of different kinds of oil and where it comes from. Also, one could probably prove that reduced demand for oil resulting from unemployment had a greater effect on consumption than cash-for-clunkers did.

NEA Teachers: While your propagandizing our kids about Saving the Planet, you can show how bad public policy simply wastes resources while doing nothing to Save the Whales or the Polar Bears.

A note on methodology.

I’ve added a couple of references in the hyperlinks that validate the assumptions.  The numbers above are round: In almost every case, if you substitute the exact numbers the result is worse.  For example, the number of gallons of gas in a barrel of oil is assumed to be the standard definition of a barrel, e.g., 42 gallons.  There’s a great discussion at the DOE link above, whose bottom line is that a barrel of oil does indeed yield 42 gallons of petroleum products–but it might not be all gasolene and some crude oil yields more gas than others.  Petroleum engineers (God bless ‘em!) have figured out ways to increase the gasolene yield, but with fewer gallons of gas per barrel, the result of the calculation is even worse.

The above information should be enough to create a lesson plan.  If you’ve created one around this, please send it to me and I’ll link it to the post.