Walmart and the case for small government

If there is one entity that raises the blood pressure of the left more than the "tea party" it would be have to be Walmart. Yes, despite the smiling face and everyday low prices, Walmart is really a horrifically evil company that exploits its employees, destroys Mom & Pop shops, and sucks the authenticity out of small towns across the country. Once this is all accomplished the Walmart continues to suck the souls out of every member of the town until everyone is so miserable that their only joy is life is derived from buying deck furniture on clearance.

For good liberals who have never stepped foot inside a Walmart (how could a good liberal live with themselves if they went inside a place so inherently evil?) nothing makes them attack Walmart more than the "low wages." For a solid rundown of how liberals perceive Walmart you can hardly do better than Timothy Egan's piece in the New York Times this past week. Behold! Corporate greed meets income inquality:

By one measure, done by House Democrats last year in looking at data from Wisconsin, the average Walmart superstore cost taxpayers $904,000 a year in various subsidies, or more than $5,000 per employee.

Walmart disputes these figures, claiming the average full-time store worker makes at least $12 an hour, or enough to be just above the poverty level for a family of four. But these numbers are skewed by higher pay for management. The average “associate” at Walmart makes $8.81 an hour — poverty wage — according to the market-research firm IBISWorld, as of 2011. Another independent source, Payscale, says the average is under $11 an hour. No matter the exact figure, there’s no dispute that Walmart’s business model forces thousands of hard-working people to look for outside help just to get by.

And under that model, Walmart has made a fortune — $17 billion in profits last year, executive compensation for one man at the top in excess of $20 million a year, and a windfall making the six heirs of the founding Walton family worth at least $150 billion.

Walmart could make life easier for its 1.4 million workers, without diminishing its stock value. Writing in Fortune.com, Stephen Gandel concluded that Walmart could give workers a 50 percent raise without hurting shareholder value.

For Walmart's hilarious rebuttal you can click here. It's good for a few chuckles.

There are a lot of points to make about this, starting with the fact that people will not take jobs that pay too little or are too demeaning for the wage that is associated with them (this is why the left says we need illegals, because there are jobs Americans won't do...none of these seem to be at Walmart even though these wages are "low") and continuing on through with the low prices that Walmart offers customers help those who are low wage earners enjoy a higher standard of living than they otherwise would.

I, however, cannot move past the point about Walmart costing American taxpayers money because Walmart employees are paid so little that they need Medicaid, food stamps, and other transfer payments in order to survive. The Walmart rebuttal does a good job explaining Walmart's tax burden and their private foundation which helps those in need, but my point is that Walmart is able to do this because of the programs that good liberals champion at every turn. You see, if all these big government welfare programs were not as expansive as they were, did not have increasingly lax qualification standards, and in many states offer a standard of living by themselves that is on par with middle class earners who do no receive these benefits maybe Walmart would be forced to pay their workers more. People know they can collect a check from Walmart and still get their benefits and Walmart also knows it can pay a low wage while the government will help Walmart's employees make ends meet through various welfare programs. Why should Walmart pay a wage it deems excessive when there demand for jobs still exists and the government is there with transfer payments to aid Walmart's workers?

My question to the good liberals out there is not why you think Walmart should pay more, but rather what incentive does Walmart have to pay more when people are still interested in working their despite the "low wages" and when government transfer payments that have grown to record levels will help out Walmart employees if they qualify for certain welfare programs? It seems to me that if liberals want Walmart, and other large corporations, to pay more they should be fighting to shrink the welfare system back to the limited safety net it should be. That way Walmart can't rely on government programs to be another paycheck for their employees and people won't apply to Walmart jobs because they don't pay enough as there are no welfare programs to supplement Walmart's wage. Of course, this would rely on liberals trusting the market, which will probably happen at the same time Walmart decides to raise wages just for the hell of the exercise.

Until then, I will appreciate the lack of liberals in my Walmart Supercenter. It just means more deck chairs for the rest of us.

How liberals protect murderers and target children

For some weird reason the Huffington Post is a guilty pleasure for me. Maybe it stems from my days of being a talk radio producer, maybe it is because I love the news, maybe it is because watching liberals get angry over the smallest of injustices is just plain funny. I can confirm that it is not for the cogent commentary:

Aren't executions common around the world?

The United States was 1 of 22 countries to report executions in 2013, according to Amnesty International. The U.S. was the only country in the Americas, and it and Japan were the only two in the G-8, to have carried out executions last year.

The U.S. came in fifth on the list of most executions, after China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Is that really the kind of company we want to keep when it comes to human rights?

That was at the end of a long argument covering many reasons why the death penalty (something I support) is a bad, terrible, no good idea to support, but I really got a kick out of this one. You see, after the sob stories contained earlier in the "argument" about how sometimes these convicted murderers suffer while being executed (oh poor murderers, how dare they suffer, I'm sure their victims would be sad to hear about the burning sensation these savages suffer during the lethal injection process) they brought this whole tirade to the human rights argument.

My question to the author, who writes for a site that supports no limits on abortion and probably voted for a president who is in the abortions-on-demand camp, is what do you think about this little nugget?

A new report authored by Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) associate scholar Angelina Baglini and co-released today by CLI and Life Canada finds that the United States and Canada join China, North Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, and Netherlands in allowing abortion beyond 20 weeks, more than halfway through pregnancy and the point at which research shows the unborn child feels pain.

China and North Korea! Woohoo! What company!

So my question is, why is it ok for us to allow people to abort a child that can feel pain (and live outside the womb) but it is not ok to put a murderer to death?

As far as I see it there are three sides that have consistency in this argument - those who are against abortion and the death penalty, those who support the death penalty but not abortion on the grounds that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, and those who support death for all (morbid, but these people are out there). The only side that has to defend keeping murderers alive while we slaughter innocent children is what is known as the modern Democratic party/progressive movement. Just keep that in mind the next time you consider every position of the candidates you may vote for.

A Note On Eric Cantor's Loss

I don't like writing about things in this space that everyone else is writing about because I do this in my free time and why create more white noise? However, Eric Cantor losing tonight is just too bleeping good not to write about. There are a lot of angles - establishment v tea party, amnesty v border hawks, but I want to make a quick mention of this one.

The fact of the matter is that no matter how much people talk about money in politics you cannot sell something people do not want. This is also why I feel the Democrat's "digital advantage" has been a little bit overstated since 2012. They had, whether people want to admit it or not, a once in a generation candidate who people voted for despite not approving of his job performance or agreeing with his policies. Whether the trend of the electorate voting for candidates based on who they like more (i.e. the ones who will promise more free stuff) will continue until our republic collapses like every other great civilization before ours is yet to be seen, the fact is this is what we saw in 2012 and 2008. While this is not what happened tonight, Cantor is a good representation of the opposite, which is people will vote against someone who while being known is not selling anything other than the status quo ad his promise to lick his finger, stick it in the air, and follow the breeze. Dave Brat was selling something the people wanted and Eric Cantor was selling nothing. This is why people who talk about the dangers of money in politics are off target. Our economy is over $17 Trillion and the federal budget is close to $4 Trillion, yet combined Obama and Romney (plus their surrogates) didn't get close to 1% of the annual outlays of the federal government. Tonight, Eric Cantor outspent Dave Brat by over 20:1 and still lost. So just remember that the next time Harry Reid talks about Kochtopia -- no matter how much either side complains about spending in politics remember that it is not all that heavy and that a better marketing campaign (and I suppose ideas) will win out every time.

Conservative News Nerd Games!

I'm not sure which conservative news nerd game is more fun to play, guess the number of paragraphs it takes for the reporter to write that a Democrat (or an illegal alien) is the guilty party or count the logical fallacies. I think it depends on the mood you are in at the moment.

Having said that, this story is a variant of the first game:

The Republican Party in Virginia has resorted to what appears to be outright bribery in its ongoing effort to deny low-income residents in the state access to the Medicaid expansion authorized by Obamacare.

The Washington Post reported Sunday that Republicans offered to move Democratic state Sen. Phillip P. Puckett and his daughter into prestigious jobs in exchange for Puckett's resignation, which will flip the chamber into Republican hands. Puckett officially accepted the offer on Monday, but then appeared to back away amid a public outcry.

The Senate was on course to pass an expansion of Medicaid, as the law allows, while the House of Delegates, in GOP hands, aimed to block it. In such a scenario, Democrats hoped that Republicans would be blamed for the resulting government shutdown. With Republicans in control of both chambers, Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) must now veto the GOP budget in order to force a showdown over Medicaid.

The apparent quid pro quo has sent Democrats railing.

"It's astounding to me. The House Republican caucus will do anything and everything to prevent low-income Virginians from getting healthcare ... They figure the only way they could win was to give a job to a state senator," Delegate Scott A. Surovell (D-Fairfax) told The Washington Post. "At least they can't offer Terry McAuliffe a job. I hope Terry continues to stand up to these bullies."

Right away, this is the fault of the GOP! This man was powerless to stop himself! It doesn't matter that later the State Senator reversed his decision to take the job or that some of his fellow Democrats were appalled that he was willing to sell out his party (and I guess his principles, though it is murky if he had any beyond looking out for Number 1) what matters is the GOP hijacked his brain by making him a job offer!

This story, beyond adding to the countless numbers of anecdotes which have collectively eroded the public's trust in the government, shows the contempt the left has for personal responsibility (at least when it comes to their fellow leftists). If you are a Democrat, espouse the proper beliefs, give to the right causes, are a member of a protected class, a welfare recipient, or an illegal alien then the idea of personal responsibility is nothing more than a racist/sexist/homophobic construct with which the man is using to keep you down. Personal responsibility only matters when a conservative is caught doing something wrong - then it is time to point out their hypocrisy. If this story doesn't illustrate the left's complete contempt for being responsible for you own actions then I am not sure what would do the trick.

The larger point is that these journalistic games and patterns, while fun, point to a much larger issue which is how the left pushes it's agenda through tricks and deception in what is supposed to be unbiased news reporting. The tricks the left uses to mask opinion as fact are fun to call out, but with fewer people willing to use critical thinking skills to dive into what is being reported this represents a serious issue. The left knows they cannot win on the facts alone so they condescend to their fellow citizens by presenting their opinion instead. This State Senator wasn't duped by the GOP, the GOP offered him and his daughter a job in exchange for his and he took the deal, case closed. Suggesting this is anything else isn't just another enlightening look at how the left operates, it is a reminder that the left will not risk engaging in a battle over the truth and the right must be prepared to wage a war where the media will happily propagate lies fed to them by their fellow leftists.

The Uber Perplexing Virginia DMV

It wasn't until I started turning into a political junkie during the 2000 Presidential Primaries that my media diet switched from cartoons and music to Fox News and talk radio (I was an old man trapped in a 12 year old's body). Lucky for me this was encouraged by my parents who while I was growing up always let me watch the news and read the Boston Globe in the morning before school. One day while winding down with Hannity and Colmes I made a comment to my dad about how it was astonishing that they let these two men go at it when Hannity clearly bested Colmes each and every night. My dad turned to me and said "Well that's true, but you should know that if someone told them they had to switch sides that Hannity would be able to argue Colmes' points as well as Colmes can and vice-versa." I thought about that for sometime and realized that this obviously has to be true, not because they are acting out a script (they are not) but because it is impossible for you to have an unshakable confidence in your own beliefs without knowing the ins and outs of what the other side preaches. It is the same reason sports team scout their opponents and so I soon added left wing news sources to my media diet so I could learn the ways of the progressive movement so that when the time came I would know how to effectively and efficiently dismantle these arguments (have I mentioned I am not good at making friends?)

Now, why did I tell that story? Because I genuinely have no idea what the rationale behind this decision could possibly be:

Earlier this year, Virginia officials slapped the app-based services with more than $35,000 in civil penalties for operating with out proper permits. On Thursday, Richard D. Holcomb, commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, sent a cease and desist letter to both companies.

“I am once again making clear that Uber must cease and desist operating in Virginia until it obtains proper authority,” Holcomb said in the letter.

In an attempt to find out what is really behind this I came across a nice blog post on Reason which linked to an article at the Virginian-Pilot that contained this factoid:

The DMV had already issued civil penalties against the companies in April -- $26,000 for Uber and $9,000 for Lyft -- for trips that their drivers provided in Virginia despite warnings by the state agency that Virginia law does not allow their business model....

The DMV is studying Virginia’s motor carrier laws with an eye toward legislative changes next year that could allow Lyft and Uber to legally operate in the state. Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne said last week that he liked the companies’ business models, but until the law is changed, they are violating it.

As the author of the post, Brian Doherty, neatly sums up, instead of these companies investing in themselves they should be greasing the wheels of the Virginia state legislature. In fewer words, it sounds like Aubrey Layne is in search of a quid pro quo.

But back to my original point of not understanding the logic behind the ban. The issue seems to be that because the business models of Uber and Lyft are new and regulators have not adapted as fast as the private sector (shocking, I know) that until Virginia can find a way to make more money off these companies they will just fine them into submission. This leaves me with a few questions.

1. How is Uber any different than me repaying a co-worker who picks me up on the way to work with a case of beer each week or gas money?

2. How is Uber any different than a taxi other than one has a medallion and one has more spacious seating a complementary water?

3 (and this is really the philosophical argument that this hinges on) - Why is it Virginia's business to regulate a contract between two consenting parties?

With regards to the first question, there is no difference other than I am more familiar with my co-worker. There's no clear reason why I should trust my coworker more than an Uber driver and the likelihood of being in an accident is no greater in a Uber car than it is with your co-worker.

The second question is an important one. How is a taxi better regulated than Uber? Do the cars have to go through the same inspection process? Yes, they do. In fact, since Uber drivers own their car and pay for their own insurance they have a much more invested interest in keeping their vehicle in the best condition it can be in while a taxi driver tends to drive for a company and may use different cars from time to time. Again, they all have to go through the same inspection process each year.

The third point is where this gets murky as I will admit I do not agree that all contracts between two consenting adults should be legal and out in the open (the only ones I am truly against are prostitution and euthanasia). But this question ties back into question one, which is how is Uber or Lyft any different than getting a ride from a buddy? Uber offers me a service, we agree on the price, and the service is then carried out. End of story.

It is not that I don't see the point behind all government regulation, though I disagree with 90% of it. I understand why having health inspectors investigate restaurants may be in the interest of public health (though I think the market could take care of this with either a private company doing the inspections or by having no one do them and the restaurants that are dirty and make people sick will go out of business) and I even understand why governments inspect cars (like food providers, this is a public safety concern, though I have my qualms about this as well), but I have no idea what the Virginia DMV's argument is in this case other than they want their kickback.

In an era where people carry around phones which have more computing power than Apollo 11 we should expect innovation to rapidly outpace legislation and hopefully because of this more people will come to see that when the government stays out of the way society does a pretty good job of taking care of itself.

Why Millennials Should Be Up In Arms Over Sgt. Bergdahl (Plus Two Questions We Need To Be Asking)

Out of everything that has been written about the prisoner swap for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl there was one paragraph in the Wall Street Journal's write-up of the transfer:

What struck many of the Americans involved in the Bergdahl negotiations was the extent to which the Taliban showed "good faith" in the talks. "This demonstrates that we could come together, even indirectly…to produce a complex outcome. That does build confidence," the senior Obama administration official said.

Everyone who is lucky enough to be a Millennial, including myself, grew up in the most prosperous circumstances this world has ever seen. Our childhoods, compared to previous ones, were ones of relative safety and with that safety came wealth, health, and an abundance of choices that our parents and certainly our grandparents never experiences in their youth. Us Millennials also grew up in a world where ever time we fly a plane, walk through a city, or even send an email we know we are being monitored in large part because 19 men hijacked planes and used them as bombs some 13 years ago in one of the most horrific acts this world has ever seen. It was our generation's introduction to true evil and we are reminded of it in small and sometimes large doses every single day.

And yet we are the generation responsible for electing a man who seems to have forgotten that there are truly evil people in the world.

The above paragraph, where and Obama administration official stated that they think the Taliban demonstrated good faith in these negotiations shows just how far removed this administration is from reality. The five terrorists who were released, and there is no doubt these men are terrorists, will no doubt reenter the fight on the side of radical Islam and look to hurt and kill Americans in the future. The Taliban knew exactly who they wanted freed, they wanted high level operatives, and they got them in exchange for a man who was not only "ashamed to be an American," but by all accounts deserted his post. 6 men died as a direct result of missions, or the reallocation of resources, aimed at finding Sgt. Bergdahl and now even more lives are at risk because of this prisoner release and to think that this was a negotiation done in good faith by the Taliban and that the Qatari government is going to ensure that these terrorists will be monitored for a year (big deal, one year) is just another instance of this administration's naivety endangering lives.

It is because of this that Millennials who grew up knowing how bad these people are should be beyond outraged. The President who said he was for "hope and change" just released 5 men who cheered on what happened on 9/11. That day we were robbed of our innocence but enlightened to the realities of the world. Unfortunately we didn't use that awakening to elect a president who is capable of carrying and acting decisively with the images of that day at the forefront of his mind.

** There are two other quick points to be made. One is in regards to Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi who has been in a Mexican prison for over two months because he made a wrong turn. If President Obama is willing to negotiate with terrorists and release five terrorists for a man who deserted the military what is he willing to give for a soldier who wants to continue to fight for his country who is being held by our neighbor to the south because he let them know he made a wrong turn and had three guns in his trunk that he purchased and registered in the United States.

The second point is that we are supposed to trust this administration to keep a close eye on five terrorists who may go anywhere around the globe? I distinctly remember another Obama administration scandal where they allowed dangerous weapons to be trafficked across the Mexican border (with Mexican authorities unaware this was happening) in order to see where these weapons ended up in the hopes it would lead to some big fish. Well, the death of at least one American border agent and several Mexican citizens later and we have yet to hear a coherent reason as to why Operation Fast and Furious was put in place when Obama took office.

I guess the idea with this prisoner transfer is that once there is another bombing and we tie one of the Gitmo 5 to it then we will realize that we shouldn't trust that terrorist groups will act in good faith. Until then, just like with Fast and Furious, let's just cross our fingers and hope the public appetite for this story dies down.

A Total Joke Courtesy of the AP

Via Politico PLaybook on May 31st, 2014:

SUSAN RICE PROFILE by AP White House Correspondent Julie Pace: "Rice has been keeping a list of issues at risk of being ignored: a trade agreement with Asia-Pacific nations, development projects in Africa, protecting gay rights overseas. She's sent the list around to some of those on the 400-person National Security Council staff she oversees. She holds weekend meetings when necessary to keep tabs on issues that may have gotten overshadowed by Mideast instability or Russia's threatening moves in Ukraine. ...

Protecting gay rights? How about protecting Christians who are being slaughtered because this admin doesn't have a coherent foreign policy. How about speaking out about the woman in Sudan who was almost put to death for being a Christian (David Cameron spoke out about this, but where was Michelle's hashtag activism?) Oh, and what about the Marine being held in a Mexican prison for making a wrong turn when no less than three times during Obama's presidency Mexican troops were illegally across the border and drew weapons at our border patrol?

The sad thing is Susan rice isn't even one of the top 5 biggest jokes in this admin.