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.

Who Do You Believe, Me Or Your Lying Eyes?

There is a larger point to make about the media, specifically Democrats in the media (there I go being redundant), giving free advice to conservatives about who they should run against Hillary in 2016 but I am going to try and stick with this one instance of unsolicited advice from the left.

President George W. Bush will be regarded by history as the last Republican President of the United States, according to Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), if the GOP does not embrace and pass immigration reform.

“If you do nothing on immigration, I guess you can take comfort in knowing that, from Abraham Lincoln to George W. Bush, you had a pretty good run,” Gutiérrez added. “Freeing the slaves, winning the Civil War, interstate highway system; those all go in the highlight column. And there have been some low lights as well.”

Well, I guess that is it for the Republican Party (though there are many who would question how conservative Dubya was, including myself). The death of the Republican Party is, to borrow a term from another group of activists, "settled science." Unless we on the right agree to grant citizenship to 30 million low-skilled, non-english speaking illegal aliens then the Democrats will win until the end of time...or at least until they can't print any more money to finance the welfare these future marginally attached to the workforce laborers will need to survive in our horrible Kochconomy.

I will leave you with this, as I could spend days linking to and expanding upon articles about why this is not just bad politics for the right, but basically the worst idea for the economy since ObamaCare. Suffice to say, if even the more popular and easy to achieve piece of immigration "reform" is based on a total lie the reality of what would happen if full-blown amnesty is passed will probably be far worse than our practical minds will allow us to comprehend. I mean, we have to believe that Rep. Gutierrez has the best interests of the conservative movement and the country in mind...right?

Nevada: Ground Zero for the battle inside the GOP

This falls under the category of "Right conclusion, wrong reason."

Social conservatives say the Republican Party should deny Las Vegas’s bid to host its 2016 presidential convention after the Nevada Republican Party erased from its platform the pro-life and traditional-marriage language.

Diana Orrick, a Nevada RNC member, said grumbling over the changes is “ridiculous.”

“If you look at what is happening across the nation. I think a lot of Republicans are recognizing the social issues are destroying the Republican Party. They really are,” she said.

The Washington Times reported this month that the move came under fire from some Republicans, including Oklahoma Republican National Committee member Carolyn McLarty, a staunch opponent of abortion, who called the action an “attack on God and family.”

Ed Martin, chairman of the Missouri GOP and an RNC member, said that the move is a “big blow” to Las Vegas’s chances of hosting the party’s quadrennial made for television event.

There is a lot to work with here, but first let's knock down the idea that Las Vegas is a good location for the GOP convention. The Nevada state GOP platform shouldn't have anything to do with it because the Nevada state platform is not the star of the show, it is a 4-day rally to get the troops motivated and to formally introduce the nominee to the nation. The reason a Las Vegas convention is stupid is because there are too many ways to get in trouble and there will be cameras EVERYWHERE. Not just TV cameras and reporters, but anonymous trackers for liberal orgs who will be ready to upload every single step everyone associated with the convention online. There is absolutely no reason why Republicans should pick a location where the negatives far out-weigh the positives. What happens in Vegas would soon be on HuffPo.

Now, onto the other subject at hand, which is the fight between social conservatives and the more libertarian element in the GOP. The Nevada GOP is doing what the Nevada GOP thinks is best for the GOP to succeed in Nevada. This doesn't mean the pro-life movement will be ignored in the state (especially because GOP primary voters are generally overwhelmingly pro-life) or that the GOP is suddenly going to hold hands with the left and turn the state into one giant Planned Parenthood. On the contrary, the GOP in Nevada will continue to attract pro-life candidates the only difference being that if someone like their current Governor comes who happens to be pro-abortion that they won't be put off by the party platform (not that he was in the first place). All politics is local and this is what the Nevada GOP thinks will put them in position to win elections in the coming years.

What bothers me more isn't so much the "this is an attack on God" stuff but the complete disregard for inter-party federalism. I would put money on the people who are angry about the Nevada GOP removing social issues from their platform are the same people who are upset about Common Core and other areas of federal overreach because "people in Washington don't know what is best for me." They are absolutely right, which is why the 10th Amendment exists (and why it needs to be enforced more strictly). People in New Hampshire don't know what is best for people in Florida and the people of Oklahoma don't know what is best for the people of Nevada. I don't agree with what Nevada did, but the fact of the matter is that I don't live in Nevada because it is a state that doesn't appeal to me who a wide range of issue, this now being one of them.

Lastly, no one votes for a party platform. I understand why they exist, but why can't it be short like "The Republican Party: We believe you know what is best for you and your family." People vote for candidates, not platforms, and as a free market evangelist why not have a Nevada GOP platform candidate out there running nationally? The market will end up deciding if they succeed in being elected. Even as a pro-lifer I am far more offended at the idea that I know how to run the lives of people in a different state (and their party) more than they do than I am at the Nevada GOP pulling social issues out of their platform. Maybe the folks in Nevada are right and I am wrong. I don't think I am, and I will always be pro-life, but if states are the "laboratories of democracy" when it comes to policy, why can't it be this way for political parties as well?

Oh, and the Nevada GOP held a 2016 straw poll as well. The winner? Pro-life Senator Rand Paul.

In Obama's economy be thankful you pay taxes

April 15th is one of the few days on the calender when we put aside our differences and aim our collective ire towards the IRS. It isn't hard to get angry when thinking bout the work, the overtime, and everything in our personal lives we put aside in order to pay our bills, only to see a large chunk of it handed over to the government so they can do a variety of things we object to it doing before we even get a chance to budget out our month. Of course, we get this rage in small doses twice a month, but facing the cumulative total of Uncle Sam's plunder once a year is enough to drive even the most stable member of society into a blind rage. And yet, in 2014, we who pay taxes should be thankful. To clarify I think taxes should be lower across the board (ideally we should institute a flat tax on income or scrap the income tax altogether and institute a national sales tax), the tax code should be simplified (73,000 pages is more than excessive), and we should limit the amount of taxes the government is allowed to collect as a percentage of GDP (the 40-year average is a tad higher than 17% of GDP and that is too high for my liking). Taxes stifle growth, place limits on innovation, and dampen productivity by themselves, and that doesn't take into account the 6.1 billion hours and $168 Billion Americans spend preparing their taxes each year. Taxes are a destructive force that are too often used not to generate revenue but to punish or aid sectors of the economy based on the whims of the party in power. And that doesn't even touch upon what the taxes are used for – government intrusion into the private economy (ObamaCare, Solyndra), bailouts (GM), increased transfer payments (record numbers of Americans on food stamps and SSDI), and wars.

And yet, in 2014, we who pay taxes should be thankful.

One of my favorite political bumper stickers/slogans of all-time is “Work! People on welfare are depending on you!” Never has that been more true than on April 15th, 2014. According to the USDA, 20% of households were on food stamps last year. The monthly average of people on food stamps throughout 2013 was over 47 million compared to 33 million in 2009. We have seen the labor force participation rate drop to its lowest point in over 35 years since 2009 and the underemployment rate sits above 13% five years after the so-called recovery began. According to the Tax Policy Center 43% of Americans do not pay income taxes, over 46 million live in poverty, and median income has fallen 4% since the beginning of the recovery. Did I mention there are now over 80 means tested programs in America and that have spent over $3.7 Trillion over the past five years?

A lot of these numbers come from a concentrated effort by the Obama administration to increase the number of those eligible for these programs (and creating new ones), but the real reason why so many people are on welfare or are facing tough times is the terrible economy that continues to this day. Sure there are people who abuse the system (and let's face it, the welfare benefits in some states are better than working a low-wage job) but many people who want to work cannot work because of an administration that has declared war on work. ObamaCare will kill off hours worked and keep small businesses from creating jobs, higher taxes on “wealthy individuals” will ensnare small businesses, larger corporations are constantly under attack by an administration that spends more time talking about income inequality than income opportunity.

So let us rename tax day “Be Thankful You Have A Job In The Obama Economy Day.” We may not be happy about the amount the government is taking, or that they do it in the most inefficient way possible, or that they spend it on worthless projects and programs that suck the life out of the economy, or that there is rampant fraud in our welfare programs, or that so much goes to countries who hate us, but we can be happy that Obama's economy hasn't completely savaged our resilient private economy. Hopefully our friends, family, and neighbors who want to work but haven't found work will find work at companies constantly fighting against the headwinds the Obama administration has put in place.

So yes, be thankful you pay taxes in 2014. Not because of what the money does or the amount taken, but because you have managed to hold a job in spite of the economy and say a prayer for those who have added to 5-years of depressing stories about life in the Obama economy.

Jeb...exists

Let's start this blog with a quote from former Florida Governor Jeb Bush:

"There are means by which we can control our border better than we have. And there should be penalties for breaking the law," he added. "But the way I look at this -- and I'm going to say this, and it'll be on tape and so be it. The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their families -- the dad who loved their children -- was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family. I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime that there should be a price paid, but it shouldn’t rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families."

First off, we knew this was Jeb's position all along. If he runs in 2016 the two policy issues that he will have to deal with are his support for Common Core and his support for comprehensive immigration reform. Jeb is going to throw border security fig leafs in front of his plan which will (rightly) be labeled as amnesty. For someone who has been in politics for a few decades there is very little Jeb can surprise voters with because his beliefs are well documented. His level of name recognition is not in the same league with Hillary, but it is higher than everyone else on the GOP side who is thinking about running in 2016 (with the possible exception of Christie and Paul).

But let's remember that Jeb knows the GOP primary is three primaries. The first two run concurrently – an establishment primary and a conservative challenger primary. Jeb knows his competition first and foremost is going to be Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and probably another Governor. The conservative base primary is where Paul and Cruz will duke it out (and whoever else gets in). The winners of these two races will go head to head, but Jeb knows if he can clear the establishment/moderate field before the conservative challenger can then he will have a major advantage. Let's be honest, McCain did it, Dole did it, and Romney to a lesser extent did it (but let us not forget that Romney was the conservative alternative to McCain for much of 2008).

One other thing to point out is the news today that Jeb is meeting with Russell Moore, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, later this week. Moore is an evangelical leader, who took over for Dr. Richard Land (who was an extraordinarily influential evangelical in political circles) as head of the ERLC. Moore also teamed up with Ralph Reed to pen an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about the need for compassionate immigration reform. It isn't hard to see the angle Jeb is playing here – it is our Christian duty to help our brothers and sisters no matter the land of their birth (or legal status). Jeb knows if he can pull some evangelicals from the conservative primary voters over to an already clear moderate primary field he could cruise to the nomination.

But all of this is speculation, as is the idea that anything Jeb says or does is some sort of bell weather as to which was he is leaning. The decision to run for president is first made on the family level and nothing that Jeb says or does before he announces should be treated as anything different than a public figure reiterating his position on an issue. If Jeb runs he will be as tough an establishment figure to contend with as we have seen since his father won in 1988 and it is foolish for those in 2014 to declare his candidacy DOA.

Rep. Jim Moran: You know what Congress needs? A raise!

How can you make an already unpopular institution even more unpopular? Well, this doozy of a quote sure is a start:

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) thinks members of Congress aren't paid enough.

Speaking to CQ Roll Call, Moran, who is retiring after this term, said he and his colleagues are not adequately compensated for their public service.

“I think the American people should know that the members of Congress are underpaid,” Moran said. “I understand that it’s widely felt that they underperform, but the fact is that this is the board of directors for the largest economic entity in the world.”

Rank-and-file members of Congress are paid $174,000 annually. However, Moran says, it's just not enough, as members often have to maintain two residences: one in their home district and one in Washington, D.C.

"A lot of members can’t even afford to live decently in Washington," he said, noting that some of his colleagues sleep in their offices or rent "tiny" apartments to save money.

The median income in America is $51,017 and $174,000, according to Kiplinger, places members of Congress in the top 5% of taxpayers nationwide. Suffice to say there are not many people going to bed at night praying that members of Congress get a pay bump.

However, I don't find that particular part of the quote to be the most egregious comment that Moran made in this interview. People always think they should be paid more than they currently and let's be honest, to be the least trusted institution that Gallup has polled since 1973 you need to be filled with people like Jim Moran.

No, it was the "this is the board of directors" comment which really shows just how dangerously naive Moran is when it comes to his responsibilities and the role Congress needs to play. The government is not a business. It does not create wealth. However, it does play a role in setting the rules for business and with Moran being an ardent supporter of President Obama 's economic policies Moran owns a piece of the worst recovery (if you can call it that) in the post-WW2 era, the lowest labor force participation rate in the past 35 years, and a deficit spending binge that led to more debt being created under Obama than under any other previous president! This doesn't even include ObamaCare which is stunting growth and cutting hours for workers!

So, let's say he is on a board of directors - a quick glance at what has happened to our economy over the past 5 years is enough to have everyone fired, never mind get a raise! As President Calvin Coolidge said "The business of America is business," and Rep. Jim Moran, member of America's "Board of Directors" has rubber stamped every policy that has come in front of him that makes it more difficult for entrepreneurs and private enterprise to succeed.

So God Made Congress

I have come to believe that ObamaCare is the most difficult subject to write about simply because there are few original points left to make. Pundits and politicians tend to make the same points, crafted around the latest data, and only occasionally is a new study released or a new question asked. Today we just so happened to have one of these new points made, or at least a point that has not been made since implementation of ObamaCare began:

Democratic National Commitee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) is so impressed with Obamacare, she couldn’t think of any legislation Tuesday she would introduce to fix it. Nothing “glaring” anyway, she toldThe Daily Rundown‘s Chuck Todd.

...

” You know, I think there are going to be issues that arise around the margins,” she said. “If we just have a chance to sit down with Republicans, like we’ve done with hundreds of bills through years of our history, we could hammer out problems that arise. But when you’re dealing with –

“You don’t have one that’s on your radar screen?” Todd asked.

“That comes to mind immediately?” she replied. “No, nothing glaring. I’m not saying that there aren’t problems, but there are always going to be tics in a law that arise, and what we should be doing is sitting down and working those out.”

First off, this must be news to every single Democrat who is facing an uphill battle to retain their seat this year (especially in the Senate where the Democrats could lose control). It takes a brave safe politician to make a comment about the most contentious political issue of the past 5 years that places them firmly in the minority of Americans. Thirdly, and this is the most obvious point, it shows the exact arrogant attitude that has led to Congress's abysmal approval ratings. To believe that ObamaCare doesn't need to be fixed means you don't believe that people who have been kicked off their health insurance (over 6 million) have been adversely effected, you don't believe that people with serious illnesses are telling the truth about the hurdles they are facing to get the care they need, and that you don't believe health insurance premiums are about to skyrocket.

Also, without going too deep into the math, making a statement like this means that you believe that uprooting the entire health insurance system and screwing people who have plans and doctors they like all in the name of fairness while spending $2 trillion over the coming decade is the right way to go about getting 2 million people off the list of the uninsured. That's right, not the 7.1 million number being thrown around today, but when you take into account the number of people kicked off their coverage who are part of that number along with the 20% of the 7.1 million who are estimated to have yet pay their first month's premium we are looking at 2 million out of 45 million uninsured, or slightly over 4% of the uninsured population that this law was designed to help actually being helped (Medicaid doesn't count because it is barely health insurance). A true victory indeed!

Stories like this remind me why I thank God everyday for our congressional overlords who have the foresight to not only pass a law that will work flawlessly, but to do so before even reading the actual content of the bill! We are truly blessed to have people such as DWS in office who are incapable of making a mistake.

Note: Google Blogger doesn't like it when you copy and paste HTML from open office into the post so all the links are broken. If I was paid to do this I would fix it but I am not! Plus these stories are easy to find.

Jumping the Ferns

In 2008, when Obama mania swept through college campuses faster than VD it was hard not to be in awe that in just 4 years a relatively unknown politician went from Illinois State Senator to DNC keynote speaker to the Democrat Party's nominee for president after sweeping aside the vaunted Clinton machine. He was fresh, he was different, he spoke to young kids directly, but most importantly to many of my fellow millennials he was deemed to be “cool.” They didn't want another square in the White House, they wanted a guy who hung out with rappers and movie stars. This was a guy they could see themselves partying with, unlike those Republicans and they voted as such. 66% of those 18-29 years old who voted backed Obama in 2008. There was nothing he could do wrong.

Obama was the Fonz.

Over the next four years there was bound to be some Obama fatigue amongst the young. After all living at home with mom and dad in your mid to late twenties while working temp jobs was not the hope and change my peers voted for, but nevertheless they saw Obama versus another “square” in 2012 and once agains supported Obama,. Heck, he may not have been everything he told us he was, but he is good looking and cool (plus his commercials played before the YouTube video we watched!). We can't have our president be some lame, number crunching nerd! We want the guy who binge watches Netflix when his wife in out-of-town, just like we do when our parents finally leave the house!

So once again Obama was able to kick the jukebox and keep the music playing for another inauguration. Four more cool years with a president who just gets us, man. Which brings us to today and the latest moment of outreach to millennials by President Obama, his “interview” with Zack Galifinakis on the web series “Between Two Ferns.”

As far as youth outreach geared towards enrolling in ObamaCare, this was by far the most creative move yet by the White House. Because of various regulations aimed to “bend the cost curve down” the law is heavily dependent on healthy, young adults signing up for the law (ideally the administration would like about 37% of the new sign-ups to be these “young invincibles). So the most tech-savvy administration in history (except when it comes to building websites) attempted to go viral in an effort to boost the underwhelming youth enrollment numbers, which the best estimates put at 25% of those who have signed up for a plan through the exchanges.

Putting aside the absence of humor and strained rebuttals, did this do the trick? Did Between Two Ferns sell the law better than the outright lies President Obama originally used to sell the law? The early indications are that they did a decent job at driving clicks to the website, but converting visitors did not go so well.

As someone who works for a digital advertising company focused on hitting metrics our clients set for us., I am curious to know what the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were for this ad. Usually, for ecommerce clients, metrics such as a return on ad spend, a cost per new user acquisition, or at the very minimum pricing efficiency for a branding campaign are used to judge the success of a campaign. Publically the administration is trying to tout this as a success (Jay Carney bragged about 3 million views of the ad already) but the early metrics seem to tell a different story.

While 3 million people watched the video, only 19,000 clicked through to the website giving this 6 minute long direct response ad a click through rate of 0.6%This is above the industry average for normal sized, display units (about 0.1%) but this was a high impact, video placement starring the president and a celebrity. However, the click through rate cannot be the KPI for this campaign as the administration needs people to sign up. Of course, given that HHS won't even release detailed numbers of those who have actually paid their premium's thus far we are left to estimate. In the spirit of fairness, let's give the Obama administration an ultra-optimistic conversion rate of 20% for those who clicked through. This would give them 4,000 new enrollees. That's it. I'm sure these numbers will increase, but it is unlikely at this point the percentages will change much, which means only 0.12% of the people who watch that video will end up converting. At best. 

Now, to be fair this wasn't the most embarrassing interview this president has given. He didn't call on Hispanics to punish their enemies (Republicans), lie (every time he said you can keep your plan if you like it), or take a crack at those with special needs. He just droned on about his signature achievement to the exact audience that turned out to volunteer and elect him twice; the very people he needs to ignore common sense and economics in order to save his health care law.

So what happened? Isn't the administration expecting a surge of young invincibles rushing to the web and saving the day? 

The truth is that this president's coolness can no longer overcome the damage his policies are doing to his supporters. There will be no surge no matter how many videos the president makes.  No matter what whacky, unbecoming of the presidency act is next it will be nothing more than white noise. They have stopped paying attention to him.

Just like Fonzie did decades ago when he revved up his motorcycle and cleared the shark tank, President Obama has finally hit the point where he can do nothing more to make the nation's youth enthralled by his every step, it is all downhill from here. He has finally jumped the shark.

Check that. He has finally jumped the ferns.

I'd Rather Vote For David Brooks

First off, I want to state that for all his faults, Mitch McConnell should not be target number one. Kentucky is a purple state with a Democrat in occupying the state house. It is unlike, for example, South Carolina, which is deep red and for some reason is also the home of one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate, Lindsey Graham. Yet, whenever I log online or turn on talk radio Mitch McConnell seems to be treated as a bigger enemy and easier target than Lindsey Graham, even though McConnell's primary opponent Matt Bevin supported TARP and Lindsey Graham is the definition of an easy target. What I am saying is, every time someone complains about McConnell and says nothing about Graham should do some research into how Senate Majority and Minority Leaders are elected. The more you fail to oust people like Graham the more likely it is you end up with majority leaders like McConnell. This isn't a defense of McConnell, I would like him out too, but there are easier targets that we should be focusing on more than McConnell.

Now that I have said my piece on McConnell...is there anything more obnoxious than a member of the GOP elite taking to the New York Times to blast conservatives? “I think we are going to crush them everywhere.” Does Mitch McConnell realize that the people he is promising to bring his all-crushing awesomeness down upon are the same people he will need to knock on doors, donate, volunteer, and most importantly vote for him in the general election? Of course not, because like most creatures of Washington, Mitch McConnell feels that he has slapped enough backs and returned enough favors that he is entitled to serve out his life in the Senate. So what does he do about this Tea Party problem? He runs to the most notorious left-wing rag in the country to put down conservatives and make sure they know that him and his establishment buddies will stop at nothing to muzzle conservatives. Too. Damn. Bad.

If Mitch McConnell ever wants to understand why conservatives want him gone all he has to do is look at his reaction to Tea Party challengers. If he thinks going on stage at CPAC to honor a true conservative hero in Sen. Tom Coburn will reverse his words in this article and his moderate streak then he is exactly the kind of politician that Tea Partiers know he is: an arrogant political operative who has such a low opinion of the electorate that he believes a flashy entrance and some waving of the hands is enough to distract from his record. He may not be the most liberal GOP Senator up for reelection, but when people wonder why grassroots conservatives shoot steam out of their ears when they hear his name just remember this article and that will tell you everything you need to know about Mitch McConnell.

CPAC 2014 Thoughts and More

Some initial thoughts on CPAC and where things stand:

1. Immigration was barely discussed. No one topic is as controversial on the right as immigration reform. If you want to be called a RINO then go out and support immigration reform. None of the major 2016 players who were there touched the subject which, frankly, was concerning. There was a panel (stacked 3:1 with those against amnesty being represented by the 1) and Ann Coulter on the last day who, needless to say, pulled zero punches when it came to those on the right (Rubio in particular) who support the Senate bill or amnesty of any kind. At some point this issue needs to be discussed, and I hope the side that wins out is the one that realizes inviting 30 million unskilled workers who barely (at best) speak English would be a calamity for our economy, for smaller government, and for the Republican Party.

2. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Chris Christie looked ready to campaign. They each had different points to prove Thursday. Cruz wanted to show he was still Ted Cruz, Rubio is still rehabbing his image with conservatives after the amnesty bill, and Chris Christie, who was not invited last year, needed to make amends for his dreadful convention speech in 2012, hugging Obama after Sandy only three days before the election, Medicaid expansion, and other various RINO behavior. Each accomplished their goal. Each got a ton of applause. And each looked like they have been practicing their stump speeches in the mirror.

3. But all three are behind Rand Paul. I'm not going to say they are that far behind because they are not. However, despite the efforts of the CPAC organizers dissuade the college students who usually support Paul from attending by raising prices this year, Paul still won the straw poll handily (Paul tripled-up second place Cruz). In previous years when his father won the straw poll the results were mostly written off as not being representative of the conservative movement as a whole (and certainly not the Republican Party - Libertarians tend to travel in clusters). This year, with the lack of controversy that surrounds Rand and his outreach to constituencies not traditionally affiliated with the Republican Party, it is clear that the poll results have more truth to them than usual.

4. Paul Ryan had the most disappointing speech. Usually you can count on Paul Ryan getting one of the better receptions for an elected official at CPAC, which is what made today surprising. His speech was largely forgettable. In fact, the only lines I remember are one about the left offering full stomachs, but empty souls (a good line to drop for the evangelicals), another where he said "big government sounds great in theory," and he pitch for conservatives to focus on the left and to stop seeking out heretics on the right.  After a year that has seen Ryan come out in support of amnesty for illegal aliens  (which unsurprisingly he did not touch on) and produce a joke of a budget compromise with his Senate counterpart Patty Murray one would think he would take this opportunity to give a full throated defense of conservatism full of red meat, but to me it sounded like he went through the motions. Mention budget. Mention supply-side economics. Talk up the cultural impact of liberalism. End Scene. I'm not the world's biggest Ted Cruz fan, but it was easy to see on Thursday morning why Cruz is loved by the conservative movement and why Ryan is slowly falling out of it's good graces.

5. Sarah Palin is not running for President. And she shouldn't. She won't win the primary and she knows that is a fact. As much as she is adored by the Tea Party, the Tea Party has people who hold office to throw support behind. Palin has a role to play, and few in politics can captivate a crowd like she can, but at the end of the day she knows she has much more to lose than to gain by running...mostly because she wont win the nomination.

6. 2016 is going to be a street fight. As I see it now it is not split up ideologically - it will be a Governors primary (Jindal, Perry, Christie, Walker, Huckabee, Bush, Pence(?), Martinez(?)) and a Senators primary (Paul, Cruz, Santorum) with some other characters thrown into the mix, but at the end it will be a Governor v. Senator fight to the nomination.


Beyond that, it was a fairly uneventful CPAC. Sure, there are divisions in the party, but the larger issues are not ideological - they are tactical. The folks who attend CPAC know that to beat the left you need to not just believe in conservative principles, but you also need to fight for them at every opportunity. Now is no longer the time to pick battles - we need to fight every single one going forward and the politicians who understand that are the ones who will attract the support needed to win the coming brawl for the GOP nomination.