Define "Everybody"

President Obama was quoted as saying, "If you want to be president, you have to work for everyone." I was wondering, does "everyone" include:

The "bitter clingers" of the midwest?

The non-union plant workers of Delphi?

The voters who don't vote for the right guy?

The shops who don't support the right right candidate?

The donors who don't write the correct name on the pay line?

The states that know how to manage their finances?

The followers of any religion or just the ones that get violent?

The Rich Aren't Rich Enough

After reading an article at Canfield Press (linked below) describing America's slide from a wealth creation nation to a wealth transfer state, I remembered a short piece I wrote a couple of years ago about waiting tables as a method of illustrating the flaw in collectivist thinking. That got me thinking about the whole "fair share" argument when it comes to taxing the rich. Setting aside the fact that our tax base largely comes from a relatively small part of the populaton, I wondered just how much more "just a little more" really was. How much would represent a "fair share"? Short of adding up all the numbers on Forbes' 400 list there was no definitive amoung given for the total wealth of all of America's billionaires. However, using some simple calculations of the data that was readily available, I got some interesting (though not unexpected) numbers.

The total wealth of the world's billionaires as of March 2012 was $4,600,000,000,000 (source). Dividing that by the total number of billionaires in the world (1226), that averages out to roughly $3,752,039,152 per 1%er. There are currently 425 billionaires in the United States, so a decent estimate of the total wealth of American billionaires is about $1,594,616,639,478. That certainly isn't a perfect way of estimating it, and the number could be a bit higher or a bit lower.

Now, back to that wealth transfer thing. In 2010, total spending on entitlements was about $2,200,000,000,000. This means that if we simply confiscated all the wealth of all the billionaires in the United States, it wouldn't pay for one year's worth of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and all the other programs that fall under the Entitlements umbrella. The idea that if we just raise taxes, if we just ask the rich to "pay a little more", our money problems will be solved is fantasy. We're past the point where taxation can solve our debt woes. We're passed the point where we can ignore the reality that we have to spend less money. Slowing the rate of spending growth is no longer an option. Class warfare won't fix anything. The only thing that will work is to cut budgets. All of them.

The federal budget request for 2012 included outlays of over $3,800,000,000,000 and was based on predicted revenues of just over $2,200,000,000,000. In other words, we planned on spending nearly twice as much as we planned to take in. That's not sustainable, and it's not fixable with class warfare.

Four Excuses For An Obama Loss (And Why They Won't Wash)

If the ballots are counted in November and Barack Obama becomes a one-term president, the media will fall all over themselves to explain why. None of those reasons will encompass the simple truth that his policies have been a failure, that he wasted his solid majorites in Congress by focusing laser-like on Obamacare, or that the American people didn't buy into his class war rhetoric.

Admitting to those things would be to admit that the blame lies with the President himself.

Instead, the media will trot out ready-made excuses that place the blame solely on the American people. After all, we're just not smart enough to understand how lucky we are to have him. He is, after all, a lightworker, a man (or is he?) both devine and magical. Some even now refer to him as if he were the messiah.

Obviously someone so perfect can't be held responsible for breaking campaign promises (closing Guantanamo, fixing the economy, restoring transparency, rolling back rights abuses so (rightfully) decried in the previous administration). So certainly there must be some sinister forces at work to explain such a defeat.

1. Racism: Hey, remember when Obama was going to lose because Americans are a bunch of racists? Then remember when Obama won and suddenly Americans had "turned a corner" and we entered a post-racial era? Now Obama is up for re-election and guess what? We'll all be racists again. The race card is getting as played out as zombies-as-plot-device, but the media can't resist throwing it out there with a knowing glance and tut-tutting shake of the head.

The problem here is that for this to be a real cause, it means a lot of people suddenly became racist after voting for a black man for president. Where were these vast multitudes of black-hating Americans in 2008, who plainly should have risen up to vote, ensuring another white guy got to sit in the White House? Does racism exist? Of course it does. Does it explain why Americans may not relect Obama? Only if you ignore the fact that he was elected in the first place.

2. Money: The root of all evil. That stuff the 1% has and you don't. It's a total travesty that Republicans can buy an election just because they have more money to spend. Unless Obama has a good month. Then it's not so bad. Of course, this handwringing over money wasn't necessary in 2008. I wonder why? (Oh, and if you want to play the "pfft, Wikipedia" card, here is the original source. Look it up for yourself.)

3. Republican Obstructionism: Just think what could have been accomplished if Republicans hadn't been there fighting tooth and nail every step of the way. If only Obama had had a friendly Congress. Even for a couple of years. Wait. Well, okay, but if only Republicans had tried to work out a deal with Obama over the budget crisis, we could have... Crap. Well, at least senate Democrats tried to pass budgets as required by law. Maaannnn. Okay, well when the president's budget proposal went to the senate... okay, the House... Let's move on.

4. Dirty Campaigns: That evil Romney is always living in the muck. Accusing his opponent of favoring outlawing all abortions, even in the case of rape or incest. Running ads that purport to show women who are switching parties because of their disgust with their guy. Making up policy positions out of whole cloth. Blaming him for a woman's death. Shameful. Oh wait. Those were all attack ads for Obama against Romney. My bad.

If Obama loses in November, it will be because the American people don't believe he is the right person to lead this country. The media won't see it that way, but you'll know better.


(Crossposted at Say Anything)

TINSTAAFL

A Facebook friend posted a status today cheering on all the "free" benefits that are taking effect for women looking to have their birth control paid for by people other than themselves. After some back and forth about what "free" means when talking about something paid for with tax money, a commenter (who shall remain nameless unless you are mutual friends, in which case you know who to shake your head at) made the following statement:

It has nothing to do with who pays taxes. It is forcing insurance companies to pay for those services out of the premiums that YOU Already pay them!!!! Why is this so hard for people to understand? We are now getting more services for the money that we pay into the insurance company. They make less profits because they have to cover more services for us! This is a very good thing for all of us!!!!!!!!

Note the liberal use of exclamation points, each one adding an order of magnitude to the comment's inherent truthfulness. Exclamation points aside, here was my response (unedited except for the correction of spelling errors):

It has everything to do with who pays taxes. The feds are setting up a national exchange to administer healthcare. Who pays for that? Taxpayers. Set aside for a moment the fact that this will allow the goverment to pick and choose favorites among healthcare companies. While the feds are allowing states to set up their own exchanges (which of course, must meet federal guidelines on how they are set up, which companies can participate, and how money is distributed), most are sensibly opting out. This will increasingly put the decisions in the hands of a federal bureaucracy.

Ever heard of a federal agency that didn't get bigger and succumb to budget bloat? Me neither. This will only increase costs, especially when you consider that by government mandate, people who don't pay federal taxes (and thus don't pay for the upkeep of this behemoth) will still be covered. Who will make up these costs? The insurance companies? No. Economics 101. When costs go up to a supplier, those costs are passed on to the consumer.

One way the goverment will be tempted to combat this is to enforce price controls on what doctors can charge for services. This is how medicare and medicaid work. It has led to an ever-decreasing number of doctors who will accept patients on those plans. A similar effect will occur if the price controls are instead forced upon insurers: fewer companies will enter into the market and many existing ones will drop out. At the same time, more and more people will be forced into this government plan as companies who today pay for healthcare as a fringe benefit decrease coverage or drop it all together, further exploding costs to the taxpayer.

Ask yourself this: are you aware of any government programs which costs has decreased, which budgets have shrunk? No. Because the definition of a budget cut has been changed at the federal level. When you or I think of a budget cut, It looks like this: "our budget was $1000. We cut it 10%. Now our budget is $900". At the federal level, it looks like this: "Our budget was $1000. We wanted to raise it 50%. Instead we only raised it 30%. Therefore, our budget was cut by 20%."

This will not end well.

It never ceases to amaze me that there are still people who believe the following:

1. Businesses don't pass their costs on to consumers.
2. Arbitrarily setting prices for goods will have no effect on the producers of those goods
3. It is somehow a good thing when a business has its profits shrunk or seized.
4. A government that can run up trillions of dollars in debt will have no problem containing costs.
5. The government can ever provide "free" anything to taxpayers.

Of course, my answer above didn't even touch on the other side effect of price controls: rampant fraud and abuse. Some of those doctors who don't stop taking medicare and medicaid patients instead find ways to overbill the system and reap profits off the taxpayer. If oversight and penalties were better enforced, even more doctors would drop entitlement patients.

For taxpayers, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.

Addendum: A later comment brought up the 80/20 rule in the law, that requires insurers to use 80% of revenues on "clinical services" in order to cap costs. Well, that's just another method of price control. And it leads to all the bad things mentioned above. Don't believe me? Then believe the feds, who have seen fit to grant waivers to entities that allow them to ignore the 80/20 rule.

Also, passing laws and then selectively allowing certain entities to ignore them: regardless of your political affiliation, shouldn't you be outraged by that?

The Tax System Explained With Beer

This is an oldie but a goodie. I honestly don't know who to credit for the original, but I received this in an email from a friend years ago and it just resurfaced in this post at Say Anything:

The Tax System Explained With Beer

Every day ten men go out for a beer, and the bill is $100. They wish to pay the bill the same way we pay our taxes, so it breaks down like this...

The first four men (the poorest) pay nothing.
The fifth man pays $1.00
The sixth pays $3.00
The seventh pays $7.00
The eighth pays $12.00
The ninth pays $18.00
The tenth man (the richest) pays $59.00

And that's what they decide to do.

These ten men drank in that same bar every day and were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day the owner approached and said, "Since you are such good customers, I'm going to reduce your daily round of beer by $20.00."So now a round of beer cost $80.00.

The group decided to keep paying their tab in the same manner. The first four men were unaffected. They still drank for free. But what about the other six; the paying customers? How could they divide up the $20.00 reduction so everyone would get his fair share?

$20.00 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everyone's share, the fifth and sixth man would each wind up getting paid to drink their beer.

The bar owner suggested they follow the principle of the tax system and reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, and they worked out the amounts each would now pay.

Now the fifth man, like the first four, drank for free... (100% savings)
The sixth man now paid $2.00 instead of $3.00... (33% savings)
The seventh man now paid $5.00 instead of $7.00... (28% savings)
The eighth man now paid $9.00 instead of $12.00...(25% savings)
The ninth man now paid $14.00 instead of $18.00...(22% savings)
The tenth now paid $49.00 instead of $59.00...(16% savings)

Each of the paying customers was better off than before, and now five of the men drank for free. But outside the bar, the men began comparing the amounts they saved.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20.00" said the sixth man. He pointed at the tenth man and said, "But he got $10.00!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he saved ten times as much as me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10.00 back when I only got $2.00. The wealthy get all the tax breaks!"

Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all! This new system exploits the poor!"

So the nine men beat the tenth man up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up, and the other nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when the bill arrived, they discovered they didn't have enough money between them for even half the total.

And that boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how the tax system works. The people who already pay the most in taxes will get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just might not show up anymore.

In fact they just might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who don't, no explanation is possible.

Music Diaries: Drinking and Driving (Rhythm)

I've been jamming once a week with Rob, one of the guitarists from dFrag (a.k.a. The Awesome Band That Played At My Wedding). This involves messing around with learning this new song or that one, sipping on whiskey, and generally having fun. This led to a conversation about the effects of drinking on one's ability to play a guitar.

I quantify it thusly:

Bluestem And The Fargo School District Should Just Go On Judge Judy Already

So Dave Olig, the president of the Bluestem Center for the Arts in Moorhead, has written a letter pushing the idea that the Fargo School District should "forgive" nearly $5,000,000 in debt. Hey, there's no harm in asking. It's the argument he uses to defend his position that took some brass ones. His argument is one I see people use on Judge Judy all the time. Basically, Olig asserts the "they should have known not to give us money in the first place" defense. Here's what he wrote:

"The Fargo Public School District provided millions of dollars in loans to a volunteer-only organization, with no assets, at a zero percent interest rate and no repayment schedule," Olig wrote. "While we accept our accountability, we believe that the Fargo Public Schools should also acknowledge its role in putting taxpayer dollars at risk."

Let's parse that passage, shall we? "We came to you with hat in hand, desperate for money. The Fargo School District used taxpayer money to make us a super sweet loan deal. Now I don't want to have to pay it back, because, like, I don't have any money. I know I said that I was getting a big tax refund check in April, but I used it to buy a handbag. And besides, this is really your fault because you knew I was broke when you loaned me the money."

All he forgot to add was that the District gave the money as a gift, Bluestem didn't really ask for it anyway, and besides, Bluestem did all sorts of work around the district and watched the kids and helped out with utilities when they could so really, they're even.