"I think he is right about a lot of things. And I think that's even more irritating, the fact that he is right."I haven't followed Clift's empty statements closely. But year after year Newsweek offered me their subscription almost free, but every year I wrote back that as long as they published her I found no value in reading their magazine.
Century Link - our ISP at home - has been down most of the day. I want to do a post on Pres Obama's heroic effort to raise the price of gasoline, but I need Internet to my Mac to do it right.
Oh green lights. Looks good.
Update: Red again.
President Obama told CEOs in Hawaii that we have been lazy in attracting foreign investment. Lazy? Who is he talking about? But he hasn't been lazy about it. He has been downright hostile. He dragged his heels forever on the trade agreements with Korea and Colombia; the Republicans got it through Congress after he added lead to it.Exhibit 1: In 2010 Japan's Toyota was humiliated over a safety issue. It wasn't enough to let the regulators deal with accusations about Toyota's brake pedals — as Ford and GM had been over comparable problems. The Obama White House had to publicly shame Toyota.
Accusations, later proven false, that Toyota brakes were faulty became a special hell for Toyota. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who had a conflict of interest as a regulator and shareholder in Toyota's U.S. competitors due to the auto bailout, encouraged Americans to "stop driving" Toyotas.
Obama's congressional allies hauled Toyota's president, Akio Toyoda, in from Tokyo for a Star Chamber hearing, compelling him to "apologize" before proving any wrongdoing. After a 10-month congressional investigation found Toyota wasn't at fault, none took back the comments or apologized
Exhibit 2: U.K. oil giant BP was put through a similar wringer after the Gulf oil spill of 2009. Instead of treating BP as a domestic company, Obama proudly announced he had his "boot on the neck" of the British company and, in a move of questionable legality, demanded $20 billion....
Exhibit 3: In 2009, Obama signed off on the Democratic Congress' special "Buy American" provisions in the $900 billion stimulus package, shutting out foreign investors for U.S. government contracts. The language was all about "patriotism," but it signaled that the U.S. wasn't welcoming foreigners.No, Obama hasn't been lazy. He has been very active in opposing foreign companies.
Now, Gallup reports that from the first quarter of 2010 (when Obama signed Obamacare into law) to the third quarter of this year, 2 percent of American adults lost their employer sponsored health insurance. In other words, about 4.5 million Americans lost their employer-sponsored insurance over a span of just 18 months.Is it doing what it intended to do. Or is this an unforeseen accident?
This is not what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had predicted would happen. Rather, the CBO had predicted that Obamacare would increase the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance by now. It had predicted that, under Obamacare, 6 million more Americans would have employer-sponsored insurance in 2011 than in 2010 (see table 4, which shows the CBO’s projected increase of 3 million under (pre-Obamacare) current law and an additional 3 million under Obamacare). So the CBO’s rosy projections for Obamacare (and even these paint a frightening picture) are already proving false.(For analysis of the CBO report's "frightening picture" see Pacific Research Foundation PDF)
I was looking for the Moon tonight. It is full (one day short if it). And there is something very bright next to it. Has to be bright to be seen.
Jupiter!! It is magnitude minus 3. Only Venus is in the ballpark. Enjoy.
Art Laffer in the late 1970s shook up the world of tax economics and policy with his observations - that decreasing a tax rate can result in more revenue. And, more importantly, that it does so by giving earners incentive to be more active and productive. Which causes growth and many benefits. But... that is cutting the marginal rate of taxing - the amount paid on the next dollar earned. Most tax changes don't do this - child credits, green-energy credits - and do not have the beneficial effect on revenue and growth.
Dan Mitchell at Cato Institute on the Laffer Curve
First Lesson
Part two will cite real-world examples of the Laffer Curve. Coming.
Daniel J Mitchell's own blog is excellent - International Liberty.
Bad luck first, then better.
Richard Epstein of NYU Law School was allowed on PBS. Oops! The semi-informed public TV watcher heard and saw a clear 7-minute explanation of the benefits of opportunity in our economy. He was asked if income inequality is bad. No, he responded:
