Decriminalize Marijuana and the Kids will Smoke more and Eventually Vote Democrat

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 28th, 2013

Week in Review

Teenagers typically vote Democrat.  In part because of the liberal bias in our public schools.  And in our colleges.  As well as in the mainstream media.  In Hollywood.  In television.  And the music industry.  These things do a lot to shape the way our kids think.  But there is another reason why our kids become Democrat voters.  Because it is the left that is handing out free birth control.  While their parents say ‘no’ the left says ‘go ahead.  Have fun.’  And then there is the push by the left to decriminalize marijuana.  Something else these kids’ parents say ‘no’ to.  While the left says ‘go ahead.  Have fun.’  Even if it may be harmful to them.  For what’s a few burnt brain cells in exchange for the youth vote (see Pot’s march toward mainstream by Alicia A. Caldwell And Nancy Benac, The Associated Press, posted 7/27/2013 on The Vancouver Sun)?

It is a moment in the U.S. that is rife with contradictions: People are looking more kindly on marijuana even as science reveals more about the drug’s potential dangers, particularly for young people…

Exploration of the potential medical benefit is limited by high U.S. government hurdles to research. Washington policy-makers seem reluctant to deal with any of it.

So we know it’s bad for the children.  But we really don’t know how bad.  For it is the only medicine (medical marijuana) ever allowed without proving the drug through clinical trials.  To make sure the drug works.  And it doesn’t cause irrevocable harm.  No pharmaceutical is allowed this luxury when bringing a new drug to market.  And we know how dangerous cigarettes and alcohol are.  But not marijuana.  No.  That drug we just accept on faith that it will cure us.  Besides just giving us a great high.

Opponents of pot are particularly worried that legalization will result in increased use by young people.

“There’s no real win on this from a political perspective,” says Sabet. “Do you want to be the president that stops a popular cause, especially a cause that’s popular within your own party? Or do you want to be the president that enables youth drug use that will have ramifications down the road?”

If anyone legalizes it will be the left.  Who are always attacking the right for hating children whenever they say we can’t afford to spend any more money.  But smoking pot harms kids.  And the left is okay with that.

“Having a regulated system is the only way to ensure that we’re not ceding control of this popular substance to the criminal market and to black marketeers,” says Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, a trade group for legal pot businesses in the U.S. See Change Research, which analyzes the marijuana business, has estimated the national U.S. market for medical marijuana alone at $1.7 billion for 2011 and has projected it could reach $8.9 billion in five years. Overall, marijuana users spend tens of billions of dollars a year on pot, experts believe…

In Washington state, the Liquor Control Board is drawing up rules covering everything from how plants will be grown to how many stores will be allowed. It expects to issue licences for growers and processors in December, and impose 25 per cent taxes three times over – when pot is grown, processed and sold to consumers…

Marijuana advocates in Washington state…have projected the legal pot market could bring the state a half-billion a year in revenue…

Decriminalizing marijuana will make it easier for kids to smoke it.  Because it’s easier to get things that are only illegal for people under a legal age.  As opposed to being completely illegal.  Kids aren’t legally allowed to smoke cigarettes but they do.  In fact, it is fair to say kids smoke more cigarettes than marijuana.  Because cigarettes aren’t completely illegal.  They’re only illegal for kids.

So cities suffering under the crushing costs of their public sectors are looking at a windfall of tax revenue by decriminalizing marijuana.  And don’t seem to have a problem of people spending more of their money on getting high instead of saving for their retirement.  Paying for their kids’ education.  Or putting food on the table.  It was the same thing when cities scrambled to legalize gambling.  Because they wanted the tax revenue.  Despite people gambling away money that they should have spent on their family.  No doubt these cities would be disappointed if more kids didn’t start smoking marijuana.  So that when they grew into adults they would already have a healthy drug habit the city could tax.  To help pay for the crushing costs of their public sectors.

Of course, the states and cities will never see those rosy projections of tax revenue.  Because when they “impose 25 per cent taxes three times over” they will raise the price of legal marijuana so much that it will benefit, not hurt, the black market for marijuana.  Even if the black market price is below the official taxed price.  Why?  Because people smuggling cigarettes from a low-tax state to a high-tax state don’t do the time drug dealers do when caught.  Encouraging more people to sell a legal substance illegally.  To cheat the state out of that tax revenue.  And pot smokers, especially the kids, will turn to the black market for their pot.  Where it will be even more readily available when the growing, transporting and selling of marijuana is no longer illegal.  Like cigarettes.  Which kids have no problem buying.

California steps back California’s experience with medical marijuana offers a window into pitfalls that can come with wider availability of pot.

Dispensaries for medical marijuana have proliferated in the state, and regulation has been lax, prompting a number of cities in the state to ban dispensaries…

In May, the California Supreme Court ruled that cities and counties can ban medical marijuana dispensaries.

A few weeks later, Los Angeles voters approved a ballot measure that limits the number of pot shops in the city to 135, down from an estimated high of about 1,000. By contrast, whitepages. com lists 112 Starbucks in the city…

In 2010, California voters opted against legalizing marijuana for recreational use, drawing the line at medical use.

But Jeffrey Dunn, a Southern California lawyer who has represented cities in pot cases, says that in reality the state’s dispensaries have been operating so loosely that already “it’s really all-access.”

“What we’ve learned is, it is very difficult if not impossible to regulate these facilities,” he said.

The people may have voted for marijuana in California.  But the people didn’t like living in a Cheech and Chong movie surrounded by stoners.  And seeing a pot shop every time they turned around.  Which is the last thing a parent wants.  To have it so much easier for their kids to smoke pot.  Or eat it.

A Denver-area hospital, for example, saw children getting sick after eating treats and other foods made with marijuana in the two years after a 2009 federal policy change led to a surge in medical marijuana use, according to a study in JAMA Pediatrics in May. In the preceding four years, the hospital had no such cases.

The Colorado Education Department reported a sharp rise in drugrelated suspensions and expulsions after medical marijuana took off.

“What we’re doing is not working,” says Dr. Christian Thurstone, a psychiatrist whose Denver youth substance abuse treatment centre has seen referrals for marijuana double since September. In addition, he sees young people becoming increasingly reluctant to be treated, arguing that it can’t be bad for them if it’s legal.

You decriminalize marijuana and, of course, kids will see that as an admission from the state that smoking pot can’t be bad for you.  So more kids use the drug.  Ending up in the hospital.  Getting suspended or expelled from school.  Or in drug rehab for a pot addiction.  But the left is okay with this.  Because, after all, it is the right that hates kids.  Whereas the left is the cool uncle that will let their niece and/or nephew smoke a joint.  Which is why the kids love the left.  They are always helping them do things their parents won’t let them do.

Legalization foes Opponents counter with a 2012 study finding that regular use of marijuana during teen years can lead to a long-term drop in IQ, and another study indicating marijuana use can induce and exacerbate psychotic illness in susceptible people. They question the notion that regulating pot will bring in big money, saying revenue estimates are grossly exaggerated…

They warn that baby boomers who draw on their own innocuous experiences with pot are overlooking the much higher potency of today’s marijuana.

In 2009, concentrations of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in pot, averaged close to 10 per cent in marijuana, compared with about four per cent in the 1980s, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

So the left will sacrifice our children for money.  So they can pay for those costly public sectors breaking their budgets.  They won’t take on the public sector unions.  But they will sacrifice our kids.  Because kids don’t pay taxes.  Or vote.  Yet.  But when they do they hope they will remember their cool uncle when in the voting booth.

The baby boomers, who filled the theaters watching Cheech and Chong movies, look back to their days of pot smoking with nostalgia.  Thinking they turned out all right.  And so will the younger generation.  As they anxiously wait for the decriminalization of marijuana so they can buy more.  And smoke more.  Loving the high potency of the new stuff.  Not at all like the stuff they grew up smoking.  Which still fried their brains.  Providing a head start to what dementia will do to them as they reach their golden years.

Kids will on average start smoking at an earlier age.  More of them will smoke because if it’s legal it can’t be bad for you.  And they will be smoking a more potent marijuana than their parents smoked.  Accelerating the damage pot smoking will do to them compared to what it did to their parents.  But the left is okay with that.  Because it is the right that hates the children.  Not the cool uncle.  At least that’s how the youth vote will see it.  Which is all that matters to the left.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #52: “The political right is usually right.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 10th, 2011

The Right Knows Business.  The Left Doesn’t.

Creating jobs is important.  Without jobs no one has any money.  No one can buy anything.  And the government can’t tax what we don’t have.  So jobs are important.  To those on the right.  As well as on the left.

Now critics of the Right claim that those on the right only care about profits.  Not people.  Whereas those on the left claim they care about people.  Not profits.  In some sense this is true.  Those on the right tend to understand business.  They know a business can only survive by making a profit.  And only a business that stays in business can create jobs.  The Right understands this.

Those on the left, on the other hand, don’t really understand business.  They don’t understand incentive.  Only duty.  And sacrifice.  For others, that is.  Not them.  They don’t think a business should make a profit.  That they should give any excess revenue to their workers.  Or to the government.  In other words, business owners, they feel, should serve others.  They should work and sacrifice so others may live better.  Workers shouldn’t have to work hard or sacrifice.  But owners should.

Protecting an Industry only Delays the Inevitable

Some great entrepreneurs created some great businesses.  Made life better for all of us.  Provided good, inexpensive clothing.  Made high quality steel cheaper and more plentiful than any other nation.  Built cars than the average working man could afford.  These titans of industry built this nation.  Because of them we surpassed all other nations and became the most powerful economic engine of the world.  Life was good.  There were lots of jobs.  Lots of stuff.  And lots of homes filled with the most modern stuff available.  America was the place to be.  People waited in line to immigrate to our shores.

Unfortunately, big piles of money attract a lot of people.  And not just workers begging to get a job in these new industries.  No.  It was people looking out for the workers.  Labor unions organized workers.  To get a ‘decent’ wage.  And better working conditions.  Cost of labor went up.  Which made the price of what they sold go up.  Imports started to look more attractive.  So government stepped in and slapped tariffs on those.  To force Americans to pay the higher price for our domestic goods.  Then they legislated ways to further ‘protect’ these American industries.  And how did that all work?

Well, take a look at the American textile, steel and automobile industries.  The Left overreached.  And killed these industries.  They’re no longer the dominate industries they once were.  We have no textile industry to speak of anymore.  The once big steel towns look more like ghost towns.  And the government had to bail out 2 of the Big Three auto makers.  Those generous union contracts added thousands to the price of a car.  Allowing Toyota to take over the top auto manufacturer spot from GM.  By providing the same or better quality for less.

Bad Jobs Today may have been Good Jobs Yesterday

That’s what happens when you protect an industry.  That industry has no incentive to innovate.  To be better.  To be more efficient.  To be more productive.  To give the consumer what they want.  Because when the consumer doesn’t have a choice, where else is the consumer going to go?  So protected industries rest on their laurels.  While others innovate.  And became better.

Combine that with union wages and benefits that keep getting higher and higher and what do you get?  Inferior products that cost more than the higher quality imports.  The Big Three sold crap during the Seventies.  Opened the door to the Japanese.  And a few decades later they took over the top spot from GM.  No matter how much we tried to protect our domestic automotive industry.

Say what you want about life before labor unions but the fact remains that we had more jobs.  And as dangerous or as dirty as those jobs were, people still came to this country by the thousands to get those jobs.  People were falling off the Golden Gate Bridge during construction.  Did that dissuade people from wanting to work on that bridge?  No.  There was a shanty town with people waiting for others to fall and die so they could get their job.  Sure, by today’s standards, these were some pretty nasty jobs.  But not then.  In fact, they were pretty damn good jobs.  Compared to what else was out there.  How can we say this?  Because they chose those jobs over the other jobs out there.

The Greed of the Left Killed the Golden Goose. 

Henry Ford had a bold idea.  He was going to mass produce a car so he could sell it at a price that the working man could afford.  To get the best people in his plants he offered $5 per day.  Twice what other manufacturing jobs were offering.  No union made him do this.  The market did.  He got the best mechanics and the lowest turnover rates.  Other businesses had to follow suit to retain their best people.  And working conditions improved.  Because of the greed of these business owners.

Contrast that to today where union contracts force high wage and benefit packages onto a manufacturer.  And contractual obligations that make it near impossible to get rid of excess workers during times of weak demand.  Using the Ford model, Detroit became the Motor City.  An economic dynamo.  Under the union model, GM and Chrysler went bankrupt.  And Detroit is considering bulldozing sparsely populated neighborhoods into farmland.

When profit wasn’t a dirty word businesses prospered and provided jobs.  When the left came in to protect the little guy from those greedy business owners they made it difficult to make a profit.  Business struggled to compete with their competition.  And when they couldn’t, they shuttered operations.  Jobs disappeared.  The greed of the left to protect against the greed of the right killed the golden goose.  And all those good manufacturing jobs grew legs and left the country.  Where they’re now providing a better life for other workers.  Like they once did here.

Greed is a Hell of an Incentive

The Right understands business.  The Left doesn’t.  But it has never stopped them from trying to tell businesses how they should conduct business.  And the more they get involved, the more business suffers.  The more jobs we lose.  And the less competitive we get as a nation.

FDR tried for a decade to end the Great Depression.  Nothing he did worked.  When World War II came along, something had to change.  There was a crisis.  We needed to provide war material to our allies.  So the FDR administration told American industry to do what they do best.  They let them make profits.  Restored incentive.  And the government said they would interfere no more.  Well, that unleashed the floodgates.  Workers were hired and factories worked round the clock.  Businesses made profits that let them innovate.  Improve productivity.  Trucks, planes, boats, weapons, etc., poured out of American factories.  The Allies armies were mechanized.  Jeeps and trucks moved our armies.  While the Nazis used horses to pull their artillery and supplies.  The Arsenal of Democracy, the Detroit dynamo of industry, won World War II.  And men like Henry Ford made it all possible.  Because they were greedy.

The post-war era was one of the most prosperous times in our nation.  There were jobs for everyone.  And a better life was there for the taking.  Times would stay good until the Left ushered in their Big Government programs beginning in the Sixties.  To protect the little guy.  And it’s been downhill ever since (with a brief respite during the Reagan Eighties).

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #52: “The political right is usually right.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 8th, 2011

Sitting in the French Legislative Assembly and Defining Future Politics

In politics we hear a lot about the Left and the Right.  What does that mean?  Where did these terms come from?  Probably the French Revolution.  So we need a small primer on the French Revolution.  So here goes. 

In late 18th century France, in the Ancien Régime (before the French Revolution), there were three main groups of people.  They called these the estates of the realm.  The First Estate was the clergy of the Catholic Church.  The Second Estate was the nobility (less the king).  And the Third Estate was everyone else (approximately 98% of the population).  The first two estates were exempt from most taxation and lived well and had full bellies.  The Third Estate paid the bulk of taxes, lived horribly and suffered a famine or two.

Well, this caused tensions.  The poor were deplorably poor and hungry.  Compounding this problem was the near constant state of war between France and Great Britain.  That and financing the American Revolution was bankrupting the Ancien Régime.  The régime had nothing to give to the poor and hungry.  So the poor and hungry revolted.  They met in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791 to debate the future of France.  Those in favor of the monarchy and the old order sat on the right.  The radicals who wanted to overthrow the old order sat on the left.

Right and Left become Conservative and Liberal

So that’s a brief lesson on the origins of the political labels ‘Left’ and ‘Right’.  They weren’t political parties.  They were just seating arrangements.  In those days, the Left were liberals.  Similar to our Founding Fathers.  In the classical sense of liberalism (it meant something completely different then than it does today).  Basically, the Left said the old ways just ain’t working anymore and it’s time to try something new.  The Right, on the other hand, was worried about losing their privileges.  As well as the potential chaos that could result from trying something new.  And for good reason.  The French Revolution got a little chaotic.  And a little bloody.

Since then the labels kind of morphed into new meanings.  Right and Left have become synonymous with conservatism and liberalism (or Progressivism, Socialism, Communism, Marxism, etc.).  Conservatives (the Right) believe in individual liberty, limited government, laissez-faire capitalism, low taxes, free trade, little business regulation, etc.  Liberals (the Left) believe in Big Government to redistribute the wealth, high taxes, strict controls on capitalism and business, oppose free trade and believes business operates best (and most fair) when ‘partnered’ with government.

So, to simplify, on the right you will find capitalists.  On the left you will find anti-capitalists.  On the right, people decide what’s best.  On the left, government decides what’s best.  On the right you keep more of your paycheck and buy what you want.  On the left you keep less of your paycheck so others can buy what they want.  And so on.

Free Markets and Planned Markets

The Right believes in free markets.  That if left alone, free markets will maximize employment and living standards.  The Right doesn’t believe that any one person is smarter than the collective of millions of individual decision makers in the free market.  The free market is always win-win.  When two people agree on an economic decision, they both prosper.  The seller gets what they value more (money).  And the buyer gets what they value more (what they bought).  When everyone is choosing what they value most in the free market, economic activity explodes.  This creates jobs.  Workers earn money to buy goods and services.  And taxes at low tax rates paid by the multitude of businesses and individuals swell the public treasury.

The Left, on the other hand, believe a free market economy is inefficient.  They prefer a planned economy.  They want to mettle.  To tinker.  To help people make economic decisions by regulating markets.  Enacting targeting taxing and targeting tax cuts.  To make us buy what they think we should buy (electric cars, for example).  And they think free markets are woefully unfair.  Because poor people can’t buy as much as rich people.  So they want to tax the rich to redistribute their wealth to the poor.  They call this stimulative.  Giving away other people’s money.  So other people can spend that money.  (So if you’re keeping score, net spending doesn’t change.  Just who is spending the money changes).

There’s a lot more to these political labels Left and Right.  But this will suffice for our purposes.  You will see more mature and elderly people on the right.  And more younger people on the left.  Remember the expression from the hippy counter-culture in the Sixties?  Never trust anyone over thirty?   You know who was saying this?  Inexperienced and ignorant young people.  Young college students who learned a thing or two from a radical professor.  You didn’t see many family breadwinners in the counter-culture movement.  Just a lot of people who hadn’t grown up yet or worked a job or raised a family.

Age, Experience and Family tend to make you Conservative

And so it is today.  The Left depends on the young.  That’s why they lowered the voting age to 18.  To get these people who haven’t experienced the real world yet to support things that sound good.  Yes, we should pay more taxes for a better education.  Of course, what the young don’t know is that they’ve been saying this for the last 50 years or so.  And the quality of our education has gotten worse.  Not better.  That’s why the older and more experienced voter tends to vote against these tax increases.  Not because they hate kids.  But because they’ve seen throughout their life that throwing money at education hasn’t helped any student.  Only the public school bureaucracy.

When you’re young and stupid you tend to think about today.  Your emotions easily sway you.  And your passions.  Your thoughts focus on having fun in the sun.  Going to a club.  Dating.  It’s a little different when you have a family.  You think about other things then.  Your kids’ school.  Paying a mortgage.  Putting money aside for your kids’ college education.  Putting money aside for your retirement.  Those kinds of things.  And, incidentally, those things require a good-paying job.  And tax rates that aren’t so onerous that you can’t afford those things you want for your family.

That’s why we call these people on the right conservative.  They’re not too keen on change.  Because they have a lot of responsibilities.  And they’ve made commitments to meet those responsibilities.  It’s one thing to be footloose and fancy free and have radical thoughts.  I mean, what have you to lose?  But it’s quite another thing when you do have something to lose.  Any by that time in your life, when you’re making a pretty good living, you’re paying quite a bit in taxes.  Unlike those young radicals.  You have skin in the game.  They don’t.  They are, in fact, gambling with your money.  Those radical changes (health care for everyone, taxing the ‘rich’, carbon taxes to end global warming, etc.) they’re fighting for won’t impact their lives much.  They’re not paying the taxes.  Yet.  You are.  But those things will impact your life.  So much so that they may alter your life.  You may have to make a choice between a college education for your kids.  Or a comfortable retirement.

Radicals tend to Live in the Heat of the Moment while Conservatives look beyond the Moment

Part of the reason those on the right stood with their king in France was that they saw the danger in radical change.  The breakdown of institutions.   Of tradition.  Things that they knew worked.  Things that made France a great empire.  There may have been problems.  Some inequities.  But the collapse of the old regime may unleash chaos and violence.  Back then, that’s how power changed.  Through chaos and violence.  And sometimes an imperfect system is better than chaos and violence.

Over in America, a group of liberal radicals led their revolution.  But once they won their independence from Great Britain they got very conservative indeed.  In fact, they called some of the Founding Fathers ‘too British’.  Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, to name a few, where attacked for letting down the spirit of ’76.  There were still a lot of passions in the states.  Still a bit of a civil war going on in the south between Patriot and Loyalist.  But it was time for the grownups to step in to win the peace.  Even if they were perceived as being too British.

Radicals are quick to point out your failings.  But they don’t often have the wisdom or experience to see the big picture.  They live in the heat of the moment.  And often act bold and impertinently.  Whereas wisdom and experience tend to make you act with restraint.  To be conservative.  To see beyond the moment.  Because some of the established institutions and traditions have worked.  And even have defined a people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The U.S. Government Focuses on Embryonic Stem Cells, Cheese and Cow Burps

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 8th, 2010

Embryonic Stem Cells no Longer the Last Best Hope?

Embryonic stem cells.  A very polarizing topic.  Some say they could cure the incurable.  Others say that using them is nothing more than harvesting human life.  Their potential so far has been mostly theoretical.  Unlike adult stem cells, which we have had success in treating patients. 

Obviously, this is a Right vs. Left dispute.  The pro-life Right being ‘con’.  The pro-choice Left being ‘pro’.  And the Left played to our emotions.  Promising they would let Christopher Reeve walk again.  And a Parkinson-stricken Michael J. Fox made a very emotional appeal on behalf of Democrats.  Calling embryonic stem cells the last best hope.

Meanwhile, in Canada, they’re turning skin into blood (see Scientists turn skin into blood posted on Breitbart).  Your blood.  From your skin.  A perfect genetic match.  Without using embryonic stem cells.  It promises to help in treating anemia, with chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants.  This is doing some of what embryonic stem cells promised to do.  Only better.

Stem cells that are derived from human embryos hold significant promise for medical breakthroughs but also carry risks, such as the potential to create tumors.

Good news indeed.  Less controversy.  Less risk.  More promise.  Even Left and Right can agree.  This is good.

From Cutting the Cheese to Force-Feeding Us the Cheese

Over in the United States, they’re making progress elsewhere.  They’re looking at greenhouse gas emissions.  Emitted by cow burps (see UNH scientists to study cow burps . . . and more by Clynton Namuo, New Hampshire Union Leader Correspondent, posted on Union Leader).  Apparently, they’ve been studying cow flatulence, too, for they note cows emit more methane from belching than from cutting the cheese.  And when government is not studying cow burps and other gaseous emissions, what are they doing?  Why, they’re trying to kill us.

Michelle Obama is campaigning against obesity while at the same time the federal government is trying to get us to eat more cheese (see While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales by Michael Moss posted on The New York Times.)  Why?  Well, the federal government used to buy surplus dairy products to help dairy farmers keep dairy prices high.  With this artificial demand, dairy production boomed.  And the federal government was running out of space to store the surplus.  So they came up with the idea to get people to eat more of these saturated fats-loaded products.

Dairy Management [a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture], through the “Got Milk?” campaign, has been successful at slowing the decline in milk consumption, particularly focusing on schoolchildren. It has also relentlessly marketed cheese and pushed back against the Agriculture Department’s suggestion that people eat only low-fat or fat-free varieties.

And they do this despite knowing better.

Agriculture Department data show that cheese is a major reason the average American diet contains too much saturated fat.

In other words, it’s all that cheese we’re eating that is making us so obese.

The Lack of Partisanship May Be Killing Americans

There’s a lot of talk about people being tired of partisanship.  But when the U.S. Government counts killing Americans with heart disease as one of their fiscal tools, I think we could all use a little more partisanship.  With friends like government we don’t need any enemies.  And if they’re looking to kill us in an indirect way to cut their agriculture budget, one can only wonder what they will do to cut their Obamacare budget.  All of a sudden those ‘death panels’ don’t seem so farfetched.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #36: “Politicians oppose across the board tax cuts because they are not politically expedient.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 19th, 2010

Pay Raise or Christmas Bonus – Which is Better?

If times are tough and the boss has to cut costs, which would you rather see cut?  The annual pay raise?  Or the Christmas bonus?  You, the employee, should pick to cut the Christmas bonus.  You, the employer, should pick to cut the pay raise.  The reason is the same for both.  A bonus is a onetime thing.  A pay raise is forever.

If you chose a Christmas bonus this year over a pay raise there is a very good chance you will take a pay cut the following year.  For if you got a $1,000 bonus this year but get nothing the following year, your annual earnings next year will be $1,000 less than they were this year.  However, if you chose the pay raise over the Christmas bonus this year and you get neither a pay raise nor a bonus the following year, you’ll at least make the same amount next year as you did this year.  Because that pay raise is still there.

The allure of a big check, though, is tough to beat.  Getting a 4-figure bonus check for the holidays may make the difference between a truly merry holiday and a not so merry holiday.  That’s why some people have more income tax withheld from their paychecks.  They want to get a big, sexy check after the holidays to help pay off their holiday debt.  Another $20 or $30 in a weekly paycheck just isn’t as sexy.  But it’ll do a whole lot more for you.  Perhaps even being just enough additional income to get you approved for that mortgage.

The Mortgage Interest Deduction

Big Government likes to spend money.  Their money.  When it comes to spending, they operate under the premise that it’s all their money.  Your net pay is only the portion of their money that they let you keep.  For you to spend as it pleases them. 

Affordable housing is important on both sides of the aisle.  The Left likes it primarily for putting people into houses who can’t afford to buy houses.  This makes for grateful voters at election time.  The Right likes it primarily for the economic dividend.  New housing drives a host of other economic activity to furnish those new houses.

Now Big Government is not very generous with their money.  Hence their pervasive taxes.  They don’t want to lower taxes too much.  If they did, we would be able to keep more of their money.  And they just won’t have that.  But on the other hand, they want us to buy houses.  So they came up with the mortgage interest deduction (MID).  If we buy what they want us to buy, they’ll let us keep a little more of their money via this income tax deduction.  Their little way of saying thank you for going into debt up to our eyeballs.  Of course, if they would just cut our taxes we could probably buy those houses without the MID.  But we must remember whose money it is.  It’s not about us enjoying our life as much as we can.  It’s about them giving us as little of their money as possible.

What Have You Done for Me Lately?

They give us (for the time being, at least) the mortgage interest deduction because they get something for it.  Housing sales.  Which gives the Left more grateful voters.  And the Right a more bustling economy.  In other words, Big Government received a sufficient payment on this gift of money they gave us.  This to them is a sensible tax cut.  It’s not general.  It’s not across the board.  It’s specific and targeted to the people they want something from.

This is how they measure the value of any projected tax cut.  They ask themselves how will this tax cut benefit us, Big Government.  And if that benefit is sufficient, that they will gain real value for it, then they grant us this sensible tax cut.  It’s basic accounting fundamentals, matching the costs to the benefits. Which is why they really eschew across the board tax cuts.  With those there’s no matching of costs to benefits.  Sure, everyone may win, but that ‘everyone’ doesn’t include them the way they see it.

They’ll provide a tax credit to buy a ‘green’ car because they can match the cost to the benefit.  They get campaign contributions (and votes) from the Left for promoting ‘green’ technology.  And they get kickbacks from ‘green’ industries the more green technology is used.  They can match the costs of these ‘green’ tax credits to the benefits they receive in exchange.  These tax credits make sense to them.  Across the board tax cuts, on the other hand, don’t.  It’s a lot of money thrown away without anything specific to show for it.  Sure the economy may be better off, but what demographic did it buy?  What specific graft can they count on?  Big Government operates on props.  And if they don’t feel the love (and the money), you better watch your back.

A Crisis is a Terrible Thing to Waste

Pay raises and Christmas bonuses.  Targeted tax cuts and across the board tax cuts.  They have something in common.   Two of them benefit us in the short term (bonuses and targeted tax cuts).  Two of them benefit us in the long term (raises and across the board tax cuts).  Tax credits and the MID are nice, but you have to spend a lot of money to get them.  And they’re short lived.  A pay raise and an across the board tax cut, though, gives you more money to spend with every paycheck.  And the more money you have, the less you have to borrow.  The less interest you will pay on your credit cards.  And the smaller your mortgage will be (and the less interest you will pay on that mortgage).

But, of course, letting us keep more of our money doesn’t help them.  Big Government.  It won’t help reelect them.  And it won’t help them get rich.  (And who hasn’t left Washington rich?)  And that’s what it’s all about.  At least, based on history.    And so what if they crash our economy in the process?  A bad economy is good for them.  A bad economy calls for stimulus spending.  It calls for reform.  It calls for Big Government to step in and do something.  Anything.  Because the people are desperate.  And a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

And the people will willingly suffer for a couple of years.  They’ll make their sacrifices.  Suffer unemployment.  To help build a better tomorrow.  But when that tomorrow never comes, they will grow impatient.  They’ll stop giving them their props.  They will stop loving them.  Believing in them.  Which may back Big Government into a corner.  Where they will either move to the center and govern according to the will of the people.  Or rule by executive order against the will of the people.  Should they choose the former, we better all watch our backs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The KISS Army Supports the U.S. Military

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 13th, 2010

A friend of mine took his sister to a KISS concert.  There were big KISS fans some 20 years ago.  Back when some on the Right warned the masses about their ‘devil’ music.  Said that ‘KISS’ stood for Knights in Satan’s Service.  Neither my friend nor his sister were devil worshippers, though.  They just liked the music.  And they put on a great live show.  KISS took the stage to entertain.  And they entertained the hell out of you.

All these years later and they still entertain the hell out of you.  There’s a new ‘Ace Frehley’ and a new ‘Peter Chris’ these days behind the makeup, but Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley are still doing it like they did in the 1970s.  Paul Stanley was still bare-chested.  And pretty buff.  For a 58 year old man.  At least, according to my friend’s sister.  Based on her droolage when Stanley wiggled his ass.  And they call men shallow and superficial.

Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley are great patriots.  During the concert, three Air Force staff sergeants walked out on stage.  Stanley said they donate $1 from each ticket sold to the Wounded Warrior Project.  That night, the check they presented to the sergeants was in excess of $300,000.  That was just that night.  They do more to support our warriors.  Far more.  Money.  And their personal time.  When it comes to their support of the military, Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley walk it like they talk it.

Now that’s irony.  A band once feared by the Right for being devil worshippers doing good.  One could almost say ‘doing God’s work’.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,