Progressives – they are just so SMUG when they use one of the classic phrases that just screams “I an intellectually and morally superior than you – *I* will make the decision for you (moron, evil, uneducated, politically incorrect, or conservative) sub-human.  Here, take my hand and I will lead you to the Enlightened Utopia we have planned for you  (because, pretty much, you’re too dumb to do it on your own)”.

That phrase, by the way, is “you don’t need that” – or in this case at TreeHugger (they are still so much fun to poke, even though I’m still banned from the comments), the plural “we don’t need that“.  The signature thought run concurrently:

• I have no idea why someone would want that
• You would abuse that
• I don’t know anyone that has that or wants to do that
• Or in the space that TreeHugger occupies intellectually – “how DARE you do something that would violate the orthodoxy of our environmental Religious vows”

It was in a post concerning the “GE Kitchen of the Future” and while the author liked some things and didn’t like others, this one seemed to be a show stopper on this feature:

Read more

Piers, Piers, Piers – you of all people should know the phrase containing “and dispel all doubt”.  A recent tweet on his favorite hobby horse (the Socialist / Statist mantra that citizens should be disarmed) shows a serious lack of understanding of the underlying philosophy of the US Constitution.  The Founders were careful with their words and careful with their construction of that document – and Morgan just continues to flail away

I'd like to suggest a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines the right NOT to be shot/killed by a gun.

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) September 12, 2013

I’d like to suggest a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines the right NOT to be shot/killed by a gun.

Certainly, he is of the “Safety & Security should be primary over Freedom” crowd.  Right there, he goes cross purposes to the fundamental meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution as the intent was to put a fence around Government to prevent its intrusion into the natural self-evident Rights imbued to us simply for being human. They knew that this fence HAD to be constructed by negative liberties – the Bill of Rights spells out what the Government CANNOT do so as to safeguard those Rights.  The Constitution spells out what is allowed and more importantly, outlines that everything else for “powers” is not allowed to the Federal Government.

For the sake of argument, what would this take?

Read more

So much for “it’s for the children!” – instead, it is the age old Democrat ploy of “let’s use kids as political shields – again!”. This sorry political story actually illustrates TWO really bad problems:

• Democrats have no problem in threatening the well being of toddlers and young children to get their way
• Congress not able to kill off old laws and the programs they spawned that make no sense anymore (unless it can be used as a Democrat billy club later)

From The Hill (emphasis mine, reformatted):

Democrat’s latest farm bill strategy: Threaten to double the price of milk

The top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee has launched a new strategy for passing a farm bill this year: threaten to send milk prices skyrocketing.  Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) said he called Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack this week suggesting that the agency begin the process of implementing the 1949-era dairy policies that would take effect Oct. 1 if Congress fails to act on a farm bill before then.

“Clearly this is not going to get done by the 1st of October, so my suggestion to the secretary is that they should start now putting the framework together to implement the permanent law on dairy Jan. 1,” Peterson said Wednesday in the Capitol. “And it sounds to me like they’re going to take a very serious look at that.” The 1949 law requires the Agriculture Department to manipulate the dairy market in such a way that milk is priced at a floor of roughly $39 per 100 pounds – a figure that would lead milk prices to roughly double at today’s rates.

Good to know – Democrats are willing to hurt poor families in order to get their way politically. 

Read more

Rent-Seeking:

The expenditure of resources in order to bring about an uncompensated transfer of goods or services from another person or persons to one’s self as the result of a “favorable” decision on some public policy….Examples of rent-seeking behavior would include all of the various ways by which individuals or groups lobby government for taxing, spending and regulatory policies that confer financial benefits or other special advantages upon them at the expense of the taxpayers or of consumers or of other groups or individuals with which the beneficiaries may be in economic competition.

Rent-Seeking:

In public choice theory, rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent, (i.e., the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of that which is needed to keep it employed in its current use), by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth. One example is spending money on political lobbying in order to be given a share of wealth that has already been created.

And while the first blast at Rent-Seeking Walmart’s new stores has petered out, it is an EXCELLENT, encapsulated example of Rent-Seeking by those waving the Union Label.  There are those in DC that will do anything to keep out the Big Box stores, especially Walmart.  The Unionistas claim that Walmart doesn’t pay it workers well enough (er, then why do they work there?  but that’s for another post).  So, the Biz-Haters and the Unions wanted to have a “living wage” restriction placed upon Walmart via the Large Retailer Accountability Act that would have put their entry level labor costs 25% over the competition:

The bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating District stores of at least 75,000 square feet to pay their employees a “living wage” — no less than $12.50 an hour in combined wages and benefits. The proposal includes an exception for employers who collectively bargain with their employees, and existing employers have four years to come into compliance under the law.

Notice the store size (only Big Boxers).  Notice the corporate sales limit (er, Walmart is WELL north of that).  OK, that would be fair – if a town has decided what it’s “look and feel” is to be, so be it.  But notice the “Rent-Seeking”:

Read more