welfare

Common Sense Fact of the Day: Only 5 Countries Have Pension Systems That Can Survive (Hint: Not the USA)

by Lee Doren on October 28, 2010

in Economy, Employment, Labor

This issue keeps showing up over the Internet, so it makes it an easy story to address: Most government pension programs are unsustainable. As I’ve mentioned recently, the French in particular don’t want to accept the economic reality of their government pension system, and have shut down their country as a result. However, it is now being reported that there are only five countries whose pension systems can survive (No, the United States didn’t make the list).

Ignoring the moral issue against the government providing pension benefits, basic arithmetic is all that is necessary to explain why these pensions will result in long-term bankruptcy for any country.

For example, if young citizens pay into a government program to pay retirees, yet simultaneously older citizens demand longer vacation time, fewer work hours, prevention against employment termination and a young retirement age, eventually all the revenues coming into the program will not pay all the beneficiaries.   To exacerbate the problem, these programs often create the terrible result of increasing unemployment for the young people who need to fund the system.

It would be one thing if the politicians were responsible with the money, but Public Choice Theory explains why that is unlikely to happen. Bureaucrats simply fund projects with revenue generated from the pension plans, rather than holding the money in trust. The result is that the politicians get elected for the projects they vote to fund, and over time there is no more pension to pay retirees.

The great irony is that the politicians themselves often retire with gold-star pensions before their constituents realize their own pensions are insolvent.  Sadly, the French will soon learn that throwing a nationwide tantrum won’t change the economic reality.

Stimulus Money Went to Prisoners and Dead People

by Hans Bader on October 8, 2010

in Economy, Employment, International, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

17,000 prison inmates received checks courtesy of the $800 billion stimulus package, notes the Associated Press.  $18 million in checks went to dead people.

The stimulus also contained giveways to wealthy trial lawyers, who are some of the biggest donors to liberal politicians.  It expanded welfare and largely repealed welfare reform.  It has paid for abandoned bridges to nowhere and unnecessary government buildings in cities with rapidly shrinking populations.

The Obama administration claims the stimulus created or saved lots of jobs, but those jobs exist only in their imagination.  The administration’s own web site showed tens of thousands of phantom stimulus jobs being created in 440 imaginary congressional districts.

As noted earlier, the stimulus package actually destroyed thousands of real world jobs by triggering trade wars that killed jobs in America’s export sector (for example, the stimulus package barred a measley 97 Mexican truckers from U.S. roads, a minor NAFTA violation that triggered massive Mexican retaliation against U.S. exports of 40 farm products and kitchen goods worth $2.4 billion).   Unemployment rose rapidly after passage of the stimulus package.

Obama Fires Inspector General Who Uncovered Fraud, and Honors Defrauder Instead

by Hans Bader on June 11, 2010

in Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade, Zeitgeist

Earlier, President Obama fired the inspector general for the AmeriCorps program after he uncovered fraud by Obama crony Kevin Johnson.  (Johnson did not receive even a slap on the wrist for his fraud; an organization Johnson ran was required to pay $350,000, but it never did so because it was insolvent; and Johnson himself was not ordered by the Obama administration to pay anything.)

Now, the Obama administration is honoring Johnson despite his fraud, inviting him to be a featured speaker at an event for AmeriCorps, the program Johnson defrauded.

The Obama administration fired the inspector general who uncovered the fraud, Gerald Walpin, falsely claiming he was a senile right-winger, even though Walpin was a successful lawyer with recent high-profile court victories who had uncovered millions in fraud against taxpayers, and even though Walpin, a northeastern moderate Republican, was sufficiently non-partisan that he endorsed Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.  (The Obama administration even trumpeted Walpin’s endorsement of Sotomayor to push her nomination.)

Obama Administration Pushes More Bailouts at Taxpayer Expense; America to Bail Out Corrupt Union Pension Funds

by Hans Bader on June 2, 2010 · 2 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Employment, International, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

The Obama administration and its congressional allies are now pushing for billions more in bailouts for mismanaged union pension  funds, and teachers unions.

The union pension bailout bill “would transfer tens of billions of dollars worth of retiree liabilities” from unions “to taxpayers.”  It would bail out the massively underfunded pension fund of the SEIU, a corrupt left-wing union that uses mobs to intimidate, and occasionally beat up, its critics and creditors. (The SEIU serves as a security force for Obama allies and liberal Congressmen seeking to keep Tea Party protesters away from their events.)  The union pension funds are estimated to be underfunded by $165 billion.

The Obama administration is also proposing a multi-billion dollar teacher bailout sought by the teachers’ unions.  Although education spending per student has quadrupled, after inflation, since 1960, and teacher class sizes have shrunk considerably, the Obama administration wants to increase spending even further to prevent states from laying off any teachers.  Even the The Washington Post, which endorsed Obama and has endorsed every Democratic presidential candidate since 1952, considers this unwise and financially reckless “wasteful spending.”  (The SAT has been “recentered” in recent years to hide the fact that SAT scores have effectively gone down even as education spending has skyrocketed.  My 1986 SAT score of 1520 out of 1600 would be a perfect 1600 on the relevant portions of today’s SAT, thanks to “recentering.”)  Ironically, no additional spending would be needed to prevent layoffs if teachers would simply accept small pay cuts.  (The average school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland, makes $76,483 in base pay–which hasn’t stopped school officials from threatening to sue the County for supposedly inadequate school funding.)

While pushing an unnecessary teacher bailout, the administration has shown little interest in the plight of the unemployed.  It deliberately removed from the $800 billion stimulus package billions in transportation spending that would have stimulated the economy, after feminist leaders complained that such projects would employ blue-collar men, many of whom are now unemployed (80 percent of those who have lost their jobs in the recession are men).   The transportation spending was replaced with wasteful welfare spending, and other provisions of the stimulus package largely repealed the limits on welfare passed in the reforms of 1996.

The Obama administration earlier lifted a $400 billion limit on bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two mortgage giants known as the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). It was just the beginning: “Late last year, the Obama administration pledged to cover unlimited losses through 2012 for Freddie and Fannie,” reports The New York Times.

At the direction of the Obama administration, Freddie Mac ran up more than $30 billion in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, some of whom have high incomes. Federal regulators sought to make Freddie Mac hide the resulting losses from the SEC and the public.

Fannie and Freddie helped spawn the mortgage crisis by buying up risky mortgages and repackaging them as prime mortgages, thus creating an artificial market for junk. ”From the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime.” They paid their CEOs millions, and engaged in massive accounting fraud–$6.3 billion at Fannie Mae alone–to increase the size of their managers’ bonuses. As Government-Sponsored Enterprises, they were exempt from the capital requirements that apply to private banks, so they did not have enough reserves to cover their losses when their mortgages started defaulting.

The Obama administration refuses to reform these mortgage giants, saying it is “too hard” to do. Earlier, Senate Democrats blocked reform of the mortgage giants in a party-line vote.

(Obama received $125,000 in contributions from these mortgage giants as a Senator, second only to the corrupt Senator Chris Dodd, who is retiring this year due to his financial scandals. Dodd is the chief drafter of the financial “reform” bill.)

The financial “reform” bills recently passed by the House and Senate do nothing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But they will increase pressure on banks to make risky loans in depressed neighborhoods, and increase credit card costs.

The Obama administration also recently provided billions for the international bailout of Greece, which came close to bankruptcy thanks to its socialist policies and pensions for people who retire as early as age 50 (in many ordinary occupations, like hairdressers).

Radical Law Professor Goodwin Liu Approved as High-Ranking Judge by Senate Judiciary Committee, on Party-Line Vote

by Hans Bader on May 14, 2010 · 1 comment

in Economy, Employment, Labor, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Radical law professor Goodwin Liu was approved to sit on the federal appeals court for the Ninth Circuit in a party-line, 12-to-7 vote, by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  His nomination now heads to the full Senate, which will confirm him unless there is a successful filibuster by Republicans.

Liu, a left-wing ideologue, is now poised to sit on the nation’s largest federal appeals court, the Ninth Circuit.  Many Ninth Circuit rulings are decided by narrow majorities, like the recent 6-to-5 ruling against Wal-Mart in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.

Liu has been suggested by left-wing racial lobbies as a possible Supreme Court nominee, because he believes that racial preferences are not merely permitted by the Constitution (as liberal justices argued in the Bakke case), but required by it.   Liu believes that race-based busing should be required not merely within school districts, but across school district lines to create what are effectively region-wide racial quotas, a radical claim rejected by the Supreme Court long ago (the Supreme Court rejects busing across district lines even in desegregation cases).  (The slippery Liu claims to oppose racial quotas, but he supports mandating fixed racial percentages and ratios, which is exactly what racial quotas are, under a dictionary definition of “quota.”)  Racial quotas are often implemented at the urging of left-wing academics who harbor divisive and offensive racial stereotypes, such as “diversity” trainers who claim that whites are coldly “impersonal” and “intellectual” and thus need to be racially balanced with minorities who are “emotional” and “personal.”

Liu is hostile to “’free enterprise, private ownership of property, and limited government.’ According to Liu, these are ‘code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections.’”

Liu also believes in “a constitutional right to welfare.“   Liu is also a big user of politically-correct psychobabble designed to hide judicial activism, writing that a judge is supposed to be a “culturally situated interpreter of social meaning” rather than an impartial umpire who interprets the law in accord with its plain meaning or its framers’ intent.

Bar association standards say lawyers are supposed to have practiced law for at least 12 years before being nominated to a judgeship, and should also have “substantial courtroom and trial experience.“  Liu has no trial experience, and had not even been out of law school for 12 years when he was nominated, meaning he was by definition unqualified under ABA standards.  But a liberal ABA committee, showing ideological bias, quickly rubberstamped his nomination anyway, ignoring his lack of the required qualifications, since the committee members shared his extreme political views.

The Ninth Circuit, to which Liu was nominated, already contained a lot of leftist judges.  The Wall Street Journal criticized a recent 6-to-5 ruling by the Ninth Circuit allowing six employees to bring a  multibillion dollar class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in the name of 1.5 million other Wal-Mart employees they had little in common with.  As the dissenting opinion, written by Judge Sandra Ikuta, noted, the lawsuit was based on junk science that violated the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision, and let a few employees whose situation was anything but typical sue in the name of countless employees they shared nothing with but gender.  The plaintiffs’ lawyers sought at least $450 billion!  The intellectually dishonest ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart allowed just six employees to bring a national class-action even though Wal-Mart’s hiring and promotions are decentralized and not done on a company-wide basis, and Federal Rules of Procedure say that national class-actions are supposed to challenge a company-wide practice.  The Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling against Wal-Mart was likewise an abuse of basic legal principles.

Although the lawsuit will affect employees and managers across the country (and probably reduce the value of your retirement plan, since the mutual funds in your 401(k) probably own Wal-Mart stock), a verdict will be rendered solely by a left-leaning jury drawn from the San Francisco Bay Area, since the plaintiffs sued Wal-Mart in one of the most anti-employer judicial districts in America, the Northern District of California.

In the ruling against Wal-Mart, the Ninth Circuit was split along ideological lines, with only hard-core liberal judges in the majority, and a dissent joined in by all the moderate and conservative judges (as well as a mainstream liberal Democrat Barry Silverman).

Obama’s Policies Will Increase National Debt by $9.7 trillion, Says Congressional Budget Office

by Hans Bader on March 6, 2010 · 3 comments

in Economy, Environment, Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere

“President Obama’s policies would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday. . .The 10-year outlook by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is somewhat gloomier than White House projections, which found that Obama’s policies would add $8.5 trillion to the debt by 2020.”

That’s from the an article in The Washington Post summarizing the findings of a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office.

As the Associated Press notes, “The deficit picture has turned alarmingly worse. . .Economists say that deficits of that size are unsustainable and could put upward pressure on interest rates, crowd out private investment in the economy and ultimately erode the nation’s standard of living.”

The President’s healthcare proposals will add still more to the national debt, which he is attempting to conceal through budget gimmicks.  Even Democrats have expressed alarm about their unaffordable cost.

In the 2008 campaign, Obama promised a “net spending cut,” but as soon as he was elected, he proposed massive increases in federal spending instead.  It’s one of a long series of broken promises by the President.

Obama broke his campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year by signing a regressive SCHIP excise tax increase, and by proposing a cap-and-trade global-warming tax that could charge up to $2 trillion, a massive cost that Obama himself has said will be passed “on to consumers,” as well as homeowners and motorists. (In 2008, Obama privately admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle that if he was elected, electricity bills would “skyrocket” under his Administration, but it didn’t report that).

Obama broke seven campaign promises dealing with transparency and clean government in signing the $800 billion stimulus package.  Obama claimed the stimulus package was needed to avert “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office concluded before and after its passage that the stimulus package will actually cut the size of the economy in the long run.

Obama persists in pushing a government takeover of health care, event though most Americans oppose his plan. It would reduce lifesaving medical innovation, raise taxes, drive up insurance premiums and the deficit, break many campaign promises, and impose heavy burdens on state budgets.  It  would also jeopardize the quality of medical care for many, while imposing restrictions that failed when tried at the state level, and ignoring advice from federal and academic experts, and lessons from countries with universal healthcare, about how to keep costs down.

Obama recently nominated to a key federal appeals court a left-wing radical who seeks to make welfare a constitutional right, at taxpayer expense — a radical sometimes suggested as a future Supreme Court nominee.

Obama Nominates Left-Wing Extremist Goodwin Liu to Appeals Court; Liu is Possible Supreme Court Nominee

by Hans Bader on March 5, 2010

in Employment, Environment, Legal, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

President Obama has nominated law professor Goodwin Liu, a left-wing extremist, to the nation’s largest federal appeals court, the Ninth Circuit.  Liu is hostile to “‘free enterprise, private ownership of property, and limited government.’ According to Liu, these are ‘code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections.’”  Liu opposed the appointment of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who was easily confirmed by the Senate in a bipartisan vote of 78-to-22, on the grounds that Roberts supported these “basic precepts of American liberty and economic freedom.”

Liu has been suggested by left-wing “civil-rights” groups as a possible Supreme Court nominee.

Liu also believes in “a constitutional right to welfare“  (perhaps echoing Obama, who has expressed regret that the Supreme Court “didn’t break free” from legal constraints in order to bring about “redistribution of wealth”).  Liu is also a big user of politically-correct psychobabble, writing that a judge is supposed to be a “culturally situated interpreter of social meaning” rather than an impartial umpire who interprets the law in accord with its plain meaning or its framers’ intent.

Bar association standards say lawyers are supposed to have practiced law for at least 12 years before being nominated to a judgeship, and also must have “substantial courtroom and trial experience.“  Liu has no trial experience, and has not even been out of law school for 12 years, meaning he is by definition unqualified under ABA standards.  But a liberal ABA committee, showing ideological bias, rubberstamped his nomination anyway, ignoring his lack of the required qualifications, since its members share his extreme political views.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is doling out favors to politicians that violate federal influence-peddling statutes.  (Earlier, the Administration fired an inspector general, Gerald Walpin, who uncovered wrongdoing by an Obama crony.)

Stimulus Package Forces States to Raise Taxes, Harms Economy

by Hans Bader on January 2, 2010 · 2 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, International, Labor, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade

The federal government’s $800 billion stimulus package, which failed to cut unemployment, is now forcing states and local governments to raise taxes. The Wall Street Journal describes how “stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches . . . At the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed ‘maintenance of effort’ spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs,” such as ”welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash,” even if a state’s tax revenue has since fallen due to the recession.  “So when states should be reducing” their spending ”to match. . . lower revenue collections, federal stimulus rules mean many states will have little choice but to raise taxes.”

Obama claimed the stimulus package was needed to prevent the economy from suffering from “irreversible decline,” but the Congressional Budget Office admitted that the stimulus package actually would shrink the economy “in the long run.”  Unemployment has skyrocketed past European levels, as big-spending countries have fared worse than thrifty ones.

The Washington Examiner says that “75,000 jobs” Obama has claimed credit for are “clearly imaginary” or “highly doubtful.”  That includes thousands of jobs the administration claims credit for creating in nonexistent Congressional districts. As the Examiner notes:

If his stimulus program was approved, Obama promised, unemployment would not go above 8 percent this year. The reality is that it passed 10.3 percent in October. So now the stimulus books are being cooked to mollify an anxious public worried that real-world jobs continue to disappear and angry that Obama has thrown almost $1 trillion down the stimulus rathole.

The stimulus package actually destroyed thousands of real world jobs by triggering trade wars with Canada and Mexico that killed jobs in America’s export sector (the stimulus package barred a measley 97 Mexican truckers from U.S. roads, a minor NAFTA violation that led to massive Mexican retaliation against U.S. exports of 40 farm products and kitchen goods worth $2.4 billion).  It also is wiping out jobs by inflicting costly mandates on state governments (such as repealing welfare reform, and imposing costly “prevailing wage” regulations and expensive racial set-asides).

The stimulus package has since spawned countless examples of government waste and corruption.  Recently, Obama fired an inspector general, Gerald Walpin, who uncovered millions of dollars of waste and fraud in the AmeriCorps program, including by a prominent Obama supporter, endangering the Obama supporter’s ability to administer federal stimulus spending in Sacramento.  Obama’s alleged justification for firing the inspector general turned out to be false.

Stimulus Package Creates Imaginary Jobs, Destroys Jobs in the Real World

by Hans Bader on November 17, 2009 · 4 comments

in Agriculture, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, International, Labor, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade

President Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package creates imaginary jobs, while destroying ones in the real world.

Billions from the stimulus are being spent on creating tens of thousands of imaginary jobs in 440 phantom Congressional districts, according to the government’s own web site:

Just how big is the stimulus package? Well for one, it has doubled the size of the House of Representatives, according to recovery.gov, which says that funds were distributed to 440 congressional districts that do not exist. . . . The web site operates on an $84 million budget and is tasked with monitoring the distribution of the $787 billion stimulus package passed by Congress–which, for the record, counts 435 members–in early 2009.

The site’s monitors, however, are not too savvy about America’s political or geographic landscape. More than $2 million was given to the 99th District of North Dakota, a state which has only one congressional district. In order to qualify for 99 districts, North Dakota would have to have a population of about 60 million people, almost 24 million more people than California.

From ABC News:

Here’s a stimulus success story: In Arizona’s 15th Congressional District, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that’s what the website set up by the Obama Administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.

There’s one problem, though: There is no 15th Congressional District in Arizona; the state has only eight Congressional Districts.

There’s no 86th Congressional District in Arizona either, but the government’s recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there.

In fact, Recovery.gov lists hundreds of millions spent and hundreds of jobs created in Congressional districts that don’t exist.

The Washington Examiner says that “75,000 jobs” Obama has claimed credit for are “clearly imaginary” or “highly doubtful.” Readers can view its interactive map of “Inflated Jobs by State.”

As the Examiner notes, “If his stimulus program was approved, Obama promised, unemployment would not go above 8 percent this year. The reality is that it passed 10.3 percent in October. So now the stimulus books are being cooked to mollify an anxious public worried that real-world jobs continue to disappear and angry that Obama has thrown almost $1 trillion down the stimulus rathole.”

The stimulus package actually destroyed thousands of real world jobs by triggering trade wars with Canada and Mexico that killed jobs in America’s export sector (the stimulus package barred a measley 97 Mexican truckers from U.S. roads, a minor NAFTA violation that led to massive Mexican retaliation against U.S. exports of 40 farm products and kitchen goods worth $2.4 billion).  It also is wiping out jobs by inflicting costly mandates on state governments (such as repealing welfare reform, and imposing costly “prevailing wage” regulations and expensive racial set-asides).

Obama claimed the stimulus package was needed to prevent the economy from suffering from “irreversible decline,” but the Congressional Budget Office admitted that the stimulus package actually would shrink the economy “in the long run.”  Unemployment has skyrocketed past European levels, as big-spending countries have fared worse than thrifty ones.

The stimulus package has since spawned countless examples of government waste and corruption.  Recently, Obama fired an inspector general, Gerald Walpin, who uncovered millions of dollars of waste and fraud in the AmeriCorps program, including by a prominent Obama supporter, endangering the Obama supporter’s ability to administer federal stimulus spending in Sacramento.  Obama’s alleged justification for firing the inspector general turned out to be false.

Unemployment Skyrockets: “U.S. now beating European unemployment rates”

by Hans Bader on November 10, 2009 · 15 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Healthcare, Insurance, International, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

Unemployment is now higher in the U.S. than in Europe,  reports the Washington Post.  “The official U.S. unemployment rate, reported last Friday, now stands at 10.2 percent,” compared to “9.7 percent” in Europe.   This is the highest rate in more than 26 years, and marks a huge change from the recent past, in which unemployment was double the American rate in much of Europe, such as in France.

Unemployment is at 10 percent in France, which refused to adopt a U.S.-style stimulus package, and only 7.6 percent in Germany, which adopted a stimulus package that was smaller relative to its economy than ours was.  (Countries that refused to adopt big stimulus packages have fared better than those that imitated President Obama. And the biggest-spending countries have suffered worst in the recession.)

A “broader measure of U.S. unemployment,” including discouraged workers, puts U.S. unemployment at 17.5 percent, reports the New York Times.

As the Post notes, “For many on the left, the lament for years has been: Why can’t America be more like Europe? Why can’t rustic Americans be more like sophisticated Europeans? The sentiment has resurfaced in recent months as the health-care debate has raged on — why can’t the American health-care system be more like Europe’s?”

Well, America is now more like Europe when it comes to unemployment.  But not when it comes to social benefits and protections.  The American Left knows how to import Europe’s failures, but not its successes.

The massive health-care bill passed by the House on Saturday is a classic example.  It would expand health care coverage somewhat, but not to European levels, and it would vastly increase the costs of our health care system, rather than reducing it to European levels.   It would also increase taxes to “European levels of taxation.”  The health care bill contains politically-correct provisions that Europeans would never put up with, like pork for trial lawyers and racial preferences.  And restrictions on national competition in health insurance, which do not exist in Europe.

In France, doctors don’t need to be paid as much, because competing professions, like lawyers, are paid less.  French law is much more conservative than American law when it comes to lawsuits, including lawsuits against doctors.  There are NO punitive damages, and France discourages lawsuits by making unsuccessful plaintiffs pay the other side’s legal bills.  (Other European countries have specialized health courts, rather than American-style jury trials, to cut lawyers’ bills, speedily compensate the injured, and prevent American-style baseless lawsuits against doctors.)  There are no racial preferences — even my Marxist father-in-law, a French trade unionist who likes Michael Moore’s book Stupid White Men, thinks that racial preferences are evil.  French people do not let political correctness shackle their minds the way American leftists do.

Europe is not as far to the left of America as people think, and America’s business climate is already not much more favorable than Europe’s.  For every three ways in which Europe is more socialistic than America, there are two ways in which it is less socialistic than America.  The Obama administration is getting rid of our advantages, but not our disadvantages.

American tort law and family law are much more burdensome, anti-business, and bent on redistribution of wealth, than Europe’s.

Confronted with the specter of new burdens under the health-care bills and global-warming bills backed by the Obama administration, many businesses with the money to do so are afraid to hire people and create jobs lest they be stuck with a large tab for things like health care benefits for newly-hired, less-skilled employees.

The Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly admitted that Obama’s stimulus package will shrink the economy “in the long run.”  It contained welfare and repealed welfare reform.  Unemployment is higher now than if Congress had voted it down.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →