My student in management at Brooklyn College, Joseph Stewart, asked then-Senator Barack Obama a question on television recently. Joseph, who lives in Red Hook, Brooklyn, knows at least 40 people who have been murdered. He wanted to know how Barack Obama thinks that hope can be injected into the inner city.
I agree with parts of Mr. Obama's remarks. I do not believe that improvement of medical care, after school programs or teacher quality are relevant to crime. The creation of jobs would help, but not if taxation of income makes a good job a pastime for a sucker. One way to encourage a focus on the work ethic is to limit taxation, government intervention and inflation to encourage saving, thrift and self-improvement. As well, elimination of minimum wage requirements for training programs would enable firms to employ unskilled labor that they train for the best jobs.
Perhaps Red Hook could become a free trade zone and attract industrial enterprise back to New York, enterprise that was ejected (and its associated jobs destroyed) during the "urban renewal" of the 1950s. As well, decriminalization of drugs would reduce violent crime. Along these lines, Mr. Obama suggests drug courts that decriminalize drugs.
I agree with Mr. Obama's claim that young people should be given opportunity to learn construction trades, although if much of their earnings are taxed, good jobs may not be so desirable. Strengthening of the family and individual assumption of responsibility (and rewarding assumption of such responsibility) are the best ways to end crime.
Crime rates did not increase in inner cities until the early 1950s. The increase was concomitant with increased government programs, welfare, social work and urban renewal. As someone once said, government is not the solution, government is the problem.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Extension of Unemployment Insurance versus Public Works--Subsidies Should Be Sent to Me, at PO Box 130, W. Shokan, NY
A friend of mine suggested that if the unemployment rate continues to rise a good plan might be public works projects to employ the unemployed. Herbert Hoover did this during 1930-1932. He put through the Hoover Dam in '32 but lost the election, so it was implemented during Roosevelt's administration. In short, Hoover's public works programs did nothing to stop the Great Depression. Roosevelt continued this policy with the Works Projects Administration but again, this was not an effective strategy.
Part of the problem with public construction is excessive waste and regulation, which leads to cost overruns and mismanagement. This is especially true in New York State, which happened to be the leading recipient of the WPA money. I suspect that a public works project would lead to considerable thievery, especially in places like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, where it is most needed. I have lived in rural places like Potsdam, New York, and there are plenty of crooked construction people there too.
However, the training of inner city unemployed to become plumbers, masons, carpenters and electricians would be potentially productive. These newly trained individuals might be employed by experienced firms. Hence, road and bridge repair work could be done by newly trained people who have previously been excluded from construction trades because of discriminatory union policies and closed shops.
Barring the training of new construction help, I suspect any works projects money would be stolen.
Many people may have lost their jobs due to excessively stimulative Federal Reserve policy that has led to the real estate bubble and the recent collapse. Easy money leads to inept corporate behavior, and the banks' problems are no exception. It is outrageous that not only is the government bailing them out, but now the Democrats want to use bailout money to subsidize the auto industry.
According to the Wall Street Journal Online:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent to send a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urging him to assist the Big Three auto makers by considering broadening the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to help the troubled industry."
I think they have the wrong idea. I need the subsidy, not auto executives. I can run automobile companies as badly as they do. Moreover, I can run investment banks as badly as the guys at Bear Stearns. Most of all, I can run commercial banks almost as badly as the guys at Citigroup. I should get the bailout, and run the banks, the investment banks and the automobile companies. After all, I too want a new car and a trip to Italy. Why should I suffer? I deserve the bailout money. Ms. Pelosi, please send me the subsidy, not the auto industry. I'm deprived. And I want public works subsidies. And banking subsidies. I want it all, baby. Life is short.
Seriously, though, unemployment insurance for those in serious need is a good plan. I don't mind paying 2% of my income to help the unemployed. That would be conditional upon abolishing the departments of education and energy, and cutting waste, that is, government spending by 40%.
Part of the problem with public construction is excessive waste and regulation, which leads to cost overruns and mismanagement. This is especially true in New York State, which happened to be the leading recipient of the WPA money. I suspect that a public works project would lead to considerable thievery, especially in places like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, where it is most needed. I have lived in rural places like Potsdam, New York, and there are plenty of crooked construction people there too.
However, the training of inner city unemployed to become plumbers, masons, carpenters and electricians would be potentially productive. These newly trained individuals might be employed by experienced firms. Hence, road and bridge repair work could be done by newly trained people who have previously been excluded from construction trades because of discriminatory union policies and closed shops.
Barring the training of new construction help, I suspect any works projects money would be stolen.
Many people may have lost their jobs due to excessively stimulative Federal Reserve policy that has led to the real estate bubble and the recent collapse. Easy money leads to inept corporate behavior, and the banks' problems are no exception. It is outrageous that not only is the government bailing them out, but now the Democrats want to use bailout money to subsidize the auto industry.
According to the Wall Street Journal Online:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent to send a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urging him to assist the Big Three auto makers by considering broadening the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to help the troubled industry."
I think they have the wrong idea. I need the subsidy, not auto executives. I can run automobile companies as badly as they do. Moreover, I can run investment banks as badly as the guys at Bear Stearns. Most of all, I can run commercial banks almost as badly as the guys at Citigroup. I should get the bailout, and run the banks, the investment banks and the automobile companies. After all, I too want a new car and a trip to Italy. Why should I suffer? I deserve the bailout money. Ms. Pelosi, please send me the subsidy, not the auto industry. I'm deprived. And I want public works subsidies. And banking subsidies. I want it all, baby. Life is short.
Seriously, though, unemployment insurance for those in serious need is a good plan. I don't mind paying 2% of my income to help the unemployed. That would be conditional upon abolishing the departments of education and energy, and cutting waste, that is, government spending by 40%.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Berg Writ of Certiorari From Court, Not Order to Obama, Due December 1
UPDATE
Andy Martin sent two e-mails concerning the original blog that follows the dashed line:
1.Well, actually, "response due December 1" is only a citation of the SC Rules which call for a reply in 30 days. There is no time limit on action by the court.
2. The injunction was denied. The SC online docket is not the best, but a subsequent entry using the search under docket number confirms denial.
The original blog follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poster to this blog has noted that the calendar of the Supreme Court is readily available here. The calendar clearly states this concerning Berg v. Obama here:
>Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
I am not an attorney but I looked up the term certiorari on Wikipedia:
"A writ of certiorari currently means an order by a higher court directing a lower court to send the record in a given case for review."
So that means that the Supreme Court will decide on whether to review the Berg case on December 1. As well, an application for an injunction was filed pending disposition of the petitition for the writ of certiorari.
It does not seem to mean that there has been a court order requiring that Obama provide the vault copy birth certificate. Kick me if I'm wrong, but the Supreme Court calendar seems pretty clear. The decision on certiorari is required by December 1, the request for an injunction is pending a positive decision on the writ, which is also due December 1. That means that at this point nothing is due from Obama, and unless the Supreme Court grants the writ of certiorari, the case dies.
Andy Martin sent two e-mails concerning the original blog that follows the dashed line:
1.Well, actually, "response due December 1" is only a citation of the SC Rules which call for a reply in 30 days. There is no time limit on action by the court.
2. The injunction was denied. The SC online docket is not the best, but a subsequent entry using the search under docket number confirms denial.
The original blog follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poster to this blog has noted that the calendar of the Supreme Court is readily available here. The calendar clearly states this concerning Berg v. Obama here:
>Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
I am not an attorney but I looked up the term certiorari on Wikipedia:
"A writ of certiorari currently means an order by a higher court directing a lower court to send the record in a given case for review."
So that means that the Supreme Court will decide on whether to review the Berg case on December 1. As well, an application for an injunction was filed pending disposition of the petitition for the writ of certiorari.
It does not seem to mean that there has been a court order requiring that Obama provide the vault copy birth certificate. Kick me if I'm wrong, but the Supreme Court calendar seems pretty clear. The decision on certiorari is required by December 1, the request for an injunction is pending a positive decision on the writ, which is also due December 1. That means that at this point nothing is due from Obama, and unless the Supreme Court grants the writ of certiorari, the case dies.
Terminate Your Newspaper Subscription, Turn Off TV News, Reform Republican Party, Press Talk Radio To Focus
Dear Friends: The recent election cycle has convinced me that the post-modern press, to include television and radio news, magazines, newspapers and weeklies do not provide informed analysis or factual evidence. Consuming them is worse than ignoring them. I have sworn off all paid information sources save one. I no longer watch television news.
As well, the Republican Party needs to be put on notice that its recent emphasis on special interests and big government is not acceptable and that there are enough advocates of limited government, sound money and responsible administration to prevent the Republican Party's further progress unless these views become fundamental to it. Under the Bush administration, the Republican Party reinvented Progressivism, and its culmination has been the socialization of banking, the opposite of anything small government advocates believe. It is good that the inflationary, big government policies of the Republican Party have been punished.
The question now is how to reinvent America. The talk radio gurus who have been emphasizing partisanship and criticizing the Democrats' tactical steps are focusing on hate instead of vision. Republicans, including talk radio, should be working on the creation of a new vision that will reassert Jacksonian Democracy, laissez faire, limited government and terminate the corrupt, poverty-inducing, thuggish Progressivism that guides the Bush Republicans and the Democrats.
Attacking the Obama administation now is a waste of time. The Bush administration destroyed the "conservative" vision of Ronald Reagan. Without a new game plan, the Republicans will remain permanently on the sidelines. The new game plan has to revolve around freedom. And it must address the conservatives' failures: their refusal to staunch insipid programs like the Department of Energy and the Department of Education; their inability to cut government; their dancing to Wall Street's flute at every chance; their inability to stick to the principles of honest government and laissez faire; and their reliance on monetary expansion to stimulate stock market and real estate bubbles at the expense of healthy, competitive industry.
Republicans need to create a vision and explain why their recent past has been an utter failure. Only then can they become electable again. And if they can't appeal to small business, ambitious young people, hard workers and believers in the American dream, then they deserve to fail.
As well, the Republican Party needs to be put on notice that its recent emphasis on special interests and big government is not acceptable and that there are enough advocates of limited government, sound money and responsible administration to prevent the Republican Party's further progress unless these views become fundamental to it. Under the Bush administration, the Republican Party reinvented Progressivism, and its culmination has been the socialization of banking, the opposite of anything small government advocates believe. It is good that the inflationary, big government policies of the Republican Party have been punished.
The question now is how to reinvent America. The talk radio gurus who have been emphasizing partisanship and criticizing the Democrats' tactical steps are focusing on hate instead of vision. Republicans, including talk radio, should be working on the creation of a new vision that will reassert Jacksonian Democracy, laissez faire, limited government and terminate the corrupt, poverty-inducing, thuggish Progressivism that guides the Bush Republicans and the Democrats.
Attacking the Obama administation now is a waste of time. The Bush administration destroyed the "conservative" vision of Ronald Reagan. Without a new game plan, the Republicans will remain permanently on the sidelines. The new game plan has to revolve around freedom. And it must address the conservatives' failures: their refusal to staunch insipid programs like the Department of Energy and the Department of Education; their inability to cut government; their dancing to Wall Street's flute at every chance; their inability to stick to the principles of honest government and laissez faire; and their reliance on monetary expansion to stimulate stock market and real estate bubbles at the expense of healthy, competitive industry.
Republicans need to create a vision and explain why their recent past has been an utter failure. Only then can they become electable again. And if they can't appeal to small business, ambitious young people, hard workers and believers in the American dream, then they deserve to fail.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
