Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Those Nasty Facts! And What To Do About Them!

Did your guest contradict everything you hold dear about Dear Leader?

Did your guest wreck your buzz with an incontrovertible argument that you couldn't possibly answer?

Not to worry, Mr. "journo-list" because you have Edit-Be-Gone!

Yes, Edit-Be-Gone takes those nasty, inconvenient facts and hides them where nobody could see them-- on the cutting room floor!

Your brain-dead viewers will never know the difference!

Try Edit-Be-Gone, today!

Available at a J-School near you!

A Primer on The Minimum Wage that Even Liberals Can (hopefully) Understand

A little primer regarding the 'minimum wage.'

Understand exactly what a hike in the 'minimum wage' entails. 

A compulsory hike in the minimum wage means that the price of productivity will increase. 

This means that the level of what one used to purchase per dollar is less; therefore, one will be required to spend more to get the same amount of productivity. 

What a set amount of money bought before the hike in the minimum wage, can no longer be bought for the same amount of money. After the hike, more money must be spent, to get the same level of productivity. 

Money, is then, by definition, devalued. When money is devalued, the amount of it required to purchase a given good or service increases.

This increase is called INFLATION. 

One of two things MUST happen in order to regain equilibrium between resources spent and goods produced or purchased:

1. Pass along the increased price (inflation) of goods or services to the customer; or

2. Make sure the money you spend on the manufacturing/service end results in more productivity. 

Option number one results in inflation in the marketplace (rise in prices to purchase goods or services) passed on to all. This means that the money earned after the minimum wage hike has less purchasing power than the money earned prior to the minimum wage hike. This effectively negates the purchasing power experienced via any raise in pay to the worker as a result of hiking the minimum wage. 

Option Number Two results in fewer workers doing more work per hour for the increased pay they get. Instead of seven people on a shift, to keep the same productivity without passing increased costs to the consumer, there may be only five people required to do the work that seven people once did. This effectively results in a reduction in the present work force at worst, or in preventing the company from hiring additional workers after attrition, at best. 

This, of course, results in higher unemployment and/or lower labor participation rates, as there are now fewer jobs to be had. 

In other words, contrary to all the magical thinking going on in the White House and in the war rooms of the DNC, and yes, among the democrat party faithful, there are no sustainable benefits to a *compulsory* increase in the minimum wage.

Friday, January 17, 2014

As If...

Dear Speaker Boehner:

There is nothing I'd like better than to keep the United States House of Representatives in *conservative* hands. 

Regarding that issue, we wholeheartedly agree.

In that spirit, could you kindly resign your tenure as Speaker of the House?

Under your leadership, Obamacare is still the law of the land. Those responsible for allowing four Americans to be murdered in Benghazi are yet to be held accountable. The Constitutional abuses of the IRS scandal, the "Fast & Furious" federal gun-running scandal, and NSA scandals continue to go un-investigated, and Obama continues to be held unaccountable. Under your 'leadership,' the Republicans in the House of Representatives have done nothing to hold the Obama administration accountable for their overreach and malfeasance and assaults on our Constitutional liberties. You supposedly practiced brinkmanship when Obama forced a government shutdown, but then acted like you owned it, and ran with your tail between your legs. It's been "go along to get along" ever since.

And now you want to cave and give special treatment to those scofflaws who ignore our immigration laws.

Your team put up a nice graphic on Facebook today in response to President Obama's "I have a pen" comment, to which you replied, "We have the Constitution."

However, as much as you hold up the Constitution and parade it around like a golden calf, you have displayed no real intention of upholding it. As your actions and inaction have clearly demonstrated, to you, the Constitution is nothing more than window-dressing in a photo-op.

Speaker Boehner, you have on many occasions taken a solemn oath and promise to uphold the Constitution.

After taking those solemn oaths, on multiple occasions, you have demonstrated that your promises are as empty as must be your conscience.

If you really believe that the Constitution must be kept in conservative hands, I call upon you to resign your office as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Whether or not your constituency in the 8th District of Ohio continues to re-elect you to as their representative in Congress is their business.

The office you hold as Speaker, however, is *our* business. You have lost the trust and confidence of those of us in the Republican Party.

You have lost the trust of the nation.

Time for you to resign, Mr. Speaker.

Sincerely,

Leo Pusateri.

Thursday, December 05, 2013

Burger Flipper Economics 101

Exploitation?
Really???
These people say they “deserve” $15 per hour. They are ENTITLED to it.
Contrary to what the populist Chairman Obamao bloviates, it’s not about what people “deserve.” It’s about what value people bring to the market– what set of skills they bring to the table and how marketable and valuable that skill set is.
People who can flip burgers or keep a menu straight are a dime a dozen. That doesn’t make them bad or inferior as people, it’s just that there are many, many people with that skill set who can fill that position.
If someone is terminated or quits a burger flipper position, the pool of people who possess and/or can be easily trained for that skill set is enormous. That position can be easily filled.
People who can successfully manage and run a restaurant and its finances have a different skill set. Though they are still ubiquitous in number, they are fewer in number than the burger flippers. They get paid a little higher, because people with the more specialized skill set are higher in demand.
People who can do neurosurgery, or for that matter who can play ball at the major league level, are very few in number–they bring an esoteric skill set– they are very few in number, and very, very few people can fill their shoes if they leave.
A higher wage is commanded by such people, because of the value they bring, like rare, fine diamonds– they are higher in price because they aren’t found everywhere. The market screams for such talent, yet such talent is so rare, that the talent must be compensated well in order to keep that talent.
It’s basic market economics, people!
QUESTION: How many of you think fast food workers deserve 15 dollars and hour????
QUESTION: How many of you think fast food workers “deserve” 15 dollars an hour????

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

White House is Staging a Bloodless Coup

OK, folks--here's the deal- I don't think too many people are realizing this:

1. We currently gather TEN TIMES the amount of revenue required to service our debt, EVERY MONTH.

2. The 14th Amendment states that WE MUST honor and service our debts; meaning that paying and servicing debt MUST COME FIRST. 

3. Barack Obama has been threatening that we WILL DEFAULT on our debt if the debt ceiling is not raised in two days. 

4. The ONLY way this can happen, is if Barack Obama IGNORES the 14th Amendment and REFUSES to service the debt. This means that Barack Obama MUST OPENLY DEFY the Constitution to bring about what he threatens will happen. 

5. Understand also that I believe that Barack Obama FULLY INTENDS to carry out his threat. I believe that Barack Obama MEANS, in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment, to ALLOW the United States to go into default. Like a terrorist with his finger on the button of his suicide vest, he is threatening to DESTROY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES, placing our economy in RUIN, unless Congress meets his every demand.

6. In effect, Barack Obama is staging what amounts to nothing less than a COUP-- a complete usurpation of the power of the purse that IS EXCLUSIVELY THE PURVIEW of the duly and locally elected United States House of Representatives. 

7. In completely and WILLFULLY ignoring his Constitutional responsibilities with respect to the 14th Amendment, Barack Obama has effectually denounced the primacy of the U.S. Constitution. He is effectively governing by EXECUTIVE FIAT.

In other words, Barack Obama HAS THROWN AWAY THE CONSTITUTION and is in effect GOVERNING AS A DICTATOR! 

UNDERSTAND THIS, PEOPLE--THIS IS NOT HYPERBOLE!

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

An Open Letter to Al Franken

I received an email from Senator Franken. Among his accomplishments touted was supposedly keeping college affordable for Minnesotans, accomplishing this by keeping student loan rates low, and trying to expand the issuance of Pell grants and other sources of financial aid. 

This was my response to the Senator:

Dear Senator Franken 
While I appreciate your wanting to keep the cost of education affordable for all Minnesotans, your solutions appear to be centered on only one side of the equation. 

While I applaud your efforts to keep interest on student loans low, and to expand the availability of Pell grants and other sources of financial aid, I must wonder what is being done on the other side of the equation-- to keep college costs down? 

What is happening in colleges seems to be highly analogous with what is happening in health care. In health care, raises in prices are passed on to health insurance companies, who in turn merely charge higher premiums to their users. There is no competition nor pressure brought to bear on medically-related institutions to hold the line on costs, as they simply pass the costs, almost whimsically, back to the consumer. 

In the same manner, as colleges raise their tuition rates with impunity, government responds not by holding educational institutions accountable for their costs, but by increasing the levels of debt on the part of students and/or cost to the taxpayer in terms of financial aid subsidies. This necessarily keeps tax burdens on individuals and businesses elevated, and necessarily increases the already insurmountable mountain of debt incurred by students. 

What is the threshold under which government will put a ceiling on financial aid? 

If government places such a ceiling on the level of financial aid given to students, colleges will necessarily need to adjust tuition and other associated costs or face severely declining enrollment. 

In other words, competition and market-driven forces will bring pressure to keep the costs of college at affordable levels. 

And, incidentally and likewise, competition and market-driven forces will force health care providers to keep their costs at affordable levels (I present the lowering costs and higher quality and availability of laser eye surgery as a shining example of this concept). 

Senator Franken, at the beginning of this screed, I didn't think about tying these concepts, health care and higher education, together. But now that I am typing this, I have come to the conclusion (and I hope that you can follow me) that what it comes down to is this: what is missing from Higher Education and what is missing in health care--including Obamacare--is the very thing that will alleviate issues in both of these problematic areas-- the introduction of market forces to bring costs down to affordable levels. 

Sir, I have little hope that you will take this to heart, as no doubt your partisan blinders will prevent you from seeing the inherent similarities between these two out-of-control aspects of our society, and that these two sectors share a nearly identical solution (market-driven forces); but then again, one can certainly dream. 

Sincerely, 

Leo Pusateri

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Regarding "Hate" Crimes.

I don't believe in the concept of "hate crimes."

There are precious few crimes, especially murders, that are "love criimes."

In my opinion, the psychological intent or the mind state of the person committing the murder is already summed up in degrees (first degree, second degree, manslaughter, etc).

The reasons for premeditation are immaterial. If the person intended with forethought to visit bodily harm resulting in the death of an innocent person for reasons not related to self defense, that perpetrator committed murder. Period. It is immaterial whether the perp is a racist or whether the perp is Mother Teresa.

To assign an instance of the wanton deprivation of another's life as more or less severe simply because the perp was a racist or did it out of racial spite is superfluous. Premeditated murder is premeditated murder.

When society assigns the gravity of premeditated murder as dependent on the mind state of the perpetrator, you are now jumping into the realm of THOUGHT CRIMES.

Do we really want to go there?

Unfortunately, there are many on the left who do.

As the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case clearly illustrated, those on the left are more than happy to fall all over themselves in immediately assigning motives of racism and "hate crime" (read: THOUGHT CRIME) status when a fellow-traveller is on the receiving end and a white person (even a ginned-up "White Hispanic" person) is on the giving end.

When one or more of their own is on the giving end, however, not so much. Rare indeed is the case when black on white violence ends up being prosecuted as a "hate crime."

Which leads me to believe that to a critical mass of our population (not at all exclusively black, mind you, but exclusively "progressive" at any rate), the whole concept of "hate crime" is not borne out of a thirst for blind justice; rather, the concept of "hate crime" seems to serve as a tool to exact revenge on those progressives identify as enemies of their ideology at worst, or as tools to advance their sense of ideology and/or personal political agendae at best.

Monday, July 29, 2013

Taxpayer-Funded Campaign Arm of the DFL..

From the get-go this has been nothing but blatant political payback for Big Unions from the DFL:
From the get-go this has been nothing but blatant political payback for Big Unions from the DFL:
Gary Gross has the details.

Monday, July 15, 2013

The Road to Hell is Paved with Their "Good Intentions."


Tell Governor Dayton that this is the first question we should ask of sulfide mining proposals - http://miningtruth.org/























These people want to create a luddite lifestyle--they drive their cars, talk on their cell phones, forgetting that petroleum is required to drive those cars and create the plastic used in those phones. 

They may feel smug and self-righteous driving their electric cars, forgetting all the while that it is much-maligned coal that is providing the electricity to charge those battery cells.

They supposedly decry poverty and say that it is those in corporate America who keep the little guy down-- yet they thwart every effort to create jobs by creating pressure to impart onerous regulations and at every turn block progress that would create sustainable employment with endless frivolous lawsuits, and in the process they perpetuate and/or even create unending cycles of poverty in already-economically depressed areas (such as the Iron Range).

Instead, they demand taxpayer subsidization on unsustainable "green energy" initiatives that aren't 'green' at all, and in reality create more pollution either in the production end or the consumer end than they purport to eradicate. They say we need more wind energy, and then in the same breath block wind energy initiatives in their own backyard (such as was done off of Martha's Vineyard), and in places that they do put up windfarms (that don't pollute their own precious scenery) those turbines consume hundreds of thousands (if not millions of dollars) per year in costly maintenance, and decimate species of migratory birds (and even eagles) who fly into them on a daily basis.

They operate in the name of preventing pollution, yet their 'good intentions' do nothing substantive to solve any problem, real or invented, and more often than not create many more problems in their wake than they ever could 'solve' in a lifetime.

It's about time that people start calling organizations such as this to the carpet and start demanding from them solutions that consist of more substance than mere 'good intentions' on REAL, not imagined or invented problems, before they are translated to costly public policy, unsusatainable save for the auspices of the hard working taxpayers, whose demands on their labors are continuously straining to the point where the economy can no longer sustain those demands.

Someone has to have the gonads to start declaring that these organizations have no clothes, and not be browbeated into submission for fear of what they may be called for calling them out.

Time has proven that paying homage to and humoring these malcontents has resulted in billions, if not trillions of wasted taxpayer dollars, and I dare say that our economy would have avoided these past several recessions had these enviro-bozos been shown the door.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Thursday Night Funnies...

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Regarding Asia's Mini-Me...


Image


The linked article below from Stratfor.com gives an interesting perspective as to the history of the relationship between Beijing and North Korea-One possibility missing in this article is that of North Korea being a puppet and proxy government under Beijing’s control, via which Beijing can assert plausible deniability for actions it takes via its North Korean sock puppet.In an effort to ‘diffuse’ tensions, John Kerry sojourned to Beijing the other day, and offered, in exchange for China’s willingness to call off its ‘attack dog,’ concessions on U.S. missile defense in Asia.Could it be that Beijing is rattling North Korea’s saber, just to see how the West reacts and/or cowers? We arguably have the least cogent, most feckless foreign policy since the dawn of Jimmy Carter. It would appear plausible that China is exploiting the Obama Administration’s/Washington’s newfound affinity for “global test” pacifism and Chamberlain-esque knee-jerk appeasement, and will try to obtain more and more concessions while the gettin’s good.My guess is that China will continue to play the West via North Korea like a fiddle, as long as the current feckless leadership remains in Washington, and that Beijing will seize every opportunity to effect the West’s strategic weakening and further a lack of resolve.
Read further here:

Sunday, March 31, 2013

On Higher Education

Over the last decades, college tuitions have increased at nearly three times the rate of inflation - faster even than medical costs. The costs have become giant burdens on families and students, who often graduate with over $100,000 in debt.

Why have colleges raised their costs so high? Because government-backed school loans allow them to.

No matter how ludicrously high a tuition a college charges, a student can get a government backed loan to pay the tuition. Thus, colleges have every incentive to raise tuition, and no incentive to lower it.

On the other hand, if those loans didn't exist, many students would be unable to afford the artificially-inflated tuition. Colleges would have to either dramatically lower their tuitions, or go out of business.

Imagine if instead of graduating with $100,000 in debt, students could graduate with $0 in debt. Imagine if instead of saving money for college for 10 years, parents could easily afford college tuitions.

Imagine if instead of competing on who could have the most expensive stadiums, ballrooms, and presidential salaries, colleges competed to provide the best education at the lowest cost. 

We can have all that if we force colleges to compete to lower their costs. And to do that, we must eliminate the Federal Student Loan program. Give colleges the same choice any other business has: provide great service at reasonable prices, or go out of business.

We don't need to phase this in gradually. We don't need to reduce student loans by 5% or even 50%. We need to immediately end Federal Student Loan program, and force colleges to charge affordable and reasonable prices, starting now.

Let's immediately make college education actually affordable to all Americans, and make student debt a distant memory. Let's stop subsidizing college greed and irresponsibility, and give colleges no choice but to lower costs. 

To get involved in @[5978057725:274:Libertarian Party] activism, please visit www.facebook.com/libertarians/info!
 This is EXACTLY WHY the affordability of higher education is escaping the middle class. The more Uncle Sam hikes the loan limits, the more colleges raise their tuition. There is absolutely no incentive for higher educational institutions to control their costs nor to hold the line on their tuition rates, much like the medical industry had no incentive to control their costs because insurance rates and payouts kept on increasing.

This is a vicious cycle. Colleges raise tuition, feds raise amounts for student loans, young people go into higher and higher levels of debt that they won't be able to pay, on loans in which there is no forgiveness or even a chance of filing for bankruptcy, resulting in near lifetimes of indentured servitude to the State.

This cannot, of course, be sustained. Fewer and fewer middle class people will be able to afford to take out the loans necessary to go to college, leaving college as a luxury to be afforded by the very rich, or as a handout to the poor who are more likely to qualify for grants.

This, along with confiscatory taxation on otherwise upwardly mobile small business entrepreneurs, will only serve to widen the gap between the trust fund rich and the middle class, and eventually will squeeze out the middle class entirely.

Welcome to your brave new world.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

In Memoriam- Army Spc. Cody D. Suggs


My prayers are with this brave young man's family and friends-

We must all HONOR their sacrifice, by ensuring to the best of our ability, that this nation, for which they and their families gave their last full measures of devotion, remains worthy of that sacrifice.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Dystopia--In His Own Words



Just prior to the 2008 elections, Barack Obama boldly stated,
“We are 5 days away from fundamentally transformingthe United States of America” (October 30, 2008)
Many among my conservative friends took that to be so much fluff; pretty much liberal boilerplate consistent with his whole “Hope and Change” campaign message.  Given, however, Obama’s background, cutting his teeth with the radical leftists/communists of his day (i.e., Frank Marshall Davis, Bernadine Dorn, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright) I believe I was one of the relative few that took him at his word.  Unlike most of America, conservatives such as myself and others who actually took the time to vet Obama, knew that background and worldview mattered, and that Obama’s past gave more than a glimpse of how he intended to govern in the present.
When Obama uttered those words, “.. fundamentally transform America” I knew he meant it. It was Obama himself who stated (emphases added),
“As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.  It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least, as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter ofnegative libertiesSays what the States can’t do to you; says what the Federal Government can’t do to you, but doesn’t state what the Federal government or State Government must do on your behalf.”  (Barack Obama, June 18, 2001).
There is no question that Barack Obama was unhappy with his perception of unequal distribution of wealth that America so unfairly championed, and that he wanted to transform this nation into something more ‘equitable’ in his eyes.  The question was how, and to what extent.  Just how does one “fundamentally” transform a nation whose very basis for existence is freedom, itself?  The only feasible answer is to transform that already-free nation, into a nation with fewer freedoms.  Given Dinesh D’Souza’s brilliant insights as to Obama’s worldview engendered by his past, one knew that Obama’s absolute contempt for what he saw as America’s unequal distribution of wealth would result in his promoting policies that would necessarily stifle economic growth.   Obama’s America would no longer be one of unbridled economic opportunity; rather, America would be a nation of egalitarian outcomes, regardless of effort; to coin a phrase, to each, according to his needs; from each, according to his means.  
As a means of bringing about this transformation, America could no longer be a free nation.  No where as free, at least, as it was at the time of he assumed his presidency.  Liberties would need to be forsaken to bring about his vision of utopia.  The free market system would need to be reined in, and done so in no small measure.   Obama would have four years, eight at most, to make this happen.  This transformation would need to be done quickly, and in a big way.
Enter Obamacare, America’s first stop on its train ride to Utopia. Against the wishes of 60-70 percent of Americans, and without the vetting of congressional legislators who rammed through the legislation, the United States Federal Government took control of a full one-seventh of the American economy, which had the net effect of driving up the cost of health care for all involved,  taking away freedom of choice, relegating freedom of conscience incompatible with the party line to irrelevancy, while at the same time having the no-doubt intended effect of casting of chilling pall on America’s ability to sustain economic growth and prosperity.  For those who wish to argue regarding this latter point, how better to right the wrongs of the perceived injustice of unequally-distributed wealth than to stifle the engine that creates such wealth?
As I’ve said, Obamacare is but stop one on America’s train ride to Obama’s Dystopia.  Obama’s seeming assault on everything traditional America has held dear for centuries appears to have taken on epidemic proportions.  Remember- Obama only has three- and three-quarter years left.  Those who haven’t yet felt the pinch of his “transformations,” most likely have not yet realized that they, too, have been pinched.   Obama’s willing media accomplices can only cover for him for so long before a critical mass of Americans, admittedly as dull as many of them are, will start to put two-and-two together and finally determine that the hopey-changey unicorn jockey they voted for may actually have had something to do with the plight in which they suddenly find themselves.
Then what?
When the critical mass of Americans finally wake up one morning, to find that they have been played as chumps, they are liable to get a bit–shall we say, testy.When this inevitability finally does come home to roost, The TEA party protests that grew out of Rick Santelli’s historical February, 2009 rant will no doubt look like a series of school pep assemblies.   Such civil unrest would certainly be difficult to quell, and will no doubt be yet another bump in the tracks on the way to Obama’s Dystopian dream.
What to do, what do do? You can’t just sick the military after the troublemakers. Well, you could, I suppose, but then you risk pissing off your fellow travelers who have had a history of contempt for men and women in uniform.
What to do??
Since, at least philosophy and policy wise, one can take Obama at his word, one may get a clue as to Obama’s plans by again, studying his own non-TelePrompter inspired rhetoric:
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.  We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”   -Barack Obama, July, 2008.
Yeah- remember that phrase?  Neither did a lot of other people.  Like the rest of Obama’s sordid past and rhetoric that if brought to the light of day would have rendered his election impossible, The media (true to their sycophantic nature) pretty much glossed over that little tidbit.  A powerful Civilian security force.Remind you of anyone?
So when you see articles like this, or like this, or like this, and then think, aww–Leo–take that tinfoil hat off!  You’re just blowing smoke.  That would neverreally happen here.  There’s no way.
Just remember.  I didn’t put those words into Barack Obama’s mouth.
He did.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Just Sayin...