Category Archives: News

Residents of New York and California flee high taxes and regulations

Here’s a funny story from the New York Post. (H/T National Review via ECM)

Excerpt:

On top of the city and state payroll tax, Social Security and Medicare [small-business owner John Logue] pays for employees, Logue said the city also hits him with a slew of permit fees. He recently had to pay $50 to obtain a certificate to collect sales taxes for the city and the state. In the past, it was free. He also pays the city to have a restaurant certificate, an exhaust-system permit and an illuminated-sign permit.

Logue said his [government-issued] water bills have also increased by nearly 50 percent in the last three years. Currently, he pays $1,600 every three months to the city.

“I’m getting to the point where I’m thinking about leaving New York,” he said.

And Kevin D. Williamson adds:

If you want to know where the future is headed, look where the people are going. And if you want to know where the people are going, check with U-Haul. Here’s an interesting indicator, first noted by the legendary economist Arthur Laffer: Renting a 26-foot U-Haul truck to go from Austin to San Francisco this July would cost you about $900.

Renting the same truck to go from San Francisco to Austin? About $3,000. In the great balance of supply and demand, California has a large supply of people who are demanding to move to Texas. There’s a reason for this.

Yes, prices rise when there is a high demand and supply is the same.

I once had a job interview at Fidelity in Boston, MA, and I remember going up the elevator with someone who commuted in every day from New Hampshire to avoid the taxes. And I remember thinking – this guy probably votes Democrat like everyone else in Boston.And shortly thereafter, New Hampshire turned blue and is now somewhere down in the gutter.

Why do Democrats do this to themselves? Anyway, the whole country will be like New York and California if more of these crappy bills pass, and where will we run to then? We’ll be stuck until the next election, and it serves us right. I think a good long period of suffering under Obama is just what we need to learn the importance of economics – the hard way.

Why Obama’s government spending failed to keep unemployment below 8%

stimulus-vs-unemployment-october-dots

This article from the National Review is awesome. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

The odds that the stimulus package would “create or save” millions of jobs, per the administration’s promises, were never good. The government is borrowing enormous amounts of money to pay for the stimulus. That money should be funding job creation in the private sector. Instead, it is going to shore up insolvent spendthrift state governments, to expand Medicaid and unemployment benefits, and to lay the groundwork for an aid-dependent green-energy sector that is going to drain the nation’s resources for years to come.

[…]If we divide the number of dollars spent by the number of jobs the White House claims were saved or created, the result is a cost of $160,000 per job.

[…]America’s private sector is resilient, and it will bounce back. Laying too much of the blame at Obama’s feet risks setting him up to take the credit for the comeback when things inevitably improve. Republicans’ arguments should focus on the long term. Obama’s decision to double-down on the nation’s bad housing bet risks reinflating the real-estate bubble. The new taxes associated with his health-care and energy bills will dampen growth and weaken the recovery. The debt he is piling up has unnerved our creditors, and his spending sprees are distorting the allocation of resources in our economy.

[…]The president just signed yet another extension of unemployment benefits, stretching the eligibility period to nearly two years in some states. The bill funds the additional benefits by extending a payroll tax on employers that was scheduled to expire at the end of the year. In other words, the administration is simultaneously providing incentives for workers not to work and for employers not to hire them.

I wrote before about how government spending cannot create jobs.

MUST READ: How Nancy Pelosi plans to bankrupt private medical insurers

Story here at Director Blue. (H/T Fausta’s Blog via ECM)

Here’s section 2714 of the health care reform bill.

(a) In General- Each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the small or large group market shall provide that for any plan year in which the coverage has a medical loss ratio below a level specified by the Secretary (but not less than 85 percent), the issuer shall provide in a manner specified by the Secretary for rebates to enrollees of the amount by which the issuer’s medical loss ratio is less than the level so specified.

Unless I am mistaken, this means that medical insurers will be forced to pay out 85% of premiums collected as either losses (claims) or as rebates to customers.

So, private medical insurers will only be able to use 15% of all premium collected for operating expenses, such as salaries, rate dvelopment, claims processing, etc. But is 15% of income from premiums enough to keep a business afloat?

Director Blue writes:

Why would a loss ratio that permits only a 15% administrative margin for insurers cause companies to fail? Consider that the administrative expenses include collecting premiums; processing and paying claims; monitoring patient care; staffing customer service functions; paying costs to state and federal regulators; paying sales agents; and general overhead (rent, power, heat, light); etc.

I repeat: No company has ever survived with a loss ratio approaching 85%.

What are we to make of Obama’s claim that we could keep our health plan if we liked it, in light of this new evidence? If what Director Blue has argued is true, you will be depending on the federal government for health care. You will have no choice. And whatever they tell you to do, you will do it. They will be the sole provider of health care for you  and your family. This is how liberty dies – to thunderous applause.

What the Democrat’s health care bill means to you

Director Blue also has a post up about what the Democrat health care bill means to you, in 90 seconds.

Excerpt:

The CBO now estimates health bill spending at $3 trillion over 10 years. Since the CBO historically underestimates expenses, assume massive new deficits for a country that can ill afford them.

You’ll be required to buy a ‘qualified’ health plan. A family earning $102K a year will pay $1,700 a month in premium and out-of-pocket expenses. ‘Willful’ failure to buy a plan will result in a fine of up to $250,000 and ‘imprisonment of up to five years’. Illegal immigrants are exempt from fines and imprisonment.

Every business in America must provide a ‘qualified plan’ for employees and pay 72.5% of the cost. Failure to do so results in an 8% payroll tax.

Read the rest. I would think that some people who worked for medical insurers voted for Obama. Actually, one of the strongest Democrats I know actually left our company recently to go work for a medical insurer. He said that health care was a safe industry during a recession. He’s going to learn the importance of studying economics if this bill passes.

How the Democrats got endorsements from the AMA and AARP

One last thing. ECM also sent me this article on how the Democrats were able to get endorsements from the AMA and the AARP.