The Upstate Young Republicans sponsored a "Tea Party" yesterday in Greenville, South Carolina. Here are the pictures that someone posted to Flickr. I hope we will see more events like this, and more importantly, I hope that the American people remain opposed to the creeping (or not so creeping) socialism coming out of Washington these days in the name of "saving" the economy.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Crusades vs. Communism
The other day, I heard for about the 1,000,000th time that "more people have been killed by religion than by anything else", with the usual citation of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. I will not presume to undertake a comprehensive review of history here, particularly when it comes to comparing the death toll attributable to all of the world's religions. But since these two examples are so often cited, I decided to look into the number of casualties resulting from these two tragic events.
Records are not very good from these periods, so exact numbers are hard to come by. However, estimated casualties from the Crusades number around 200,000 over the space of about 200 years. The number of people killed in the Inquisition are estimated to range between 3,000 and 5,000.
Communism, noted for its elevation of atheism as the "state religion", is believed to be responsible for the deaths of a minimum of 40 million people between 1900-1987.
I'm just saying....
Records are not very good from these periods, so exact numbers are hard to come by. However, estimated casualties from the Crusades number around 200,000 over the space of about 200 years. The number of people killed in the Inquisition are estimated to range between 3,000 and 5,000.
Communism, noted for its elevation of atheism as the "state religion", is believed to be responsible for the deaths of a minimum of 40 million people between 1900-1987.
I'm just saying....
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Stimulating Spending (and little else)
The Obama spending plan has been passed. The sheer size of this monstrosity should raise eyebrows; even more so when one considers the hodgepodge of new spending contained within it, and the amount by which it will run up our national debt.
The thing with this "stimulus" bill is that, despite the sales job coming from the White House and congressional leaders, many items contained in the bill have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Even some parts that seem to be more suited for true economic stimulus are probably not going to have the desired impact. Transportation, for example, is typically a good investment, because it builds infrastructure, which expands future productivity. However, a good portion, probably most, of the spending on transportation in this bill is aimed at repairing existing roads and bridges. This is not a bad thing in and of itself; we of course found out through the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis that our highway infrastructure is well overdue for repair. However, so far as economic stimulus, the long-term impact comes from expanding infrastructure, not simply from repairing it. So, while repairing highways and bridges is a good thing, its impact on the economy will likely be a short-term boost from the immediate jobs created through the construction projects themselves, with little effect on the nation's long-term productivity.
However, substantial portions of the bill have little or nothing to do with economic stimulus, but are rather a wish-list of programs that liberals had been looking for a chance to implement. For example, $20 billion for digitizing health records will have no stimulative effect on the economy whatsoever, and even if electronic health records do generate benefits for patients, this change in policy should have been considered on its own merits rather than hidden in a massive spending bill that was ramrodded through Congress with little time for examination by legislators. Likewise, preventive care is very important, but the $4 billion allocated should have been considered in another bill; it simply has nothing whatsoever to do with stimulating the economy. $650 million for digital converter boxes (the DTV transition coupon program) and over $1 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) are two more examples.
Granted, the bill does contain tax incentives for improving the nation's electrical grid and investing in new energy technology, as well as some tax cuts for families. If the bill had focused squarely on these types of provisions, particularly those aimed at stimulating private investment which is what leads to job creation, it could have had a much smaller price tag and have had a far better chance of actually stimulating the economy. As it is, the massive debt threatens to crowd out private investment and drive up long-term interest rates, and the massive spending will doubtless create significant inflation. Hopefully, the economy will actually start recovering before all of this kicks in (as is often the case with government stimulus programs -- there is a substantial lag between policy implementation and the manifestation of its effects in the economy), but what we have sacrificed with this exercise in exuberance is our future productivity.
The thing with this "stimulus" bill is that, despite the sales job coming from the White House and congressional leaders, many items contained in the bill have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Even some parts that seem to be more suited for true economic stimulus are probably not going to have the desired impact. Transportation, for example, is typically a good investment, because it builds infrastructure, which expands future productivity. However, a good portion, probably most, of the spending on transportation in this bill is aimed at repairing existing roads and bridges. This is not a bad thing in and of itself; we of course found out through the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis that our highway infrastructure is well overdue for repair. However, so far as economic stimulus, the long-term impact comes from expanding infrastructure, not simply from repairing it. So, while repairing highways and bridges is a good thing, its impact on the economy will likely be a short-term boost from the immediate jobs created through the construction projects themselves, with little effect on the nation's long-term productivity.
However, substantial portions of the bill have little or nothing to do with economic stimulus, but are rather a wish-list of programs that liberals had been looking for a chance to implement. For example, $20 billion for digitizing health records will have no stimulative effect on the economy whatsoever, and even if electronic health records do generate benefits for patients, this change in policy should have been considered on its own merits rather than hidden in a massive spending bill that was ramrodded through Congress with little time for examination by legislators. Likewise, preventive care is very important, but the $4 billion allocated should have been considered in another bill; it simply has nothing whatsoever to do with stimulating the economy. $650 million for digital converter boxes (the DTV transition coupon program) and over $1 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) are two more examples.
Granted, the bill does contain tax incentives for improving the nation's electrical grid and investing in new energy technology, as well as some tax cuts for families. If the bill had focused squarely on these types of provisions, particularly those aimed at stimulating private investment which is what leads to job creation, it could have had a much smaller price tag and have had a far better chance of actually stimulating the economy. As it is, the massive debt threatens to crowd out private investment and drive up long-term interest rates, and the massive spending will doubtless create significant inflation. Hopefully, the economy will actually start recovering before all of this kicks in (as is often the case with government stimulus programs -- there is a substantial lag between policy implementation and the manifestation of its effects in the economy), but what we have sacrificed with this exercise in exuberance is our future productivity.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Kudos, Lindsey Graham
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) deserves a big pat on the back for his speaking out against the pork-laden "stimulus" bill that the Democratic congress is attempting to foist on the American people. When Senator Graham was questioned by Senator Boxer (D-CA) on whether he ever so vociferously opposed the Bush Administration when they sent a bill "twice as big as this one", his reply was a home run. (BTW, as unrestrained as spending was under the Bush Administration, this pork-fest outweighs any single item that came out in the past eight years.)
See the video here.
See the video here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)