In his budget address to the legislature, Governor Chris Christie announced that New Jersey would participate in an expansion of Medicaid as part of Affordable Care Act known to most people as Obamacare.
Archive for February, 2013
My State of the Union Address–brief edition
26
Feb
My letter to The Record about Obama’s State of the Union Address published Feb. 26.
On the path to national ruin
Regarding Gerald Pomper’s “A union of the state” (Opinion, Page O-1, Feb. 17):
Pomper asserts that President “Obama is not advocating ‘big’ government, but he is calling for more active government, in stimulating the economy.”
The truth of the matter is the federal government is already big, so big in fact that it is spending at least 25 percent of the nation’s output, compared with 18 percent when Bill Clinton occupied the Oval Office.
Obama’s State of the Union address epitomized his love for big, activist government. Under Obama, spending will go up, taxes will increase, regulations will expand, the currency will be debased further and the military-industrial complex will remain entrenched.
In saying that the American people expect Washington to “put the nation’s interests before party,” Obama crystallized the issue: Government has become the primary “problem solver” in society, tackling virtually every problem, at home and abroad.
In his push for a more activist government, Obama described America as one big family, with him as the “father” and members of Congress as rich uncles who spend nearly $4 trillion on the family’s well-being. What a bunch of selfless philanthropists.
Obama is selling snake oil to Americans. Let’s see if there is enough intelligence in Congress and the nation to understand the inevitable consequences of expanding the welfare-warfare state: lower living standards, less freedom, fewer civil liberties and endless conflict overseas.
Murray Sabrin
Fort Lee, Feb. 17
The writer, a professor of finance at Ramapo College of New Jersey, has been a candidate for statewide office as a Republican and a Libertarian.
Hollywood’s preemptive move—Michelle Obama at the Academy Awards
25
Feb
After more than three hours, which could have been cut to no more than two and a half hours or less, the Academy Awards ceremony finally got around to announcing the winners for Best Actress, Best Actor, and Best Picture. There were no surprises in the first two categories, Daniel Day Lewis and Jennifer Lawrence won in their respective categories. But Argo won the Best Picture category beating the heavily touted Lincoln directed by Steven Spielberg. Maybe the folks in Hollywood have read Tom DiLorenzo’s critique of the movie’s historical accuracy?
The most apparent innocuous moment of the evening occurred when Jack Nicholson was introduced to present the Best Picture award. He then stated that First Lady Michelle Obama via satellite would help him announce the winner. After Nicholson rattled off the names of nine Best Picture nominees, Mrs. Obama announced that Argo won. I had hoped it would because it was a fast paced, accurate account (with some cinematic license) of CIA agent Tony Mendez’s successful rescue of six Americans who took shelter in the Canadian ambassador’s residence in Teheran after the storming of the U.S. embassy in November 1979.
But why was the First Lady invited to participate in the Academy Award ceremony? My only guess is that this was Hollywood’s attempt to preempt any legislation that may come out of the Congress in the aftermath of the Newton shootings containing anti-violence codes, standards, etc. Hollywood knows how to schmooze with the best of them, and there is no better way than to have a member of the First Family be seen by a billion viewers with men and women in uniform as backdrops to ingratiate your industry with the political elite.
Mrs. Obama’s appearance was another way for the Hollywood crowd to gain even more influence with a president who “will have their back” if any motion picture restrictions emerge from Congress. Meanwhile, the president can continue to invade other countries, flying drones over America, etc., knowing that the leftists in tinseltown will give him a pass.
Oy Gevalt! New Jersey Republicans are really Democrats
20
Feb
A recent Quinnipiac poll of New Jerseyans revealed that 76% of voters support raising the minimum wage. Not surprisingly, 94% of registered Democrats favor the use of coercion —the law– to raise the wages of unskilled workers, while a whopping 55% of Republicans also support the state driving wages higher than allowing markets, supply and demand, to determine the appropriate wage for workers who demonstrably have few value added abilities.
In addition, 56% of voters favored a constitutional amendment to raise the minimum wage while 38% feel that the minimum wage should be raised by law.
Economic ignorance is rampant in the White House, in the Congress, in the Supreme Court, throughout state legislators, among mayors, within the economics profession and the media. Now we have further proof that the public, the last hope in a “democracy” to support common sense ideas, is shamelessly ignorant of the basic principles of economics.
Minimum wage laws cause higher unemployment among the least skilled workers in society than otherwise would be the case, most of whom are young inner city minority youth. So the question we should ask, why is racism so prevalent in our society, especially among Democrats?
Paul Krugman confesses: I am not an economist
18
Feb
In his New York Times column Paul Krugman calls for raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9.00 as President Obama proposed in his State of the Union address. Krugman asserts this would be good policy but acknowledges that raising the minimum wage to $20 per hour would “create a lot of problems.” (See Robert Wenzel’s critique of Krugman’s essay.)
In fact, Krugman acknowledges, “Every textbook — mine included — lays out the unintended consequences that flow from policies like rent controls or agricultural price supports.” But when it comes to labor issues, Krugman ignores his professions conclusions about interfering in markets and asserts that raising a minimum price, in this case the price of unskilled labor, would not have any adverse consequences for workers.
How does Paul reach that conclusion? He doesn’t. Krugman is using his prestige as a Nobel Laureate in Economics and his perch as a New York Times pundit to exclaim to the world that what he writes in his textbook for which he makes oodles of money is really BS, because what he really believes in is “public policy.” Will Krugman’s publisher edit his textbook with the warning? “Paul Krugman claims to be an economist but does not believe in what he writes about markets. Read at your own risk.”
Ludwig von Mises anticipated Krugman and other “economists” decades ago when he wrote: “There is, in fact, in the writings and teaching of those who nowadays call themselves economists, no longer any comprehension of the operation of the economic system as such.”
Paul Krugman is smart but does not believe in the principles of his own profession. He is in effect an apologist for the welfare state.
Welcome to Obama’s America: Trickle down economics, legal plunder and overseas intervention
15
Feb
Below are some of the major excerpts of President Obama’s State of the Union address. After each section, I will clarify what the President means and how his proposals contradict his own rhetoric, namely, that the government should encourage free enterprise.
Open to big government: Be careful what you wish for
11
Feb
The front page article of the New York Times, “A Growing Trend: Young, Liberal and Open to Big Government,” is another example of why individuals need a basic education in economics and finance, which they apparently are not getting in high school or in college. Read the rest of this entry »
Blue laws, minimum wage laws and gun control
04
Feb
The Record’s Sunday Business section (Feb. 2) contains two articles on the front page, “Foes of blue laws gear up again,” and “Minimum-wage battle could cost GOP candidates.” Both articles highlight two laws that reveal how the government abuses its powers to address two economic issues. In addition, the Opinion section published about two-dozen letters to the editor about gun control and the Second Amendment, most of which criticize the ownership of so-called assault weapons and firearms ownership in general.
Cuba part three, Cuban-U.S. relations: end the embargo now
03
Feb
Carlos Alzugaray, a former Cuban ambassador to the European Union, was our last lecturer in Havana. A professor at the University of Havana, Dr. Alzugaray was a long time diplomat, who served in many countries during his 37-year career, called for “normal relations” between the two neighbors, the world’s greatest superpower and the small island nation that “is not a threat to the United States or its people.”