Healthcare Site is still DOWN

Yay, Obamacare!! Let's keep hammering it, click here.

Ed Lazear's Excellent Piece on Jobs and Unemployment

Every paragraph in this article is great and I find myself mumbling "uh, yeah..." at the end of each. But I'll excerpt my two favorites.

One final fact is worth noting. Healthy labor markets are characterized not only by high levels of hiring, but also by high levels of separations. Although it is true that the importance of quits relative to layoffs rises during good times, even the number of layoffs was greater in the strong labor market of 2006-07 than it is now. No one would suggest that layoffs are good for workers, but what is good is a fluid labor market, where workers and firms constantly seek to produce better products and to find more efficient ways to produce them. High labor market churn is a characteristic of a strong economy. It generally means that workers are moving to better jobs in growing sectors that pay higher wages and away from declining sectors that pay lower wages.

Allowing maximum flexibility encourages fluidity and means that employers are willing to hire workers who lose their jobs elsewhere. Many European countries have restricted mobility by imposing severance pay penalties on employers that lay workers off. More than reducing layoffs, these rigidities make employers reluctant to hire because of the penalties that they will later incur if a layoff is necessary. Such restrictions are in large part responsible for the chronically high rates of unemployment that have been prevalent in many European countries.

The impact of the practice of making it difficult to lay people off on hiring cannot be understated. Businesses are already making a big commitment when they hire a person, and making it more difficult to let people go will raise the scrutiny given to applicants at the hiring end. Another instance of unintended consequences released by do-gooders and politicians who use attacks on business to score easy points with their base. And you're not going to solve the problem by scolding businesses for not hiring either.

Will we still have to call her 'Senator'?

Sorry, ma'am.

“The fact that three-term Barbara Boxer is in such deep trouble early in an election year is a warning signal to both Democrats and long-time incumbents,” says Larry Sabato, Director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “The voters are restless and in a surly mood. Wherever the country is going this year, California could get there first.”

D.C. ARCHDIOCESE HALTS SPOUSAL BENEFITS

From the Catholic League.

March 2, 2010 - Starting today, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington will no longer extend health benefits to spouses of new employees and to spouses of current employees not already receiving these benefits.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue supports this decision:

This decision by the Washington Archdiocese was driven by the marriage inequity activists who will brook no dissent in their crusade to ram their gay-marriage agenda down the throats of the faithful. They know full well that no Catholic entity is about to prostitute its own teachings merely to do business with the government. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is at stake: Catholic Charities had to halt spousal health benefits lest it be sued for discriminating against homosexuals who will shortly claim to be married in the District.

Nature, not the Catholic Church, was the first to ordain that it is biologically incongruous for a man and a man to conceive a child. That ability is wholly the reserve of a man and a woman, and no amount of social and legal fictions can alter it. This issue isn’t about equality, it is about creating an inequitable condition—allowing people of the same sex the same rights afforded men and women—that will only disable the institution of marriage in the long run. Which is why it must be resisted.

Peter Wehner Examines and Refutes Evan Bayh's Excuses

A much needed corrective to Bayh's lame emanations about partisanship, ideology, and what comprises the "people's business". I liked the whole thing; several excerpts follow:

Actually, the people's business is getting done. In this case, "the people's business" was to stop ObamaCare, which the public opposes in significant numbers (the spread between those who oppose ObamaCare and those who support it is 15-20 percentage points). Most Americans think the Democratic health care plans are badly flawed and a majority of them want Congress to begin over again.

The dominant narrative manifests a particular cast of mind, one that equates "the people's business" with passing legislation that increases the size, cost, and reach of government. In fact, sometimes the people's business involves stopping bad ideas from becoming law.

To use an analogy, heavy machinery is safer when equipped with brakes.

It's worth recalling that the Founders set up a system of government with what James Madison called the "auxiliary precautions" of American government -- meaning the separation of powers, bicameralism, and other checks and balances. Madison, who was shipped what he called a "literary cargo" of books on history and politics by Thomas Jefferson, rigorously studied the historical record of past governments. Out of that study Madison and his colleagues decided to put the emphasis on braking mechanisms, which they thought would help preserve liberty by limiting the power of government.

Then Wehner takes on an issue near and dear to my heart: the liberal's tendency to engage in word-twisting. "[I]deology can also be another word for convictions -- and one person's 'ideologue' is another person's principled politician." That sentence sums it up better than I ever could have. He takes on the "partisanship" canard in the same way, clarifying that it's not really the issue for the critics.

Many of the greatest political figures in American history -- whether we're talking about Reagan or Roosevelt, Lincoln or King, Jefferson or Hamilton -- are recognized for substance rather than process, for their commitment to American ideals rather than bipartisanship, for what they did rather than the manner in which they did it.

Yes, more substance, please. Wehner's conclusion:

It's worth recalling that in 2005 George W. Bush made a big push to reform Social Security. I thought then, and think now, that his plan was wise and necessary. But it was also undeniably unpopular, and the effort failed. Its failure did not trigger the kind of Camus-like despair we are now seeing. No one in the commentariat argued that America was, in Joe Klein's phrase, a "nation of dodos" or that Social Security's failure could be laid at James Madison's feet.

We are not facing a governing crisis today. What we are seeing is an emerging crisis for modern liberalism. And the reason is fairly straightforward: the public, having been exposed to a liberal governing agenda for the last year, is repudiating it. Liberals cannot seem to accept that, so they are lashing out at everything else. It is unwarranted and somewhat childish; and it will only accelerate The Fall.

Italics mine. Because I think it worthy to note who are the grownups in this country and who are the perpetual whiners. It's great to learn that although James Madison's "auxillary precautions" might be a little squeaky when applied at high speed, they still grab.

[Here's a related Wehner piece from a week ago to which he alludes in passing.]

Steyn on Obama's Incentivizing of Bureaucracy

Now that I've provided a lame excuse for being behind, here's a very funny yet scary Steyn piece which you probably already read reflecting on Obama's SOTU. Excerpt:

In the past 60 years, the size of America's state and local workforce has increased five times faster than the general population. But the president says it's still not enough: We have to incentivize even further the diversion of our human capital into the government machine.

Like most lifelong politicians, Barack Obama has never created, manufactured or marketed any product other than himself. So, quite reasonably, he sees government dependency as the natural order of things.

And in his college-loan plan he's explicitly telling you: If you start a business, invent something, provide a service, you're a schmuck and a loser. In the America he's building, you'll be working 24/7 till you drop dead to fund an ever-swollen bureaucracy that takes six weeks off a year and retires at 53 on a pension you could never dream of. Obama's proposals are bold only insofar as few men would offer such a transparent guarantee of disaster: It's the audacity of hopelessness.

This is borne out by all the anecdotes I'm hearing. A friend who is a controller for a medical devices firm was helping me paint trim at the new house. He said "We have a complete hiring freeze on. We have no idea what is going to happen with the health care bill which will effect our sales strategy and outlook and our benefits package. Obama doesn't have any understanding of economics. All my siblings who voted for him are having regrets now." Another friend I have in management said about the same thing, except he has had to take a 5% pay cut. The uncertainty is keeping everything stagnant.


Well, there is one certainty: tax rates will go up at some point.

Larry David Pisses on Jesus, Part II

Marisa made a comment on my first post on Mr. David's problem with dribbling on the Curb:

Write to all the head figures, this blog is not enough, go to fox, go to all the important networks, write to HBO. There is a great article on FOX and the comments are at least made to the point and with intellect. This attack on Christianity has to stop. It's true NO OTHER RELIGION WOULD ALLOW THIS in fact I am certain Larry David would be scared to DEATH to make fun of Islam.

The line "this blog [Est Quod Est] is not enough" cracked me up. Baby, I get 60 visits a day on average.

But the FOX link she provided is a good place to go. FOX links to a youtube video of the scene, but if you go there now you see "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by HOME BOX OFFICE, INC." Oh, yeah, HBO is a real stickler about copyright infringement. That's why they've allowed this clip of the Sopranos finale to get almost 1.5 million hits in over 2 years.

Who needs a nail gun when you have the Anchoress?

Oh, boy. Not only does the Anchoress hit the 16 penny nail on the head with this thorough fisking of Obama fandom, she drives it in with one blow. This may become a great reference and resource for Thanksgiving arguments with lib relatives if you haven't bought Arguing with Idiots yet.

She points out that all of Bush's most criticized policies are being continued by Obama and often expanded in scope. Then she concludes with the following:

Although some seem to be tireless in their efforts to convince me that I should “hate” President Bush as much as they think I “hate” President Obama, I don’t think we should “hate” anyone, and I am not seriously suggesting that you “should” hate President Obama. I am simply wondering why two men can do very similar (sometimes exactly the same) things, and the first man’s actions can garner your life-long, cockle-warming hate, while the other man’s actions go overlooked and your cockles go agreeably cold.

“Obama might be doing all those things, but at least he’s not Bush!” You say. Right. And Bush was bad again, because…why? Oh, yeah, all those things I mentioned plus the bad economy!

Why would I ever expect consistency, that “hobgoblin of small minds” when your minds are so wide-open and huge. Stupid of me.

I know I’ve just wasted my time asking this question, that you will continue to simply hate Bush; you’ll do that because it’s the easy, mindless thing to do, because it will keep you aboard the bandwagon with all the cool kids, and never mind where the wagon is going. But please don’t expect me to take your flaming righteousness all that seriously.