|
Dan explains below why he wants to junk the welfare state.
Learning from the tremendous success of welfare reform during the Clinton Administration, the entire Washington-based welfare state should be junked.
It’s a complicated and costly mess that traps poor people in dependency.
It would be much simpler (and more effective) to simply take all the money that’s now being spent on these programs and send it to the states as part of a “block grant” and let them figure out how best to help poor people without some of the negative consequences caused by the current plethora of programs.
Let’s start with the fact that the program subsidizes purchases that have nothing to do with avoiding genuine hunger and deprivation. Indeed, as documented in a story in The Federalist, Food Stamps subsidize a considerable amount of unhealthy food.
By the way, I think poor people (indeed, all people) should be able to eat anything they want. That being said, there’s something perverse about subsidizing and encouraging unhealthy patterns.
Particularly when obesity is one of the biggest health problems in low-income communities.
There’s considerable evidence that states are more sensible in their approach. I’ve already written about good reforms in Maine and Wisconsin. Well, the Daily Caller has encouraging news that the good news in those states is part of a national trend.
P.S. In the long run, the block grant should be phased out so the federal government isn’t involved at all in the business of income redistribution. If we care about the limits on federal power in Article 1, Section 8, then states should be responsible for choosing how much to raise in addition to choosing how to spend.
Dan Mitchell Explaining that some Statism is Bad and that Total Venezuelan Statism Is Horrible
|
| >> read more |
No doubt Donald Trump will continue to get into trouble and offend with his impetuous, impulsive, boastful tweets. But for now, who has ever heard a presidential candidate say, for example, “We love our miners,” Victor Davis Hanson asks in NRO.
And not just any miners, but “our” miners, as if, like “our vets,” the working people of our moribund economic regions were unique and exceptional people, neither clingers nor irredeemables. In Trump’s gut formulation, miners certainly did not deserve “to be put out of business” by Hillary Clinton, as if they were little more than the necessary casualties of the war against global warming. For Trump, miners were not the human equivalent of the 4,200 bald eagles that the Obama administration recently assured the wind turbine industry can be shredded for the greater good of alternate energy and green profiteering.
No other candidate talked as constantly about jobs, “fair” trade, illegal immigration, and political correctness — dead issues to most other pollsters and politicos. Rivals, Democratic and Republican alike, had bought into the electoral matrix of Barack Obama: slicing the electorate into identity-politics groups and arousing them to register and vote in record numbers against “them” — a fossilized, supposedly crude, illiberal, and soon-to-be-displaced white working class.
But lost amid the left-wing hatred of Trump and the conservative Never Trump condescension is that so far he has shattered American political precedents by displaying much more political cunning and prescience than have his political opponents and most observers.
Read more from Mr. Hanson who explains how Donald Trump’s candidacy has “not only redefined American politics but also recalibrated the nature of insight itself — leaving the wise to privately wonder whether they were ever all that wise after all.”
Read more here.
Donald Trump Meets With Coal Miners 8/10/16 (VOLUME WARNING)
|
| >> read more |
|
Jerry Seinfeld wrote that his television program was “a show about nothing.” Similarly, one of the only realistic tics of the hit show House of Cards is the near-total absence of policy. Kevin Spacey’s Frank Underwood is driven by lust for power and a desire to exact revenge on his enemies, but has no great passion for policy details. Similarly, much was made during the presidential campaign of the limited policy content of the Trump campaign. Trump, of course, is headed to the White House.
The greatest mistake anyone could make about Washington is thinking that the day-to-day grind of politics is driven by substantive policy disputes. Rather than thinking of our rulers as philosophers or scholars arguing over principles or social science, a better analogy might be chimps flinging feces at each other in the monkey house.
To be sure, there is no shortage of policy debate in Washington. As Ben Friedman and I point out in a recent article, think tanks that include foreign policy departments spend more than a billion dollars every year. That’s a lot of policy.
But is anybody reading these reports? In an audit of itself, the World Bank–one of the more prominent and respected idea-generators in town–found reason to wonder:
Nearly one-third of their PDF reports had never been downloaded, not even once. Another 40 percent of their reports had been downloaded fewer than 100 times. Only 13 percent had seen more than 250 downloads in their lifetimes. Since most World Bank reports have a stated objective of informing public debate or government policy, this seems like a pretty lousy track record.
I had a similar experience several years ago when I was asked by an academic publisher to moderate a panel on how to get their policy-relevant journal articles wider circulation in Washington. In a room full of think tankers, congressional staffers, a few academics, and some staffers from the publisher, I suggested that it might be worth publishing a shorter synopsis of the work without the math and jargon, something more Foreign Affairs length and complexity.
This suggestion was met with gales of laughter from the congressional staffers, who agreed that Foreign Affairs was far too involved and wonky not just for legislators, but for their staffs.
Indeed, one of the Heritage Foundation’s earliest and most important innovations was its “briefcase test,” which judged that anything longer than one two-sided sheet of paper was too involved for legislators. As the Heritage Foundation’s historian recalled,
The test was [that] if the Congressman could put it in his briefcase and read it going to National Airport…then, okay, he might find some use in it and take the arguments in it and rely upon those in the debate about a particular issue.
This view allowed that at least bullet-point level sophistication could influence policy, but begged the question why a Congressman might find a particular argument “useful.” If they are at all like the rest of us, they find arguments useful when they confirm prior beliefs. So in this sense the Congressman isn’t thinking about policy so much as he is looking for arguments to use in defense of his position.
Young idealists of all ideological stripes come to Washington to “make a difference,” and think that their participation in this “war of ideas” is a good way to do so. It probably would be accurate to tell them that more often than not, one’s proximity to the ideas industry is inversely proportional to his proximity to political power.
|
| >> read more |
|
Jason Riley explains the latest round of liberal outrage directed at former presidential candidate and incoming HUD chief, Ben Carson. In response to criticism of Carson’s lack of experience on housing issues, Riley shoots back that it was the “experts” who have made such a mess of America’s public housing in the first place.
HUD is an outgrowth of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and its original goal was to address the housing needs of America’s poor. Today, it serves as a blunt tool for social engineers who are hellbent on achieving “racial balance” in residential housing patterns—whether the intended beneficiaries want it or don’t. Surveys going back decades show that blacks and whites alike are more concerned with a potential neighbor’s income than they are with his skin color. Most people don’t have a problem with families from different racial or ethnic groups moving in next door, so long as the newcomers can afford to live there.
Polling done at the national level as well as in cities like Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Cincinnati and Omaha also reveals that a large majority of blacks strongly prefer to live in a neighborhood that is at least half black. Despite these findings, the idea that a neighborhood’s racial imbalance could be caused by something other than racial discrimination never seems to occur to the experts at HUD.
The housing expertise that Dr. Carson lacks also played a role in the housing market collapse in 2006 and the subsequent Great Recession. HUD imposed requirements on government lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide affordable-housing loans to low-income borrowers.
Read more here.
The War on Poverty A Report Card – Jason Riley
|
| >> read more |
|
No one in the United States wants any person to go hungry. And no one in the “land of the free” should be told what he or she should eat. But something is badly amiss. Visit our local CVS in Key West, for example, and you’ll see one large wall banked with refrigerators and freezers full of sweetened beverages, frozen prepared foods, and high-fat dairy and desserts. Recipients of food stamps (SNAP) spend almost $2 billion on “food” items loaded with sugar and Omega-6s, leading to heart disease, obesity and diabetes. From The Federalist:
During President Obama’s tenure, the numbers and percentages of Americans using taxpayer’s money to buy their groceries has drastically increased. SNAP participation has increased 78 percent in the past ten years and remains near its all-time high, which occurred in 2013. Food stamp usage also dramatically increased during President George W. Bush’s tenure, even though it did not see a recession like the one that occurred near the beginning of Obama’s eight years in office. That’s because Bush signed a dramatic expansion of food welfare inside a farm bill. This expansion, among other things, made it easier to sign up and made non-citizens eligible to use U.S. taxpayers’ funds to fund grocery excursions.
The food stamp program was originally intended to give nutritional assistance so those in need don’t starve or become malnourished. The biggest outlay for all families is meat, fish, and poultry. Things go downhill from there. For non-SNAP households, the second largest expenditure was veggies. For SNAP recipients, the second largest expenditure was sweetened beverages.
The bigger, unaddressed problem here is, who is going to pay for the health ramifications from those consuming unhealthy food bought with taxpayers’ money?
How Maine Reduced Its Food Stamp Recipients | The Daily Signal
|
| >> read more |
|
My late Christmas gift idea for every American is Henry’s (made in America or not Made at all) Lever Action .22 Carbine Rifle (with loop lever).
My choice for ammo is CCI .22 Long Rifle Subsonic 40 Grain Lead Hollow Point. The Subsonic character of this ammo results in not much of a crack when you fire, ideal when you are not looking to draw attention or scare off what you are attempting to nail.
Both the gun and the ammo create a pleasant user-friendly experience even for your grandkids. Debbie and I have given as gifts the smaller, kids version of this Henry.
The Henry lever action repeater weighs about four pounds, holds 12 rounds and retails for around $400.
I would not advise the subsonic ammo in a semi-automatic as the relatively slow ammo might not have enough punch to allow your semi to cycle through properly. You do not need it to jam as the bad guy is entering your bedroom at night. Think I’m kidding here? How much time do you have?
Debbie and I, among our arsenal of weapons, both keep Smith & Wesson Bodyguards (with the integrated red dot laser) handy. The snub nose .38 loaded with hollow point personal security ammo and no safety will get the job done in an emergency. But the S&W has a mother of a kick, which jolts your hand, and the gun can be heard well down the street.
We both feel more at home with the Henry .22.
Merry Christmas D&D
|
| >> read more |
|
This Christmas, you can make someone you love happier and more secure by loading up their stocking with one or more of these 5 survival stocking stuffers.
- Batteries: Not only are batteries essential on Christmas for powering toys and gadgets for the kids, but they’re an essential part of any survival kit. Having a portable source of power is an immense advantage to anyone in a survival situation. Check out this combo pack from Energizer of AAs and AAAs.
- Flashlight: Darkness is danger. Humans rely most on the sense of sight, and without it, we’re at a major disadvantage. Even the odds for your loved ones by dropping a super powered flashlight in their stocking this year. Check out the J5 Tactical V1-Pro Flashlight, a small but powerful flashlight perfect for stockings.
- Matches: Hypothermia is one of the wild’s most efficient killers. You won’t last long without heat, especially in the North American winter. Matches are a lightweight and reliable way to start a fire anywhere. Give this UCO Titan Stormproof Match Kit to someone you love this year.
- Water Purification Tablets: There is no life without water. Many of the most common survival situations Americans face, like hurricanes and floods, can do serious harm to the local drinking water supplies. Water purification tablets are a great way to keep your family healthy in the face of tainted water. This pack of 100 Aquatabs Water Purification Tablets can be broken down and distributed among your adult family members’ stockings or given as a single gift.
- Pocket Knife: Tool usage is one way humans have risen above the animals. A pocket knife is a lightweight way to carry the advantages of a blade with you everywhere. Good for skinning, fighting, cooking, cutting and poking; a knife can make a world of difference if you’re out of your element and in trouble. The Victorinox Swiss Army Huntsman is a classic survival tool that anyone will enjoy taking down from the mantle.
 BONUS ITEM: If you live with the survival king or queen, and they don’t need any of the things here on my list, turn the tables by getting them a Tactical Christmas Stocking with Molle Gear.
Merry Christmas!
|
| >> read more |
|
Islamic immigration is an invasion. Pat Buchanan hits the nail on the head.
Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front, leading candidate for the presidency in 2017, declaimed: “How many more people must die at the hands of Islamic extremists before our governments close our porous borders and stop taking in thousands of illegal immigrants?”
Geert Wilders, the Party for Freedom front-runner for prime minister of Holland, echoed Le Pen: “They hate and kill us. And nobody protects us. Our leaders betray us. We need a political revolution.
“Islamic immigration/Is an invasion,” he went on, “An existential problem/That will replace our people/Erase our culture.”
“These are Merkel’s dead,” tweeted Marcus Pretzell of the far-right Alternative for Germany about the victims in the Christmas mart.
Nicholas Farage, who led the campaign for British secession from the EU, called the Christmas massacre “the Merkel legacy.”
Europe’s populist right is laying this act of Islamist savagery at the feet of Merkel for her having opened Germany in 2015 to a million migrants and refugees from Syria and the Middle East wars.
Scores of millions in the Middle East wish to drive the West out of their world. Thousands are willing to depart and come to Europe to terrorize our societies. They see themselves at war with us, as their ancestors were at war with the Christian world for 1,000 years.
Only liberal ideology calls for America and Europe to bring into their home countries endless numbers of migrants, without being overly concerned about who they are, whence they come or what they believe.
Right-wing and anti-immigrant parties are succeeding in Europe for a simple reason. Mainstream parties are failing in the first duty of government — to protect the safety and security of the people.
|
| >> read more |
|
Pat Buchanan explains that Trump Republicans see an opportunity ahead:
If Israel does not cease expanding West Bank settlements, she could be hauled before the International Criminal Court and charged with war crimes.
Already, J Street, the liberal Jewish lobby that backs a two-state solution in Palestine — and has been denounced by Donald Trump’s new envoy to Israel David Friedman as “far worse than kapos,” the Jewish guards at Nazi concentration camps — has endorsed the resolution.
The successful resolution is also a reflection of eroding support for Israel at the top of the Democratic Party, as a two-term president and a presidential nominee, Secretary of State John Kerry, were both behind it.
Republicans are moving to exploit the opening by denouncing the resolution and the U.N. and showing solidarity with Israel. Goal: Replace the Democratic Party as the most reliable ally of Israel, and reap the rewards of an historic transfer of Jewish political allegiance.
If Bibi halts settlement building on the West Bank, he could cause a split in his Cabinet with rightist rivals like Naftali Bennett who seek to replace him.
Here in the U.S., the U.N. resolution is seen by Democrats as a political debacle, and by many Trump Republicans as an opportunity.
Sen. Chuck Schumer has denounced Obama’s refusal to veto the resolution, echoing sentiments about the world body one used to hear on America’s far right.
“The U.N.” said Schumer, “has been a fervently anti-Israel body since the days (it said) ‘Zionism is racism’ and that fervor has never diminished.”
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham says he will urge Congress to slash funding for the United Nations.
If the folks over at the John Birch Society still have some of those bumper stickers — “Get the U.S. out of the U.N., and the U.N. out of the U.S.!” they might FedEx a batch over to Schumer and Graham.
|
| >> read more |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
