Defining What You "Need"

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." -- Karl Marx, 1875

"It's a tax on insurance companies that offer Cadillac, or quite frankly, Rolls Royce policies that in essence people don't need." -- Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, 2-25-10

The day after Pres. Obama carped about people calling him a socialist, he sent his top spokesman out to describe a plan to tax health insurance policies that provide benefits more generous than what people "need."...MORE

And that's exactly what socialism, or statism if you prefer, does. Obama is either ignorant of what those terms mean or he thinks we are. Since he's been marinating in collectivist philosophy his entire life, my guess is it's the latter.

When they say your insurance policy covers more than what you "need", what they really mean is that your ability to buy that policy is unfair to those who can't. Therefore, you must be forced to relinquish some of your property to the state in order to satisfy the never ending needs of others and atone for the economic crime of being successful.

What else will the government tax that they decide is more than you need? Your house, food, computer, clothes...your Cadillac? And as the government gets bigger and the individual smaller, the "needs" of everyone gets defined downward as incentives shrivel and the economy stagnates.

Central Florida Rail: Region's game-changer?

It sure is. But not in the way Alex Martins thinks. He is the Chairman of Central Florida Partnership and CEO of the Orlando Magic. But that doesn't make him immune from having misguided opinions:

High-speed rail can make the difference when it comes to our ability to compete on the global stage. Tampa Bay has a population of 3.75 million and Central Florida has a population of 3.46 million. As a combined super region, we are the seventh most-populated region in the country, and the 10th-largest economy in the United States...

...We know that you build a professional basketball team by making strategic decisions over time. Likewise, we understand that Florida is committed to building a safe and efficient multimodal transportation network to serve residents and visitors. High-speed and commuter rail are just the first links in the transportation system that will better connect our communities.

...I couldn't agree more. Growing up in the New York metro area, I used the rail system to attend sporting events and Broadway matinees. That system grew to become the easiest, most direct transportation source for work and play. From my experiences, I know that high-speed rail will be a real game-changer for Central Florida.

That last paragraph is where Mr. Martins' argument runs off the rails, so to speak. The New York transit system, like those in Boston, Chicago and elsewhere, were built in densely populated areas that came of age prior to the advent of the automobile. Dense suburbs grew up close to them as bedroom communities for those downtown areas. So it was relatively easy to place stations within convenient reach of large numbers of people.

And lets remember that those systems were started as private companies with money raised from investors who thought they could make a profit. No private concern will do that in Central Florida because it makes no economic sense.

The population density of the N.Y. Metro area is 2,792 people per square mile, whereas the Tampa Bay and Greater Orlando Metro areas are 521 and 494 people per square mile respectively. There is no way to have enough stops to make rail work conveniently or efficiently under those circumstances. How will people get to those distant stations and what will they do when they get to their destination? Answer: They won't bother. One only has to look to places like Los Angeles and Seattle, where taxpayer funded rail schemes have failed, to see what will happen here.

Additionally, most people in places like Central Florida commute from suburb to suburb, not a central downtown location. There's no way to easily get around those places without an automobile.

Simply put, this will fail to attract any significant ridership just as it has in other places that were developed around the automobile. People can complain about living in a decentralized area while enjoying its benefits as much as they want. But pretending you're something you're not in order to justify building a wildly expensive white elephant, just creates more problems while solving nothing.

Lawsuit accuses Obama administration of failing to protect Florida panther

SARASOTA — A coalition of environmental and civic groups sued the Obama administration Thursday over its refusal to declare 1.3 million acres as critical habitat for the endangered Florida panther...Panthers once roamed the Southeast, but now about 100 panthers remain in the wild, prowling the swamps and forests south of the Caloosahatchee River in South Florida.

...In 2002 a group of panther and habitat mapping experts recommended the federal agency declare the area where the panthers now live as critical habitat. Doing so would subject any plans to alter that habitat — by development, farming or mining — to increased scrutiny and additional requirements to make up for the loss of land.

Instead the agency is now working with a separate coalition of environmental groups and major landowners to craft a cooperative plan to protect some habitat while still allowing development

...The lawsuit seeks enhanced protection of more than 3 million acres in fast-growing Collier, Lee and Hendry counties.

This is how radical environmentalists essentially steal property from individuals through government force by prohibiting its use. In this case, the Eco-Marxists seek to provide 30,000 acres per Panther of others land without paying one dime for it. This destroys wealth while increasing the cost of available land remaining.

No honest cost-benefit analysis can make this insanity pencil out. But it doesn't have to apparently, when you're hiding your uncompromising anti-private property agenda behind a furry feline. That agenda is vividly revealed in this unreasonable litigation.

Mother nature kills off dozens of species of flora and fauna every day. In fact, over 90% of all species that have existed are now extinct due to natural causes. Of course, there are many ways to preserve the Florida Panther without throwing a monkey wrench into private property rights. But the Panther is secondary to the fanatical nihilism of the enviros.

Drilling Bans Cost Trillions

Do the Hands Across The Sand knuckleheads know this or even care? Probably neither. Math is hard, but it will be illustrated perfectly when no one can afford to come to Florida's beaches. We're the only country in the world that deliberately leaves energy resources in the ground and off limits. Countries from Canada to Saudi Arabia are more than happy to enable our stupidity by selling us theirs:

"From trying to stimulate jobs in nonexistent ZIP codes at great expense to worshiping the false gods of climate change, our biggest deficit these days may be in the area of common sense. A new study shows that many of our wounds are self-inflicted as we forgo the wealth and jobs to be found in our waters and under our feet.

The study by Science Applications International Corp. at the request of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Gas Technology Institute and others shows the U.S. economy will suffer $2.3 trillion in lost opportunity costs over the next two decades, monies that would go a long way to reining in runaway deficits and creating economic growth.

Critics will say this is another self-serving study paid for by oil industry groups, but unlike the climate change fantasies concocted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Britain's Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the study's data can survive fact-checking and the conclusions are rooted in reality.

Drilling restrictions in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in offshore areas such as the Chukchi Sea and Outer Continental Shelf, the report says, are denying us access to at least nine years' worth of total U.S. oil and gas consumption...

...These are not climate fantasies derived by running faulty assumptions and bad data through inaccurate computer models. This is simple math, common sense and Economics 101. Energy is expensive. We're leaving vast amounts in the ground while importing it from others. In a word: duh."

Nightfall In America

From the Wall Street Journal:

The federal deficit this fiscal year will be $1.6 trillion, or about 10.6% of gross domestic product. That is the largest deficit since World War II, and even President Obama's optimistic estimates show our deficits will not return to sustainable levels for at least the next decade.

The administration's projection of total federal spending over those 10 years (2011-20) is $45.8 trillion, while expected taxes and other receipts will be $37.3 trillion. The $8.5 trillion deficit is about 20% of spending. And all of these numbers are based on a full and lasting economic recovery, which, based on current experience, is a pretty optimistic projection.

Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page did an analysis of the federal government's debt that will be held by the public over the coming decade. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, the debt held by the public was 36.2% of GDP. It rose to 40.2% the next year. This year it will be about 63.6%, next year 68.6%, then 77% of GDP in 2020. And the Obama administration's budget estimates 218% in 2050.

The reason for these rising deficits is the huge increases in federal spending--the intended growth of the federal government--that Congress and the president are pushing. The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion. In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2020...

...This administration wants larger, not smaller government; broader, not lesser regulation; and greater government, not greater individual liberties. That would make our country weaker on the international stage, make it much more difficult for us to handle future recessions, and even more difficult to implement new programs or strategies that may be needed to improve our economy.

Democrats: Republicans are stimulus hypocrites, or something

Notice that Democrats aren't defending the stimulus, but are instead employing the "you did it too" tactic.



Once this boondoggle was passed, every American taxpayer became responsible for its payments. At that point, Republicans had the choice of either getting some of that money back for their taxpayers or keeping it in the slush fund to buy Democrat votes. The money was going to be spent no matter what.

So now the Republicans are hypocrites for trying to get back a piece of the pie Democrats stole from their constituents? Sure, they could have stood on principle, but the damage was already done. Leaving all the money in Democrat hands would have only made it worse.





More at Hot Air.

Where's housing headed? Follow rents?

Rents and vacancy rates are examined in various ways in order to gauge the overall health of the housing market. This report looks at the ratio of leasing versus ownership costs:

...That brings us to the Deutsche Bank studies. Its REIT research team first established a benchmark for a "normal" ratio of rents to ownership costs -- what it calls ATMP, or after-tax mortgage payment -- for 53 U.S. cities.

On average, DB found that families across America were spending about 87% as much to rent as to own in 1999. Hence, they were traditionally willing to pay a premium as homeowners, though not a big one

But by mid-2006, with the craze in full swing, the figure fell below 60%. At that point, Americans were spending an incredible 66% more to own than to rent. It was far worse in the bubble markets: In Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami, homeowners were paying twice as much as renters, and in San Francisco and Orange Country, owners' monthly payments were triple those of their neighbors with leases instead of mortgages.

DB reckoned that housing prices are more or less reasonable when the ratio returns to its 1999 level. Why 1999? Because the ratio was relatively stable throughout the 1990s, and it was the year the steep rise in prices began in earnest.. At the end of the third quarter of 2009, the overall number stood at 83%, meaning renting was just a tad more attractive than owning.

In other words, at some point prices will fall and/or rents will rise to a point where it becomes more attractive to own than rent. But there are other variables at work here. Interest rates will almost certainly rise soon and big inflation shocks are inevitable when government spends, borrows and prints money at its current, unsustainable pace. Additionally, there is a shadow inventory of distressed homes that will continue to add to supply in record numbers.

Yes, there is pent-up demand, but there is also a lot of pent-up supply along with much economic uncertainty that our government is only exacerbating. Like any other measure, this one should be just one tool in the box.