the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
In all of the discussions about our current economic state, a possible regression or double dip recession, out-of-control debts, and continued high unemployment there is one conversation those who frame the media, generate the news, and pass around their opinions as “objective” pontiffs and prognosticators of politics will never engage in.I am of course talking about the failure of Keynesian economic policies.Now, if Ronald Reagan were president or George Bush were president or any other Republican were president, or if the Republicans were able to get their legislative initiatives out of Congress, the headlines in the same economic climate would be “death of supply side economics.” In fact, we can see that in history.After Republican losses in 1982, the television and newspaper pundits immediately following the election suggested that Reagan’s economic vision and voodoo economic policies had been rejected by the voters. In 1992, voters were still rejecting Republican economic policies. In 2006, suddenly voters were no longer conservative. 2008 confirmed for many in the media and Democrats that the nation had drifted to the left.This does not happen when Democrats are defeated at the polls.Please click here for the rest of the post.
Those bastions of objectivity over at Rolling Stone magazine have taken a break from publishing off the record comments and covering the exploits of Lady GaGa to defend America against non-liberal news bias. Their target, of course, is Roger Ailes, President of the Fox News Channel.As Brent Bozell at NewsBusters points out, the alleged “writer” used anonymous sources to make the obvious connection that being celebrated for success at a party is almost indistinguishable from a communist dictator with 70 million deaths on his record.Please click here for the rest of the post.
When queried about the type of government the Constitutional Convention had just created, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”Each generation of Americans must fight to retain that delicate balance between tyranny and anarchy that we like to call a Constitutional Republic.The National Popular Vote Initiative, should it pass, would destroy our Republic.It really is that simple.Please click here for the rest of the post.
Louisiana Speaker of the House Jim Tucker is attempting to defeat needed pension reform in Louisiana by falsely claiming that requiring Louisiana state employees to contribute additional money to their pension is a payroll tax, which he opposes (because of course he is a fiscal conservative and all fiscal conservatives oppose taxes). Tucker has confirmed that he intends to treat the pension reform as a tax in a letter to the bill’s sponsor, which has been provided to RedState. You can read the full text of the letter here (warning, .pdf).Tucker hinges his argument on the absolutely incorrect claim that the additional revenue the State will collect if the employees’ pension contribution is increased by 40% will be deposited in the State’s general fund.Please click here for the rest of the post.
Currently, the Louisiana prison system is served by 11 state prisons. Some years ago, the State of Louisiana built three essentially identical prisons – the Allen, Avoyelles, and Winn correctional centers – which served as something of an experiment. The Avoyelles correctional center was run and staffed by State employees. The Allen and Winn correctional centers were run by private companies under 10-year contracts – the GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America – both of whom are experienced companies that run prisons all over the country.Consistent with what you might expect as a conservative, the prisons run by the private corporations proved to be run just as efficiently and effectively as the Avoyelles prison, only much cheaper. Currently, the Louisiana Department of Corrections is paying $42.30 per inmate per day to house prisoners at Avoyelles. The private companies are housing prisoners at the Allen and Winn facilities at an average of $31.50 per day, providing another data point in support of the conservative belief that there is almost nothing a private company cannot do better and more efficiently than the government.Please click here for the rest of the post.
One would think that, when union members pay union dues, the money would pay for the time their union representatives spend representing them on the job. Well, that’s not always the case. Both, in the private sector and the public sector, it is not unheard of for an employer to agree to pay for the union representatives’ time spent in talking with members to drum up investigate grievances and meet with management.In the private sector, an employer who chooses to pay union representatives to do union business does so at his (or his shareholders’) own expense. In the public-sector, however, when management agrees to pay union representatives to do union business, that comes straight from taxpayers’ pockets.Please click here for the rest of the post.