Interesting information on how Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman come from different back grounds, cultures and how the two ethnic groups define their personal space in the community.
This a little long but well worth reading to get some idea of the possible motivations of each player in this tragedy.
The Real Trayvon Martin Story- George Zimmerman Is Mestizo
Posted on March 20, 2012 by thrasymachus33308
Half Sigma comes up with this news story, which makes the Trayvon Martin shooting a whole new deal.
George Zimmerman is clearly not white, and not even a white Hispanic. He looks like your run-of the-mill Mexican, which is to say a mestizo, a person of mixed European and Amerindian ancestry.
The term “Hispanic” is of course racially meaningless. It is officially and legally an ethnic category, invented if I remember correctly by the Nixon administration. If you are from Spain you are not Hispanic. Hispanic means you come from Latin America, and could be of any race.
When I was a kid, it was a lot simpler. Anyone from Latin America in California was a Mexican, whether recent immigrant or old stock. So we just called them “Mexicans”. The term Hispanic encompasses these people- who whether they come from Mexico, Guatemala, or El Salvador, are almost always mestizos or Amerindians.
These people form the lower class of these countries, and the whiter middle and upper classes have less reason to leave. I remember a kid named Victor showed up at my school. He had dark hair and tannable skin, but with freckles. He wore a cardigan and leather shoes, and the other Mexican kids- who adhered to the cholo dress code- thought he was a dork and made fun of him for being from Mexico.
East of the Mississippi things are more complicated. Puerto Ricans have much more African ancestry, as do various other Caribbean Hispanics. The exception was the original Cuban refugees from Castro, who were upper-class and fairly white, even if brunette. Other Cubans had already come to Florida and settled in Tampa, but I don’t know how white they were.
If you hear of a Hispanic around Orlando named George Zimmerman, you might be excused for assuming- as I and apparently most others have- that he is a fairly white Cuban, who generally behaves like a European American. For a white person to behave aggressively toward a black person is extremely unusual. Bernie Goetz, the famed “subway vigilante”, is an example.
But Florida has changed a lot in recent years and now has a lot of Mexicans and Central Americans. He is described as having a white father and Hispanic mother, but his mother must be mostly “indio” for him to look like he does. But your rougher sort of Hispanics- and I’ll just say Mexicans for simplicity- don’t play well with blacks. They come from a culture where blacks are at the bottom of the totem pole and nobody feels bad about it. They are quite violent and racist, and don’t defer to blacks or like having them around.
Where there are large numbers of Mexicans they seem not to mix with blacks, and blacks seem to steer clear of them. In Los Angeles they have driven blacks out of many areas usually thought of as black strongholds- Compton, once white working class (and home of Kevin Costner and James Coburn) became black and scary, but not scary enough to keep out the Mexicans, who displaced the blacks. In some areas Mexican gangs have explicitly targeted blacks to make them leave.
But it has to be cultural too- blacks just don’t like being around any significant number of non-blacks, I’m sure they find the Latin culture and language strange and frightening, and Mexicans are not deferential and inclined to ignore black predation, as whites are.
And that last bit tells the whole story. The neighborhood is a modest community of townhouses going for just over $100,000. A simple, blue-collar and lower middle-class place. While theoretically gated, a black resident quoted on Coates’s blog admits black “youth” have been walking in and stealing stuff.
Zimmerman was quite angry about this. The area seems to be about 50% white and 25% Hispanic, but the census tract covers a large area so it’s hard to tell the racial mix of The Retreat at Twin Lakes. (Yes, housing developments in Florida have silly names like this.) I suspect that it is mostly white and white-acculturated Hispanics, which is why Zimmerman was the only resident willing to volunteer time to the Neighborhood Watch. His white and acculturated neighbors seem to have been willing to accept the incursions and treat them as a nuisance- locking the garage and house more carefully, and calling the insurance company about the loss.
One of white people’s serious defects is an unwillingness to protect their turf. White people are adapted, culturally and genetically, to avoid confrontation with those physically close. In a hostile climate a communal culture develops that discourages this.
Had Zimmerman not been there, there would have been no confrontation. Had there been more Mexicans, the local black kids might have gotten the message, however exactly Mexicans communicate it, that coming into the neighborhood to steal stuff- or coming into the neighborhood at all- was a bad idea.
We are going to be seeing Zimmerman’s sad mug in the paper and on TV a lot in the coming months. It is going to be hard to portray him as a secret Klansman. But he is not going to get off the hook. Blacks are enraged, and the Holder Justice Department has a headline-grabbing case.
Hispanics may get angry, seeing the sad face of a guy who looks like he ought to be hanging out in the Home Depot parking lot, daily excoriated as a “racist! RACIST!” And this may lead to a Hispanic pushback. That may be why the cops let him go.
They see a fight between a Mexican and a black end with a gunshot, and the Mexican claims self-defense. A white cop doesn’t realize that because the Mexican has a German name he’ll be identified as white, and don’t want to get heat from the Hispanics for an unjustified arrest. So he writes it up as self-defense and figures it will go away.
In any case, this will be interesting. Blacks live on the assumption they can hurt and steal from all other races, but especially whites and Asians. They need to get taken down a notch, and if this does that, good.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Supreme Court Wonders Aloud : Who Are You?
Judge Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy asked some good question regarding ObamaCare's mandates. The following is one section of a larger article on the analysis of this exchange.(National Center for Political Analysis)
Solicitor General Verrilli's defense of Obamacare was largely criticized by professional Supreme Court watchers. He seemed to stumble and stammer throughout his argument against the individual mandate.
The White House had to defend his performance: "Mr. Verrilli is an extraordinarily talented advocate who possesses a sharp mind, keen judgment, and unquestionable integrity. He ably and skillfully represented the United States before the Supreme Court yesterday, and we have every confidence that he will continue to do so."
Friday, March 30, 2012
Education Failing Students Needs & National Security
What this article is saying is 'just how far can the next generation go on stupid.
U.S. Education Reform and National Security
Source: "U.S. Education Reform and National Security," Council on Foreign Relations, 2012.
A Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored Independent Task Force report on U.S. Education Reform and National Security has found that education woes in the United States pose a security risk for the United States. As American students gradually fall behind their international peers, the task force has argued that the country will face threats to its economic growth and competitiveness, physical safety, intellectual property, U.S. global awareness, and U.S. unity and cohesion.
The 2009 Program for International Student Assessment, an international assessment that measures the performance of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics and science every three years, serves as a reliable metric for comparing American students with those of other developed countries.
U.S. students rank 14th in reading.
In science, they placed 17th.
They also obtained a paltry rank of 25th in mathematics.
These sub-par rankings reflect an education system that fails to serve students. This failure is not only reflected in comparisons to other countries, but is also visible in entirely domestic metrics.
More than 25 percent of students fail to graduate from high school in four years, and for African-American and Hispanic students, this number is approaching 40 percent.
In civics, only a quarter of U.S. students are proficient or better on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Although the United States is a nation of immigrants, roughly eight in 10 Americans speak only English and a decreasing number of schools are teaching foreign languages. A recent report by ACT, the not-for-profit testing organization, found that only 22 percent of U.S. high school students met "college ready" standards in all of their core subjects.
The College Board reported that even among college-bound seniors, only 43 percent met college-ready standards, meaning that more college students need to take remedial courses.
Recognizing these issues and seeking to address them, the task force proposed three broad policy needs:
Increase educational access to subjects that are crucial to the aforementioned areas of national security.
Allow greater competition among education providers.
Publicize efforts to improve security readiness through augmented education programs.
U.S. Education Reform and National Security
Source: "U.S. Education Reform and National Security," Council on Foreign Relations, 2012.
A Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored Independent Task Force report on U.S. Education Reform and National Security has found that education woes in the United States pose a security risk for the United States. As American students gradually fall behind their international peers, the task force has argued that the country will face threats to its economic growth and competitiveness, physical safety, intellectual property, U.S. global awareness, and U.S. unity and cohesion.
The 2009 Program for International Student Assessment, an international assessment that measures the performance of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics and science every three years, serves as a reliable metric for comparing American students with those of other developed countries.
U.S. students rank 14th in reading.
In science, they placed 17th.
They also obtained a paltry rank of 25th in mathematics.
These sub-par rankings reflect an education system that fails to serve students. This failure is not only reflected in comparisons to other countries, but is also visible in entirely domestic metrics.
More than 25 percent of students fail to graduate from high school in four years, and for African-American and Hispanic students, this number is approaching 40 percent.
In civics, only a quarter of U.S. students are proficient or better on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Although the United States is a nation of immigrants, roughly eight in 10 Americans speak only English and a decreasing number of schools are teaching foreign languages. A recent report by ACT, the not-for-profit testing organization, found that only 22 percent of U.S. high school students met "college ready" standards in all of their core subjects.
The College Board reported that even among college-bound seniors, only 43 percent met college-ready standards, meaning that more college students need to take remedial courses.
Recognizing these issues and seeking to address them, the task force proposed three broad policy needs:
Increase educational access to subjects that are crucial to the aforementioned areas of national security.
Allow greater competition among education providers.
Publicize efforts to improve security readiness through augmented education programs.
Buffett Rule A Economic Ruse : Who Knew?
All this data assumes that the rich will just wait in line to hand over their profits to the federal government. Not going to happen. They're not rich because they're stupid. The money will flee the country or be locked away.
The result will be more unemployment and a slowing further of economic growth. And the cry from the left Democrat progressives will be as usual, 'the mess was worse then we thought' or 'the Republicans are blocking our programs from working'. There are many other excuses for failure used by Democrats, but these two are the ones used most often.
This is the progressive socialist message to the country, " welcome to our world".
"Buffett Rule" Would Raise Less than $5 billion in Taxes a Year
Source: James O'Toole, "'Buffett Rule' would raise less than $5 billion in taxes a year," Yahoo! News, March 20, 2012.
The Obama administration has placed a great deal of emphasis on the implementation of the "Buffett Rule" as a means to ensure that everyone pays their "fair share" and a tool of deficit reduction. However, economic analysis of the rule as written suggests it would do little to accomplish either goal, says Yahoo! News.
The "Paying a Fair Share Act," a bill introduced by Senate Democrats last month, would require those who make more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes, with certain exceptions and stipulations.
The Joint Committee on Taxation, which provides the official Congressional analysis of tax legislation, estimates the act would generate $47 billion over the next decade, or an average of just $4.7 billion per year.
To put that in perspective, President Obama's budget forecasts a $901 billion deficit in 2013.
An important note in the analysis was that it assumed that the income tax cuts currently in effect expire as scheduled next year, putting the maximum personal income tax rate at 39.6 percent and the capital gains tax at 20 percent. That's up from current rates of 35 percent and 15 percent, respectively.
The result will be more unemployment and a slowing further of economic growth. And the cry from the left Democrat progressives will be as usual, 'the mess was worse then we thought' or 'the Republicans are blocking our programs from working'. There are many other excuses for failure used by Democrats, but these two are the ones used most often.
This is the progressive socialist message to the country, " welcome to our world".
"Buffett Rule" Would Raise Less than $5 billion in Taxes a Year
Source: James O'Toole, "'Buffett Rule' would raise less than $5 billion in taxes a year," Yahoo! News, March 20, 2012.
The Obama administration has placed a great deal of emphasis on the implementation of the "Buffett Rule" as a means to ensure that everyone pays their "fair share" and a tool of deficit reduction. However, economic analysis of the rule as written suggests it would do little to accomplish either goal, says Yahoo! News.
The "Paying a Fair Share Act," a bill introduced by Senate Democrats last month, would require those who make more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes, with certain exceptions and stipulations.
The Joint Committee on Taxation, which provides the official Congressional analysis of tax legislation, estimates the act would generate $47 billion over the next decade, or an average of just $4.7 billion per year.
To put that in perspective, President Obama's budget forecasts a $901 billion deficit in 2013.
An important note in the analysis was that it assumed that the income tax cuts currently in effect expire as scheduled next year, putting the maximum personal income tax rate at 39.6 percent and the capital gains tax at 20 percent. That's up from current rates of 35 percent and 15 percent, respectively.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
'Warmers' Get More Bad News : Earth Hot In Dim Past
Oh no, another fact to confuse the issue. Just what the nut jobs in the environmental trenches didn't need to hear, but then it really doesn't matter what facts are found to debunk 'man made climate change', the 'warmers' will never admit they are being mislead.
This a fact of life for those that sit in the front pew of the church of environmental fantasy, and have drunk the lemonade of the environmental agenda, or sometimes called the Dan Rather syndrome, 'it might not be true but it should be', they will always believe anything that fits their twisted view of reality.
What we have here is better known as 'genetic mutants' by humans more based in common sense and how the world really works.
Medieval Warm Period Was Global Event
Source: Ted Thornhill, "Is This Finally Proof We're NOT Causing Global Warming? The Whole of the Earth Heated up in Medieval Times without Human CO2 Emissions, Says New Study," Daily Mail (U.K.), March 26, 2012.
Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study that shows that during medieval times the entire planet heated up. It then cooled down naturally, says the Daily Mail (U.K.).
A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University has found that
contrary to the "consensus," the Medieval Warm Period approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn't just confined to Europe. In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica -- which means that Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human carbon dioxide emissions.
At present the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe -- therefore that the warming we're experiencing now is a man-made phenomenon. However, Professor Lu has shown that this isn't true -- and the evidence lies with a rare mineral called ikaite, which forms in cold waters.
"Ikaite is an icy version of limestone," says Lu. "The crystals are only stable under cold conditions and actually melt at room temperature." It turns out the water that holds the crystal structure together -- called the hydration water -- traps information about temperatures present when the crystals formed.
This finding by Lu's research team establishes, for the first time, ikaite as a reliable way to study past climate conditions.
The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The sediment layers were deposited over 2,000 years. The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the "Little Ice Age," approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the Medieval Warm Period before it. Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica.
Lu's team found that in fact, they did. They were able to deduce this by studying the amount of heavy oxygen isotopes found in the crystals. During cool periods there are lots, during warm periods there are not.
This a fact of life for those that sit in the front pew of the church of environmental fantasy, and have drunk the lemonade of the environmental agenda, or sometimes called the Dan Rather syndrome, 'it might not be true but it should be', they will always believe anything that fits their twisted view of reality.
What we have here is better known as 'genetic mutants' by humans more based in common sense and how the world really works.
Medieval Warm Period Was Global Event
Source: Ted Thornhill, "Is This Finally Proof We're NOT Causing Global Warming? The Whole of the Earth Heated up in Medieval Times without Human CO2 Emissions, Says New Study," Daily Mail (U.K.), March 26, 2012.
Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study that shows that during medieval times the entire planet heated up. It then cooled down naturally, says the Daily Mail (U.K.).
A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University has found that
contrary to the "consensus," the Medieval Warm Period approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn't just confined to Europe. In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica -- which means that Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human carbon dioxide emissions.
At present the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe -- therefore that the warming we're experiencing now is a man-made phenomenon. However, Professor Lu has shown that this isn't true -- and the evidence lies with a rare mineral called ikaite, which forms in cold waters.
"Ikaite is an icy version of limestone," says Lu. "The crystals are only stable under cold conditions and actually melt at room temperature." It turns out the water that holds the crystal structure together -- called the hydration water -- traps information about temperatures present when the crystals formed.
This finding by Lu's research team establishes, for the first time, ikaite as a reliable way to study past climate conditions.
The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The sediment layers were deposited over 2,000 years. The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the "Little Ice Age," approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the Medieval Warm Period before it. Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica.
Lu's team found that in fact, they did. They were able to deduce this by studying the amount of heavy oxygen isotopes found in the crystals. During cool periods there are lots, during warm periods there are not.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
EPA Moves To Crush Coal Energy
The aim here is to tighten the grip on the populations ability to prosper. The progressive left socialists, including environmentalists and unions for the most part, believe to save the world, the human population must be reigned in, slowed down or even according some, eliminated.
The EPA is the face of the Obama administration. If new regulations that stop coal fired energy generation plants means millions freeze or roast, so be it. Who cares. It's the Marxist socialist agenda that counts. The country be dammed.
EPA Takes Aim at Coal Plants
Source: Keith Johnson, "EPA Takes Aim at Coal Plants," Wall Street Journal, March 26, 2012.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to introduce new rules this week that take aim at greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, says the Wall Street Journal.
The long-awaited action will sharply limit the emissions allowed from power plants built in the future, but will allow existing coal plants to keep operating for years.
The new rules will essentially make it unviable to build new coal-fired power plants, unless they are fitted with yet-to-be-commercialized carbon-capture technology. The rules would limit the permissible emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to a little more than half of what a typical coal plant emits today, administration officials have said. By contrast, cleaner-burning, gas-fired power plants are expected to remain viable under the rules.
The utility industry has fought hard against the rules, arguing that if new coal plants are effectively banned, the industry will be forced to forswear a cheap and plentiful source of electricity generation. The unveiling of the rules is also likely to draw fire from Republicans and business groups.
Some environmentalists are also expected to criticize the measure, because it doesn't apply to the hundreds of coal-fired plants currently operating and gives them years to clean up.
The EPA is the face of the Obama administration. If new regulations that stop coal fired energy generation plants means millions freeze or roast, so be it. Who cares. It's the Marxist socialist agenda that counts. The country be dammed.
EPA Takes Aim at Coal Plants
Source: Keith Johnson, "EPA Takes Aim at Coal Plants," Wall Street Journal, March 26, 2012.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to introduce new rules this week that take aim at greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, says the Wall Street Journal.
The long-awaited action will sharply limit the emissions allowed from power plants built in the future, but will allow existing coal plants to keep operating for years.
The new rules will essentially make it unviable to build new coal-fired power plants, unless they are fitted with yet-to-be-commercialized carbon-capture technology. The rules would limit the permissible emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to a little more than half of what a typical coal plant emits today, administration officials have said. By contrast, cleaner-burning, gas-fired power plants are expected to remain viable under the rules.
The utility industry has fought hard against the rules, arguing that if new coal plants are effectively banned, the industry will be forced to forswear a cheap and plentiful source of electricity generation. The unveiling of the rules is also likely to draw fire from Republicans and business groups.
Some environmentalists are also expected to criticize the measure, because it doesn't apply to the hundreds of coal-fired plants currently operating and gives them years to clean up.
Wis High School Students Confront Leftists : A Video
Here is great video on what Democracy looks like - a bunch of Lutheran high school students confronted progressive left demonstrators in the Wisconsin state capital -
The union leftists progressives used the 'this is what Democracy looks like' slogan when the stormed the capital by the thousands and stopped all activity that was normal operations causing millions of dollars of damage over a period of months that they sat, slept, defaced, destroyed urinated and or defecated in the capital rotunda.
This wasn't the face of Democracy, this was and is the face of the new progressive left Marxist Democrats. Make no mistake, this is who they are and they aren't going away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=3uDihYmhsMA
The union leftists progressives used the 'this is what Democracy looks like' slogan when the stormed the capital by the thousands and stopped all activity that was normal operations causing millions of dollars of damage over a period of months that they sat, slept, defaced, destroyed urinated and or defecated in the capital rotunda.
This wasn't the face of Democracy, this was and is the face of the new progressive left Marxist Democrats. Make no mistake, this is who they are and they aren't going away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=3uDihYmhsMA
Britain's High Tax Rate Reduces Revenue Income
The bigger the government gets and demands more money from the population to feed it's ever growing needs, that government will find with every tax rate increase the revenue stops increasing or begins to fall.
Britain is proof of this situation - the more they raised the tax rate the results were a decreasing increase over time and then revenue falls. Do we, in this country, need more first hand information before we wake up? Maybe if we looked to Canada and how they are prospering from reduced tax rates? What about that? nah -
Why the Higher Rate of Income Tax Yielded so Little
Source: "Falling Flat: Why the Higher Rate of Income Tax Yielded so Little," The Economist, March 24, 2012.
Britain's 50 percent personal income tax reaped little revenue, according to an analysis by tax-office officials. The study is based on a single year's tax returns, but is nonetheless compelling, says The Economist.
It shows that the combined incomes of the taxpayers liable to pay the 50 percent rate (i.e., those with earnings above £150,000, or $238,000) fell by a quarter, from £116 billion ($185 billion) to £87 billion ($139 billion), in 2010-2011, the first year in which the tax applied.
This sharp drop means either that the well-paid did a lot less work in Britain or that they shielded their income from the higher tax rate. A closer look suggests the latter.
The tax wonks find that up to £18 billion ($29 billion) of income was brought forward to the previous tax year to avoid the top rate. Much of this "forestalling" came in the form of higher dividend income, which surged in 2009-2010 before plummeting a year later, as owner-directors of companies altered the timing of their own payouts. There was a similar spike in employment income in 2009-2010, which is put down to the early exercise of share options to avoid the new tax.
The forestalling made it tricky for the tax officials to estimate what the take from the 50 percent rate would be in a "normal" year. The study puts the figure at around £1 billion ($1.6 billion) "at most," far less than the hoped-for £2.5 billion ($4 billion).
The Treasury estimates a £100 million ($160 billion) revenue loss from cutting the top rate of tax to 45 percent, based in part on the analysis of 2009-2010 tax receipts. The results suggest that the tax take from incomes over £150,000 is little different whether you set the tax rate at 45 percent or 50 percent. Setting the rate much higher than 45 percent is pointless; beyond 50 percent it is self-defeating.
The additional revenue loss of abolishing the higher rate altogether is estimated at a few hundred million pounds.
Britain is proof of this situation - the more they raised the tax rate the results were a decreasing increase over time and then revenue falls. Do we, in this country, need more first hand information before we wake up? Maybe if we looked to Canada and how they are prospering from reduced tax rates? What about that? nah -
Why the Higher Rate of Income Tax Yielded so Little
Source: "Falling Flat: Why the Higher Rate of Income Tax Yielded so Little," The Economist, March 24, 2012.
Britain's 50 percent personal income tax reaped little revenue, according to an analysis by tax-office officials. The study is based on a single year's tax returns, but is nonetheless compelling, says The Economist.
It shows that the combined incomes of the taxpayers liable to pay the 50 percent rate (i.e., those with earnings above £150,000, or $238,000) fell by a quarter, from £116 billion ($185 billion) to £87 billion ($139 billion), in 2010-2011, the first year in which the tax applied.
This sharp drop means either that the well-paid did a lot less work in Britain or that they shielded their income from the higher tax rate. A closer look suggests the latter.
The tax wonks find that up to £18 billion ($29 billion) of income was brought forward to the previous tax year to avoid the top rate. Much of this "forestalling" came in the form of higher dividend income, which surged in 2009-2010 before plummeting a year later, as owner-directors of companies altered the timing of their own payouts. There was a similar spike in employment income in 2009-2010, which is put down to the early exercise of share options to avoid the new tax.
The forestalling made it tricky for the tax officials to estimate what the take from the 50 percent rate would be in a "normal" year. The study puts the figure at around £1 billion ($1.6 billion) "at most," far less than the hoped-for £2.5 billion ($4 billion).
The Treasury estimates a £100 million ($160 billion) revenue loss from cutting the top rate of tax to 45 percent, based in part on the analysis of 2009-2010 tax receipts. The results suggest that the tax take from incomes over £150,000 is little different whether you set the tax rate at 45 percent or 50 percent. Setting the rate much higher than 45 percent is pointless; beyond 50 percent it is self-defeating.
The additional revenue loss of abolishing the higher rate altogether is estimated at a few hundred million pounds.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Health Care Can Be Saved From Obama : Really!
This is good for all of us - anything that brings common sense this nighmare must be the bottom line in any health care systems.
How to Replace the Health Reform Law
Source: James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit, "How to Replace ObamaCare," National Affairs, Spring 2012.
History suggests that, now that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ObamaCare") is with us, the law cannot be reversed without a credible proposal for what should take its place. Those reforms must account for both the strengths and the weaknesses of our health care system, and must solve the problems that contributed to the demand for ObamaCare in the first place.
There is room for debate about the particulars of these reforms, and different components of our health care system will call for different kinds of fixes. What any effective solution must involve, however, is the creation of a true market in health coverage -- one that drives efficiency through competition, and places health care decisions in the hands of consumers and taxpayers, where they belong, say James C. Capretta, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and Robert E. Moffit, a senior fellow in the Center for Policy Innovation at the Heritage Foundation.
To be credible, the replacement for ObamaCare must address in a plausible way the genuine problems with our system of financing health care. Preeminent among these are the explosion in costs, the rising numbers of uninsured, and the challenge of covering Americans with pre-existing conditions.
The first crucial component of any serious reform must be a "defined contribution" approach to the public financing of health care -- the essential prerequisite for a functioning marketplace that imposes cost and quality discipline. For market forces to work, consumers must be cost-conscious.
The second pillar of reform should be personal responsibility and continuous-coverage protection.
The third pillar of reform must be a genuine partnership with the states.
The fourth pillar of a real reform agenda would address the tax treatment of employer-sponsored plans, transforming today's tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance into a standard tax credit that would extend to all Americans, regardless of employment status, which they could then use to purchase the private coverage of their choice.
The fifth key component of a genuine health care reform plan must be an overhaul of Medicaid -- policymakers should move lower-income people out of the limited sphere of Medicaid options and into the same private health insurance markets in which their fellow citizens purchase coverage.
The sixth pillar of a replacement plan must be premium-support reform of Medicare.
Finally, as a key criticism of ObamaCare is the danger it poses to federal finances, the seventh pillar of a serious health care reform plan must be the full offset of all new costs through spending cuts.
How to Replace the Health Reform Law
Source: James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit, "How to Replace ObamaCare," National Affairs, Spring 2012.
History suggests that, now that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ObamaCare") is with us, the law cannot be reversed without a credible proposal for what should take its place. Those reforms must account for both the strengths and the weaknesses of our health care system, and must solve the problems that contributed to the demand for ObamaCare in the first place.
There is room for debate about the particulars of these reforms, and different components of our health care system will call for different kinds of fixes. What any effective solution must involve, however, is the creation of a true market in health coverage -- one that drives efficiency through competition, and places health care decisions in the hands of consumers and taxpayers, where they belong, say James C. Capretta, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and Robert E. Moffit, a senior fellow in the Center for Policy Innovation at the Heritage Foundation.
To be credible, the replacement for ObamaCare must address in a plausible way the genuine problems with our system of financing health care. Preeminent among these are the explosion in costs, the rising numbers of uninsured, and the challenge of covering Americans with pre-existing conditions.
The first crucial component of any serious reform must be a "defined contribution" approach to the public financing of health care -- the essential prerequisite for a functioning marketplace that imposes cost and quality discipline. For market forces to work, consumers must be cost-conscious.
The second pillar of reform should be personal responsibility and continuous-coverage protection.
The third pillar of reform must be a genuine partnership with the states.
The fourth pillar of a real reform agenda would address the tax treatment of employer-sponsored plans, transforming today's tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance into a standard tax credit that would extend to all Americans, regardless of employment status, which they could then use to purchase the private coverage of their choice.
The fifth key component of a genuine health care reform plan must be an overhaul of Medicaid -- policymakers should move lower-income people out of the limited sphere of Medicaid options and into the same private health insurance markets in which their fellow citizens purchase coverage.
The sixth pillar of a replacement plan must be premium-support reform of Medicare.
Finally, as a key criticism of ObamaCare is the danger it poses to federal finances, the seventh pillar of a serious health care reform plan must be the full offset of all new costs through spending cuts.
ObamaCare PPACA First Step to Total Control
As this article points out, many people will 'game' the system causing it to fail to provide adequate health care, not only for the new intranets, but also for everyone that had good health care in the past under the private health care system.
Of course, again, it's not really about providing good health care, it's about establishing a power base to demand control of everything that the population wants to do. If the government can demand you have to buy a form of health care or be fined under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, they can demand you buy an electric car or how much you can travel and where. It's bad for your health to travel places deemed by the government as risky. Really?
Take a minute and give this some thought - every aspect of your life will have a price tag on it set by someone else. If you don't want to pay the price, you pay a fine and or go to jail. How long then before the government decides some in society are enemies of the state and take steps to eliminated the threat.
It's the new America according to the progressive liberal left agenda.
Importance of the Individual Mandate to the Health Reform Law
Source: Margaret Steele, "Analysts Debate Importance of the 'Individual Mandate' to Health-Reform Law," U.S. News & World Report, March 22, 2012.
The individual mandate will be a primary topic of discussion when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) comes before the Supreme Court. Long recognized as one of the 2010 health care law's most controversial provisions, the mandate requires the purchase of health insurance, imposing a tax penalty for those who don't participate, says U.S. News & World Report.
The law can be carried out even if the individual mandate is struck down. But John C. Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, emphasizes that even if the law is found to be entirely constitutional, it will still face a number of practical obstacles that will limit its effectiveness.
Goodman's analysis of figures from the Congressional Budget Office suggest that though they vary by region and age, typical insurance premiums in 2016 will average about $5,800 for an individual and $15,200 for a family of four.
Meanwhile, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, fines for noncompliance will amount to $695 for individuals and $2,085, or 2.5 percent of total taxable income for families.
Essentially, the current system will likely fail to achieve the broad participation among the nation's young and healthy that it hopes to.
Goodman also identifies an additional problem with the current scheme of premiums and fines: it offers a substantial opportunity to game the system. The disparity between the fines and premiums will encourage people to wait until they're sick to buy insurance and cancel it when they're well, causing costs to skyrocket.
Of course, again, it's not really about providing good health care, it's about establishing a power base to demand control of everything that the population wants to do. If the government can demand you have to buy a form of health care or be fined under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, they can demand you buy an electric car or how much you can travel and where. It's bad for your health to travel places deemed by the government as risky. Really?
Take a minute and give this some thought - every aspect of your life will have a price tag on it set by someone else. If you don't want to pay the price, you pay a fine and or go to jail. How long then before the government decides some in society are enemies of the state and take steps to eliminated the threat.
It's the new America according to the progressive liberal left agenda.
Importance of the Individual Mandate to the Health Reform Law
Source: Margaret Steele, "Analysts Debate Importance of the 'Individual Mandate' to Health-Reform Law," U.S. News & World Report, March 22, 2012.
The individual mandate will be a primary topic of discussion when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) comes before the Supreme Court. Long recognized as one of the 2010 health care law's most controversial provisions, the mandate requires the purchase of health insurance, imposing a tax penalty for those who don't participate, says U.S. News & World Report.
The law can be carried out even if the individual mandate is struck down. But John C. Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, emphasizes that even if the law is found to be entirely constitutional, it will still face a number of practical obstacles that will limit its effectiveness.
Goodman's analysis of figures from the Congressional Budget Office suggest that though they vary by region and age, typical insurance premiums in 2016 will average about $5,800 for an individual and $15,200 for a family of four.
Meanwhile, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, fines for noncompliance will amount to $695 for individuals and $2,085, or 2.5 percent of total taxable income for families.
Essentially, the current system will likely fail to achieve the broad participation among the nation's young and healthy that it hopes to.
Goodman also identifies an additional problem with the current scheme of premiums and fines: it offers a substantial opportunity to game the system. The disparity between the fines and premiums will encourage people to wait until they're sick to buy insurance and cancel it when they're well, causing costs to skyrocket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
