The Feel Good Philosophy of Banning Plastic Bags

People, get a bug up their butt to ban something they see as detrimental to society.  It could be drugs, it could be prostitution, or it could even be something as simple as a plastic bag.  As a free market capitalist, banning these things makes absolutely zero sense to me.  There are unintended consequences that sometimes override the supposed benefits of the feel good ban.



This utopian worldview and feel good philosophy has many unintended consequences.

So what are the unintended consequences of banning plastic bags?

First, increased crime:

The plastic bag ban has caused more crime.



Second, it causes increased disease

From the Article:

“A reusable grocery bag left in a hotel bathroom caused an outbreak of norovirus-induced diarrhea and nausea that struck nine of 13 members of a girls’ soccer team in October, Oregon researchers reported Wednesday.”

The free market and reality are going to make plastic bags, irregardless of your feel good policies trying to ban them and save the world.  Just like with drugs, banning something only increases demand and lowers the supply.  Just like with other items banned the unintended consequences end up worse than the problem they were trying to fix.


The data clearly shows the plastic bag ban is killing and hurting people.

It would also be extremely educational to understand how oil is cracked.  No matter what a refinery does today, they are going to end up with the material to make plastics.  It doesn’t use less oil to ban bags, that poly material will be cracked no matter what.

This one is seriously under taught to our youth and politicians.  The question is what will the oil refineries do with that material?  Now that these dystopian mindsets are trying to make the world a better place by banning something that exists naturally as part of cracking a barrel of oil.



In conclusion, we would be well served to not so quickly ban something for the sake of trying to make the world a better place.  What can you do?  Get involved in local politics.  If the city you live in proposes banning plastic bags, present the facts to them.

5 Ways Bush Helped Elect Obama

[show_avatar email=mbuel76@gmail.com align=right user_link=website show_postcount=true]

1) Bush’s support of the minimum wage increase.

The minimum wage is a socialist policy.  Any time the Government tries to exert force over the market The vast majority of business leaders start at the bottom.

(which is made up of individuals), it’s exerting tyranny over the people.  Minimum wage controls, do not help disperse poverty, or increase the labor force.  They decrease the labor force, increase poverty, and decrease future business leadership.

Higher minimum wages lead directly to the rise in unemployment. (Fox Business News, source of image)

I have much more to say about the minimum wage, and why it’s unnecessary and will do so in a future blog post.  Briefly, it doesn’t fix poverty, it displaces labor, it creates grey and black markets for labor. Since the Republicans supported the minimum wage increase then, why don’t they know?  Do they hate the poor, like the left proclaims?

 

Henry J. Kaiser Foundation

 

2) Bush’s policies of Medicare Part D and Various Federal aid programs, that Democrats complain about, but refuse to repeal.
Throughout the 2006 to 2010 election cycle the Democrats complained 1). This includes the Iraq War and Medicare Part D.  Medicare Part D, for all intents and purposes is another 800 pound gorilla of debt.  Like Obamacare, if not cut it will bankrupt America. The Bush administration over eight years added 33% to the national debt (by 2012).

 

The Democrats don’t really want to cut it, they just use it as a wedge issue, to blame Republicans for massive spending. As far as African aid goes, it would be better spent from the private sector.  Most government aid, to every country is wasted money.  It’s also the reason those countries don’t spend the free money very well.
As well meaning as all of these programs are, they become more and more unsustainable as we go forward.  It doesn’t matter which party passes well meaning laws, if we run out of money, we run out of money.

 

Associated Press

3) Bush’s Democracy projects, to try and change the world.

We won the war in Iraq against Saddham Hussein.  After 8 long years, Obama finished the policies (badly, which I’ll get to.) declaring that the mission has been accomplished.

But what is the result of that accomplishment?  Thousands of lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring savages “democracy”.  As if Democracy is a sacred goal?  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  You know what the majority in Iraq wants?

Tyranny of the Caliphate.

news.vice.com

Not Bush’s fault you say?  Certainly not completely, Obama left Iraq a vacuum of power.  However, the people of Iraq, by a majority are okay with the Islamic Caliphate of ISIS taking control of Iraq.  If Saddham Hussein was still in control of Iraq, there would be no ISIS.

The people have spoken.  Democracy is a dangerous ideal, our founders despised direct democracies. (That’s why we’re a Republic) This is again an issue of empathy versus money. We simply can’t free every country from their brutal dictator, and like Iraq, many of these people will just choose another brutal dictator.

associated press
Conservatives criticize Obama’s stimulus, but not Bush’s?  You wonder why the American’s don’t see the Republicans as an alternative to the Democrats?
The stimulus delayed the recovery in 2003. Greenspan blamed the war, it was Keynesianism that delayed the recovery.  The recovery kicked in to high gear, in late 2004 after the stimulus spending died down. It didn’t work for FDR, why would it work now (or then for Bush)?How can we consistently be against Obama’s stimulus, if Bush’s was okay?

 

michellemalkin.com

5) The attack on the freedom to fail (TARP, GM Bailouts, etc)

Michelle Malkin and Reason both, had great write ups on how Bush completely abandoned the free market principles that made this country great to “save” the free market system.  In fact, he set in place policies and government expansion that allowed Obama and his cronies.  The Financial Regulations put in place by Barney Frank, and his equally idiotic compatriot Chris Dodd.  The two buffoons who didn’t see a problem with Fannie and Freddie, wrote 2500 pages of regulations for the banking industry.

It’s not talked about much, however the Dodd-Frank financial bill is the Obamacare of the financial world.

Clarion Ledger – Marshall Ramsey

It happened, because Bush started the path allowing the Federal Governmetn to control private banking through TARP.  The goal?  Fix a problem caused by Democrats, Government and Obama.

While this may seem very negative of former President Bush, it’s brutally honest.  If I had a choice, I’d still vote for Bush over Gore or Kerry in 2004.  Just look at the colossal joke that John Kerry is in our State Department.  Reflection of past mistakes is necessary if we expect to improve.  Bush like Hoover, was a “pre-socializer”.  Hoover tried to expand Government
to help those suffering from the recession.  He even started the New Deal.  In my opinion, part of being a Constitutional Conservative or Libertarian is being a student of history, and seeing where policies fail, and where they are repeated.  Obama similar to FDR tried massive spending to save the economy. By his own graph, we’d be better off today without the stimulus.  That doesn’t even take into account that Obama’s BLS has changed the way the U6 is reported.  Labor Force Participation hasn’t been at 62.8% since Jimmy Carter.

Remember though, all of the acceptance for Obama’s policies came from Bush doing it first.  As childish as it is to point your finger at the other guy, and spout, “HE STARTED IT!”, Bush truly did start it.  Ultimately, that’s why Romney was a bad choice for competing for that seat.

Romney passed the predecessor to Obamacare.  Ryan accepted stimulus spending for Wisconsin.  If the Republican party doesn’t differentiate itself from the Democrat party, why would anyone vote for them?

On the Government Shutdown vs the Supreme Court

So in the fury of the Government Shutdown, the left has become apoplectic about the “Affordable Care Act”.  You’ll more likely recognize it as “Obamacare”. They consider it to be Constitutionally tested by the Supreme Court, therefore it’s the “law of the land”.

This logic is fundamentally unsound, let’s debunk it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

1) The Constitution does not grant “kingly” powers to the Supreme Court.  Their job is to rule on the law brought before them, and to clear up controversies between states.

2) Nowhere in article III of the Constitution or in the Federalist papers, Thomas Jefferson’s letters, etc do you see that the Supreme Court was supposed to be the “final say”.  Jefferson in fact believed their power should be limited even further, than the Constitution did already.

3) We know for a fact the left doesn’t actually believe their own words. Let’s go through their history of fighting against the Constitution itself :

3.A) The Progressive Income tax was tried several times before the amendment was brought up and each time it was found unconstitutional.  Did that stop the Progressives from trying to trash the Constitution and implement their marxist utopian tax?  NOPE.  They kept fighting and eventually (and illegally) amended the Constitution to add the Progressive Income tax.

3.B) The recent rulings declaring corporations have free speech and that every citizen has a right to defend themselves with a firearm.  Has the left stopped fighting against Corporate speech?  Have they stopped fighting for gun control?  HELL NO.  They never give up on those things, even though, in their own words, “The Supreme Court is the law of the land.”

4) The Supreme Court only ruled on one part of the law, the individual mandate.  But as this site states;

Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution.

“Well,” you might say, “someone has to review laws for constitutionality. Why not the Supreme Court?” Some possible answers:

  • First and foremost, it is not a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. When the Supreme Court exercises Judicial Review, it is acting unconstitutionally.
  • It is a huge conflict of interest. The Federal Government is judging the constitutionality of its own laws. It is a classic case of “the fox guarding the hen house.”
  • The Constitution’s “checks and balances” were designed to prevent any one branch of government (legislative, executive or judicial) from becoming too powerful and running roughshod over the other branches. There is no such system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.
  • Even if the Supreme Court could be counted on to keep the Executive and Legislative branches from violating the Constitution, who is watching the Supreme Court and will prevent the Judicial branch from acting unconstitutionally? Unless you believe that the Supreme Court is infallible (and, demonstrably, it is not), then allowing the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of Constitutionality issues is obviously flawed.
  • Justices are appointed, not elected and may only be removed for bad behavior (which has happened in the distant past but these days, appointment to the Supreme Court is like a lifetime appointment). If the court upholds unconstitutional laws, there is no recourse available. We the People cannot simply vote them out to correct the situation. Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1823:”At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter if the individual mandate was ruled constitutional by the Government.  They are exercising an authority that doesn’t belong to them.  It certainly was never meant to be the *final* verdict on constitutionality.  As http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html – so poignantly points out;

“It is the Constitution, not the Supreme Court, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Even the Supreme Court should be accountable for overstepping Constitutional limits on federal power.

Conclusion:

Obamacare is bad and unconstitutional law, just like the Alcohol Prohibition, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, and Slavery, which was also upheld in the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is not the final say in our Country, we are not a country ruled by Justices.  The Constitution is the final say, and it’s up to EACH body and Representative to uphold and fight for that document.  The Government Shutdown MUST continue until we defund/delay the implementation of this HORRIBLE law, that none of the proponents bothered to read before voting YES.

ObamaCare-Totally-Safe

Obamacare is killing jobs, Obamacare is killing privacy, Obamacare will kill people.

The goal of Obamacare, is not to increase Health Care access.

It’s goal is to decrease the amount of money we’re spending on Health Care.  That’s all the left talks about.  How much more we spend on Healthcare than countries with “wonderful” universal Healthcare.

I hate to burst their bubble, but life is not all sunshine and lollipops with Universal Healthcare.  ObamaCare AKA the Affordable Care Act, is a step towards Universal Healthcare and will destroy the wonderful Health Care this nation enjoys.

It is completely appropriate to compare it to Slavery, as the Government will judge your worth, and determine if you are worthy of being helped.  You belong to the state. 

That is why Republicans need to keep the Government Shutdown! We CANNOT stop fighting hard enough against this bill, it is bondage.

Shackled to ObamaCare

History of the World part 1, Or How I Learned to Love Capitalism

The history of the economy from 1981 (Reagan) to present (Obama).

In 1981, Reagan inherited, what was a worse recession than what “Obama inherited” (we’ll get to that later) in 2009.  The unemployment rate was worse, the interest rates were worse, and the rate of government spending was worse.

Labor Participation Rate

At the end of his term in Office he slashed the progressive tax code to two rates, and got rid of almost all of the exemptions and loop holes.  He slashed the rate of government growth, and helped defeat the Soviet Union.

He also gave us the *highest* level of post WW2 employment participation of any President ever.  It was his policies that carried that rate through 2001.

So Bush I took office in a landslide, most people thought he would continue Reagan’s policies.

They were wrong.  Bush Sr didn’t believe in limited Government and the first chance he got, he increased taxation and spending.

Labor Participation

This caused the employment participation rate to stall out, and even drop down lower than it was at the end of Reagan’s term.  Because Bush I wasn’t a solid conservative he lost to Ross Perot and Clinton.  The first thing Clinton did was raise taxes and threaten to push Hillarycare.

Labor Participation

economic revival.  This helped push the employment participation rate back to where it was in the 80’s under Reagan.

 

Bush II won over Gore by a thread, and the natural cycle of Capitalism and terrorism took it’s toll on the economy.  Bush started out his policies as a progressive and trying direct stimulus payments.  He then tried tax cuts (but not as big as Reagan’s).  This helped stop the economy from sliding further, but did not grow it to Reagan’s 68% participation rate.

 

Labor Participation

That downward tail is where it gets fun.  That was another creative destruction bit of capitalism, and having too much money invested in housing.  This was completely a government driven bubble and a government driven collapse.

 

1) The Government under Carter and Clinton pushed the CRA forcing banks to give bad loans.

2) Groups like ACORN (that Obama worked for) sued large banks to make sure they were giving out bad loans.

3) The Federal Reserve entered the era of cheap money, lowering money supply why below it’s market value.  This made it quick money, which attracted people to bad loans.

4) Democrats increased volatility in the job market by threatening to repeal the Bush tax rate and raising the minimum wage.

 unemployment vs minimum wage

(http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2013/02/13/higher-minimum-wage-higher-unemployment/)

Even though the unemployment rate has finally fallen to 7.9% by the end of 2012, the total labor participation has fallen to 63% and has been stuck.

This is the end result of Obama’s economic policy.  From ObamaCare, to massive government spending, to increasing the tax burden of the job creators.
It all adds up to a labor participation rate, that we last saw in the 70’s.

Obama-Labor-Participation

Conclusion?

We need to go back to Reagan’s policies, and part of that policy shift is the repeal of ObamaCare.

Steps to recovery:

1) Cut spending to 18% of GDP.  Shift the way money is spent, to spend the taxes collected last year, not the taxes forecast for this year. REPEAL the Affordable Care Act!

2) Get rid of the corporate income tax, and get rid of the progressive income tax, shift to a flat sales tax of 10%.

3) Massively gut the Leviathan.  The EPA, the CPSC, the DEA, the ATF, Homeland Security, etc.  All of them need to be shut down, and every regulation they created must be repealed.

If we did these 3 things, we’d see businesses start moving back to America, you’d see workers wages INCREASE.

(all Labor Force Participation graphs from BLS.gov)