Muda69

http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/14/rand-paul-canada-surgery-clinic-private

Quote

Some media outlets and activists are suggesting that Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) is guilty of hypocrisy because he will travel to Canada for surgery related to his 2017 assault at the hands of a neighbor. Paul, after all, has warned loudly against adopting the Canadian health care system.

"Rand Paul, enemy of socialized medicine, will go to Canada for surgery," tweeted Talking Points Memo. The tweet includes a link to a Courier-Journal story that reminds readers that "Paul has called universal health care and nationalized options 'slavery.'" Newsweek went a similar route. And the Democratic Coalition tweeted:

Oh, the irony: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one of the fiercest political critics of socialized medicine, will travel to Canada later this month to get hernia surgery.

Tell Congress we need #MedicareForAll now: https://t.co/iQQ4yeeBjyhttps://t.co/yqvqcdub8w

— Democratic Coalition (@TheDemCoalition) January 14, 2019

 

Checkmate, libertarians? Nope.

Those who chuckled at this supposed irony missed a major detail, even though it was noted in the press coverage: Paul's surgery will take place at the Shouldice Hernia Hospital in Thornhill, Ontario. The clinic is private, and run for profit; The Toronto Star's Daniel Dale, who is from Thornhill, notes that it was "grandfathered in to Ontario's socialized health system."

According to Dale, New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton, a left-leaning Canadian politician, attracted criticism in 2006 for visiting the private clinic, even though he was a champion of publicly provided health care. That is indeed hypocritical. Paul's decision to seek out the best care—and pay for it—is not.

If you can seek out the best care and pay for it, why not?

Gotta get this one started, for DT if anything.   Start with something mostly benign, at least when it comes to Mr. Trump:

Feast Fit For A Burger King: Trump Serves Fast Food To College Football Champs: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs

Quote

It's a scene often observed in the White House. Men in bow-ties light golden candelabras while the president of the United States stands behind the table containing small mountains of food on silver trays.

So far, so good.

But look closely, and you'll see the labels on the packages: "Quarter Pounder." "Filet-O-Fish." Chicken nugget dipping sauces sit in serving bowls off to the side. Behind the current president, Abraham Lincoln looks down, his hand on his chin, surveying the scene.

If only paintings could offer witty commentary.

In this case, we'll have to rely on late night comedians and Twitter observers, who roundly ridiculed President Trump for the feast he provided for the Clemson Tigers. Clemson beat No. 1 ranked Alabama to take the College Football Playoff National Championship, and might have expected that a visit to the White House would command a dinner befitting a champion. Instead the Tigers got a dinner befitting a drive-through customer — granted, on fancier plates.

Here’s a video I shot of President Trump showing off his 300 hamburgers. pic.twitter.com/P06S6I5w07

— Hunter Walker (@hunterw) January 14, 2019

"I think we're going to serve McDonalds, Wendy's and Burger King with some pizza," Trump told reporters beforehand. "I really mean it. It would be interesting. And I would think that's their favorite food."

 

Because of the shutdown, most of the staff in the White House residence had been furloughed, so Trump paid for the meal himself, he said. Trump's magnanimity did not spare him from the biting tongue of Twitter.

Cold McDonald's on expensive plates could not be any more perfect a representation of Trump.

— Jill (@JillChristinaWV) January 14, 2019

Commenting on a picture of the president posing with his hands wide in front of the feast, television writer Jess Dweck said: "This is the news photo that would make a returning time traveler realize they f***** something up."

Catering a White House event with 300 fast food burgers would be a setpiece in a movie where a kid becomes president

— Nick Wiger (@nickwiger) January 14, 2019

"Great American food!" Trump told reporters at an informal press conference before the meal. "And it could be very interesting to see at the end of this evening how many are left." He declined to say whether he prefers McDonald's or Wendy's. "I like 'em all. If it's American, I like it."

...

https://mises.org/wire/furloughed-federal-employees-are-still-paid-more-you

Quote

Whether its CNBC, or The New York Times, or NPR, the mainstream media is clearly committed to using the current partial government shutdown to portray federal workers as beleaguered victims of the American political system.

But, in all cases I've encountered, these reports neglect to mention that on average, civilian federal workers make 17 percent more than similar workers in the private sector, according to a 2017-2018 report by the Congressional Budget Office. That's total compensation, so we're including both wages and benefits.

Considering that a year is 52 weeks long, an average federal worker would need to be completely without any income for nearly 9 weeks in order to just be reduced to equal standing with a similar private-sector worker. (17 percent of 52 weeks is 8.84 weeks.)

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

As of this writing, the current shutdown has only lasted three weeks, which means all those furloughed workers profiled in national news stories are likely still coming out ahead of their private-sector colleagues. Moreover, given that both Trump and Congress have committed to pay furloughed workers back pay, it's a safe bet that federal workers will continue to enjoy a healthy advantage over private-sector workers when it comes to compensation.

Health benefits for most federal workers will also continue without interruption through the shutdown, as noted by NPR.

The disparity between private-sector work and federal jobs is largest at the lower end of the education scale.

According to the CBO's report:

Federal civilian workers with no more than a high school education earned 34 percent more, on average, than similar workers in the private sector.

That's just wages. They get far more in terms of benefits like healthcare and vacation time:

Average benefits were 93 percent higher for federal employees with no more than a high school education than for their private-sector counterparts.

The benefits for workers with a bachelors degree are 52 percent higher for federal workers than for their private-sector counterparts. Wages for federal workers in this group, however, are only five percent higher.

Only when we look at federal workers with PhDs and other advanced degrees, do we find some federal workers who actually make less than similar workers in the private sector. Wages among highly-educated federal employees were 24 percent less than in the private sector, according to the report. Benefits remained "about the same."

So, most federal employees — especially the ones with less education — have a long way to go before facing the economic realities that private-sector employees — i.e., the net taxpayers — face on a daily basis.

...

Yep, no tears shed for those who choose to cast their employment lot with the federal government.

As Ron Swanson believes:

http://reason.com/archives/2019/01/09/do-economists-agree-a-70-percent-top-mar

Quote

Economic commentators Matt Yglesias, Paul Krugman, and Noah Smith believe Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D–N.Y.) call for a 60 to 70 percent top marginal income tax rate is uncontroversial. According to all three, the New York Democrat's proposal simply reflects the consensus of mainstream economics.

Their argument rests on two historical factoids. The first is that the rich paid higher taxes in the 1950s, and the economy grew just fine. The second "fact" is that an array of economists, from Nobel Prize winner Peter Diamond, to Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, have produced peer-reviewed research showing combined marginal rates as high as 70 to 80 percent are "optimal."

But dig into these three papers, and you'll find the results reflect philosophy as much as economics. These economists think they can plan the distribution of income to maximize "social welfare." But they arrive at the decision to impose extremely high top marginal tax rates because they uniformly decide to put almost zero weight on the welfare of the rich.

 

That means the sole aim of this cluster of economists is to maximize revenue collected from high earners in order to transfer to others. Presuming we could design a tax system from scratch that eliminates the possibility of people avoiding taxes or hiding or reclassifying income, they estimate the single combined marginal tax rate that would generate maximum revenue to "soak the rich." Incorporating other wishful thinking about how the rich respond to taxes, these economists wind up calculating that the "optimal" top tax rate is about 70 percent, if you are also willing to imagine closing off special treatment for capital gains and the possibility of incorporation.

The astute reader can probably see some problems with extrapolating from this theoretical calculation.

First, what if one thinks the welfare of the rich is actually an important policy consideration? According to a paper by Jonathan Gruber and Emmanuel Saez, if we instead pursued a "compassionate conservative" agenda—caring about the very poor a bit more than others in society, but everyone else equally, the optimal top rate might be as low as 30 percent. If we were philosophically opposed to redistribution altogether, the optimal rate tumbles to 3 percent. What counts as optimal varies tremendously based on the philosophical assumptions the economist starts with.

Second, what if we were not able to redesign the tax code to eliminate avoidance? A 73 percent rate, the optimal rate calculated by Diamond and Saez in 2011, is a combined rate (not just a marginal federal income tax rate, as Ocasio-Cortez seems to be proposing) that assumes we eliminate all deductions and exemptions. If we presume instead that the current deductions and exemptions continue, and high earners were as responsive to tax rates today as they were in the '80s, then the supposed optimal combined tax rate falls to 54 percent. After state, local, sales, and other taxes are taken into account, this translates to a top federal income tax rate of 48 percent—much higher than today's rate of 37 percent, but nowhere near the 60 to 70 percent rate advocated by Ocasio-Cortez. (Also notable: Phil Magness and Nick Gillespiehave shown, very few people actually paid the highest rates in the 1950s, precisely because deductions and exemptions existed that these economists assume we'd be able to abolish.)

Third, these sorts of analyses tend to focus on (a) the very short-term, and (b) what to do with income after it's been produced. They do not ask why we receive income in a market economy. (Answer: because we produce something someone else wants or needs, generating consumer surplus.) The idea that the value of rich people to the rest of society solely rests on their tax contributions, as Krugman implies, is bizarre. In fact, the risk that higher tax rates might deter entrepreneurial activity by reducing the future payoff to innovation should worry us greatly. The economist Charles Jonesthinks that incorporating this effect into the model might lower the optimal tax rate to 28 percent, simply because innovations—think Uber, Amazon—deliver huge gains to everyone.

This all might seem technical and theoretical, but it matters. Most of the venerated papers that seem to support super high tax rates for top earners assume we share progressive preferences, that we can implement a new wholly combined tax system (or hike other taxes) to eliminate the possibility of any form of tax planning, and that these huge tax hikes won't have longer term effects on growth or human capital accumulation.

Given all this, Krugman, Yglesias, and Smith could easily have said, "There's a progressive case, grounded in economics, for major tax reform, eliminating all deductions, and having one single progressive tax with very high rates, especially on top earners." But they could instead have said, "There's a progressive case, grounded in economics, for modestly higher top tax rates within the current code." But they cannot claim simultaneously that Ocasio-Cortez's big idea merely echoes the 1950s and that her recommendation is backed up by these economists.

A plan destined to fail.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/14/indiana-general-assembly-lawmaker-wants-civics-test-graduation/2570275002/

Quote

For years, the refrain coming from teachers, parents and just about everyone else in the education world has been "less testing." 

That's easier said than done, but the Indiana State Board of Education adopted new high school graduation requirements last year to do just that. A proposal pending at the Statehouse, though, would add a new test to those requirements.

Senate Bill 132 would require students to pass the same United States civics test issued to new citizens. It quizzes them on basic knowledge of U.S. government and history, like the first president and the branches of government. While the bill's proponents argue that it will help address a woeful lack of basic civics knowledge in the U.S. — pointing to popular late-night comic skits showing "man on the street" interviews of people flubbing basic questions and surveys of college students unable to name the vice president — critics say it's unnecessary testing of material that students are already being taught.

...

Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, argued during a meeting of the Senate education committee last week that the test wouldn't be that burdensome. Kruse said it takes most people less than 30 minutes to complete the test, which students could start taking in the eighth grade, and the average person passes it by their third attempt.

"We have a deficiency in government and civics knowledge in America today," he said, "and I think it's getting worse."

Among those in support of Kruse's bill: a college professor, several of the state's leading conservative lobbying groups and veterans. Nearly every statewide education association has opposed the bill, arguing that nearly all of the questions on the test are addressed through Indiana's K-12 academic standards and that high schools are in the midst of adjusting to drastic changes to graduation requirements.

The state overhauled its high school graduation standards last year, adding new academic and extracurricular requirements while looking for ways to reduce testing. In adopting the new standards, the State Board of Education moved away from requiring students to pass an exam for graduation, instead favoring completion of a college- or career-oriented pathway of courses and activities.

"The intent is laudable," said John Elcesser, executive director of the Indiana Non-Public Education Association. "I'm not sure this is the best vehicle to accomplish it."

....

Another laughable bill proposed by Mr. Kruse.  He usually pulls this at least once a session.

But that begs the question, why do the individuals graduating from today's government schools seem to have less basic knowledge of U.S. government and history than those who take the United States civics test issued to new citizens?   Why are government schools failing in this regard?

Thank you DK, but I really don't see the reasoning behind setting a popular part of the "old" GID up as a "club" with a couple more hoops to jump through in order to participate.

1 hour ago, NRRaider2001 said:

Keeping below the 2014 school tax rate was important for the school board when considering the plan for the new facilities. That rate is $1.33 per $100 of assessed valuation.

 

I am not a government school financing expert.  Please explain in detail how a government education entity can spend $15 million on a primarily extracurricular activities project without increasing taxes.  What educational programs,  facilities maintenance, salaries, positions, etc. are being cut to pay for this boondoggle?

1 minute ago, Coach Nowlin said:

what makes me say HMMMM:    Carmel 5200    that is 2000 more than Hamilton SE and 3000 more than Lawrence Central  

Good Grief 

Agreed:

I take my card and I stand in line
To make a buck I work overtime
Dear sir letters keep comin' in the mail
I work my back till it's racked with pain
The boss can't even recall my name
I show up late and I'm docked, it never fails
I feel like just another, spoke in a great big wheel
Like a tiny blade of grass in a great big field
To workers I'm just another drone
To Ma Bell I'm just another phone
I'm just another statistic on a sheet
To teachers I'm just another child
To IRS I'm another file
I'm just another consensus on the street
Gonna cruise outta this city, head down to the sea
Gonna shout out at the ocean, hey it's me
And I feel like a number, feel like a number
Feel like a stranger
A stranger in this land, I feel like a number
I'm not a number, I'm not a number
Damn it I'm a man, I said I'm a man
Gonna cruise out of this city, head down to the sea
Gonna shout out at the ocean, hey it's me
And I feel like a number, feel like a number
Feel like a stranger
Stranger in this land, feel like a number
I'm not a number, I'm not a number
Damn it I'm a man, I feel like a number
Feel like a number, feel like a number
I feel like a... I feel... feel like a... feel like a
I feel like a... I feel like a ...I feel like a... I feel like a

7 minutes ago, NRRaider2001 said:

Finally getting some action to go along with years of hope and speculation on our field upgrades/additions.  Sounds like phase 2 down the road will be adding a game gym to the actual High School as well...but for now I have attached a few images of the proposed $15 million dollar project.  Also if everything goes as planned (passed both public hearings already), should be ready to go for the first year of the merger at our neighboring Elkhart school district, maybe a way to attract a few of those Bristol kids over to Northridge.  Biggest improvements on this proposal vs our current situation other than the obvious Field Turf vs mud pit/natural grass will be a real Press Box and the home bleachers/bench will no longer be looking directly into the sun on a late summer/early fall evening.

 

 

 

FTA:

Quote

Keeping below the 2014 school tax rate was important for the school board when considering the plan for the new facilities. That rate is $1.33 per $100 of assessed valuation.

“The thing I’m encouraged about is we’re not bumping up the tax rate,” King said. “That is very important to me. It shows we are being very fiscally conservative with the dollars that we are given … this board understands that.”

Taxpayers dollars shouldn't be used to fund primarily extracurricular facilities.  This is another taxpayer funded boondoggle.  

24 minutes ago, DT said:

Cant you just use your Facebook page, or twitter, or whatever platform you desire to engage in your non football conversations?  I vote we shut it down.  

I don't participate in Facebook or twitter.   Call me old school I guess...................

Antonio Brown?

Wow, Clinton Central now has almost 100 less students than their in-county rival Clinton Prairie.    I'm afraid this continuing decline in enrollment will soon force some kind of consolidation.

Winning a football game.

2 minutes ago, DT said:

Looks to me like 95% of the OOB discussion takes place on Trump related threads.  Inappropriate for this site.  Just my opinion.

I believe the percentage of "Trump related threads" in the OOB was not near that high,  but just my opinion.

11 minutes ago, DT said:

I don't quite understand why the GID would allow a political sub site like the OOB to exist on its football discussion bandwidth.  Aren't there enough other options for posters to engage in political discussion?

Is the OOB propping up the GID relative to on line user activity?

This is a good opportunity to abolish the OOB once and for all.

 

I respectfully disagree.  The OOB forum was not explicitly created by the late Mr. Adams as a "political sub site" but rather as an non-football topic subforum, which I believe is healthy for a forum the size of the Gridiron Digest.  

8 minutes ago, DT said:

Is bowling popular in the Hispanic community?

To my knowledge no.   A lot of untapped potential bowling talent there though.

8 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said:

Just when I thought I validated an IMPOSTER, you have eased my concerns:  😀

yes, the OOB will be built.   Its still on the list of items for @DK_Barons to build, which he has done a tremendous job. 

Again want to say thanks to @77Jimmie for providing the in house server for our community.  Our last one I believe was housed by 3rd party in San Diego!!   

as the late great Jim Nabors once sang so gracefully:  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX43V

 

Good, my concerns are unfounded.  And yes,  DK_Barons has performed a herculean task.

Clinton Central Bulldogs.

https://www.ftimes.com/common/story.php?ID=4001&hl=Hot-Dog-bowlers-win-conference-crown

Quote

Frankfort High School won the girls Wabash Valley South Conference bowling championship on Sunday at Plaza Lanes in Crawfordsville, but they had to put in a little extra work to do it.

“We won the conference championship last year and actually we’ve won it four out of the last five years,” Frankfort coach Cory Gibbons said.

...

Congratulations to the Hot Dogs.

Will the true heart of the GID,  the Out Of Bounds forum, which was championed by the late, great Tim Adams, be created soon?   There is so much to talk about and discuss.