User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Ordinary black people cannot afford to go along with the liberal agenda that calls for undermining police authority. That agenda makes for more black crime victims. Let's look at what works and what doesn't work.

In 1990, New York City adopted the practice in which its police officers might stop and question a pedestrian. If there was suspicion, they would frisk the person for weapons and other contraband. This practice, well within the law, is known as a Terry stop. After two decades of this proactive police program, New York City's homicides fell from over 2,200 per year to about 300. Blacks were the major beneficiaries of proactive policing. According to Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald -- author of "The War on Cops" -- seeing as black males are the majority of New York City's homicide victims, more than 10,000 blacks are alive today who would not be had it not been for proactive policing.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other leftist groups brought suit against proactive policing. A U.S. District Court judge ruled that New York City's "stop and frisk" policy violated the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection because black and Hispanic people were subject to stops and searches at a higher rate than whites. But the higher rate was justified. Mac Donald points out that while blacks are 23 percent of New York City's population, they are responsible for 75 percent of shootings and 70 percent of robberies. Whites are 34 percent of the population of New York City. They are responsible for less than 2 percent of shootings and 4 percent of robberies. If you're trying to prevent shootings and robberies, whom are you going to focus most attention on, blacks or whites?

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Republicans promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But now they are hesitating.

I understand why.

Most Americans opposed Obamacare ever since the Democrats imposed it. But now that Congress actually might kill it, more (about half those polled) say, "Wait, I like Obamacare!" 

Once people get a subsidy, they'll fight to keep it -- fight hard.

People fight even to keep subsidies and guarantees that are obviously destructive. French job "protections," such as a 35-hour work week, have so wrecked France's economy that its socialist president tried to lengthen the work week, as well as raise the retirement age to 62 years old.
Thousands of people protested, blocking roads to airports. The reform plan died.

Greek day care workers took to the streets when their bankrupt government tried to get them to work more than 30 hours per week.
Recently, Mexico said it would stop subsidizing people's gasoline. Seems reasonable. But the riots were so severe that people died.
I hope Donald Trump's attempts to end bad programs have more success. But I won't count on it.

President Reagan promised to abolish both the Education and Energy Departments. But his Congress increased funding for Education.

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

There is little question in most academic research that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in unemployment. The debatable issue is the magnitude of the increase. An issue not often included in minimum wage debates is the substitution effects of minimum wage increases. The substitution effect might explain why Business for a Fair Minimum Wage, a national network of business owners and executives, argues for higher minimum wages. Let's look at substitution effects in general.

When the price of anything rises, people seek substitutes and measures to economize. When gasoline prices rise, people seek to economize on the usage of gas by buying smaller cars. If the price of sugar rises, people seek cheaper sugar substitutes. If prices of goods in one store rise, people search for other stores. This last example helps explain why some businessmen support higher minimum wages. If they could impose higher labor costs on their less efficient competition, it might help drive them out of business. That would enable firms that survive to charge higher prices and earn greater profits.

There's a more insidious substitution effect of higher minimum wages. You see it by putting yourself in the place of a businessman who has to pay at least the minimum wage to anyone he hires. Say that you are hiring typists. There are some who can type 40 words per minute and others, equal in every other respect, who can type 80 words per minute. Whom would you hire? I'm guessing you'd hire the more highly skilled. Thus, one effect of the minimum wage is discrimination against the employment of lower-skilled workers. In some places, the minimum wage is $15 an hour. But if a lower-skilled worker could offer to work for, say, $8 an hour, you might hire him. In addition to discrimination against lower-skilled workers, the minimum wage denies them the chance of sharpening their skills and ultimately earning higher wages. The most effective form of training for most of us is on-the-job training.

An even more insidious substitution effect of minimum wages can be seen from a few quotations. During South Africa's apartheid era, racist unions, which would never accept a black member, were the major supporters of minimum wages for blacks. In 1925, the South African Economic and Wage Commission said, "The method would be to fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would be likely to be employed." Gert Beetge, secretary of the racist Building Workers' Union, complained, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances, I support the rate for the job (minimum wage) as the second-best way of protecting our white artisans." "Equal pay for equal work" became the rallying slogan of the South African white labor movement. These laborers knew that if employers were forced to pay black workers the same wages as white workers, there'd be reduced incentive to hire blacks.

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Oh, no! I did it again.

It was a foolish mistake. But I slipped.

I read The New York Times.

This is bad for my health, because I get so mad at the smug socialist spin, but how can I not  read it? It's my hometown paper. My wife wakes me up with indignant questions like, "How can you say government is too big? The Times says ... "

Aargh! Nearly every day brings a new Times outrage.

Saturday, a front-page story smeared Labor Secretary nominee Andy Puzder.

The story begins, "Decades before President Trump nominated him ... Puzder went to battle with federal labor regulators ... "

Wait a second. " Decades before"? They went back decades to criticize him? Actually, three decades -- to 1983, when as a young lawyer, Puzder represented a client whom the Labor Department accused of squandering union money.

The Times went on to say: "He has repeatedly argued that economic regulations stifle economic growth."

Puzder "argued" that? Regulations obviously stifle growth. That's their purpose -- to protect workers by putting limits on businesses' pursuit of profit. Regulation is a big reason this post-recession recovery has been so weak.