From Around the Blogroll

William Teach noted that the real reason Mayor Bil DeBlasio kept New York City’s public schools open during Thursday’s heavy snowstorm wasn’t for education, but to provide babysiting services for city parents.

Phineas, writing on Sister Toldjah, noted that, in a pretty much unprecedented move, career foreign service officers are chiding the Obama Administration for the heavy emphasis on political, rather than professional, ambassadorial appointments, in the wake of some really rotten appointments. Jennifer Davis of the Victory Girls also wrote on the topic of pathetic ambassadorial appointments.

L D Jackson wrote about some idiocy in Oklahoma.

Hube was (sort of) amused that neither The New York Times nor a sitting federal judge appear to know what’s actually in the Constitution.

Donald Douglas noted the vote by the workers at the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee rejecting the organizing attempts by the United Auto Workers union. Those of us who grew up in Kentucky never had much use for the state below us, but this action by real workingmen in the Volunteer State deserves a song in tribute:

Darleen Click of Protein Wisdom spotted yet another executive order by President Obama:

Not to worry: if someone did try to add Barack Obama to Mount Rushmore, the other four Presidents would get up and walk away.

Jeff Goldstein noted that 29% of American adults under 35 still live with their parents. Ain’t that Obama economy great!

Patterico wrote about an initiative by the Federal Communications Commission to “to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.”

Robert Stacey Stacy McCain noted an article by Todd Zywicki criticizing E J Dionne’s article criticizing a book that he had obviously never read. Your Editor has never had much intellectual respect for Mr Dionne, who claims to be a Catholic and who writes for the lay Catholic journal Commonweal, which is about as Catholic as Nancy Pelosi and Andrew Cuomo and John Kerry, which is to say, not in the slightest. Mr Dionne is just terribly distraught that the “Austrian” school is blocking the use of Keynesian economics to fix our terrible economic problems, without understanding that Keynesian economics does not work! We tried a Keynesian approach to the recession, and it failed miserably.

William Jacobson of Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion is concerned that Dartmouth has promoted Amanda Childress, the Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator, who has said that the college could expel a student based upon an allegation of sexual assault, without an requirement for due process or any actual proof.

DNW wrote, on Truth Before Dishonor, about yet another federal government funded solar energy project.

When I was looking for the Rocky Top video above, YouTube had other suggestions, so I’ll wrap it up with Lester Flat and Earl Scruggs playing Foggy Mountain Breakdown at the Grand Ole Opry:

Rule 5 Blogging: I’m tired of snow edition!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Elin Nordegren in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

Since we’ve had all of this global warming recently — we got 2½ inches today, on top of the 6½ inches on Thursday, on top of the 12 inches over thre separate storms the previous week — I figured that I’d go to a snow country for this week’s photos, with military women from Sweden!


Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: I’m tired of snow edition!’ »

Economics 101: Who didn’t see this coming?

Remember how we were told that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act would lower health insurance costs due to competition? From The Wall Street Journal:

For Many, Few Health-Plan Choices, High Premiums on Online Exchanges
Analysis Shows Americans in Poorer Counties Have Limited Options on Health-Care Exchanges
By Timothy W Martin and Christopher Weaver | Feb. 12, 2014 7:37 p.m. ET

Donnie McCrary, of Americus, Ga., is enrolled in health insurance that costs about $917 a month. His federal subsidy knocks it down to $182.65. Bryan Anselm for The Wall Street Journal.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans in poorer counties have few choices of health insurers and face high premiums through the online exchanges created by the health-care law, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of offerings in 36 states.

Consumers in 515 counties, spread across 15 states, have only one insurer selling coverage through the online marketplaces, the Journal found. In more than 80% of those counties, the sole insurer is a local Blue Cross & Blue Shield plan. Residents of wealthier, more populated counties in the U.S. receive lower-priced choices than those living in counties with a single insurer.

The White House has said broad participation in the exchanges would help lower health-care costs. On Wednesday, the Obama administration reported about 3.3 million people have signed up for coverage through the online marketplace by January, an increase of more than one million since December, but still with fewer younger Americans than needed to keep down premiums.

Higher participation rates among young adults, as much as 40%, is seen as essential to balance out the higher costs of covering older people for insurers that are already limiting the counties where they offer coverage.

The average price for a 50-year-old American to obtain the cheapest midlevel “silver plan” through—the marketplace operated by the federal government—was $406 in counties with one health insurer, the Journal found. In counties with four insurers, the average price of the cheapest comparable silver plan was $329.

A lot more at the link. But, basically put, the article noted that major health insurers are in business to make money, and that they are taking the actions that they take with that goal in mind.

But, what interests me just as much is the caption that came with the article photograph. If Donnie McCrary is enrolled in health insurance that costs about $917.65 a month, but his federal subsidy knocks it down to $182.65, that means that the taxpayers — that’s you and me! — are paying $735.00 a month, or $8,820.00 per year, for Mr McCrary’s health insurance. Just how many Donnie McCrarys are there out here, and why should the federal government take money that I have worked for, take food off of my table, to pay Blue Cross/ Blue Shield to give Mr McCrary health insurance?

Everything we were were told by the Democrats concerning the PP&ACA was a lie, including “and” and “the.” We told everyone that, but it didn’t matter.

He made it home safely

From The Pirate’s Cove:

Welcome To Raleigh Snowmageddon
By William Teach February 12, 2014 – 6:19 pm

Yes, I’m usually kind of lame at responding to comments during the day. That whole work thing, and it being kind of a pain to type that much on an Android. I have a good excuse for today: I left work around 2pm, and walked in my door at 547pm.


I’m actually a bit shaky and feel anxious after that white knuckle drive. Oh, and hungry. No lunch.

The important thing is that he did make it home, safely, even if his normal 30 minute drive took 3¾ hours.

As for me, Winter Storm Pax, as the Weather Channel calls it, hasn’t hit northeastern Pennsylvania yet. Right now, the forecast is for snow to begin around midnight, with 1 to 3 inches of global warming by sunrise, and another 3 to 5 inches during the day; I’m hoping that we’re on the lower end of those predictions.

The good news is that everybody is home, and no one other than me is scheduled to work tomorrow; if the forecast pans out, I won’t go in, either, but will wait until the snow has passed, and then go in to plow the yard. There certainly won’t be an concrete mixers going out tomorrow!

It’s supposed to be a heavier, wetter snow, the kind that brings down power lines. So, we’ve charged up all of the flashlights and Kindles, just in case, but I’m hoping that the sparktricity stays on.

If the observations do not fit the theory, then the observations must be wrong, right?

Thanks to the esteemed William Teach, I found this article:

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
February 7th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):

Click to enlarge

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations. And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.

I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.

Yet, that is the direction we are heading.

More at the link.

Now, if global warming or climate change or whatever the in-vogue term is this week is an hypothesis, and the scholarly articles purporting to prove the hypothesis are correct, we should expect to see the predictions made under the hypothesis confirmed through real-world observations. From a very brief section on hypothesis testing for doctoral dissertations:

  1. State the hypothesis in the null form. The null can test for either differences or relationships. If for differences, the null is either non-directional or directional, but you must be aware of which type you are using.
  2. Select your level of significance or level of probability either .05 or .01. .05 establishes a 95% confidence level and is more liberal. .01 establishes a 99% confidence level and is more conservative.
  3. Compute your statistical analysis. Determine whether you have a statistically significant result
    • No statistically significant result: Accept your null as true.
    • Yes, a statistically significant result: Reject your null as false.
  4. Determine the significance of your results. Is the statistical difference meaningful? Or is this a “so what?” finding. Concerning the last step, don’t let your ego overtake common sense.

If 95% of the observed conditions fall outside of the predicted patterns, then the researcher has not only failed on the 95% confidence level — not to mention the tighter, 99% confidence level — but it can be said, with confidence, that the observations have disproved the statistical model.

Now, a model, or, in this case, multiple models, having been proven to be incorrect predictors of events does not mean that the hypothesis is necessarily invalid. The possibility exists that the basic hypothesis is valid, but that the researcher, in his formulation of expected results, erred. Nevertheless, given that so many of the researchers have projected results which failed the test, greater weight has to be given to the probability that the basic hypothesis was invalid. But one thing can certainly be said: it is wholly unwise to try to base other actions on a basic hypothesis which has had such poor test results.

Economics 101: The more that government tries to run businesses, the more it fouls up.

From The Wall Street Journal:

Health-Law Mandate Put Off Again
No Fines for Most Employers Until 2016 as Firms Pressure White House in Wake of Troubled Rollout
By Louise Radnofsky and Theo Francis | Updated Feb. 10, 2014 8:53 p.m. ET

The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, 11 February 2014

Most employers won’t face a fine next year if they fail to offer workers health insurance, the Obama administration said Monday, in the latest big delay of the health-law rollout.The Treasury Department, in regulations outlining the Affordable Care Act, said employers with 50 to 99 full-time workers won’t have to comply with the law’s requirement to provide insurance or pay a fee until 2016. Companies with more workers could avoid some penalties in 2015 if they showed they were offering coverage to at least 70% of full-time workers.

The move came after employers pressured the Obama administration to peel back the law’s insurance requirements. Some firms had trimmed workers’ hours to below 30 hours a week to avoid paying a penalty if they didn’t offer insurance.

A senior administration official said the shift was a response to businesses’ concerns, though the official said no one reason was behind the change.

More at the link.

This isn’t the first delay; the provision being delayed was originally supposed to take effect this year, and had already been pushed back until 2015.

Your Editor is certain, certain! that the Administration isn’t doing this to try to protect Senate Democrats like Kay Hagan in North Carolina who are facing tough re-election fights. dripping with sarcasm Others, like William Teach and Sister Toldjah, don’t seem quite as sure about that. :)

But, remember, as the White House has told us, it’s the law!

And it’s a law which was signed on March 23, 2010, just forty days short of four years ago. It has to be asked: if four years isn’t enough time to get ready to follow this law, just how much more time will be needed?

Robert Stacey Stacy McCain concluded:

Everybody made fun of Nancy Pelosi for saying that Congress had to pass the bill (which neither she nor any other Democrat member of Congress had read in its entirety) so we would know what was in it.

Now we see her point, however: It didn’t really matter what was in the law, because Democrats don’t believe in the Rule of Law, and ObamaCare was essentially carte blanche: “That’s the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.

Yorkshire asked why Barack Hussein Obama is still in the White House, noting Charles Krauthammer’s statement that if a Republican President had simply ignored and “rewritten” laws as he chose, the Democrats would have been screaming “Impeachment!” But, he’s a Democrat, so while the House of Representatives could impeach him, the Senate Democrats would roll over for a big ol’ tummy rub.

But . . . there’s more, which Nice Deb wrote about (hat tip to Karen):

Shock: Hidden In WH Employer Mandate Delay – Employers Not Allowed To Fire Anyone 
February, 11, 2014 — nicedeb

On Monday night’s Kelly File, Megyn Kelly covered the  ObamaCare Employer Mandate delay, focusing “on one little nugget” that was “found under a mountain of new regulations” which stipulates that in order to be eligible for this gift from the White House, “the employer may not reduce the size of its workforce or its overall hours of service of its employees.”

“Basically”, she continued, “what the government is telling employers is that you will not fire a single person. You will not lay off a single person – if you want to take advantage of our gift. And you have to certify it under penalty of perjury to the IRS that you didn’t do that!”

A lot more at the link. But that’s the part that the Democrats are hoping to use: they won’t enforce the wholly misnamed Patient Protection & Affordable care Act on employers with workforces between 50 and 99 employees, as long as those employers do not lay off anybody!

If your business takes a downturn, well, tough, you still can’t lay off anybody, or we will apply the PP&ACA to you in a discriminatory manner.

Of course, in the real world, businessmen are ahead of the government anyway. Once this provision gets known, businessmen who might be impacted by this will take decisions like:

  • Not expanding their workforces, just in care the expansion proves too optimistic, because they can’t lay off the new employees.
  • If layoffs have to be made, the layoffs have to take the business down to 49 or fewer employees, to escape the regulations entirely.
  • Since the change applies to 2015, if layoffs seem possible, layoffs must be made this year, not next.

Great regulations, huh? They provide an incentive for small businesses not to add jobs, to lay off more rather than fewer employees if lay offs are necessary, and to lay off people sooner rather than later.

But, the ever-optimistic sort that your Editor is, he can see a silver lining in all of this. If President Obama can just reregulate to suspend provisions of the PP&ACA when parts of it don’t work well — or hurt Democrats — then the next President, if he is a Republican, doesn’t need to worry too much about repealing it; he can just suspend the whole damned thing for his entire term!
Related Articles:

Letter I just sent to Dennis Prager

Note: This is in response to his column of today, which can be found at his website ( under “Columns”.

Hello Dennis;

You made one big mistake in the title of your column today, which I quote here:

“Why Do Progressives Want the Boston Bomber to Live?”

NEVER call them progressives! Call them what they are – left wingers, collectivists, cockroaches, scum. One reason we conservatives lose is we let our enemies claim the moral high ground with lofty sounding titles like “Progressive”. The left wing is anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-individual rights, and therefore EVIL. The fact that they claim to have “Good intentions” is just part of their pack of lies to hide who they really are – power hungry thugs who want to control the rest of us. The way to destroy the left wing and thus restore freedom and peace on Earth is to destroy their ideology on MORAL grounds, not just intellectual or practical grounds.

Eric G

The impetus for Communism, as explained by Rod Stewart

Some guys have all the luck
Some guys have all the pain
Some guys get all the breaks
Some guys do nothing but complain

Alone in a crowd on a bus after work
and I’m dreaming
The guy next to me has a girl in his arms
My arms are empty
How does it feel when the girl next to you
says she loves you
It seem so unfair when there’s love everywhere
but there’s none for me

Some guys have all the luck
Some guys have all the pain
Some guys get all the breaks
Some guys do nothing but complain

Someone to take on a walk by the lake
Lord let it be me
Someone who’s shy
Someone who’ll cry at sad movies
I know I would die if I ever found out
she was fooling me
You’re just a dream and as real as it seems
I ain’t that lucky

Some guys have all the luck
Some guys have all the pain
Some guys get all the breaks
Some guys do nothing but complain

All of my friends have a ring on their finger
They have someone
Someone to care for them it ain’t fair
I got no one
The car overheated
I called up and pleaded
There’s help on the way
I called you collect you didn’t accept
You had nothing to say

Some guys have all the luck
Some guys have all the pain
Some guys get all the breaks
Some guys do nothing but complain

But if you were here with me
I’d feel so happy I could cry
You are so dear to me
I just can’t let you say goodbye

Robert Stacey Stacy McCain has a couple of articles up concerning Communism:

How Much Do You Hate Commies?
Posted on | February 6, 2014 | 125 Comments’s Jesse Myerson (@JAMyerson) says “misconceptions” about Communism are the real problem, although survivors who escaped Communist regimes might beg to disagree.

Personally, I think the main problem with Communism is that we haven’t shot enough evil lying Commie scum:

Five years after the Bolshevik Revolution, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises predicted that the Soviet project was doomed to fail. In his classic work Socialism, Mises explained that the attempt to replace the market system with central economic planning could not succeed, because the planners could not possibly have the information necessary to make all the decisions which, in a market economy, are made by individuals whose needs and desires are reflected in prices: “The problem of economic calculation is the fundamental problem of Socialism.”
“Everything brought forward in favour of Socialism during the last hundred years,” Mises wrote in 1922, “in thousands of writings and speeches, all the blood which has been spilt by the supporters of Socialism, cannot make Socialism workable. ….

Socialist writers may continue to publish books about the decay of Capitalism and the coming of the socialist millennium; they may paint the evils of Capitalism in lurid colours and contrast with them an enticing picture of the blessings of a socialist society; their writings may continue to impress the thoughtless — but all this cannot alter the fate of the socialist idea.”

More at the link. Mr Myerson took exception to Mr McCain’s article, through Twitter, which generated this second article from Mr McCain, in which he said, in part:

Jesse Myerson is not interested in the facts of history or economics that would contradict his communist enthusiasms. Myerson is merely striking the pose of a radical intellectual, expecting admiration and applause from those who share his socialist sympathies. No doubt he hopes these gestures will enable him to obtain TV appearances, book contracts and speaking invitations. His purported “idealism” is thus motivated by selfish ambition: The narcissist’s desire to be seen as praiseworthy, and to acquire an easy income by advocating ideas popular with the Left.

More at the original.

Mr Myerson is one of the more fortunate of the “millennials,” one who actually got a job, but it seems to me that the more important article from him is not the one advocating Communism, but a slightly earlier one:

It’s a new year, but one thing hasn’t changed: The economy still blows. Five years after Wall Street crashed, America’s banker-gamblers have only gotten richer, while huge swaths of the country are still drowning in personal debt, tens of millions of Americans remain unemployed – and the new jobs being created are largely low-wage, sub-contracted, part-time grunt work.

Millennials have been especially hard-hit by the downturn, which is probably why so many people in this generation (like myself) regard capitalism with a level of suspicion that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. But that egalitarian impulse isn’t often accompanied by concrete proposals about how to get out of this catastrophe. Here are a few things we might want to start fighting for, pronto, if we want to grow old in a just, fair society, rather than the economic hellhole our parents have handed us.

Mr Myerson’s five “solutions”:

  1. Guaranteed work for everybody;
  2. Social Security for all, meaning some form of a guaranteed annual income;
  3. Take back the land, in which he rails against landlords;
  4. Make everything owned by everybody; and
  5. A public bank in every state, an odd suggestion if everything is to already be owned by everybody.

Mr Myerson’s real complaint? That some guys have all the luck, that some guys get all the breaks. In the meantime, he does nothing but complain.

And complaining about the guys who have all the luck is the entire impetus behind socialism, behind Communism, behind the silly “Occupy Wall Street” movement of which he was a part, and, really, in today’s America, behind liberalism in general.

Well, maybe I could combitch a bit, too. In 2014, Cole Hamels will be paid $22,500,000 by the Philadelphia Phillies, and that’s a whole lot more than I will make. But Mr Hamels can put a four-seam fastball and a cutter over the plate, and I can’t. Mr Hamels has a lot more athletic ability than I ever had, which means that, in Rod Stewart’s terms, he had all the luck, but he also worked hard on developing the talent that God gave him.

The fact that our friends on the left have never been able to accept — though so many of them take full advantage of it in their own lives — is that, despite Thomas Jefferson’s famous words, we are not all created equal. Some people are bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, better looking, have nicer voices, whatever, than other people, and that will always be the case. And the government cannot make people equal.

The esteemed Mr McCain has been taking Mr Myerson to task through several articles on his site:

In them, Mr McCain, who will never use four words when seventeen would serve just as well,1 goes through the history of Communism, and says that, regardless of what the theorists of Communism may have said about it, the reality was vastly different, horribly different. To his credit, Mr Myerson concedes that point:

But continues:

  That is, essentially, what Karl Marx predicted, that capitalism would eventually be able to provide so much, through industrialization and increases in productivity, that there would be plenty, enough for all of the proletariat to share, eliminating the need for the capitalists, and enabling all of the workers to get all of the rewards for their production. But that gets us to a couple other tweets from Mr Myerson:



And this is where my argument differs from Mr McCain’s.  He spends agood amount of time and effort noting the economic failures of Communism, as it was imposed by the very hard men who used it to gain political power. But, to me, the problems with Comunism, as a theory, stem not from economics or history, but from a deep failure to understand human nature.

I’ve been in construction, in one form or another, for my entire professional life, and I’m trying to figure out just where we are going to find all of the men who drive the “honey trucks” to clean out portable toilets on construction sites, if work is no longer necessary to survive?

The very simple fact is that we are nowhere close to the society and economy which Mr Myerson envisions. One of his demands, now, is that there should be a universal basic income, in which the government would just add a sum sufficient for subsistence to everyone’s bank account every month, along with a guaranteed job for everybody. Of course, he has said that this should be just a very basic income, enough on which to survive, but barely, but that if subsistence satisfies these (non) workers, that’s fine.

And here is where he demonstrates his lack of understanding of human nature:


Despite “welfare people” having it real hard, some of them, many of them, have chosen to accept the Faustian bargain of welfare: that we will give them money not to work, just as long as they are willing to live in poverty.

In the end, Mr Myerson suffers from the same problem as the highly educated, full of noble intentions, good people who created our welfare system: he is not only intelligent and educated, but he is hard-working himself,2 and the notion that there are people who are simply not as intelligent and not as hard-working is simply outside his paradigm. The people who originated our welfare program, the same type as Mr Myerson, never really grasped that there would be people who wouldn’t view welfare as a temporary hand up, until they could get a decent job and proudly work for their living; we have now had fifty years of President Johnson’s “Great Society” to prove just how wrong that was. When that “guaranteed job” he envisions the state providing turns out to be driving the honey truck, or shingling roofs in July, or digging footings, it just might turn out that a whole lot of people with those universal basic incomes would rather sit at home suffering through having only basic cable.

I have watched plenty of Star Trek in my time, and by the time we got to The Next Generation, we were told that the time of plenty existed on earth, that everyone was materially satisfied. They also told us that we would have warp-driven starships which could take us to new planets with new civilizations, and that all men would be brothers, and the like.3 And perhaps those days will come, three hundred years from now when Gene Roddenberry told us they would, but we are living now, today, in this world, and those things have not arrived, and are not close. When Mr Myerson tells us that “smart good robots (will be) freeing everyone from work!” he has failed to realize just how much time it will take to get from today to the future he envisions.

Who knows? Perhaps one day we will have all of the material wealth we could ever want, all provided for virtually nothing, with completely pollution-free sources of energy, and maybe, just maybe, the kind of socialism/Communism Mr Myerson sees could actually work. And perhaps we will have warp-drive starships, and alliances with the Vulcans and Andorans. Regrettably, Mr Myerson’s visions are just as much science fiction as Star Trek.

  1. A failing your Editor has as well.
  2. Or so I judge by the sheer volume of his writing and the dogged determination he has put into defending his positions.
  3. Perhaps we can ignore the grittier, not so wealthy societies depicted in Deep Space Nine.

Economics 101: Even the liberals can understand some economics . . .

. . . but simply hope to trick you long enough to get their claws into you.

I saw an advertisement on television this morning, which pointed to the website, Start-Up NY.


There’s a new advantage to doing business in New York. A big one. START-UP NY, Governor Cuomo’s groundbreaking initiative, is creating tax-free zones across the state for new and expanding businesses. Now businesses can operate 100% tax-free for 10 years. No business, corporate, state or local taxes, sales and property taxes, or franchise fees.

You can follow the link to see the rest of the website.

So, Governor Cuomo wants businesses to start up in the Empire State, and is promising them no business, corporate, state, local, sales or property taxes for ten years. What happens after ten years. CNN Money noted, in 2012, that New York had the nation’s highest tax burden, and rated the Empire State as 50th in the nation — that’s worst, folks! — to do business. And the Democrats in New York City want to increase that burden.

Now, to be fair, Governor Cuomo is starting to realize that high taxes are business killers, and has called for a two-year property tax freeze, but, in the end, taxes will continue to go up for as long as the Democrats control New York and think that they can squeeze just a bit more out of productive people.

Now, not every potential entrepreneur has the luxury of starting a business anywhere he wants; most are small business propositions, and have to be made close to the entrepreneur’s home. But the real answer for New York is staring them right in the face, in the state which supplanted them as the second largest, by population, a few years ago, the Lone Star State of Texas. Texans pay 7.9% of their income on state and local taxes, compared with 9.9% as the national average, and CNBC ranked it as second best in the nation for doing business.

Low taxes, and a state government that welcomes businesses, rather than just seeing them as a milch cow for money. That’s why Texas is growing!  The Democrats actually do realize that — at least, some of them do — and thus we have Governor Cuomo’s rather pathetic attempt to spur investment: “Hey, there, we’ll give you tax cuts for ten years, but then, watch out!”