People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, August 09, 2010

You Know Liberals Aren't Serious ...

... when their positions reverse course once a Republican takes office.

I was always proud of the Roanoke Times editorial staff.  Well, for the occasional brief moment anyway, when the members thereof would run an opinion piece on the virtues of privatizing Virginia's government liquor business.

A while back, when a Democrat ran the Commonwealth:
Privatization makes sense for a host of reasons, not least because hawking hooch is about as far from a core government service as the state can get.

The state-run stores came out of temperance movements that still held sway at the end of Prohibition, not out of public need. Most other states allow private sales.

Were Virginia to privatize, it would benefit consumers. Independent shops would compete for customers on price, service and quality.

Private stores could hold sales, advertise, seek deals from distributors and respond to marketplace needs more nimbly than a state-run operation.

They could also be more convenient in location, number and hours of operation. Some regulation would still be needed, but far less than what exists now.
But now that Bob McDonnell is in charge, and the opportunity to privatize the liquor business is coming close to being a reality, there's a different tune being sung:

McDonnell says the commonwealth would realize the same amount of revenue that it already does from its excise tax and wholesale markup, but neither he nor his privatization work study group has provided details.

It's all rather fuzzy -- just a vague assurance that the taxes and markup currently received would be replaced by some mechanism.
"But ... but ... but ..."  They're not against the idea.  They (now) simply see so many obstacles ...

As a side note, to prove that these knuckleheads haven't the first clue when it comes to how business works, check out this quote from the same editorial:
Neighboring Maryland and the District of Columbia, which have private liquor sales, realized just $24.7 million and $10.8 million, respectively, last year in sales and excise taxes compared to Virginia's $249 million in tax and profits.

The problem is illustrated nicely by a $25 bottle of Jack Daniels. Currently, about $13 of that retail price ends up in Virginia's coffers, a combination of profit earned and taxes charged, The Washington Post reported.
Okay, maybe they'll blame the Washington Post.  But what's escaping these ... professional typists ... is this:

There's gross revenue and there's net revenue.  $13 of that $25 rung up in the cash register at our hypothetical state liquor store does indeed end up in "Virginia's coffers."  (with the other $12 going to Ol' Jack.)  But from that $13 in gross sales, we must then deduct operating expensesAfter we deduct what the state paid Jack Daniels for the brew. The "cost of goods", as we say.  What does it take for the government to operate those low-volume liquor stores?  I don't know (nor does anyone else, I'd bet - it's government we're talking about), but if we're to use the government-run Post Office model, that $13 in gross revenue becomes a minus $3 in net "profit" after salaries, maintenance and repairs, trash removal, janitorial service, pest control, lawn care, advertising, office expenses, supplies, utilities such as telephone and electricity, insurance, property management, and sundry accruals are deducted.

Poof.  That 13 bucks vanishes.  Welcome to my world.

Take a business class, fellas.  And get back with us on that analogy.

Why God Invented Electricity

So that men could shave the junk off of their faces each day with ease and utility.

And have a lot more sex.

(You didn't know that's why God invented electricity?  To make for more frequent sex?  That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.)

Oh, you don't use an electric razor?

And when was the last time you had sex?

Connect the dots, boys.  Connect the dots.

Barter Theater Alumna Is Dead

A unique personality in a land of clones:
Ocar-winning actress Patricia Neal dies at 84
By the CNN Wire Staff

(CNN) -- Academy-Award winning actress Patricia Neal, whose off-screen life was one of dramatic triumph over adversity, has died. She was 84.

The cause of Neal's death was not immediately known.

Neal is best known for her role as Alma in "Hud," where she played a housekeeper who did not fall for cowboy Paul Newman's charms. She won an Academy Award for the role.

Soon after her Oscar win, Neal suffered back-to-back strokes -- three in all.

For a while, she lost her ability to speak and walk.

But she returned to the screen -- and to another Oscar nomination -- for the movie "The Subject Was Roses." [link]
Part of her fantastic story has a local (Southwest Virginia) chapter. From "Knoxville friends mourn loss of iconic actress Patricia Neal":
Neal had planned this week differently. She’d had in mind a trip by car this week to connect with her roots — a stop in Packard, Ky., where she was born, then on to visit the graves of her parents, former Knoxville residents William Burdette and Eura Petrey Neal, before going on the Barter Theater in [Abingdon] Virginia, where she enjoyed early stage success.
Wonderful actress.  A one-of-a-kind talent.

God broke the mold when He made Patricia Neal.

A Question About Islam

Why aren't we hearing this - ever - from the world's educated, freedom-loving, peace-loving Muslims?

"Hey, Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone"

Could it be that an assemblage of educated, freedom-loving, peace-loving Muslims wouldn't fill a phone booth?

Health Care Rationing Begins

The author of this article sees the following as an attempt on Obama's part to kill off old people in order to save Medicare money.  I see it killing off a whole host of people - young and old alike.  To save Medicare money:
The Deadly Pact: How ObamaCare will 'Save' Money
By John Griffing, American Thinker

Although media reports covering ObamaCare have centered mainly on the health insurance mandate and hidden tax increases, the real danger of ObamaCare lies in the official sanction of "mercy death" for America's seniors as a means of reducing federal medical outlays. No, ObamaCare doesn't say this outright. It simply limits hospital readmissions for those using Medicare, thereafter automatically committing said Medicare recipients to hospice facilities, called "community-based care." Consider the following from Section 3025:

"IN GENERAL. - With respect to payment for discharges from an applicable hospital (as defined in paragraph (5)(C)) occurring during a fiscal year beginning on or after October 1, 2012, in order to account for excess readmissions in the hospital, the Secretary shall reduce the payments that would otherwise be made to such hospital...."

ObamaCare defines "readmission" as

"... the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge."

In essence, this ominous provision caps hospital visits, the reason being irrelevant. Government bureaucrats will now decide when patients have seen the doctor enough. Such a proposition is ludicrous, not to mention impossible to quantify. [link]
We call those government bureaucrats who will "decide when patients have seen the doctor enough" DEATH PANELS.  Though Obama - and his not really bright followers - claim otherwise because they're not called "death panels."  They're government bureaucrats who will be deciding who lives and dies (see Section 3025 of ObamaCare) Call them whatever you will.  "Death panels" comes as close as anything.

Sarah Palin, August 12, 2009:
"Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system, these ‘unproductive’ members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

It is indeed evil. And it's now the law of the land.

Times Are Good

In Canada.

Canada, Land of Smaller Government
Its corporate income tax rate is 18% and falling. America's is 35%.
By Jason Clemens, writing in the Wall Street Journal

When Americans look to Canada, they generally think of an ally, though one dominated by socialist economic policies. But the Canada of the 1970s and early 1980s—the era of left-wing Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau—no longer exists. America's northern neighbor has transformed itself economically over the last 20 years.

Jean Chrétien (a Liberal) won elections in 1993, 1997 and 2000 by promising to balance the books, to prioritize federal spending to ensure that government was doing what was needed, and also to deliver tax relief. Mr. Chrétien's former finance minister, Paul Martin, became prime minister in 2003, but he lost power to the Conservative Party in 2006, in part because he moved away from some of the Chrétien principles.

Tellingly, the last three Canadian elections have all had key debates on tax relief—not whether there should be tax cuts but rather what type of tax cuts. Beginning in 2001 under a Liberal government, even the politically sensitive federal corporate income tax rate has been reduced. It is now 18%, down from 28%, and the plan is to reduce it to 15% in 2012. The U.S. federal rate is 35%.

Government austerity has been accompanied by prosperity. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), between 1997 and 2007 Canada's economic performance outstripped the OECD average and led the G-7 countries. Growth in total employment in Canada averaged 2.1%, compared to an OECD average of 1.1%. [link]
Who ever thought the Canadians would beat us at our own game?

But then, who ever thought we'd have socialists running the United States of America?

So Canada has reduced taxes and reduced the size of its government.  And prospers.  Who'da thunk it?

Sing it with me!

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

With envious hearts we here in America see thee rise.
The True North strong and free as we once were.

Maybe someday we'll be strong and free too.  Some day.

It's Hopeless

We're sending troops to the border to stop the flow of illegals into this country!

Uh, wait a second.

No, we're not.

We're sending them there to take a head count.

Good God:

National Guard Troops Deployed to Border Will Not Be Used to Stop, Detain Illegals
By Edwin Mora, NewsBusters

The 1,200 National Guard troops that are being deployed incrementally to the southwest border "will not be doing direct law enforcement," said U.S. National Guard Bureau Director of Communications Jack Harrison when asked if the forces would be interdicting drugs and undocumented immigrants.

"The two mission sets are criminal analysts and enter-identification team," Harrison told CNSNews.com. "I can tell you that guardsmen will not be doing direct law enforcement on the southwest border."

In other words, the National Guardsmen will not be used to actually stop and detain illegal aliens trying to sneak across the border into the United States. [link]
That would be humorous if it weren't so dreadfully cynical.  Obama has deployed a bunch of Guardsmen to "analyze" and "enter-identify" the flow of Mexicans into the country and nothing else.  A note to Obama: You could have saved the U.S. a lot of money (something I'm sure you're interested in doing ...) by deploying those troops to the Ace Hardware parking lot in Culpeper.  There are plenty to "analyze" there each day looking for work.  If you're not going to do anything else with the Guardsmen, why send them all the way down to the remote desert regions of the country?

This is pathetic.  Just pathetic.