Posted by rbhill on 03/19/11
Last updated 03/20/11

Sorry to disappoint...but this isn't a dissertation on environmental responsibility. It is however a simple case for human responsibility. Earlier this year the Fresno City Council rejected Mayor Swearengin's proposal to "privatize" the trash collection process. In reality the proposal did little to privatize anything. It only transferred responsibility to a privately-owned government-contracted company. The difference is not substantial. PG&E is a private company, but they might as well be Cal-Trans because our local government gives them a monopoly on energy supply. The Mayor's proposal would achieve the same results: Slightly more desirable than the current mess of a system, but hardly a free-market victory worth cheering for. Why isn't anyone asking the obvious question: Since when does it make sense to expect politicians to take out the trash? Wait a minute...you aren't suggesting...Yes, actually, I am. Eliminate all trash collection services immediately. Is it really so radical? Before the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 waste management was largely a mom and pop operation. People could dispose of their own waste to save a few bucks. A neighborhood family could volunteer to take out their neighbor's garbage. People could even drop off their refuse at the local pig farmer to be recycled into feed. Competition thrived, prices dipped, and thousands of jobs existed. Was America one giant dump prior to 1965? I'm not sure because I wasn't there. I'd venture that the huge influx of immigrants and our status as the most powerful nation in the world were some indicators that we weren't a nation hiding under a heap of garbage. Yet, as is its nature, government refused to keep their hands out of a situation that didn't require their attention. Why can't we dispose of our own garbage? Why do we need a group of 100 people hired by politicians and paid by our tax dollars to do what any high school student could do on the weekend? Why do we allow them to negotiate ridiculously high wages that in no way reflect the amount of work or skills required to do that work? Forgive me for being optimistic and failing to believe that Fresno would bury itself under all our garbage if the city didn't save us from ourselves. Sure, there are people that would live in squalor. But have you noticed that the people who want to live that way already do? Those of us who care about sanitation would find a way to take out the trash. It wasn't such a radical idea 46 years ago and shouldn't be classified that way today. Unfortunately, once government takes a hold of something they rarely let go. Congratulations trash collector guy. You'll keep your high-paying-perfectly-secure-health-care-providing-pension-pending job...for now. Maybe people will figure out that feeding garbage to pigs is a lot cheaper...or are we already doing that?

Please visit http://dailylib.wordpress.com to comment on this and other articles!

Posted by rbhill on 10/21/10
Last updated 10/21/10

You have to watch this: VIDEO

Posted 10/22/10 TruthSaga San Jose, CA

Reminds me of the old Tupac and Biggie lol

Posted 10/23/10 drmikevasovski Aiken, SC

I've shown this to several undergrad level econ majors who thought it was funny but as they watched, it was clear it made them think.

Posted by rbhill on 10/21/10

Check out this chart.

The stimulus will save or create 3.5 million jobs over the next two years. For some reason, Congress and the American public believed this in February of 2009. Almost one and a half years later, with unemployment hovering around 9.7%, it's clear that we've been lied to. Could it be that the stimulus actually hurt the overall economy? Could it be that government subsidy and regulation stifle business growth, decrease competition and hurt consumers? Reality is hard to swallow, especially for an increasingly unpopular president with little to no economic know-how. Blindly defending a clearly failed policy, Obama invokes an old Keynesian trick by assuring us, "it could've been worse." Isn't it interesting how big government statists defend their actions by pointing to bad times claiming how much worse things could be, while libertarian thinkers use examples of free, booming economies to argue their point? One simple example, the de-regulatory period of the 80s (5.5% unemployment in 1988) vs. the New Deal era (unemployment about 30% in 1934). Advocates for big government have many flaws, but one of the most glaring is their inability to accept failure. February 2009 unemployment held at 8% - which is still the highest mark reached in the past 25 years. Even given this 1.7% increase in unemployment, no one with their name tied to the stimulus will admit its ineffectiveness. Instead, they offer phony "jobs saved" numbers which have no legitimacy. Unfortunately, this tactic creates a no-lose situation. If the economy continues to shed jobs, they'll continue to say how many jobs would have been lost without the stimulus. The government can't measure how many jobs would have been lost anymore than a sports team can measure how many games would have been lost in any given situation. Imagine John Russell telling the Pittsburgh Pirates how many games they would have lost if he hadn't been their manager. At 57 wins to 105 losses, that would be impossible to sell. Russell lost his job at the end of this season. Isn't it time for the thieves in Washington to lose theirs?

Posted by rbhill on 10/21/10

I never thought I'd be using NPR to argue against government intervention in the health care market. However, this article brings to light atrocities committed by our leaders in the name of public interest. Are these really the people we want running our health system?

Posted 10/22/10 TruthSaga San Jose, CA

Nice Article. I always argue that ObamaCare denies the law of economics and it's just going to cause a lot of business to leave the market.

Posted by rbhill on 09/26/10

To understand what the GOP's new "pledge" means for America, one simply has to look at the voting record of party leaders and "pledges" of past administrations. Most notably, support for the financial bailout enacted by Hank Paulson and President Bush. 91 Republican Congressmen - including minority leader Rep. John Boehner from Ohio - cast their votes behind the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, better known as the Wall Street bank bailout. And now, two years later, these same state-loving politicians expect us to believe that they will "...advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national
economic prosperity." Once again the Republican party falls short of making any clear distinction between themselves and Democrats. Fancy rhetoric echoing tea party sentiment cannot erase the facts. This is the same GOP that expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008, began a string of expensive financial bailouts, created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade, increased federal education spending 58% faster than inflation, spent 3% of GDP on federal antipoverty programs, and presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Thanks to the Heritage Foundation for these statistics. Republicans are still clueless about the relationship between monetary policy and freedom, will continue promotion of an interventionist foreign policy, refuse to address the illegal and immoral income tax, etc. etc. etc...

It is likely that Republicans will tap into voter unrest using empty phrases such as these and we'll see a revolt against Democrats come November. Unfortunately, the only thing worse than a socialist Democrat is a socialist Republican.

Please visit http://dailylib.wordpress.com to comment on this and other posts. Thanks!

Posted 09/27/10 dobropet Texas City, TX

I couldn't agree more.

Posted 09/27/10 sjaye Chicago, IL

I think the main thing wrong with the pledge is the pledge itself. From what I read about it, it is extremely underwhelming, and does not even address the three areas that constitute an overwhelming potion of the Federal Budget- Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. Political parties do change over time- at one point the Democratic Party stood for State's Rights, and there is a time when the GOP was not so influenced by the Neo-Cons. I am encouraged by how many outsiders are winning GOP primaries, and possibly getting elected to congress. They cannot possibly be worse than those we have now. Unfortunately, the GOP seems to have the same leadership and the same playbook. They genuinely think they can excite people by talking about trimming around the edges, eliminating earmarks, and bringing us back to 2007 (per say). I wish the best for candidates like Rand Paul, Ken Buck, etc. and hope they don't get co-opted by the elite, but if the GOP wants to excite me about the potential for a new GOP majority, they are going to have to give me more, and a heck of a lot more, than this on budget/size of Government issues- let alone some of their continued support for pre-emptive war, war on drugs, etc.

Posted 10/18/10 TruthSaga San Jose, CA

This Pledge is throwing water on a drowning person! Hopefully within the next few years we can bring some serious change to our country.