Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The economic bailout issue in one sentence
"When you’ve got 27 percent unemployment, that is a full-fledged depression down in Perry County, and let’s just see if we can’t figure out how to do something that’s just much more on the ground and direct, that actually gets people jobs." GOV. PHIL BREDESEN, of Tennessee, on using stimulus money to ease joblessness.
Wolves vs. Humans: Which Do the Feds Value More?
Wolves vs. Humans: Which Do the Feds Value More?
For Immediate Release
Thursday, July 23, 2009
For further Information, contact:
Paul Gessing 505-264-6090 or Jim Scarantino 505-256-2523
(Albuquerque)— The federal government's wolf reintrodduction plan is the very definition of big government in some rural areas in New Mexico. While the Rio Grande Foundation has not taken a position one way or the other on whether wolves should be reintroduced, its Investigative Journalist Jim Scarantino, has uncovered what appears to be a rather shocking example of misplaced priorities.
In his new report, "Does the Federal Government Value Wolves More Than Humans? The Money Says It All" Scarantino takes a closer look at the wolf reintroduction program. Since the Mexican wolf reintroduction program was launched more than a decade ago, millions of dollars have been spent by the United States, Arizona and New Mexico governments. The goal was to reestablish a target population of 100 wolves in the mountainous areas of southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona
• According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the New Mexico and Arizona game departments, by the end of 2009, these agencies estimate that their total expenditures will be approximately $20.5 million;
• According to the USFWWS' 2008 year-end survey, only 52 wolves were roaming the Arizona-New Mexico reintroduction area. This means that each living wolf cost taxpayers nearly $400,000;
• In response to the terrorist attacks oon the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed the 9/11 Victim's Compensation Act. This law set the intrinsic value of a human life at $250,000. Higher sums were paid to compensate families for the lost incomes of a love one killed in the attacks. But the value of a human life itself, without regard to that person's ability to earn money, was set at $250,000.
"At $400,000 a wolf and rising," Scarantino asks, "government is valuing the intrinsic value of each wolf more than its values the intrinsic value of human life. Residents in the affected areas have frequently complained that the government seems to care more about "El Lobo" than the human residents who must live with these powerful predators. With these figures, they can now point to government's excessive and endless spending on wolves to prove their point."
The full report is available here: http://www.riograndefoundation.org/new/articles/?EC=ReadArticle&ArticleID=305
For Immediate Release
Thursday, July 23, 2009
For further Information, contact:
Paul Gessing 505-264-6090 or Jim Scarantino 505-256-2523
(Albuquerque)— The federal government's wolf reintrodduction plan is the very definition of big government in some rural areas in New Mexico. While the Rio Grande Foundation has not taken a position one way or the other on whether wolves should be reintroduced, its Investigative Journalist Jim Scarantino, has uncovered what appears to be a rather shocking example of misplaced priorities.
In his new report, "Does the Federal Government Value Wolves More Than Humans? The Money Says It All" Scarantino takes a closer look at the wolf reintroduction program. Since the Mexican wolf reintroduction program was launched more than a decade ago, millions of dollars have been spent by the United States, Arizona and New Mexico governments. The goal was to reestablish a target population of 100 wolves in the mountainous areas of southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona
• According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the New Mexico and Arizona game departments, by the end of 2009, these agencies estimate that their total expenditures will be approximately $20.5 million;
• According to the USFWWS' 2008 year-end survey, only 52 wolves were roaming the Arizona-New Mexico reintroduction area. This means that each living wolf cost taxpayers nearly $400,000;
• In response to the terrorist attacks oon the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed the 9/11 Victim's Compensation Act. This law set the intrinsic value of a human life at $250,000. Higher sums were paid to compensate families for the lost incomes of a love one killed in the attacks. But the value of a human life itself, without regard to that person's ability to earn money, was set at $250,000.
"At $400,000 a wolf and rising," Scarantino asks, "government is valuing the intrinsic value of each wolf more than its values the intrinsic value of human life. Residents in the affected areas have frequently complained that the government seems to care more about "El Lobo" than the human residents who must live with these powerful predators. With these figures, they can now point to government's excessive and endless spending on wolves to prove their point."
The full report is available here: http://www.riograndefoundation.org/new/articles/?EC=ReadArticle&ArticleID=305
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The economics of socialism
I just got this in an email - thought I'd forward it on. Food for thought.
Students in an economics class at a local college insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
Their professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade - no one would fail but no one would receive an A unless everyone got an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D. No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. Bickering, blame and name-calling had resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All the students failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
Students in an economics class at a local college insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
Their professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade - no one would fail but no one would receive an A unless everyone got an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D. No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. Bickering, blame and name-calling had resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All the students failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
