Governmental Monopolies R US

Have we all noticed that when the government seizes control of something, hyper-regulates, or pays for it that the cost of it generally increases? I don’t know what economic law that is but it bears out.

Whether you agree with this popular idea or not, it looks like states are chomping at the bit for legalization of recreational marijuana. It doesn’t matter if you agree or not, they appear set to do it. Many states are in the game, the race is on.

A big part of the sales pitch is the tax revenue states are going to get. Umm-hmm, good to lawmakers. People get high and they raise their revenues. Coffers go up and people are happy. And that is the idea anyway. What’s not to like about that?

Well, what happens in the interim is the price goes up. This is no problem for government. They don’t care. In fact, they just make more money. That’s a win for all those proponents of big government. Extra costs are passed down to consumers.

Now I know a a cancer patient who has one of those handy mari-j-uana cards. That card only allows him to purchase it at official distributors. But the price is so prohibitive in those places that this card-carrying customer seeks out the street market supply anyway, which, oddly enough, is below the government vendors price. Get it?

But if government is going to drive up the cost?

So all street dealers have to do is come in under that official price and the black market is rolling. (not much of a market war against gubmint) Of course, then no one is getting any tax revenues. But like we saw with toilet paper, there is always a market if there is demand, and always those looking to cash in on it.

The first deduction to make is that black market is not going away, if that was even the idea of it. The second is that government does not compete well, if at all. This is not only on marijuana but it is a good example. Plug in that formula elsewhere, you probably get the same results. Government = rising cost.

Onward to college. In that case there is no competition so government’s monopoly is safe. Yes, there are private colleges but student loans are the same. Unless one is a cash-paying customer, which few can afford. But then you are still paying the cost in a government-influenced market. Government only adds cost; it never seems to decrease it.

Then government comes up with the popular idea to forgive (pay off) student debts, to some degree. What do you think is going to happen to college costs? Of course. The push is for 50,000 in student debt relief. So the unacceptable bottom end becomes 10,000.

Want to bet college cost will go up by almost that amount, at least? But when you get millions of people rallying and demanding it, what is going to happen? Class dismissed.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2021

Crazy summer haze, and 2016 dreaming

Sometimes you just couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. Hillary cut short her Hamptons va-k by running out to campaign amid groans even from her left wing cheerleaders about her email scandal. Morning Joe must be on anti-depressants.

Maybe she’ll have to re-reintroduce herself, again?

Rupert Murdoch, harping over Trump’s candidacy, floats an invitation for billionaire Michael Bloomberg to jump into the race.

Bloomberg — greatest mayor. What did I miss? So Rupert immediately backs off a little to mention Guiliani. Still it caused a blowback. Is that an admission on the debate?

Not good enough, he adds he didn’t say he’d vote for him. I bet a smart, wealthy guy like Rupert Murdoch always recommends a candidate he would not vote for. Besides, a Bloomberg could detract support from Jeb not Trump. Rupert had too much sun.

While Hillary cut her fundraising vacation short to head West hoping to strike political gold, opposed to fool’s gold, for her campaign. Because come Friday she will be addressing the DNC in Minneapolis. Meantime, all hands on deck trying to explain away her servergate scandal. Referring to her not-so-private email scandal, NYT reports:

“We do think people have questions about this,” said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the campaign. “It’s a very confusing topic, and I think as you’ve seen over the last couple of weeks, we have changed our strategy in that we are trying to do more education.”

Yes, the people need educated. Lecture voters on linguistic spin. Works for Obama.

Her plan now seems to be buy enough young people with her college funding schemes. Then make sure to remind women of their reproductive voting power at all points between. With those two, and pandering to a few others, she hopes to keep her 2016 boat afloat. But the bilge pumps are working double duty these days.

It’s about time for another reinforcement from Bubba about her bonafides. The anointing doesn’t seem to be going as smoothly as expected. And Bernie was just a distraction to make voters think there is a choice involved. His circus road tour only leads back to Hillary. She’s just as far left as he is anyway. But don’t educate the people on that.

Maybe Hillary should have stayed in that cocoon in the Hamptons where even they do not believe her but still believe in her. (along with her Wall Street pals)

Obama does Edu-care

Obama is making his case to do for colleges and students what he did for healthcare, by screwing it up even further. But since he does it under the guise of “encouraging”, then everything should be copacetic because they say so.

Obama Plan Encourages College Admissions to Discriminate Against Families Earning $60,000+

August 23, 2013 – By Terence P. Jeffrey
( – President Barack Obama’s college reform plan, released by the White House on Thursday, would encourage colleges to discriminate against applicants who come from families with total incomes of $60,000 or more by awarding colleges higher federal ratings and increased federal aid for admitting a higher “percentage” of students who receive federal Pell Grants, which the Department of Education says are for “low-income” students.
According to a study by the Congressional Research Service, in the 2007-2008 school year, only 2.3 percent of undergraduates who were still dependent on their parents, and whose total family income was $60,000 or more, received Federal Pell Grants.
According to the College Board, in the 2010-2011 school year, only 5 percent of all Pell Grants were distributed to dependent students whose total family income was $60,000 or more.
Colleges that admit and graduate a higher “percentage” of students on Pell Grants–as the Obama plan would encourage them to do–will necessarily admit and graduate a lower percentage of students who are not on Pell Grants.
A college that based its admissions policies solely on the merit of the individual applicant–and did not consider the applicant’s family income or eligibility for a Pell Grant in deciding whether to offer the applicant a place at the school–could be penalized under the Obama plan with less federal aid for itself and for its students if its merit-only admissions policy resulted in a student body with a lower percentage of Pell Grant recipients than other schools.
The Obama plan also would reward colleges for having higher overall graduation “rates” and for graduating a higher “number” of students on Pell Grants–which could provide colleges with an incentive to lower the academic standards for earning a diploma.
“The Federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education,” says the Department of Education. “A Federal Pell Grant, unlike a loan, does not have to be repaid.”
“In FY 2009,” the CRS reported, “an estimated 76 percent of all Pell Grant recipients had a total family income at or below $30,000.”
If a family of three included a father and a mother, who both worked 40 hours a week for the minimum federal wage of $7.25 an hour, and an 18-year-old son going off to college who did not work a single hour the entire year, the total annual income of that family would be $30,160. That would put them slightly above the income level of three-quarters of Federal Pell Grant recipients. […/]
– See more at:

Oh, do I smell a shell game in the works? Here we are wanting to fun-da-mentally transform the country again.

Dems are great at these kind of schemes because they can make up the rules as they go, to suit their purposes; they can base it on income and governmental redistribution, which they love to do; and they can pander to a large demographic (target); and they can use force of government tied to government’s institutional funding, to accomplish it all. However, the tiny little objective of making schools better has little to do with it.

There are few analogies I can come up with except what they did for healthcare was so great, wasn’t it? I mean they said they were going to improve the system for everybody, and the care one gets, by using the force of government to do it. If they only knew years ago that all it needed was more government force to correct problems.

Government knows hardly anything about any of these sectors it jumps into, and then tells them how their business or industry needs to operate. It works every time, no?

In this case education, which they have been screwing up for about 60 years or more directly. (and longer indirectly) Our public school system should be exhibit F in any debate. Now they insist on doing more to screw up higher education than they are currently doing. Help it the way they help fix public education.

Where do the government-mandated failures manifest themselves? They travel right down the chain into the public cesspool to corrupt it even further. Bacteria is a good thing in septic systems, not so much in school systems. Their end product does not look so good. Then again, was the ‘end product’ or ‘process’ their real objective?

Leave it to Dems to decide that higher tuition — which they helped cause — is a problem. I know we are talking about colleges and universities here, not public schools. But hey, since they do so well on the latter, why not have them do more for the former? It’s a natural course, don’t you think? They have problems with vouchers and charter schools, but no problem providing so-called opportunities in higher education.

Really though, give Dems a few numbers or a math problem and they will find all kinds of ways to manipulate the figures and results. So this is right in their wheelhouse, and plays into their redistribution schemes. It is not about improving education, or even access, but improving a certain kind of access. (they aren’t great at picking winners and losers either)

He wants more of a certain income level… have a “right” to it. Just apply government force and coercion. This is the guy who told Hillary if a government mandate was the simple answer to the problem, they would have fixed healthcare long ago. Then he proceeded to do exactly that, use government force. Now government is chief discriminator.